Sorry for the brief delay. This is the City of, of every Hill City Council adjourned regular meeting and parking authority meeting today is June 27th. It's a little after 7 p.m. and if we can start with the Pledge of Allegiance and if I If I can have Robbie Anderson call the roll, please. Where are the City Council. Council member Wells. Mayor we're trying to locate her online. She's virtual. We're trying to get her hooked up right now. Council member Korman. Here. Council member Mirish. Here. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Here. Mayor Friedman here. Do we? Let me interrupt the roll call if I may and do one other thing if I can and then we'll go back to the roll call. Tonight I'd like to take a few minutes to remember the life of a true Beverly Hills treasure. Phil Savanick accomplished writer and producer and president of the Beverly Hills Historical Society passed away last week. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing Phil know that he truly loved Beverly Hills. He loved Beverly Hills. He loved Beverly Hills. Every time I spoke with him, I learned something new about our city that I hadn't known before. He graduated from Beverly High in 1969 and attended UCLA graduating with a degree in cinema and television arts. During 35 years as a producer and documentarian, he received recognition with three Emmy nominations, including as co-producer of Donald Duck's 50th birthday, and great moments in Disney animation, and for editing the 75th annual Academy Awards. The list of his acclaimed work and accomplishments is endless, but we should know that Phil produced the centennial documentary, the stars who saved our city, which focused on the campaign led by eight prominent Beverly Hills residents to keep our independence from Los Angeles. The outpouring of love from across the community has been tremendous over the last few days. Tonight we have Robbie Anderson with us to say a few words about his dear friend. And we would like to hear from Robbie. Who is good evening, Council. Nice to see you. I'm going to kind of read through this right now. I'm Robbie Anderson you guys know me and I'm representing the Beverly Hills Historical Society Robbie can just talk right now the mic. Thank you. Okay. I'm Robbie Anderson is board member of the Beverly Hills Historical Society and long-time friend of Phil Sabnick I thank the council for inviting me here to speak tonight. It's a sad time for our city We lost a valuable member of our community. So I'd like to take this time to acknowledge what an outstanding citizen Phil was. Phil comes from a family with a tradition of service to Beverly Hills. His dad, Ben Norton, was mayor during the 84 Olympics, and his mom, Rose Norton, whose birthday is Saturday. Worked hard for Beverly Hills, including the eight years on the Planning Commission. Rose asked me to thank everybody for the flowers that she has received, but she needs no more flowers. She asked me to use something to your charity and put it in Phil's name. Phil and I bonded over when the hundredth anniversary was coming around in 2014. I had my books and he had movies and the 250 people that he interviewed that's going to be on file with the city forever. And we've worked together to help people understand the barely hills is the most famous small town in the world. Sorry. Underfills leadership, the Beverly Hills Historical Society made huge strides in our mission to preserve honor and share the rich history of Beverly Hills in its residents. Along the way, we have a massed an archive of tens of thousands of historic photos, recordings, and documents, which are available to all of you. Phil and I shared the belief the archive only has value if it can be easily accessed by anyone anywhere. That's why we created our website. We also created an award-winning mobile app, the Beverly Hills Experience, and if you haven't gone there, please do. It was Phil Icede to put our history in the park with the QR codes that you see around the fountain and up at the Will Rogers Park. He was an amazing storyteller. I mean, you've all got stories of experiences with Phil, I'm sure. Pointing out this and that and he was a great guy. Phil was an amazing storyteller. His tours were legendary. And Phil spearheaded the celebration of the 100th anniversary of his city's independence. But with screening as a gray stone, the stars who saved Beverly Hills. Phil dared to dream, Bick, and we made many of his dreams a reality. But we're not done, not by a long shot. I'd like to introduce the Historical Society's Executive Director, Kevin Miller, who will be running the day-to-day operation of the Beverly Hills Historical Society. We are not going anywhere. We've got things planned for the Olympics and for the World Cup. And we've shared with you previously some of our ideas for a reception for the housing for the I'll send them to you. And here's the best part. Everything we do is for fun and for free and for Phil. Thank you for listening. We extend our deepest condolences to Phil's mother, Rose Norton, to his life partner, Suzanne Hurtfelder, who is with us here tonight, and to all his friends and family. Please join us in a moment of silence as we honor the life and legacy of Phil Savinick. Thank you. If we can go back for the roll call and start the roll call again. Council Member Wells. She's logging in as we speak. Okay. Council Member Korman. Here. Councilmember Korman. Here. Councilmember Mirosh. Here. Vice-Marian Zarian. Still here. Mayor Friedman. Here. Should I start with, maybe, I can't hurry and then come back. I'm here. Oh, there she is. Okay. So why don't she is. Okay. So why don't you. Okay. Council member Wells. Here. Okay. And now for parking authority, Director Wells. Here. Director Korman. Here. Director Mirish. Here. Vice Chair Nazarian. Here. And chair Friedman here Okay, if I could have my car. It's meet me down below and we have a couple presentations I'm going to put it on the top. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. So I am very pleased to acknowledge two of our new city commissioners and would like to ask us all to welcome them if they would both come up. Our commissioners are Tara Riceberg and Benjamin Ritterbush. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So, our commissioners pay plays such a critically important role in our city government. So I want to thank you both for committing your time and experience to the city of Beverly Hills. And if we just get a couple comments from you start with you. I just want to thank you for this. It is such an honor to be a part of a commission in Beverly Hills. It is the small city with a big heart and it is a pleasure to work with community services and really just step up to say I love this city and anything I can do to help make it better I'm here to do it. So thank you. It's a real big. If I may, can I just say Ditto? It's an honor and privilege to accept us and work with the city. It's fantastic. I enjoy every moment of working with public works and Sean on the back there and I continue to show up and help make an improvement improvements. Very good thank you so we're going to take a photo we're going to take the certificates back from you because we're going to have them signed by our city clerk once she comes back so would but they'll do in the picture. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. I think that's it. Go back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay, so a text be aged text messages on any city related topic may be sent to 310 596 4265. City staff will acknowledge receipt of the text message within one business day. However, resolution of issues may take longer. If you would like to receive updated text alerts from the Beverly Hills Police Department, please text BHPD Alert to 888-777. Text alerts will keep you informed of any police activity within the city. We'll now go to oral communications. The telephone call in number is 310-288-2288. And we will take any slips on any non-agentized items? Do we have any none? We do not. Any video, telephone or emails on non-agentized? We do not. Okay, so we will then go to We do not. Okay. So we will then go to item D1 and if we could have Council Member Cormin, if you would read item D1. Thank you. I move the adoption of the Consent Agenda as follows. Item D1, approval of lease modification agreement, 10th amendment of lease with Margaret Kavorkian, DBA Beverly cleaners at 309 North Cresson Drive. Second. And we could have the role. Director Wells. Director Korman. Yes. Director Mirish. Vice Chair Nazarian. Yes. Chair Friedman. Yes. And we'll now move to item E. And I have been requested by staff to pull item number four, which will be rescheduled to a new date. And I have a comment on number E6. Do we have any other comment cards on any consent items? We do not. Okay, so why don't we hear the comment on E6 and then we'll read the rest of the consent calendar. If I could have Verena, Blyio and Myra Laurie. Good evening. I'm here to just express deep gratitude for the consideration of renewed partnership funding through the Community Assistance Grand Fund to Maple Counseling Center. And just wanted to personally stand before you, on behalf of 300,000 people, Maple Counseling has supported it's all due to the City of Beverly Hills. We were founded when concerned parents and Beverly Hills wanted to tackle mental health issues of adolescents and it was considered to be a commission and then we came in own nonprofit that's thriving to this day and we're just so honored and in deep gratitude for the ability to service the constituents of the city of Beverly Hills and recognizing that mental health services continue to be incredibly vital and that you have recognized that for your constituents. Now I give it to Myra. Hi, I'm Myra Lurie Vice Chair of the Board of Maple Counseling and I too wanted to thank you very much for this partnership and for the generous grant address grant that is going to be well spent and critically needed to provide affordable or free comprehensive quality mental health care for people of all ages and stages. And this grant exemplifies the dedication to mental health and general wellness for all of our community members that is part of Beverly Hills and so much core value of our city. So we do want to thank you so much. Thank you and thank you for wearing this hat today. Tomorrow you're going to be wearing a different hat. There are so many hats that you wear in our community. So thank you, Myra and thank you for all the work that you do too. Thank you. Okay, so there being no minutes to read we can go through this I'm gonna ask Councilmember Miroshy if you can read the entire Consent agenda study with number one skipping number four and all the way through nine I move the adoption of the consent agenda as follows. One review of budgeted demands paid covering dates June 11, 2024 to June 17, 2024. Two payroll disbursement report covering dates June 11, 2024 to June 17, 2024. Ordinance of the City of Beverly Hills, three adopting and amending the state mid-cycle updates to the 22 California Green Building Standards Code, and amending title nine of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code and approving a CEQA exemption determination, second reading for adoption. Approval of five cultural heritage commissionments, Laurie Green Gordon, Andy Lickt, and Alan Robert Block. 6 recommendations of the City Council liaise on Human Relations Commission Committee for Allocation of Community Assistant's Grants Funding, CAGF for fiscal year 2024-2025, and authorization for the City Manager to execute all 23 fiscal year, 2024, 2025 CAGF agreements, in an amount not to exceed $1,113,500, an authorization for the city manager to execute five fiscal year 2024, 2025 critical service provider agreements in a total amount not to exceed $1,292,644, and authorization for the city manager to approve all purchase orders for the foregoing agreements. Seven, recommendation to continue safety and hospitality services to the residents and visitors of Beverly Hills. Authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with Bb-CA-inc, DBA, block by block, California for safety and hospitality and basseter services in the not to exceed amount of $1,185,249. For the first nine months of fiscal year 2024, 2025, an approval of purchase order in the amount of $1,185,249. For fiscal year 2024, 2025, for BBB-CA-A-NK, DBA, Block by Block, California, and request for the mayor to establish bind insurance coverage in the not to exceed amount of $15,250,000 and authorize a purchase order to alliant insurance services for the insurance premiums and broker fees for fiscal year 2024 2025 and the not to exceed amount of $15,250,000. Nine, acceptance of the contract work for Robertson Boulevard's Sidewalk Improvements project by Environmental Construction Inc. in the final amount of $4,802,675,17, and authorization of City Clerk to record notice of completion. Second. And if we have the rule. Council Member Wells. Council Member Korman. Yes. Council Member Mirosh. Yes. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes. Mayor Friedman. Yes. Okay. Going on to item number F1. amendment of an existing covenant to remove the medical use prohibition in the existing commercial building located at 9150, Wilshire Boulevard. May we have an oral report on this matter from the assistant director of community development city planner, Masakir. development, city planner, Massau here. Good afternoon, Council and Honorable Mayor Friedman. This is a very quick staff report. It's a simple procedural issue. So the property owners submitted a request to modify an existing covenant to remove a prohibition on medical uses in a commercial building. We were preparing for a hearing. The city mailed the noticing taking care of our part of the process. The applicant was required to post on site to meet the municipal code noticing requirements by June 7th. The site was not posted. Staff went out and verified and the site was not posted. Staff went out and verified and the site was not posted. So the recommendation is to continue the project to date uncertain. We can go take care of the noticing. We need to collect additional fees from the applicant in order to send the mailing out again. And we can reschedule this for a future council meeting. Thank you. Thank you. So is there anyone in the council chambers who would like to be heard on this matter? I don't have any Speaker slips yet doesn't look like I'm getting any anything Telephonically electronically I do not have anyone on Zoom, nor written. Are there any City Council questions of staff? Seeing none. Any comments from any members of the Council? Seeing none. At the request of staff and absent objection, The subject 9150 Wilshire Boulevard Project is continued by order of the mayor to a date uncertain. Staff will re-notice the project in accordance with city requirements for a future hearing date. Going on to item number F2. An appeal of staffs October 13, 2023, incomplete application determination, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943C, pertaining to the review of an application for a proposed 19 story residential and commercial mixed use building at 125 to 129 South, Linden Drive, and a resolution of the Council of the City of Beverly Hills denying an appeal of staffs October 13, 2023 in complete application determination and upholding the city's incomplete application determination, finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. And if I may ask the city clerk once she gets back to her seat. the city clerk once she gets back to her seat. What is this the time and place for? This is a time and place set for a public hearing to consider an appeal of staff's October 13, 2023 We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills. We are now in the city of Beverly Hills denying an appeal of staff's October 13, 2023 incomplete application determination and upholding the city's incomplete application determination, finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. But the records show that the notice of this hearing was published as required by law. The records and files of the community development department and the report of the assistant director of community development slash city planner concerning this matter shall be entered into the record. Now is also the time for council members to enter into the record any communications is also the time for council members to enter into the record any communications or other evidence not currently in the record that council members have received before this evening's hearing. So we'll start with council member Wells. I have none to report. Councilmember Corman. I have had no communications about this matter with members of staff. Councilmember Mirish? Nothing to report. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Also nothing to report. And I have nothing to report. May we have an oral report on this matter from the Assistant Director of Community Development So, this is an appeal of an incomplete application determination and incomplete letter completed by city staff. So why are we here? The government code provides a provision that states that a public agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal a incomplete determination in writing to the governing body of the agency. In the case of Beverly Hills, we do provide that process. It is BHMC Title 1, Chapter 4, Appeal and Review Procedures, and specifically, Appeal of Administrative Decisions to Council. So that incomplete letter is an administrative decision, and it's getting appealed to Council. So, as background on this particular project, in October of 2022, a preliminary application was filed by a law firm on behalf of 9300 Wilshire. That preliminary application identified a project with 170-foot height, 200 dwelling units, and subterranean parking. So it was a residential project. A preliminary application was filed to vest the rights of the project to be processed, pursuant to the rules and effect when the PA was submitted. And this is something that's in a state rule, the Housing Accountability Act. It is, it is, quote,ally known as the Builders Remedy Project because they are asking for a project that doesn't necessarily meet the city zoning and general plan standards. So a preliminary application is a method to lock in certain rules and you need to submit your formal project within 180 days of that preliminary application. So the applicant did submit a formal application called a development plan review in April of 2023. That project was 200 feet tall, had 165 dwelling units, and now a hotel has been added as well as a restaurant. So staff completed a review of that formal application in May. In September, the applicant responded to those comments and resubmitted their application and within a month staff reviewed that resubmital and deemed the project incomplete again. So about a month after that, a formal appeal of that October level letter was submitted. Subsequent to that, the applicant kept working on their project and submitted another version of the project in January. And actually after that, they submitted the appeal fees for that appeal of the second letter. So staff continued to work on the project and in February completed their review and deemed the project incomplete again. And then the applicant submitted a fourth time and staff completed that review. And throughout this process, the amount of incomplete items was reduced. So what is Builders Remedy? It is certain provisions in the Housing Accountability Act that must be made in order for a local agency to disprove a qualifying housing development project. So, in certain circumstances, the Builders Remedy provisions may limit a local agency's authority to disprove a project if it has affordable units, even if that project is inconsistent with the general plan and zoning regulations. So it is a provision in state law that allows for folks to apply for certain types of projects. So in their appeal provision, their appeal petition, the applicant lists the following rationals for their appeal. Their first rationel is the project maintains vested rights pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act. And the second is the Builders Remedy Provision of the Housing Accountability Act applies to the project. So running in detail through the items in their appeal petition, the applicant asserts that the project maintains vested rights pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act. They say that the preliminary application that was submitted in October remains valid despite the DPR project being different than the PA project. Just to reiterate, the PA project was a multi-family project. The DPR project is a mixed use project that includes a hotel. So the applicant asserts that the DPR project does not exceed the 20% threshold in change in units or floraia from the PA project that would invalidate the PA. And the applicant asserts that they are entitled to unlimited 90 day periods in which to address incomplete items for each of the city's 30 day review periods. So this is the applicant's assertions. From staff's perspective, the project does not maintain the Vesta rights pursuant to the Housing and Crisis Act. It is a different project. The PA was a different project than the one, the DPR project that was submitted within 180 days with substantially different uses. There is a preliminary application requirement that the proposed land uses by number of units in square feet using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance be provided. The PA did not include commercial uses. It was only a multifamily. Hotel and restaurant uses were not contemplated in the PA. So from staff's perspective the PA allows for a 20% adjustment in the number of units, but nothing in state law allows for the introduction of new land uses in a formal application that were not identified in a PA. So the applicant had the option of submitting a new PA for the mixed use project prior to the City Council of the adoption of the housing element, which occurred in March of this year. And they could have submitted prior to the state certification of the housing element, which occurred in May, to remedy the issue, but the applicant did not submit a new PA prior to either one of those states. So secondly, the timely submittal of information. From staff's perspective, the PA has expired and have no further effect because the formal project was not complete within a 90-day period that's called out in state law. So this is a government code section that identifies that 90-day period and it identifies it as the 90-day period. This is a 90-day period that provides you an opportunity to respond to the city's comments. State law does not provide an unlimited, unlimited 90 day review periods after each incomplete determination. So secondly, the Builders Remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act applied to the project. So from the applicant's perspective, the city has requested the applicant to file a general plan amendment, a zone change, and zone text amendment to address the project's inconsistency with the various zoning and general plan provisions. So the applicant asserts that they're not required pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act to address the outstanding zoning and land use issues. From the city's perspective, nothing in the HAA limits the city's ability to request for the applicant to file a general plan amendment, zone text amendment, and zone change application to cure inconsistency in land use by the proposed project. So, HCD, and that was the perspective of staff when we made the comments in October. And actually there was a letter to Compton that be affirms that that was a good perspective to have. In that letter, the question to HCD was, does the HAA prevent a city from requiring that a project application include a request to amend the general plan zoning code in order to avoid a legal non-conformity if when the project is approved. The short answer by HCD was, no provision in the HAA prevents a local government from requesting a general plan, zoning code amendment, in order to avoid a legal non-conformity. This is not saying that you can't apply for this based on the Builders Remedy. This is just saying that we can ask for an application. So interestingly enough, yesterday, HCD wrote a new letter and they addressed it to Beverly Hills. And they said, a jurisdiction that refuses to process or approve a project subject to the Builders Remedy due to the applicant's refusal to submit a general plan zone change requested or required by a jurisdiction to resolve such an inconsistency violates the intent of the HAA. So this is a different perspective than the Compton letter. So in October, I think that from the staff's perspective, I mean it seemed to be fair to be asking for the general plan amendment and zone text amendment so that we could resolve any inconsistencies, analyze it, and protect the do right process of neighbors. So state law, this is regarding the appeal petition filing. State law requires that public agencies provide a process by which an applicant can appeal the city's determination that an application is incomplete. So as I said earlier in this presentation, the government code section says the public agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision and writing on to the governing body of the agency. So we do have that. And Title One, chapter four, article one, requires that appeal petitions be filed within 14 calendar days after the decision. So this appeal petition was filed in November 31 days after the incomplete determination. And actually the applicant didn't pay their fees until 90 days after the incomplete determination. So I mean this section of the code, you've had other items come before council that where people have paid their required fees, have filed their appeal within 14 days of decisions that are not decisions of the planning commission or the architectural commission or staff decisions and they've been agendized in the past. And in fact, the City Council also follows Title 1 chapter 4 on a regular basis when you call up items. And Council has always called up those items within 30 days. So after the appeal filing, the applicant can continue to submit for additional rounds of reviews that occurred in January and May. And in those subsequent reviews by City staff, we found that additional items were completed by the applicant and we submitted and we issued in complete determinations in February and June of this year. So staff recommends that Council hold the public hearing to consider the appeal of staff's October determination, that the application for the proposed mixed use development at Linden is incomplete and adopt a resolution that's attached. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much and I will now open the public hearing on this matter. I have some speaker slips and we'll go in the order they were given to me. First speaker is Ken Goldman and we're're gonna limit the speaking time to the three minutes. But if you can finish up sooner than that, it's appreciated. There are a number of speaker cards, and I believe there's some electronic also in telephonics. But you do have three- I make a few seconds over, but my generous wife has agreed to provide that extra seconds from her time allotted. That's even going to take three. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council members. Good evening. I'm here representing the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association, approximately 440 homes in the Southwest corner of our city where this project is located. Why are we here and why do we feel so strongly opposed to the developer's greedy plans for 19 stories, 200 feet high, 165 dwelling units, plus 73 hotel rooms and a restaurant? Because none of the developer's greedy plans for 200 feet in height conform to the city's 55 foot height limit. Because none of the developers greedy plans for only 127 parking spaces meet the city's requirements for 529 parking spaces for this project, including the fact that the developer has provided zero replacement parking for the office building adjacent to this project. Because none of the developer's greedy plans comply with the city's density requirements for this parcel, which would limit the number of dwelling units to 25, not 165 plus a hotel. And this proposed out-of-scale non-compliant over development of 19 stories would be next to a two-story apartment building. With other buildings on the street, two, three, and four stories, an elementary school, and dozens of one-in-two-story single-family residences on the two-and-three-hundred blocks. This developer's application is incomplete as you have heard so eloquently from staff. Its May 9th, 2024 application does not contain all of the information required and requested. Right here I was going to quote the letter from the State Department of Housing and Community Development to the City of Compton, but staff has read it. I don't think you need to hear it twice, but it confirms the fact that the city of Compton, but staff has read it. I don't think you need to hear it twice, but it confirms the fact that the city is allowed to request additional information. And think of the environmental effects, including the substantial increase in traffic on Lyndon, Charlieville, and adjacent streets, already heavily trafficked, and the streets overwhelmed with the effect of the proposed under-parking, which is massively under-parked. This project is deeply flawed and will materially adversely affect the quality of residential life for the hundreds of residents living on the one, two, and three hundred block of Lyndon. The students at Good Shepherd and the adjacent streets. All of us urge that you remain firm in the position that this developer's application is incomplete does not qualify for builders remedy and must return with a plan that complies with our city's general plan and zoning requirements. We are counting on you. And I want, at the end, to thank Edgar Royo and the planning staff and the planning department of this city for their thorough, meticulous, and persuasive work in responding to this developer's outrageous proposal and the dozens of submissions and studies that the developer presented. Thank you and once again we're counting on you. Thank you. Thank you. And I should have said this before, this speaking time is really for people who do not wait till later on and are given an opportunity to speak now. So I'm gonna ask, I made the assumption can on your behalf that you wanted to do that early, but are any other speakers who would like to speak early because they need to leave. Seeing none others? Oh, we do. Okay, please do okay. Please come forward And if you can please state your name. Hi, my name is Sophie Normanova and I reside at 141 South Lyndon Drive, Unit 301, 90212. Yes, and when I first heard of this building to be built in our little beautiful, peaceful community, I was absolutely shocked and just flabbergasted. We already, okay, 19 story building on 125 to 129 Lyndon dry. Wow. Like I said, I reside in 141 blah blah blah and I'm starting to feel like an aunt in our community. It feels like the walls are caving in and we have no word and You know just a little off note. Some people say this will bring up the property values of our units. I disagree. I think this whole project will actually bring down the property values because nobody wants to live in a chaotic, very very a hectic place. They want a peaceful place to live and raise their children and all of that, especially in Beverly Hills. Now this building has 165 rental units and 73 hotel rooms and only 126 parking places. How do you think that will impact Lyndon Drive? We barely have enough permit parking available right now. I cannot imagine having any less because of this influx of all these people that would be in this new building. So much traffic is already on our street with the school drop-offs, pickups and all the residential permit parking. I can barely get out of my parking garage as there are so many cars coming from left and right in each direction. It's an accident waiting to happen. And really, the four corners of Wilshire and London are crazy with traffic and congestion already. People are doing illegal terms all the time and endangering, how do you say, pedestrian, pedestrians. I cannot imagine any more noise of all this hustle and bustle of a hotel and all the extra car pollution, all the extra trash created in the alleys for pickup from hotel restaurants and the residents. There is no room right now. We don't need any more new transients in the neighborhood, especially with the school on the street. Crime is increasing and we don't need more potential crime in the neighborhood. The school in itself is very loud enough, but you know, I've come to live with it over the years, but still very loud. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate your empathy regarding our greatest concerns regarding this project. This would be a nightmare for Linda Drive. Thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any of these? This hotel belongs downtown or Marvista or where? I'm a century city. Century City. Those are zone for all these things. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Are there any other members of the public who need or want to leave early and provide public comment? Sir, come on. And please provide your name. Hi, my name is Stuart Kaplan. I live in the 200 block of South London. I also work in the Mickey Fine Pharmacy Building on 435 North Rocksbury. 165 apartments, 73 hotel rooms, a hotel, at least one car, a parental apartment, probably two cars. That's almost at 1.5 cars per unit. That's almost 250 cars. That's almost at 1.5 cars per unit. That's almost 250 cars. The hotel, assuming only half the people need cars, that's 37 cars. The employees that are needed. That's probably another 100 cars. You're looking at 400 cars. I stop by, I walk to work. Why do I walk to work, by the way? I can't get out of my freaking parking way in the morning. My wife, my kids have to go to school. Sometimes it could take them literally a minute, two minutes, just to wait for the traffic to stop. Charlieville is backed up two blocks going east west. North, again, Linden is completely backed up because it's a cut-through street that has a light that allows you to turn right and left. So more people come up Lyndon that are going to come up other streets which only allow you to turn one direction right. I stop by the parking lot that this will replace. These are the pictures you welcome to look at it by eight o'clock, eight fifteen'clock, 15 this morning, every single spot was full. Not only was every spot full, but every pathway to every spot was full. And cars were waiting to go in. They were already 97 cars. I counted them in the parking lot already. Where are these cars going to go? Well, where are they coming from? There's not enough parking in the medical area north of Wilshire. The Bedford Lot, the two hour free parking is always full. We've already lost parking spaces due to loading zones, drop off zones and restaurants. So, where are people parking? The people that can't even park in the medical building are now parking in the lots there. You're going to have 400 cars. You're only going to have what was it? 120 something spots. Where are the other 300 people going to go and where are the 100 people that are already parking in this spot. And that doesn't even include the cars that go in and out which probably accounts for probably another 100 to 150 cars. We have already a quality of life that's adversely affected because of all the drop-offs, et cetera. I understand that people want work, people want to build, but we are permanent residents here where tax paying, property tax, paying residents, and our quality of life will be adversely affected forever. Okay, well that's basically it. It's going to really be a terrible thing. I understand the cars that are there, but we're not even replacing the parking lot. That's going to be completely gone. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other speakers who would like to provide early comments? Sir, come on up. My name is Edward DeBito and I'm from 141 South London, Union 305. A couple of years ago my wife and I bought this condominium unit in a beautiful plain area of Beverly Hills close to Rodeo Drive, close to downtown, yet very peaceful, single two-story homes, five-story max, apartment buildings, condominium buildings. And all of a sudden, we see this little sign that we didn't pay attention to much until my daughter pointed out, my daughter was a lawyer, says, have you seen this? And then we're looking at it and I'm like, what, 19 floors? Show me a single building in Beverly Hills, 19 floors. At least one that I can see a mile away and started talking to Edgar, who was very kind to explain. Basically, like everybody said before me, 165 residential units, before me said, you got to figure about one and a half parking stalls per unit. That's right there 250 parking stalls. 73 hotel rooms. That's let's say half of that, another 3540 parking stalls. Then retail spaces including restaurants. Restaurants require the highest, I believe, is one parking stall for every 15 square feet of dining room plus the employees. So for this project to only have 125 parking spaces is ridiculous. I mean, we're gonna create a situation that it's just intolerable. So anyways, that to us is one of the worst problems. We also, I'm an architect as well, so we pay attention to things. This building is sitting immediately next to a seismic fault, and the plants show that there's an area that the builder, it's not allowed to build. So what they did, they increased the dimension of the upper floors to increased density. So the upper floors are wider than the lower floors. So basically you have cantilever floors. So that creates kind of like the feeling of living next to an inverted pyramid. Very scary. And then the other basically going back to 19 stories, totally disproportionate for an area, a city that we all love, the small town feel of houses that are two stories. Like I said, maximum of five story, 55 feet high buildings. All of a sudden we're going to have this monstrous tower. That's basically, it's going to take all our privacy away. They're going to be able to look into our backyards and balconies. And basically, we're going to have zero privacy. So we urge you to please Deny this project. Thank you. Thank you Next speaker I have who do you speak early is Gail Schreiber? I'll get him out Hello. I want to thank the City Council and the Planning Department for their efforts to protect the quality of life we enjoy in the 100 block of South London Drive. There's a group of homeowners and residents in the 100 block who are united against this 19th story monstrosity. And we've, some of us have come tonight to represent that there is a community of people that may not be here tonight, but there's a community that is very upset about this. Many could not be here in person due to previously planned vacations. Others are older and not savvy on a computer, so have not sent in emails and aren't familiar with Zoom to participate tonight. Everyone is extremely upset about this proposal and the impact it would have on our residential neighborhood. We join everyone who was spoken tonight in their comments about the traffic and the safety for the children coming and going to elementary school across the street and to their church a few blocks away. South Lyndon is a narrow street and has cars and delivery trucks and repair vehicles parked all day long. When exiting the driveway in front of our building currently, our vision is blocked by the parked vehicles on both sides. It cannot support the large impact of additional traffic and no available parking. Again, we sincerely thank the City Council for their efforts to stop this project. of additional traffic and no available parking. Again, we sincerely thank the City Council for their efforts to stop this project. Thank you. Thank you. Another early speaker in the very back there. Good afternoon, Council. I appreciate everyone's comment here. I think everyone is talking about the height, the density, which are clear. Anyone knows that a project of this magnitude doesn't belong in that neighborhood. But I want to reiterate to everyone here that there's a policy here. You have guidelines, you have dates that things need to be requested, submitted, and responded to. The applicant has not done that. So I think it makes it very clear what your decision should be. One more thing to keep in mind is we renovated next door, we made it beautiful, we kept it, we kept with the context of the city. I don't think some of the neighbors appreciated the renovation going on. We did our best to get it done as quickly as possible and I hope they appreciate the outcome of what it looks like now And they'll have new neighbors soon not 173 new neighbors Another thing to keep in mind is Just to put some context behind this developer or whoever it is that's planning this project is They did not abate the weeds on that property. They've done half of it. Why have they done half of it so they can pack it with cars for parking? I don't know why they're parking in an empty lot so that should tell you a little story about intentions and where this developer is coming from. So yes, should they be building on an active earthquake fault? 19 stories? No. Should they be building a 19-story project next to two-story and three-story complexes? No. Anyways, I'll let everyone speak about what they feel about the project, but I don't care what's on paper with the project because what they've submitted is not complete and they miss their appeal periods. So it's very clear cut. Thank you for your time, everyone. Sorry, I have to run and sorry I haven't been more active in this. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I have one more really speaker card if anybody else I will ask at the cook well there's one person right there, please come up and State your name and name only My name is Christine Gargoye. I live at 201 South linden drive. I live at the corner of one South Lyndon Drive. I live at the corner of Lyndon and Charlieville. My parking garage opens into Charlieville. Not only do we have Good Shepherd School where there's traffic, drop-offs, pickups. We've got Beverly Hills High School and we have Century City Park driving east on, I'm sorry, west on Charlieville. Some mornings it takes me two, three minutes to get out of my parking garage and it's bumper to bumper and people are not cooperative or kind and they don't let you in. The other point I wanted to make was about Lyndon Drive. Not only is that street narrow, where then most of the streets in that district, but when I drive on busier boulevard going east and turn right on Lyndon Drive, that right angle is much larger than any other right angle of any street. So that makes it much more difficult to get onto Lyndon Drive than from Walshablevard. That has to be a consideration when thinking about approving this project. Also my friend Stuart who gave his report, he's a doctor in Beverly Hills. He says his patients complain all the time they can't find parking. And we were already heard how difficult it is to find parking in that area and how people often will park in a no parking zone and hopefully they don't get a ticket. And obviously that happens quite a bit. So there are so many issues with this that they had planned a hotel on the opposite side of the street, just north of the school and that was stopped. This has got to be another hotel and unit building that needs to be stopped and I hope you do that. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, and so far the last early speaker is Anna Bach. I'm going to go to the other speakers. I'm going to go to the other speakers. Good evening. I hadn't planned to speak, but as the other speakers spoke, I thought maybe it would be helpful if I just added one thing. Most of the people that have spoken are either from the 100 block or the 200 block of Lyndon. I'm from the 300 block and that's the furthest south before you get to Olympic. But I wanted to say that I have spoken to a number of my neighbors on our block across the street for me and next to me and all of us are as concerned as the people that are closer, going to be closer to this building if you were to approve it. We don't have the level of problems that some of these people are describing, but we do already on the 300 block have the same parking issues that are being described already. This is without anything else going up. It's difficult for us to get out of our driveway, especially if there's a later afternoon traffic that's coming from Olympic. It turns north, it goes up towards Wilshire because that's the only traffic signal that allows a left turn on the wheelchair. So it's just like an army parade of cars coming up the street for about a couple of hours until it dies down again. And I will tell you, they're not going slow if they can move. There's a lot of cars that can't move fast, but it's not safe, it's bad. And I'm not going to go on anymore and be repetitive. But the other concern that some of my neighbors have voiced to me is the fact that they're worried that if a building of this size goes up, I'm going to share in London that it's just going to lead. It's going to be the first step in other builders trying to build huge buildings. And it will just destroy the neighborhood that's north, I'm sorry, south of Walshure. And we're very, very concerned. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Bach, I have to ask this question. Please excuse me for doing it. Ms. Bach, do you live on the same block as the blocks? As the what? As the blocks? No, that's okay. It was this. Oh, I'm on the 300 block. Okay. Okay. They do. They live there too. Okay. Bad joke. Sorry guys. Okay. That was the last early speaker I had. So I am now going to ask the applicant or their representative if they'd like to be heard on this matter. Welcome, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. May I have 10 minutes to present our appeal justification? That'll be fine, sure. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that. Good evening. My name is Dave Rand. I am a land use attorney. My firm at Rand Pastry and Nelson represents the applicant. We are here tonight, council members, because we have been working in good faith for over a year now, attempting to advance this land use application and cross the very first hurdle in what is typically a very long process, which is the completeness stage. And we believe at this point that the incompleteness determination violates a number of state housing laws and should be allowed to proceed. We are not here about the merits of the project, parking, height, density. Those are all things that can be discussed and vetted later in the process. Tonight is just literally about process. Yesterday, the state housing and's development department sent the city of Beverly Hills a letter indicating that they agree with our position. And the city's refusal to deem this application complete and allow this project to advance, violates both the state housing accountability act and the state permit streamlining act. I want to say that I have a tremendous degree of respect for your planning department staff and your city attorney's office. However, we fundamentally disagree with the positions outlined in the staff report and communicated to you tonight, starting with the fact that this appeal that we're here tonight discussing the merits of was somehow filed untimely. The provision that Mr. Alkair mentioned to cite for untimeliness, Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 1-4-101 is clear and express that it does not apply to ministerial decisions. The determination of whether a land use application is complete or not, is the ultimate ministerial determination. That code provision also says that it is only relevant for actions governed under the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. The appeal we were here discussing tonight is a specific appeal right offered under state law under the State Permit Streamlining Act. That provision, citing a 14-day appeal period, has no applicability to this appeal tonight whatsoever, which is why we are here and why the fact that this appeal has been in process for over six months. If appeals are untimely, they are not accepted by cities. They are rejected, or if they are accepted, they are rejected shortly thereafter. This appeal was filed. Appeal fees paid and accepted. We have written communications indicating the appeal would be processed. This council continued the appeal hearing not once but twice and here we are discussing the item on the merits in no possible way could the arc of that process result in a appeal that could be considered filed untimely. We also firmly believe that we have completed all of the required items legally that we are compelled to submit to the city in order to be deemed complete. Before outstanding, so-called outstanding items identified in the staff report are all items that we have provided in terms of information or items in which we believe the staff has conflated code compliance, which is not required for a builder's remedy project, with information that can be requested at the complete stage. Or items that have been requested as supplemental items after the first and complete letter, which is also prohibited under the Permit Stream Lightning Act. But the real reason we are here, and the real reason we availed ourselves of this state law at Pule Right is not because we wanted to, but because it is obvious, Council, that there is a large, canyan-wide gulf of difference between us on some key fundamental legal points. One, that this is a builder's remedy project. That the city had an on-compliant housing element when we filed our investing SB 330 preliminary application. In this city, not only did HCD repeatedly confirm that when we filed our preliminary application, the city's housing element was out of compliance, but uniquely a court of law has confirmed that. As you know, Judge Kins decision was issued after our preliminary application was filed and that decision made expressly clear that prior to the city was out of compliance. And the consequences Judge Kins noted is the ability to file applications that are inconsistent with the general plan and or zoning and still be governed by the limited discretion offered under the State Housing Accountability Act. Yes, this project changed and morphed. A hotel component was added. However, the law is clear, as HCD's letter alluded to yesterday, that a change in land use does not render a preliminary application void. As HCD said, there are only two reasons why a preliminary application could be voided due to project changes. Those are outlined in government code section 65941.1c, a change in unit count or square footage by 20% or more. Staff has confirmed through our repeated correspondence that neither of those two change thresholds have been breached. Accordingly, this vesting application is still alive. When the legislature adopted the law that created the preliminary application, it acknowledged that it was preliminary. It was early in the process. Changes to projects were inevitable. That's what always happens, whether it's new land uses, whether it's changes in height. And that's why a flexible mechanism was set up to only allow two red lines that can't be breached, neither of which has been exceeded in this case. And as a result, notwithstanding the changes our application is still very much alive. Staff has taken the position, which I must admit, I have not seen in any other city, that the Permit Streamlining Act and the HAA allow an applicant only a one-time 90-day shot clock to complete all of the myriad of items that are requested from a city, by a city to an applicant. The law that ushered in the 90-day timeframe is called the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. It is simply illogical to assume that a law that was done for the primary purpose of spurring housing production and making it easier to process housing projects would have set up such a disadvantageous processing system for housing projects. The 90 days fits within the construct of the permit, streamlining act, which as HCD has noted in several memorandum is an iterative process. It repeats itself. And that is what has occurred here. And through that process, as Mr. Alkair noted, we have managed to check off a number of the items on the list. But we still agree, disagree, about some fundamental items, one of which is that a general plan in the mental zone change may be requested by the city and used as a basis for disapproval or deening the application incomplete. Yesterday's HCD letter made expressly clear that neither can be the case. In fact, they went so far as to say to deny the application of a Builders Remedy project like this. In fact, actually this project, for the applicant's failure to submit a general plan and its own change application would lead to a quote, absurd outcome end quote. They went on to say that deeming the application incomplete for the reasons of a lack of a general plan and amendment, zone change application also violates the Permit Stream Line Act. And in that later, they instructed and directed the city to approve this appeal as a result. I wanna end counsel by putting aside the legal saber rattling, regret deeply that we have to come here and do this tonight. When we filed this application, we're not oblivious to the fact that the city does not like the Builders Remedy provision. I get it. At the same time, this project can offer some significant benefits to the city in the way of affordable housing, which we believe you need, tax revenue, in a location that is a public parking parking lot right off one of the most major thoroughfares in the entire region. If density is not appropriate at this location, then where is it possibly located? But as we said, when we first met with your staff, this is not a take-it-or-leave proposition. Even though this tool, the state law, is less than well received by cities including Beverly Hills, we are not saying that we are unwilling to work with the city. In fact, the opposite. We would like to have the conversation about landing at a project that could work for both Beverly Hills and the applicant. Maybe that can happen. But all of the myriad of legal objections that your excellent city attorneys have put on the record for you, you can still use later down the road. Should you choose? Why not allow this project to at least go forward, at least cross the first processing step and hurdle to allow the conversation to go forward. What's the harm? Maybe we're in the same place, and it's a project you ultimately decide is most appropriate to disapprove. But maybe we can get to an outcome that works for both sides. We respectfully request, at a fairness, and appeal into your good judgment that you allow that conversation and appealing to your good judgment, that you allow that conversation and process to happen and grant our appeal this evening, as the state has suggested you must do. Thank you appreciate the opportunity to present before you this evening. Thank you very much. I am gonna go now back to public comment. I have speaker cards here and first speaker is Cynthia Clements. Good evening, Beverly Hills City Council members. My name is Cynthia Clemens and I am here on behalf of Abundant Housing LA to express our support for the proposed 165 unit mixed use development, which includes 33 affordable units. 125 to 129 Linden Drive. This project presents a significant opportunity to address Los Angeles County's pressing need for affordable housing while revitalizing an underutilized space. We urge the city to approve the project's application and allow it to proceed without further delay. This project will enhance the surrounding community by replacing surface parking lots with living spaces, a 73-room hotel, and a restaurant. The project will also move parking to a two-level underground parking structure and not result in any residential displacement. Grocery stores, shopping, restaurant, schools, and Beverly Gardens park are within walking distance, making this an excellent location for new housing. Transforming the current parking lot into a vibrant space represents a forward-thinking approach to urban planning. The proposed development at Lyndon Dry represents a crucial and time-sensitive step towards meeting our housing obligations and promoting economic growth. We urge the City Council to approve this project and demonstrate Beverly Hills commitment to inclusive and sustainable development. Further, failure to approve the project undermines Beverly Hills compliance with state housing laws and risk legal consequences as highlighted by Californians for home ownership. Further more to echo the California Department of Housing and Community Development or HCD. For the proposed project on Lyndon Drive, the City Council should grant the appeal and direct city staff to process the project without further delay. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, I have this Clayton Becker. Good evening. Good evening, members of the council. My name is Clayton Becker. I am a PhD researcher at UCLA. I live just south of here in Pico, Robertson. I stand here before you tonight to urge you in the strongest possible terms to approve this appeal. Not just because, as HCD has notified the city, you are legally required to do so under the Cowsing of Accountability Act and will be in violation of California Housing, Lasha, Dju-Chi, is not to, but also because it is simply the right thing to do. Now, I could stand up here tonight and pontificate about how the research is exceptionally clear that building more housing decreases displacement and ameliorates the impacts of rent increases. I could speak at length about how infill development of this type is good for city budgets, alleviate traffic pressure, and decreases carbon emissions. I could spend all of my time talking about how we live in a regional housing market and every home that Beverly Hills does not build represents somebody who is going to get priced out of South LA or Boyle Heights or Chinatown or Palms. But what I really want to talk about tonight is who you are hearing from at this meeting and more importantly who you aren't hearing from. Tonight, the opponents that you've heard from and will hear more from, I am sure, are not representative of the community as a whole. Once again, the research on this is exceptionally clear. The kind of person who is able to make it to a 7 p.m. city council meeting on a Thursday night is on average, wider, wealthier, older, and more likely to be a homeowner than the community at large. I want you to consider the folks who have spoken in opposition to this development thus far and see whether that rings true for you. I also want you to take note of the fact that those who are here to speak in favor of this development were willing to wait. Evidently, opponents of this project have better things to do. By contrast, the kind of person you are unlikely to hear much from tonight are the workers who would benefit from the hotel portion of this project. They're the tenants who would be able to live in the affordable housing units included in the project, which as noted, would more than double the number of affordable non-senior units in the city. They are people who are not yet your constituents because you and many of the current residents of the city don't seem to have deemed them worthy of being coming your neighbors. No one here seems to think that it blew up the neighborhood to build their current homes, their current condos, their current places of residence, but they seem content to pull up the ladder behind them and prevent more homes from being built. Please keep all of that in mind tonight when you make your decision. Thank you. Our next speaker is Andrew Solomon. Good evening. Honourable Mayor and City Council Members. Thank you. My name is Andrew Solomon and I'm a neighbor of yours in West Hollywood, and I'm here tonight to speak in strong support of the project at 125 Lyndon Drive. I urge the council to uphold the appeal and accept the application as complete. This project is significant in addressing our regional housing crisis with 165 units, 33 of which are affordable. This is a substantial contribution to your affordable housing stock. I believe this more than doubles the amount, the current number of non-senior affordable housing within Beverly Hills. Though I may live on the other side of Doheny, the West Side cities are part of an important regional housing network. And new housing in Beverly Hills helps alleviate the housing crisis everywhere. I've been to the project site, I've walked it, I drove past it tonight. It's a surface parking lot just south of Wilshire. And though we may be here tonight because of this loophole that we all know now as Builder's Remedy, there's nothing out of ordinary with this project in a site location based upon where it is from your commercial district. Ten years from now this won't be a monstrosity of a building that sticks out like a sore thumb. I hate to use the term character of the neighborhood when we talk about housing, but this proposed project very much fits in with the neighborhood. One day, you'll have residents that work in your commercial district or at your schools who will want to live in those apartments so that they can walk to work. That's workforce housing. And one day you'll have out of town family guests who visit you and they'll want to stay in this hotel because it's next to everything. That's the goal of Smart City. Your staff report tonight is moot based upon the letter you received yesterday from HCD, so please don't rely on staff's recommendation in that report. Do you really want the same headlines for Beverly Hills that we've seen for Lock and Yada Flint Ridge or the headlines that we've seen for Huntington Beach? There will be national articles written about your decision here tonight. So I urge the council to recognize the importance of this project in your city's compliance with the Housing Accountability Act. Please uphold the appeal and accept the application as complete. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker card I have is Lori Goldman. I hope you will stand firm in opposing greedy developers. But after listening to some of these people, I think we need to be reminded. This is a 19 story building. This does not fit in with the neighborhood even close. And I hope that you will stand firm in helping your residents and not letting this project go through. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker card I have is Milton Hyman. Thank you, Council. I live in on Southland and Drive, just down the block from the post development. Some of the speakers don't seem to have much experience with Lyndon. Don't seem to have come up that street trying to make a turn. Been blocked by the I will name any of the delivery trucks that park right in front of Wilshire Boulevard and then block the two lanes that are turning right and left. If you have, as I came to this meeting at quarter to seven, I could barely get through because of the traffic running up, lend and drive. This is a neighborhood that I've lived in for since 1970. It is a special neighborhood, both with the single family homes and the multifamily homes in the 100 block. This would be a disaster. Putting this side, and I'm a lawyer, I'm not a real estate lawyer, thank goodness, anymore. But I thought that I was persuaded by the staffs response. They're dealing with each of the issues and not persuaded by almost a knee jerk reaction from the applicant. No, we don't have to do this. No, we can do whatever we want. No, we don't have to. No, we have an exception. It didn't work with me and I hope it doesn't work with you. So I ask you please reject this. Find an incomplete. If the applicant wants to come back with a new project that is consistent with the principles and the flavor and the feeling of Beverly Hills, let the applicant come back with a new, complete and compliant project. We had a hotel, as was mentioned earlier, proposed for Southland, the 100 block, didn't happen, thank goodness. We still have the good shepherd. Sometimes it's a pain, but it's still part of our DNA that's been there and the kids going through. And for the people who live in 100, 200, 300, it's important that our life be protected. So I thank you and I ask you to consider no rejected. Thank you, sir. Next speaker card I have is Sheila Hyman. And then after that I only have two other speaker cards. So if anybody else would like to be heard if they can bring up their speaker card to our clerk. Hi, we've lived in our house over 55 years as my husband mentioned. Big changes in traffic, thanks to ways, et cetera. traffic, thanks to ways, et cetera. We have had many projects to calm the traffic. This will not calm the traffic. It will make it impossible. It is scary getting out of our driveway. It is scary. It shouldn't be that way. This will make it ten times worse. I don't want to live in New York. I have chosen to live in California. I don't want to live in New York where the sun is blocked by huge buildings. It's not right for our community. It is scary. I ask you to look at that location, look at the traffic, and consider what that kind of project would do to our neighborhood, the whole southwest side. Terrible. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next speaker, card I have is Richard Burns. Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council. Thank you for this valuable time of year. My name is Richard Burns. I'm a representative of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. The developer has committed to work with contractors that will hire locally and utilize apprentices from state certified apprenticeship training programs. We would like to express our support for this project as we believe that it will benefit the environment and the local economy by participating protocols that will protect workers' health and safety and incorporate etiquette environmental migrations. When this project is passed, thank you very much. We appreciate your time. Thank you, sir. Next speaker card is Judy Okan. I'm wondering if in considering this project whether there was any kind of traffic management plan done and the effects it would have on Wilshire Boulevard all the way down when we consider the cumulative effect of the other, in light of the other proposed projects that are on the board, is this just going to add to the overall impossible traffic situation, I do believe it will. It seems like it's the first step. We, this project does not only affect Lyndon Drive. In fact, it is a gateway to the other out of code projects which will damage this entire way of life for our homeowners. From Wilshire, Boulevard, to El Camino, to Camden, to Rodeo, to Pact, to South Bedford, to Roxbury, to Makardi, and to Linden. It's absolutely out of code, out of common sense, for a safe and treasured area, where we have peace and quiet safety will be disrupted. I'm sure we'll have more crime, more traffic and less of a feeling of security. I hope you really seriously consider this for there are as Ken Coleman said over 400 homes in this area, 400 people who invested their safety of their abode and consider that you really need to pay attention to the overall scape of what's being proposed here. Thank you. Thank you very much. And then the last speaker card I have on less something else comes up soon is Jake Manister. Thank you, Mayor, Councilmembers. Good evening, staff. Thank you for giving me the time to speak I live in this neighborhood and It's with some real heartfelt feelings that I hear my neighbors concerns about about this project we hear these concerns about lots of underthought of and overgrown projects, but I'd like to focus on the process here. I don't think the project has merit, however, I think that the process doesn't have merit either. I don't know if everybody is aware here, but the HAA is under consideration for revision. As we speak in Sacramento, there are three assembly members who are under fire in their own communities for re-election. It's brought an incredible amount of confusion to a variety of institutions around the state as to how they are supposed to react to a variety of different applications. I'd also like to point out that the HD HD responded in 24 hours apparently to a Pellance Council. That's a very interesting timeline to have a curve when we waited months for responses. So responses weren't timely in fact at one point the response was overdue from the HDD. I'd just like to point out with some familiarity with lobbying and Sacramento. The HDD is not the final authority on anything. There are opinion and opinion letters, frankly, carry zero weight with regard to the legislature. And I would encourage this council to consider a discussion with the folks that actually are in charge of Sacramento as opposed to their delegates and bureaucrats. as opposed to their delegates and bureaucrats. I heard Appellans Council state something that I have never heard a land use lawyer ever state, which is that in consideration of a building application that code compliance is irrelevant. That is a stunning revelation from this applicant's council. That tells me that there is absolutely no reverence despite the kind words that he might have stowed upon you. There is no respect for what has occurred over the last 50 to 60 years with the development of case law, common law, code compliance, building safety that protects all of us and has protected all of us for decades. That established law, even if it were to be leapfrogged, because of this state's inability to address an urgent need that occurred many decades ago, which is the lack of affordable housing and lack of housing generally, does not need to be foisted upon individual communities with some ramshackle approach to building processes. I would encourage this applicant to adapt, revise their plan, come back, reapply with something that this community probably would get behind. We're not against housing here. We're not against affordable housing here. We're against processes that are broken because they result only in a heap of dust. And that has occurred here numerous times. Mr. May, if you give me ten more seconds, please. I would prefer not to see a rushed builder's remedy application. And I do have a last question for everyone here. I'm going to to see a rushed builders' remedy application and I do have a last question for everyone here and that is simply this. Applicants' council seems very very interested in having something approved here. We've had many situations where entitlements were approved and sold to the highest bidder. Ask yourselves whether the individual that's pushing this may actually have no intention of building it, but intent on profiteering off of the demise of the city of Beverly Hills and its building codes. This to me is another common form that we've seen before of profiteering in the state of California. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay, not seeing no other speaker cards here. I will go on to any phone or video on this matter. First we have Jose Radio on phone. Please unmute yourself. Jose Radio. The peers we have, Jordan Cison, who's currently on the screen. Please and meet yourself. I'm a very good attorney. Thinking on behalf of the United States, local 11 represents more than 30,000 house town hospitality workers throughout southern California. I'll be very sure. Local entities generally support other housing projects, particularly those including the Portaway units. We are concerned to see how the HAA Housing Accountability Act is being used. This is a lot of those paths to help build housing during the housing crisis. Tonight, you're seeing it being used for the project, so it's constantly changed after the fact that we do housing in front of furthering the 73 living commercial hotel. There are a number of additional three more stories that add an entire new commercial use with 73 hotel rooms that are seen like a significant change. So, two, this is significant for a project's equal analysis to ensure that all potential project impacts are adequately addressed, which is going to impact potential adjacent residents, as well as other city stakeholders. All these reasons, which were outlined in our very brief comelette earlier tonight, local 11 support staff's recommendation, as this council denied the appeal and required a complete application, ensuring adequate environmental review of this project. Please denied that appeal that you require complete application and follow the early process of a full complete application. Thank you for your time. I'll continue to rest my time. Thank you. Next, we have Jason Buyers. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Jason Bias. Jason Bias, please unmute yourself. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Okay, great. Thank you, Honorable Council. My name is Jason Bias. And I'm a proud member of Labor's International Union of North America, local 300. And I along with the other 20,000 members of our union who live in Los Angeles County, fully support this project moving forward. We have an honorable developer who has made the profit sacrifice of paying $cop dollars for the greatest workforce in this world, the American Union tradesmen, which will ensure that this project is built to the very highest standard. All safety measures will be implemented, and all the workers will be able to accumulate the hours necessary to keep their benefits intact, and will have the opportunity for additional training in our facilities for certifications and new skills. This project will also provide the opportunity for new men and women to start a career in union construction. As a project like this opened the door for me many years ago and completely changed the lives of me and my family for the better. Now in closing, I have lived here on the west side my whole life or generation. We are in a desperate need for housing. And because of this, most of those who are rental property owners, maliciously manipulate rental prices, leaving those less fortunate to live heavy financial burdens, to be able to live and raise their children in beautiful Beverly Hills. We cannot stop the need for housing and inevitable citizen growth and forced local couples to one child policies to accommodate the comfort of a very small group. The need for housing and good paying jobs is a serious issue happening right now and it's not going to go away. But a project like this is addressing the immediate issue. Please, counsel, address the reality of our situation and see how this project will benefit everyone as a whole and push this project through. Thank you so much, God bless. Thank you. Jose, Radio is back online. Please unmute yourself. Jose Radio, please unmute yourself. It's your turn to speak. I'm going to ask you to ask the question. I'm going to ask the question. Next commenter is John Daily. John Daily, please unmute yourself. Good evening. Can you hear me? Yes. Is this Mr. Daily? Yes, sir. Sure. Go ahead. Awesome. Jason took a lot of the words right out of my mouth, so I won't repeat them too much, but my name is Jonathan daily. I'm a Marine Corps veteran and very proud member of the Library of the Union. I'd like to start by thanking you for the opportunity to speak here tonight. One of I have a couple of reasons I was eager to speak on this project. These projects meet a lot to us. It means our families are fed and have a roof over their heads. It means we have healthcare and can take care of our kids. And it especially means our apprentices from our state recognize a apprenticeship program, obtain the knowledge and experience needed to ensure very successful career path in this industry. We stand behind this developer who is committed to higher skilled and trained union workforce and we build to the highest standards and we cannot be more proud and grateful for that opportunity. On behalf of our members and our families, we hope you approve this project and we can get to work and continue to serve in our community. Thank you. Thank you and thank you for your service, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you and thank you for your service, sir. Thank you, sir. Next in line we have Ralph Velador. Ralph Velador, please unmute your mic. My name is Ralph Velador and I'm speaking on behalf the Southern California District Council of Laborers, Labor's International Youth North America. My colleagues and myself are in full support of the appeal and the project before you. This project will create good paying jobs and benefits for citizens in the surrounding area. We have a grand opportunity tonight. This developer is bringing a private money with zero liability on a tax base to put people to work. Imagine that. They're taking private money and infusing it right here in the community. It's incumbent on us to support good jobs in the community, not only building these projects, but providing the much needed housing for young working people who'd like to call Beverly Hills home. Not approving this project will leave avoiding the community and have a devastating effect on families who depend on this work to support our families. Please consider how today's decision will affect working families and thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you. Next we have Jay Garcia. Jay Garcia please unmute yourself to speak. Hello can you hear me? Yes go ahead.. Yes, good evening, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Jose Garcia, and I'm also a member of the Labor's International Union of North America. And like all my colleagues have spoken, these jobs are truly life changers. They're starts of apprenticeship for young kids in the community that won't be able to go to college and need somewhere to turn to to become a good member of the community and For the workers that are indebted into their union right now such as I am and for me most importantly if I could land one of these jobs It would mean that I could finish my career as the skilled tradesmen proud proud skilled tradesmen that has worked throughout the California state and I would retire with the pension with medical benefits that I have earned with my hard, hard earned hands. And I truly would appreciate the chance to work on this project. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. The next speaker we have listed is Orrin Haider. Orrin Haider, please unmute yourself. So you're trying to speak. So you're trying to speak. Beverly Hills. That's where I want to beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg and beg very privileged people who already live here. What about the people whose lives would be made so much better by living here? The people who work in Beverly Hills would have to commute an hour and a half from the island empire or from Lancaster. The people who clean your houses or police your streets or teach your kids. Guess what? They deserve to live here as much as you do. And we should give them that opportunity. But please approve this building. It's 33 affordable homes without having to use any public funding. It's also the law. And it's also the right thing to do. Thank you. Thank you. Next color. We can try again, Jose Rodillo. Jose Rodillo, please unmute yourself to speak. Hello, thank you for being here. Yes. Hello. Yes, go ahead. Yes, go ahead. My name is Mario. And I am a proud member of La Una, neighbors and connect community in America. And I fully support this project moving forward. And our members are eagerly awaiting the opportunity to initiate and contribute to this remarkable project. These projects are vital tools as they enable us to meet our financial obligation and provide for our loved ones. Our members are certified skilled trained workers recognized by the state of California. So you can assure that this project will be done professionally on time and most importantly safely. And I invite you also to support this project. And thank you for your time. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you. I don't see anyone else listed on the zoom comment. Okay, let me I have one more oral communication from the audience and then we'll go to emails after that. Lynn Brookman. Hi everyone, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to meet with us. I want to thank the leadership of Southwest Beverly Hills Ken Goldman and everybody here who has spent so much time in energy plowing through all the written materials about what's going on. But what's going on here is not just about Lyndon Drive or McCarty or Roxbury. This is about a developer that put forth a project but did not do his due diligence and reach out to the community as to what kind of project would work in our neighborhood. Instead, he put out an application that has been incomplete, and there is frustration that this incomplete application has not been approved, and Beverly Hills has done something wrong by not approving it. Maybe the fact is, he didn't do his homework to come up with something that would work for the community. And instead of negotiating with us right now, this application needs to be dismissed and not approved, and this developer needs to go back and come with a different proposal. But he needed to do this homework. And this would happen on your street or any street in any city. And that to me is the issue of what we're facing. So thank you, and I'd strongly suggest that you deny this application and that you do consider the fact that this developer could get this project through and boot like it to somebody else to build. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other video or phone? Yes, I have one more person on phone, Danielle Levy. Danielle, please unmute yourself to speak. Thank you. Danielle Levy, please unmute yourself to speak. Yes, do you hear me? Yes, go ahead. Good. Thank you so much. First of all, I wanted to thank the city for opposing, no, for the two things, you know, this project on, you know, in front of all the council. This is, I'm a homeowner in South England, and I'm absolutely opposed to this project. Ninety-four, you know, in this street is just outrageous. There is no space. There is no, you know, there is a lot of, you know, people, kids that are, you know, walking on the street and it is going to be just absolutely crazy. I hear that a lot of people, you know, want to have worlds, you know, through this project, there is other places where they can, you know, find a job and not, you know, to think the street that will become just mess. The whole block will be absolutely mess. So I really hope this project will be denied. And we will not have something that is built on the floor that could, you know, eventually fall on, you know, like the millennial power that is needed of the other buildings in some physical. Thank you so much and for your attention. Thank you. It doesn't appear that we have any more public zoom comments. Okay, so we're going to go to emails now and I understand there are many emails, so I am going to ask that the city clerk summarize the emails and give us a report on those numbers. We received a total of, I believe, 14 emails. The first time reading are against, there were nine people. Rosa Berman, Furncizer, Bobby Fells, Alan Block, Heather Fells, Jordan C. So, I believe and the following comments are against the project which have shared generally. Please do not allow this building to be built. Additionally, they have shared a project of this scope and magnitude 19 stories high, totally out of proportion at this location on Lyndon between Wilshire and Charlieville. Steps away from the good Shepherd Elementary School, and a few blocks away from Beverly Hills High School would significantly and adversely impact the character of our neighborhood already heavily trafficked. And the quality of life are residents of our residents as that 1,128 page report shows the city has informed the applicant several times that its application is incomplete especially noting in one of its communications that because they resubmitted their application with substantially different features the The initial application under the Builders Remedies was no longer effective and the reliance on pronouncements by the HAA is unfounded. We are not against improvements within our city but within reason, adhering to a reasonable height limitation while preventing additional traffic gridlock. Ethetically this project is beautiful but where does this end of Builders keep pushing and the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city augments many of the concerns of our residents and the site is not appropriate for a mixed use development of a high traffic structure with residents and guests coming and going at all times of day and evening. Ingress, egress, and navigating our automobiles at this portion of our very narrow street is challenging enough for various reasons. During construction, we envision there will be many times each day that we will not be allowed access to drive on the street, similar to what transpired with the Rosewood project currently, and the one with its reduction in lanes. Parents need to have easy access for pickup and dropoff of their children on land in in Charlieville at the Good Shepherd Catholic School. Living through the construction and the traffic, such a huge project would bring is a hardship you can protect us against. I urge you to do so. We are four generations living in Beverly Hills since the 1960s. Needless to say, there have been a great deal of changes within this time frame. However, the Lyndon project is absolutely nothing to enhance or improve our city. What does this project give back to my neighborhood? I implore you to convince me why this massive overdevelopment that is in congruent with our community standards should be erected. And here are the following comments were submitted in support. I believe there were five. The comments were beyond the requested word count to be read allowed so they have been shortened due to time. Their comments will be remained in their entirety as part of the record. The first one is from James Lloyd from Cal HDF. This project will enhance the surrounding community by replacing surface parking lots with living spaces, a 73 hotel room, and the public health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and the health care and Beverly Gardens Park are within walking distance, making this an excellent location for new housing. Transforming the current parking light into a vibrant space represents a forward thinking approach to urban planning. Why I am B.Y. Law is a 501C3 nonprofit corporation whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. Why I am B. why law soothes municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act. Sonia Tross is the next comment from why I M B law. Why I M B law is a 501 C3 nonprofit corporation whose mission is to increase accessibility and affordability of housing in California. Why Am B Law, MBY Law, Sues Municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws including the Housing Accountability Act. As you know, the City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above caption proposal including the HAA Housing Accountability Act. Should the city fail to follow the law, why I am be why law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced. The third support comment is from Azeen Khan, Malik, Jamie Del Rio, Tammy Kaying Abrams from Abundant Housing LA. The proposed development at 1-5-1-2-9 South London Drive represents a crucial and time sensitive step towards meeting our city's housing obligations and promoting economic growth. I urge the City Council to approve this project and demonstrate Beverly Hills' commitment to inclusive and sustainable development. Failure to approve this project undermines our compliance with state housing laws and risks legal consequences as highlighted by Californians for home ownership. The next public comment is from Dave Ran, from Ran Pastor and Nelson LLP. His comment was too long to read, but submitted in person comments. Mr. Rand, Mr. Rand gave his comments. His written comment will be included in its entirety as part of the record. The last comment I have is from Michael Gelfand, from Californians for Home Ownership. As you know, Californians for Home Ownership is a 501-C3 organization devoted to using impact litigation to address California's housing crisis. This letter follows up on our October 10, 2023, and February 2020-24 letters regarding the proposed the . The . The . The . The . The . The . The . The . The . The . the public health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health care and health of written comments. Okay, thank you. So now we will ask the applicant appellant if they wish to provide a response and rebuttal to or closing remarks. Can you public comment? To any. Yeah. To public comment. Do you wish to provide any responses? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Do you wish to provide any responses? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We just encourage you to approve the appeal and allow the project to continue as I stated earlier. Thank you. Thank you. And there being no response or rebuttal, we will go to. I'm going to go to councilmember questions of the staff or members of the public. Applicant staff, applicant members of the public. Oh, any questions at all? Yes. Start with Councilmember Wells. Okay, thank you. Well, first I just would like to re-state actually to the committee that tonight we are not here to approve or deny the project. We are here for a hearing to evaluate and to a hearing for the appeal of the city staff denial of the city staff, excuse me, did my head together. The city staff letter in completion that was dated on October 13th of 2020. I don't want to talk yet. I have 2023. So, and to, so listen to that. So I just want to make that really clear. We're not here to approve or deny the project. This is about whether or not the application is complete as of the October 13th, 23 letter from the city determining in completion. As well as with regards to the city working so hard to get an approved housing element, a certified housing element. I am very much and I'm very committed to implementing that certified housing element. And as we look at projects, it's important for us because we are committed to completing implementing our housing element. Further, I just would like to say that I've read the staff report as well as the many letters from the applicant and as well from our city staff and from our community, as well as the letters from the HCD as recently as yesterday's letter and as well as the applicant's letter as recently as yesterday. And I do have some more time. So with that, I'd like to ask you some questions please. Go ahead, Council Member Wells. Mr. Alkayer is here. And Mr. Garjitlin, the area application. Can you talk a little bit about what the statues are with regard to completing that application the city. Yes, and actually if we could ask the city attorney as well. But the preliminary application has a list of requirements that's spelled out in the statute and as identified in the staff report for this, one of those items is number four on that list is the proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and non-residential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance. So the actual formally submitted application did not include the same land uses. But as far as timeline goes, you have 180 days after your preliminary application to submit your formal application. And once you get that submitted, you have 90 days to respond to comments. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. I don't have anything to add, but I'll just be here in case I can add other questions. Okay. Okay. For our staff, can, or for our legal council from the city attorney, I mean, can you speak a little bit about the 90 days in that response time? Sure. Again, Mr. Alkair said under the preliminary application statutes, those when a preliminary application is filed, meeting all of the requirements under the statute. That has the effect of vesting rights to the rules in effect at that time. In order to perfect those rights, the statute requires the submittal of the formal application. I'll refer to it as, the entire state of that needs to be submitted within 180 days. Under the Standard Permit Streamlining Act, once an application is submitted, it is subject to a 30-day review period by the city. And the city needs to determine whether that application is complete or incomplete. It determines that it is incomplete, then it needs to identify all of the items, the reasons why the application is incomplete. And in a, now shifting back to a formal application filed to perfect the rights under a preliminary application. Once that application is deemed incomplete, there's a 90 day period within which the applicant needs to submit all of those outstanding items and obtain complete application. The applicant has argued that's a rolling 90-day period that recommences each time an incompleteness letter is issued as we as pointed out in the staff report. The language in the statute with respect to the 30-day periods for your typical city review. There's language talking about how that is a repetitive cycle. That language was not used by the legislature when they crafted the later enacted 90-day period. There's a reference staff mentioned in the report. The singular 90-day period and that hopefully answers the question. It does. And then just to confirm, the applicant submitted a preliminary application on October 24th of 2022. And if I understand correctly 180 days later they had submitted their formal development plan review. Is that correct? Yes, they did submit it within 180 days. Okay, so they were going by the timelines that they were teaching about. Following that, the city sent their first letter of incomplete determination on May 12th of 2023, which is 30 days later. And in that letter of incomplete determination, can you confirm that the city, well, first of all, that the applications filed on April 14th of 2023, the DPR, was vastly different from what the preliminary application project that was identified at that time. Can you talk about that different? Yes, there was an addition of a hotel use that did not exist in the preliminary application. That hotel use was about 48,000 square feet of the building and the building increased in size to 212,000 square feet. And it also included a restaurant? Yes, hotel and restaurant. And the preliminary application was residential only. Is that correct? Yes, it was residential only. And the and the in the first letter of income to determination on May the 12th that the cities The city identified for the applicant that the scope was largely inconsistent with the original preliminary application We identified that there was different features. Yes, And that that was an issue that should be cured. Yeah, and that it was an issue to be cured. As well with regard to the other missing information, was it checklist provided? Yes, these are long letter letters, the incomplete letters, and they, I the committee. The committee has been provided. Yes, these are long letters, the incomplete letters, and they itemized all the items that needed to be resolved. Would you say that the review of the the DPR and providing the letter of incomplete determination is ministerial or is it discretionary? I mean it's an administrative determination. I mean we review projects that's what planners do and so we need to look at that as far as the term ministerial I don't think so but I'll ask the city attorney to respond on that. Thank you Mr. Mayor members of the city council. I think that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council. I think that there's an argument that this type of function typically would be ministerial. I don't think that's necessarily always the case. There can be some discretion that can be exercised when looking at these. So I wouldn't necessarily say it is unqualified every time a ministerial process. We process many of the builders remedy applications for that are similar to this. There are builders, remedy projects on file and some preliminary applications and others have formally submitted applications and they have received review letters. When the applicant responded, they responded to the first letter of incomplete determination. They responded after that on I believe August the 9th But actually the city didn't receive it till September 15th. So actually the agreed upon date was September 15th of 2023 the second and complete determination letter on October the 13th of 2023. Is this the date when the application needed to be complete or finalized. And I would ask the city attorney. It would have been 30 days after, excuse me, 90 days after the initial completeness determination. And that date, you give me. The first letter was May the 12th I believe. Correct. August 10th, 2023 is 90 days after the initial submittal. After the initial incompleteness determination. Incompleteness determination I'm sorry. And what did the applicant file? I believe you said that the applicant did not file timely there appeal and can you talk just reiterate why that's only 14 days online. So I'll take that Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council. So under the State Statute and this is the Permit Streamlining Act with respect to the incompleteness reviews and determinations. Under that, oh sorry, is that better? Okay. So again, under the Permit Streamlining Act and this is the review process that is required of the city each time's information is submitted, the city has a 30-day period to review an application make the completeness determination. That determination, any of those in completeness determinations, must be appealable and that's under state law and pursuant to a local appeal process. So the appeal process provided here is the city's typical appeal process in the code and that's a 14 day appeal period after the decision. So it is our interpretation that under state law that the city must provide an appeal process. There is the standard appeal process for when no other appeal process is dictated in the code. And this is that process and the 14-day appeal period would apply. That 14-day appeal period would have been the October 13th plus 14 days, so end of October. And the appeal was not filed until November. And then also it is the city's standard practice that the appeal fee must be required is required and must be paid At the time the appeal is filed there's a process where a smaller pp can be paid in the balance paid 35 days later, but in any event those those payment procedures need to be followed in order for the appeal to be timely filed followed in order for the appeal to be timely filed. Thank you. Um, with, with regard to the, um, I will actually, I'll just ask you this first. Um, the application is the application complete today. No, but, uh, and I'll also defer to staff, but at this point, no. I'm not sure if it's a question. No, but I'll also defer to staff. But at this point, no. And how many items are still. How many items have been identified that are still incomplete? We can check but yeah, it has been reduced. And I can respond if you want to move on in then. Yeah, that's fine. I guess my other question would be this from the first time that you responded. I believe that there's been. There's been four. Four responses from the city with a incomplete determination letter. There's been four incomplete determination letters that I understand that correctly. And that the applicant has responded to three of those and each time they provided more information that was missing, is that correct? Staff, we're working on the other question. I'll answer that, that yes that is correct. For example if I you know if I understand this correctly the latest response from the applicant would have been on May the 9th of 2024 when they were resubmitting based off of the February 9th resumming for based off of the February 9th city as third and complete determination letter. They provided the shade and shadow study as well as they provided the plans that detailed regarding the rubbish storage and calculations as well as the details regarding the alley dedication and relationships to landscape plans with on May 9th. And I believe on January the 10th, they submitted the site walls and and or fences and on January 10th as well they submitted the Waxi that was January 10th so if I understand correctly that continued to provide the permission that you initially identified as what was incomplete. Oh, Council Member Wells. Yes, they have 13 items still outstanding of the 38 that were in the first letter. I saw the letter from the two letters that were written by the H.C.D. One was with regard to content. I'm sorry, I wasn't speaking of October. I'm sorry, because they've gone through multiple rounds of review. This is their current situation and we'll go back and get the count for October. Thank you. But going back to the HCD letters there was one that I saw for Compton and I saw as well the one yesterday from the HCD with regard to Beverly Hills. Can you tell me and this is for our city attorney, is this opinion letter from the HCD? Is it binding? No. Neither. Okay. Thank you. Let me see. Actually, I have a couple questions for the applicant. Thank you. Hi, Councilmember. Yes. Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you. You acknowledge that the project that was identified in the Aboriginal preliminary application compared to the DPR vastly different is that true? I acknowledge that they are different that commercial land uses were introduced, but we maintain that that change legally does not forfeit our vested right, but I do acknowledge the change councilwoman. Yes, I do. And is there case law or is there an authority that has? Has rolled on that? Authority being HCD has acknowledged that there are two ways in which a SB 330 vesting application can be forfeited and that was referenced in the letter to the city. Neither of those two changes involve the introduction of new uses. The law is new. This is a Housing Crisis Act of 2019. As I mentioned in my remarks, council member, the point of the law was to encourage housing and to create a early vested right process where applicants could rely on rules early on with the understanding that projects will change in Morph. And so that is why the only change identified in the law are a change in 20% in unit counters square footage or more. And those are the only two things called out by the legislature that would forfeit vested rights. Do you, let me see, one second. When the applicant filed for the appeal, they were informed of the 14-day timeframe. We were not informed of the 14-day timeframe. Why was it in the Beverly Hills municipal code. The municipal code says that the 14-day timeframe applies to actions under the municipal code and does not apply to ministerial actions. Clearly the determination of completeness and whether items on a checklist have been submitted or not is ministerial. And the appeal is derivative of state law, not local law or your ministerial code. the appeal is derivative of state law, not local law, or your municipal code. So the code section clearly doesn't apply, and moreover council member, the application, or excuse me, the appeal was processed, paid for, these not refunded, and we're here tonight discussing the merits of it. So we first learned about the city's position that there was a 14 day time frame three days ago and the staff report was released, notwithstanding the fact that we've had our appeal pending for six months. With regards to the appeal that you submitted, you filed the appeal I believe 31 days after the incomplete determination letter. However, you didn't pay the fees until January the 11th, 2024. Is that correct? That is correct. Part of the reason for that is we were informed of your somewhat unique process that you have to have two hearings to schedule a lot of appeal. First, hearing before the city council to set the date, and then second, the appeal on the merits, which we're here tonight. We filed the appeal over the holidays, over the Thanksgiving holidays, and in discussions with staff, it seemed very clear there were agenda management issues that could have made it challenging to schedule those two hearings within a 60-day period because there was no urgency at that point to go forward with the appeal. We were happy to delay the time frame after filing the appeal in which we actually paid the fee. And again, because there was no 14-day time frame invoked at any point in that time, we thought and still believe that there was nothing inappropriate about that and certainly nothing that would disqualify the appeal that you're hearing tonight. On January the 10th, the day before you paid the fee, the applicant submitted response to the second incomplete determination letter, which is the October 13th 23. Why would you do that if you were already filing an appeal and you were paying the fees the next day? Thank you for that. I appreciate because I did want to clarify this. We filed the appeal and we're quite clear in our appeal statement that we were appealing the big significant legal differences that became very apparent over the builders' remedy and state housing law between our two back and fourths over the incomplete determination. It was very clear this application was never gonna move forward unless we resolve those questions and essentially called the question and brought that before you, the decision maker. Had we not responded to the incomplete letter that was pending. We would have risked and I have no doubt your city attorneys would have invoked the fact that we failed to respond within our 90-day period and thus lost our vested rights on that basis. So the only prudent thing for us to do would be to continue to respond and that proved fruitful because we were able to as your staff staff indicated, cross items off the list. It still didn't change the fact that we have these very significant legal items that we're still disagreeing on. And that's really the basis of the appeal and what we put in our appeal statement. Thank you. Council Member Wells, we do have numbers for you now. So, in October, it was 13 application checklist items, plus additional general plan items. Today that is down to four application checklist items plus general plan related items on the incomplete letter. With regard to the 14 day appeal time and this is for staff, my understanding is that the applicants are to be aware of what the Beverly Hills municipal code is. Is that correct? If you're an applicant in a jurisdiction, you would think that you would look to the rules of the jurisdiction, which are spelled out in a municipal code. Thank you. The HCD regard to the application. Are there other billers remedy projects that have had that same that you have requested the same and they have provided that information. Yes. and they have provided that information. Yes. Yeah, I'll remember I'm sorry. This is Dave, the applicant. So, Rep, would you like me to sit down? Or do you still have more questions for me? I'm happy to, of course, stand here if you do. I'm looking at these questions. Okay. But, Okay. Um, but um. I those would be my questions for now. Thank you very much. Councilmember. Councilmember Rose, you're yielding time now to Councilmember. Corwin. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor Friedman. First does staff have any response to what was just said by Mr. Rand or anything that was said in his letter that they want to address at this point before I go forward? I believe we do. At least there are several points in the letter that I don't think we've had a chance to address yet. Some of them were raised just a moment ago by Council Member Wells. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner, excuse me. Council Member Korman. We've known each other too long. We have indeed. Thank you. So I think just hit some of the highlights. I'm not going to go through all of the responses, many of which were included in the staff report. I won't reiterate those. But I think I would just start by saying we appreciate Mr. Rand's advocacy on behalf of his client. These are new statutes. They're complicated. the facts are complicated. And the city has been acting in good faith to try and navigate these and continues to do so. And so with that, I think, you know, first and foremost, the projects described in the preliminary application and the formal application, just they're not the same. And the statute for preliminary applications, as staff mentioned, requires the identification of the uses in the project. And to suggest that the only way a project could be modified to lose that vesting status is to exceed the 20% thresholds either up or down with respect to the unit count or the building square footage would have the effect of writing out of the statute or rendering as surplusage the requirement to identify the uses in the first place. If that was the only criteria, then the applicant could not identify uses, could come forward and say, okay, now I started out with a residential project, but now I'm going to do a residential project with a surgery center or a smelter or in this case a hotel in conjunction with expanding the building area within the 20% that is allowed. And that just can't be what was envisioned under the statute when it requires the identification of the uses in the preliminary application. So I think we have a fundamental disagreement with the applicant on this interpretation that if it's not the same project because it is a series of different uses, even though there's some overlap with their Spectrum Residential, it's a different project. This is a mixed use project with a hotel and residential component. It's not a residential project. So the uses are different. And just note that the applicant had ample time. First, incomplete letter identified this issue. The city still had a lengthy process to go through to get to adopting a certified housing element and getting the HCD certification letter. And there was ample time for the applicant to violate new preliminary application identifying those uses and remedying that issue, they didn't do that. So, again, the position is that they have, the preliminary application has lapsed because they did not file a project that was the same as or within the parameters of the use that identified and explained in the preliminary application. We've talked about the appeal not being timely. And I guess I would just say the applicant's argument here is that this appeal process, the 14-day appeal process, this appeal process doesn't apply if you accept that it's ministerial. If this appeal process doesn't apply, then there would be no alternate appeal process and the city would not have a process with which to comply with the state law mandate to provide an appeal process. So this is the appeal process. It is also an outgrowth of code requirements to file a development plan review application and process that. And so that we believe is the link to the code. And for those reasons that it has to be that this is the appeal process that is available to them and the time requirements come along with that since it's not like you pick and choose which elements of the appeal process should apply. With respect to the Mootness argument, again, there were two subsequent submittals that changed the status of the application from what the status was in October, the third, the incompleteness letter that's the subject of the appeal. So they have complied with additional and supplied additional information. Those two decisions also were appealable. They were not appeal within the time frames. And those decisions are final now. The applicant argues that the builder's remedy and the preliminary application vested rights issues aren't relevant. First, nothing in the Housing Accountability Act says that the typical processing requirements don't apply and HCD's Compton Letter clearly says that and their Beverly Hills letter sort of says that. They say for other reasons maybe that there is a different result, but it's not the statute that says there's some other process that applies here. It's a typical processing that would apply. The statute doesn't change that. And I would say the fact that HCD itself has arguably reached two different conclusions on the same question certainly shows that the city has a good faith argument and its interpretation in the way it's been proceeding. It had taken that position for a long time. The Compton letter confirmed that approach and now with the letter directed at Beverly Hills. They've put a different gloss on that. Even if it was determined that the DPR project was the same project as the preliminary application project, which again, it's not. It wasn't complete within the 90-day period from initial completeness determination. And we've talked about the different interpretations that the applicant team has versus what the city has. And again, I think in context here, this is a new statute. It established a very early investing process. It set time length so that applicants would need to move quickly. And that in light of that, a never ending cycle of an applicant, not suggesting it's this applicant, but an applicant could misuse the statute under the interpretation that's been offered. An applicant could file an application within 180 days, get their incompleteness letter, maybe there's 20 items that are incomplete, they wait till the 89th day under the applicant's interpretation. They drop a little bit of information. The city has 30 days to review that. They say thank you, you've taken care of items one and two. How about items three through 20? And then they would sit on their hands for another 89 days, dropping a little bit more information. This could go on at InfoNitom. And I think the legislature, when they were looking at this, they put a strict timeline so that folks would move quickly in some balance of the limitation on the agencies right to adopt new regulations and address issues that are important to the community. Instead of having someone who would be able to lock a set of regulations in place and then continue to forestall the city from enforcing any later enacted rules or regulations. And we think there's some legislative intent that supports that interpretation. I think we talked about in their letter, they talk about the Compton Beverly Hills technical advice letters, but I think we've covered that topic. The final of the applications, the general plan application, zoning application amendments, would allow for the processing of the project, allow for processing of the CEQA review, California Environmental Quality Act, that is expressly reserved as applicable to projects that are processed under the Housing Accountability Act. And that at that point, the decision makers would have the ability to look at the full array of issues, applications, and a builder's remedy context consider not only the application that is before, the core application, but also the legislative changes that would resolve any inconsistencies that would allow for due process full hearings of those issues. And at the end of the day, I think under a builder's remedy situation, there are a couple of scenarios for the decision makers. One of those is to approve the project, approve the legislative changes, and move forward. Another option could be depending on the facts of the record at that time, and as we're talking here, we are not at that point, but you know, at that point with the facts and the record fully developed, the Council decision maker could find itself in the position where they are not inclined to make the legislative changes, but under the Housing Accountability Act for a Builder's Remedy project, maybe constrained in its ability to deny the project because of those inconsistencies. And then the third option, depending on the record, could deny the project and need to do that in a way that could be defensible under the Housing Accountability Act. And so I think again, this is about the process. This is about having all of the applications filed process considered through the process. And then a full array of the issues available in present for the decision makers at the end of that process when it would be appropriate to make a decision on the merits. So, again, this is a procedural question, I think Mr. Rand suggested that as well. This is about procedure. And again, we think that the law allows the city to require these applications. And I would just state for a typical application, whether they have a preliminary application or not, without the billers' remedy gloss, a normal application would have to address the inconsistencies through an amendment or a zone change in conjunction with their application. And I would say we see this on a semi-regular basis in Beverly Hills where an applicant comes in, the project doesn't comply with all of the codes and the applicant may suggest a code amendment, the general plan amendment, in order to move that process forward. So that is not an atypical experience in Beverly Hills. And I think in conclusion, we don't believe a determination that an application is incomplete, constitutes a disapproval of the project. There is a defined term in the Housing Accountability Act about disapproval means. And there are many different things that disapproval means in the statute. Deeming an application incomplete on these grounds is not listed as one of those definitions of a disapproval. And again, we're not here about the merits. We're about the process. And I think maybe just one more reminder or statement that again particularly with the inconsistent letters that HCD has issued on this topic that the city certainly isn't proceeding in bad faith. And I think those are the items I had on my list. I think perhaps you could address in the HCD letter they mentioned the Permanent Stream Lining Act and whether or not there was a need to require the legislative approvals as a checklist item. Thank you. Yes. On the Permanent Stream Lining Act as a kind of threshold question doesn't apply to legislative applications technically. So it is anomalous that you would have to on a quasi adjudicative non-legislative application form list that you have to file legislative applications when, again, under the Permit Streamlining Act, it doesn't apply to those. It applies strictly to the adjudicative type matters, the DPR applications, the things that aren't changing the zoning or the general plan. And so to require that would just be inconsistent with the scope of the permit streamlining act. Councillor McCormann, does that answer your question? I know that's a long answer, but yes. It was long. Thank you. I mean, I appreciate the information. So, Mr. Rand. Come on. Good evening. I hear you're an excellent land use attorney. And I must say I thought your letters were clear and well written, and I thought your presentations tonight was informative and concise. Thank you very much, Councilmember. I'm definitely afraid of what's coming next. I'm not going to rehash a lot of the different positions everyone has but I do want to ask you some questions about some of the positions that you've taken. So first of all, preliminary, just had a cure yesterday because you're a landess lawyer. When you describe a property in a legal document, how do you typically describe it? What attributes do you describe? The address, the parcel number, assessor's parcel number, and maybe the track number and lot number is that the way you normally do it? Those are some basic property information I've been sure. I thought so. There's been a lot of discussions tonight about the provisions of government code section 65, 9, 4, 1.1. And that's part of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, right? That's correct. So I thought, I want to ask you some questions about that. I thought staff was going to have a slide with that up there because we've had a lot of discussion. But there was no slide. So I have some paper copies just for everyone's reference, so perhaps we could distribute them. And when, to Mr. Ran, the rest of the council. No, you're in trouble when you're going over statutory language. They have the council hearing like that. You're not in trouble. You haven't gotten the principal's office. Good looking at C. Councilman, I assume. No, I haven't gotten there yet. Okay. So I know one of the reasons we've had a lot of discussion about this code section is because a preliminary application creates certain investing rights at the time the application is filed. And in this instance, your client's position is that it created the right to proceed as a bill to remedy project because at the time the plumber application is filed we did not have a certified housing element. That basically accurate? Agreed. Okay. And it's your position that although the plumber application had a change of use between compared to the final complete DPR application, that really wasn't, there was no harm at all, basically. And the preliminary application is still valid today and still applies to the project. Accurately describes the project. It accurately describes the project sufficiently to maintain our legal leave, vested right. Thank you. Okay, that's correct. And so, and that comes from you make a statement, your letter, that other than a aluminum application expiring because the full application is not Submitted within 180 days as required The all another thing that renders a preliminary application invalid is if the project has been changed beyond what is permitted in Government code section 65 941.1 subdivision. See you did anticipate that Which talks about You have to resubmit or make, if you ask for an increase in unit count or square footage of 20% or more, right? Correct. And your authority for that is a footnote in the letter sent to the Michael Forbes yesterday, where it says, the project vested the non-compliant, this was the HCD's position, the project vested the non-compliant status of the housing elementCD's position, the project vested the non-compliant status of the House in the element of the time of Submitted on October 2022. Footnote, this assumes that the preliminary application is not expired and the project has not been changed beyond what is permitted in Government Code Section 659 4.1, 4.1 subdivision seat. That's the authority, right? I think the authority is a plain language of the statute reinforced by that footnote in the HCD yet letter of yesterday, correct. This doesn't say whether a preliminary application would be valid if information required is completely omitted from the preliminary application, does it? This footnote, it doesn't discuss a plumber application where actual required information was omitted. This footnote does not, but there is a difference I would submit council member to submitting a preliminary application. Remember, when you submit a preliminary application, it is accompanied by plans. So it's a description, there's informational requested in there plans. So it's a description, there's informational requested and then there are plans. You have to submit all of the statutory required items at that moment in time consistent with the plans. That's question one, threshold question one. That was done. Threshold question two, what changes then, knock you out of testing? Does reducing parking, knock you out of testing. Does reducing parking knock you out of testing not in the statute that that could change all the time? What about height? You go up, you go down, does that knock you out? Not indicated by the statute. I see nothing in here about a change in land use. Now, there is one major red line that we haven't discussed yet, which is no change at all could occur, particularly with the introduction of a commercial use, that resulted in more than one-third of the project square footage being commercial. Because that would render the project inconsistent with the definition of a housing development project in the HA completely. So that's the ultimate red line. But other than that, there's 25 different things that are asked for in a preliminary application. And the way the statutory framework is set up as any number of them could change because projects change. Particularly at such an early preliminary stage. They just can't change by 20% or more with respect to unit counts, where footage is measured by the California Building Code and 65941.1C. And you say anything else can change? I can say the projects can change. It has to be a housing development project. Two-thirds square footage, no more than one-third commercial square footage. Other than the change in C, anything else can change? That's your position. I guess. I don't see what. I see nothing else in the statute for inhibiting any other change. Calling out a council member, why would the statute make the point? To say that these two things are no-go zones. These two things, compromise and forfeit your resting. If it was uses, wouldn't they have added that? Do you have any, and there's no case law supporting your, your, your, your, your, your stone was absolutely correct. This is all new stuff. I mean, this was recent law, but we have what I believe is fairly clear statutory language, and that I believe is the way that HCD is interpreting it, not only generally, but in this specific case with respect to this specific project. Okay. So, fair enough. So let me just say that the me just point out that government cut the section 659 4.1.1A1 requires an applicant to include the project's parcel number legal description address So it requires that the the applicant to to say what the property is right? Could you change the property from a preliminary application to full application still have the preliminary application, you ballot? Could you say that you're going to build a project on Bedford and then change it to Beverly Drive? As a litigator, council member, skilled attorney in your own right, you've heard of the canon, legal canon of the doctrine of interpretation of absurdity? There's a certain point where you know it becomes so absurd and outrageous. Could I file this project in West Hollywood and still claim I have a vested right and no? No. Can I file it on Bedford? No. Fair enough. So so let me ask you this. So you've got the government code section for our view. So where in this government code section does it say that the requirement in 65941.1a1 is more important than the other 16 requirements than 65941.1a? I look at it differently. I see them as two different frameworks. 65941.1A, the point provisioning you're mentioning, are saying all these things are really, really important to submit a preliminary application is complete. Give us all this critical information to start the process at the earliest stage with the preliminary application. And you got to do that and we did that. And then given the long arc of the process, a year and two months later without being even deemed complete, things naturally change. And if we were amazingly allowed to proceed with this project and go through public hearings in the California Environmental Quality Act review, things would change even more. That is a completely common sense allowance. But the legislature said it can't be unlimited. Only two things can keep you from losing, you can keep you from maintaining your vested right with respect to project changes. Information that must be submitted to start, to vest, red lines that can't be crossed for project changes that compromise vesting. And two very different things, two very different sections of the statute. And well, okay, so that's your position I get it, but just in form, I'm just, just educate me. We're in this government code section. To say the requirement of say 65, 941.1A1, which you admit, you could not make a material change on, is more important or should be treated differently than the requirement in 65, 941.1A4 where you must identify the proposed non-residential uses. Just tell me where it differentiates those two requirements under A. Well, it doesn't. But it's two different concepts, as I say. It's information that must be submitted for the preliminary application. Again, and we're just going to, probably, have to disagree, agree to disagree. But then it's changes. So what are you required to submit to start? Because there has to be a starting, even with the preliminary application, at the very, very early inception of this project. There has to be a starting point. So, obviously, cities need to be informed of certain information. But then, again, as you know, Councilmember, projects do change. And the legislature in the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, not the Let's Make Housing really, really hard to process and easy to lose vested rights act of 2019. It's set up to allow some flexibility. And you're right, I can't point to you a provision that says you're allowed to change your commercial land uses and introduce hotels, but it also is really clear that only two things are called out. So if only two things are called out, it sort of logically follows, and it's certainly as a matter of statutory construction, that those are the only two things. What, I will have to just go on that. But I am glad that you recognize that the 17 elements described in subparagraph A are all critical, and I just wanted to point out. Critical to start and to submit. That's fine. So I just want to point out that this provision is part of the Housing Crisis Act, right? It is. Yeah, for sure. Okay. So. So the Housing Crisis Act only applies to developments in residential components, right? The Housing Crisis Act applies to define housing projects, which can include projects that will have residential components, right? At least two-thirds square footage. So when going to A sub four again, so when that requires an applicant to describe the proposed land uses, isn't the sole purpose of that requirement to describe uses other than residential? At that moment in time, yes. But again, not to say that that particular item cannot change. And again, the big item, the big definitional requirement is that you have to meet the definition of a housing development project. So I could not have, my client could not have introduced a project that had 50% commercial land use. That would have rendered the project inconsistent with the HAA entirely. So you have to read that definition in context with these sets of requirements in context with the following provision that allows certain changes and not others. Right, and all I'm saying is what makes you think, what authority you have beyond just, I guess maybe somewhat wishful thinking, I think, that somehow that when A4 asks you describe land uses, which clearly means non-residential uses, and actually, specifically requires disclosure of non-residential uses, somehow that's not so critical that if you change it, it doesn't matter later on. A five asked for the proposed number of parking spaces. If we submitted the preliminary application with 126 parking spaces and then revised our application to have 125 parking spaces or 127 parking spaces, under your logic we would be disqualified from vesting. I agree. So what I would say is that's a possibility, yes. That's because, that's, but then again, the solution is pretty simple, isn't it? The solution's just filed in the reprimary application. Oh, I'm glad you asked that. Thank you very much because it's not quite that simple. At the time we filed our investing preliminary application, the city was taking the position that HCD's lack of certification was effectively irrelevant and that you were substantially compliant, I should, forgive me, that the city had a substantially compliant housing element as a matter of law, notwithstanding HCD's letter. HCD told you yesterday you have to grant our appeal. I can see the tea leaves and predict we're not going to get there. I'm guessing this is not the first time the city has disagreed with HCD's guidance, directives, and gone a different direction. If I filed on behalf of my client a new preliminary application, that dollars to donuts that I would receive a letter from again your very skilled city attorneys who don't miss a beat that Things have changed you've advanced your housing element and while you may have been Non-compliant in our first preliminary application You've now updated it and you know advanced it and so legally compliant Note maybe not yesterday, but today absolutely and even And even though HCD had you had a compliance, that wasn't the indicator that you were going on. So this notion that it could have just been cleaned up with a new preliminary application, a lot more complicated than that. Although, as you know, that the main reason at that point in time where the city had taken the position at the preliminary application didn't match up with your full application was the change in use. You could have solved that problem by following a new preliminary application when you didn't, so I was wondering why? No, no, for the same reason. At that point in time, when that actually, that change actually occurred when my client decided that that was a change you wanted to institute. You know, it was time had passed and so the city, again, was not abiding by HCD's recommendation. And so as a matter of law, you were saying our housing element is compliant. If you had advanced your housing element, you would have said it's that much more compliant. So it was not as simple as just refreshing the preliminary application and submitting it. And I also come back to my original point, which we didn't have to. We didn't have to based on the statutory language. We still don't have to. Other cities that have looked at this question have seen it, not as you were seeing it. So again, this may respectfully surges be something that we will not be able to agree on. But ultimately, I think the statutory language and the construct of the Housing Crisis Act bears out the flexibility that I think we are allowed to take advantage of because we didn't change the project by 20% or more with respect to units and or square footage. So when the city said that we were in substantial compliance the time we responded to you, did you believe them? No, okay. And was in fact there was there a case that was percolating and we were court that we had not gotten or housing on one certified, right? So if you didn't believe them, why not just follow their preliminary application? I find this this entire line of inquiry fascinating. Are you saying that I should have ignored the city's stated position that your housing element was legally compliant? I should have relied on the forthcoming loss the city incurred by judge kin's decision and should have refiled a preliminary application that would have not been called out in any way as prejudicial to our position in this application. So that is just not the way this process has played out. And so we made a determination both based on the law as it's written and the city's position with respect to how it was viewing compliance and where we were at in the process and we still feel very comfortable legally that our vested rights are secured and that this application should be deemed complete tonight. Based on the fact that the change in use was not material and did not render the pro-man application in valid. Based on the fact that it is not one of the enumerated items that this legislature calls out as forfitting vested rights. All right, let's move on. So one of the other issues that come up tonight is the appeal process. And your position is that the municipal code appeal process should not apply to this particular appeal. And you refer to a California government code section saying that's where your right to appeal comes from. But in fact, unfortunately, I don't have that in front of me. I did, but I can't seem to find it. In fact, that provision only provides the right of appeal and says that the city is supposed to provide a process. So as you've heard tonight, the city only has one appeal process. So how should the city have processed your appeal? That's exactly how they did it until three days ago when we learned that the new position that it was filed in timely. Well, but the process was that we required a filing fee. Should we not be required that? We paid it. No fee. Should we not- Be prepared that. We paid it. No, but that's not what I'm asking. I'm saying should, I mean, exactly what process do you think you were filing it following if you weren't following the municipal code? The city's municipal code by its absolute own language in terms doesn't apply to ministerial actions. You don't have a process like this in the state law. So we did what any applicant would do, we turned to your staff and said, we'd like to appeal, here's the government code provision, we'd like to avail ourselves of, what do we do? You need to pay a fee, we have a process that requires us to go before the city council and schedule it and then a decision on the merits. It has to happen in 60 days because that's state law, not local code. And we said, okay, tell us the appeal fee. We paid the appeal fee. At no point in time were we told sir that the application was untimely. The money was collected and banked. We then had multiple continuances, which the city had to agree to. Six months occurred and we spent time and effort advancing this appeal. And three days ago when the staff report was out, we were told there's a 14-day deadline. A 14-day deadline in a code provision that says no right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision, maybe an official of the city pursuant to any of the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial. That, that, sir, raises substantial due process questions. We can disagree about new state laws and there's not case law and your attorneys make good arguments. I'd like to think we're advancing some good arguments. But that is fundamentally unfair. Fundamentally unfair, not consistent with your code or state law and an unbecoming argument to be quite candid. So as a land use attorney and some new plan practices in municipal municipalities, would it be true that normally the applicant is charged with knowledge of the municipal code? I had knowledge of the municipal code. I knew exactly what this provision said. In fact, we looked at it because we wanted to better understand this process of coming to the council for scheduling as a first step and then the decision on the merits. And because I had knowledge of the provision, I was convinced that we were not up against the 14-day deadline, which was reinforced when the city accepted and processed this appeal. All right, we'll move on. So, I just, but we did that. All right. We'll move on. So, I just, but we did that. All right. Um, that has been a lot, a lot of back and forth about the decision requirements, submit, um, a general plan in zone, zoning amendment application and, um, and there was other information that was, that there's other information that, that was requested. Um, and, um, and never provided initially in response to the city's letters. And we talked about some of those. Some of them were addressed in your recent letter that we said are still outstanding and you explain why you think they're not outstanding. But in other instances, your client did provide additional information to response to the city's response to the letters, right? We did. We did what we could. Right. Okay. And in fact, on page four of your January 10th, 2024 letter, in response to the city's second and complete letter, you specifically acknowledged that the project materials have been modified to response specific comments noted in the city's second and complete letter. Other than those city comments requiring zoning code compliance, they need to file additional unnecessary entitlements. That's a quote from your, I mean that's correct, right? Yeah, I don't have it in front of me, but I trust you. OK, yeah. And your client continued to make additional revisions in response to city's third and complete letter of February 9th. Correct. Right. And a number of those revisions were made in connection with your response to that letter on May 9th of this year That's right, okay, and among those revisions They were made on May 9th were the addition of the rubbed storage calculations and the addition of details regarding an alley dedication and a shade and shadow study Those were all items that were requested initially right and this show yes, And they're on the list of checklists that the city provides. And so my question is, why did it take so long to provide that information? Well, so we provided the information that we could, but it is a little hard to spend a ton of money and effort on devising these plans, which we then submit, and then are told that they're not perfected enough, and we need to revise. When we're staring at these huge issues of disagreement that are going to prevent the application based on the city's multiple written communications from ever being deemed complete, certainly ever being approved. So we felt the need to call the question on those big items. We then made the decision because we were getting incomplete letters that in the interest of moving it forward, we will do what we can. And what I would say to you council member is if the paint color on the HVAC equipment are critical to you, you can grant our appeal tonight with a condition that we submit the finest color palette of any mechanical equipment you've ever seen. If the paving plan on the front yard setback is really what's this is about tonight, then you got it. Grant the appeal, conditioned, will give you the most detailed paving plans the city of Beverly Hills has ever seen. That's not what it's about. You and I both know that. And so that's why we felt the need to bring the appeal to you tonight. All right. Thank you for your forthright, Antistamite questions. Thank you very much, Council Member. I have nothing more at this point. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Mirish. Okay. As long as Mr. Rand is there, I'll start with you because I do then have some questions for some staff and for some of the speakers. You mentioned the decision by Judge Kim when it came to Beverly Hills and her housing element. Do you agree with his decision that the city was out of compliance? I do. I do. Did you also agree with his decision on SB 9? No. You didn't. I did not. and why not? Because I thought that was incredible hair splitting. And the decision on SB 9 that the findings weren't specific enough because the statute mentioned affordable housing and not market rate housing when the production in my view, since you asked me my view, of all housing results in greater affordability as a supply demand proposition. So I do think, I do disagree with that position. The attorney general is appealing. My expectation is it will be reversed, but I certainly could be wrong. Well does it though? I mean, if you, you to use another example if you build more porches will that cause the price of Prius is to be reduced? I I think that's an apples the oranges comparison when we're talking about living spaces When we're talking about homes Well, did luxury give you an idea. In Beverly Hills, we have the Rosewood condos being built, one Beverly Hills in our city. I think the cheapest condo at one Beverly Hills is gonna be $12 million. Is that gonna somehow trickle down and create housing affordability? In and of itself, no. But in mass, a significant increase in the production of housing as a basic supply demand principle, I do believe it will. And the project before you tonight, not really before you, but includes 30 plus affordable, deed restricted units because it is a builder's remedy and has to include 20%. So yeah, we can argue about the benefits or not of the market rate component, but there's a significant affordability benefit associated with the 20% deed restricted. That's a separate thing because it's deed restricted. So, but I guess my point is if Judge Kin was wrong on the one decision, might he not have been wrong on the other one too? You're asking one man's opinion. I think if you're asking me to call balls and strikes, he got it right with respect to the noncompliance of the city's housing element. And we can talk about that. I disagree with the decision he reached on SB 9, but he's not infallible. I know human is. Well, OK. So initially the project was 100% housing correct. Yes. So in the latest iteration, it's only 67% housing, correct? They're about. That is correct. It is 2 thirds housing. So 67%. And to you, that's not a significant difference The legal test is not is it a significant difference there councilman There's no no point in the statute that says there's a substantial compliance test a significant difference test There's one actually two tests that we've discussed extensive right I know you mentioned it the 20% and the- Right. So whether I think it's a substantial difference, whether someone else doesn't, that has no legal relevance to the question of the status of our vested rights whatsoever. We see our friends here from Labor. Does this mean that this project is being, would be built under a PLA? I can't speak to that given that so early, we are not even deemed complete, but the owner and developer has definitely had conversations with labor and intends to use union labor. And that's of course why they're here. You're not willing to commit now to a PLA, if the project at some point is approved. I don't have the authority to do that. It's not even my place. I know just by virtue of conversations that the owner will be working with union carpenters and union laborers. Well, that's different though than a PLA, isn't it? It is one thing to do the apprentice program and all of that. But I'm guessing that our friends in labor would prefer a PLA because it's more beneficial to them all around. Yes, it is different. But as you saw here tonight, council member, there is clearly union labor support for this project, if that's what you're getting at. No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that since there is labor, you might want to go the whole nine yards and make sure that this is and commit to it be. If we did that tonight, would you deem our application complete and allow the project to move forward? There are certainly two different issues. There are certainly two different issues, aren't they? I mean, if you're not judging the project at all. If it's on the table, because it's coming up in the context of a completeness determination hearing, if that's what it will take, then we can talk about that. Well, I would tell you it has sadly, not sadly, it just doesn't have anything to do with completeness, but as someone who supports PLAs and Labor, I'm just taking advantage of the fact that you've got so many labor people here to make that suggestion. Okay, and again, maybe that's something that as the process continues can be discussed. You referenced the HCD letter. My question to you is, did you draft that letter? No, no. I wish, if I could, even if we go down to Flames tonight, if I could take credit for that and this public hearing, so you'd be very good for the firm. You haven't spoken with HCD. Oh, we absolutely spoke with HCD, and we submitted an extensive legal justification as to why we believe that the Compton letter was incorrect and why we believe in this context, the general plan amendment, zone change wasn't allowed. HCD has a process of portal literally set up where anybody can submit any kind of request justification. We did that as advocates, but absolutely not did we write this letter under no. So there's no part of the letter if I looked at your letter to them and their letter to us they wouldn't have lifted any of your phrases. I would encourage you to do that. Okay, so in terms of content, I mean is your is your letter to them a public document? Yes, it is. I'd be happy to do that. Okay. So, in terms of content, I mean, is your letter to them a public document? Yes it is. I'd be happy to provide it to you. And while we discussed some of the substantive issues that were identified in the letter to you to the City of Beverly Hills yesterday, they wrote their wrong letter. Well, okay, but I don't know much about when our staff report came out, but this is a direct result or reaction of the staff report. Who was it who said, I think it's very true that Jake Manister, how long we've been waiting in some cases to get responses from HCD, literally calling them and begging them for response and staff report maybe out on Friday? So let's say on Monday, I mean, this is, you know, this is amazing responsiveness on the part of HCD, which we could have only dreamed of. Maybe you can tell us what your secret is. Well, it's not like we reached out last week and it resulted in a letter this week. When the letter that was issued to the City of Compton was, we knew about that that same day. And I felt that that letter missed the mark in many respects. And we took the opportunity, that's months ago, to submit fairly detailed legal objections and information in the hopes that the state would, if not reconsider, clarify. Were you representing the developer in Tompton? No. Okay. Because as said, as far as I know, this was just something that appeared in our staff report, which was published on Friday afternoon. So, you know, I don't know, maybe you have, you know, the elements of Nostradamus knowing that our staff was going to somehow cite the Compton letter, which, okay. There were advocates, housing advocates, all over the state that were very concerned about the Compton letter. HCD got a myriad of voluntary legal opinions about that. What were the other developers' concerns? Well, it was a legal concern that the letter needed to be clarified because it suggested, which has been clearly clarified in the letter issued yesterday, that a general plan amendment zone change could possibly be used as the basis to disapprove a Builder's Remedies Project, which of course is fundamentally at odds with the HAA and the Builder's Remedies Provision. The HAA letter to Compton did say that General Plan amendments and zone changes requested in the context of Builders Remedies Projects cannot cost applicants excessive amounts of money and incur delays. Well, I thought it says it just can't make the project infeasible. No, it says it can't result in delays. And to our point is, one of our points was that a General Plan amendment zone change that doesn't cost money or delays is not a thing. Well, you just said it didn't cost money, but isn't there a deal? You know, I don't know, I'm making a figure up, but if a developer is making a hundred percent profit and it reduces it to 95, that still costs money, but that would be by all measures, still reasonable, wouldn't it? It's not a reasonable test. It's more, I understand the city charges, recently charged an applicant about $100,000 for general plan amendment application. That's a significant amount of money. I would argue that bigger adverse effects to the project would be the delays, rather than the cost. But that sort of legislative action would cause significant delays. And we felt that it is fundamentally inconsistent with the entire construct of the Housing Accountability Act. And again, I'm just asking since we have you here some questions in general, not all of them necessarily related to the question of timeeliness. What are your thoughts on impact fees? I think they can be a significant impediment to housing production. But you know, if you ever saw the movie, the producers, as he says, can't make plays without checkies. It costs a lot of money to run a city. So developments cause additional costs. How are- How are the rules- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Reasonable- Re that use impact fees as a deliberate attempt to stymie housing production. And so I would say there needs to be impact fee reform in California when it comes to housing. Isn't that why there should be nexus studies that show that there's a reasonable nexus between the fees? And I once heard somebody say lies, damn lies, and nexus studies. But yes. OK. So we'll tell that to our friends at Kaiser Mark. One last question. Have you been in touch with any of the other organizations that have commented today? Like Abundant Housing? I am in touch with housing advocates all over the state. Our firm does a lot of housing and we are involved in a lot of the new housing related laws. We work with advocates including some of the groups that have submitted letters to you. Okay, thank you. If I may ask the gentleman from Labor, would you mind answering a couple of questions please? Thank you. Wouldn't mind coming up. Thank you so much. I'm guessing that as, you know, not specifically with this project, but in general, I'm guessing that you probably are appreciative of when you are working with PLAs. Is that correct? Yes. I'm curious just because I'd like to know, your members and all of that, I'm guessing that a lot of them, if they don't own their own homes, they might like to own homes. Would that be a fair thing to say? Correct. And the project and wages and salary and pensions could help you. If I may ask, what do you think, not just yourself, do you think most of your members would prefer to own their homes or to rent? to rent. I would like to think they'd like to own their homes. You know because that pretty much I grew up in a household where my family owned a home. Did you have a yard? Excuse me? Did you have a yard? Yes. And do you think a lot of your members, again, if given the choice, would they prefer to own a home with a yard and little space? My members, they want a place where they can go, they can turn the light on and lock the door. Okay. It doesn't necessarily have to be the, what I grew up with, a pool, a yard. You know, they want a place that's clean and safe. And some of them, they just want to come home from work and then put things away and then walk down the street and you know, go to their favorite deli. So for some of them it might be the neighborhoods more important and for other ones it might be they like having a little more space. Maybe they like to have a yard, a pool, I don't know, maybe. I'd have to save 50-50. Okay, good. No, I mean, I mean that's because our members, their summa live way far out, you know, in Temecula, and they'll drive over here. And then that's where, by the way, you see our fire chief, he lives out close to Temecula. So a lot of our city employees, it's a question of a balance. Do I want to maybe have a bigger piece of property and live a little bit further out? Or, you know, as you say, it's a question of a balance. Do I want to maybe have a bigger piece of property and live a little bit further out or, you know, as you say, it's very personal. But yeah, no, I understand where you're coming from and things have changed, you know. We want to be able to, well, actually everybody, they want the least amount of travel. and if they can buy a place or rent a place and maybe shorten that commute or you know your local hire people that live in the city they have the opportunity to build a building like this or something smaller something bigger and then make the transition to stay here, by here, or move out, you know. But aren't a lot of your jobs sort of like you're going where the jobs are. This one would be here. You may have another job out by Tidectil. You may have a job out in Rosemite. It's for the carpenters, isn't that sort of, you know, it's not like you're going to the same office each day. You're working on projects wherever they may be, correct? It just depends. You know, because we're building hospitals, you know, and they're not all over the place. Stadiums, they're not all over the place. Well, ones in Inglewood, ones in. Well, when I say, you know, they're, excuse me, they're selected places. Got it. OK. Well, thank you. And thank you for showing up. And also thank you to your colleagues who appeared on the video. I appreciate it. And as someone who lived in Sweden for many years, I'm very appreciative of labor. I kind of sometimes wish that America had the same kind of more harmonious relationship between labor and business. But thank you very much. I understand. Thank you, Vouch. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for Dave's now. I mean, I may be interpreting it wrong, but from my perspective, the way that Mr. Rand described his argument, when it is a ministerial act or a builder's, which is a builder's remedy project, it seems like it's simply not possible period for an application to be incomplete. But even if something is ministerial, if it's incomplete, it's incomplete. Is that, or am I missing something? No, I think that's right. If the criteria aren't met, then it wouldn't be. Ministerial approval doesn't mean that you have to mind read what is missing correct? Correct and I want to be careful about approval here. Minister, I'm minister termination why I know you suggested that there are some discretionary aspects but I'm saying even if it were ministerial you still have to fill out the forms correct correct okay um so uh this So this project now has a number of hotel rooms, but couldn't you consider hotel to be a form of lodging? I mean, there are people who live in hotels, correct? You know, the old school, there are people who even live in hotels these days. Why would the hotel rooms be exempt from the 20% affordability covenant? I think the general approach that this city in most cities would take is that hotel rooms are not accommodations. They're- You live in them. Correct. I mean, it's some people, a day, a week, a month, a year, whatever. But, I mean, it's not, it's not like it is you said, a smelting plant, it's not a mortuary, it's not a, you know, department store or something like that. It is fundamentally a place where people sleep and shower and if they do or whatever. Correct? Yes. So I think just generally in the city's code that's been treated not as a residential use. That is under a commercial use or a new. Well, but we're hearing that the city's code doesn't really matter. There's another standard out there and you know other things we're hearing that. So all right well for now I think those were my questions. I really appreciate it. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Vice mayor. Yes thank you very much. Well I think a lot of the questions that I would have have already been addressed. I want to start off by saying that we're here to determine if the application is complete or not. And that's pretty much the extent of it. I wanted to thank all of the residents that came out and all of the various parties who participated. We are a city that is committed to completing and obviously we have our housing, but to implement our housing initiatives. And right now the, this is about the merit of the case and not about the details of it. So I don't want to get too detailed into it. And I also appreciate a lot of the labor parties being here. I think that it's really late. And most of them have to start off early in the morning tomorrow. So thank you for taking the time to come and express your concerns. So it looks like the appeal wasn't completed in time based on the preliminary application. And one of the things that I find very curious is that HCD provided a letter the city within 24 hours and it's taken us a significant amount of time to get a response. I'm curious as to how that would come about. So, um, I think that's what we're going to do is we're going to have to get a response. So, um, I think that's what we're going to do is we're going to have to get a response. So, um, how that would come about. So, the application needs to be provided in order for this to be considered and we have certain proceedings that are set up in our city. I think a lot of the questions that I've had have already been addressed and I'd like to pass it on to the mayor. Sure. Thank you. If I could have Mr. Rand again, you've rested long enough. Some of these are going to be repetitive. I'm going to hit them on a little bit of a different angle. But I suspect I'm going to get the same answer. So when was the concept of having hotels went into formulate in the process? Was it something that came along just all of a sudden, hey, let's add hotel rooms? Or was it something that they just kept in their back pocket for a while? No, not so much a back pocket. I think as my client continued to study the site and think of opportunities and he's a guy that always has new ideas. He started to get more and more interested in the idea of a really high-end boutique hotel of that location. And I think high-end boutique hotel of that location and I think LVMH and some other things were getting him focused on that and so he the more he thought about it the more he liked it and decided that he wanted to incorporate it into the project. Things that would be a great location for it. And it's really an opportunity here we have this period of time, short period of time that he was looking at or potentially thought he was looking at and comes up with a project that looks like it's all residential in an area that is single, moderately multi-family and decides 19 stories is appropriate. Right? I understand you have concerns about the height mayor. I appreciate that. His feeling is that a couple of things, right off Wilshire Boulevard, there's a lot of intensity on Wilshire Boulevard and that this is not an inappropriate location for height. In addition, as was mentioned, there's a fault line and there's been a fault study approved for the project and so there's a significant setback that needs to be observed. So to achieve the density and intensity for a project there is some height that is required naturally, less footprint, the need to go up. But ultimately he feels that it is going to be a good location for this kind of density. And from a broader perspective with respect to our housing crisis, which we've talked a lot about tonight and all the statutes that have been enacted to advance that, this is jobs, this is density, this is intensity, this is transit, this is major corridor, ultimately, if these land uses and density and housing has to go someplace, that we believe this is an appropriate location. It's also potentially a very large profit for the developer, correct? I'm at, it's no secret that developers are, need to make money. A lot of projects don't make money, but to the extent that the project were to be approved and presumably it would be a successful business venture. So, I don't think that's that thing. I don't think that's inconsistent with the goals of producing housing, but. It was just one of the things that you hadn't listed as one of the reasons that it was there. I just wanted to highlight that part of it. If the developer wanted to put, If the developer wanted to put, I don't know, the latest Louis Vuitton store and use three floors of the project for a retail store such as that, a high end store, would that be permitted under the current HCD laws? If a new land use was introduced that didn't result in a change in 20% or more of square footage or unit count and that new commercial land use still maintained the minimum two third residential square footage required to be considered a housing development project under the HAA, then yes, that is a project change mayor that could occur. Now, this is so early in the process, even though it's been a year. What happens here is there'd be a sequel process. If the application would be deemed complete and go through code compliance review, the next step would be sequel. That's another opportunity where you have to study the project in detail. And all the land uses have different environmental implications, as you know. And so changes after that would create potential issues under an entirely different state law, which is the California Environmental Quality Act. But yes, at this early stage from the preliminary application to just the application, at this infant piece part of the process, those kinds of changes are permissible under state law without for-fitting vested rights. So I think we talked about absurdity at some point. What would your clients absurdity be in having some sort of use in that building that would not be appropriate? Are you saying it's just a 20% rule and everything else goes in terms of the application process at this point in time and everything has to be delayed for a sequel or some other type of regulation? I think commercial land uses could be included changed again as long as it's less than one third square footage. I think that can happen and I don't think that such a change would be at all absurd. We could have a nightclub use up three of those floors also. That wouldn't that would be permitted under process. I can rest assure you I don't think there'll be a nightclub introduced in the building. I'm just wondering, one, I mean, you've said that is the only restriction is a 20% use. And it's just hard for me to believe that that is the only use. And I think that, you know, I'm not gonna go through the whole thing that Councilmember Corman went through in terms of the other section. But it's just hard for me to really grapple with that concept that it's just that and nothing else. As I mentioned, to your point, the absurdity point, if things got really crazy, there's another mechanism in the California Environmental Quality Act to check what would be the inevitable environmental impacts associated of that kind of crazy introduction. And if that would result in significant impacts, it couldn't be mitigated, then the city would have the ability to underse seek what it makes certain findings to check those land uses. So there are other mechanisms in the law mayor that would put a cabin on the kind of craziness that I think you're talking about in your hypotheticals. Here we're not talking about anything that wild. We're talking about a minor ancillary and my colleague reminded me the project is still 77% residential. So a minor component of the building as a commercial land use, one which is very consistent with the vibrancy and intensity along Wilshire Boulevard. It's not that wild of a change and again we do think it's permitted under the law. It's not on Wilshire Boulevard. It's one property off, it's a stone's throw from Wollsher Boulevard. Well, but maybe one stone's throw from Wollsher Boulevard, but it's also a stone's throw from a religious- You've got an office building across the street, you've got a parking truck, a surface parking lot in the other side of the street. This is a surface parking lot. It was indicated earlier, mayor, this is not units or homes that are being displaced. Transit priority area, some of the most intense generous transit in the vicinity. Employment of the gazoo. There's a land use case to be made for both the uses and the intensity of the proposed project at this location. I know that's not what we're talking about tonight, but since it's interesting. We're not. And again, you're saying it's a stone throw away from Wilshire Boeward. It's also a stone throw away from a single family residence area. In terms of the rolling 90 days, how many 90 day periods could there be? That I go on and add infinitum? You can go keep going as long as there's completeness items that are responded to as long as the city keeps telling you you're not complete. Then you can keep going. The notion that a developer, and this was mentioned earlier, I can't remember who. It may have been Mr. Snow, I don't remember exactly. But the notion that it would somehow be a strategic tactic that a developer would employ to drag this out intentionally in a series of never-ending 90-day review processes to never get complete, to never start the project, actual process and earnest. To your point, Mayor, earlier, there's a business aspect to this. That would be the dumbest business maneuver ever employed by any developer ever. That's just fundamentally inconsistent with how people who build things look at the world. So that's just not something that happens. You can't imagine a situation where it would be advantageous for a property owner to drag it out because he or she can't get financing, has financial difficulties or anything like that. No such. All I do, all I do, Mayor, Mayor is work with these developers. It's the reason for my premature hair loss. And they, some of them can't obtain financing that could be a real issue you're right But they always always want to get the approval in hand if they can't obtain financing Then they may have to sit on that approval They may not be able to but they always want to get the project approved They never want to get the project approved. They never want to delay the process. They certainly never want to drag out the point in which the application is even complete. Pay people like me to have to write letters. I mean, that is a losing business proposition. Let's go to the HCD letter. There's two letters, as I understand, the Compton letter and the Beverly Hills letter. Beverly Hills letter just came in. I may even havepton letter and the Beverly Hills letter, Beverly Hills letter just came in. I may even have a copy of the Beverly Hills letter. Let me see if I do. But my question on that is, is the author or the signator, I should say, because we don't know who authored it, we just really know who signed off on it. Is that the same person who signed off on both letters, on both the Beverly Hills letter and on the... Yes it is. On the Compton letter? Correct. So either she's flipped or there are subtle differences that occurred between the two letters. She got beat up. Something like that. I think it was a clarification. The first Compton letter suggested that general plan amendments and zone changes can be part of the builders remedy, a part of a builders remedy project. Then I think HCD have the opportunity to think more about the practical implications and were presented with a set of facts involving this project where it suggested that the city was poised to disapprove a project and Not deemed it complete because that is what all the city letters have said unless The city compelled the applicant to file a general plan amendment in zone change and when HCD Looked the issue in that context. I think they reached the conclusion that that, as they said, the letter would be absurd. So this was a clarification of the original letter based on a actual set of real-life circumstances and a record that they evaluated in the context of this project. Okay, a record that was provided, I suspect, from one perspective and not from another perspective. The HCD have evaluated based on the context of the state laws. And the information that they were provided? They were provided the city's letters. They were provided the, I mean, they were provided the discrete question, which is, the city of Beverly Hills, no secret. I don't think anybody would disagree, was not deeming the application of the London project complete in part because there was no general plan amendment application or zone change submitted. And they had not reached the question in Compton as to whether that issue violated a separate state law that wasn't discussed in the Compton Letter, which is the Permit Streamlining Act. So they looked at it through a different lens because there was a different set of facts involved. And so that is why I believe the clarification was issued and the two letters can be harmonized in that way, but the second letter is much more clear about what the red lines are with respect to cities mandating these legislative actions and builders remedy projects. But it only addressed that singular issue, not the timeliness issue. Well, let's talk about that because it addressed that issue in extensive detail. It noted as Council Member Corman stated that the subdivision referencing the two changes would be the changes that would forfeit vested rights. It acknowledged the detailed submittals, all of the application submittals, all of the timeframes of reference in the letter, inherently more than 90 days, a repeated cycle of 90 days. And so, in that context, they reviewed that dispute and checked that one off the list. So, the letter in evaluating the case, disagreed with a number of legal positions that the city has relied on in order to deem the application complete. The 90-day rolling period, the changes in land use, the general plan amendment and zone change, all wrapped up in that letter and directive to the city. But they're not the ultimate decider of that issue. It's going to be at a different level. They provide advisory opinions, correct? Those advisory provisions are persuasive legal authority. They are not binding, but they are persuasive. And so that is the official State Department with statutory authority to interpret the laws that we're disagreeing about. So to dismiss it, I think is a mistake, because it does have legal relevance and consequence. I'm not sure they're charged with the interpretation of laws. I'm not sure if this person is an attorney or not an attorney, but I don't, I think that goes to a different level, wouldn't you? Well, the HCD is the department. They have a entire unit called the Housing Accountability Act Unit that is set up to evaluate and determine and interpret this key state law. And they have numerous attorneys that look at all of these letters and questions of law that are put to them. So I don't know that, honestly, I don't know if Shannon West is a attorney, but I do know that there are attorneys as well as the attorney general's office vet these letters. Okay, but I think it would be fair to say that the, and I think you would agree with this, that the ultimate determiner of these issues is obviously the court system. Always. And as long as nobody is proceeding in bad faith either side, ultimately that's a decision that we would all want to see, wouldn't it? Well, no, we'd like to see a project move forward. But if there are real differences, you know, legal differences, that really should be determined in a court of law, shouldn't it? Well, I don't know how to answer that. I would only say that if you have state laws that we believe are quite clear. You have the state agency charged with interpreting them, taking a very clear position. You have an applicant saying, which is, and please vet this with your city attorneys, I think they would agree with me, that if you were to deem the application complete tonight, that you would still preserve all of your rights to invoke all of these same arguments at multiple steps later in the process, meaning the city wouldn't be prejudiced in any way, shape, or form. So, no, I don't think going to court is a good idea. What I think is a good idea is if we can move beyond this step and the procedural warfare that has been occurring for the last year over the back and forth of this application, and have a conversation about a project at this site. And maybe it's lower in height. Maybe it has more parking. I didn't think the hotel was a bad use, but if that's so offensive, maybe it doesn't have the hotel use. We can talk about it, though, Mayor. We can actually have a conversation about the project rather than putting it to the courts, which I do not believe is the best arbiter about how to get needed housing and development actually done. Less lawyer in, I don't want to go. HCD didn't opine or did they? On whether the appeal was timely and all that legal issue about whether or not you have to appeal, don't have to appeal. That's not within the jurisdiction of HCD, is it? HCD did not opine on the question of the 14-day appeal window because there was nothing in the record until three days ago. They did opine on the, in a way, on the, I guess, what was referred to earlier as the mootness question, because it's referenced in the letter that the appeal was filed prior to the applicant submitting responses on subsequent incomplete letters, and clearly the department had no issue with that. But in terms of, you know, 14 days, whether or not that apply, well, let me go to that for a second. If the state laws, I understand it requires that there be an appeal process for any decision that's made an immunicipality. Correct? The state law requires an appeal opportunity and then a process can be set. Your code doesn't have a process for that by its own terms. So does that mean that there's no appeal right then? No, no, there absolutely is a appeal right. That means we go to, as we discussed earlier, we go to staff. We went with, worked with your staff and they told us what the appeal process was and processed our appeal. For the city to say tonight, all this time later, that 14 days had passed, so where's the appeal fund that we paid? Well, we're right here. Isn't that part of it? I mean, we exactly have to be out. The only way you can get to us is to go through that appeal. No, no, no. When appeals are rejected for untimelyness in every other jurisdiction, in every other context, they're not accepted, or if they're accepted erroneously, they're returned with a letter saying, we're not processing your appeal. They certainly don't bring the appellant with an untimely appeal before the city's legislative body and the mayor to talk about the merits. That is unprecedented. So we're here exactly. We're here because the appeal is timely and it's been processed. And that's why you feel you're here is because it's timely. Yes, absolutely. We should not be here if this appeal was in fact untimely. And it clearly wasn't. And again, the long process we've undertaken reflects that. Okay, those are my questions. You have follow up? Not from Mr. Rambud for staff, thank you. So Mr. Regis made some interesting points. And so hopefully Mr. Mel, come on. So we take the position at the appeals untimely because the appeal notice was filed late and the fee was paid late. But we did accept the money and we are here tonight, perhaps out of an abundance of caution to make sure we just the other elements besides just the timeliness of the appeal. By hearing this matter tonight, is there an argument that we have somehow waved the procedural infirmities of our municipal code appeal ordinance? I suppose it could make that argument, but again, I think under the statute, there's supposed to be an appeal process that was filed. There were extensions that were requested and agreed to by the city. And then the full analysis of the appeal occurred at that time. And I guess I would say to the extent that the council does conclude that the appeal was in timely, that certainly the fee could be returned because that's somewhat customary for an untimely appeal. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. So we've gone through questions. We're now going to close the hearing and we will hear from discussions and comments from council members regarding the issues which is I understand them are the issue of completion or incomplete and the pellet issue is that correct? I believe the issue is the application complete. There are various aspects to that. Various reasons why we believe the application is incomplete and of course Mr. Rand has argued that it is complete. But those are all, we've laid them out in the resolution. The council is free to adopt that resolution or to make changes to the resolution or to come to a different conclusion than what was in the resolution. And in terms of the appeal, is that something that we are apining on? Yes, that that would be ultimately the council would have to determine whether to uphold the appeal or deny the appeal. And what about a determination does that include or exclude a determination of whether or not it was timely? Is that something that we are? That the question of whether or not the appeal was timely would be part of the denial, if you decided it was not timely, that would be part of the denial of the appeal. Okay. Okay. So with that, we will start with Councilmember Wells. Okay. Thank you. Well, you know, I'm listening to all the arguments and I think the thing that really comes across to me is that there's not a definitive authority on any of these issues. And we are, you know, we're looking at this application to determine whether it's complete the different arguments that have been presented. You know, there's both sides We're looking at this application to determine whether it's complete. The different arguments that have been presented. There's both sides of this, but a lot of it is interpretation. And I would say that having read the staff report and the different arguments and hearing both sides as well as the different letters that we've reviewed. I would still be in support of the resolution that is recommended by the staff and I would deny the appeal. Okay, thank you and it is 11 o'clock and under our council rules I'm supposed to check with all council members to see whether or not we can complete the hearings today. So I'll start with council member Wells. Are you willing to continue on with the hearing? Yes. It's midnight for her. Yes, let's continue. Yes. Yes. Okay. As do I. So we'll go to councilmember Korman. Thank you. Okay. So I, too, believe we should deny the appeal of the reason say the draft resolution. And I'll let me explain some of my thinking. First, respect to the timeliness aspect. I think that's actually, I'll let that one go because I think that there is the interesting arguments on both sides. I think that the real question in my mind is whether there's been a waiver. It doesn't sound like that necessarily has been a waiver. I think the fact that the state law requires a process. We provided a process. There's only one process of appeal in the court, and I believe that the applicant is charged with knowledge of that process. They make a claim that that process shouldn't apply because it was ministerial, but we're not sure whether it was ministerial or not. And if it doesn't apply, there's no other process that would apply, so why not believe that it does apply, the one in the municipal code? And if that applies and the application is untimely, as far as the waiver arguments concerned, I don't know, I don't think we waived it, I think that we're looking at the merits on it out of abundance of caution, but I would also say out of abundance of caution that if we do have in the resolution that the appeal was on Timeline, I would refund the appeal fee because I just think that's probably proper. Next, a lot of discussion about California government code section 65941.1, the Housing Crisis Act and what it means when you make changes to required elements of a preliminary application. Applicant has their view that subdivision C is the only changes that require that mean you can make any changes you want as long as you don't run a foul with subdivision C. I think subdivision C can be read as a safe harbor that says essentially you can make changes up to a certain point and after changes of number of units and square footage because those are common changes. But once you go beyond 20% or once you hit 20% or more then that's a different application. So I don't know why certain requirements in A of the 17 requirements would be treated differently than the others since there's nothing in the code that says they should be. The applicant conceded I think correctly that it's not like an applicant could change the property. Described in the preliminary application with different property in the full application still have it be valid. And I think you could make the say you're marring and should make the say you're saying marring about subdivision for regarding uses, particularly when obviously developments cover by the housing crisis act involves residential development. So the whole point of subdivision for other than the unit numbers is to describe non-residential uses. That wasn't done. And to say that you don't have to do it, and you can add them later suggests that that provision doesn't even belong in the code, or it's an effective. It effectively reads it out of the code as far as whether it's required. And again, I go back to the preliminary language in 65, 941.1a, where it says, an applicant for a house, an development project, shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information. So if you don't provide information about any non-residential uses, when that's clearly the whole point of subdivision A4. I can't believe that when you do later on it's not a material change such that the application doesn't apply. So I do think that the preliminary application filed by the applicant is different than the full application and has no effect. As a result of the applicant I believe has no vested rights to proceed as a builder's remedy project due to the submission of its preliminary application. And so to the extent the applicant can proceed as a builder's remedy project, the applicant's full DPR application succeeds or fails on its own. And then the question becomes, is it complete or incomplete? and then the question becomes is it complete or incomplete? And I think that the application always was and remains incomplete for a variety of reasons, state of the draft resolution. But in addition to the recent state of the draft resolution, it's undisfeated that the applicant made revisions to its submissions on May 9, 2024 to provide information that the city had requested all along and was contained in its standard list of requirements. In doing so, I believe it can fairly be concluded that the project application was not complete before them. Irrespective of any request for a general plan or zoning amendment. And because our housing element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, this means the application was not the project application was not complete when our housing element came into compliance with the housing accountability act. I think that has a number of ramifications. I think first of all, as I said, the preliminary application doesn't apply, so there's no vested rights as a result of that.. I think first of all, as I said, the preliminary application doesn't apply, so there's no vested rights as a result of that. So I think once our housing element came into compliance, and this project application, the DBR by the application was still incomplete because the applicant conceded. can see that they provide additional information after May 1st. I think that the city's standing request for a general plan and zoning amendment, whether or not it was valid before then, automatically became indisputably valid because it was no longer potentially a build-us-remedy project. And for this additional reason, the applicant's project application remains incomplete to this day. So I would deny the repeal for that as well. In closing, let me just add that irrespective of what we decided tonight, we are committed as the city council and the city to affordable housing and our commitment to HCD to develop that in the city. And for the more with respect to the people, the organized labor people came tonight, I appreciate the developer's commitment to hire union labor. I think that's good. But the merits of the project as the applicant said upfront are. Our not was before us tonight. It's the developers. It's whether the application is complete or not, and I believe it's still not complete. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bauer-Marsh. Always nice to follow a star lawyer from O'Mail Phineon Myers, right? Can say diddo. But actually, I do wanna talk about a few general points about this interesting discussion where a lot of things have come up, even though ultimately this decision now is a technical one, because I do wanna respond to a couple of things that as someone who was part of the, I don't even wanna call it pro-housing because we're all pro-housing, but I guess I would say part of the zoning abolition contingent, people who want to eliminate zoning to some of the things that Mr. Rand had said. I think the people who talk about, and of course, I think the original quote was from Mark Twain about statistics, and that's very true, but when people talk about lies, damn lies, and nexus studies, I think these are people who have obviously never had to make a budget for a city or pay for the budget for a city. And we who are here, this is one of the most difficult and important things that we do each year. It's very expensive to run a city and to provide the kind of protection and safety that people want, including the people we've heard from labor who want to come home to a clean place and to a safe place. This is not a cheap thing, unfortunately, these days. We provide services to all our residents and our visitors. I'll maybe contrast the Mark Twain quote with something that Oscar Wilde once said. He once said, a cynic is someone who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. But I would suggest that some of the people who I might refer to as Wall Street in my backyard and the anti-nexus study people, in some ways know the value of everything to themselves, maybe, but the cost of nothing. And again, I will repeat that something that I've suggested before to this city, if we want to keep up our standards and keep Beverly Hills safe and clean and everything that we expect and our residents expect and our future residents expect. Then we should do our due diligence with a legitimate next study that reflects the actual costs of running the city and that will then enable us to in a more fiscally responsible way move forward. Anyway, I also, when it comes to some of the other things discussed, I personally don't think that producing more portions does reduce the price of preesses, but I really do appreciate the 20% affordable covenanted in Builders Remedy. And as I've also suggest, like other cities, like Long Beach, like Pasadena, we should, and the state should do this too, by the way. Anybody who considers themselves pro-housing should ensure that those covenants are not just for time limit, at 55 years, they should be in perpetuity. We see the problem now when you've got covenants, in some cases that were only 35 years or expiring and the affordability is lost, it's a big problem. So to me that's something that we should do. Now, again, think what you will about Builders Remedy and I know a lot of cities feel it is a problem and it is fundamentally unfair. But for those who do care about affordability, including the self-called pro-housing people, they should support bringing back redevelopment maybe at a higher level of affordable housing. There were some abuses which were mainly for commercial and not for housing. That would be a very good way to fund it. And people say it's a heavy lift, but I guess it wasn't such a heavy lift to eliminate it. It's been gone for what, ten years or something, Jerry Brown did it. That's a big problem. And also there are proposals now on the table that would reduce the percentage of affordable housing, covenants to affordable housing required for a builder's remedy project. And again, if you care about affordability, you won't support that. Okay. But if you really do believe in supply and demand, and we've heard now that a large number of union members would like to be homeowners, and that's understandable. That's, you know, studies have shown, a vast majority of Americans, of all stripes, of all colors, of all religions, if they had their choice, they don't know home, and many of them, if not most of them, would like to live in a home with the yard, like some of us have grown up in, and like you've grown up, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's something that we should actually try to endorse. But if that's what you think is a good thing, then you should oppose policies which result in a reduction of the supply of the kind of housing that most Americans, most Americans, including union members, prefer. Now that's not at stake here. The project here is not displacing single family homes or anything like that. And, but again, this is part of a larger discussion. You represent a lot of developers and have had other cases. Also, I'll take the opportunity to say something that I've been saying in a variety of places for years that we should be supporting anti-speculation housing policies if we want more Americans to become loan owners. And those policies would allow more Americans, rather than speculators, global investors in Wall Street to control the housing market, and that's a good thing. And we actually are starting to see some action in Sacramento, which is very encouraging. But when it comes to this, as said, having followed, you know, someone who I regard as a brilliant legal mind and have for years since I first got on the council from when he was on the planning commission. From the questioning and all of that, I agree. I agree with Mary, but I also agree with Craig and I agree with staff. On the other hand, Mr. Rand, at the very beginning, said he wants to work with us. And so I think that is a good thing. I don't think necessarily that litigation is the only option. Let us take him at his word. We've heard the application is now almost complete. So complete it. Staff, I think you will get a commitment from them. They're ready. They complete it. Staff, I think you will get a commitment from them. They're ready, they're professional, and they're willing to work in an expedited fashion process the application. So I would say that to me would be the option, aside from litigation, work with us like other developers do, complete the application, and let's see what we can do to create a project that works for the community, that works for the developer, that works for all of us. Taking this into account and understanding that in some cases, as much as we've forgotten about it as a country, which I think is part of the problem that we're at generally where we're at, that actually compromises not about word. Compromise is a good thing, it's the fundamental democracy. And I think we would be willing to work with Mr. Rand and Mr. Postilinkov to find a project that makes sense. And not only that, knowing that he's got other projects in the city, maybe to sit down and figure things out. I think we do care deeply about affordable housing. I certainly do. I serve and it's a lot of my time on the executive committee of LaCosta, the Los Angeles County Affordable Housing Solutions Agency. I'm on the board. I'm on the executive committee. We're actually trying to find a CEO. Biggest problem there is money right now. So hopefully all of the housing advocates will help us. I know in the Bay Area they're trying to pass a $20 billion bond. We need funding. There's a measure A that's coming up here that would not only replace measure H and help fund LASA, which is homelessness, but also LACASA, which is, its goals are to preserve housing, to produce housing, and to protect tenants. I think tenant protections are also something that are extremely important. And I hope that our friends and labor will be supporting the Justice for Renters Act, which will allow cities to have more flexibility when it comes to instituting tenant protections. Our hands are tied by sacrament, I don't know. Anyway, I'm always happy to talk about housing. I think it's fascinating. Even though we may disagree on certain things, I think we do hopefully agree on the need for affordable housing and the way to do it and also the need to try to increase home ownership for real people. And that to me is it's great to see the union people here and I want them all to be able to own their homes and make their choices and to be part of our community. And I thank everyone for tonight and please take the message back to Mr. Postellent. Thank you. Vice Mayor. Yes, thank you so much. Thank you to everyone who came today. We appreciate your time. I know it's late hour, so I'll try to keep it brief because we are trying to just determine if this application is complete. As we've gone through the staff reports and heard everyone I Support the resolution recommended by staff It seems that the application wasn't appealed in time There was changes to the scope of the project and there were opportunities to submit complete a completed project But they chose not to do that This the stature and there's still items that are not complete as stated in the draft resolution. So the stature says that you need to follow local proceedings and that was not followed. There's local proceedings of 14 days versus the 90 days. It was stated that it's ministerial, but it's actually discretionary. And every city has their own policies. ours is 14 days. And we still welcome project because we want to be able to have additional housing in our city. I just think that this is not the application for that. Thank you. So I don't either have much more to add. I think Council Member Cormin really covered it well. I do agree that the process of appeal is the one that applies. It's the one that we have. I think the opposite of following that process is that there is no appeal and we know that there can't be no appeal. So it would be, it would fall back to the process that we have in our code. I would have no issue in terms of refunding the fees. I think that we've always erred in favor of having a hearing and giving a person a right to a hearing. I think that's what occurred here when we accepted the fee. So I would have no problem refunding the fee. I agree with Craig. I think that's a very interesting discussion So I would have no problem refunding the fee. I agree with Craig. I think that's a very interesting discussion of subpart C. I agree with that. That it's a safe harbor. That it's a safe harbor within that use. I think that subpart four would require a description of the non-residential uses. It just doesn't, you know, we're trying to create housing and in all of a sudden in order to have this project built, we are putting in commercial and we're displacing housing. It just doesn't seem right to me at all. And I believe that there is a requirement to describe non-residential uses. May 9th, 2024 filing is evidence of the fact that even the applicant felt that the application was not complete. I think that all those facts would lead me to the conclusion as stated in the resolution that it is not complete and that the appeal should be denied. You know, as a community, we committed to working to accomplish the goals that we committed to in our housing element. And I don't think that anything that is said that are legal issues, issues of completion and appeal issues. But we are as a council, as a community, committed to work with HCD to accomplish those goals. And look forward to seeing projects that are compliant. We now have a certified housing element. There are opportunities within that housing element for building, getting bonuses for accomplishing certain requirements. And I think those are the types of projects I'm certainly looking forward to reviewing. So, Mr. City Attorney. So there's a couple of things I think that council member Cormin suggested, changes in the resolution one, being of course the refunding of the fees. We would incorporate that. If that's the consensus that council I see heads nodding. So we'd want to do that and one or two other changes that he suggested. So if we could have maybe a 10 minute recess so that we can make those changes, maybe 15 minute recess so we can print out the- Can we maybe do Captain Council? Oh yeah, you could, that's possible. But we need, if you could continue this until after Councilmember comments, then we can come back with a resolution that hopefully we'll have captured what council member Korman was talking about and council can at that point play with the language a little bit if you hear too. So absent objection from council will continue this matter to after we have other issues on our agenda discussed. Okay, so we will continue with report from the city attorney. We did not have, we do not have anything to report out of closed session this evening. Could be fairly quick. Report from the city manager. Thank you, nothing this evening. It could be fairly quick. Report from the City of Anager. Thank you. Nothing this evening Mayor. And now we'll be able to fill time with City Council Member Committee reports and comments starting with Council Member Wells. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the applicant and Dave ran for being here tonight and our staff for coming up here and really having this conversation with us. I really appreciated it. I think that a lot of different issues came up and I think it's important to have that dialogue. And I would like to reiterate what my other council members have said as well. We are, and as I said earlier, we're committed to our housing element and implementing that housing element. And want to work with the developers that want to work in our city and I appreciate you know all of the developers that want to come here and hopefully we'll be able to work together in a really productive way as said to really meet the needs of our city and of our community and they think it's important to all of us and then lastly I would say that I'd like to, as you can see, I'm on Zoom and I'd like to thank the House of the Police Department and as well as the City Manager for combinating me and making it possible for me to be able to participate in the meeting tonight You know earlier on when we first got in council I had already planted out a town for this day because it's a Thursday and well now it's a Friday for this day because it's a Thursday and well now it's a Friday. However, I appreciate the work and I appreciate the work of our staff to make this available for me to be able to participate for this evening. And so thank you and that's all I have to say. Okay, stick around. Councilor Miller, Corman. I'm never really sure what I'm supposed to say about my my activities of the last Week or so in this at this part of our meeting I can't think of anything that I did that was that important to comment on Well, it's really it's There you go. So we all attended the the premiere the Netflix premiere of Beverly Hills cop that was an event It was really interesting the film was good premiere at Beverly Hills Cop, that was an event. It was really interesting. The film was good. The food was good and it was fun to be around all the people on the council and all our friends. Okay, anything else? Keith, I should mention. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Mayor. Well, I actually will start with having attended yesterday's look on the meeting. It's been about a year, slow going to get things up, starting a completely new organization without funding. Our chair for the first year was supervisor Holly Mitchell. It's now yesterday Rex Richardson took, the mayor of Long Beach. And as mentioned, I'm on the CEO search committee. We will be looking for an interim CEO. There are five candidates. I'll be spending about eight hours in bellflower in a couple weeks meeting with them. And we will hopefully get things kicked off. As said, we'll hear more about measure A, which is going to be a quarter percent sales tax on the November ballot to fund affordable housing. It will be split between Lausa and LaCossa. We feel that Lausa should maybe change their name to avoid confusion. But there's, we see that there, in the United Way made a point yesterday, that there are 6,400 empty beds in the region for mental health care, because there's not the reimbursement level is not high enough. So some of it will go to that, a lot of it will too. And that will help with homelessness, whereas as said, LaCossa, the goal is to avoid homelessness, to create affordable and preserve affordable housing, and stop people from falling into homelessness. Closer to home, I mentioned a lot of people don't necessarily know. I live a block west of Pico and sorry, Robert's in in a block and a half north of Pico. And many people don't really know that's Beverly Hills. I sometimes refer to it as Baja Beverly Hills. But I consider myself that that part of Beverly Hills, close to Whitworth, is part of the Pico Robertson neighborhood. And so many of us have seen what happened on Sunday. I was at home and I heard loud chanting and helicopters and walked over to Pico Robertson and saw the aftermath, if you will, of the attack on Adastora. We heard that our police were involved as well, where they arrested someone who was dressed with a Hamas mask and who was chasing one of the Jewish people there. That was an arrest we made. I think, again, it's really important for our police to be prepared that that kind of hate and that kind of intimidation and that kind of anti-Jewish racism will simply not be tolerated in our city and it was very important and meaningful that this council today earlier approved a October permanent October 7th Memorial and bringing back the flags for the one year anniversary along with signage of a October 7th Memorial Square. I think that will mean a lot to the community. We have to remember that our residents are in many cases, they also want to feel safe. And not to be able to feel safe in our own community, because of the fact that we support Israel, we look at it as a second home, and where Jewish is a big problem. And so it's really important, and I believe that I'm proud of this council for doing what we've been doing. And furthermore, as always, I propose that Qatar be designated a state sponsor of terrorism, that Qatar be sanctioned, its assets frozen and used to compensate the victims of Qatar funded terrorism, and that we ask the State Department to expel the Qatari consulate from Beverly Hills. Thank you. Thank you Vice Mayor. Yes thank you very much. Councilmember Marys she forgot to mention the Jewish film festival as well. So the violence in the Peek-a-Rico Robertson area in Los Angeles just bordering Beverly Hills on Sunday was appalling. No one regardless of their religion should ever be blocked from entering in their place of worship, whether it's a church, synagogue or mosque. It is our duty to secure these civil liberties and ensure safe passage for all. This blatant act of anti-Semitism was aimed to instill fear and division, but it did not and will not succeed. Within 24 hours Mayor Bass and Council Member Yeros Lopsie gathered leaders to discuss strategies to protect sacred space, share safety strategies and enhance partnerships with Jewish public safety organizations. I was honored to be included in this roundtable discussion that included supervisor Horvat, the Jewish Federation, ADL, the Simon Weasanthal Center, LAPD, Muggen, and other faith-based organizations. Mayor Bass has directed the LAPD to increase patrol in the Pico Robertson area and around places of worship. She is actively collaborating with law enforcement, civic and faith leaders to ensure such violence never happens again. I am proud to say that under the leadership of our mayor and this City, we already take those proactive measures in Beverly Hills. While we all support peaceful protests, they will also consult with LA City Attorney Heidi, Feldstein Soto on issues such as protest permits and masks regulation to clarify legal boundaries. With the support of our mayor and my colleagues, I'm requesting that our city address this issue as well and have our city attorney collaborate with LA City Attorney's Soto on this matter. As elected, our top priority is the safety of our community. We will not tolerate anti-Semitism, hate or violence. Those responsible must be held accountable. We must come together as a community beyond city borders to create lasting change. This is our moment to stand united against hate and violence and I urge every member of our community to support these initiatives look out for one another and cultivate an environment of respect and understanding. Thank you and I'd like to request if my colleagues agree to look at the mask issue that LA County will also be looking at. If I may, our city attorney has looked into that about three months ago. I ask him. How's it? How's it? I have. Yeah. And the research indicates that we may want to consider, I think we may want to consider other things such as it. I think I mentioned it. Enhancements for crimes committed when people are wearing masks. In addition to maybe unmasking people, people who are arrested that you publicly unmasked them, take pictures of that and make them public. There may be other things that we can do too, but I think it wasn't it was protesters from Iran in 79 who was a little bit earlier than 79, but yes, that's correct. Who were in San Francisco at the time? Yeah, one, don't you? So there was, in 1963, there was actually a Los Angeles ordinance, interestingly enough, that was invalidated as duplicative of the state laws that covered mass querying. One of those two state laws was then invalidated as unconstitutional in connection with protest by, it was at the time, Iranian students, it was protesting, I guess, protesting for revolution at the time. Yeah. I thought it was the... See, I thought it was them protesting the Comaini, but I guess it wasn't. No, I don't think so. And so that was invalidated. But I think that that kind of showed the problems with having a mass resolution, excuse me, a mass ordinance that duplicated the state law, except there's still a state law which wasn't invalidated and which was blessed actually by the court at that time, which says you can prohibit masks, and this is a state law right now, and we can't duplicate it, but we can enforce it. You can prohibit masks if they're used for the purpose of committing a crime, or used to conceal identity while you plan to commit a crime. So we do have, there is a mask ordinance that can be used, but I would be happy to work with the City of Los Angeles and just a dialogue to see if there's a chance. To work with them and try and come up with something creative. Well, I think they're going to find out the research you did. But again, there may be other additional things that we can do such as public unmasking of people, such as enhancements, of course, that would require a DA who's actually going to enforce the law, but that's a separate issue. And there may be other things that we can do. Does anybody else hear see the irony of when I was mayor last time that we wanted to enforce people wearing masks? And now we're talking about unmasking. Yeah, but they're not. It's just the irony. Well, that's these people are not concerned about COVID. No, I know I understand that. I just think it's somewhat ironic. But any of it, I hopefully you can work with them if there's something else that, you know, so be it. Anyway, the I after a late evening, I took an early flight to Kansas City for the United States Conference of Mayors' 92nd Annual Meeting. Very good. There was about, I would say, about 450 to 400 mayors that attended. The group is primarily larger city mayors and their issues aren't necessarily the same as ours or they probably are but they're on a much larger scale. But the breakouts that I attended were interesting and I'll just go through them as quickly as I can because we're filling time still. One of the breakouts and city manager, coffee and I have talked about it, is using AI to be more efficient in the operation of the fourth floor. And it was very interesting this mayor from Reno, which is a big city, introduced me to someone who has transformed their staff report writing system to AI. They kind of took all of the prior reports from the last 30, 40 years and that's a base and then when new reports are written and people want to go into the history, they can put in keywords and things pop up on the page, which still need to be edited. But her report was that it saves hours and hours of staff time writing reports. So that's going to be looked into. It was a really an interesting breakout that we had. Another breakout was on the role of female voters in 2024 election and that's obviously going to be a significant issue I believe in in this upcoming election but very interesting the the plays that go on there. Another topic was talking about the outlook of politicians in general. And I'm going to assume that this was somewhat weighted towards local politicians the study was, but it showed that the highest level of popularity of politicians and it's in the 60 to 70% range is local politicians. As you go up to state to federal, it decreases, I think it's less than 20% of favorability of federal politicians. Is that the Fernando Guerra study from Loyola? He's done a study for years running and that, I'm sorry, missed it. Where did you hear that? At the U.S. conference of mayoral. It was a panel discussion. And another topic that was discussed was relying on local businesses during times of crisis. And they were talking a lot about you know floods and things like that where you have to have those associations with local businesses so that you can rely upon them in a time of crisis. And the time to work on that is obviously before the crisis, so you have it. And I think we're a really good example of that because I know that when we had our issues again when I was mayor, we tapped into local businesses and it was really seamless. We have all those contacts with local businesses already. Obviously, it's easier for us in our environment as a small city, much more difficult for the larger cities. And I think that shows something that we do much better than larger cities do. We were recognized as a pet smart city. I got a little button that's, you know, we're one of about 40 cities at the Morris company, which, interesting enough, Morris is obviously Morris bars, Milky Way, three musketeers. Their largest items that they sell are pet food. So they have the IAMS brand, the Nature's Recipe brand, several, several brands. They are larger in pet food than they are in candy. I didn't know that before. But anyway, we were one of about 40 or 50 cities that are recognized as pet smart cities. I'm sorry. Congratulations. Oh, my pen, it's no. And then the last thing I went to was a really an inclusionary seminar on making sure that cities respect people that are different than themselves. And that was a very interesting topic that was discussed. So anyway, it was a very, very worthwhile conference. You'll be going next year. I always am. It really was interesting. Where is it next year? Have it. So you get to go back to DC in January. It was always a GC in January. But the summer one had a change. It was in Columbus, I'm thinking. John got to go to Honolulu, I think. Well, Andy and Ian Apples, which was a great city. I think it's Columbus, so. But really good programs. You go to the Neural League Museum? I got there a day and a half late, so I didn't have time to do some of those. Did you have a little world war one museum? Did you have some barbecue? I had barbecue. Not my favorite, but that's okay. Okay, so anyway, those are the end of the committee reports and council member reports. I don't know if we are ready yet with a resolution. Yeah. We are printing it out. We'll have copies for the council members, red line copies for the council members and for Mr. Rand. And Stephanie just stepped out so we need maybe three or four minutes. Okay. Vice Mayor wants to just mention one other thing and then we'll take a five minute break. Was it Tuesday? Yeah, one of those two. This week on Tuesday, we had a delegation visit us from Israel and they were warriors from Batalochem, which means House of Warriors. And it was really interesting to hear their accounts of October 7th and how they were involved and there was a one lady who stood out particularly she got shot 12 times and was believed to be dead and she was talking about her heroic rehabilitation and the process that it took and it was just really fascinating to be able to listen to these stories firsthand and bear witness and we have recorded it and hopefully we'll be able to televised it soon and we also got some information from our fire chief and our police chief who also attended and and several of our city staff and it was a very interesting experience and I look forward to being able to have that shared on our cable channel. So with that let's call the 10 minute 10 minute break I think five minutes five minute break I'm going to make a little bit of the water. I'm going to make a little bit of the water. I'm going to make a little bit of the water. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. . Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. Thank you. you . I'm going to make a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little bit of a little you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm done. I'm just planning it. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of a hole in the middle. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. I'm going to make a little bit of the dough. . . . . . I'm going to make a little bit of a hole in the middle. I'm going to make a hole in the middle. I'm going to make a hole in the middle. I'm going to make a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole resolution and just lost my page. So we've all had an opportunity to review the resolution and going to look at my script. The staff had it in additional revisions. I was waiting for the mayor, but yes, There's one additional revision that staff will have. So if I know I have given the council the resolution given to staff, we've given it to Mr. Rand. I believe there was one copy available for the public as well. So if this is acceptable to the council, we do have one more thing to add if this is all acceptable and I'll let Mr. Snow add that. So does anyone here on the day us have any changes other than we're going to look at a day first? No, it's fine. I was just pointing, actually I was pointing to Mary. Okay. Just in case she has. The only change would be the word evidence on page six. It should say evidenced. So the outfit was not, the outfit was not going to May 1, 2024 as evidenced. And Mary, you have that as a correction. You were able to hear what we said. And Mr. Knoe. Anything else? the correction. You were able to hear what we said. Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. We have one more addition and this is on around page 10 of the resolution. It is a section G on that page and it is adding to the second sentence. The second sentence currently reads, thus in order to process the DPR project application, the applicant must also submit applications for amendments to the C's general plan and zoning ordinances and or a map for concurrent processing and add to that sentence, the following comma, and failure to do so renders the applications incomplete as a separate in-independence basis. It's a separate and independent process, is that what you said? Basis. Basis, sorry, independent, separate and independent basis. So this is in addition to the other incompleteness items that were identified in paragraph D. Okay. And with those two corrections, if the council, staff is finished adding things to the resolution so unless the council has further direction staff would be prepared for anyone to make a motion. Okay so with that who would like to make the motion? I'll make the motion. I move that the city council adopt the resolution entitled a resolution of the Council of the City of Beverly Hills denying an appeal of staffs October 13, 2023, incomplete application determination and upholding the city's incomplete application determination, finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as amended. Second. And if we could have the role? Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Korman? Yes. Council Member Miresh? Yes. Vice Mayor Nizarian? Yes. I would like to adjourn the meeting for. I would like to adjourn tonight's meeting in memory of longtime Beverly Hills educator Herbert Dodge. Her past away last week at his home. Her began teaching at Beverly Hills High School in 1962. He started the AP History Program at Beverly High and taught AP American and European history from 1962 to 1988. After retiring from Beverly Hills, High Herb was principal at a small private school in the San Fernando Valley. Herb was a mentor to so many Beverly Hills students, and I believe we have two of them on our day is right here. Three. Boom. Three. Boy. In addition to teaching at Beverly, Herb taught students to drive through Beverly's driver training program. Boy, remember those days. that doesn't happen anymore. Herb has survived by his four children, 11 grandchildren and 14 great grandchildren. I'd like to offer my colleagues a chance to say a few words and perhaps we can start with Larry. I had Mr. Judge for AP American History. I really valued him as a teacher and an mentor and I will sadly miss him. And Council Member Corman. So yeah it was always Mr. Dodge right? It wasn't it was always Mr. Dodge, right? It wasn't her, but, yes, Mr. Dodge. I had him for European AP, AP Year History, senior year at Beverly. He was a great guy. He was funny, careful to the students. Interestingly enough, during the recent election campaign, the candidates had a form at the Sunrise Center over on Crescent and Dayton. And my mother came and she was at a table and afterwards I came over and she was sitting with a gentleman and she said to me this gentleman says he taught at the high school to remember him and I looked at him and I realized it was herb dodge and I had a chance to talk to him a little bit and that was nice. But he was always very genuinely and you know we will miss him and he was a great teacher apparently. John, you know it's interesting because as Craig said he at least a lot of part of his life actually lived in the city so he wasn't just a teacher at the high school. He was a resident And I also had him for 11th grade AP or P in history and American history sorry and that was I had 12th grade AP Chuck close for European history and But dodging clothes that I mean those are among the classes that I remember most from the high school that I love the most. It was fascinating to talk about American history, but also to refer them to current events. I think that was around the time that Reagan was shot, I remember, and that was something that was at the high school and discussed. He was just, you know, there are a few teachers that stand out and you remember them and how good they were and Mr. Dodge was certainly one of them. He will be missed. He lived to 94 I think, which is a good run, but would have been nice to have had him around for a few more years. Thank you. So the Vice Mayor and I are too young to have had Mr. Dodge and I'll. I want to extend my warmest condolences to Mr. Dodge and his family and appreciate his service to our community as a teacher. It's such an important role. But he must have been pretty remarkable if we have three brilliant people here who he taught. So we thank him for that as well. Okay, and with that, we will adjourn tonight in honor of Herb Dodge, may his memory be a blessing. We will adjourn this meeting to R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. R. to R. R. R. to say July 2nd. And with that. Good morning. Good morning. Good evening. And good morning. Thank you. Good morning. Good evening. Good morning. Good evening. Good morning. Good evening. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning.