WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS READ INTO THE RECORD — Beverly Hills City Council, February 21, 2023

WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS

READ INTO THE RECORD
From: Alan Bronowicz
To: City Clerk
Cc: Alan Bronowicz
Subject: comments for city council tonight
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:02:01 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello - Can you please include in the general public comments tonight from Alan Bronowicz? -------------------------------
Good evening Mayor and city council members
Thank you again for the robust discussion during the last meeting regarding the Rent Stabilization Ordinance and considering the removal of the provision allowing evictions for demo or condo conversions of apartment buildings. I was pleased to hear broad support for additional tenant protections in regard to this and a potential elimination in favor of the Ellis act provisions.

While the conversation was good progress, I am disappointed the council is not moving forward with directly addressing this. Will you reconsider the proposal from the last meeting and the additional recommendations made by Mark Elliot and many of the tenants who submitted public comment? Please remember that while the conversation in the last meeting often centered around the specific proposed demolition on S. Maple, it was also stated there are 10 or more current applications to use this provision and potentially hundreds of tenants which could be impacted, such as my family.

Please consider the current concerns from tenants and address directly the following requests;
1)Either an elimination of sections 4-5-511 and 4-6-6 J from the RSO or a revision of this ordinance to match the tenant protections offered in the Ellis Act 2)Further consideration for the 4 recommendations from Mark Elliot to expand tenant protections in the Ellis Act, which include;
a.Extending the notice period for all tenants to 1 year b.Increasing the relocation fee to values reflective of current market rates and costs
c.Extend the number of years after withdrawal from the market where a tenant’s previous rate remains as the basis, should the property be re-rented to the previous tenant
d.Provide some level of oversight to the ‘cash-for-keys’ process; such as; requiring disclosure to tenants or registering buy out amounts for public awareness.

Providing opportunities to landlords to improve aging buildings and protecting our tenants does not have to be in conflict. Changes like these can dramatically improve tenant outcomes while still allowing for improvements in the city.

I would be more than happy to discuss this further with any of you or be a part of a collaborative discussion on how to find the best outcome for all parties involved.

Thank you for your time
From:

To: City Clerk
Subject: Trees ANONYMOUS Comment
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:01:50 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Hello, and thank you for taking the time to listen to all of these fine people’s comments. More importantly, thank you for listening to those who asked for these trees to be removed. Sadly Fichus are and always have been a problem in this city and elsewhere. I have personally witnessed several older and disabled people fall and hurt themselves due to raised sidewalks all thanks to our dear fichus trees. While I do not minimize the importance of fichus trees, I think it’s only logical that a poor old woman in a wheelchair be prioritized. All of these kind people crying should take the time to stop and think about the disabled, the elderly, the children. We are the world. We are the children.

We are the ones who make a better day so let’s start giving. There’s a choice we’re making. We’re saving our own lives. It’s true we’ll make a better day, just you and me.

My proposal is that we fund the planting of 2 fichus trees elsewhere for every one cut down here. Love trees, but love your neighbor first.

I write this anonymously for fear of the people who love trees more than people who are getting hurt.

Thank you thank you.

From: robin fox
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comment (trees) city Manager"s report
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:59:48 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear City Clerk,
Please read at tonight's Council meeting
Hello,
From Sylva Blackstone, a retired Certified Arborist.

I strongly urge the council to delay the decision which may result in the cutting down of numerous street trees on robertson Boulevard. The sidewalks have been installed too close to the trees!
I am sure that there are many possible alternatives to removal which need to be further researched by city staff.

Sylva Blackstone
Los Angeles
cell
From: Jonathan Brand
To: Manu Dhaliwal; City Clerk
Cc:

Subject: Re: Robertson City Manager Report
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 1:32:20 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hi Mr. Dhaliwal and to whom it may concert and the City of Beverly Hills, As someone who comes to work every day at our office on South Robertson and as someone who's background is in urban planning and development, I want to express my support for the new streetscape which includes the removal of the existing ficus trees.

First, you and your staff went through the extraordinary process of doing outreach and gathering support among the stakeholders consisting of employees, businesses, property owners, etc... along South Robertson. In the beginning of the process you personally came and knocked on doors, including ours for input. You had public hearings, if I recall design charrettes, etc... to come up with a plan. You did so very diligently with due process.

The current ficus trees are an antiquated relic of a bygone era and should have never been planted. They rip up the sidewalk, obscure architecture and business signage. They love water. Over time the roots will damage public and private underground infrastructure, they get into foundations. The obscure street lighting making it dark and dangerous for pedestrians at night.. It is time to lift up this desolate stretch of commercial in Beverly Hills. Please redo the streetscape as previously approved.

It is well known that the City of Beverly Hills loves trees, all of their streets are tree lined, and maintained nicely. Please proceed with this project.

Regards,
Jonathan Brand
c:

From: Aurora Corona - Pink
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; [email protected] Cc:

Subject: “Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project”
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 6:59:51 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

These trees provide innumerable benefits to our local climate, ecosystem, community members, and local businesses. More specifically, these trees prevent the urban heat island effect, provide critical shade and cooling, filter air pollution, absorb carbon dioxide, boost property values, and provide habitat for local wildlife species.

The City of Beverly Hills claims that the tree removals must be executed because the sidewalks surrounding some of these trees are uneven and pose a hazard to pedestrians.

The City of Beverly Hills has created a false choice between saving mature trees and fixing sidewalks. The community knows and expects better from its elected representatives. Other cities in Southern California, including Santa Monica and Pasadena, have been able to successfully balance the needs of all community members, while preserving its precious tree canopies. This issue also must be considered in the environmental context of greater Los Angeles and Southern California. When one environmental disaster affects one community, it impacts us all.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Aurora Corona
Pico Union Resident and Tree Advocate
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Joanne DAntonio
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: “Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project”
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 9:01:33 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting:

Here is a suggestion: ask Burbank how they keep the massive canopy ficus (Indian laurel fig) trees on Magnolia Blvd., and still maintain a flat safe sidewalk. Surely Beverly Hills can find out how to do it, too.

I am flabbergasted at the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard The trees are hugely important to the environment.

Not only heat island and air pollution mitigation, but ficus trees sequester more carbon dioxide than any other species. Ask yourselves if you have any guilt for climate change you promote if you remove the rest of these trees. The street looks horrible already as a result of removed trees -- it looks like a tree equity area. It take decades to produce canopy, and the substitutes you want to plant are next to useless. Palms are not trees and have no real canopy. Even LA's City Council abandoned allowing palms to be planted as street trees unless they are grandfathered in. Crape myrtles if not pruned regularly to shape into trees will grow as shrubs. You are not compensating for trees that should not be removed in the first place.

Please do not continue with this disservice to the community.

Joanne D'Antonio
From: Phil and Vivian Deutsch
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 5:21:23 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

The City of Beverly Hills claims that the tree removals must be executed because the sidewalks surrounding some of these trees are uneven and pose a hazard to pedestrians.

The City of Beverly Hills has created a false choice between saving mature trees and fixing sidewalks. The community knows and expects better from its elected representatives.

Other cities in Southern California, including Santa Monica and Pasadena, have been able to successfully balance the needs of all community members, while preserving its precious tree canopies. This issue also must be considered in the environmental context of greater Los Angeles and Southern California. When one environmental disaster affects one community, it impacts us all.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Vivian Deutsch
From: Teryne Dorret
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Subject: “Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project”
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 8:54:36 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

The City of Beverly Hills claims that the tree removals must be executed because the sidewalks surrounding some of these trees are uneven and pose a hazard to pedestrians.

The City of Beverly Hills has created a false choice between saving mature trees and fixing sidewalks. The community knows and expects better from its elected representatives.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Teryne Dorret
Van Nuys, CA 91401
From: Evan Sanford
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 9:06:24 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

The City of Beverly Hills claims that the tree removals must be executed because the sidewalks surrounding some of these trees are uneven and pose a hazard to pedestrians. The City of Beverly Hills has created a false choice between saving mature trees and fixing sidewalks. The community knows and expects better from its elected representatives. Other cities in Southern California, including Santa Monica and Pasadena, have been able to successfully balance the needs of all community members, while preserving its precious tree canopies. This issue also must be considered in the environmental context of greater Los Angeles and Southern California. When one environmental disaster affects one community, it impacts us all.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Evan S.

From: Amanda Frances
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - City Manager Report
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:58:54 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To Whom it May Concern,
Please read at Tuesday 7pm Council Meeting.

My name is Amanda Frances, and I am a resident of Beverly Hills. I live in the city with my partner and my three young children.

We are BEYOND disappointed that the city is deciding to kill 100 year old trees. My children and I frequently take walks outside during the day, and it is unbelievable and unacceptable that the trees all along Robertson have already been removed, let alone the fact that more will be killed.

This decision is harmful to our city and the environment, and must be stopped.

Regards,
Amanda Frances + Team AF
From: Rolando Fuentes
To: City Clerk
Subject: TREE"S
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 5:04:14 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
CITY MANAGER:

CAN YOU STOP CUTTING TREE PLEASE

THIS IS NOT GOOD FOR ALL US WE NEED THE OXYGEN THE SHADE AND THE

BEUTY OD THE CITY

IT WAS SO BEAUTIFUL WITH TREE NOW IT LOOK DESERTED

NO ONE LIKE IT, COSTUMERS COMING FIRT QUESTION WHAT HAPPEN TO THE TREES!!!!

THANK YOU

ROLANDO

STAR STUDDED
From: Jesse Sanford
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 10:34:35 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
Dear Beverly Hills City Council,
I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Jesse S.

From: Marianne King
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: "Public Comment - City Manager"s Report - Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project"
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:53:22 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to the removal of nearly 100 mature Ficus trees along Robertson Blvd.

It is the most thoughtless destructive approach to solving the problem.

Please take the time to find better alternatives that focuses on preserving the trees while fixing the sidewalks. That will be something this city can be proud of and showcase to all who live, work, and visit this area. It will also show that at a time of extremes, such as drought, excessive heat, and water restrictions, the BH leaders made an environmentally conscious decision that will be an immediate benefit for all to see and take note of.

Sincerely,
Marianne King
From: Louis Sanford
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 10:50:30 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Louis
From:

To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: "Public Comment - City Manager"s Report - Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project"
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 3:56:45 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant Ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

The City of Beverly Hills claims that the tree removals must be executed because the sidewalks surrounding some of these trees are uneven and pose a hazard to pedestrians.

The City of Beverly Hills has created a false choice between saving mature trees and fixing sidewalks. The community knows and expects better from its elected representatives.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Gerrie Maloof
Gerrie Maloof
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Mindy Mann
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: “Public Comment - City Manager's Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project”
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:18:12 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant Ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

At a time when cities throughout Southern California, including Los Angeles, are making it a priority to increase their tree canopy, every municipality should be doing its part to try to preserve each of its significant street trees. These mature Ficus trees provide incredible shade and cooling along Robertson Blvd. and it would take many years for newly planted trees to provide an equivalent canopy.

In addition to providing shade, these Ficus trees provide other innumerable benefits to our ecosystem, to community members, and to local businesses. They filter air pollution, absorb carbon dioxide, boost property values, provide habitat for local wildlife species, bring greenery to a congested commercial area, and contribute to our overall well-being.

The City of Beverly Hills claims that the trees must be removed because the sidewalkssurrounding some of these trees are uneven and pose a hazard to pedestrians. However, repairing the sidewalks should not require the removal of these mature trees. There are other alternatives if the City of Beverly Hills is willing to be flexible and progressive in its approach. Other cities in Southern California, including Santa Monica and Pasadena, have been able to successfully balance the needs of all community members, while preserving its precious tree canopies.

The removal of these trees would impact communities beyond Beverly Hills - we all breathe the same air. Robertson is a major boulevard with shops, restaurants, and professional services. While I, like many others, may not live within the boundaries of Beverly Hills, we patronize the businesses along Robertson Blvd. and want to preserve these magnificent trees.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Mindy Rothstein Mann
Board Member, Benedict Canyon Association
Board Member, Bel-Air Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council Board Member, TreePeople
Please note that although I am a board member of all these groups, the comments expressed in this letter are my own personal views.

From: Joanne Millius
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; "[email protected]; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold; Subject: Ficus Trees and Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:18:36 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello,
I am a member of Climate Reality Project and Audubon and visit Beverly Hills to see my dentist every few months. I would l like to see the Ficus Trees preserved as they provide shade for the city as well as provide oxygen and a small ecosystem for the city. Palm trees will not provide shade and are somewhat outdated for the city of Los Angeles and its environs. Please just fix the sidewalks so they may allow the Ficus Trees to remain.

Thank you and please read this at the Council Meeting.

Joanne Millius
From: Janine Milne
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: “Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project”
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 7:59:32 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Janine Milne
** Please don't forget to update your records **
NEW EMAIL:

From: KIM NEISTADT
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 3:24:50 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21/23 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' plan to remove nearly 100 mature and significant ficus trees along Robertson Boulevard. These trees provide innumerable benefits to our local climate, ecosystem, community members, and local businesses. More specifically, these trees prevent the urban heat island effect, provide critical shade and cooling, filter air pollution, absorb carbon dioxide, boost property values, and provide habitat for local wildlife species.

The City of Beverly Hills claims that the tree removals must be executed, because the sidewalks surrounding some of these trees are uneven and pose a hazard to pedestrians. The City of Beverly Hills has created a false choice between saving mature trees and fixing sidewalks.

The community knows and expects better from its elected representatives. Other cities in Southern California, including Santa Monica and Pasadena, have been able to successfully balance the needs of all community members, while preserving its precious tree canopies. This issue also must be considered in the environmental context of greater Los Angeles and Southern California. When one environmental disaster affects one community, it impacts us all.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens to truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Kim Neistadt
Climate Leader
Climate Reality Project
From: Kristy Pace
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project”
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:50:25 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:
“I speak for the trees, since the trees have no tongues and I’m asking you all at the top of my lungs.” Do not do this!!! The Lorax knew how destructive removing mature trees from a city or town is to the air quality, heat index and habitats of humans and animals. I’m sure you must be as wise as this fictional children’s book character.

Replacing these mature, established tees with non-native extremely problematic palm trees that provide no shade and minimal habitats is not ok.

There are ways around roots and you need to work harder to find them.

Trees are living, breathing beings. They offer us life giving oxygen, air pollution filtration, carbon sequestration, shade and are an important part of the hydrologic cycle. They have a right to life. The idea of cutting down mature trees for sidewalks is absurd! Adapt the sidewalks to the trees.

If you won’t take the Lorax’s word for it remember, other cities in Southern California, including Santa Monica and Pasadena, have been able to successfully balance the needs of all community members, while preserving its precious tree canopies. Surely, you are as wise as Santa Monica and Pasadena.

This issue also must be considered in the environmental context of greater Los Angeles and Southern California. When one environmental disaster affects one community, it impacts us all.

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

Stand up for the trees!!!
Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Kristy Pace
Climate Reality
SoCal 350
From: Linda Peluso
To: City Clerk
Subject: Save the Trees
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:09:02 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Good morning BH City Hall,
Please provide fact base information why a vital part of our ecosystem…our environmental health and the wellness of our state has been removed. What reason or fact do 100 year old trees deserve to be removed ???
The environmental negative impact surely out weighs by removing the lungs of our cities… the preservation of bees on the decline and an abundance of reasons this should never happen.! How can Californian claim to be a leader in environmentalleadership in the nation when such destruction is underway?
Makes absolutely zero sense!!! Worst of all it will take decades to repair this deveststion.

California legislators are just exposing more corruption.

This is why so many residents are moving to states that protect and honor the people and our planet.

Regretfully and honestly ,
Linda Peluso
From: Andrew Rodriguez
To: City Clerk
Subject: trees on Robertson
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:38:50 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Here at Exquisite Surfaces, we are very disappointed at the recent sudden street trees removal. They provided shade, noise reduction, beauty, clean air, etc. Now the street looks ugly, empty, and soulless.

Those were very old magnificent trees, irreplaceable, and we ask you to please stop removing any more tress and replant new SHADE trees where the others were removed.

In summer will be unbearable to walk down the street under the blazing sun and without the nice shade of the trees. This may affect the business that rely on walk-in clientele.

We and our neighbors agree that the trees removal was a very short-sighted, improper decision.

Sincerely,
Exquisite Surfaces team,
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

ANDREW RODRIGUEZ

EXQUISITE/SURFACES
289 N. ROBERTSON BLVD, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211
310 659 4580 / XSURFACES.COM
Email Classification: Exquisite Surfaces - Privacy Policy This communication may contain privileged and/or confidential information. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing or using any of this information. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and destroy the material in its entirety, whether electronic or hard copy. You may not directly or indirectly reuse or re-disclose such information for any purpose other than to provide the services for which you are receiving the information.

From: Sierra Ruiz
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment- City Manager Report please read at Tues 7pm Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:23:08 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I work on Robertson Blvd and was devastated when we received a postcard in the mail informing us they would be removing the beautiful tree directly in front of our business because it was sick and causing harm, neither of which is true. The sidewalks on our block are not in bad shape and our building and plumbing aren’t being affected by the tree or it’s roots. As I watched helplessly as they they cut down the trees across the street my heart broke. I knew it would be upsetting, but I didn’t know how upsetting until I had to actually see it. After speaking to our neighbors and clients, no one seems to understand why such drastic action had to be taken. The trees that lined Robertson Blvd were magical and the most appealing part of the street, now clients walk in telling me how ugly the street looks and can’t figure out why. It makes no sense to be cutting down beautiful mature trees in Los Angeles when we are also facing climate change and pollution, both of which these trees naturally fight against. I hope you end up leaving the trees alone and work a little bit harder to find a better solution for the areas that do need their sidewalks fixed, which isn’t Robertson Blvd.

Thank you,
Sierra
From: Randy Simon
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public comment - City Manager’s report
Date: Monday, February 20, 2023 10:29:31 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hi! Please read this at the Tuesday 7 PM City Council meeting- thanks! I am very upset that Beverly Hills has already chopped down dozens of large healthy trees on Robertson Boulevard because of some sidewalk cracking and lifting, and is planning to chop down dozens more. I inspected the dirt patches where these trees once lived and also the remaining trees. A vast majority had undamaged sidewalk around them. This is unnecessary overkill.

I had no idea this was going on until the recent LA Times article. Apparently many businesses along Robertson had no idea either since the petition to cut them was filed mid February 2020, right after Covid started, by a developer who falsely claimed a majority of the owners in the 100 block wanted this. Reality is that documents were filed in March and November 2020 while we were in Covid lockdown and no one was in their stores. How this plan extended beyond the 100 block to the entire street is beyond me, but it certainly doesn’t have the approval of a vast majority of the Robertson community, nor throughout the City.

I have the deepest respect for our mayor, city council members and arborist. Thank you for hearing the recent outcry and scheduling this so quickly. I implore you to immediately halt the killing of any more large healthy trees and start researching alternatives that will allow the trees and sidewalks to coexist. If the sidewalks are being replaced anyway, it's an excellent opportunity to redesign them for this purpose - maybe they don’t need to come so close to the trees? I am sure there are other options, and Beverly Hills, a supposed Green City, should be setting an example for being environmentally sensitive and proactive in saving large healthy trees, especially during these times of climate change, instead of being publicly scolded in an LA Times editorial and elsewhere.

Sidewalks should not get priority over large healthy trees, which are a valuable resource that should be protected. The City needs to rethink their approach not only to Robertson Boulevard, but to all other similar situations throughout the City.

Every large tree counts - thank you.

Randy Simon
Beverly Hills CA 90210
From: Martin Tatz
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment - City Manager Report Please read at Tues 7PM Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:57:57 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Council members:

Mature, ficus trees that the city is removing are worth quite a bit of money, I’ve heard somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000 per tree. In addition, a mature tree provides a lot of emotional satisfaction simply by being there. It encourages pedestrian traffic past retail establishments. Other benefits include road noise reduction and lots of shade.

The city plans to replace the huge trees on a one for one basis with saplings. How long would it take for the replacement plants to achieve ambiance provided by the removed trees? I say never.

Sent from my iPad
From: Maureen Toth
To: City Clerk; Lili Bosse; John Mirisch; 14-Sharona Nazarian; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 12-Julian Gold Cc:

Subject: “Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project”
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 8:43:49 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard. At this point of crises in our environment, I urge the city to take an ecologically based approach to this issue. IT JUST MAKES SENSE. You need only to see the latest press re the benefits of large shade trees on the environment and mental health of the community.

Replacing them with immature - non canopied smaller trees will just create another problem to be dealt with down the road.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Maureen Toth

MAUREEN TOTH
1645 VINE STREET, STE 402
LOS ANGELES, CA 90028
P: (323) 856-3000 • F: (323) 856-3009
[email protected] • www.easterntalent.net
From: Johanna Vanderspool
To: City Clerk
Subject: Complaint- Tree Removal: Robertson Blvd
Date: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:11:43 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Bosse/Mayor of Beverly Hills, what the City of Beverly Hills is doing to Robertson Boulevard is a travesty.

It’s incredibly uncool and unjust of the City of Beverly Hills to rip out healthy trees (60 yrs old) without the approval of the people aka residents, like me. Had you had a committee or counsel to discuss this (did you???!), we could have come to alternative solutions. The businesses aren’t the only ones with voices. Their concerns don’t matter more than ours- the residents. While I understand you have other trees being planted as replacements, not all the ficus’ need to be removed. I encourage you to cease the tree removal and hold an emergency meeting that includes ALL OF US.

Thank you,
Johanna ( Resident for 15 yrs)
From: Nia Vargas
To: City Clerk; 12-Julian Gold; John Mirisch; Lili Bosse; 13-Lester J. Friedman; 14-Sharona Nazarian Cc:

Subject: Public Comment - City Manager"s Report – Update on Robertson Boulevard Tree and Sidewalk Replacement Project
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:51:40 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read at 2/21 City Council meeting
To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly disagree with the City of Beverly Hills' removal of nearly 100 mature, significant ficus street trees along Robertson Boulevard.

When one environmental disaster affects one community, it impacts us all.

The community is counting on its representatives to stand up for both the environment and local citizens and truly represent the opinion of the communities which elected them.

Thank you for your consideration of this most urgent matter.

Sincerely,
Anonymous Tree Hugger
Dear Honorable Members of the Beverly Hills City Council,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for removing the ficus trees on Robertson Boulevard. Their overgrown branches were not only brushing against our building causing damage to our facade, but also creating trip and fall hazards for pedestrians. Your decision to remove the trees has not only improved the safety of the area but also the appearance. We are excited for the new trees that will be planted soon and know they will bring beauty and a sense of renewal to the boulevard.

Thank you for your prompt action and for always putting the well-being of our community first.

Sincerely,
Benny Yadegar
From:

To: City Clerk
Subject: To whom it may concern. Please read at tonight’s hearing regarding the housing element update.

Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 6:25:53 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello. If possible, please read this but keep me anonymous. Thank you I write to you as a lifelong Democrat that feels that our party has been hijacked It is time to get rid of restrictive zoning laws so developers can build here, and housing becomes affordable - thus making it less likely that poor residents will become homeless. We need to increase housing to fight homelessness too - that’s the most important part of the puzzle. Restrictive zoning laws mutilate the city by inhibiting the workings of the free market to create housing where there is demand.

Homeowners must accept that the price of their real estate investments will go down as more supply comes online, but if they fight against more housing, their values will *still* go down if the homeless crisis continues. The city has no moral obligation to maintain outdated 1960’s zoning laws.

Leftists are addicted to the self-evidently incorrect narrative that spending 30 years building lame, ugly 5 story apartment complexes everywhere will cure alcoholism, addiction, a long list of other metal health issues, and sloth. It won’t.

But don’t tell that to the overfed halfwit Bernie-bro Marxists who keep saying that NOT allowing squalor is “criminalizing poverty” – as if wanting a clean city is a crime-and some guy in a tent under a bridge gets to dictate city policy. Instead, these what these fools have actually done is to allow suffering to fester and grow.

Additionally, these leftists have overseen the degradation of vast swatches of working and middle class neighborhoods and parks. Further they seem unaware that their nonsensical spew about the “root problem” being a lack of cheap apartments is cover for corrupt politicians and the dime store developers of fugly low rise shacks that street camper will ever live in.

SKID ROW IS UNCHANGED IN THE 40 YEARS. Why? Belligerent leftists who won’t address or even SEE the real issues because THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY WANT TO HELP- they want to ensure the problem lasts forever …that’s how they make sure daddy knows they’re good little middle children.

Now the same belligerent brats want free sidewalk camping to last forever. THERE IS NO GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO LIVE WHERE YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO LIVE.

Radical fact: California actually has no moral obligation to house anyone. There are plenty of places to live in the USA. Remove the sidewalk campers. Give them one option, if they don’t take it- escort them to the Colorado river and give them a nice parting gift.

Squalor is not a virtue. Allowing squalor is not virtuous. Tax paying residents owe street campers nothing. It will get worse. A lot of people pay a lot to live here - not all want to move to Texas and Florida just because local SoCal governments are run by lazy skimmers, squalor fetishists, and cowards and whiners whose lives peaked at Burning Man in 1998.

As for those who insist a court order means these sidewalk campers can’t be moved - do what all smart people do- get better lawyers, find better judges. No one is being helped by ignoring the real problem and many are being harmed.

Thank you,
From:

To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item F1 - Tuesday 2/21/23
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 5:32:40 PM
Attachments: Memo re Corrections to HE with Reso - 2-21-2023.pdf CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read this anonymously this evening.

Thank you.

Beverly Hills Affordable Housing
The number of years a current Beverly Hills resident or a resident prior to displacement has lived in Beverly Hills is not considered when on the affordable housing list but deserves to be. Residents who have spent decades in the community, shopping, dining, supporting small businesses, and paying taxes, have contributed more than someone who moved into Beverly Hills a year ago.

Why is there not a higher tier for Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 tenants? Please consider a higher tier that includes the number of years a Beverly Hills resident or former displaced Beverly Hills resident has been on the affordable housing waiting list.

Please review and look at these important variables for Beverly Hills residents and prior Beverly Hills residents with the affordable housing program. There are a variety of reasons beyond a tenant's or resident's control for displacement other than a demolished building. Long-term Beverly Hills Residents and former displaced residents have given much to the community and deserve the city’s support when they are in need.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
2/21/2023
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Public Comments on Beverly Hills Housing Element
Dear Councilmembers,
We write on behalf of Abundant Housing LA to raise concerns about Beverly Hills’ subsequent draft housing element, which will be discussed at tonight’s Council meeting (agenda Item F.1).

Our comments are based on a letter dated 11/232022 from Matthew Gelfand, of Californians For Homeownership (CFE), to the City of Beverly Hills. Our understanding is that CFE is currently engaged in litigation with Beverly Hills over alleged inadequacies in its housing element.

Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis. We support reforms to legalize more homes, make homes easier to build, increase funding for affordable housing, and protect tenants, which are all needed to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity. As a community organization, in order to maintain our independence, we do not accept financial support from housing developers or their consultants.

We were concerned to read the allegations raised in the CFE letter, including:
● A duplicate and double-counted site in the City’s sites inventory which may bring the City’s site capacity below its RHNA requirement for low-income units ● Non-specific descriptions of sites such as “retail” and “office” that do not provide realistic information regarding the likelihood of residential redevelopment ● Inaccurate estimations of and assumptions about the likelihood of redevelopment of non-vacant sites including Class A and B office buildings and sites in the MU Overlay Zone
● Lack of clarity for distribution of units between income levels ● An inadequate no net loss buffer for the lower-income RHNA These criticisms are similar in some respects to those we raised in our most recent comment letter on a prior draft of Beverly Hills’ housing element.

Zillow’s typical home value for Beverly Hills is about $3.4 million. It is critical that an exclusive, high-opportunity jurisdiction like Beverly Hills put forward a meaningful housing element so that it can do its part to solve the housing affordability crisis, by satisfying the RHNA at all income levels and affirmatively furthering fair housing.

We urge you to engage with CFE’s feedback in good faith and put forward a housing element that complies with the letter and spirit of state law.

Sincerely,
Leonora Camner David J. Barboza
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
David J. Barboza, AICP
Director of Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
Letter Recipients
City Council Public Comments, Beverly Hills, [email protected] Mayor Lili Bosse, Beverly Hills, [email protected].

Vice Mayor Julian A. Gold M.D., Beverly Hills, [email protected].

Councilmember John Mirisch, Beverly Hills, [email protected].

Councilmember Lester Friedman, Beverly Hills, [email protected] Councilmember Sharona R. Nazarian PsyD, Beverly Hills, [email protected] City Manager Nancy Hunt-Coffey, Beverly Hills, [email protected] Director of Community Development, Timothea Tway, Beverly Hills, [email protected] Gustavo Velasquez, Director, HCD, [email protected] Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, HCD, [email protected] Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD, [email protected] Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD, [email protected] Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD, [email protected] HCD Housing Element Inbox, [email protected]
Matthew Geland, Californians for Homeownershiop, [email protected]

MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
February 21, 2023

VIA EMAIL
City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Dr
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Email: [email protected]; [email protected] RE: February 21, 2023 City Council Meeting, Agenda Item F.1.

To the City Council:

Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. Our organization is monitoring local compliance with the laws governing housing elements, and we have sued the City over its adoption of an inadequate sixth cycle housing element update.

There is little value in adopting the amended housing element update before you tonight, because it has already been determined by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to contains serious deficiencies. We have confirmed with HCD that letters like the letter the City received on November 28, 2022 indicate that HCD does not view the subject housing element as being substantially compliant with state law. HCD’s letters identifying the deficiencies in the City’s housing element are attached and we incorporate them here in their entirety, by reference. The City’s latest draft is deficient for the reasons identified in these letters.

The staff report presented to you tonight openly admits that the City has not addressed HCD’s concerns on a number of items. In the matrix of staff’s responses to HCD’s November 28, 2022 letter, the City identifies several areas where staff are continuing to work to address HCD’s comments, despite puzzlingly bringing you the current draft for adoption before that work is done:

February 21, 2023

Page 2 ends

Staff are wrong to suggest that the City’s latest draft complies with state law. The City’s sites inventory, housing programs, and AFFH analysis are all inadequate. HCD has explained why, in excruciating detail, in its letters to the City. And we have explained why in our comments to HCD on the City’s 2022 draft, which are also attached.

Although the City touts its significant purported RHNA buffer for all sites, it conveniently leaves out the incredibly narrow buffer for very low- and low-income sites. In the very low-income category, the City’s buffer is just three units! With the recent corrections to its sites inventory, the City cannot afford to have even a single site in its lower-income categories deemed inappropriate for inclusion in the housing element:

This amended housing element update, in its current state, is indefensible. We urge you to send staff back to the drawing board.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: City of Beverly Hills
Timothea Tway, AICP, Director of Comm. Dev. (by email to [email protected]) Chloe Chen, Senior Planner (by email to [email protected]) Laurence S. Wiener, Esq., City Attorney (by email to )
California Department of Housing and Community Development Chelsea Lee (by email to [email protected])
PRIOR

CORRESPONDENCE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
July 30, 2021
Ryan Gohlich, Director
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Ryan Gohlich:

RE: Review of City of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Beverly Hills’s (City) draft housing element received for review on June 2, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Abundant Housing LA and Josh Albrektson pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses many statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code).

The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

To remain on an eight-year planning cycle, the City must adopt its housing element within 120 calendar days from the statutory due date of October 15, 2021 for Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) localities. If adopted after this date, Government Code section 65588, subdivision (e)(4), requires the housing element be revised every four years until adopting at least two consecutive revisions by the statutory deadline. For more information on housing element adoption requirements, please visit HCD’s website at: http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos/docs/sb375_final100413.pdf.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Ryan Gohlich, Director

Page 2 ends

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

HCD is committed to assisting the City of Beverly Hills in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Chelsea Lee at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Land Use & Planning Unit Chief
Enclosure
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 1 July 30, 2021

APPENDIX

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-elementmemos.shtml. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
As part of the evaluation of programs in the past cycle (Appendix D), the element must provide an explanation of the effectiveness of goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female headed households, farmworkers and persons experiencing homelessness).

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) The element generally does not address this requirement. The element, among other things, must include outreach, an assessment of fair housing, identification, and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues and goals and actions sufficient to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. For more information, please contact HCD and visit https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml.

2. Include an analysis of population and employment trends and documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected needs for all income levels, including extremely low-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(1).)
The element includes analysis regarding extremely low-income (ELI) households such as the number of households and overpayment but must also identify projected HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 2 July 30, 2021
housing needs. The projected housing need for ELI households can be calculated by using available census data to determine the number of very low-income households that qualify as ELI households or presume that 50 percent of the regional housing need allocation (RHNA) for very low-income households qualify as ELI households. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/housing-needs/extremely-low-income-housingneeds.shtml.

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Parcel Listing: The element lists parcels by acreage, general plan and zoning but must also identify the anticipated affordability levels of all the units on identified sites.

In addition, the parcel listing includes a column for existing uses. However, in many cases, the column is blank and should be completed. Finally, the parcel listing in some cases does describe existing uses, but the description is generic, such as office building or store building. Instead, the description of existing uses should be sufficiently detailed to facilitate an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development in the planning period.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element describes the mixed-use overlay, it generally does not address this requirement. The element must include an analysis to demonstrate the potential for additional development. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.

In addition, relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period.

Realistic Capacity: While the element includes an estimate of the number of units that can be accommodated on each site in the inventory, the estimate should rely on minimum density standards or include analysis demonstrating how the number of units for each site was determined. The estimate of the number of units for each site must account for land-use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in the City and on the HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 3 July 30, 2021
current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities.

In addition, the element appears to assume residential development on sites zoned for nonresidential uses, but to support this assumption, the element must analyze the likelihood of residential in zoning where 100 percent nonresidential uses are allowed.

The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends including nonresidential, performance standards requiring residential uses or other relevant factors such as enhanced policies and programs.

Small Sites: Many identified sites are smaller than half an acre. Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income households unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower-income housing. As a result, if utilizing these sites toward the housing need for lower-income households, the element must include analysis and programs as appropriate. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-andzoning.shtml.

Availability of Infrastructure: The element includes information on water capacity but must also address total sewer capacity sufficient to accommodate the RHNA. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-andzoning.shtml#environmental.

Environmental Constraints: While the element generally describes a few environmental conditions within the City (page B-49), it must also describe any known environmental constraints or other conditions on identified sites that could impact housing development in the planning period. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-andzoning.shtml#environmental.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: The element must demonstrate the sites inventory affirmatively furthers fair housing. For more information, see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Replacement Requirements: If utilizing sites with residential uses, the element must include a policy requiring the replacement of all those units affordable to the same or lower-income level as a condition of any development on the site pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g), paragraph (3). Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth in Government Code section 65915, subdivision (c), paragraph (3).

HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 4 July 30, 2021
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element projects 150 ADUs over the planning period or approximately 18 ADUs per year over the eight-year planning period. The element also notes permitting 7 ADUs in 2018, 6 in 2019 and 9 in 2020. These trends are inconsistent with HCD records (nothing reported in 2018, 6 in 2019 and 4 in 2020) and do not support an assumption of 18 ADUs per year.

To support assumptions for ADUs in the planning period, the element should reduce the number of ADUs assumed per year and reconcile trends with HCD records, including additional information such as more recent permitted units and inquiries, resources and incentives, other relevant factors and modify policies and programs as appropriate. Further, programs should commit to additional incentives and strategies, frequent monitoring (every other year) and specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if ADU assumptions for the number of units and affordability are not met.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD.

Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/index.shtml#element for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types: The element must demonstrate zoning to encourage and facilitate a variety of housing types, as follows:
• Emergency Shelters: Zoning may impose development standards on emergency shelters including sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone. The element describes parking requirements are based on need which appears inconsistent with statute.

As a result, the element should add or modify programs as appropriate. • Permanent Supportive Housing: Supportive housing shall be a use by-right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses pursuant to Government Code section 65651. The element must demonstrate compliance with this requirement and include programs as appropriate.
• Transitional and Supportive Housing: Definitions for transitional and supportive housing and target population (page B-37) appear inconsistent in Government Code section 65582, and the element should be revised, including with programs, as appropriate.
• Employee Housing: The element must demonstrate zoning is consistent with the Employee Housing Act (Health and Safety Code, § 17000 et seq.) or add or modify programs. Specifically, section 17021.5 requires employee HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 5 July 30, 2021
housing for six or fewer employees to be treated as a single-family structure and permitted in the same manner as other dwellings of the same type in the same zone.

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land-use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land-Use Controls: The element lists several potential constraints, particularly unit sizes, setbacks, parking, modulation requirements and heights and then appears to conclude these standards are not constraints because projects have been built near maximum densities. This analysis does not demonstrate these land use controls are not constraints. For example, none of the listed projects are less than a decade old and most did not achieve maximum densities under the general plan.

The analysis should at least address a newer and more complete list of projects, whether exceptions or deviations to developments standards were utilized, the lack of regularly achieving general plan densities, why assemblage appears necessary to achieve higher densities, which zones were used and any other factors that impact the cost, supply and feasibility of development. Based on the outcomes of the analysis, the element must include programs to address identified constraints.

Fees: The element indicates that fees are approximately $100,000 per multifamily unit and concludes the fees are nominal based on sales prices. However, regardless of proportion of sales prices, cumulative fees of $100,000 per unit have a significant impact on development costs. The element should include a closer evaluation of these fees and add programs to address the constraint as appropriate.

Processing and Permit Procedures: The element describes planning and architectural commission reviews as well as decision making standards such as “…promote harmonious development…”, “…conformity with good taste….”, and “…contributes to the image of Beverly Hills as a place of beauty, spaciousness, balance, taste, fitness, broad vistas and high quality.” The City’s processing approach to these potentially roving standards is to provide technical assistance and examples of past projects.

While this approach could be effective in facilitating approval certainty, the analysis should also consider impacts on costs, supply and built density. Also, given the significant ambiguity implied in these decision-making standards, the element should include programs to monitor their impacts and should consider more fixed and objective standards.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: The element must include an analysis of zoning, development standards, building codes, and process and permit procedures as potential constraints on housing for persons with disabilities, as follows:

HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 6 July 30, 2021
• Family Definition: The element discusses definitions of family, bona fide housekeeping unit and single-family housekeeping unit that appear to constrain housing, including for persons with disabilities. For example, the definitions require households to be the “functional equivalent of a traditional family” with members that are “non-transient”, “interactive” and several other provisions. The element should add or modify programs to address these constraints. • Group Homes: Group homes for seven or more persons appear to be excluded from most residential zones and the element does not otherwise address this important housing type. The element should identify what zones permit this housing and evaluate approval requirements for impacts on objectivity and approval certainty. For example, excluding this housing from residential zones or imposing standards such as compatibility with surrounding uses without clarity would be considered a constraint. The element must include programs as appropriate to address identified constraints based on the outcomes of this analysis.

SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process: The element must identify and analyze written procedures for the SB 35 Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process.

Zoning, Development Standards and Fees: The element must clarify its compliance with new transparency requirements for posting all zoning, development standards and fees for each parcel on the jurisdiction’s website.

5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Identified Densities and Approval Times: The element did not address these requirements. The element must address requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory and the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of application for building permits. The analysis must address any hinderances on housing development and programs should be added as appropriate.

6. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to nonlow-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 7 July 30, 2021
While the element identifies the Beverly Hills Senior Housing project is at risk of converting from affordable to market-rate during the next ten years, the element must also estimate the total cost of preserving these units and include a list of entities with the capacity to acquire multifamily developments that are at risk. The analysis should guide policies and programs necessary to address the critical activity of preserving at-risk units. For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/housingneeds/assisted-housing-developments.shtml and for more information on identifying units at-risk, see the California Housing Partnership Corporation at http://www.chpc.net.

C. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines, including Programs 9.3 (Home Repair and Improvement), 10.3 (Housing Trust Fund), 10.4 (ADUs), 10.6 (Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers), 11.5 (Housing Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities) and 12.1 (Development Standards).

Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not contain a complete sites inventory and analysis. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.

HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 8 July 30, 2021

3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) The element must include a program(s) with specific actions and timelines to assist in the development of housing for extremely low-income households and individuals and households with special needs (beyond seniors). The program(s) could commit the City to adopting priority processing, granting fee waivers or deferrals, modifying development standards, granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units affordable to lower and moderate-income households; assisting, supporting or pursuing funding applications; and outreach and coordination with affordable housing developers. For additional information, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/buildingblocks/program-requirements/assist-in-development-housing.shtml.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Finding B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs to address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, Program 12.1 must be revised with specific commitment to complete actions early in the planning period. While the program commits to “explore” and “evaluating”, these actions must be coupled with specific actions to amend and complete the appropriate zoning changes. Finally, as noted on page B-15, this program should be revised to evaluate and revise parking requirements.

5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete assessment of fair housing. Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs. For additional guidance on program requirements to affirmatively further fair housing, please see HCD’s guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 9 July 30, 2021

Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
As noted in Finding B6, the element must complete an analysis of units at risk of conversion to market rate during the planning period. The element must add or modify programs based on the outcomes of that analysis. In addition, Program 9.7 should be revised to comply with noticing requirements, provide education and assistance to tenants, assist with funding, and promptly reach out to qualified entities to preserve at-risk housing units.

7. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADUs that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
The element is required to include a program that incentivizes or promotes ADU development for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. To address this requirement, the element includes Program 10.4, but many actions only “explore” or “consider” and the program should be revised with specific commitment to complete, adopt, amend or begin implementation of actions that will have an actual and beneficial impact on housing.

D. Public Participation
Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).) While the element describes a survey, public meetings and a webpage; the element should include additional efforts to include a broad spectrum of individuals and representative organizations; consider language access barriers and describe how comments were incorporated into the housing element. In addition, other public participation requirements may be triggered if the City did not make the element available to the public prior to submittal to HCD. By not providing an opportunity for the public to review and comment on a draft of the element in advance of submission to HCD, the City will have not yet complied with statutory mandates to make a diligent effort to encourage the public participation in the development of the element and it reduces HCD’s ability to consider public comments in the course of its review. The availability of the document to the public and opportunity for public comment prior to submittal to HCD is essential to the public process and HCD’s review. The City must HCD Review of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Page 10 July 30, 2021
proactively make future revisions available to the public, including any commenters, prior to submitting any revisions to HCD and diligently consider and address comments, including making revisions to the document where appropriate. HCD’s future review will consider the extent to which the revised element documents were circulated and how the City solicited, considered, and addressed public comments in the element. The City’s consideration of public comments must not be limited by HCD’s findings in this review letter.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
January 14, 2022
Ryan Gohlich, Director
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, CA, 90210
Dear Ryan Gohlich:

RE: City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Beverly Hills’ (City) housing element adopted October 12, 2021 and received for review on October 18, 2021. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.

The adopted housing element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s July 30, 2021 review; however, additional revisions are necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

As a reminder, the City’s 6th cycle housing element was due October 15, 2021. As of today, the City has not completed the housing element process for the 6th cycle. The City’s 5th cycle housing element no longer satisfies statutory requirements. HCD encourages the City to revise the element as described above, adopt, and submit to HCD to regain housing element compliance.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory.

Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic Ryan Gohlich, Director

Page 2 ends

version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected]. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Chelsea Lee, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 1 January 14, 2022

APPENDIX

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) The element now includes additional information on outreach conducted, a few maps, and marginal sites analysis for some of the fair housing areas but generally does not address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information and HCD’s data viewer and guidance at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/index.shtml.

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Parcel Listing: The element now identifies the anticipated affordability levels of units on identified sites, but still does not include revisions to clarify generic descriptions of existing uses of sites identified in the inventory. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Realistic Capacity: The element now includes minimal discussion that indicates allowable densities in the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone are higher than the default density for the City and lists recently approved projects in the R-4 zone that achieved densities between 30-59 units per acre. However, the element provides no analysis based on land-use controls, environmental constraints, infrastructure, and site improvements to demonstrate the calculation of residential capacity on identified sites. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: HCD’s prior review found the element must include analysis that demonstrates the potential for additional development of nonvacant sites.

City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 2 January 14, 2022
In response, the element adds some information on ILV ratios and market conditions of sites in the Mixed-Use Overlay zone. However, the element does not provide sufficient analysis to demonstrate existing uses will discontinue in the planning period, analyze existing leases or contracts that would prevent redevelopment of sites, or provide evidence of the City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Environmental Constraints: HCD’s prior review found the element must describe any known environmental constraints or other conditions on identified sites that could impact housing development in the planning period. In response, the element now states, “while environmental constraints will require development to incorporate measures to mitigate potential hazards, these constraints are not expected to preclude housing development consistent with the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA),” (p. B-56).

This statement indicates the presence of constraints on sites identified; therefore, the element did not address this finding.

Replacement Requirements: HCD’s prior review found the element includes sites in the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone with existing residential uses. The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): The element now indicates that an additional 14 ADU permit applications were submitted in September 2021 to justify its projection of 150 ADUs in the planning period. The analysis should be based on permitted ADUs.

Further, the City did not address discrepancies between the City and HCD’s records on ADUs permitted in 2018, 2019, and 2020. The City must reconcile ADU figures with HCD records and rescale assumptions based on permitted ADUs.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land-Use Controls: In response to HCD’s prior review to analyze development standards for impacts on achieving maximum densities, the element now includes additional examples of projects recently approved in the R-4 zone. In addition, the element addresses lot assemblage issues, noting that some of the R-4 projects involved singular lots and still achieved high densities. However, revisions added to Program

12.1 (Development Standards) to “study” and “consider” do not result in meaningful actions to address potential constraints on multifamily housing and this analysis.

Fees: In response to HCD’s prior review to analyze fees for impacts on development costs, the element now includes a statement that indicates Program 12.2 (Reduced Fees for Affordable Housing) commits the City to conducting a fee study to assess whether additional waivers can be granted for affordable housing projects. However, City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 3 January 14, 2022
there are no revisions found in Program 12.2, nor is there an evaluation of fees. Please see HCD’s prior review.

Processing and Permit Procedures: In response to HCD’s prior review to analyze its permit and processing procedures for impacts on cost, supply, and built density, the element now adds minor revisions describing the design content of the “Residential Design Style Catalog,” which includes architectural features, materials, and pictures of each design style. These revisions do not address HCD’s findings. Please see HCD’s prior review.

Constraints on Persons with Disabilities:
• Family Definition: In response to HCD’s prior review, which found that the City’s definition of family acts as a constraint on persons with disabilities and is discriminatory, the City responded to HCD by noting that “the City believes that the current definition complies with State law and that no revisions are necessary or appropriate at this time. It is important to recognize that the existing definition is part of an integrated set of land use regulations that has been carefully crafted to protect the integrity of existing single-and-multi-family neighborhoods...” (Exhibit 1, Housing Element Comments and Responses). Based upon the City’s refusal to address these constraints, the adopted element still does not address this finding. Please see HCD’s prior review.
• Group Homes: Similarly, HCD’s prior review found that group homes for seven or more persons are excluded from most residential zones and did not evaluate approval requirements for impacts on objectivity and approval certainty. The City responded to HCD by noting that “the City believes the regulations for group homes for 7+ persons complies with State law” (Exhibit 1, Housing Element Comments and Responses). Based upon the City’s response, the adopted element still does not address this finding. Please see HCD’s prior review.

4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
HCD’s prior review found the element must address requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory and the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of application for building permits. The element was not revised to address this requirement. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

5. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to non-lowincome housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 4 January 14, 2022
mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
HCD’s prior review found the element must estimate the total costs of preserving at-risk units that are in danger of converting to market-rate during the next ten years. In response, the element presents confounding information that the earliest date of conversion for the Beverly Hills Senior Housing project is 2028 and is “technically classified as being at-risk of conversion...”; however, the “City has the right to purchase the upper floor for one dollar in 2041; therefore, this project is not at risk of conversion to market rate.” These revisions do not address HCD’s findings. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

B. Housing Programs

Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
The element now includes revisions that satisfactorily addresses timeframes for Programs 11.5 and 12.1. However, there are no revisions to Programs 9.3 (Home Repair and Improvement) and 10.3 (Housing Trust Fund). In addition, Program 10,4 (Accessory Dwelling Units) still requires timeframes for creating pre-approved ADU plans and for outreach materials, including an ADU webpage.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 5 January 14, 2022
to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.

3. The housing element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) In response to HCD’s prior review, the element now includes revisions that identify additional actions to assist low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households in Program 10.6 (Partnerships with Affordable Housing Developers). However, none of these actions have corresponding timeframe commitments for implementation that will result in beneficial impacts during the planning period.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings A3 and A4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, while the element now includes revisions to Program

12.1 (Development Standards) that commit the City to amendments by 2024, it still contains terms including “studying” and “evaluating” that do not result in beneficial impacts during the planning period.

5. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a complete analysis of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). Based on the outcomes of that analysis, the element must add or modify programs.

6. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).)
City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 6 January 14, 2022
As noted in Finding A5, the element must complete an analysis of units at risk of conversion to market rate during the planning period. The element must add or modify programs based on the outcomes of that analysis.

7. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of ADU that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “ADU” has the same meaning as “ADU” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)
The element now includes revisions that address some timeframes to actions identified in Program 10.4 (Accessory Dwelling Units). However, other actions still lack specified timeframes other than indicating “throughout the planning period,” including amending the zoning code to remove barriers regarding ADUs in multi-family zones, pre-plan checks and pre-approved ADU plans, and creating an ADU webpage.

C. Public Participation
Include a diligent effort by the local government to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(9).) The element now includes revisions that address when the draft was disseminated and how public comments were incorporated. The element also includes clarifying revisions on the types of outreach conducted, including an additional Planning Commission meeting, mailings to property owners, and an ADU survey. However, these revisions are insufficient in demonstrating that all economic segments of the community, particularly low-and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them, were involved in the development of the housing element. Please see HCD’s prior review.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVSION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 28, 2022
Timothea Tway, Director
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Timothea Tway:

RE: City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021 -20 29) Adopted Housing Element Thank you for submitting the City of Beverly Hills’ (City) housing element which was adopted October 12, 2021 and received for review on September 29, 2022. The September 29, 2022, revisions are allowed pursuant to Resolution 21-R-13370. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Californians for Homeownership pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The adopted housing element with draft revisions addresses many statutory requirements described in HCD’s January 14, 2022 letter; however, additional revisions are necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov.

Code). The enclosed Appendix describes the revisions needed to comply with State Housing Element Law.

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill Timothea Tway, Director

Page 2 ends

(SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html.

HCD appreciates the hard work and dedication you and your team during the review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Chelsea Lee, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 1 November 28, 2022

APENDIX

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
The following changes are necessary to bring the County’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/hcd-memos. Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/building-blocks and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Ne eds, Resources, and Constraints

1. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)
Realistic Capacity: The element did not address HCD’s previous finding. The element must include an estimate of the number of units that can be accommodated on each site in the inventory based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities. As an example, the element could identify sites in the inventory by zones and relate the characteristics of individual parcels in the inventory to its past track record of recently approved projects by zone to establish its realistic capacity methodology. For sites zoned for nonresidential uses, e.g., commercial and mixed-use zones, the element must describe how the estimated number of residential units for each site was determined. In addition, the estimate must also account for land use controls such as allowing 100 percent nonresidential uses.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element now includes additional discussion in Appendix C of the criteria that the City utilized to remove additional parcels in the sites inventory that were unlikely to be redeveloped, it must still support the potential for additional residential development on the sites remaining in the inventory. This is especially significant given that the sites inventory includes parcels that seem to have viable businesses including medical uses, Class A and B office buildings, and stores including a Starbucks, Neiman Marcus, and CVS with little to no analysis on the likelihood of these uses discontinuing during the planning period. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. The element should include current market demand for the existing use, provide analysis of existing leases or contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent additional residential development and include current information on development trends and market conditions in the City and relate those trends to the sites identified. While the element includes past experiences City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 2 November 28, 2022
converting existing uses to higher density residential development, it must relate those trends to the sites identified in the inventory. The element could also consider indicators such as age and condition of the existing structure expressed developer interest, low improvement to land value ratio, and other factors.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): In response to HCD’s prior review, the element now includes additional information that states 19 ADUs have been permitted in 2021 (pgs.

C-13-14). Even with this additional data, it is not clear if the City’s assumed production level of 150 ADUs will be achievable during the planning period. To further supplement its assumptions, the City may consider adding trends for 2022, in addition to its programs. The City may consider including trends for 2022 to further supplement its ADU assumptions in addition to including actions in Program 10.4 (Accessory Dwelling Units) that aggressively promote and incentivize ADU construction. Further, the City must still reconcile ADU figures with HCD records.

2. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Constraints on Persons with Disabilities:

Family Definition: The element continues to not address this finding. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Group Homes: The element continues to not address this finding. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

3. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Developed Densities and Permit Times: In response to HCD’s prior review, the element now includes revisions in Program 12.3 (Efficient Development Permit Review) to acknowledge that some projects have been approved with lower densities. However, the element must be revised to include the analysis as described in the City’s comment matrix to HCD.

City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 3 November 28, 2022
B. H ousing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) In response to HCD’s prior review, the element now includes satisfactory revisions to Programs 10.3 (Housing Trust Fund) and 10.4 (Accessory Dwelling Units). However, additional revisions are required to address HCD’s finding for Program 9.3 (Home Repair and Improvement). Specifically, the element cites that The Handyworker Program was discontinued, but should be revised to clarify what actions the City will initiate to “encourage” the reestablishment of the program given that it is intended to provide funding for scheduled accessibility improvements by 2025, and include other actions if funding from this program is not actualized in the planning period.

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings A2 and A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 4 November 28, 2022
analysis, the City may need to add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints. In addition, while the element included program commitments to Program 12.1 (Development Standards), additional revisions are required to fully address HCD’s finding. Specifically, Program 12.1 indicates that the City will “consider an ordinance to streamline the approval process to allow Director-level approvals for Architectural Review of multi-family housing projects with affordable housing…” but this does not demonstrate a specific commitment to address constraints related to permit processing procedures. The program should be amended to include specific and measurable actions to demonstrate a beneficial impact during the planning period.

Moreover, the action to “review the mixed-use overlay zone regulations by 2026 to assess how these regulations have been utilized by projects…” should be revised to an earlier timeframe for implementation so as to result in beneficial impacts during the planning period.

4. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).) In response to HCD’s prior review, the element now includes several revisions to Appendix A related to public outreach, contributing factors, other relevant factors, local data and knowledge, and housing mobility and new housing choice strategies.

However, additional information is required to fully address this finding. As an example, many of the program actions listed on pages A-46-50 and in Program 11.1 (Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH)) are limited to conducting outreach, does not include geographic targeting for program metrics and milestones, and includes language such as “study,” “continue,” or “maintain” that does not result in tangible outcomes that will overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. Additionally, the element, among other things, must still include an analysis at the local and regional level that assesses data, trends, and patterns for each of the fair housing areas (outreach and enforcement, R/ECAPs and RCAAs, access to opportunity, segregation and integration, and disproportionate housing needs and displacement risk). In addition, the element must also include an analysis demonstrating whether sites identified to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) are distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. For more information, please visit https://www.hcd.ca.gov/affirmatively-furthering-fair-housing. To assist with the analysis, HCD will also send a sample under separate cover.

5. The housing program shall preserve for low-income household the assisted housing developments identified pursuant to paragraph (9) of subdivision (a). The program for preservation of the assisted housing developments shall utilize, to the extent necessary, City of Beverly Hills’ 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element Page 5 November 28, 2022
all available federal, state, and local financing and subsidy programs identified in paragraph (9) of subdivision (a), except where a community has other urgent needs for which alternative funding sources are not available. The program may include strategies that involve local regulation and technical assistance. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(6).) In response to HCD’s prior review, the element now includes additional information in Appendix A on the expiring affordability covenant for the Beverly Hills Senior Housing project (pgs. A-23-24). However, these revisions do not otherwise address HCD’s finding. Program 9.7 (Monitoring Affordable Housing and Residential Displacement) should be revised to clarify that the City intends to maintain the affordability of the project regardless of the expiration of the covenant.

MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
November 23, 2022

VIA EMAIL
Chelsea Lee
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 W. El Camino Ave., Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Email: [email protected]
RE: Comments on City of Beverly Hills Housing Element.

Dear Ms. Lee,
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing to comment on the new draft sixth cycle Housing Element of the City of Beverly Hills, submitted to HCD on September 29, 2022. The revised Housing Element still fails to comply with state law and does not adequately address many of HCD’s comments laid out in its review of the City’s prior adopted housing element.

Duplicate and Double-Counted Site
The parcel located at APN 4331-001-049 appears twice in the City’s sites inventory, and has been double-counted in the City’s calculation of its lower-income site capacity. For reasons explained in more detail below, it is unclear exactly how many low- and very low-income units the City attributed to this site, but the removal of the site has the potential to bring the City’s site capacity below its RHNA requirement for low-income units.

Non-Specific Existing Use Information
In HCD’s prior review, the City was specifically told that the column of the parcel listing that describes the existing use of each parcel needed more information to demonstrate development potential. However, the new housing element does not add more information and continues to describe sites using non-specific terms such as “retail” and “office” that do not give a realistic idea of the conditions of each site that would make residential uses likely or not.

Inadequate Support for Nonvacant Sites
The sites inventory in the City’s draft Housing Element does not meet the requirements in Government Code Section 65583.2(g). The housing element does not adequately account for the impediment created by the existing uses on the listed sites, including the possibility that a site will be maintained in its current use rather than redeveloped during the planning period.

November 23, 2022

Page 2 ends

Many sites listed in the inventory have existing uses that are likely to continue throughout the planning period. A large number are Class A and B office buildings that seem to have been included merely because their fenestration and other key features could allow conversion to residential, without any reason to believe that the existing office use will actually end by 2029— and a lot of reasons to believe they won’t.

In some cases, it is easy to determine from leasing websites that these buildings are (1) mostly occupied, and (2) offering long-term leases to new tenants, foreclosing redevelopment by 2029. For example, based on listings available on LoopNet, 8383 Wilshire Blvd. appears to be an almost-90% occupied office building with a recently renovated lobby, high-quality management, and very active leasing efforts to fill the small amounts of available office space, some of which have brand new build-outs. As another example, 8500 Wilshire Blvd. appears to be a largely-occupied, 2008-renovated medical office building that is offering 10-year leases to new tenants. We do not believe that the City has any evidence that the existing uses in these and most of the other office buildings listed on the housing element will discontinue by 2029.

Because the City’s sites inventory barely provides the necessary number of very low- and low-income units, without any meaningful buffer, the exclusion of these sites will require the City to identify and rezone other sites in order to meet its RHNA allocation.

Medical Uses
The housing element specifically states that when the City was developing its sites inventory, it considered certain characteristics that render a site not likely to be redeveloped and therefore inappropriate for inclusion. One listed exclusion characteristic was parcels with existing medical uses, especially ones that “are occupied by prominent medical groups (i.e. Cedars-Sinai, UCLA Health, etc).” Despite conceding that these types of sites should not be included in the sites inventory due to their lack of redevelopment potential, the City nevertheless included 8501 Wilshire Blvd., which contains a major pediatrics care facility operated by Cedars-Sinai, and 8641 Wilshire Blvd., which contains a primary care practice and 8 specialty care practices run by UCLA Health. These sites have existing uses that preclude their redevelopment as housing.

Misalignment Between Development Potential and Unit Count Calculation Because the City’s inclusion of many of its larger sites is based on the potential conversion of large office buildings, or the partial redevelopment of parking podiums and the like, it is important to understand whether the unit counts included in the City’s housing element account for the type of redevelopment being contemplated. This does not appear to be the case, but the housing element contains so little information about how the unit counts for each site were calculated that it is impossible to say for certain.

For example, 8949 Wilshire Blvd. is home to the Motion Picture Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater, which houses movie screenings and other public events. By all appearances, the theater will remain throughout the planning period, and we understand that the City may have included it with the understanding that the theater would remain and the rest of the building would November 23, 2022

Page 3 ends

be converted. But the assigned unit count does not appear to account for this form of redevelopment.

Similarly, we understand that a number of office buildings have been included based on their potential for conversion, or for partial redevelopment of a parking podium or portion of the site. But there is no information to suggest that the unit counts used for these sites account for the fact that redevelopment would encompass only part of the site, or be limited to the envelope of the existing structure.

Lack of Redevelopment Potential for Sites to Meet Lower Income RHNA The housing element concedes that “it is unlikely that a high percentage of the parcels within the MU Overlay Zone would be developed with mixed-use projects during the planning period” (C-11). The City nevertheless contends that its RHNA can be satisfied through a development of a “portion” of the listed sites.

Perhaps this is true for the moderate and above moderate RHNA allocations. But the surpluses of sites for the very low and low income categories are so small that it is unlikely that the City would be able to meet its requirements even assuming development of the City’s sites at nearly 100% of the maximum unit potential. The City must provide more evidence of the likelihood of development at the unit counts listed in its housing element, as well as more sites to ensure it meets its lower income RHNA requirements.

Lack of Clarity for Distribution of Units Between Income Levels Almost the entirety of the housing element’s sites inventory to meet the City’s RHNA is made up of underutilized sites in the City’s Mixed Use (MU) Overlay Zone. However, the sites inventory does not provide enough information to understand how each parcel was assigned to its income category. The housing element states that since the allowable density is greater than 30 units/acre in that zone, all sites are suitable for lower-income housing unless other factors apply, such as the state law minimum size requirement, but there is no analysis of factors that make a site more or less likely to redevelop at a certain income level. Indeed, the housing element appears to assume without evidence that all of the sites not suitable for lower-income development will be developed at 100% moderate-income levels.

Consistent with these assumptions, Table C-3 lists the number of lower income or moderate income units that can be accommodated on each site. But Table C-1 breaks down the underutilized sites into very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income categories. We have been unable to ascertain how the numbers in the two tables relate to one another, and there is no information in the document as to how the sites were assigned to particular income levels, nor does the housing November 23, 2022

Page 4 ends

element identify which sites are being counted as very low instead of low, or being counted as above moderate instead of moderate.

Instead, the City seems to have simply distributed the numbers in the manner necessary to determine that its RHNA requirement has been met. This bootstrapping approach is legally inadequate and we urge HCD not to accept it.
* * *
Thank you for considering these comments as you review the City’s housing element.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
From: Allen Shamooilian
To: City Clerk
Subject: Re: For reading relating to F1 tonight please
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 10:31:00 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Councilmembers and staff,
Thanks as always for your many hours of often thankless hard work and dedication.

As a stakeholder in various aspects of life in our great community, including as a property owner – I would like to again point out some major missed opportunities have an HCD approved Housing Element and avoid all the mess that comes without having one.

The editorial from this week in the LA Times titled “California Housing Development Remains Abysmal Despite Reforms” spells out much that must be considered. In a nutshell, the Mixed Use Ordinance ought to be less restrictive.

I submit they for Beverly Hills, that means greater height and density, especially for properties on the south side of the street (because of reduced shadow), lots that have larger than average separation from nearby residences, and those at major intersections.

Beverly Hills in various forums, including the General plan, the work of the Southeast Task Force, the past General Plan topic committees, and in major studies commissioned by the City identify certain properties as “Anchor” locations and at least one property that we own as also being a “Gateway” location. It is at these locations where greater height and density is often advised due to proximity to mass transit, unique ability to showcase exceptional architecture, greater accessibility, and more.

One such report by the Urban Land Institute said, “Development potential for key “gateway” locations (e.g., larger intersections) should be identified. These locations should be targeted for additional height and density and should be highlighted as areas where signature architectural buildings should be developed.” The same report describes the southwest corner of Wilshire and Robertson in particular: “the intersection of Wilshire and Robertson, where Wilshire Boulevard bends, provides an excellent opportunity to create a terminating vista”.

It is a shame to spend so much in terms of time and money only to overlook these recommendations that were generated.

I am available at your request to discuss ideas on the subject of improvements to the Mixed Use Overlay Zone in general and specific insights about Anchor and Gateway locations like ours.

On a separate note, please note that I am excited about what the Cheval Blanc project will do for the city as are a massive number of family, friends, and colleagues.

Best regards,
Allen Shamooilian
From: Mala Stieglitz
To: City Clerk
Subject: Please Read At City Council Hearing...Thanks
Date: Monday, February 6, 2023 10:14:28 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor Bosse and City Councilmembers,
I've been a resident of Beverly Hills for over 50. years. I love the city with all my heart. It's a been such a joy and a privilege to reside here. That said, I feel like the city has not been pro-active enough to develop additional apartment units for the next generation of residents. We need to build places that our children and grandchildren can afford. I kindly ask that any measures to protect existing tenants are balanced by the need for additional housing.

Yours,
Mala Stieglitz
From: Chloe Chen
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fw: housing element/mixed use
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 9:13:49 AM
Hi,
Please see a comment below for the Item F-1 - the Housing Element. Thanks! Chloe Chen
Senior Planner
Long Range Planning
Community Development Department
p (310) 285-1194
e [email protected]
From:

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Lili Bosse <[email protected]>; 'Lester Freedman' ; 'Julian Gold' >; John Mirisch <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Timmi Tway <[email protected]>; Chloe Chen <[email protected]> Subject: housing element/mixed use
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor and Council Members: while Tuesday’s hearing is focused on the entirety of the proposed Housing Element, a subset of that, as mentioned in the reports, relates to the newly created Mixed Use Overlay Zones as a potential for creating new housing. Unfortunately, there are not sufficient development incentives for such developments in these zones because of height and density limitations even with State density bouses. Commercial land in these designated areas sell for at least 2 – 3 times the amount per Sq ft as R 4 properties. As such, some added height and density should be allowed to offset the additional cost beyond what is currently allowed. . Recently the city approved an apartment project in an R4 zone with state density bonus at 6 stories..

Allowing 7 stories on a mixed use Wilshire site, would go a long way to provide a necessary incentive to purchase and develop mixed use on Wilshire without displacing any residents. On Wilshire, the bulk and massing of a building can be located more on the Wilshire side with greater setbacks required in the rear, reducing impacts on the residents. Thank you for your consideration of these issues.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Anne Arenson
City Clerk
BH City Council Hearing on 2/21/23 (Housing Shortage Comment) Monday, February 20, 2023 7:08:38 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Council members,
There is a serious housing shortage, particularly of affordable units both in our state as well as in our community.

We all need to do our part. Not just because the state says so but because it's the right thing to do. It's clear that the best place to put such housing in a city like Beverly Hills is in the commercial districts like along Wilshire Boulevard. Instead of more offices, we would be better served having more housing. We say this as community members that live on the block north of Wilshire ( North Oakhurst Drive) and might be impacted by additional development. NIMBYism is not for us and it should not be for you. Keep up the great work.

Sincerely,
Dr. Howard Winter and Dr. Anne Arenson Winter.

February 21, 2023
Dear Mayor Bosse and City Council:

I am writing in support of the Cheval Blanc project and urge you to place it on the ballot as soon as possible.

I was invited to one of the first community outreach meetings and was immediately extremely impressed by the project. I have followed on Channel 10 every planning commission and city council meeting since then. The intense questioning and complete analysis by all involved is what we, our community, have come to expect from our dedicated representatives.

I was disappointed to hear of the tactics employed to secure signatures to place this on the ballot.

Referenda are a staple of sound government, but only when the points of view are presented in a fair and honest manner to allow the voters to decide an issue. I hope we can secure this objective.

Thank you for your service to our community.

LOU Milkowski
From: Jessica Azizzadeh
To: Bht Company
Cc: Jessica Azizzadeh; Laura Biery; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Request for special loading| curbside food Pick up sign in front of our restaurant Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 4:38:13 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Ms. Biery,
Thank you very much for getting back to Delvin and Pumi. I am Jessica Azizzadeh, the property manager for the building at 9032-9040 Burton Way and I am writing on behalf of our tenant and the landlord Lili Damavandi. Currently we have two retail vacancies due to Covid and we have the restaurant and the nail salon occupying the bldg. Having the meters designated as parking pick up zone for the restaurant has not affected our nail salon and is crucial to this kosher business at the moment. Many of the Jewish community that wear kippas or show any kind of religious garb are fearful. A close stop to pick up kosher food as an alternative to those fearful of dining in is a clear offering of safety. As a matter of fact, the only other people that use those spots end up being the neighboring valet or business down the street which has their own parking in front and behind their buildings. We urge you to please continue this designated pick up location at the meter in front of this building for a longer time to support this wonderful restaurant: Beverly Hills Kosher Thai at 9036 Burton way, Beverly Hills, CA 90211.

Thank you so much.

Jessica Azizzadeh
From: Omn Jala
To: City Clerk
Subject: Curbside pick up Sign
Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:36:24 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello. I am writing you and the city committee to request a permanent sign for curbside pick up & delivery to be in front of our restaurant Beverly Hills Thai Kosher Kitchen located at 9036 Burton way Beverly Hills CA 90211
We experience Sales Drop from Dining in customer group from the tragic shooting Pico Robertson Last week
As a popular Glatt Kosher Thai restaurant serving Jewish Orthodox community - we would need to do our best to maintain our take- out/ pick up sales and the permanent assigned curbside pick up sign will tremendously help us for our pick up customers, their conveniences and the message that “we care” (of their safety, ease up their fear) hope they will dine-in at the restaurant again soon
Thank you so much for the opportunity to hear our requests & concerns.

Sincerely
Delvin & Pumi
Owners
February 21, 2023
Re: Item G-3, February 21, 2023 City Council Formal Meeting (permanent limit on third-party delivery fees)
Dear Councilmembers,
My name is Toney Anaya and I serve as DoorDash’s Head of Government Relations. At DoorDash, our mission is to grow and empower local economies. We do that by connecting customers with the best of their communities, helping local merchants grow their businesses, and providing delivery drivers (or “Dashers”) access to meaningful earnings opportunities.

I write to express DoorDash’s concern with the proposed ordinance that would make the city’s temporary limit on the fees that platforms like DoorDash may charge restaurants permanent.

While DoorDash supports efforts to help restaurants, making this pandemic-era law permanent is unnecessary based on improved conditions in the city, could harm customers, Dashers, and the very restaurants the law is designed to protect, and could result in needless litigation given the law’s unconstitutionality.

First, a permanent price control is unnecessary based on the vastly improved state of the pandemic and the variety of options available to restaurants that choose to partner with platforms like DoorDash. When temporary limits on delivery fees were first imposed the city and its restaurants were in crisis: dining rooms were closed, social distancing was in effect, and vaccines were still months away. And while restaurants and other small businesses still need time to fully recover, the state of the pandemic could not be more different now: dining rooms are fully reopened, social distancing and mask requirements have been lifted, and vaccines are widely available. Conditions have improved to the point that California’s state of emergency is set to be terminated at the end of February.

Restaurant sales are also bouncing back to pre-pandemic levels. Monthly sales at food services and drinking places establishments (seasonally adjusted) in the United States increased to over $89 billion in November 2022 compared with $66 billion in November 2019 in nominal terms.

Adjusting for menu price inflation to November 2022 dollars, real sales increased almost 14% from $78 billion in November 2019 to $89 billion in November 2022.

Now that the city’s economy has reopened and restrictions on businesses have been lifted, restaurants in Beverly Hills again have options when it comes to serving their customers. Some choose dine-in only, some offer pickup, and some choose to supplement their core business by offering delivery. Those that do offer delivery can do so on their own, through a courier service, DoorDash 303 2nd Street,
8th floor, South Tower
San Francisco, CA 94107
@DoorDash
DoorDash.com
or in partnership with platforms like DoorDash, which allow restaurants to reach new customers and offer delivery without the start-up costs or overhead expense to their business.

In April 2021, DoorDash debuted new pricing plans that give small- and medium-sized restaurants the ability to offer customers delivery through our Marketplace and pay only a 15% commission, which would match the city council’s proposal. Restaurants that want to pay more to access additional services can opt in to those services and pay a higher commission. Since DoorDash debuted these new pricing plans, others in the industry have offered restaurants similar options.

Restaurants also have access to Storefront, a DoorDash product that allows restaurants to create an online ordering system using their own branded website and offer delivery through DoorDash without paying a commission--restaurants simply pay a processing fee per order of 2.9% + $0.30.

Second, a permanent price control could hurt customers, restaurants, and Dashers in Beverly Hills. History shows that price controls like this one don’t work and are more likely to damage competition in the long run. A permanent limit on the fees that delivery platforms may charge restaurants could hurt customers, restaurants, and Dashers. Like in other markets with similar laws, customers could see higher fees. We estimate that total volume could drop by about 12%, resulting in less revenue for restaurants and fewer earnings for Dashers. Platforms will also have less incentive to invest in improvements in service in Beverly Hills.

Finally, a permanent price control is unconstitutional and could result in needless litigation. The proposed ordinance would permanently rewrite private contracts between delivery platforms and restaurants and unfairly favor one industry over another. While policymakers have argued that temporary caps were justified by the pandemic (which we dispute) no such justification can be made for a permanent cap. Lawsuits challenging permanent price controls have already been filed in New York City and San Francisco, and the San Francisco lawsuit survived an early attempt by the city at dismissal. San Francisco has since amended its permanent price control in exchange for DoorDash dismissing its lawsuit against the city.

We are eager to work with the city council to ensure that local restaurants continue to thrive as we emerge from the pandemic. But making the temporary limit on fees permanent will not accomplish that goal. We look forward to working with the city on this issue.

Sincerely,
Toney Anaya, Global Head of Government Relations
DoorDash 303 2nd Street,
8th floor, South Tower
San Francisco, CA 94107
@DoorDash
DoorDash.com

Beverly Hills City CouncilFebruary 21, 2023

Beverly Hills City Council
February 21, 2023