I'm everybody ready to get to the agenda. Before we go to the agenda, we've got items, audience, comments, and items not in the agenda. We'll start with, I believe Phil Savinick, it's listed as the Beverly Hills Historical Society. Was that you, Phil? Yes, me. All right, welcome. More than anything else, I'd love to come here with good news. And Beverly Hills just celebrated our 250th birthday. On August 3rd, which was last Saturday in 1769, the Spanish explorer Portola spent the night near Roxbury, near La Sianica Park. And La Sianica actually was the Spanish word for swamp. There was water there. And that was the first time Beverly Hills was ever mentioned in any written history. I don't want to say we didn't exist before because we know the Tongva were here for thousands of years. But 250 years ago this week, we made it into the history book when Father Cresby talked about spending the night here. The morning started with three earthquakes and then they find this pond and the pond is as deep as an ox's eye which I imagine would be three or four feet and in the pond swimming are our native people and they run around naked and they howl like wolves and they show the Spanish seeds from the area to show this is the abundance of the land. So happy birthday Beverly Hills, it's a shorty but 250 years ago today we were discovered and there is a placket La Sianica that commemorates it on the parking garage. That was the first thing. Thank you and next speaker is David Gingold. Welcome. Although I've put two claims in, one with the City of Beverly Hills, one with a tenet of City of Beverly Hills Whole Foods market, tried to settle this amyacably with both of them. Both of them forced me to file lawsuits because they were not willing to not only resolve it amably, but even to discuss any of the facts. From the City of Beverly Hills, I just got a letter from their third party administrator. We reject after receiving 40 pages on my first claim. Giving notice to the city. The second claim is still under review by City Attorney Larry Weiner, where I've given a date of August 12th to resolve this, please. Please. Unhaul foods. When I went in there when I was disabled, sick, weak, faint, did not have cash that I spent the night before $200. The banks were closed. It was Memorial Day weekend. And I walked in with my checkbook to see if I could write a check for some food. And they just said, we don't take checks. So I went over to where the hot food bar is where they have cups about this big. And the cups are there for people to eat the food, to try the food, to sample the food, to see if it's cold, they like it, it's spicy, whatever. And I took three little egg yolks about the size of a quarter, one at a time. Afterwards, the supervisor said to me, you ate too much food and made me a number of threats that you can never eat this again. You'll be banned from the store for life. I told them how I was weak. I said, ask Eric the checker. I wanted to write a check. I've been coming here 20 years and I was retaliated against, harassed, violated my civil rights. And when I filed a lawsuit, there are attorney from Hefton Daily, the attorney, Matthew Bennett, and the other attorney, Clayton Zumadio. In written papers to the court said that instead of them wanting to resolve this, I should tell the community, do not shop at Whole Foods. That is not my idea to call a boycott. That is the idea of Whole Foods, litigation, counsel, John Hemfleek in Austin, Texas, and also the lawyers handling it. They say, tell people just because we were mean, just because we were rude to you. We have, whole food says we have no duty not to cause you emotional distress, just because we're mean and rude. They are a tenant of this city. We have leases, they have a lease with us. They need to act like a good corporate citizen. I'm just reporting to you what their law firm told me to tell the community. Thank you. Next speaker is Steve Mayer. I'm going to go to the Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, first award of praise. I was very, very impressed by the third street tour bus stop. You did a great job there. Of course, I have many recommendations to make it better, but you should deserve it. My other topic I was to address is 91-71 West Third Street. This property is located on the north side of the street between Okurston Palm at the alley. Two years ago, a single family home was approved in the Multifamily Zone by the Planning Commission. It was a very continuous project. Last month, the neighborhood received word that construction is about to commence. The way it was handled resulted in two items being placed on the Sunshine Task Force Committee agenda, and they both got approved on Monday of last week. One was that a community pre-construction meeting be held before a building permit is issued. The neighbor was successful in having a stop work order issued, but what was amazing was, is that the stop work order was lifted last Wednesday before the committee was allowed to provide input on mitigation measures as needed. Now construction can start on Monday. But there is more. A meeting was held last Thursday between the next door neighbor, myself representing the neighborhood and five staff members. What she, the next door neighbor, was effectively told was that she has no right as to who can come on her property. The city can just say they're an approved contractor, they will enter your property, will, you're out of luck. You were all homeowners, would you accept the city telling you that what is going to happen to your property and by whom? Not only do you not have the input, but you have no rights? Then she was told that the her sewer line that runs through 91 71 to the alley was a few inches outside the public utility easement and she would have to pay for its relocation But the city magnanimously would ask the developer to pay for it, but there could be no guarantee Would you be not upset if you would have to pay 50,000 to 100,000 so the developer can make a million? This is all about mistakes that were made two years ago. And now, in my opinion, staff is tripling down and blaming the home. It is absurd as a ridiculous, it is ludicrous. Part of the issue is brought up to the planning commission during the past public comment on June I 25th, but the members for whatever reason did not choose and direct the staff to bring this project back to the commission and have amendments made to the resolution and DPR to protect the next door neighbor. The architect for the applicant clearing knew that there were material issues and deliberately hid them from staff and commission and that can be the basis for having the issue returned the commission. What happened last Thursday was the most disgusting display of duplicity and bullying by staff in my opinion. Part of this may have to do with the disdain staff holds against me for the neighborhood successfully appealing 332 to 336 North Ocursed. Purposely trying to humiliate me and punish me for advocating for the little person that meeting, I don't care, comes with the territory, but hurting a single, single woman is wrong, it is a just and immoral. Again, all the issues can easily be resolved through amendments, and it could be heard by the planning commission on August 22nd. Halt the construction until that date. These are not civil legal issues. The committee commission was not aware of the issues, how it been they would have resolved them then. But before you ask the city manager to take care of it, please instead assign it to the city order and increase this budget. This is about an internal cultural issue and it must stop. This can only be achieved through the city order. Thank you. Thank you. We can't address it today but George, let's agendaize it for the next study session. Okay, next speaker is Debbie Weiss. The last speaker. Good afternoon. Recently the City Council passed a law requiring lobbyists to disclose certain information under penalty of perjury. If found guilty, the penalties may include a monetary fine, as well as being banned for a period of time from lobbying. A complaint has been filed against Jason Summers of Crest Realty for failing to disclose that he had been sanctioned by the City of LA and the city prosecutor has found that there's a strong enough case to conduct a public hearing. This is the first case of its kind and I think it's important that people show up to send a message to the city prosecutor that holding lobbyists accountable for the truthfulness of their statements is important to us. I will be there. The hearing will be held Wednesday, August 14 30 a.m. Here at the Beverly Hills City Hall on the second floor located at 455 North Rexford Drive. Thank you. Thank you so much and so with that public comment on items on any agenda is closed and we'll move to item number one use of City Hall grounds for the permanent installation of artwork. Nancy thank you. Please if anyone wants to speak on the matter, please fill in a speaker slip because when the speakers start, we're not going to be accepting them afterwards. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. The topic of whether art can be installed permanently on the grounds, so the outdoor areas of City Hall has recently arisen, particularly in relation to the historic landmark designation of this building. This item is intended as an opportunity to discuss this matter and determine if any direction needs to be provided. City Hall is listed on the local and state registers of historic places. When considering the historic nature of a property, generally one should avoid altering what's called the character defining features of the building. There was a landmark assessment report that was done on City Hall, which is included with your packet, which states that the character defining features associated with City Hall are those original or restored features on the exterior elevations or in the primary public interior spaces, the lobby, associated corridors, etc. For the most part, this assessment report speaks to the character defining features of the building itself and when the exterior features of the building are addressed, it is in relation to the fountain adorned courtyards and those types of spaces. The Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordnance as well as other historical preservation laws allow for various modifications to historic properties. For example, Beverly Gardens Park was designated as a local historic resource in 2014. Yet since that time, the city has installed a piece of modern sculpture and approximately 20 blocks of the park were renovated. As part of this renovation, new planters were added and expanded and new paths were added. The plans for this park renovation were reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Commission as well as staff from community development. And it was determined that these changes did not have an impact on the character defining features of the park. A variety of modifications have front lawn of City Hall on the crescent side, as well as new improved planters and landscaping, that sort of thing. The placement of permanent sculpture on City Hall grounds is not unique in terms of it being a historic building. For example, Philadelphia City Hall is listed on the National Historic Register of Places. They recently installed a sculpture from the 19th century on those grounds. The Los Angeles City Hall is designated as a historic cultural monument. It was designated in 1976, and since that time, a number of art pieces have been added to the grounds around that building. Temporary artwork has been installed on the grounds of Beverly Hills City Hall previously, including an exhibition of the work by artist Fernando Botero. The works of various artists as part of the city's centennial celebration, as well as an installation of piece by Richard Sarah, which was on the grounds of City Hall in excess of four years. As a result, there is already precedence for major sculptural installations occurring on the grounds of City Hall for an extended period of time. More recently, staff had Ms. Jan Austache, who is the city's consultant on historic preservation matters review, the proposal to put some sculpture on the front lawn of City Hall. She has written that she has reviewed the proposed artwork installation and essentially does not feel that there will be a reversible impact to the historic nature of the property as a result of installing that artwork. At this time it is recommended that the City Council review this information and provide any direction to staff that they feel is necessary. We have to council questions and comments. Anybody wants to speak? Please fill in a form because otherwise. We do, I think we have some commissioners here. I have two from Phil. why are there two? No, no, I'm saying there are commissioners here who we can ask afterwards, but anyway, we'll start with Phil Savineck. I wanted to start off because my mom Rose Norton, who is a former planning commissioner and the wife of a former mayor, did want to communicate with the council and her email, which is very short reads, art is subjective and I'm not voicing my opinion on this or any other pieces of art through us various parts of our city. But I am voicing my strong objection to this or any other object of art being permanently in front of on the side of or in the rear of the grounds of City Hall respectfully rose Norton. There are many of us who feel that City Hall is a chair spot. The landmark designation is very clear. It goes from Burton Way to Santa Monica Boulevard. That is the historical designation. It is not only the building. This is one of our treasures, the picture that you see behind you of our city hall will never look the same if you put the shiny fingers in front of it. I believe the shiny fingers is a very important sculpture for the city because it begins a new era of tourist attractions, of things that people will go to see because they will want to have their picture taken with it. It should be someplace where there's room for people to gather around it. It does not belong on a small sidewalk on busy Santa Monica Boulevard. Our view of City Hall will never be the same and in the historic designation of one of the things that provide the character of our City Hall, it says, the views to City Hall and the tower in particular from Santa Monica Boulevard. If you put permanent things in there, you permanently deface the view of City Hall. I like the sculpture I've worked with Ringo before. I think a tourist-generated location is fabulous, but let us not deface City Hall. It is a sacred place and the delineation is very clear. It is not just the edifice, it goes from Burton Way to Santa Monica Boulevard. I thank you for your consideration. This should be put somewhere where it can be enjoyed safely. The sidewalk on Santa Monica Boulevard is not a safe place for it and no one has even looked in to whether the shiny surface will be an impediment to cars. We have sunset right there. It's going to reflect off this statue. Nobody has looked into any of these things. I'm saying let's be patient. Let's do this right, and let's find the right place for it. Thank you so much. Thank you, Robbie Anderson. Good afternoon, Council and staff. Is that the extent of the staff input? Would Nancy Hunt-Coffee just said that they're going to be any other comment from staff? Hands on whether they're council questions or conjects. All right. Now, number one is, is you've overstepped your bounds and designated this sculpture to be put on Santa Monica Boulevard that is truly a hazard. And this is because where Ringo wanted it. And in return for Ringo, the city allowing him to place this in front of City Hall here, he's offered to play a concert for the City of Barbarale Hills on Crescent Drive, with the Crescent Drive Street shut down for this concert that obviously John would host and probably would like to do a sing along with Ringo. Now you guys, you're appearing like a bunch of groupies to me. Would Ringo start? Would you have allowed that out there if he hadn't done a concert? Would you have what is Ringo done for the City of Beverly Hills by the way? Is he involved in any of our communities? Please fire Maple Center any of our charities that you're going to do this and I think you're overstepping your bounds and if you decide to go forward with putting this out there, I will file an injunction. Thank you very much. Thank you and the next speaker is Terry Gerber. As mentioned, that's the, you're the last speaker. We have, we have some commissioners here who we can. I don't do this. We want to hear from you. Hello. I don't do this so well. So bear with me. They both said it so well. As a resident of Beverly Hills for the past 76 years, I've seen many installations come and go. I will be the first to say that they're not all to my liking, but I am also at the belief that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and therefore I try to be tolerant of art installations that really are not my taste. First, let me say that in my my opinion there's nothing more beautiful than the architecture and landscaping of our Magnificent City Hall and its surroundings. Many of my neighbors agree with me. For some reason the powers of B seemed to be obsessed with putting art on every corner of our city when we have an art park and we have Burton Way. Several years ago we had the tinkertoy's on the corner of Santa Monica and Crescent. Then came the what I called the Rusty airplane hanger propeller which blocked the view from the parkway of the iconic 76 station and the Annenberg when you were sitting in the park on crescent between crescent and Rexford. Then there was the Roxy Pain Silver blob which placed in the middle of the parkway for years blocking the camera view of City Hall where people would sit and try to take a picture and could not and if they tried to get over it or touch it they got burned because it heated up so badly in the summertime and I'm happy it's gone to the art park. Our parkways are now pristine and our fountains are flowing and the city really does look so beautiful. It's a crown jewel and it reminds me of a time when less was more. Since bold is now the keyword of the month, I think it would be befitting for the council to take a bold step and leave art of the city of property. And with that public comments closed, we do have some commissioners here. I think we want to hear from them. So I would ask, do we have anyone from Noah? Noah, Noah Fury. And. We have a bunch of commissions. I'm going to move to the commission. Mayor Mairish, members of the City Council, know if you're chair of the Cultural Heritage Commission. This is a city owned property. The way our ordinance is written. You are the folks to make the determination of what's appropriate following the Secretary of the Interior Standards. You may want to hear from your staff, from the Community Development Department to speak on it. Marco Del qualifies as an expert based upon his education and training. He's here today. You might want to hear what he has to say. But ultimately, you're the ones who have to make the decision. If you choose, but you're not required to, the Cultural Heritage Commission would be happy to look at a certificate of appropriateness but I think after you hear from the city staff you'll make that determination. Thank you. I saw we had some arts and culture commissioners. Would you please come up? I don't know if you want to come up individually or come up all together. All together now. I'm not used to being here wearing this particular hat, but the... I think the council needs to know, and it has not been mentioned yet, that this work came before the FIARC commission, not once but twice. Not talking about specific works, this we're looking at applies to the highway way as well. So you might want to, we're talking just in general about having any kind of artwork on City Hall, whether the highway way or Roy Lichtenstein or public Picasso. Any permanent artwork is what we're looking. or public Picasso. Any permanent artwork is what we're looking. We feel that it would be not in the best interest of the city to take valuable center stage property and in comfort for years to come by any art. The city should be free, following proper hearings to change from permanent to take and remove a permanent work of art. And by adopting this particular set of regulations, and you will be taking one of the key areas of the city and encompassing it for all time. Once the work is placed in the permanent zone, I think that that would be detrimental to the cultural work that has been brought to and made part of this city over the past and then reviewers with the art that has been installed in various places. Yeah. I'm going to go to the other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other other not as opposed to the Richard Sarah, which was temporary, but I believe we were looking at that as something. I believe that was recommended by your commission unanimously. It was unanimously recommended, and we wholeheartedly support the fact that this piece will be the finest piece that we own in our collection, and we very much like the idea of you agreeing with the placement of in that corner where the Sarah had been. And I know that the campuses formally are always been used for donated or loaned art. And I do want to remind the council and the people in the audience that this is also a donated piece of art that part of this highway is donated so that it could qualify as a donated piece of art in order to inhabit that corner. So we very, very much wanted to stay there and we feel that it will be the finest piece we have in our collection and it's in a situated where it's being put. It's not, it absolutely can't be. It's diagonally it doesn't obstruct the view we have in your glass behind you It doesn't interfere with the view of this beautiful building at all. So we we very much support the placement of that as a permanent piece because it is a donated piece so donated pieces can stay there More of a personal opinion I'm of to move on to the next slide. More of a personal opinion. I'm of the opinion that the importance of city hall should be enhanced by important artworks. And I think that what we're tasked to do is find world-class art. And world-class art is certainly in one case what we've recommended for the city. And I think that extra care should be taken by city council when they may be approval so that if it's going to last a long time, it should be world-class art. Nice, nice. And I concur with the rest of the commission that it is an instrumental, beautiful piece and it belongs in City Hall. And we should feature a world-class piece of art, like Richard had said. So hopefully you will, as a committee, agree. Thank you. As mentioned, we're not discussing specifics today, but just the notion in general as to whether there should be any public art at City Hall Sure and then Nancy what were the two pieces or the art pieces that were reflected in the woman? Who reviewed the art for placement on City Hall? The two pieces that were sent to Jan Ashtoshay were the Ringo Star piece and the Iwayway piece. Thank you. Thanks so much. And Jill Collins, we see you're here, do you want to? No, okay. Do we have any planning commissioners here? No, okay. Okay, we have, I know we have Marco Dell. And Mark, you'll be available if there are any questions. Sorry, David. Ten seconds. Ten seconds, David. What's important to City Hall is what is internal, what goes on in the City Hall chambers, not external. It's hard enough to get a parking space right now to attend a commission meeting or a city council meeting. Can you imagine what would happen with parking, with thousands and thousands of people who want to converge on city hall parking in our parking lots across the street so they could get a photo of the peace sign? Thank you, Dave. I'm not against the peace. Put it someplace else, please. Thank you, Dave. Parking, parking, parking. Okay. With that, we'll move to Council Member comments and questions starting with Council Member Wanderlei. First the question. Do we agree that the landmark designation extends beyond the building to include all the property associated city hall? I believe that the assessment report evaluated from Santa Monica to, well, from North Santa Monica Boulevard, to South Santa Monica Boulevard, from Crescent Drive to Rexford Drive, I don't believe that all of that was determined to be a significant character defining feature. Well, is there a distinction there? I mean, for example, could we have had an option of saying what's being landmarked is the building as opposed to, you know, so what literally is landmarked is my question. Good afternoon, Councilmembers. I think I can respond to that question. When we do landmark designations, we do prepare a resolution and that ultimately gets adopted by the City Council. And in that resolution, we spell out specific character defining features. Those are the features that are most important and critical to that property in having it meet the criteria for designation and the features that we consider when changes are made to a property. The whole property including the grounds is part of the designation but the grounds in specific are generally not one of those character defining features. The other thing when we look at making modifications to historic resources, whether it's artwork or something else at City Hall or any other designated property, we look to see whether it complies with the secretary of the interior standards. These are national standards that are published that provide guidance for determining whether an addition or what have you would adversely impact that historic resource. There's a whole list of documents that you consider in different criteria. I will say from a general standpoint, we've had both of these pieces looked at, but generally artwork would not be an impact because one, it's reversible, it can be removed in the future. We look at whether or not it would be of a size that it would overshadow the landmarked property itself. And for the artworks that have been discussed, the answer to those questions is no, they would not be an impact. They would comply with the secretary of the Interior Standards. And we do that review anytime changes changes are made to a landmark property. What have been possible to do a different designation and to have explicitly said this is the building? The building is what's being landmarked as opposed to the building and the surrounding grounds. Sure. It just depends on how it's spelled out in the resolution. And so the issue is what has been defined is character defining and what that encompasses and that's where the limitations lie in terms of making any changes. Is that right? The character defining features are what are the primary considerations in determining whether whatever is added would be an adverse impact. And so when we consider whether or not we'll make permanent changes, we're really considering whether or not it would adversely affect the character defining features. Whether it would adversely affect the character defining features and whether it would have an impact on the ability, on the property's ability to continue to meet the designation criteria going forward. So I think I could, well, I think conceivably something that affects sightlines could conceivably be affecting character defining features. Not saying that the Ringo-Star sculpture does affect them adversely. I'm just saying conceivably, I think that- Or the I-way-way. Or the I-way-way. I'm just saying conceivably that those things could be possibilities. I do wonder ultimately about where the best home for the Ringo Starr sculpture is. We've seen the pictures now of the sculpture in Beverly Gardens Park. And at least to my eye, I do think it looked better there. And I do think that there'd be a greater possibility for the shared community experience with it there, you know, analogous in some respects to Sturbury Fields and Central Park. And so I would not be adverse to revisiting where the ultimate placement might be. That's not a gen die. Well, it's a gen die in the extent of, if we consider under what conditions, I mean, the conditions for whether or not we can make changes to something that's landmarked is part of what we're discussing. Well, no, I guess the question is, do you feel that there should be no public art on city hall grounds? Well, no, I think it is a different different question because I think it's a question of what are the conditions under which we can make some changes and a change can include whether or not a particular piece of public art is respectful, whether a particular piece of public art is inhibiting some of the charity defining features. So I think- Would you like to then define what those could be? Because if you're gonna look at sight lines for one, it should be from where? And it should be for, you should have the same objective standards for all potential ones. And I will approve that. But there is a notions of respectfulness, but I think it does go beyond just the question of whether or not any art can be unscrupulous. Well, let's answer that first. We could take a policy decision that there should be no artwork period on city hall grounds. So I do not agree with that. I think that consistent with this nation for landmarks, if something does not inhibit the character defining features of the landmark, including public art that it's appropriate for it to be on the grounds. In this particular case, as regards the Marine Ghost Star sculpture, I do wonder about the best home for it and for the highwayway one, I'm not in fashion. And so it leaves out. Just out of curiosity, without looking at objective standards of sight lines and that sort of thing on what basis do you say that? Because I don't believe that there are any studies dealing with sight lines or whatever. And quite frankly, I would think that from the main, like from across from the Wallis-Saninburg, where more people would be likely to congregate that the highwayway could potentially have a more significant impact on the sightlines to City Hall than something in front of a parking lot. I'm just curious to hear your thoughts. I would not hold myself at to be the final arbiter of this decision. I'm not the person bringing the artistic expertise. From my personal observations of the pictures, I think the Ringo Stumber sculpture is more obscuring of City Hall in that location. I way, way one is from its location. But also, I think ultimately, we also want the best homes for things. And I would not be adverse to revisiting the best home for the Ringo Stumber sculpture for the reasons that I said. And I know there was liaison weighing in on that. I'd like, you know, if they wanted to share again their views for what they did. Why they ended up picking this city hall site. I'd consider that. And maybe since Jill is here, she can speak to it. This was what was presented to us. The locations that were presented to us were first choice being a Santa Monica location or in front of City Hall. We weren't presented any other options. One of the options that was presented was on the corner of Reckford and Santa Monica. And I was concerned about that because I felt that that would not be a safe situation for people, standing there taking pictures when there's a corner there. But just, again, speaking personally, not as a lay is on, but just speaking personally, I myself would have no issue with moving it as well. Well, wasn't there initially a suggestion to put it sort of in the block where the lily pond is, not directly in front, but sort of on the side? That was certainly something that I think was, is that? Yes, an original proposal was to place the piece on the, what would that be, the eastern corner of the Lillipond block to balance. And we denied that as an option because we felt that the Lillipond Beverly Hills sign should not in any way compete with another art piece. So that was taken off the table. We weren't presented any other options. But- Wait, isn't the Barry Flanagan piece on that block, too? It is. Yes, the rabbit sculptures on that block. But I think from my perspective, again, not speaking as a liaison, just from my perspective, you know, I think part of this particular piece that we're talking about is it's meant to be a photo opportunity that people were going to be taking pictures with and such. The Flanagan really isn't. It's not landscape that way. I think part of what we all liked about the Ringo Star piece was the interaction with the public and the piece. From my perspective, I don't think that that should interfere with the lily pond sign. And I agree with Council Member Wonderland that I would like to explore it being elsewhere. And then just another question. The recent piece, the smaller piece from the art show. What of the long, which is on the rexford side of entrance to City Hall? Now, what of the longer term plans for that? Is that regarded as permanent? Is that regarded as temporary? I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. First of all, the smaller piece from the art show. Yes. Is that regarded as permanent? Is that regarded as permanent? Is that regarded as temporary? So as with all of our mayor purchases to date, it is regarded as being a permanent installation. Okay, so I also would question whether or not City Hall is the appropriate permanent installation place for that piece. Permanence,utes, Robert. Okay, Dr. Gohan. So I'd like to break it down in pieces. I think the first question to be answered is the question of what is historic, what is not historic, I think you've defined it. And I think the notion of character defining elements, I think is clear. And I think it gives the council guidance as it moves forward. So I'm okay with that. I think the second piece, the second part to be asked is what should the process be? So if in fact the test will be character defining and whether or not there is anything that would interfere with that. I think that as the owners of the property, I think that the City Council should bear the burden for making that determination not only for the pieces we've discussed today, but for any piece of art that is on the city hall property. I think we should undertake a look at any and all pieces of art that are on the city hall property and make it affirmative or not, decision that says, they do or do not belong based on the criteria that we could develop driven by the ordinances. I believe I was the only one who opposed the placement of the Ringo-Star piece there. I remain opposed to the placement of the Ringo-Star piece there. But I do think that it's not unique to that. I do think that we should develop a consistent platform from which we make decisions about what art belongs on City Hall land. Now I do believe that art does belong on City Hall land. And I think there's appropriate art on City Hall land. And I think that the art can be used to enhance the property And I think it can be used in a way that enhances not only the resident experience but the visitor experience So I'm certainly in favor of maintaining art on the property, but I do think that We need to take a look at the art that's here and be consistent in our approach to it And I don't think that anything's immune from it. And I'll just tell you off the top, I would not, I have not, and I will not support the Ring of Star piece. About the other way away. You know, I think once I, so my sense, you ask how do you know that? My sense from the drawings we've seen is that it's low enough and that there really are, I mean really the sight lines are towards the tower and all that's up there. I don't think that this interferes with that. Do you think there should be objective standards or are you willing to say that the council can and should make decisions subjectively? As long as not capricious and arbitrary, I think as long as we're consistent, I think, you know, I don't think they have to be rock solid decisions, but, you know, just some guidance for ourselves so that we're, we're not sort of making it up every time we do it. And so for you, what would those guidelines be? Well, I think that when people come to City Hall, they want to see City Hall. I think anything we add to that is a benefit and an addition potentially but I think we have to remain mindful that they come here for City Hall. They want the pictures of City Hall. They want the pictures you know how many times we see people on the steps on both sides of City Hall taking pictures and invariably when people ask you to ask you to help, you want to get the whole cupola up there and all of that. I think that is really what we're protecting. We're protecting that view. So how would you avoid, for example, from the Wallace, the highwayway blocking that view? I don't know that it does, but if it does, we'd have to consider it. But I'm asking, what should there be objective standards that a normal sized person from 10 feet away at a location that is? Or, well, I think, you know, I don't know how. It's very hard to create granular metrics off the top of our head. I think if we're really interested in granular metrics about distances and heights and all that. But I'm not saying we are, but what would you suggest? I think an average person walking on the street should not have the view of city hall blocked by anywhere on the street or from specific places. Well, certainly Santa Monica Boulevard. From anywhere on Santa Monica Boulevard. I think Santa Monica, both sides of Santa Monica Boulevard. Not Crescent, because actually Crescent, if... And Cres Monica not Crescent because actually Crescent if and Crescent Crescent is the actual historical view Right, but Crescent it's not it's harder to do on Crescent because if in order to block the view You don't have to put the artwork in the middle of the wall You're not gonna be able to it'd be very hard to put unless it was enormous Artwork on the grass and on Crescent that would block the view of City Hall. What do you mean? It depends on how close you stand, of course. Well, if you stand on top of it, then of course you're going to. But I mean, that's what I'm saying. That's very granular. And I don't have a granular answer. But I think that we should preserve the view. I mean, I think that that's what people want to say. You make a distinction between the sides where the view has already been obstructed or changed. I mean, it belonged to Rexford because of course that's not historic, but what is historic is Crescent? I think we should take a consistent, I don't think we should parse streets. I think we should say the city hall property as the Rexford Creson and the two Santa Monica's. And anything in that space, I think we should have oversight of and make decisions about, sorry, what space were you going to say? Rexford Cresson and the two Santa Monica's. So if we were to find that the, for example, 9-11 memorial obstructs the view from City Hall, of City Hall, would you, would you, if we were to find that then we would have to move it the chances The chances that that's going to happen are less than zero So you know we can reduce the the argument to absurd Why is that absurd if it obstructs because there's no line of sight between the first off we're not going to move that period Secondly, there's no line of sight between that and the tower. Unless you're lying on the ground looking straight up maybe. But unless you're standing on your head and juggling bowling balls, you're not going to be able to obstruct. I mean, it just doesn't. And I just think we should take ownership of it. That's all. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Bobbos. Thank you. So, I feel that what happens within the halls of City Hall is sacred. I think what happens amongst who we are as a city in terms of who we are as a community is sacred. So I think that this is a very important conversation. I want to speak to you, Larry, regarding the whole historic nature and the analysis of character defining feature. In terms of the report, it suggests that we've added a bridge, we've added a garage, we removed the railroad tracks. We did landscape changes. Are you concerned that by those changes that we in any way compromise the historic nature and the landmark status of city hall just by that alone? I'm not because the ultimate analysis of the landmark report that we did happened after a number of those things. I think even after the garage, but I'm not positive about that. But certainly after the Charles Moore renovations to the east side and certainly after the removal of the railroad tracks. So no, I don't, I think that despite those changes, it was found to be a historic landmark anyway, predominantly because the character of the Hining Features were still present. Okay. So, for as long as I remember, we've had temporary art. I remember, it wasn't in the report, but I do remember the Robert Indiana, which were numbers in front of City Hall, big red numbers. I remember the Botero, which caused quite a stir. Some people love Botero, some people quite a stir. Some people love Batero. Some people felt that they were a little bit too revealing because they're naked, full up, sure, as sculptures. And then recently the richage, Sarah. I also am aware that art is subjective. Something that I might love, you might hate, and vice versa. And some people really, really love public art in the city and others don't. And I think there's a balance. You look at the Louvre, truly probably one of the most historic museums in the world. And in the middle is a glass, I am pay triangle that's German. It's a pyramid. Yeah, pyramid. Yeah, right in the middle. So, you know, kind of mirroring the modern with the historic. I also agree that City Hall belongs to everybody in this room. And it's important that we honor and preserve that. I do, though, based on what I see here, feel that art is allowed based on what our parameters are. But I also very much feel that it's a conversation to have with our community. When we're talking about City Hall, we have, and I've heard this here, you know, where there are people who don't like, for example, the Roxy Pain and people who do, or other art pieces. But I think when we're talking about City hall grounds, I think it's really important to try and find art that the community by and large can support and be proud of. I think that's part of the reason why we have a sculpture garden because that allows for, you know, Carol Bove to plenza, to Kusama, different pieces of art to attract different tastes. I also feel that any art on city hall grounds should have a public process and have certain guidelines of what we're looking for. As I said earlier that I am absolutely ready to explore having the Ringo Star piece be elsewhere. Had we had other options, I would have supported that as well. And in terms of the IWA, I personally do like it at City Hall, but I would support it being in the sculpture park as well. To me, it's about our city having the highwayway. But for what's at hand, based on what I'm hearing and what the analysis is, are legally, I do feel as my colleagues have suggested that we are in the right to have public art, but I do believe we have to have a process. And I'm ready to move forward. Do you think we should also have the same process for Beverly Yarns, which is also historically land? We do. I mean every single piece of art that's in Beverly Gardens Park has a public process. Right. So we do. We do have a public process. Yeah, we do. So going from the general questions then to the specifics, I do think it is within Council's purview to have public art on public ground for the reasons that have been stated. If it is not interfering with the character defining features of our building and we continue the ability to meet the criteria of the Department of Interior, I don't see any reason that we shouldn't be able to have public art. The reality on this and probably the reason why this item is before us is because there is concern about the Ringo Star piece. One of the comments that I made when the Ringo Star piece was presented to us was that the picture that was given to us, I felt at that time, and perhaps I was wrong, was out of sync with what the actual picture or what the actual piece would have been. Out of scale. Out of scale. I thought that the scaling of it was larger than it really would have been and in my own mind I made the distinction that it was probably a smaller piece and it wouldn't have obscured it. Perhaps I was wrong and for that reason I am certainly willing to look at it again and perhaps have a better sense of what it would obscure if anything when it was placed. But I certainly support the idea of looking at that piece again. I think the highway way. I would like to look at it again in scale. perhaps a 3D scale if we could have it. I think that is something that we should all be concerned with. It doesn't appear to me, but I was wrong. I believe on the Ringo Star piece because of its scaling that it would, but I think that's important that we look at that too. There was a comment about permanent pieces of art generally in City Hall, and I would support that going through a public process as well. I think that this building, as Lily, as Councilmember Bossia said, is belongs to all of us. And I don't think that any one should determine what is in a public building. So I think that there should be a process that's assigned to that. Having objective standards, probably there should be some objectivity, but in reality, it's going to be a subjective standard ultimately that is going to be applied to a piece of art and where it's put. So I don't have any problem with having some gross objective standards, but I don't think that we can have finite ones. In terms of items of art and whether or not as Councilmember Wonderlick said being an artistic arbiter, I will take my place third behind Councilmember Wonderlick and Councilmember Gold who have stated their ability to determine what is good art. So I am certainly not gonna be that one. And I think it's important that pieces and its placement go before the commissions that we have set so that these things can be vetted before we actually make the final determination as to where and what is purchased and where it is placed. So those are my comments. Do you feel so you would like to revisit the highway way placement? I do not have a problem revisiting the highway way placement. Oh, I asked. Okay not? Okay, I understand it. Okay, thank you. I'd like to just make the point that when we talk about permanent, I mean, what does permanent mean? Your future councils can always revisit decisions made by this one, whether it comes to the placement of art or very many other things too. And it could happen that for council decides they don't like the placement of the Roxy pane and they decide to move it somewhere else. I don't believe when we talk about permanent, there's anything Larry, correct me if I'm wrong, that precludes future councils from changing locations or moving things or mixing it up. There's nothing in the law you'd have to look at any individual contract for what our agreement was with the artist. Right. But aside from that, we could do what we wanted, correct? I, but John, you make a good point in that it should probably be all art because we don't know how long it's going to be there. So before we place any art permanent or otherwise, it should be, we don't know what the time is. Well, no, but I think to me, my question is any art that is being, any public art that's being proposed to be placed on City Hall property. Or on City property. We already do it for the rest of the City property. Yes. That we go through a process. So I guess my question, let me just for if you know, is there any art currently right now that we have on City property that has not gone through a process. Yeah because there are things in Roxbury Park there are things there's there and there are smaller paintings in city hall. No but I'm gonna talk about what's in city hall. There are paintings in city hall as well but that's relevant as well. That's that big statue in the campus of the tree way. That didn't go through city hall. That's a road down. It was a donation. That's a road down. Yeah, that was a donation to the city. Well, starting off with the grounds, do we have do we have any art on the grounds that we haven't formally voted upon? So the other art piece I can think of that did not come to City Council is the windmills that are along the eastern entrance into City Hall. The road down as well didn't come to City. It may not have. I'm not sure that was before my time. And those, I believe those are meant to be not, I mean, you mentioned permanent, but from my perspective, those were not permanent in any way. There, temporary, I think, you know. Well, there's also, there's intent at the time something happens. Somethings could be put in and at the time it's me acknowledge this will be here for six months. And there are things that are being put in indefinitely and I think something that's being put in indefinitely for the purposes of our discussion Should be regarded as permanent even if a future city council Right and in the conversation if the intent is that it will go away in some period of time We can have that conversation, but it doesn't it may or may not who knows it may or may not influence the discussion We may agree that we want it just like we did with the temporary pieces with the Richard Sarah pieces, we had that conversation. We didn't know how long they were going to be here. The licks in Stain, we didn't know how long it was going to be there. It was, you know, temporary early permanent permanent. We knew that was temporary. Well, but we didn't know how long. Well, for example, John, the year mayors, is that meant to be temporary or permanent? Look, I mean, the process hasn't been in the past. The mayors select something. Last time the jacks went in front of the dog park there, they looked for a good placement. People don't like it, they can move it. But I don't know in terms of permanent, if someone wants to put something else there. They're just following the procedures that had been done in the past when other mayors picked their art from the, which is of course a very different kind of thing from our art show. And we have paintings in City Hall as well that are displayed that were mayors. You know, I'm not sure that we're... I think we got to go back to where we started. The thrust of the conversation was all based on the historic nature of the exterior of City Hall. Not based on any other public space. Well, we're conversing. But I think we're expanding it. But whether or not it's in a building. If you have a piece of art that's in a building, that actually, or on a property that is not historic, is not really apples to apples. Well actually in the building would be because that... Oh it doesn't change the interior... The interior of the building is also historic. But it could change the character defining features of City Hall. Making a piece of art on a wall doesn't change. Right, good. It would depend upon the specifics. Which wall? Where? I think generally, and I would defer to Ryan, I believe, but generally, the hanging of a painting, for example, is a reversible change. Even if you determine that it was a change to a character defining feature, it is a reversible change. You can always take the painting off the wall. But you can always move a sculpture and that's exactly why we heard that that is considered to be a reversible. Exactly. I'm just trying to distinguish. I think we maybe went down a path that was not really productive in terms of the discussion because you can again remove a painting, remove perhaps a sculpture as well. So, as one. I don't know, whatever. Okay, so anyway, asset, my feeling is permanent is a very relative thing, and that we can't preclude future councils from moving things. They may not like the Roxy pain. They may, in fact, I believe, unless there's a contract, decide to sell it and replace it with something else. That in theory is something the, are we precluded from selling public artwork and using it to purchase something else? At least our more recent contracts usually prohibit us from selling it, but that is certainly with some art you can sell it. Because we're always saying, oh, this is a good investment. So, you know, it's worth a lot of money or something like that. So I think that, you know, I think for me it's clear that we can and should be able to place artwork on an in city hall. I do think that the big change was when in the 90s the Charles Moore edition was allowed. I think you saw that that completely and that's why I keep referring to Cresson. If you look at the Cresson side, that's original. But when you enter from Rexford which was not the original entrance to City Hall, it's completely changed. So the notion that, you know, anything that happens there is, I believe, less impactful than when you do it on the Crescent side. So I do disagree that you can't parse the sides because that whole colonate and all of that, that is not the authentic original corner engaged design. That is Charles Moore after the fact. And from my perspective, that's not the historic city hall that we love. In fact, it probably should have been something else. But so I think you could make the distinction. I think when we're looking at though the corner of Crescent and Santa Monica, that more or less is. Now there is the Wallace-Anne and Berk Parking lot which changed because there's a curb cut out there and that also changed the way that City Hall looks because that obviously wasn't there originally. We've also changed some landscaping and so I think that's okay. We've made it more drought tolerant. I know that all came before the council as well. So I think that's okay. And I think we should be sensitive to not obscure the grander of city hall, but if someone standing in front of something looks up, for example, we have the obelisk in front, which we all agree, I don't know if you're on the council, but we agree for the placement of that. If you stand behind it, you'll obscure the view of City Hall. So I think it needs to be reasonable. I'm not sure that we can have exact minutia. If we have exact minutia or standards as to where and when, you know, sight lines and that sort of thing, my feeling is it's kind of like you'll know it if you see it, but we can work to determine those kinds of standards. And again, the question is where is it from? Is it from in front of City Hall? Is it from the other side of the street? Is it from down the street? Is it from I think we'll kind of know when we see if something is truly distracting from. My perspective is that the highway way does not. I think it's an enhancement. I think it's something that is going to add to City Hall. And ultimately, like the Kusama, which is in a landmark designated area, I think that's almost become a symbol of at least that block of the gardens. So I think you see that public art actually can enhance the historical value and nature of some of our landmarks. That being said, I think there are landmarks which I've said before that need to stay in situ. And so when we look, for example, at the celluloid piece which is on the corner of Beverly and Olympic, that's where it was placed more than 60 years ago. And the location there is of extreme importance to its historical value and to move it. Even the notion of moving it would take away from that value. So to me that's something that obviously we shouldn't be looking at. But in general I do think we should look at, you know, preserving the view of City Hall, but I think artwork, especially major artwork like the I way, way can enhance the value of City Hall. So Mr. Mayor, just to summarize, at a very high level, are we suggesting, or I would suggest, that the spaces that surround City Hall that would be wrecks for it to crescent and between the Santa Monica's? I think all we really need to do is say that if we're going to place public art there, it has to come in front of the Council for a discussion. And that way we can have a public discussion. The public will know, we'll make a decision affirmatively. I would, the question is do we want to broaden that and say any public art placed on city Hall on city own ground should go through the same process Well, the only the only problem. I mean every time we buy a picture Don't we gonna do that? It's that has the potential to affect the character We don't want to diminish I mean every time we well so that has the potential to impact the character defining. Now that in theory would also apply to Beverly Gardens Park as well. But I think we do have a process that goes through that there as well. So I think that- I think we already have that, I mean. Well, I'm not too concerned about the places that are not historic. You know, when we build a new La Sienica building, we're gonna have have to put artwork in there. Are we going to have to bring every piece of artwork in front of the council? Because I mean, I just don't think that makes sense. But clearly something which has the ability to, and on the inside I think, personally I think it's less of an issue unless you put a big statue. If you're going to hang a painting, I don't really think that's a big deal. What if it's a painting that's offensive to the world? I mean, we shouldn't do anything offensive to anybody ever, but I don't know how, I think that if we started a high level we can work hard. So I would suggest that we get Marco Dell and get our historic consultants to vet anything for potential potential. And if there is a potential, even a potential impact on City Hall then that's fine. I think that's fine. But there would be agreement on this to continue with the public process that we already had with the highway way, visit the highway way, but to revisit the placement of the ring or sculpture and the three lambs or whatever that one has. Well, I would support that. I think I would actually say, because we may not be thinking about it, anything else that's on the property that we have an actual property. Well, but you guys would have to do an inventory. Let's first go back to what Dr. Gold says and get a historical assessment and see that there is, you know, before we're doing a jack story that there is a potential historical impact. If our consultants are saying that the placement of certain things do not constitute a potential detraction from the historical. But I think the other part of it is, if we are agreeing that we can have public art on city hall grounds, I think we then need to decide which art we want. Because if you're placing a piece of art on city hall grounds, then you're not placing another piece of art there because you've placed something there. So I think we need to, I mean, I way away, we decided, and this is through also the art commission. I mean, I way away is considered among the top artists in the world. It's hard to find a living artist that's more well-renowned in terms of an investment. But if we place another piece of art that the community doesn't support then by placing a piece of art there, then we're not allowing for something of an I.O.A. way, value to be there. So I do think that even if it might not affect the historic nature because we've determined that we can have art but I do think that we need to have the conversation as to which art. So I think that- So then why not have a process by which all art on public grounds period is going through this process? I think that's what we're saying for city. No, not just city hall, all city-owned property. Well, again, it depends on how, I mean, you can do that, but it just clogs the system. And bring it to a vote. And I personally don't think we have to. I mean, if you buy a painting that hangs in Roxbury Park. I don't think we were talking about paintings on walls. I thought we were talking about more of sculpture that's on ground. Okay, we actually said that. Well, that's what I'm suggesting. But I mean, we can do, well, if you want an arrow and say sculptures that sit on ground, that's a whole different deal. Yeah. What about indoor sculptures? No, that's the problem. Well, sculpture of any, sculpture greater than a certain amount. I mean, I don't know if you have a two foot sculpture. Perhaps you don't. I mean, you gotta be a little careful. We get gifts from foreign tiglandaries. We have a room full of figures that are small sculptures that we kind of put up for display. I don't, we don't want to. I would at least start with sculptures on the grounds of City Hall and if you want to expand it to any city property we can do that. I'm okay with that. Let's do it then to any city property just to be just to. Yeah. Any city property just to just to. Sculptures on the exterior of the property. On the exterior of city property. I know that. But wait a second. We're talking about the historical nature of City Hall. You would have to because the interior is historically landmark too. So specifically, if you want to talk about potential impacts, be consistent. Are we going to do a little sculptures? No, no problem. I mean, again, those are, you know, even the road down that's out there, we can move that. I mean, from my perspective, that's why we don't know the history of it. But my point is I wouldn't even bother looking at that because we can move it if we want. If we decide that we want to move it, we can move it. I don't have a problem talking about all sculptures on all city properties, but I just think we have to be reasonable about what that means. So can't we just put a height minimum to look at it? I mean if it's a really small piece and it's going to go and it's a sculpture and it's going to go on a shelf. Right. I don't think we need to look at those. I mean we kind of talk about Jack's story. May I just suggest anything that gets bolted down. Cemented down. Fasted. In or out of city hall? Either way. On all public property? It would require a rather large, something in city hall, large structure in city hall to be bolted down. So that could be the parameter. There's the real stone hedge but not the one from spinal tap. Right, the little one on the shelf wouldn't count. That was okay. But don't we have the, and we already have the ability if we want to, as said, like someone says, I'd like to move the Roxy pane to Burton Way. We can still go through a public process to do that if we wanted to. Yes, and I would expect that we would, because there might be people who wouldn't want to see that on a certain way. But going forward from today, we could have a policy to, you know, cultures. I think we should do that. But also for the specific things that we were talking about. Well, I think you can't, you can't exclude the highway because it's subjective. So if you want to do all of them, we can do all of them. I think we have to do everything we already have to discuss. Yeah, we did. We also had it about the ring of stars. It could be a very quick conversation. I mean, we did. We have a council of all. There's energy to revisit the proposal. Let's visit, then, you know, let's then reap. I'd like to suggest we bring back to the council and inventory of what we have at City Hall campus the approval process they had taken place and then we'll let the council decide at that point which ones you want to keep and which ones we want to approve at that point. I just want to make sure that we adequately notice the community so that they can respond to help. Absolutely. And again, I said this before, if there's any way we can get a 3D imaging of what both of those would look like, I think that's important. I think that that would either alleviate concerns or create concerns, but it gives us a better idea of whether or not there's going to be any. Well, could I ask if there so that we do that? If there are any specific concerns from, we heard about sightlines that we can ask for, we could ask for images. Okay, I'm five foot six. The statue is five foot eight and a half. If I put my hands up like this, it's eight feet. Okay, this is how tall it is. I think that blocks the view. Okay, you're putting it, excuse me Robbie. If you put it on a pedestal, yes it will be higher. We're talking about trees being in front of City Hall that are taller than the sculpture. Just to give you an idea. And it was out of scale on the photo, like you said. So that would be a good thing to maybe look at. It really isn't very big. The other thing, he was not given the option of other spots. He really wanted the park. I believe that it went back to the Newcastle and the two spots that were offered. He agreed to. Okay, this is all buy and buy. He is a big contributor to the fire department. He's doing it out of the goodness of his heart. If you don't want it, just say so. We can move on. You'll nobody is set down. But also, I mean, the person who's kind of getting out of hand and he's getting very discouraged. So the fact that he is ready to look other places, I'm just letting you know. He also said that if you have concerns with it being permanent, he will make a contract that says it's on loan for that spot. If in the future it needs to be moved, he is happy to move it as long as you let him know or offer it back to him. It's really not an issue. Thank you, John. I'm just letting you know that. But also, I don't think anyone has said that we don't want it, that we don't value it. It's a question of finding the best home for it, including from Ringo Starr's perspective. Right, but I thought it went through the process, and it was a five to zero vote in favor of it. So I'm just a little confused. It was for Wenzel, Julian, naturally. I thought he ended up saying, OK, but never mind. All right, four to one but it did go and that and I agree with you on that and I you know but if it's you know if we're looking at another spot then it's not going to happen this year I mean it's just he will move it he will he just wants to do something nice for his community from 1992 he's lived here it's not so that you know he can drive down the seat street and point at it like it's been brought up and other cities want this he wanted it to be the first place because he's lived here for so long. Thank you. The city of peace and love. That's all I'm saying. I want to make one comment if I may. And there was a comment made about would we have wanted this piece of art if a concert wasn't attached to it. Of course. I for one did not know a concert was going to ever even occur. So the answer, at least from this council member, is yes, it would have been approved even if there was no concert offered. I mean, he's done the structure that they've been inspected. It was told that it had to have four points of security. Everything's been done. It's just sitting there waiting. So if you have any questions, please ask me. Let me ask. You know, people do when done. It's just sitting there waiting. So if you have any questions, please ask me. Let me ask. You know, people do when they're buildings, they do cherry pickers. We don't even need that. You could put up a letter or something with the height. Would that be, Bob, would that satisfy you if we got a height and sort of you could see approximately where it was planned last? You can even come and see it. It's he said anybody can come and see it. From my perspective, I mean, since you said that he would be interested in the park, I would like, because to me, the excitement of about this piece was the public interaction and having a lot of people be able to interface with it. So the parks have more people there than they do by the parking lot by City Hall. So for me it's really more about where can this piece best interact with people. So that is really where I'm at. It's not even about how, because I agree with you, it's not going to win anyway. You're going to still be able to see City Hall fine. But it's really more about where is there a better placement for this piece in terms of what the goal of that piece is. The goal of that piece is for people to interact with. And I really believe that that location is better in the parks because that's where you have people. So where are you suggesting which parks so that we can propose it when we look at it? Perhaps somewhere in the sculpture garden park. That's where we have a lot of people. I mean, you know, and that was something I have to say. I think, you know, I recognize that we talked about this, but I also feel that when the community brings up something that's worth having a conversation about, it's worth having a conversation about. And I think, you know, sometimes we don't necessarily think of everything. And that's what's great about this community because you'll think of things that we don't. And, you know, and I think what I love about my colleagues is that we're willing to not be close-minded, just because we thought something at the time if something else comes up that's a better suggestion, let's do it. And perhaps the park is a better suggestion. That's all I. And perhaps the park is a better suggestion. That's all I'm saying. Because there'll be more people interfacing with. That's very originally wanted it. And I'd like to be clear too. Even in my opposition to this in the first go around, it wasn't the piece. It was the placement. I didn't think it belonged on the city hall property. That's not where he wanted it originally. That was where he was offered placement. Well, I'm just saying. I think that there are really Councillor Robbossi. I think there may be better place with better showcased. We really wanted it at Beverly Canons Park where we could encourage the children and families to interact with it. They could climb on it. They could have all the pictures they wanted. They could post the pictures on Instagram. Well, I don't know if we want them because then they may want to climb on the Kusama as well. Well, it's in a different location. I get it. And Roxbury was brought up. We definitely wanted it in a park where the younger generation would have access to it. So that was brought up because you were there was a time at the meeting so you didn't hear all those suggestions. Anyway that would be our wish. So how about Jill would you be okay if we the liaison meeting myself and Lily and Stephanie and who well says the gotty? Yeah yeah as well but also if we as a liaison went and looked and explored some alternate in the park that everyone But especially Ringo would be happy with because of it would that be okay for you for us to do it We don't we also need to add the park and wreck commission as well. Layazans for that. Yeah opens up another Yeah, it does So I think we need to have them interface well since it's the parks ultimately. It's our decision I know but I think in need to have them interface since it's the parks. Ultimately it's our decision. I know but I think in terms of what? That is the rule. That's right. That's why we can't import. But I think we know. Do you remember? We sat on the same commission. Yeah. And never. Yes. I think we should have the laya's on with our commission, with you, also the park, and then anybody in the community who wants to go there. But I would suggest before we even go there that we find a couple, in other words, none of this means anything. We have to be happy too, but if Ringo's not happy, we're not going to. He's donating it, as you said, from the goodness of his heart to be a part of the community. And to give back to the community, I don't think anybody should question whether he's given money to anything that's irrelevant. This is something that he's doing, and I think it's a gift to the community. And as I publicly said before, I think it's wonderful. Would it be possible for us to, Lily and myself is the liaisons to, at least one of them, because the problem is if it needs to go through to, we have different wrecking parks reckon parks liaison. So we're going to have to take the lead when it comes to this as a piece of art to find a couple of locations that we could then go back to the commissions and propose. Because we should, we recognize he has it, anyone can see it. But let's see if we can do this as soon as we can because this should be available for people to enjoy. This is something we don't want to wait for years because we want people to be able to enjoy it. It's a gift. And my suggestion would be if that's okay with the rest of the council for us to liaise with Jill and Ringo's people, find locations and then go to the appropriate commissions for potential placement. And if at the end of the day, the best we can still come up with is the current location, then at least we will have done that. Does that sound okay to you, Bob? Julie? I would like to find another location. And if it's on loan and if you decide to move it eventually, all he wants is the possibility of it being offered back to him, not sold, or want to be moved somewhere else. We understand that and a contract can include that we would exactly. Yeah, exactly. I just wanted to move this along and if you had any questions. And then also to clarify because I know this was brought up, there is no expectation regarding a concert. No. There's none. In fact, that was something I believe you offered, which I would think, or ringo offered, which is another wonderful community benefit. What community in the world would not want to have a concert with Ringo star? I mean, as if that were a bad thing. That's a wonderful thing. It's something that there's no expectation at all and it would be ridiculous, but to make that a condition quite the opposite. It's an additional gift we feel that Ring will be giving to the community and to spin it any other way is simply inappropriate. I would suggest. Yeah, it's just a positive that he's trying to do. It's a positive. That's all I'm saying. And if there's any questions, please on high anything, if you want to come see it, we can organize it. And I do what I would like to take you up on it and we'll do that offline. Yeah. And most likely, by the time it's installed, I don't think John will be mayor and I don't do sing-alongs. So that is not a consideration of the song. You might. Well, then you sure can do a sing along. Are you okay moving forward in this way? Yes. Okay, let's go to the highway way. Are we okay with keeping? Thank you. Thank you. So Jill, we are going to make an appointment with you. I know you're in town this month. Yeah. Yeah. So we're going to do it as soon as possible so we can move forward. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Yes, Robbie. A couple of discrepancies here is one is the way way is costing the city $800,000. they talked about a donation, but in fact, the Fine Arts Commission is spending $800,000 on this installation and $200,000. But they also want a plaque that we don't know what the wording on this plaque is that they've, okay, but that's a whole another story. As far as this Ringo star sculpture out here, it's in a dangerous place. It was turned down twice by the Fire Arts Commission. It didn't go through any commissions whatsoever. Traffic and safety. Did risk analysis? Robby, you got it, yes. It didn't get it, yes, but it has gone. It's going to get moved. Didn't you just hear what we said? We're going. I heard you're going to go out and look around because. Yeah, but outside of City Hall grounds. Okay fine. That's what you're saying. Is that what you're saying? You're not listening? Yes, that is what we said. Well I'm listening, John. You're not listening, Robbie. That's exactly what we said. Okay, so that's what it is. You're going to move it off. We didn't say that. We said we're going to explore other options and hopefully we'll find something that Ringo's happy Where I proceed from here, but I think we just get well you're you still probably sounds like you're gonna Sue because I think the council wants to keep the I way way where we decided at City Hall but I'm we were actually just I'm Here asking you about the Ringo Star sculpture right out there right on the freeway in Santa Monica freeway Are you gonna play are you I way way there too? I way is actually close. No, I'm talking about this. We just said that. We're now. You're going to move it. We're going to look at it. Explore. But Robbie, the highway way is there. $800,000. So you still? Let's deal with one thing at a time. Okay, well, get ready. We're going to. We're about to decide Are we okay with keeping the highway way? On Santa Monica Boulevard on that Route 66 freeway? I'm okay with keeping the highway way where it is. I don't see a need to revisit. Okay. You're willing? Yeah, and I am too, but I think to be complete, we ought to just make sure that the pictures we saw were truly to scale. I think we ought to just double check that and make sure it is what it appears to be. And if we can do that and it's not substantially different than I'm okay with it. If it turned out that for some reason it was substantially different, then maybe we'd have to talk about it. I agree. I think we're talking about two different pieces that have two different interactions with the public. So I do want to see the scale as well, but I do think it's a different type of art and different type of interactions with the public. I agree with, but with what Booan and Lily said, I do, however, would like to see a 3D scaled just to be sure. So we're going to keep the highwayway at the location. We'll look at a 3D, which again, all of our decisions are subject to revision, but we're looking to keep the highwayway at that location. And we're going to catalog everything, you know. Look at everything. We should catalog all of our public art on public grounds period and look at it and we have the ability to always look at the placement of any of it and discuss movement or putting something somewhere else if someone has any better ideas about what to do with things. So we'll bring forward inventory of what we have and then we'll bring- Of every council. Yes. All public. Okay. And we will- the liaison will be reactivated and meet with Jill and see if we can figure out a better location that everyone is happy with as soon as possible. Absolutely. I'm ready. So we'll do that. And with that, we'll move to the next item, which may well end up being the last item. And that's inclusionary housing. And this is a very important subject. We are going to go into close session at five o'clock. So Ryan, do you think an hour will be enough to... I know. Right. You... Just a check with the call-up. We can hour will be enough to, right. Just a check with the call up. They finally did the call up. We can't, we can't leave it open to the next meeting. No, that would, the 30 days would expire. Even though it started, even though we're starting taking it up today. All right, so we better get to item number three and then item number two if we do have a issue which is unfortunate because inclusionary housing is an extremely important issue. So let's. No, item three we have to do now. Item two will get to it if we can. If not, it will be the first item on the next meeting which is on the 20th. It's an extremely important item and we need to get to that. Ryan. So item three. Ray. All right. Thank you and I will be brief. This is a request from Mayor Mierish to review the architectural commission's approval of the exterior design of a new 5 story 20 unit condominium project at 425 to 429 north palm. Which is located at the intersection of palm and Beverly Boulevard. Just real quick on the timeline, the project was originally approved in 2015 by the Planning Commission and by the City Council because there was an ordinance required associated with the design. Most recently, there were amendments made to the project, the one to the Planning Commission of May in May of this year. The City Council did review that for call-up. There was not a majority vote to call that up, so that decision became final. The applicant did then go to the architectural commission just in July of this year, and that was approved unanimously by the commission. And to that is the decision that is now the subject of the call-up request. You're not here to talk about the merits of the project, really just whether to call it up or not. This is just an image of what was approved by the architectural commission. They did impose a number of conditions on the final detailing of the project. And the recommendation really is for the City Council to provide us with direction on whether there is interest in calling this up for a denovo hearing. We do have the chair of the Architectural Commission in attendance in case you have any questions. Thank you. Do you have any comments? On this? Okay, we're getting to public comment. Okay, David, you can be first. First. My personal feeling is that the city council calling this up to challenge the aesthetics of this luxury condo building is going through the back door because they're unhappy with a luxury condo replacing, let's say, low-income apartment buildings. It is so important for the city council to be consistent. When it came to 326 and 328, oakhurst, Ryan Gowicz recommended that that be converted to condos, 19 NLA, six in Beverly Hills, and was defeated by a bunch of baloney about people saying that it was out of character for the neighborhood, when Ryan Gowicz declared the neighborhood from Okres, from Burton Way, all the way to Beverly Boulevard, and somehow they convinced the city council that the neighborhood was just half a block in the middle and the ludicrousness of declaring that what Nancy Crasney, consulwoman called the building dilapidated that they were considered consul was considering that as a historic building and a historic area. Consistency is important. You're saying now that you weren't a couple of council members that they weren't happy with luxury condo being put on Palm Drive replacing apartment. Yet when it came to the Friars Club, many people that were put there by the attorney and also by friends of a former someone on the console. People like Barry Bernstein, a commissioner of architecture, Jade Mills, even Barry Brooker spoke and said, we need luxury condos. Commissioner Bernstein said, we want a downsize, we want luxury condos. The Englishman David, whatever his name is, unpack another friend of theirs, said, we want a downsize, we want luxury condos. The Englishman David, whatever his name is, unpack another friend of theirs, said, we want a downsize, we want luxury condos. So if people want luxury condos, and that's one of the reasons why you passed the Friars Club, which I'm not against, this console should not be putting this for review based on architectural design where the developers spent months or years and thousands and thousands of dollars with architecture fees changing it and I think they should just let it be and let it say that's what the architecture design did but you can't vote that we want we need luxury condos here so we're voting for it but we don't want luxury condos there please have some consistency just defer this back to the architectural committee, and I would not go forward with this as an appeal. Thank you, Afshane Edibar. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for hearing us. My name is Afton. This is Karl Steinberg. We'd represent the developer. I want to say we purchased the property about a year ago, a little over a year. And one of the first things we did was to take the project to the architectural committee for a preview to make sure that we're not off-base and we're on track with the city's requirements and needs and make sure we're within the neighborhoods context. They loved it. We then moved it over. We developed the plans, got it the planning commission. I think we have two hearings and we got approved unanimously. And then we went back to our Tacial Commission where we're very pleased that they concurred and we got approved unanimously as well. I really, I'm a little surprised while we're here but we'd love to get your support and not pushing any appeal on this. We're ready to start construction and this would, if you want to review it again, it will push us back many months and we fall into a rain season to start construction. And this would, if you want to review it again, it will push us back many months. It will fall into a rain season. So if you have any questions, we're here to answer anything you might have. Thank you. Thank you. And Mr. Steinberg, did you want to speak separately? No, I have to convey it all of our initial thoughts. Thank you. Sharon Persovsky. Thank you. So I would like to know, well I would like to say that something that is important for you to know is that the first design approach that they presented, the co-volulering approach, has not been reviewed by the current commissioners of the architecture. It was reviewed by other commissioners in previous years. So the only thing that has been requested for us to review is the second option. So if you will require that we give certain recommendations, so advices to you, we can only comment in the second option. So you're saying you weren't a part of the commission that it approved the previous building that was approved there? The Corbylinear concept the first one will none of us of the commission were part of that. Thank you. Steve Mayor Honorable Mayor Vice Mayor and Council members, as you were told this project 425 North Compalme came before you on June 18. Due to a filing deadline being missed, the majority of the Council felt because the court issue could not be addressed that as demolishing the value of apartment inventory to build luxury condos, it would not be the best use of the council's time to hold the denobo hearing. The majority of the council express some concern as to design as well as the mass and scale of the project. The council did not render a decision upon the project. On June 17th, the architectural commission to talk to its hearing and granted its approval. and granted its approval. The two main issues that the council may explore and I call up are, is this the best design for both the site and the neighborhood? And also the deliberately misleading statement of the applicant's representative, council did not oppose this project, council brought up for questions. Maybe one councilman had concerned, councilman did not, or council did not oppose this project. That declaration was to counter previous public comment that the council had concerns as the DIN and the proposed two alternative courses of action for the commission was one, reject the design and have it appealed by the council or two, continue the hearing to a data uncertain till the commission and council lay asans could meet and receive more direction from council. But there are also SQL issues here. In the subject description of the hearing, it says that the architectural commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under SQL. In the environmental assessment paragraph in the next page, it also cited SQL. And significantly, the state of the project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general policies as well as applicable zoning designation. In written public comment to the architectural commission however eight land use policies recited as bearing as requiring additional potential examination by the commission. I will just cite two here. One is neighborhood conservation, maintaining the use of densities, characters, amenities and qualities of the city's residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to city's identity, economic value and quality of life. And then LU 5.2, infill and replacement housing, accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with the contextual partial sizes densities built in form. And also the commission charter in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code 10-3-3010D reflects the same. The proposed building or structures and harmony with the proposed developments on the land in the general area with the general plan for Beverly Hills with any precise plans adopted personally to the general plan. As to my personal interest, I was precluded from voicing opposition to the planning commission in May due to a legal antagonement with the developer. The issues would have been the same as today out of scale, out of mass, etc. and previously approved the design being Vassalist's period. In closing the architectural commission agenda report did not reflect the council's concern over the project, would the council's architectural commission decision be different? Had it had both designs been considered? Thank you. Thank you. So with that we're going to close public comment and I will Yeah, sure You appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight on some of the comments you may have just heard The project was found to be in complete scale and mass and consistent with all the buildings and the surrounding neighborhood the architectural commission made that finding theural Commission made that finding, the planning department made that finding. The SQL analysis proved that the project met all the environmental concerns of the city. I'd like to point out that the prior project, which is of concern to some members of the council, was never brought before the Architectural Commission on a formal basis and its initial stages, it went before the Commission for conceptual discussion, commentary discussion, but it was never brought before for a formal hearing and both. The project died under its own processes and was never continued. When we bought the project, we evaluated the original design, more of a curvilinear, a morphous design, and found it to be lacking in many attributes of habitability that we find condominium buyers look for in today's buildings. We've built three successful buildings in the community and the exact neighborhood at the scale and mass appropriate and approved by your planning commission and architectural commission. We're doing nothing different here. Everything is consistent with this proposed design with all of your city plans and regulations, land use requirements and code. city plans and regulations, land use requirements, and code. So any statement that it's not consistent with policy, general plan, or code, are not correct. Thank you. Okay, thank you and with that we'll close public comment. And I do want to say though, our policy is in general not to lose affordable housing units and I think we were struggling before with going forward as a matter of policy how we do that. And that in this specific case there were issues that we couldn't deal with I think because we missed a deadline on a track map correct. So that that was a specific timing issue. We've resolved that going forward by making such decisions all go to the council for formal approval so we won't be in a situation where we're faced with a deadline that we miss. The reason I brought it up and I would simply like for us to show if you could show the project that had been approved before the curvilinear one and this one. The one that was proposed before. Correct. So I have an image here and I will clarify. That was proposed before. So we have two and from my perspective, the, you know, if you have to pick the one on the left from my perspective is a much more beautiful, more elegant, more fitting project. But John, it wasn't buildable. I mean, it never even went through the process. So maybe it should. My suggestion. But you're not the owner of the property. I understand, but we have the ability to approve. So if you prefer the one on the right, then feel free to say that you think that that's a beautiful project and you know you're in favor of that. No that's not my point though. My point is that you're talking about a project that never even went to the next step of even going to get formal approval. So you're looking at something that was in a conceptual basis. So Ryan was the 2015 project ever brought before the Architectural Commission because we heard from Sharon Persovsky that it was. It was brought before the architectural commission as a project preview. This is something that we as a preview and what was larger projects just to make sure they're not completely off base, but there was no actual. There was no formal reaction of the commission at the time. My again, so commissioners are a little bit limited because I don't want tojudge it. It's more sort of big picture, but my recollection is they were favorable on the design. So that we have discretion when it comes to architectural design. And that for me is my point is I believe we should be looking at projects that are more in keeping with the standards of our city. From my perspective, the project on the left is more in keeping with the standards than the one on the right, which I think is box A. And if I may ask Sharon, would you have a problem with the project on the left? So if you would, we shouldn't be getting into the merits of the project. We should be considering whether this is of a nature that the public should have a council hearing on it, but we should get into the merits of the project. Thank you. Don't answer that because you would have to refuse yourself. It sounds like. Anyway, that's all. We try and for the same reason that the original project was previewed, are they on the right track or not? Are they getting guidelines from the commission? Ultimately it comes back to us, and from my perspective when we're giving guidelines, at least for me personally, I think that the project on the left is the kind of project that we would like to see in our city now. Whether it's more expensive to build and as a result, less profitable, that might be. But I do believe that we should be looking at the highest standards of buildings that I think are beautiful. And from my perspective, the building on the right doesn't meet those criteria. Now, maybe we're not going to get the one on the left, but I think we could do better. Anyway. Councilman. So I want to confirm my understanding about a couple of things. We were unhappy with the loss of the affordable units of the rental units. But this is now about the aesthetics of the building. And we can't do anything about the loss of the rental units. But this is now about the aesthetics of the building. And we can't do anything about the loss of the rental units. Is that correct? That's correct. And also this is a compliant building. There is a question of exceptions here. This is just about the aesthetics of the building. I believe that's correct. Yes, that is correct. A fully co-compliant. So I did, I'm not getting into the substance, but just the process I did look listen to the architectural commission hearing They set out certain findings. It's in their section six In my view I do think they properly considered these issues and I don't see a need for us to I don't see a need for a stiff to go. Councillor Member Gold. And I too am comfortable with the work of both the Architectural Commission and the Planning Commission. I see no reason to call this up. Wait, we're not revealing the Planning Commission decision here. Just the architectural commission. I'm just saying that there was a lot of work that went into this. I don't see a reason to call it. But we'll retract that. I'm comfortable with what the architecture is. Because we discussed the planning of the mission separately. Comfortable with what the architecture is. Comfortable with what the member bossing. So I watched the meeting and they were unanimous in support of this project. And as a matter of fact, they spent quite a bit of time talking about it. And they did like the project. But aside from that, I don't see any reason to call it up, so I continue. Thanks, Mayor. So it's also my understanding that this is really a compliance issue. Whether or not I feel that the 2015 project is a better looking one or the 2019 one, I think is irrelevant at this point in time. I think that since it's a compliant project, they've met all of the findings that are necessary. Is that correct? That's correct. That I see no reason to call it up. Okay, and so I obviously do and there's not support for that. So that won't happen. We're going to start the next item two. We're not going to finish it but we need to get the discussion on inclusionary housing started and we're probably not going to have enough time as we need to at about five going to close session but I think it's an important discussion and we're going to get started. All right. Here I am again to talk about inclusionary housing. This was really a request from the mayor in conjunction with the council. Really just sort of an informational type item to learn a little bit more about what inclusionary housing is as this is something that under the last priority setting session became one of the council's priorities to look at. So the big question is, what is inclusionary housing? And inclusionary housing is generally a program that encourages the development of affordable housing and there are a number of ways to do that. But most often we see it in the form of requiring a percentage of units in a building to be kept at affordable levels when a new project is built, or sometimes developers are allowed to pay a fee in lieu of actually building those units and cities, then use that money in order to support or build additional affordable housing in the city. Inclusionary housing can have a number of benefits, most notably providing inclusionary housing can slow the displacement of residents in a community by providing a variety of housing options. Again, we see this most frequently when we are looking at new development projects, those most often result in the demolition of existing rental properties that often are at rental rates that are below what new buildings will go for. It also can maintain the economic and racial diversity in the community and also just increases housing choice again allowing people to either come into the community or more importantly stay in the community and not be displaced. We've attached to your staff report a study from the Lincoln Institute that looks at inclusionary housing sort of nationwide. And these are programs that exist all over the place. They're estimated to be 500 communities across the country that have some form of an inclusionary housing program. And there are believed to be 149 communities in California alone that have these programs. They do exist in the immediate vicinity of Beverly Hills. They're in Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Pasadena, and Los Angeles. Los Angeles has right now a voluntary inclusionary housing policy. It's their transit-oriented communities, which basically provides pretty significant incentives for developers to build affordable housing. And LA has actually already seen pretty good results with this. And they just announced that they're going to be looking at studying mandatory inclusionary housing requirement as well. And typically in all of these cities and other communities, these inclusionary programs are really tailored specific to the community and what its needs and goals are. So as we talk about affordable housing, we often have people get confused about what affordable actually means. Affordability levels are actually set by the state and they are set for each county and affordability is all based around the area median income. And when we say area median income, we're really looking at county income levels. So for us, we're in LA County, we have our own area median income, we're really looking at county income levels. So for us, we're in LA County. We have our own area median income and other counties have their own again based on incomes. And then when we talk about having housing be affordable, what the state says is that a household should generally not spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing related costs. Housing related costs include not just the rent or the mortgage, but they can also include basic utilities, insurance, property taxes, HOAs in the case of a purchased unit. And so this table here just provides you an example of what we're really talking about when we reference affordable housing in Beverly Hills, which again is based on the LA County median income. So we've highlighted the second from the last row here, what would be considered to be the median income, which for a family of four in LA County is $73,100. And then we've got different income categories. So an extremely low income household would have an income of $31,300. And then at the higher end, moderate income household would have an income of $87,700. So we typically see the moderate income households being more of what folks refer to as sort of workforce housing, perhaps people that are recent graduates from school. But they're making decent incomes, but again, not necessarily enough to afford property in this area. In the... Before you move on from that slide. Sure. When you talk about 30% of income, is that only rent, or is that true for people who won't? It's true for both. Even home, and so when you take in the all in cost of home ownership, the expectation is that it's going to be less than 30%. That's based on the state's parameters. We know that. Well, mortgage, property taxes. Right. And we know that many people spend more than 30% and that would be considered to be. It's gotta be more, I think everybody is. Is there anybody who's under that 30%? Who owns a house who's under that 30% thing? I don't know what they're not in our neighborhood. Breakdown is long term ownership, again over time as inflation and what not happens. And that, as you're qualifying for a mortgage or even to rent an apartment, they're looking at what the income ratios are relative to the outflow. But I think that even people who have on their home 20 or 30 years are going to be over that 30% more. I would be surprised to mortgage. I mean, think about it all in the car. Electro is the alone. Water. Thank you, think about it all in the car. Electridity alone. Water. Thank you Beverly Hills. Yeah, huh? Right. And so this, so this again, this is a, this is a standard that is really an ideal standard that is set by the state. Um, it may not be realistic, but that is what they believe to be appropriate for somebody to, to have a reasonable cost of living and then also to still have disposable income for other things. I ask a follow-up. So looking at that median number which is in bold for 1, 2, 3, and 4 and then you go up to low very low. Are those percentages of what the median is and is that applied across the board? Correct. So they are percentages of the median income. Moderate income, for example, is anywhere from 80 to 120% of the median income. And different percentages apply to the different income categories. But it basically establishes brackets at each one where you have a range of income. And those are all percentages of the median. And do you have those other percentages off the top of your head or not? I apologize, I don't have an off the top of my head. Perhaps as a follow-up. Yeah, I'm happy to provide those. So when we look at a low income person, makes more than the median income. So the median person, I think that is a typo on that line item there. Oh, the median person in LA County is a low income person. Yeah, I apologize. I think we got some numbers mixed up on that. But the others are accurate. Ian person is a low. Streamly low very low and low and this is the median of all of them I think. Of all of those three categories. It's the median of those categories as opposed to the median including of LA County or or maybe it is Yeah, I thought I thought it was Is it the median of those three No, so median income is just based on on all income ranges not that you fill within a specific category So we're checking the numbers. I know that I know low, the very low, and the moderate are correct. The theory could be because there's so many extremely low that break down. Right. It could happen, but that's kind of a shocking statistic. Yeah. And in the definition of income, is it W2 income? Or what happens with trusts and things like that that provide people money, but it's not technically income? Pension. It's gross income, which should include pension payments. I think probably depending on how you're getting the money out of a trust, it may or may not qualify. But generally, it's gross income. And this, I will actually say, is one of the challenges when we actually look at placing people into affordable units is we have a whole verification process and that's often one of the things that really takes a lot of time and the vetting is trying to verify where people have different streams of income coming from. So I can clarify. So these numbers are correct. I've pulled up the HCD chart for Los Angeles County and so HCD is the state agency, the housing and community development group. And they do say that in their methodology, they sometimes have to make adjustments if there are counties or areas where things are unusually high or unusually low. And that has been the case in the past with Los Angeles County. If sometimes the low is bumped up higher than what is median, because they're adjusting for certain economic factors and housing factors. So these numbers are correct. I can look a little bit more into that and get back to you. But there are certain counties where, because of certain things happening with housing costs, they have to make some adjustments. Any other questions on this one? No. So in the report that we attached from the Lincoln Institute, they talk about what makes an inclusionary housing program successful. And again, a lot of it has to do with what the individual communities goals are and what we're trying to achieve. But consideration should be given to the local context, particularly the housing and land costs, construction activity in the real estate market, which we know Beverly Hills is very unique in terms of some try to figure out what the real need is for affordable housing Particularly as it's driven by new development occurring in a city Again, making sure that when we set out to develop an inclusionary program that we're really cognizant of what our specific goals are And that can be looking at incentivizing one type of housing over another We may decide that we want more moderate income housing for workforce housing over extremely low income or vice versa. And those are things that can be taken into account as you craft an inclusionary housing requirement. Also looking at trying to create an appropriate balance between carrots and sticks to, again, achieve what we really want and not lean too far to one side or the other. So generally, and again, these are all subject to how a city wants to craft its requirements, but there are some sort of general characteristics that we see in most inclusionary housing ordinances. The first would be an escalating affordability requirement based on project size. What this really means is that as a project grows larger in size, the obligation for affordable housing increases as well because you have economies of scale. And the more market rate units you have, the more cushion or profit exists in a project in order to offset the cost of providing those affordable units. We also see escalating affordability requirements based on the level of the affordable units and what that means in English is that we require more units if they are at a higher income range. So if you want to have moderate income units in your project, we actually require more of those because you're able to receive a higher rent or a higher sales price of a moderate income unit, whereas if you are building very low income units in your project, we typically see cities asking for fewer of those because the actual cost of providing those is higher to the developer because they can't collect the higher rents or sales prices. There often is also a provision of an in lieu or offsite component for certain projects. What this is is allowing a developer to pay a fee to the city and lieu of actually building the units or allowing the developer to build the units at an off-site location that may not be within the specific development that's triggering the need for those units. Most cities also have specific provisions for 100% affordable projects and typically those provide even greater incentives or waiver of fees and other types of elements in order to again encourage those 100% affordable projects. There also are typically requirements to establish standards for the unit size, quality and mix. Again, that's dependent on what type of housing the city wants. Do we want to have a mix of units that we want more one bedroom units two bedroom units And then in terms of quality another element that tends to be important for inclusionary housing is that you don't have the affordable units Being built out at a lower quality level for example We wouldn't want granite countertops in the market rate units and for mica in the affordable units We want there to be a comparable situation so that people in the affordable units don't feel like they're treated any differently. I'm now gonna cover a couple of local examples just in terms of West Hollywood and Santa Monica because they do have inclusionary housing and they've had their programs around for quite a while. The city of West Hollywood specifically applies to all multifamily development projects unless it is a non-profit housing development with 100% affordability. The number of affordable units that are required is dependent on the size of the project. So smaller projects with two to ten units require one affordable unit, a little bit larger projects require 20% affordable, then when we get to the 21 to 40 units, the range actually varies between 20 and 30%. And that's dependent on how many bedrooms are in the units. And then when you have a project of 40 plus units, there's a 20% affordable housing requirement or 20% of the floor area of the project needs to be affordable. Again, this is geared at trying to get away from people that say we're gonna build 20% of our units as affordable, but they're all gonna be little studios and only occupy 5% of the building's floor area. Ryan, do you know the basis for there coming up with these numbers? I don't know the basis offhand. It typically has to do with the ability of the market to support that. That's one of the things when a next study is done. It's really a multi-pronged study. One, it looks at what the need is that's generated by new development for affordable housing. But that's not the only question that has to be answered. We also have to answer the question of whether the market can actually support a certain percentage of affordable housing, but that's not the only question that has to be answered. We also have to answer the question of whether the market can actually support a certain percentage of affordable housing, and that's typically why you see a lower requirement on smaller unit projects because those smaller unit counts can't support the higher percentages of affordability and still be viable in the marketplace. So as we move forward, it would be nice to know what exactly drove this, because if it's affordability, that changes year over year. So unless you're going to change this year over year, there needs to be something a little less volatile. Sure. And housing costs. So the 476 affordable units since 1986 was that partially or all voluntary Inclusionary or was it mandatory? voluntary because the their their Ordnance requires the developers to do that's my question is when the ordinance came into effect It actually tends to be a combination of both mandatory and voluntary and the reason for that. It's actually a similar situation in Santa Monica when I get to that. But there are all of the multifamily projects have a mandatory requirement. But West Hollywood for example, does also have projects that are built, that are 100% affordable housing. And those are actually private development projects, but sometimes they're done through tax credit financing and there are other funding sources that are available where a private developer can actually come in and still have a profitable project that's 100% affordable. That doesn't mean that the city has mandated you have to build a 100% affordable project. So is that a number that you can determine when you come back to us as how many were volunteering, how many were mandatory? I think the question is how many were generated under the inclusionary housing policy versus how many came from other sources? The inclusionary housing policy. Well, I think what I'm trying to get at is that we're talking potentially about a mandatory inclusionary housing policy here. So I think there is a difference between having a mandatory policy and having a voluntary policy. And I think that if, and I guess that goes back to the carrots and the sticks. I think- But it's not voluntary. No, unless there's no- What Ryan is saying is there are certain for-profit developers that do 100% affordable housing and they're allowed to do that and they make a profit. That's different from saying that someone's going to build a market rate project and also voluntarily build, include, cost housing, that doesn't happen. Is that correct statement? I think that's correct and I think we can try to see if West Hollywood has specific data as to how many of these 476 were mandatory versus voluntary. But typically again, the voluntary is more when somebody is building more affordable units than is required because there's some other greater incentive that exists for them to do that. Whether it's, again, through funding from the state or otherwise to make those projects viable. And that's my point. I think there's a distinction that at least I would like to take a look at. Right, and actually even, Beverly Hills, for example, not on this slide. We've had a small number of affordable units approved and some built over the last decade. However, we had a really large project, which is the menorahousing project above Whole Foods, that was 150 units. That obviously was a city-sponsored project. It had a very significant impact on the number of affordable units in the city, but it had absolutely nothing to do with an inclusionary housing requirement. Right, exactly. So Ryan, based on what you're referring to, most of those projects, I think, had a nexus because they had asked for, you know, a density bonus or such, so they were required to provide affordable housing correct. Like the state requirement that they had setbacks and height and because of that they had to do. So the density bonus requirements are optional. There's no requirement that a developer has to follow those but if they elect to follow them, then they can ask for incentives in order to offset the cost or the burden of providing those affordable units. Right, but what we as a city get is the affordable. That's correct. And that's the trade-off between the two. And then what we're looking at essentially, which is what West Hollywood, Santa Monica, is doing and what we're looking at is whenever anybody builds, there would be an access to an inclusionary housing element. So we're looking at a couple of things. This inclusionary housing specifically applies to residential projects. But commercial and- We're looking at that nexus fees, which we're also looking at similar because each time you build a business, it has impacts on increases need for housing, for parks, for schools, for all these things. We're looking at linkage fees or nexus fees for commercial projects as well, because they also generated it. But that's separate, that's related if you will, but it's separate from inclusionary housing. All right, so that is the Santa Monica, sorry, the West Hollywood program. With respect to Santa Monica, it applies to all, basically all multifamily developments where there are two or more units. The number of affordable units that's required, again, depends on the size of the project. And also whether the units are rental or sale, that again is another way that you can incentivize one form of development over another. Developments with four or fewer units in Santa Monica may pay an in lieu fee that really is in recognition of the profit associated with larger scale projects where a lower unit count may not be able to support actually building the units on site, but they still can pay money in lieu to the city. The city of Santa Monica also does have unique requirements for its downtown area, where applicants that want to exceed the base floor area or height, they must provide a community benefit. And one of those community benefits is providing affordable housing. The city of Santa Monica has actually produced almost 2,000 affordable units out of 5200 units since 1990. So Ryan, that's just for everyone to note, that's 37.5%. That is correct, and that again is a result of some projects being 100% affordable, so their overall percentage is actually higher than sort of their base minimum that they've set. affordable, so their overall percentage is actually higher than sort of their base minimum that they've set. So next, as the mayor mentioned, there are opportunities to look at a commercial linkage fee. So when we look at inclusionary housing, again, that's typically associated with actually building multifamily housing units, but you can look at applying a linkage fee to commercial developments. The idea is that when you build a commercial development, that is creating jobs and the people that work in those jobs, obviously need somewhere to live and the question then becomes, what types of jobs are those and what types of income are people receiving from those jobs and how does that translate to their ability to find housing in the area. So with a commercial linkage fee, we do still look at the nexus and what the need is that's generated by a project and whatever fee is decided upon by the city that is levied against the commercial development. And those fees typically, in our case if we had that fee it would go into our affordable housing trust fund. And the money in that trust fund could then be used to either contribute to the construction of affordable housing. We could use it to build our own affordable housing project or we could also use it for long term maintenance of affordable housing units in the city. So this sort of asks the question of what the next steps are. As the City Council is aware, we've embarked on looking at the inclusionary housing standards and what might be appropriate in the city. We had this structured as really a two phase project. The first phase was to look specifically at inclusionary housing for the Friars Club project site. That study has been completed and we got results from that and the idea was that we would then build off of that study that was a study that was funded by the developer and so in order to save the city on some expenditures related to the study we would build off of that first study and then take on phase two which would be looking at a city wide study. We're currently working with our consultant, Kaiser Marston, on developing the full scope of that phase two study and the different elements that will be included in that and we expect to be coming back to the council shortly with a contract to proceed with development of the ordinance. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, do we have any public comment? Okay. Okay, Mark Elliott. Welcome. Good afternoon. Mayor Miers, Vice Mayor Friedman, members to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting. We have to move to the next meeting I'm happy that our city is kind of at that point to where we're talking seriously about doing that. And I'm confident that we'll move ahead and begin to generate those units. I think it's very positive for Beverly Hills. It puts me in mind of a complimentary study session item just in the recent past where we talked about how to maintain those units. One of the couple of the propositions came up that was kind of interesting at that meeting was that no one wants to build in Beverly Hills, everybody wants to build in Beverly Hills, and those two propositions can actually be true at the same time for some folks might be turned off by some of the process challenges. Others see the very substantial margins, and I think what we're talking about today, when we talk about inclusionary zoning is what piece of that margin that we can extract is a public benefit. So I'm glad that that's before you. It seems like in Beverly Hills, this kind of infinite, price elasticity people are willing to pay almost whatever for luxury housing, at least to my eyes. My concerns are the other end, so without getting into too much about inclusionary housing, at least to my eyes. My concerns are the other end, so without getting into too much about inclusionary housing, I just want to suggest in my handout today, and I want to thank staff for handing it out, that there are opportunities when we think about how difficult it is to create just two or three units in some of these developments or the policies we have. There are opportunities just to bring many more units online as that are currently rent stabilized units that I think are for some reason sitting offline. So I just went through the registry data from a year ago, pulled out some things that just jumped out at me again anomalies. I look forward to doing the same with the current registry data. And just to see, is there a low hanging hanging fruit if we can find a couple of hundred units That would help us house many of the folks that will be displaced for some of these projects like the palm project that we heard about today I thank you very much for your time thank you and I brought this up because I think that we're we know there's not a lot of construction in Beverly Hills for various reasons. It's a city that's built out. We've had stable population for 60 years, more or less, various reasons. That being said, I think we need to look at taking dynamic action to try and create affordable housing and inclusionary housing. There are enough developers and people making money off of Beverly Hills and this is a way of capturing some of that to create affordable housing. In fact, as said through these projects, needs are created and infrastructure needs are created. And this is a way for us to more less hopefully to a large extent cause the people who are not only benefiting but who are creating those needs to pay for those upgrades including housing, specifically housing. So I know that this is something that in the 10 years I've been on the council we have not seriously discussed. I'm though very much involved with going to a lot of the SCAG meetings and the rena meetings and seeing what's being discussed there. I think a lot of what's being said about our city is completely unfair and off base. And in some cases, bigoted. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing everything that we can. Not only to preserve affordable housing and to some extent, our very robust rent stabilization ordinance is aimed at just that. Many people don't know that Beverly Hills is over 50% renters. Most people who have these stereotypes think of Beverly Hills as big mansions. And they don't know that 62% of our housing units are multifamily. That being said, we should one, as we've discussed, be involved ourselves with creating 100% affordable housing by working with appropriate nonprofits and hopefully we'll be doing that on a couple of sites or at least one that the city owns. But normally the city doesn't own that much property where we're able to do things. And so we need to look at other ways to bring about the creation of more affordable housing. Inclusionary housing policy is a very good way of doing that. As said, when you look at the amounts of money that are being made from, in many cases, luxury condos in that case, it's wrong to think that those developers cannot afford to help address the issue of affordable housing. And so I'm glad that we looked at that. I hope we can move forward soon with a very robust policy of inclusionary housing, but also as Ryan pointed out, of linkage fees, not only in connection with residential, but in connection with commercial development. And I'd like to, if there are other council members who have questions, we obviously are community development department, our experts on that that but we can also certainly bring in people from other cities who have that active experience I look at what Santa Monica was able to do and fully 37 and a half percent of the new units built Refordable, I think that at the very least needs to be our goal in our city We can do it as well and So with that I'll leave it to some quick. This is a subject we're going to continue to discuss. It will be coming back to us hopefully with policies to vote on. I just wanted us to have an opportunity to discuss it. I'll let council members ask questions and make any comments starting with council member one or two. With an eye to the clock, are we stopping at five o'clock? We'll stop it. Yes, we'll stop at five and then we're going to, tonight is national night out as well. Hopefully we'll be from 6.30 we'll have a chance to spend a little bit of time. It actually starts at what time, George? 6 p.m. It starts at six, so anyone who wants to have a night out from 6 o'clock. Can we have a future agenda item that we just give us the opportunity to ask more questions than we would have the times available for all of us to ask questions now? Sure, do you want that before we actually... Okay, let's you know what? let's carry this item over to the next meeting simply. But in the meantime, we'll carry this item over in the other items. I mean, I don't want to take up everybody's time. Go for it and we'll just, because I mentioned we probably wouldn't finish. I didn't know if Ryan would even be finished, but I think it was important to start the discussion and we will continue this to the next meeting along with the other item. So before I get specifically to affordable housing, I was intrigued by some of the numbers that Mark Elliott just gave us. The first half of his chart has to do with the number of units and a variety of buildings that are owner occupied. In our statute. In our statute, does it say we have the generalized family members who are allowed to be in owner occupied units? Are they restricted to one unit a piece? Can a single individual as an owner occupant have multiple units in the same building? So yes, I believe that there can be multiple owner occupants. Well multiple people, but let's say just a single person, can a single person take on three units as an owner occupant of those units? I don't believe a single person can, but they have if they have other family members and what not they can have multiple units in the building. Well, whatever, just that we're relatively to the multiple people. But for something that has 12 owner occupied units, they have to be at least 12 individuals who qualify as the designated family members to be the owner occupants. Is that true? What if somebody combines two units because they want a larger unit? Well, I'm asking. Okay. What, yeah. I don't know the specific circumstances. Yeah, I'm not sure either. I mean, there's nothing that I don't know where the statistics came from. So that might be a question from Arkelyot. But yes, I mean, someone could buy, I don't know why, but an individual could buy three units and occupy all of them. Again, I don't know why, but one each day a week. Okay, but I don't think that was the intent of our provision. Which provision was that? To have special status for one of our occupied units. That for example for one individual to claim that for that one individual three units are one individual's own occupied units. We never got so far as to change the order. So it's still in limbo. Okay. To be defined. But something to think about and then the other set of numbers are about vacancies. What kind of controls do cities have over landlords maintaining vacancies? So are we talking residential? Yes. Yes. I am not aware of any city, but that's just what I'm aware of off the top of my head. I haven't researched it. I'm not aware of any city who controls vacancies with regard to residential units. And there is the Alice Act which allows someone to go out of the residential rental business and keep a unit vacant. But I'm not sure where you're, so- Well, can a city restrict a land run for maintaining a large number of vacancies? Not if the landlord wants to go out of the rental business. Well, but here's what other places are considering vacancy taxes. Now, Mike Bonan mentioned that, but they have that in Vancouver, and that's to prevent speculation that people are holding on to a large variety. Again, that's one method that we could look at to prevent that, but other than that, I don't know that we can prevent someone from having a unit vacant, correct? Okay. And I haven't researched it, but I'm not aware of any examples of that. And then let me just ask one question on point for the inclusionary housing that I'll pass and we'll come back. And I certainly think we should develop an inclusionary housing policy. What is the overall objective? Is the overall objective to build the most equitable housing for the largest number of people, or to match locations and match levels of amenities. I mean, you sort of joked about marble counters versus Formica. True. But if your objective is to build equity, you know, I'm not talking about slum housing, but if your objective is to build as much housing as you can, which is fine housing, why don't you take into consideration land value, construction costs, the level of amenities, and do that in the way that you could maximize the amount of housing that you build? What's the philosophy in affordable housing or what's the amount of housing that you build. What's the philosophy in affordable housing or what's the line of thinking that gets you to say that you have to match the location and match things like level of amenities? So I think it depends and that's why it's up to each city to craft their own regulations and identify the elements that are particularly important to that community and whatever the values or goals are that you're trying to achieve. But again, typically it's looking at as you have more expensive housing and prices escalating, that's typically forcing people out of the market at the lower end and really trying to create a balance between that. balance between that and when you build more expensive market rate housing that typically not only displaces existing lower income residents but it also creates in many cases jobs that are typically lower paying jobs. It could be anything from housekeepers to nannies to you name it in some of these luxury buildings and those are all people that are earning income at the lower levels and yet they still need somewhere to live so that they're not commuting from two hours away. But that actually would be an argument for, and I'm not saying two hours away. But that, and I'm not proposing a policy for the city, but that would be an argument for building additional housing and close commuting range of Beverly Hills with certainly fine enough amenities, but not having to deal with the land cost of the Beverly Hills. So what you're talking about is logical and the problem is it's not allowed under rena. It should be. We work together when it comes to water infrastructure, to other infrastructure transportation, they don't allow it. I think you'll have certain people who will look at it as a matter of, quote unquote, equity. On the one hand, the same people often talk about regionalism. But where's the equity to the people who don't get to take part? If you could do housing for 200 people versus 100 people, where's the equity for the hundred people to get the take part? you're 1,000% right? And here's where that could change because I made this point. It's not like Beverly Hills wants to solve affordable housing problems or challenges by paying for housing and landcast or Palmdale. But and I've made this point. Outside of Beverly Hills, walking distance from my house on La Sienauga, there was a turquoise, many of you will have seen it, between that and the building that we own, a turquoise like Motel. And talked with the people from the West Hollywood Housing Corporation, they could have bought that for a couple of million dollars and built 70 or 80 units there. You know, a lot more than they could have if they'd have built it in Beverly Hills. That's currently we could, you could do that, but you wouldn't get credit under Rina. So what really needs to change is, but from my perspective, that's our general area. I mean, it's walking distance. It's not taking our requirements and dumping them somewhere else, but because of the land value, that's exactly the question we should be asking, are we looking to create affordable housing, are you looking to do something else, which is to prove a point or something? That doesn't help the people who need the housing. And so you're right, and what we would need to do would be to allow regional cooperation when it comes to affordable housing. And that could be through buyer, trilateral negotiations that in theory we work with LA and we work with the community there and we help pay for it. And if in some cases, like Culver City is now building an Amazon center that let's say requires housing for 4,000 people, which by the way they're not building, they want to be able to have statutory up zoning and blanket up zoning, but they're not. But let's say that you could say, all right, we'll build 2000 units in our city, of which hopefully Amazon would be paying because they're creating the need. And West LA will build a thousand and Beverly Hills will build a thousand. In theory, the notion would be we could negotiate with them and say great, we'll work with you, but we want to share of the revenue from Amazon. So those sorts of regional solutions with buy and trilateral discussions currently are not allowed, they should be and they would go a long way to addressing the issue. And so you hit the nail on the head when you talk about it because right now, Reena is specifically only within our borders. And using the example of that turquoise motel, that's an example where we could have, if it were allowed. And so I think we need to actively, I understand that Richard Bloom is gonna be at national light out. So we'll have a chance to talk to him about it, because the problem is, is you'll hear from certain people, not all, because some nonprofit housing advocates get it and they think it makes sense. But other ones are just saying, oh Beverly Hills is just trying to dump their affordable housing requirements on other communities, even if it's that close. So just to give you some background. I ask for now, but I think we will end here. There are robust and interesting and important discussions to be had. I'm glad we started it. Thank you, Ryan. We will surely continue this. We're going to move into closed session for those items on the closed session agenda. We'll see you all at National Night out at 6.30 and be back here for the 7 o'clock formal session. Thank you. See you later.