WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
READ INTO THE RECORD
From: MORRIS GASMER
To: City Clerk
Subject: Speed bumps in south Flats (especially South Bedford Drive) Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 6:50:49 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Hello
I am a resident at and I would prefer not to have speed bumps placed in the street in front of my home.
I am sure that other measures could be done to stop the crazy speeding of cars throughout the day and evening periods.
Maybe a speed camera that takes their license plate and records their speed and send them a ticket? A mobile unit that can be moved from street to street?? Just a thought, but speed bumps don't work and would become a safety issue and problem.
Thank you.
Morris Gasemr
David Hankin
I live in BH for 25 years (many of you know me as Dev’s husband).
In early January, I received an email from the City regarding the transition to the new permit system. I immediately logged onto the parking portal only the learn that it was badly broken.
From a design and database perspective, this website is a disaster and launched prematurely without adequate testing. It took me numerous attempts to enter my data correctly ‐ ultimately, on my 4th or 5th attempt, I was able to enter proof of residency data.
Moreover, it was virtually impossible to acquire daytime permits in a timely manner. I have some work being done to my home (pursuant to very costly permits) – prior to the transition, the process to secure daytime permits online was virtually foolproof and immediate. To secure a daytime permit under the new system, I was required to enter the same laborious set of data into the website but permits were not approved for more than 90 minutes following a request.
I later learned from BHPD that this web feature too was not operating properly.
I became frustrated and wrote to the email address on the original email we received from the City and copied Ms. Nazarian, whose personal email I had from her campaign literature. Ms.
Nazarian called me immediately to discuss the various issues and made sure that the BHPD got involved to help me solve my problems. It was at this point I became the City’s beta tester, seeking to secure daytime permits on several days and reporting my experience to BHPD. manner.
I have a few very strong reactions to my parking misadventures. First, if the City insists on imposing a tax on its residents to park in front of their homes, the City better get it right. While I understand that there is a 3rd party vendor involved, it is still incumbent upon the City to make this a seamless process for its residents.
Second, Ms. Nazarian has been incredibly responsive to the concerns I laid out to her initially and in her many follow up calls. In my mind, she defines the word “service” in “public service.” I thank Ms. Nazarian for being there for her constituents.
Third, the BHPD have been equally responsive and professional. In particular, Mr. Rodney Jeffers and his colleague have been terrific.
2 One final note regarding the 3rd party vendor engaged to develop the website and associated database for the new system – the City should demand a full and complete refund of the taxpayer dollars that were expended to fund this mess. I hope that whomever negotiated the vendor contract on behalf of the City was well informed about software contracts, performance standards and how to protect the procuring party. As for the vendor, the CEO and other executives of should be embarrassed by the poor product they launched in early January.
I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have about my experience including the many details about my beta testing misadventures that may improve the system in the future.
David Hankin
From: John Hiller
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Parking permits
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 9:02:19 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
City Council Members,
I am totally opposed to the new Parking Permit system. The old system worked perfectly and it was so easy to use. This is why we should keep the old system. I am also frustrated that this project was given to an outside consultant who probably never requested the input from any resident of Beverly Hills. The new system is burdensome, and difficult to use and full flaws. I wrote to the City Council about 6 months ago and I was told by two members that nothing would change. I would like to know who hired the outside consultant and what parameters where they given to come up with this project?
I hope the City recognizes that they have made a mistake and scraps the new system and keeps the old one.
Thank you for your time,
John Hiller
From: Adrienne Weitzman
To: City Clerk
Subject: PROPOSED NEW PARKING PERMIT
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:33:54 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
RE: THE NEW PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM
I am opposed to the new parking permit system that has been proposed for our Southwest neighborhood area. The city, on numerous occasions, indicated that no changes would be made.
It is quite obvious that the obstacles and inconveniences created by the changes far outweigh any benefits to the residents.
Adrienne Weitzman
Southwest Homeowners Board
Weststate Land 2 LLC
9061 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90069
January 24, 2023
VIA email: [email protected]
RE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING CHAPTER 5 AND CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE 4 OF THE BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
EVICTION
Dear Honorable Mayor Boose and City Council Members:
My name is Josh Monkarsh; my family and I have owned and managed the contiguous apartment buildings at 132 and 144 S. Spalding Dr. since 2006 and 2007 respectively. We have been working with the City of Beverly Hills Community Development and Planning departments since 2020 on a conceptual plan to renovate the existing structure at 132 and maintain a portion of 144. The new plan will add an affordable housing component behind 144 and will keep and preserve the original architecture of both buildings. The adoption of this ordinance would materially hamper our ability to accomplish this plan.
Please be aware that the building at 132 S. Spalding is 80 years old and needs to be brought to current day standards and building codes (like many buildings in Beverly Hills). I believe the only way to accomplish the necessary updates is to relocate our tenants to complete the muchneeded work; such as plumbing, electrical, heat and air conditioning etc. Without being able to do so, the building will continue to deteriorate, thus resulting in continual repairs and unhappy tenants.
We have always taken great pride in the ownership and management of our buildings and have dedicated ourselves to doing so for many years. However, due to the age of the building at 132 it is time to conduct a full renovation and have vacant units at the time of construction. I respectfully urge you to think this through and fully consider the negative impact it will not only have on building owners, but on tenants as well.
Respectfully,
Weststate Land 2 LLC
Josh Monkarsh,
Manager
January 2l3,2023
To: Honorable Mayor Bosse, Vice Mayor Dr. Gold, and Councilmembers Friedman, Mirisch, and Nazarian:
I write this letter in opposition to Item E 6 on the Consent Calendar. I strongly feel that this item is in the wrong place. The residents of the city should be informed of this idea and be able to weigh in on it. We have preserved that area for all these years just because it might be needed in the future for some City purpose such as a training tower for the Fire Department. And what about all the residents who depend on the Dog Park for exercising their dogs? Etc.
Please, do not vote on this in private. Open it up to the residents.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Sonia Berman
From: Donna
To: City Clerk
Subject: E6
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:36:06 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear City Council Members,
We are requesting that Agenda E6 be removed from the calendar and that our City Council members represent their constituents by giving residents an opportunity to provide their input as to what they would like to have done with this very excellent, one-of-a-kind land parcels.
Thank you,
Donna Flade
Ray Flade
From: Randi Grant
To: City Clerk
Subject: Pickleball CT’s
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 12:05:03 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
We are totally in favor of land near dog park to be used for pickleball courts! We are aware this sport has gone crazy and to note we need more courts! Ones that are totally pickleball! Randi grant
Warren grant
Adam grant
Jason grant
Jordan grant
Sent from my iPhone
From: Alice Lake
To: City Clerk
Subject: Item E-6 on Council Meeting agenda 1/24/23
Date: Monday, January 23, 2023 4:49:00 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Honorable Council members,
I am confused by your wish to designate the parcels on Foothill Road as Surplus.
One of these parcels is being used as a dog park by the people of our city. It provides a safe environment for dogs to socialize as well as fostering community bonds among pet owners. It adds to a civilized environment for our city, allowing us to build relationships.
On the parcel just south of the park is a lovely sculpture which is a pleasant reminder of the culture we all enjoy.
What about Dr. Winters’, the veterinarian across the street. Or the rescue center just next door to Dr. Winters’ office.
The doctors and staff of those offices will be affected. The clients of those businesses walk their pets in that area. Do you mean to create another traffic debacle for us?
There are so many things the city can do with these parcels rather than toss them to the highest bidder.
I am against this quiet decision to sell property as surplus when it could be utilized to uplift and increase enjoyment of the city of Beverly Hills.
Your decision must be put on public record with proposals for use and an opportunity public input. It should be properly noticed not hidden in a meeting agenda that few would normally review.
This is not a small bit of dirt but a portion of the city that is used by the people who live and own homes here.
Respectfully,
Alice Lake-Zachary
Imagine goodness.
From: Alissa Roston
To: City Clerk
Subject: To be read at tonight"s meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 5:11:27 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am writing in reference to Item E-6 on the Consent Calendar relating to the Proposed Designation of 330-346 Foothill Road as Surplus Property. It is my understanding from speaking to City Staff that this is required by State Code before the City can enter into any discussions about a sale or ground lease. At this time, the city wishes to enter into such discussions with a potential lessee.
I am concerned that while this is only a legal procedure allowing the City to discuss development of this property, it is being done through the Consent Calendar and not with any discussion.
In 2016, there was a proposal put forward by a private developer who agreed to pay for public outreach regarding the future development of the site. The developer eventually decided not to proceed, his deposit for the outreach plan was returned, and the Council in 2017, directed the City Attorney to determine how to move forward legally with the process of public input. The site was not designated as surplus property then, because it was not required by State Code to do so, as it is today.
However, The Council at the time, recognized the importance of outreach to the community for the gathering of residents’ priorities and had the foresight to begin that process. Yet, it still hasn’t begun six years later.
I think more transparency is helpful to our community’s understanding of the issues facing the City. The Council should now commit to a vibrant outreach program about the land use for this important asset. This should be done before the horse is out of the barn.
The City provided significant outreach for residents’ views on the Gale Yard parcel, and when I was on the Recreation and Parks Commission our outreach for the La Cienega Recreation Center reconfiguration was widespread. The Council should be doing no less for this area.
Thank you for your consideration and time.
From: Cynthia Trangsrud
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comment for January 24, 2023 meeting
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:56:29 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear City Council,
I write to share with you my concerns about Item E-6 Agenda Report for tonight’s meeting. Before the Council takes action on this item which would declare the City-owned properties located at 330-346 Foothill Road as “surplus land” I would respectfully request that the Council table the item and seek public comment, conduct public outreach and provide an opportunity for public discussion. This is important in light of the fact that these parcels are some of the last remaining parcels of underdeveloped land in the City. These parcels should not be offered for lease to Designated Entities per the Surplus Land Act (SLA) and Government Code Section 54222 or to any other entities until ALL potential uses by the City have been fully vetted with residents of the City. Until then, these parcels should be viewed as necessary for use by the City and its residents. A declaration that they are "surplus land” is premature. The City should not wait to engage the public on the issue of how the land should be used until after the City declares the parcels as surplus and when negotiations to lease the land may already be underway. Public outreach should happen first.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Trangsrud
From: Robert Zarnegin
To: City Clerk
Subject: Item E6 1/24/2023 Agenda-Five Acre Vacant Land.
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 11:23:18 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor Bosse, and City Council members:
I am writing about Item E 6 on tonight’s City Council Consent Calendar, which concerns a very valuable City owned asset -- the last remaining 5-acre parcel of land in Beverly Hills “Entertainment District”. It appears the City is attempting to surreptitiously designate the land as “surplusage” i.e., not necessary for City use, even though the City could and should use this incredibly valuable parcel to benefit the City and all its citizens in the long term.
Whatever happens to this irreplaceable asset should only be determined after an open and vigorous vetting that absolutely includes a full and fair public hearing conducted with proper notice and participation by the citizens of Beverly Hills to determine the highest and best use of the property for our community. What appears to be the City’s attempt to dispose of this asset without the public’s knowledge or consent is unacceptable! I call upon you to permit a full public hearing before any action is taken regarding this valuable City asset. Thank you! Kind regards,
Robert Zarnegin, President
Probity International Corporation
421 North Beverly Drive, Suite 350
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
T: (310) 888-1882 F: (310) 888-8838
From: Frieda Berlin
To: City Clerk
Cc: Shana Epstein
Subject: DEALING WITH A T & T
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 3:39:48 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE MEETING TONIGHT JANUARY 24, 2023
HELLO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT MY RECENT EXPERIENCE WITH AT&T INTO THE RECORD. I HAVE BEEN WITHOUT PHONE AND FAX SERVICE ON MY LAND LINE FOR ALMOST THREE WEEKS. FOLLOWING A WEEK OR TWO OF SPORADIC SERVICE.I CALLED FREQUENTLY AND COULD NEVER GET THROUGH WITHOUT LONG WAITS ON THE PHONE. I MADE SEVERAL
APPOINTMENTS, WAS TOLD THAT AN AT&T PERSON WOULD SHOW BUT I WOULD HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE ALL DAY AS THEY WOULDN’T GIVE A TIME OR EVEN A WINDOW OF TIME. SO I STAYED
HOME ONE WHOLE DAY, NO ONE CALLED OR SHOWED, I STAYED HOME A SECOND TIME ALL DAY, NO ONE CALLED OR SHOWED. THEN I WAS TOLD IT WAS A MAJOR CABLE PROBLEM HIGHER UP ON LOMA VISTA AND I SHOULD WAIT SEVERAL DAYS AND IT WOULD BE FIXED. WAITED AND WAITED STILL NOTHING AND NO CALL BACK WITH INFORMATION. FINALLY I CALLED SHANA EPSTIEN IN
PUBLIC WORKS AND SHE VERY KINDLY HELPED ME BY CALLING AT&T AND GETTING SOMEONE TO CALL ME BACK.
IT TOOK SHANA’S CALL TO GET AT&T TO GET BACK TO ME AND SEND A SERVICE MAN.
HE FOUND
THE PROBLEM WAS IN THE VAULT AND BOX ON LOMA VISTA ACROSS FROM WALLACE RIDGE AND I FINALLY GOT MY MAIN LINE FIXED - PROBLEM WAS AT&TS. BUT AFTER ALL THAT THEY HAD ONLY WRITTEN UP A TICKET FOR ONE LINE SO THEY COULDN’T FIX MY FAX LINE. THE SERVICE MAN PROMISED TO COME BACK THE NEXT DAY. AND HE DID AND I AM NOW ABLE TO USE ALL MY PHONE LINES.
HOW WOULD AT&T LIKE IT IF I PAID MY BILL THE SAME WAY !! HOW ABOUT I GET A CREDIT FOR
THREE WEEKS OF NO SERVICE WITH OUT ME HAVING TO MAKE NUMEROUS PHONE CALLS AND ARGUMENTS! THIS LACK OF SERVICE ON THE PART OF AT&T IS DISGRACEFUL. THE LACK OF
PROPER CARE OF THEIR EQUIPMENT TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE SERVICE TO CUSTOMERS MAKES ME WONDER WHY WE ALLOW THEM IN OUR AREA. OF COURSE I HAVE A CELL PHONE, BUT ALL MY DOCTORS, WHO ARE NUMEROUS, HAVE MY HOME PHONE NUMBER. SO THIS HAS BEEN VERY STRESSFUL . IF AT&T WANTS OUR BUSINESS, THEY NEED TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
GOOD PHONE SERVICE - SPEND SOME OF THEIR MONEY ON EQUIPMENT AND VAULT CARE OR WHATEVER THIS AREA NEEDS.
I AM VERY HAPPY WITH THE HELP OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. PROVIDED AND I AM HAPPY TO HAVE MY PHONES WORKING AGAIN. BUT DREAD THE THOUGHT OF MORE RAINY SEASON AND SAME OLD
PROBLEMS
AT&T GET SOME PLANS IN PLACE TO STOP THIS HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE - YOU HAVE ENGINEERS, EQUIPMENT AND MONEY FROM ALL THE BILLS YOU CHARGE US WITH. WE ARE ENTITLED AND EXPECT BETTER SERVICE FROM YOU.
THANK YOU FRIEDA BERLIN
From: suzanne hertfelder
To: City Clerk
Cc: Rose Norton; Suzanne Hertfelder; Phillip Savenick
Subject: 213 S Rodeo Dr, Rose Norton - AT&T problem
Date: Tuesday, January 24, 2023 2:23:06 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
To Huma Ahmed:
The following comment to please be read at the evening meeting:
Starting the week of January 9, a service call was requested for internet outage.
Friday, January 13 a technician was scheduled to come between 8 am & 6 pm. THIS WAS A NO SHOW.
Wednesday, January 18 a technician was to come between 8 am & 6 pm.
THIS WAS ANOTHER NO SHOW.
We then got another appt for Saturday January 21 between noon & 4 pm. THIS WAS ANOTHER NO SHOW on Saturday after speaking to the technical dept we were informed that the previous service requests were never dispatched.
The advisor in the technical service dept created a new service request for Monday, January 23.
During these requests we did everything that was asked, rebooting our modem & we were informed this needed to be fixed from the outside.
Monday, January 23 a service tech was to show up between noon & 4 pm.
We were in touch with a manager at AT&T, the city was also helping us, Shana Epstein & Amy to prioritize our service call.
At 5:15 Erik, an AT&T technician came & it was determined work had to be done at the pole. He finished at 8 pm and informed us that he put in a ticket for the reconnection that had to be made internally.
Tuesday the 24th we still had no internet. We were in the phone with Erik & Christian the manager to get our ticket processed.
Erik is returning to the residence again this afternoon to run more tests.
All personnel were courteous and tried to be helpful. AT&T has a big problem and I speak from experience, this is not acceptable.
Sincerely,
Rose Norton
Sent via Suzy's iPhone