WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
READ INTO THE RECORD
From: Adam Asherson
To: City Clerk
Subject: E-3 Comment - “Eviction Prohibition Based on Substantial Remodel” Date: Friday, December 30, 2022 11:15:57 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I can assure you it is a mistake to disallow for removal of tenants due to major property renovations.
The housing stock in Beverly Hills and Los Angeles is aging beyond the 50 year mark overall and these buildings require substantial maintenance and upgrading including the removal of toxic substances. I do things right and renovate completely where possible because patching old buildings is bad for the landlord because problems keep arising and bad for tenants because their units are repaired to the minimum level possible.
Rather than ban the removal of tenants for major renovations why not put in place measures to upgrade the buildings with cutting edge environmental standards crafted by the City and furthermore force them to add ADUs to help the housing stock and help the City comply with housing measures in place). Beverly Hills has been taking the initiative to lead by example and has crafted first or near first of their kind measures on Smoking, Covid rules, etc. so take this opportunity to show what property owners should do to when renovating such as solar panels (for the entire building), removal of gas appliances, updating plumbing and heating and electrical for all units, must use environmentally sustainable finishes, new windows and insulation standards, EV car charging stations, drought tolerant landscaping, etc.
The added expense will raise the barrier for landlords and the projects would have to be far more than superficial. The renovated buildings will be essentially fully renovated with cutting edge standards and this will continue to keep Beverly Hills America’s First City and a safe and healthy place to live. Think about how much this will do to not only influence our City but potentially the entire State and even beyond. It will also significantly ADD to the housing stock by requiring ADUs. The alternative is leaving buildings essentially to rot in place.
Also, please note the state already has onerous rules in place protecting tenants yet allows for removal due to major renovations.
Adam Asherson
Top 2% Worldwide
Coldwell Banker Beverly Hills
301 N Canon Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
310 490-4334 - cell
[email protected]
www.getresidential.com
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start
Here!”
1 Max Sherman
Associate Director,
Government Affairs
[email protected]
213.384.4131; Ext. 306
December 30, 2022
Via Electronic Mail
Hon. Mayor Lili Bosse, and
Members of the Beverly Hills City Council
Council Chamber
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: AMENDING CHAPTER 5 AND CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 4 OF THE BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING EVICTIONS (First Reading – for Introduction) (Agenda Item E-3)
Dear Hon. Mayor Bosse and Members of the Beverly Hills City Council:
At the January 3rd City Council meeting, the Council will vote on a draft ordinance amending the Rent Stabilization Ordinance (RSO) that would eliminate a rental housing provider’s ability to issue a tenancy termination in order to substantially remodel their property. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles (Association) strongly opposes the adoption of the ordinance and urges the Council to reject its approval.
The proposed RSO amendment is based on the recommendations made to the City Council more than two and a half years ago by the City’s Rent Stabilization Commission (RSC). This dated resolution by the RSC sat dormant since 2020 and was not brought forth by staff to the Council until the December 13th City Council meeting. During the December Council meeting, City staff stated that the resolution had not been advanced previously as it was not considered “urgent.” However, we are now seeing a rushed vote to remove this important option and necessary flexibility for housing providers in Beverly Hills with the reasoning being that it has not been utilized.
It is concerning that this important decision, which may have detrimental impacts on rental housing providers in the City, is being hastily made without any real discussion or study of why that is the case. It is important to note that the lack of utilization is attributable to the fact, that for the last nearly three years, such evictions have been banned by either the City’s and/or County’s eviction moratoriums. Therefore, we urge the Council to allow for a reasonable time period following the lifting of the Countywide eviction moratorium and resumption of the ability for housing providers to issue such tenancy terminations to assess the situation, the related RSO provisions and thresholds, and only then determine what if any action is warranted or if those provisions should be modified.
APARTMENT ASSOCIATION OF GREATER LOS ANGELES
AAGLA
“Great Apartments Start
Here!”
2 Moreover, it is important to remember that approximately half of the City’s housing stock was constructed before 1950, more than 70 years ago. There is no disputing the fact that Beverly Hills’ housing supply is aging. Rent control by its very nature perpetuates substantially lower investment in upgrades as housing providers subject to significant decreases in rental income are discouraged from making discretionary investment in their buildings. It is therefore vital that major renovations continue to be encouraged and remain a permissible ground for eviction.
Preclusion of tenancy terminations for substantial renovations will only result in the deterioration of the City’s limited and aging affordable rental housing supply.
We urge the City Council to seek ways to encourage owners to conduct vital rehabilitation and renovations which ultimately benefits all residents of Beverly Hills and supports preservation of the City’s existing housing stock. Accordingly, we urge the City Council to reject adoption of this ordinance amendment and delay moving forward with this matter in order to properly evaluate the usage of this ground for eviction following a sufficient period of time after the end of the County’s eviction moratorium.
We welcome the opportunity to share our wealth of industry knowledge and participate in this important dialogue. Thank you for your time and consideration of these matters. If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 384-4131; Ext. 306 or contact me via electronic mail at [email protected].
Yours sincerely,
Max Sherman
Max Sherman
From: Alan Bronowicz
To: City Clerk
Subject: comments for the council meeting 1/3
Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 1:58:34 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hi - please accept my comments for the 1/3 council meeting this evening. I appreciate if you can confirm if they will be included.
This is in regards to item E 3.
Dear City Council Members
I would like to thank you for your decision on item F-1 at the December 13th City Council Meeting, eliminating the provisions that allow landlords to bring an action to recover possession of an apartment unit for the purpose of major remodeling.
My wife, 9 year daughter, and I have been tenants in Beverly Hills since September 2019.
There were many reasons we chose Beverly Hills as our place to live and the existing RSO was a primary one. We were lucky enough to find the perfect apartment within our budget.
We signed our lease with excitement as we could afford to stay in the apartment long term and watch our daughter go through the BH school system.
In November 2021 we were notified that our apartment building was bought by a developer.
He immediately called to tell us we must move out as he will be renovating the building. We have no interest in leaving our apartment yet he insisted that we “didn’t have a choice”.
From then until now he has maintained his pursuit to remove all tenants from the building.
His approach has been to offer tenant buyouts, often referred to as ‘cash for keys’, as an alternative to eviction afforded to him under the RSO. Most of our neighbors are elderly, on fixed incomes, and English is their second language. Many have accepted a buyout as the thought of eviction was too scary. Please consider the pressure tenants are under to accept them, and how this is a tool used by owners to avoid evictions. While a buy out sounds fair in theory, without regulation or tracking of these activities, you can see how some of your most vulnerable residents can end up in a worse situation or leaving the city, as many of our neighbors have found themselves doing.
With the removal of this eviction option for landlords I fear the threat of using the Ellis Act will be the next approach used by investor landlords looking to maximize their profits. As it is in our case, we are under this threat today as we have refused to accept a buyout which would put us in a worse case financially and force us to choose a worse living situation or leave Beverly Hills. With the goals of Beverly Hills to maintain rental stock and increase the number of affordable rental units in Beverly Hills, I hope you will consider strong scrutiny over any application to use the Ellis Act as a way to remove tenants and the associated rental units from the market. We are good tenants and citizens of Beverly Hills and would love nothing more than to remain in our apartment and live without the fear of eviction. We want the same for our neighbors and other tenants around Beverly Hills who are in a similar situation.
Thank you
1 Michelle Ramos-Vergara
From: Mark Elliot <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 7:19 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comment for consent calendar comment item #E3 (RSO amendment) CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Mayor Bosse and members of the City Council:
I support eliminating the provisions concerning eviction for major remodeling. I thank staff for bringing this forward at a time of unprecedented tenant instability despite the protections enacted by this Council in 2017 and 2018.
Additional tenant protections do we need. Consider that Chapter 5 tenancies, which generally means seniors on fixed incomes, numbered 242 as recently as 2020 but has declined now to 149 tenancies as reported by the Rent Stabilization Office. That is a 38% decrease in just two years.
That significant a decline deserves your attention. For one thing it suggests need for more fulsome reporting from the Rent Stabilization Office. We should not be surprised by that figure or surprised by an elevated 8% vacancy rate. We would not be surprised if you and the public received a substantive regular report.
And that Chapter 5 decline suggests the need for considering additional tenant protections as you discussed at the last meeting. However the Council agreed to refer the issue to the Rent Stabilization Commission.
I want to suggest that you reconsider that decision. This Council is the place where important and pressing tenant protections should be considered. We have seen the commission consider certain recommendations for 4, 6 and even 9 meetings — which is is far too long to wait.
I respectfully suggest the Council receive that fulsome report from the Rent Stabilization Office and then discuss what the city can do to protect renting households — and especially the dwindling number of Chapter 5 tenants most vulnerable to displacement.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Mark Elliot
From: Pittiemum Properties
To: City Clerk
Cc: Lili Bosse; 12-Julian Gold; 13-Lester J. Friedman; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian Subject: Eviction Prohibition Based on Substantial Remodel - STRONGLY OPPOSE ORDINANCE Date: Tuesday, January 3, 2023 12:03:30 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Hello all,
I am emailing in opposition of ceasing evictions based on substantial remodels!
There has been no data or information provided to warrant elimination of these tenancy termination provisions.
Assembly Bill 1482, the Statewide Rent Control law, includes allowances for evictions for substantial remodel in recognition of the importance of upgrading aging housing stock.
Since 2020, rental housing providers have been subject to prohibitions on evictions, including for substantial remodel, imposed by the City and the County of Los Angeles eviction moratoriums.
The City Council must delay taking any action pending the termination of the Los Angeles countywide eviction moratorium and for an adequate time thereafter. Only then would it be reasonable to direct City staff to assess the use of this ground for eviction and whether any modification to the City’s RSO provisions is warranted.
The City’s housing stock is aging, the City should seek ways to encourage rehabilitation and renovations rather than place additional constraints that will only impede essential upgrades and result in further deterioration of the City’s aging housing stock.
For these reasons and more; I urge the City to vote against this draft ordinance.
Sincerely,
Kira Jai