I'm going to start with the 25 and we will start with oral communications on non-agendized items. If anyone has comments that they would like to make on a item that is not on the agenda, if they could please fill out one of these yellow or colored slipsets in the back and bring it to the city clerk. And then we will take those items. First, we're doing non-agentized. And the first one I have is from Jenny Ford. Thank you. My name is Jenny Ford. And I am a resident of 412 North Oakhurst Drive and I also spoke at the December 12th Planning Commissioners meeting as well regarding this piece of property. So today I'm here to talk more about what we would consider tenet issues versus land usage. So, and I'm disturbed by the pending loss of my home and the loss of my community of senior neighbors. I hope that my age, I'd be settled in, but every day I wonder, where am I going to be living? in but every day I wonder where am I going to be living. At 78, a senior, along with the other seniors in our building, I am anxious about having to move, finding a new home, taking on moving costs, waiting for how long to essentially move back if that's my choice, and then more moving costs. The shortage of housing added on by the recent fires, where were there be available affordable housing closed by. I still work and cannot live in some outlying areas with a longer commute. I live here, but I work in Pacific Palisades. I am here today because I want compensation to be considered for all the trauma and financial burden of being forced out. And this would include maybe help finding a new home. Moving costs, a monthly rent differential. And when I return, moving costs again. And to return to the same rent I presently paid with any rent differential paid by the owner developer. Even though I'm speaking me, me, me. I'm also speaking for all the seniors who could not be here today due to their health or disability, and there's quite a few in our building. There are 15, if you're not familiar with the building, there are 15 apartments. And the majority there are seniors. Please take this financial burden that I've mentioned for our seniors to take it seriously. And if the City Council has any say and moving forward on our need for compensation of this happens, I hope your consideration and decisions will be based on your concern for us seniors now and for seniors who could be adversely affected by similar projects in the future. Thank you. Thank you, Ryan. I just want to make sure do we do have a rental assistance in terms of people being relocated do we not? There are provisions contained in both our local regulations and then also state law pertaining to when individuals can be evicted from housing for the purpose of redeveloping the site. There are different compensation amounts to include depending on the circumstances as well as right of returning to the building under certain circumstances. I will note that the project on Oakhurst that is under appeal at the moments of that will be coming before the city council at some point in the next several months here. And that's when we will have the ability to make suggestions or comments correct. With regard to that specific project yes. Okay, thank you. Next speaker card I have is from Etzue. It looks like Garfius. Garfius, I'm sorry. Good afternoon. Etzue Garfius and I'm an 86 year old senior. I've come here to urge you and the City Council to join me in opposing the demolition of my home and the home of my fellow senior tenants at 412 North Okres Drive and against the eviction of a senior's many who have lived there for at least 15 to 30 years. I see in this meeting as only addressing the community development department, request and negotiate directly with the developers without public or planning commission input. But there are two projects in our neighborhood, the one on Maple, North Maple, and also one down the block from us at 401 North Oakhurst. These and the proposed building on Arlot are completely out of proportion to the neighborhood. If you've seen, if you've come to our street, the parking and traffic situation will negatively impact the entire neighborhood. The other most crucial item not addressed by the Planning Commission hearing and it does not appear in their agenda here is again the care of us, the senior tenants, loss of our home through addiction. How will you all address this issue? There is talk about the right to return after the building is completed. But who will pay for the moving expenses and the rent differentials between our current rent and the market rate during construction and our return? The city or the developers or both of you? We seniors want, need and deserve compensation. The current tragedy of the fires rentals will be at a premium. I hope you draw on your own experience with senior parents, senior friends, relatives, and show compassion for us in reviewing our situation. Thank you. In general, we heard about the one project we're going to be able to comment on. But what about the issue of right of return? And, you know, I get it that it's not necessarily our decision, but when will we have a forum to be able to discuss it? Because I think it's important for our residents to know what we can and we can't do because our hands are tied by the state or we are preempted. We do evaluate each project. There's a myriad regulations that pertain to the eviction process, the relocation process and then also potential right of return. I wish it were a simple answer for each of these, but it really is a case by case basis, depending on the means in which somebody is being evicted, what their income level is. And so I really, anybody that's speaking, I would encourage you to work with our planning staff so that we can plan staff and also our rent stabilization staff so that we can better assess your individual situation and what which rules might apply? Am I correct in assuming that? So let's say there is a right of return and there's going to be three year construction period. It's up to the tenant to find lodging for those three years. There is no responsibility from the landlord, correct? That is generally correct. So I guess then I'd like to ask the mayor if we could agenda is discussing potential proposed legislation that we maybe talk to our friends in Sacramento about that would not leave these kinds of residents seniors and like we've just heard high and dry and ask for maybe a legislative fix in Sacramento that we will discuss and recommend. Thank you. And I would be in favor of that as well, Mayor. Okay. Next speaker is Rabbi Ruben Milliken. Good Afternoon and God bless you all who are here and the great staff of the city, the beautiful city that we are living in. I thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. I'm very emotional because if you weeks I have not been able to sleep at night. But I will say my words. God has been gracious to America because it is land of goodness, charity, kindness, and America and overseas. One of the things that I have always mentioned in many of my sermons, in temples and synagogues, is that because of the way America is toward its people, especially toward the seniors, that's why America is blessed. Sacramento did not think of the seniors of Beverly Hills. I think that Beverly Hills is one of the best cities in America. And if Sacramento had a blind eyes in regard to the seniors of the city, I know you all have parents, grandparents, uncles, and aunts. Might be seniors and I believe you are with the wisdom. You are sitting in judgment to take care of the future people who are sitting in the Beverly Hills, the seniors. I don't want to brag, but for 40 years, I have worked in the city helping the old and frail. The King Solomon say that, do not abandon me. Do not put me away when I'm old and fragile. I want you to do the same for us. I created 25 years ago a senior center. I have never been paid a penny for it. I was the director, I was the founder, Iranian Jewish senior center on Olympic. We have a need to finish up your comments. I will. I shall. In a moment. So thanks. So, Jenny Jenny and Itsu have said the proper words. Someone needs to pay for the differential of rental or could be the city of Beverly Hills, or combination with the land or Sacramento. And thank God City of Beverly Hills can afford to help the seniors. And I appreciate your kindness and thank you for listening to me. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, card I have is from Michelle Bellen. Very new at this, I haven't. I haven't ever spoken at one of these. I haven't ever even attended one. This was my dad's thing. I've been a landlord and a builder since 1978, 60 years old. But this was too important so I came and I'm listening to all the other people. I think some of these seniors are lifelong Beverly Hills residents. As am I born here on Crescent Drive. I have several things to discuss, but I'll start with yesterday because it just happened yesterday. They were digging up the alley, I have video of it, but they didn't have permits. This builder. We put up some fake permits for a minute. The code enforcement told me that there were no permits pulled. They took pictures of them, but then pulled them down. And when I asked them about it, they said, you guys must have pulled them down. And when I asked them about it, they said, you guys must have pulled them down. Because we have pictures. A code enforcement said there were no permits. The last permits they had were in April almost a year ago. When the code enforcement came out, the head of the construction guys were like, you don't know who you're dealing with Hard in my language you're a ember fucker About ten times called the code enforcement man Was laughing in his face and And when I understand you get fines for working without a permit, I don't even know what happens to you if you dig up a whole alley, feet into the alley. That's a lot of damage. And then use fake permits. But then you're rewarded within hours of these magical permits. How does that happen? It takes me months, if not in a year, to get a permit. Anybody tell me how somebody gets a permit within hours? I really want to know, because I'm going to be doing a house very soon and I would like these magical permits too. Anybody know? We really can't exchange and answer questions but I'll have Mr. Goldock at least give you a brief answer. I asked my friend Lynn Conheim and he said that that doesn't happen. And when I talked to the code enforcement, he red tagged them and told me that they shut it down. And then he called me at around five o'clock in the afternoon and told me that someone from higher up shut him down, shut code enforcement down. And that we can no longer call code enforcement. The only people we can call is the engineering department. That doesn't make any sense. Okay, can I just ask one clarifying question? So we unfortunately don't have the ability to get into a back and forth conversation because it's not on the agenda. But what's the address that this happened? This is right behind 144 South Camden. It's the alley between Rodeo and Camden. I think he's trying to build a 19 story on Rodeo. I'm not exactly sure of the address on the day. 145, RoDale. So it's behind 145 RoDale and behind my building at 144 South Camden. So perhaps we could have somebody from a community development speak with Ms. Bellen towards the rear of the room and get whatever information is necessary. Yes. I want to talk to the city attorney about why there were fake permits put up on the wall. And why it took him only a matter of minutes to get these legit permits. Okay. We'll have a brief response from the city attorney, but then I will ask you to meet with somebody from Community Development, get all the information so whatever investigation needs to be done can be done. It's not gonna be done in this forum right now. I hope you understand that. And also the very ethical code enforcement gentleman was extremely upset. He was shaken up because when I talked to him earlier in the day, he was like a normal person. And he's been working at his job for 15 years. And he said it wasn't anything that he's really experienced in 15 years. So I don't understand, you know, is this builder God? Is he like that powerful? Who's he friends with? I just want to know, like, he hasn't even started building. And this, and his permit expired last April, but he hasn't stopped doing construction this whole time. He's- Perhaps we can get a quick answer from the city attorney and then we'll have you meet with the people from community development. So I don't know about this incident. I don't even know who the developer is. But if you'll give... Max Netty is the name he's going by. That's not his real name. I don't know who that is. But if you'll give some information to Masa, we'll look into it. Absolutely. Yeah, he's been building nonstop for the last five years that I've lived there. He's never had the area fenced in. I've had to change four tires because there's always, I pick up 30 or 40 nails at a time. One time. If we can, let's get the information so we can do an investigation on it. But this is somebody who's wanting the benefit of building these two giant buildings that surround me. And he hasn't even started yet. And this is how he's presenting himself as a legit builder. I mean all I see is breaking the law and disrespect and I know Lynn Conheim is a builder as well. He built the the place two doors down on the corner of Camden and he did everything by the letter of the law. Again, I'm going to say that if we want some action on it, they need to get some details from you. If you could go to the back of the room with Mossa and give him the information, I'm sure we'll have follow-up for you. Okay. Thank you very much for bringing it to our attention. The other thing I was going to talk about is that you've used more than the three ministers that are allotted. If there's time at the end, can I come back and talk about it? The way it works is you'd have to come back in the evening because we... I can call you. I don't care. I just want to... You know. Okay, if you can do it in 15 seconds tell us what the issue is then we can look at it at the same time. Go ahead. We've had cities completely annihilated by fire and we need buildings to be built. These two buildings that he wants are completely unnecessary and in the wrong area. And there's more than enough work for builders right now in areas that are devastated. Let him go build there. People need buildings and houses and commercial. He's got more than enough work for him. There's more than enough work to go around. My son is inundated with work. Let him go there. Don't take the housing away from people. Senior lifelong residents, good people. He's just in it for a buck. Let him go away. He's not a good person. He doesn't belong in Beverly Hills. This is not the way any of us have, this is not us. And it's not right. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. I'm going to go up around us. One is on maple and one is on oak. The one on maple is the planning to be a 12 story building. How are you? We have two buildings that are going to go up around us. One is on maple and one is on oakers. The one on maple is planning to be a 12-story building with 65 units in it, with low-income housing provided. He only plans on providing 15 parking spaces. Now our neighborhood is already inundated with problems with parking, okay? The one on Oakhurst is 11 stories and only planning to have 13 parking spaces. Since when do we allow people who have low income housing going in to our neighborhoods with only 15 parking spaces and 65 units. Or the other one that's going in on Oakhurst, that's going to be 55 units and only 13 parking spaces. Since when is that considered to be a legitimate code? Okay. I would like to know because I live at 339 North Palm, right around the corner from both of these places. And I can tell you at night when I pull out of my garage there is no parking on that street. And how are we supposed to get our repairmen to park their trucks on our street when there's no parking available. Okay? We have two projects going on in our block at the same time and we're always constantly being held up by their trucks. We can't get through. Their trucks are blocking our way. At one end of the corner to the other end of the corner. And I'd like to know why you provide permits for people to build, redo and remodel these old apartment buildings, okay? At the same time, I'm sorry, I'm getting a little frustrated with it because every time I have an appointment to go see a doctor, I leave at a certain time because I know how long it takes me to get there. Now I have to eat 20 minutes earlier because there's truck on this side and this side, and I can't get through. So I'd like that to stop too. Don't issue permits to people for the same block at the same time so that every homeowner is inconvenienced. I live in a condominium area and an area where there's nothing but apartments. Okay. And the two that are being redone are being redone at the exact same time. This is a very big inconvenience for every homeowner who lives on that street. And if there are homeowners on the bottom of the street, right below us, people right above Burton Way, okay? They can't get through to get up to Beverly Boulevard because it takes 25 minutes. I'm sorry but you know we got parking issues, we got issues with permits being issued at the same time for two buildings on the same block. I mean, this is kind of like you guys need to work on something to get this fixed. All right, thank you. Thank you. And I don't want anyone in this room to think that our silence here is not in sympathy what is being said. We cannot have a discussion back and forth about it. We are really constrained by what has been done in Sacramento. We are all sworn to uphold the laws of the state of California and whether we like it or not, we have to do so. We are taking steps that will somewhat ameliorate some of the problems that you talked about that we can within state law. Takes a little bit of time for us to percolate it and get it going, but we also have a housing element that we are required to comply with. So I just want everybody to understand that. I think that we're going to probably have to have some sort of public session where we explain a lot of this to the public so that they'll understand a lot of the things that we know about already. And I think my colleague John has a question. Well, I just wanted to also express and share my frustration. I'm guessing Ryan that we do not have, we have very limited ability to phase it, you know, that there are too many on a street, correct, by state law. That's correct, we don't have the ability to hold up one permit over another permit. And I just also want to say that I've been talking about this for multiple years. In fact, it must have been six or seven years ago at an installation. I was, which happened to be porom. I replaced Haman with Sacramento politicians. And each time we said that, we used the groggers to block their names out well. I hate to say that I was no stardomous, but it seems that unfortunately I was, because all of this, literally all of it, and we should probably have meetings explaining it comes to you from your friendly, special interests in Sacramento and the politicians in Sacramento. So we're very much sympathetic with all of you. Thank you. Including the parking restrictions. Those are all issues that we share in your frustration. We would love to support our residents and everything that you're saying. There is a housing shortage and these are laws that are being imposed on us from Sacramento. So I think that an education forum is extremely important so that everyone will be able to have a space to be heard and also for us to share our frustration and where we're at and why some of the developments are happening around you that we really don't have much of a say or cannot have a say like we would want to. Just a question for staff. So putting aside the question of what housing gets built when, when we issue building permits in multifamily areas, doesn't the builder have to submit a traffic management plan that contemplates them not blocking the street? There is a construction parking plan required. So construction parking can only occur in front of the building that is being worked on. So if there are people parking elsewhere in the neighborhood, please call, let us know so that we can enforce it. Traffic management with the nature of the work. If you want to call for enforcement purposes, you can call our AskBH program. It is 310-285-1000, or you can also email AskBH at Beverly Hills.org. But putting us to the parking, before a builder can block the street, don't they have to submit a traffic management plan? If they are planning to block the right of way, yes. So if that's tapping repeatedly and they don't have a traffic management plan with the city, there's something the code enforcement can do, right? Yes, and generally it would be our building inspectors actually if it's an active construction project. So my recommendation, I know this isn't the total fix that you want, but when you find someone blocking the street, one of these contractors trucks, call PD, call code enforcement, and just let them know. Take a picture if you can so we can document it, because if it's happening in regular basis, and I do, I believe you, because I've seen it too. And it's wrong. It's just, it's inconsiderate and people and I do, I believe you, because I've seen it too. And it's wrong. It's just, it's inconsiderate and people need to know that when they build in our neighborhoods, they need to be considered the residents. So thank you for bringing it to our attention. Okay, with that, unless there's any other comments on non-agendaized items, we'll go to our agenda. With council's permission, I'm going to take number two before number one, but with the caveat that we are going to continue the full discussion on number two, that is the review of the request for proposal for the 10, seven permanent memorial. We're going to continue that to the afternoon because our, I'm sorry, to our, to the evening because our city manager who is going to present on the item is currently engaged in jury duty and will not be released until later this afternoon. However, since this was a last minute thing that happened, if there's anybody here that would like to be heard on the 10-7 memorial item now and they cannot make it to the afternoon, now would be the time to bring a speaker card to the evening, boy, I'm going to keep saying that, aren't tied. If you can't come in the evening, I'd like to speak now. If you could bring a speaker card to the city clerk and we'll hear your comments now. If anyone doesn't look like there's anyone here on that, so with council's permission, I'm going to continue that to the evening session unless there's an objection. Okay, having said that, we will now go to number one, the ministerial permit process discussion for certain builders, remedies, housing development projects. And Michael Forbes, our Director of Community Development, looks like he's going to be presenting on it. Yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council of Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development. The item before you this afternoon is a discussion about possibly implementing a ministerial permit process for certain builders' remedy development projects that are currently pending before the city. Some quick background as to why we're here this afternoon and what has initiated this discussion as the council is aware, the Housing Accountability Act under state law prohibits cities from disapproving certain residential and mixed-use development projects that include affordable housing unless certain findings can be made. However, some of those findings cannot be applied by a city unless the city has a housing element that has been certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. These provisions of the law are commonly referred to as the Builders Remedy Provision and when applicants submit projects under this provision, they are commonly referred to as Builders Remedy projects. Builders Remedy projects require cities to approve projects that may be inconsistent with the zoning code and the general plan in cases where the city does not have a certified housing element. As the Council is aware, Beverly Hills housing element was approved by the city council on March 18th of 2024 and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development on May 1st, 2024. Prior to HCD certification on May 1st, the city received a total of 14 valid builders remedy project applications. There were actually 16 received but we have since determined that two of those are no longer valid applications. So we are saying that we have 14 active applications under consideration currently. The proposed projects under these applications, in most cases, far exceed the city standards for size and scale, and they do not comply with a number of zoning development standards and general plan policies. They are also larger and out of scale with some of the density bonus and other projects that the Planning Commission and City Council have recently approved and they're out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. However due to the limitations, under state housing laws, the city in most cases will likely not be able to deny these projects and the city will likely be compelled to approve them as they are proposed at the size and scale unless the applicants for those projects agree to modifications to their applications. So staff has been exploring various incentives to try and get developers to reduce the size and scale of their projects of work to do with the city. We have to reduce the size and scale of their projects while of course still promoting the construction of new housing in the city, which is an important goal for us. Our goal in looking at these incentives is to encourage the developers to reduce the projects to a size and scale that is more consistent with recently approved projects in the city, as well as more consistent with the potential of implementing a streamlined ministerial review process for projects that meet certain development and performance standards that would be adopted by city council ordinance if the council chooses to move forward. A quick discussion about what a ministerial action is and the difference between ministerial and discretionary. Most of the projects in the city and all of A quick discussion about what a ministerial action is and the difference between ministerial and discretionary. Most of the projects in the city and all of those that come before the Planning Commission and City Council are considered discretionary applications in that the Planning Commission and Council are asked to make some kind of findings to approve them. They exercise discretion in approving or denying the application. Ministerial actions on the other hand do not require nor do they allow the city to exercise any discretion in approving or denying the application or permit. If the specified objective standards are met, the application must be approved. Unlike discretionary applications, the decision-maker is not asked or required to make any subjective findings and also conditions of approval cannot be imposed on a project except is maybe necessary to require compliance with those objective standards. Another important provision is that under state law, ministerial actions are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The reason that staff is bringing forward this process for consideration is because we believe that it would provide some incentives to developers to consider modifying their projects to a size and scale that is more compatible with Beverly Hills. Importantly, a ministerial process would provide certainty to developers by ensuring that their project will be approved if it meets the objective criteria that are laid out in the ordinance. The ministerial process also provides certainty related to the timeline and cost of the project. Those are two very important aspects of the development process for developers are how long is the process going to take and how much is it going to cost. In a discretionary process you have public hearings, you have the possibility for appeal to the City Council. You also have the CEQA Environmental Review process, which itself takes time and money, and also the possibility of lawsuits that may occur after the project has been approved. So those aspects of the process and the related time and money that goes with them are removed from a ministerial decision process. So the thinking is that developers may be willing to reduce the size and scale of their projects in exchange for this increased certainty and for reductions in the time and cost it takes to process the applications. As I noted, currently all residential and mixed use projects in the city go through the discretionary process, which is the development plan review that the Planning Commission and Council are accustomed to seeing. One thing that we are discovering particularly with state housing laws the way they are now is that we see some public frustration going through the process because although the applications are discretionary, as the council knows the city has very limited discretion in actually approving or denying these applications under state law. And there's very limited ability now for the city to require modifications to these projects in response to public input unless the developer agrees to changes. So that leaves the public frustrated sometimes because they feel like their voice is not being heard through the process because the city's hands are tied in what we can do in approving the project. The ministerial process may add to that frustration because there would be no public hearing, there would be no ability for the public to appeal the decision and there would be no sequel review. So from one perspective, it may increase the public frustration by reducing their ability to participate in the process. However from another perspective, the ministerial process somewhat acknowledges and incorporates the limitations that are already imposed by state law rather than having a discretionary process that at the end of the day may not be really discretionary. It establishes a process that is reflective of the limitations that are already imposed on us by state law. So the policy questions that we are asking for direction from the council on this afternoon, are first what projects, if any, should be subject to a ministerial review process, would we only be looking at builders remedy projects, if any, should be subjects to a ministerial review process. Would we only be looking at builders remedy projects? Would the council also be interested in looking at density bonus or other projects? There is always, of course, the option of moving forward only with builders remedy projects now and considering other projects at a later time. And if the council is interested in moving forward, what objective development and performance standards would the council be interested in applying? We've laid out several examples in the staff report, not getting into specifics yet, but just looking generally at the types of standards that we would be considering applying, and if the council has any other particular ideas in mind that you would like to see included in those standards. So generally what we are recommending now is a height limit of eight stories. The reason that we are choosing eight stories number one, it's consistent with what we've seen with recent density bonus projects. Also eight stories is generally the height limit under the building code for wood construction. Once you go above eight stories, you generally have to look at concrete or steel construction, which makes the cost of construction go up considerably. So eight stories is often a limit for these types of projects just due to the economics of construction. We're also looking at setbacks for the building itself, for the open space, and for the rooftop elements, rooftop amenities are a common feature we're seeing on these projects and making sure that those are set back would be included in these standards as well as massing in modulation standards for the building as a whole. And then limitations also on how the rooftop and other outdoor open space can be utilized. So that could be hours, restricted hours of use, restrictions on who can use it, restrictions on the types of activities. We would incorporate that into the standards as well so that any projects agreeing to go through this process would be limited to those as well. What we've tried to do is look at the types of issues that have come up during recent public hearings on density bonus projects, the types of questions that have been asked, the types of things the public has expressed concerned about, and what has been incorporated into the conditions of approval for those projects and then looking at incorporating those conditions into these objective standards so that they would be applied to all projects across the board. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Okay, thank you. Excellent report. I think you've covered all of the issues in terms of what we are going to do today, which is number one, discuss whether or not we even wanna have a ministerial review process and then assuming that we do, what really is an inducement in terms of a developer wanting to go through the ministerial process yet would not be everything that they could potentially get if they went through the discretionary process. Essentially, that's what it is, correct? Yes. Okay. So with that, we will take public comment on the item. I have oral communication slips here. If anybody else wants to hand one in, they can always hand one into the city clerk. First one I have is from Ari Tuckman. Hello everyone, my name is Ari Tuckman, and this is the first time that I'm going to be in the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the And I have to say that I am against a ministerial process, because a ministerial process is a standardized review and none of these projects are standard. There is nothing standard about them. There are 14 of them. They are all totally different from one another in terms of height, scale, look, aesthetic, everything. So I also want to say that, you know, I think it's very dangerous to trade height restrictions for safety. And what I mean by that is all of these 14 projects are non-conforming. Some of them are three, four times the size of what's permitted. There are no setbacks and nobody here on the council and there are no developers and no residents that can tell me what the environmental impacts will be, what the ecological impacts will be, what the geological impacts will be. And for us to sit here and to say, you know what, let's fast track this so that we get a few concessions is very scary. And we don't know what this is going to look like. I'll give you an example. There's the buildings at Olympic and Beverly want to dig subterranean. Some of them want to go up to three, three story subterranean. There's nothing in that area that goes that far. So nobody can tell us like what the sub lateral and sub Jason support looks like. And you know, I'm generally worried about, because builders remedy has essentially taken a lot of tools away from the city. And I'm just worried that a ministerial process will take more tools away from the city to actually scrutinize and look at whether or not these buildings are not only feasible but what the impacts will be on the residents. You know, I just just just to summarize, I just, if we do approve this ministerial process, the residents have already lost the voice in a way with having these builders remedy projects approve. Don't take our voice away anymore. Let us talk, let us come here, let us challenge it. And this is going to be, I think, a very, very, very serious issue if you take our voice away even further. I'm also worried that the details of the most serious consequence in these buildings might go unnoticed and unscrupelyized if we just start to waive what would have otherwise been requirements. So please don't approve this. If you want to look into it, I can understand that, but I do not think this is a good idea, and I think it is dangerous. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, communication I havemembers Ryan Leatherman from Holland and I. I'll just be very brief today. I appreciate staff's consideration of this. It's worthy of discussion to talk about how to process these applications. I think it's very thoughtful to at least engage in this discussion. With respect to height, 10 feet doesn't allow an elevator penthouse on top of 75 feet. So for example, in various different buildings that are proposed, I know one project that I'm involved with has an 18 foot rooftop penthouse for the elevator shafts for staircases. So if it's only 10 feet that would not be sufficient to allow those rooftop occurrences. And then with respect to the rooftop uses, if the council isn't inclined to even have this discussion, having some development standards to allow some active uses up there, whether it's regulated with hours of operation, sound attenuation features, etc. The open space for many of these projects is only up on the rooftop, so then it would be precluding rooftop uses or real active uses that can be controlled with different development standards. And last, I actually do represent those two projects, two builders remedy projects, where the city purports to say that they are no longer valid and we vehemently disagree with that. We have submitted correspondence to the city. Those are valid builders remedy projects they are vested. So we'll continue to have that discussion with the city. Those are valid builders remedy projects they are vested so we'll continue to have that discussion with the city. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker card is is Steve Mayor. The reason I'm speaking on this is that there are two projects in the Oakhurst area, which are Builders Remedies projects, and many residents have expressed concerns about those. I want to relay something from many years ago when Commissioner Council Member Cormin was on the planning commission. And he told a developer, look, you have three choices here. We can deny the project and you can appeal to the council and do whatever it might be, and you might also have to go to court to actually fulfill your objective. The second is to continue the hearing and change the project to what we feel we can approve. And the third was just remove the submittal and just reapply. And what the commission was doing at that time was expressing a point of view, which can only be done through a public forum, which basically says, if you don't like it, eventually you can go to court, that's going to cost you two to four years. What do you want to do? And it was also the time when they were proposing six story buildings and eventually settling for three. It's a different type of strategy and there has been one pushback on a builders are on a bonus density project and that the developer was very upset but came back and changed the project and basically what I'm proposing is that instead of this ministerial review you put that you have a very hard line and it will demonstrate to most of the developers who are comparatively small developers. You won't apply to someone like Liu who has an entirely different strategy, but you can actually try to achieve some mitigation. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you. Next speaker, Curtis, Michelle Bellin. I'm sorry, couldn't hear. She spoke, okay, obviously. Okay. Thank you. Next one is William Johnson. Hello. My name is Bill Johnson. I did not realize that the yellow form brought me up to the microphone. I was here today to learn about builders remedy. I'm based in New York. I have been coming to Beverly Hills for close to a year now, basically quietly, looking at various neighborhoods, and I stumbled across two Builders Remedy projects. What I saw, raised some questions, one I really liked, but I understand that there are 16 different applications, and I'm very interested to find out how to find out the addresses so that I can stop roaming around Beverly Hills looking for these projects. So, but thank you for the opportunity to speak. Okay, and I think that we can accommodate you with the listing of those builders remedy projects. Perhaps somebody from a community development can get that to you. If you give them their your information they can get that to you. Who might that be? I'll do it. Next speaker card I have is from Joe Fuchs. Good afternoon. My name is Joe Fuchs. I'm speaking on the 844 Burton Way Project for the Builders Remedy Projects. First off, I'd just like to say that I am a member of the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters and have been for over 38 years. Live in the area, work in the area, and I recreate in this area in F for quite a long time. I believe that this project will impact us environmentally and the area environmentally. The city should require that the project be built with contractors that will hire locally, pay prevailing wages, and utilize apprentices from a state certified apprenticeship program. Workforce requirements reduce construction related environmental impacts while benefiting the local economy and workforce development. In the recent 2020 report titled, Putting California on the High Road, a jobs and climate action plan for 2030, the California Workforce Development Board concluded that investments in growing, diversifying and upskilling California's workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District recently found that the local hire requirements can result in air pollution reductions. Recently, the state of California reiterated its commitment towards encouraging workforce development and housing affordability through the affordable housing and higher road's job act of 2022 otherwise known as assembly bill 2011 Which requires projects pay workers a prevailing wage and higher from state certified apprenticeship programs for projects meeting certain criteria affordability and development standards. And this also goes along with the responsibility of contractors in your area who follow the city codes, who follow the city plan and work under an umbrella of professionalism. I see a lot of people here complaining about contractors who don't follow the codes, the laws, and the lay down of what you have in the city of Beverly Hills. And I know for a fact that the people that I represent are professional and will follow those. Thank you for your time. If you could hold on one second, my colleague has a question to ask. No problem. Thank you. Do you, would you support as one of the objective standards requiring PLAs? Would I support them? Yep. That's a good question. Depends on who wrote them. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Next speaker card I have is from Carey Cramer. Hi. I'm Carey Cramer and I've lived on Bever Will Drive for 23 years. I'm a planner by training. Can you speak right into the mics? Thank you. I'm a planner by training. My very first planning job was an intern in the city of Beverly Hills with Rose Norton, if any of you remember her, to age myself. During the approval of two rodeo, the city has maintained its character because we as a community deeply value pedestrian friendly residential scale development. Let's not undo all of that with a single sweeping decision. Let's be honest, we would not be here today if the city seriously focused on its housing element and submitted plans that would have been, that would have realistically addressed the affordable housing issues as good or bad as they were required by Sacramento. We expect and hope that you can get us out of this mess, moving forward. In the development world, there was a buzz. Get these applications in and the city will come back and negotiate. Get them in as quick as we can, as big as we can, get it done. Without a clear chart or map outlining the 14 existing properties, their addresses, current heights and densities, initial studies required by CECO, we cannot properly assess how staff's guidelines will apply to each one of them. This is essential. How can we discuss a citywide proposal without looking at the specifics of individual projects and how they'll line with or violate the proposed guidelines? Where are all these projects? I'm hearing Oakhurst, Lyndon, Camden, Olympic. Why was it decided that notifying the public about this meeting today or providing addresses of all the projects in the staff reporter agenda would not have been a good idea? The staff proposal which seeks to apply broad set of guidelines misses the mark on the most important issues. It keeps some projects largely unchanged while reducing others. But it fails to address critical concerns and the very serious impacts on single family and low scale multi-family residences. More importantly, it lacks true mitigating measures. By eliminating discretionary review and bypassing environmental review, we are adopting a one- fits all approach without fully understanding what the outcomes will be. For instance, the three large projects are at four, I don't even can't keep track anymore, sorry, at Olympic and Beverly. How can we even consider them without a thorough traffic analysis? Those corners are already failing during peak rush hours. And what about our city's character, zoning, water use, waste management, green space, schools, public safety, and utilities, fire safety, construction noise. How does the state justifying soft on these issues by telling you that you must approve these projects despite CEQA and other important issues. Is CEQA just a joke to them? Can you actually justify a negative declaration for all of these? Or should you do a focused EIR at least along with some compromises? Have we exhausted our legal research on this? One example I thought of is we can write size these projects by purchasing air rights and put the added density resulting from affordable housing elsewhere in the city where it would be more compatible with its surroundings. Pass a bond, something. Ms. Quamer, can I ask you to finish up please? Yep. Finally, is this proposal truly compromised for developers? It's about eliminating red tape, but removing Sequa and the discretionary review entirely is a massive shift. One that may benefit the developers in the short run, but risks the long-term health of our community. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Last speaker card I have is from, it looks like Sean, Sean Reve. Anyone else have the speaker card that wants to speak on the side if they can bring it up to the city clerk at this time, I'll be appreciated. Afternoon. I bought a land about five years ago or six years ago. It took me two years for planning, three years to building, five years. At that time, there was given a lot of hard time about my windows, cannot look into my neighbors, my never can have mademoisse be frosted, there was a lot of nightmare going through this. And now, we are going through this thing, plan is ginormous buildings, and which is going to look into our property with blocking the sun and everything. So basically what I'm getting at is that I'm against the Ministry of Process because this is going to have a lot of environmental effect which you cannot assess at this time. And I think each of these plans should be inspect individually. Thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, not seeing anybody else in chambers will go to either oral communications first, if any, and then emails. Yes, the first one, the first caller is Cheryl Feldman. Ms. Feldman, go ahead. Ms. Feldman. We'll move on to the next person. The next person is Nicole Gabai. Ms. Feldman, if you could unmute yourself, please. Let's go to the next one. We'll come back to Ms. Feldman. We'll move on to the next person. The next person is Nicole Gabai. come back to Ms. Feldman, we'll move on to the next person. The next person is Nicole Gaby. Hello. Ms. Gaby, go ahead. Hi. Excuse me. I am a property owner on Hamilton, whether to building remedy projects are slated, move forward, one across the street from the other. I'm not. I mean, a little bit of difficulty hearing you if you could possibly speak closer to the mic or a little louder. Is this better? Can you hear me? It is better yes. Okay wait. So I do have a lot of concerns about the two buildings that are going up on Hamilton. The amount of people that will be moving into our streets, the number of parking spots that are going to be allowed for those two projects. It's a handful of parking spots for hundreds of new tenants in the area. A lot of the same concerns that everyone else has been voicing on this call. So I'm just asking that there be no, that there be a normal process and not go through the ministerial review. I believe that the builders should be going through an environmental review for these processes. I believe that the number of parties will be allowed for those in charge of a handful of companies for hundreds of these tenants. Hello? Cross line. Cross line. Cross line. Cross line. Cross line. Cross line. Cross line. I'm not sure who's speaking right now. This is Cheryl Feldman. Okay, perhaps we can hear Miss Feldman at this point. Go ahead, Miss Feldman. Can you hear me? We can now. If you said anything before, you'll have to repeat it. No, I did not. Okay, go ahead. So I'm a resident on Hamilton Drive with these two proposed projects. I'm absolutely adamant of a no on the ministerial approval, I think it's absurd. These projects, one being 14 stories with 200 apartments, and one being, I think it's nine stories with, I don't know the amount of apartments, but it's just ridiculous. You know, this is just a way of, I think one gentleman said, you know, having no community or residential input, which is gonna affect our lives, not the city people, and, you know, of course, enrich the developers' pocketbooks, and I guess the city, as well, when, you know, they get the money from these projects, but it is, it's ridiculous. It's like putting a giraffe in a fish bowl. It does not go with the style or scale of the neighborhood by any means, 200 apartments. We already live off Wilshire. We have the park down the street. We have the Saban Theatre. We have Wilshire businesses. I mean, where is it's already permitted parking? So, you know, I think this is going to create an extreme environmental impact. I think that, you know, I think this is going to create an extreme environmental impact. I think that, you know, the scales are ridiculous. There is, I'm absolutely shocked that this is being discussed at this time. We were given no meeting notice. It's an inconvenient time for many residents to attend. The lack of notice also speaks to that fact. And, you know, we as residents need input. This is just a, you know, it's just completely unfair and you know, I definitely support the original process of community input where they have to go before the city, where there's public outreach, where we get a chance to interface and defend what we feel is right or wrong for the neighborhood. I just think it's unjust, so that's my comment. Okay, thank you. Next audio. Next is Mr. John Luka. Hi, Mayor Friedman Council members. It's good to see you again. If this were your street, there was a building's remedy project being applied on or multiple. You would not do a ministerial process. This is among the most ridiculous things that I've ever heard. I've spoken at multiple council meetings, but to have the notion that you would bypass public comment and have staff green light projects without having public input, without going through CEQA, without going through full environmental review, and you think that that's somehow acceptable? You know all of you who are seated on the City Council that you are elected to represent us, and we believe in you. But the fact that staff would put with you into saying that you should just go along with what they did after they failed, staff failed to do the correct application for the housing element. Now we're just gonna give them the green lights until now them to negotiate with the developers. However, they see fit. I hope you can see how angry I am because we're furious that this would even be coming forward. Furthermore, this meeting, Pharaoh mentioned it, it's in the afternoon, people can attend in the afternoon. And then on top of it, there's no notification. Not even within a block of a project, it's something like this would be discussed. It's shameful. We have a right to a full process, environmental reviews. And it's, yes, these are build-up remedy projects, but there's still steps that have to be done. And you don't know what's going to come from the findings of the environmental reviews in terms of what we're able to bring forward or what other discoveries are done. There's a reason that these are long and that they take a while. It going through a project like this without having correct environmental review, it would decimate the city. There are consequences that we don't know on each street. You don't know the things that happen necessarily on my block. It's like I don't know the ones that happen on yours. This reach of being lobbied by the developers, and we as the residents want the normal process, we do realize these are builders remedy projects, but we have a right to at least go through CEQA and the environmental review process. This ministerial process makes it seem as if we're just incompetent stupid people, and the residents are just dumb dumb, who shouldn't have a decision making or the ability to speak in front of you or in front of other public hearing forms like the Planning Commission. If this were your street you would fight. And then when you hear staff like Michael Forbes saying, oh, we're going to go with eight stories. Eight stories is not what the code is in the city. The code now in the city is four stories. With then, if you bonus density, you have, you can go another 50%. The maximum is 6. So, I was aware they came up with the eight stories of garbage. So, no, absolutely not. We're furious. And the concept that you would try to do this and that you didn't give notification for this meeting. Absolutely not. And if you don't wanna fight for us, the people, then you should resign from the city council. But I believe that you do wanna fight for us. So what you need to do is just make sure that there's not a power grab from the staff taking away the power that we the people gave to you to act on our behalf. John, thank you. John, I just wanna make one comment. This item is put before so that discussion can be had. This is not something that is predetermined. It's really to get the public input. And certainly I, although I don't see your emotion, I feel it very, very well. And I know you very well. So I thank you for that. But please, this is nothing that is predetermined. This is an open discussion. Okay, with that. I hope that... All right. Thank you. Okay. There is public notice. It's given of all of our meetings. They're on the website. You can sign up for it. Okay. The next audio speaker please. Next we have Alan Nistle. Mr. Nussle, are you there? Let's go on to the next one and we'll come back. Okay, the next speaker is Ann Rubin Hello city council and Beverly health my name is Ann Rubin. I actually live in Los Angeles Thank you for letting me speak. I live right in Cartier Circle historic preservation overlay zone and National Register project. We are right up against tower drives that has I think it's 232 South power and eight story builders remedy. I will say I understand the pressure of housing element LA just went through that and I always admire the city of Beverly Hills how they operate compared to our own planning department. And I was looking forward to your pushing back on this. I really like the analogy of giraffes in a fish bowl. That was a great visual. If you look at the apartment proposed for tower drive, it is it is a giraffe in a fish bowl. These little neighborhood is, you know, that's where it's right next to the park. And we all walk on each other's blocks and these mid-century and earlier new plexus and multi-tenant buildings are so well maintained and beautiful. And this building is out of scale and there's no alley there so it comes up against Cartier Circle on Schumacher. How about four to six stories? Eight stories is really too big right there. I'd like to recommend that you lower that to four to six stories in terms of parking. I can tell everyone don't't tell anyone actually, but all the parking will be in my neighborhood. It already is on Schumacher and Commodore Slot. And hey, but that's not a fair answer. We all have to deal with the subways coming in. And I hope that you will reach out to us. We've been getting notices on the LA side. But again, maybe consider that there is no alley between Schumacher or behind towers. And this eight-story building, looming over the park, and making it makes me sad. It's going to take out the last fence of beautiful LA sky and our night sky. We've got Wilshire on the north. We're also dealing with 1050 South Lausanneca, our mile partners across the temple that's on. They were the developer that brought Jose Weezar, but they paid off the Department of Justice at 1.2 or 3 million and they're building a 24 story luxury apartment with a poultry number of affordable or low income right across in Temple Bethan. So we are going to have another corridor of these apartments, but not really the affordable housing we need. Thank you. I hope you all sacrificed that section of that really helps for its cohesive neighborhood. Thank you. Next we have Melody Leggett. Thank you. Am I on? Yes, go ahead. Can you hear me mayor? Okay, great. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. They say you can't fight City Hall and I guess City Hall can't fight state legislation. But on behalf of my hometown Beverly Hills, I am emboldening all our city leaders to do their best to preserve the spirit, safety, and landscape of our special city. I have pleaded that we do not become a mini Manhattan with construction at every corner and the loss of our landscape and light. Please remember residents opposed the 26th story development at the Beverly Hilton and successfully voted it down. Residents opposed Shavall Blanc at 10 stories in the triangle, whether or not that was the best interest in the city. The Mayborn Hotel now blocks the beautiful view of the hills from South Beverly Drive, which was a gorgeous north-facing entryway to that city. For that matter, residents opposed Metro's path through the city and under the high school, and we lost that battle too. And you're made to today's review of Builders Remedy projects and how to manage them. residents vehemently opposed the 19th story LinkedIn development proposed by a developer who seems bent to squeeze through any and every loophole he can to have his way. This is not an issue of affordable housing as the offering of 10% affordable housing units only results in a meaningful number if there are huge developments. I am not a housing expert just a 60-year resident who sees what is happening in neighboring Los Angeles with overpriced units and vacancies that attract homeless people to camp on the sidewalk of these empty properties. After the tragic recent fires, the Los Angeles Fire Department voiced that on an average day, there is stress on the infrastructure with the increased population. Beverly Hills cannot suffer from a loss of the level of quality response time as been our historic attraction for the city services because the state mandates disproportionate housing requirements Between the crisis of climate and homelessness Public works is our greatest luxury and privilege Beverly Hills inspired the luxury of health and wellness and creativity and long ago opulence was even frowned upon I hope the council and long ago, opulence was even frowned upon. I hope the council continues to develop our city within reason, including reasonable heights, and humbly and modestly, preserve the quality of life, which is more essential than a luxury of housing for the wealthy at a great cost to all of us. We need our sunshine and our skyline and not tax nor compromise our public works systems and safety. Thank you very, very, very much. Thank you. Next audio. Next we will return to Mr. Allen Nistle. Mr. Nistle, are you online? Oh, it looks like he's left soon. Okay, I have if we don't have any more audio, I have one more speaker that I like to take first. Go ahead. Okay. Next speaker, Carter. I have this Renee Strauss. Thank you very much. I have never been to one of these meetings before. It is so enlightening and I feel privileged to be here. I have learned so much this afternoon in regards to an educational session that you mentioned you would possibly be able to put together for residents to attend. I would like to ask that if you do that and when you do that and we go Builders Remedy Project by Builders Remedy Project and really share with the residents what the realities look like at those addresses. Because we have been, I know my building, 300 North Swal next to the 8844 project. We've been to City Hall in a private meeting with Edgar Royo and a few other people. And the mayor and a couple of other of your associates have given us the honor and privilege of coming to our building to talk about this. But we don't have real answers about project by project and what is realistic. And if the ministerial passes, process passes, or even if it doesn't, just thinking about reducing every project when there's so many that are 14 stories and 19 stories, down to eight stories, I mean, what that in and of itself it would be like, but rabbits, populating all over the city with these buildings popping up. Of course, nobody wants these behemoth buildings and we have to find a way to be able to deal with it. I know we can't fight, they say, as one caller said, you can't fight City Hall. And then I notice everybody nodding when she continued to say, and you can't fight Sacramento. That may be true, but really we need to understand where we stand. And we have meeting after meeting and session after session and we don't know the reality. So if that could be addressed in one of these educational or the educational session that would be greatly appreciated by each and every resident. Thank you. Thank you. We'll continue now with emails. I believe. We have written comments now. The first one is for Jody Horwitz. I may not be able to attend the meeting this week and want to provide my comments on this matter. As a resident of Beverly Hills and someone who lives directly in the area, I am extremely concerned about what a project, such as this would do to the neighborhood. This is a residential block. Our quality of life will severely impact it due to traffic, parking, noise and other issues. Even the Beverly Wilshire Hotel is nowhere near this number of stories. Again, why would the city permit the building of something such as this on a residential block? Please feel free to contact me at any time. I love living in this neighborhood and don't want to see anything severely damage our quality of life. Next is from Merrill Rizadi. I am opposed to all of these projects. The four mixed-use buildings currently proposed for the area around Olympic Boulevard, Beverly Drive, and Beverly Well, as well as future similar high-rise projects are ugly and will ruin the ambiance of the surrounding neighborhood by creating canyons of darkness as well as future similar high-rise projects are ugly and will ruin the ambiance of the surrounding neighborhood by creating canyons of darkness as well as increasing the density. Some of these projects do not provide for sufficient parking as the state's goal is to reduce the number of cars in California. True affordable housing could be created by allowing the many vacant commercial properties to be converted into housing rather than building unnecessary high-rise buildings and low-rise neighborhoods. Even if the builder's remedy decreases the height of these buildings, a 8 to 10 story building is still too intrusive if built next to a 1 to 2 story resident. I know I would not like to live next to an 8 story building where the residents could look into my private yard. The so-called affordable housing units provided in each proposed building are minimal while the rest of the units are costly and designed to enrich the builders. The city should survey the number and size of all residential vacancies to determine the actual need. Additionally, they should survey the number and size of commercial vacancies to determine the feasibility of converting them to residential use. If these new buildings do not provide sufficient parking, then residents would be forced to use public transportation, which is not only incomplete and insufficient, but dangerous as well when you consider the attacks on people using these systems. These projects have no place in the city. Next comment is from Steve Perkins. I would like to commend the City of Beverly Hills for its thoughtful and transparent approach to keeping stakeholders informed about builders remedy projects. The updates provided to interested parties serve as a model of effective communication and civic engagement and I greatly appreciate the city's efforts in this regard. That said, as a resident deeply invested in the character and quality of our community, I urged the city council to ensure that any ministerial permit process not only provides a smooth bureaucratic process, but is primarily designed designed significantly curtail the size and scope of new developments to remain in harmony with the existing environment. Beverly Hills is not and should not become a high rise urban landscape. Overly ambitious developments that dramatically increase traffic population density and infrastructure demands would not only alter the unique character of our city but also bring with them potential irreversible challenges such as increased crime, congestion and strain on public resources. Encouraging developers to adopt a realistic and measured approach to each project is essential. Streamlining processes should not come at the expense of maintaining the charm and livability of Beverly Hills. A balanced approach, one that promotes progress while safeguarding the identity of our community is critical. Thank you for considering my concerns as you deliberate on this important matter. Your efforts to preserve the unique fabric of Beverly Hills while addressing housing needs are greatly appreciated. The next comment is from Alejandra Mohika. I'm not sure I would be able to participate live in the meeting and I would like to include the following questions about the development of the big apartment building near my apartment in Palm and crossing of Palm and Alden. If you are considering authorizing that big building in our residential area, I want you to take into account. The lack of parking space, one of the beauties of our neighborhood now is availability of street parking on a normal basis for us and visitors. I would suppose that the actual quote, quote, normal need for parking is one or two parking spaces per bedroom. If they are authorized to build this without the corresponding needed parking under the assumption of people using public transportation and hence no need for parking, how do they make sure that it is the case? Are you limiting the number of street parking permits to the same permits you are granting nowadays? Because I would recommend doing so as it will be the fair way to proceed. The developers should let the potential tenants of the restriction in parking space so they really get tenants who don't have cars not disturbing the current status of our neighborhood. The huge disruption for the neighborhood would be in our landscape and vibe to compensate are you forcing them to vote significant space to devote significant space to a public garden or park or how do you intend to keep the vibe with that huge structure. The next comment is Arnie Sklar. I've been thinking a lot about the state's requirement that we have affordable housing. Firstly, I don't believe the state has the right to force an ideology on us, but that's for a different discussion. I've seen notices for projects in commercial areas that have four stories to 44 feet of affordable housing and 8 to 10 to 15 plus stories of market rate apartments or condos. I think that is backwards. If we are going to allow more than the current 44 feet high in commercial areas, it should be up to 44 feet of commercial and or market rate housing, the current ordinance, and six to eight stories higher for affordable housing, the affordable units can be on the bottom or the top, but they must stay affordable. This can be combined with the streamlined incentive. Next we have Daring Bujot and Lee Pastrannick. The city is in a bind because our officials had four of their housing element filings rejected over a two and a half period opening the door to 14 remaining remaining builders remedy projects. Builders remedy developers and perhaps some others have profited by our city's failures. But despite the obvious need for an investigation of the cause of our city's incomprehensible failures and investigation has not been initiated and those responsible are being protected. If it is really what not, if it really was not the fault of our city officials and employees, why not initiate the investigation and prove it? The extensive damage which has been done to quality of life and property values in our city, not to mention city attorney's fee expenses demands that we identify the cause. Meanwhile the city continues not to label the builder's remedy projects on current building project lists and now wants to further the cover up by setting up a system under which large 75 feet projects can be automatically approved in the absence of SICWA, cost to a developer and residents will not receive notice of what will be built and nor can they object. Actually the city is attempting to settle with builders' remedy developers and that part of the plan is not a bad idea. However the city's rationale in its agenda report indicating that the city would be required to approve state-dened city bonus projects of 75 feet in height anyway is false. The true reason that planning commissioners were urged to approve the 9229 Wilshire project at 75 feet in a 45 feet zone. Foot zone was that the city had desperately included those 56 units in its housing element to get it finally approved. Therefore, the city council had to deny residences appeal because the city could not allow the removal of what it had included in its housing element without adding 56 units back into a built elsewhere. Given the pressure to comply with the state's wrong headed laws and the need for housing, after the recent fires such a ministerial settlement should be pursued for builders remedy projects but only with the clear notice to the neighbors in advance of what the allowed building will like will be like including high setbacks etc. And the city owes residents an investigation into the failure to get the housing element timely approved. Next comment is from SR Willent. 66 years in Beverly Hills and I am nothing but suspicious of the consign guinity of local politicians and developers. When informed then that at a remedy, that a remedy is sought which would allow for eight-story buildings but not citizen notice, I am alarmed, though not surprised. I oppose this Bums Rush settlement because it does not mandate citizen approval and ignores I believe local zoning and general plan objections. Additionally, someone here at City Hall has gotten us into this mess with Sacramento and that as much as anything deserves scrutiny. To sum up Mr. Aroyo and members of the City Council believing a developer cares about anything but making money is like believing that the peanuts cartoon character Lucy, acting as holder won't snatch the football away just as Charlie Brown goes to place kicking. That's not how it works. Because I'm a resident and not a commercial developer, I am affected by huge buildings rising up on, say, Burton Way, and having long chosen to live in a residential neighborhood unshattered by over large structures, you know like near Ventura Boulevard or behind the Wilshire corridor, I urge you to rethink a remedy, which will only make things worse for the residents now living here. I suggest you go back to work and come up with something that satisfy the people who pay your salaries. Realizing, of course, that being elected is not half as important as getting elected, but there it is. Your public servants now act like it. Next we have, there was a very large comment. It was 269 pages. It has already been shared with the City Council. It came from Jeremy Herwitt, attorneys for Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. But that will be saved as part of the official record for anyone who would like to read it. It will be posted tomorrow. The next one is from Fox Newby. We have seen how the buyer's revenue loophole does not do what it is and it was intended to do. It is just a way for wealthy developers to throw down affordable housing units and replace them with luxurious condos while paying lip service to providing affordable housing. 401 North O'Courst had six units and the buyers remedy, I'm sure I think the remedy plan only calls for five. Beverly Hills needs to do its part to provide affordable housing within its city limits so that the schools etc are accessible for all socioeconomic groups. Segregation by wealth is still segregation. And we still have, Mr. Nestle has returned for public comment. Yes, please go ahead Mr. Nestle. Please go ahead. the committee. Mr. Nussel, please go ahead. Seems like he may have stepped away again, so that concludes public comment. All right. Thank you very much. At this time, can we... There are no other comments, right? Correct, there are no other public comments for this item. All right, so I guess we will go to first council comments. Council questions and then we'll go to comments. So council member Wells, please go ahead. Okay. Thank you very much. I have a couple questions for staff. Thank you for the report. You know, in listening to the public comment, there's a lot of questions around in terms of parking, in terms of height, in terms of keeping within the character of a neighborhood. We talk about all of these different aspects with regard to planning and as we look at projects. When it comes to the builders' run-mitty projects, can you give a bit of a rundown on what limitations the city has with regard to having discretion over those items? Certainly. So under the provisions of state law, the Builders Remedy projects that have been submitted to the city, the city has very limited if any ability to deny those projects or require changes to those projects. They still would have to go through a public process with public hearings and environmental review, but at the end of the day, the city would not be in a position to deny the projects, even if the environmental documents found that there might be environmental impacts, if the neighbors came out in opposition to the projects, ultimately if the city chose to deny the projects, the city would find itself likely in legal jeopardy with the property owners and the developers because we would be arguably in violation of state law by doing that. So our hands are very tied with regard to those. And I want to take this opportunity really quick, just to clarify too, for some of the speakers. What staff is proposing this evening would not approve any of the projects as they are currently proposed. They would all have to be reduced to meet the standards. Eight stories is what's proposed, but whatever is ultimately adopted by council. So we are not suggesting or proposing that a ministerial process be used to approve any of the projects as they are currently proposed. I think there was some misunderstanding on that, so I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. So as it stands now with the Builders Remedy project, for example, with regard to a number of parking spots in the ratio that someone had mentioned a parking ratio for units to a number of parking spots, that is not an area where the city would be able to deny a project. A Builders Remedy project based on how many parking spots are available, regardless of the number of total units that are being proposed in the application. Correct. The city is not really in a position on these projects to enforce any of its development standards if the developer is requesting not to comply with those and that would include parking. There's also other provisions of state law that limit the city's ability to control parking on these projects, but specifically with Builders Remedy, the city would not be able to deny a project because it did not have parking or to require the project to provide additional parking. The same with some of these other items that we're talking about. For example, if you wanted that building to stay within the character of an neighborhood and you wanted to require more of a modulation and how the building was designed, that wouldn't be an area where with the Builders Remedy project where the city would be able to deny a project if they didn't go back and change the design to make it fit in a way where from a discretionary standpoint we felt like it looked better and fit better within a neighborhood. Correct, the city would not be able to deny the project normally through with normal projects. They would go to the architectural and design review commission and there would be some discussion about the design and the design could be changed or altered or the massing could be changed based on the commission's comments. That would not be able to happen with these projects. Whatever the developer proposed, the city would be compelled to approve. So as we look at the builders run many projects right now and we're faced with the 14 different projects, the challenge that we have is the city is how do we resolve this with having very little ability to deny the projects, how do we work with the developers to get to a place where we can agree on, hopefully agree on a project that is more aligned with what's happening in our city currently. And when I say currently, I mean, we have many projects have been approved from the Density Bonus Projects, where that again we have issues where we talk about with the parking requirement or whether the developers is able to ask for waivers or concessions based on their numbers of available, their numbers of affordable housing that can limit us but we do have some discretion there. But and I think that our planning commission does a really good job in those hearings where they really, their hands are tied in many ways by the state, but they work really hard with regard to the areas they do have discretion to ask for certain conditions that represent the needs of the community or more specifically the neighborhoods where they're placed to try and address some of those concerns where they have that ability to do so. And in my opinion, I'm starting to see a theme about what those happen to be. It could be limited use of the rooftop or a setback from the rooftop. If it's neighboring, a neighborhood behind it, or even it's not a very big setback from an alleyway. How do you, you know, ask for those conditions? Are you seeing more of a trend with regards to what they're asking for and how that is playing out in the density bonus projects? Yes, so we have seen those types of issues that you mentioned come up with these projects. They've been brought up in some cases by the neighbors in some cases by the planning commission. Things like the setbacks of open space from the property line, how the rooftop open space is used. The size and orientation of balconies, things like that. So if the council is interested in moving forward with this, what we would do is look at the conditions of approval that have been placed on some of these recently approved projects. Look at the concerns that have been brought up and do what we can to incorporate all of that into this set of objective standards that we would come up with that would be applicable to the ministerial process. So, although we wouldn't be able to apply conditions on a case-by-case basis, we would look at those conditions that have been applied on a case-by-case basis and incorporate that into our standards. With regards to CEQA, and what can be considered with CEQA, when we talk about shade and shadow, or what the impact is from a park, increasing the traffic What are the limitations with the sequa study? That we're facing as a city There's a number of different issues with with sequa there Each each project has to be looked at individually to determine what level of CEQA review is appropriate. And this is, if there were no ministerial process and each project was individually subject to CEQA, staff looks at each one and does an analysis to determine if the project is exempt under one of the different provisions of CEQA or if further analysis is required, which could lead to a negative declaration or an environmental impact report, along with the many housing laws that have been updated over the last few years, there have been a number of updates to the California Environmental Quality Act also, which limit the city in some ways, depending on where projects are located and the size of projects. In some cases, we cannot consider shade and shadow anymore. The traditional traffic analysis that was done under CEQA, you can no longer do under SB 743, which was adopted several years ago. So a lot of the traditional impacts that were looked at under CEQA are no longer applicable. And at the end of the day, even if the city determined through a CEQA process that there were some environmental impacts from these projects, that still would not be a basis to deny the project. The city would still be in a position where it would be required to approve the project in spite of any impacts that were identified. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions for right now. Thank you. So maybe we can just on the sequa issue. Mr. Snow elaborate because I think Mr. Forbes did a credible job in explaining what the limitations are with regard to sequa. But there's also a process that has been adopted just recently, which allows the developer to object to a sequin allysis. And I think that maybe Mr. Snow can describe that. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. Yes, there's legislation that was first introduced or adopted, I think two years ago, and then modified effective this year. And what that relates to is applicants have the ability, and this is largely under the Housing Accountability Act to make a case for a particular exemption that would apply and then that starts a noticing process back and forth and so there's an ability to try and compelicity to go in a particular direction on CEQA. There are two different provisions, one related to exemptions, and also similar provisions but different mechanics and procedures with respect to negative declarations, addenda, and environmental impact reports. One other question while you're standing there. With regard to the total number of units and density bonus law, can you update us on where that's at with regard to the state and how for projects that are applying for the density bonus law and stacking their density with regards to that. I'm not sure if I said that the correct way. I think I understand the question. Density bonus has been on the books for a number of years, and over the last several years, the benefit, the upside of density bonus has been continually raised by the legislature. So there was a time when it was 25%, 35%, 50%. And now there is a relatively new provision that refers to stacked density bonus and so you can get conceivably up to a 100% density bonus if you stack meeting the criteria for kind of the first 50% meeting one level One set of requirements for affordability and then an additional 50% if you provide some additional Affordability there are a couple of ways to do that and it can be 100% or with some of those, it's more like 85%. But a significant increase if the affordability prerequisite is surmounted. And if they meet that, the city cannot deny that with regards to that. It allows them the ability to ask for concessions and waivers and we have to consider those things as well. We can't deny their total density numbers. If they meet those provisions. That is correct. It's a math equation under the statute. If they provide the requisite affordability, then they are entitled to those units. As you referenced, there is an opportunity to request concessions or incentives, deviations from development standards and other regulatory mechanisms, and waivers, which is a waiver of development standards, in order to the way I describe as, get an envelope that is sufficient to contain all of the units to which they're entitled. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Corbyn. Sir, no, don't go anywhere. So obviously there's been a lot of discussion this afternoon about SEGA and environmental impacts and the desire for residents to be able to point to environmental impacts as a way to either modify the project or deny the project and people believe that they should have that right to make that case when individual projects come to the council. You just mentioned a concept of exemptions from Sequa. So if someone, if a project is eligible for an exemption to see, or a sequel exemption, what is exactly that? I mean, just in layman terms, is that mean that the Environmental inquiries that people would like to make And by environmental arguments that people would like to make Against the project simply won't be entertained, can't be used to Denier modify the project. So I think to answer that question, I'll talk about two different types of exemptions under CEQA. There are statutory exemptions and categorical exemptions. Statutory exemptions are things that under the statute are simply exempt from CEQA. The legislature has balanced the impacts and decided that the types of projects that qualify for statutory exemptions. There isn't a need to analyze those impacts, those projects will go forward and there's no need to look at or consider the impacts. And I'm sure it will be getting looked at more, but the Olympics is an example that is listed as a statutory exemption. There will be impacts, but if you meet the criteria, the Olympics are important. We're going to deal with the impacts a different way. Sequoia isn't going to apply there. So that's just an example of a statutory exemption. There are also categorical exemptions. There are 32 of them. They are in the sequa guidelines articulated. Those also would say this is a project that generally speaking is not going to have the types of environmental impacts that require review. If you qualify for that exemption, then it wouldn't go through any more formal review. The decision making person or body would make that environmental determination and conjunction with action on the project. Categorical exemptions are different from statutory exemptions and that there are certain exceptions to those categorical exemptions for unique circumstances where there's something unusual about a project. It's a single family home that might normally be exempt from a sequel, but it's in the middle of endangered species habitat might be an example. There are historic, if it's a historic resource and there's potential substantial change or impact to the historic resource. That's another exception to the exemption, cumulative impacts. And there are a of other locational ones. But so the statutory ones, if you qualify, it's pretty much exempts and you're done. If it's categorical, there are some other inquiries that might need to be undertaken on a case-by-case basis. Both those inquiries are limited. It's not. You just open the door to unlimited analysis. So you mentioned some new exemptions that Sacraments come up with in the last couple of years. Are they statutory or categorical? So what I was referring to earlier is more of a process and less of a specific exemption. There are some housing exemptions and what not with a number of criteria so that not often used that are, I'll say relatively recent in state law, but what I was referring to earlier is more of a process for a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act. Again, if the city believes that an environmental impact report is required but there's evidence in the record suggesting that an exemption might apply then an applicant or a developer can assert that there's a noticing process back and forth and it puts the city on a path to consider that alternate approach under sequels. Has any applicant who submitted a build-as-remedy project argued the city so far that one of those exemptions apply so they're project? Are you to the city so far that one of those exemptions apply to their project? There has been some suggestions and correspondence that there are some exemptions that might apply. We're really at the front end of the Builders Remedy projects. Again, the process, the first step is to get a complete application. Once the application is complete, there's a period in which the city needs to review that and determine what the sequel process is. And so we're still in the kind of front-end on those from a project by project basis. But there have been suggestions and correspondence that I expect will be asserted later on, that exemptions. All right, thank you. So one other question for staff, not just Mr. Stubb. But there was Mr. Fuchs came and spoke earlier about building labor requirements for builders from the projects imposing them. I know that there have been some recent laws passed by Sacramento which do require certain types of labor, quality of labor, categories of labor to be used in some projects. Do we as a city have the authority to impose labor requirements, union worker requirements on build-us-remedy projects? We are not proposing that and I'll defer to Mr. Weiner on whether we have the legal ability to do that. We likely have the legal authority to enact something with regard to labor requirements in this sort of ordinance. Okay. All right. That was one question. Thank you. Good to know. We've also had some discussion about the ordinance we have the ability to put other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. The other things that we have to do. For some reason we fought them in court. We litigated and we won. Could they come back the next day and propose a density bonus project on the same parcel? Assuming there was nothing in the court and the outcome of the lawsuit or a settlement that affected that. Yes, a property owner could propose a density bonus project. No settlement at all. We litigate, we go to the mat, and the city prevails. The builders' revenue project can't be built. Can the applicant proponent, the owner of the property, come back the next day and propose a density bonus project in the same parcel? Yes. OK. So we've had some discussion about how large density bonus projects typically are. We've had one in the in the in the mix you sound that came before us a few months ago, 9229, Wilshire Boulevard, and we felt constrained to approve it. How many floors was that? That was seven floors plus rooftop amenities. So there was a small, small eighth floor to provide access to the rooftop. And I believe that the Planning Commission originally looked at a density bonus project on oakhurst and approved that, am I right? And we heard some comments about that today. Yes. How tall is that building? I'm going to look at staff. I'm not sure off the top of my head if that was six or seven stories. That was a new eight story building. That was originally a room. Okay. the top of my head if that was six or seven stories. That was a new eight story building. That was recently. And we also heard some discussion earlier how the density bonus laws even changed on January. And that was approved last year, right? Under the rules in effect last year. Yes, yeah, it was, yeah. And we heard some comments just a few minutes ago that as of January 1st apparently we can now stack the applicants can now stack density bonus You know request and it can go even higher number of units than they were previously And and I'll clarify I think that stacked density bonus came into effect at the beginning of last year. Oh, it did. All right, so I'm wrong. Okay, so that was that eight story building as part of a density bonus application? Yes, it was. Was the 1929 Wilshire Boulevard project a stack density bonus project? I think that was pretty. We can check, but I think that was pretty standard. That was okay, it's been early. So one was seven, and can check. That was pretty standard. Okay, so one was seven that stacked density bonus one was eight. Now, one was in a mixed use zone, one was in a multi-family zone. Would someone be able to go higher in one zone than the other given the current state of the law and and our current zoning codes. So we do, under the zoning code, there are different height limits depending on whether you're in the residential zone or mixed use overlay zone. Under a density bonus project, there's a lot of leeway given to the developer for them to determine how many stories they need. And unfortunately, it's not a direct correlation where if I get a 50% density bonus, I get a 50% increase in height. It's really kind of developers' choices to how they want to design their project, how many units they have, whether they're, you know, one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom units, and how much space those take up. So generally under the density bonus law, they are allowed to exceed the height but there's no particular limit on how much they can exceed the height. Given our experience in the two projects I just mentioned would it be safe to say because I think that's one of the assumptions built into the proposal that a density bonus project on most parcels in the multi-family area, if not all parcels in the multi-family area today, or the mix you zone today Could go as high as seven or eight stories with the density bonus factored in Yes, we believe that's a fair number and and what developers are looking for and and I mentioned the the One of the reasons that that tends to be a cutoff is because eight stories is generally the tallest that you can go with wood construction. And there's a significant increase in construction cost above that. So it becomes an economic issue for the developer of eight stories is the point at which they can make the return they want to make without going into a more expensive type of construction. But it's to ask conclusion that they can get to eight stories in either the mixed use zone or the multifamily zone given the density bonus laws that Sacramento has. They can get to eight stories pretty much everywhere. Yes. Thank you. Those are my questions for that. Mr. Tuckman, are you still here? I am. Can you come up? I just want to ask you a question. Hope you don't mind. Please, that's why I'm here. You're a property owner. You came here to speak, so I just wanted to get your opinion. So you heard, you just heard that one of the problems we're facing, one of the constraints we're facing is the city. Is it putting aside builders, remedy projects entirely? Even if we've zoned in multi-family or mixed use for a maximum height of three stories, 45 feet, and we have in some lot of areas. Under the unfortunate, because the constraints we have under Sacramento's laws that keep passing and throwing at us, if we were to take those 14 story buildings on Olympic, if we were somehow prevent them from being built, stop the builders' remedy projects, the applicant would still be entitled to eight stories. Let's just assume that for a moment because that seems to be the assumption we're at least proceeding under for the moment. So if you were to assume that the lowest building we could put on those parcels would be eight stories. You live, I guess, nearby. Is it your opinion or your desire that we should, as a city, take the gamble, try to fight the 14 story building. And if we don't have, nest of the best arguments, and I don't know the arguments in those buildings, let's just say, because you've heard we've had a lot of constraints in your build-in-the-s remedies laws. There are a lot of things. We can't impose any of our zoning requirements on build-in-theedy projects. So let's assume that these projects are, you know, they're there and they're being proposed and we may not, we have, we may have illegal defense, we may not. Who knows, may it be litigate, so we have courts for it. You live nearby. Would you rather us take the chance and challenge the 14 story building and lose and have a 14 story building built next to your home. Or take a settlement, which other cities have done, Santa Monica did with the number projects, and settle on an eight story project which they could build as a matter right even if we won. So to answer your question directly, I would probably prefer the settlement, but that's not really the question that is before this committee today. I want to kind of zoom out a little bit but I am concerned about the ministerial process. In theory, I am for members of the community and council and the city engaging and negotiating with the developers. I am not standing before you and everybody else saying, stop it all. Don't build anything there. That's not realistic. My point is that I'm just a little scared about this ministerial process. I know that, you know, I would, you know, I welcome comment about what other cities have been doing so far. And I think that, you know, to be very specific, I think that the city should engage one-on-one with the developers to try to come up with other ways to negotiate, get some type of concessions, and it should be a kind of inclusive process as opposed to an exclusive process. So I'm not telling you to go to the mat and fight everything, right? And does that answer the question? Yeah, no, no, no, I mean, and I appreciate that's what I was trying to get, gauge your temperature on that issue. Okay. All right, thank you. Yeah. I hope that helps. We've also had a few comments about, well, what if you build when these large buildings in our neighborhoods and they are under parked because they don't have to put the parking in because of sacramental laws? How does that affect the on-street parking? It takes a question for staff. Didn't we pass recently in ordinance that if someone builds one of these buildings, builds remedy or density bonus projects that is under parked under our codes, the residents of that project, those projects won't be eligible for the permit parking on the Jason streets? Yes, the council did give direction to do that. I'm not sure if that ordinance has come back to the council yet, but it is on its way if it has not been before you yet. Okay. All right. So I just want to make that that that that protection is not in place. It's coming. Yes. Okay. Okay, thank you. Those are my questions. Okay. Thank you, Those are my questions. Okay, thank you, Councillor Meirich. No questions. And we'll go right to Vice Mayor and Isary. Wow, okay. Thank you very much. So I think that sometimes these types of hearings get a little complicated. Are we making an actual decision as to whether we want to go into ministerial or what are we actually deciding today? So the council is not just making a final decision or approving anything today. We are looking for a direction from the council as to whether this type of process is something that you would be interested in staff moving forward with. If the council gives us direction to move forward with it, it would go through the normal process for a zone text amendment which requires a public hearing before the planning commission and then a public hearing back here before the council and the council would have to adopt an ordinance to enact that and there would be public notice provided of those public hearing. So there would still be a process to go through. So this is the first of many steps before any decision is made. It would go to planning commission and would the community have an opportunity to voice their opinion at that point? Yes, the community would have the opportunity to provide input at any time during that process including at the planning commission and city council public hearings. Great. And so what is the range of the builder's remedy projects in height that have been proposed thus far? So they vary quite a bit. The tallest one that we have, I believe, is 20 stories. Or there are several that are 20 stories. That's the tallest that are proposed. And then the shortest. The shortest I believe is eight stories. Eight stories. Okay. So anywhere between eight to 20 stories. Yes. Okay. And is it up to us to decide or to make provisions on building remedy projects? Would council have any say in that? Well the council would take an action to approve the project. If the council took an action to deny the project we would be in violation of state law and would face legal action. Okay. So let's go with that. Let's say that council decided to deny a project. We want to preserve the village field. Obviously, there is a need for housing. I think myself and all of our colleagues agree with that. But let's say we denied these projects. What would be the next step? What would happen? The developers and probably a number of housing advocacy organizations would likely file suit against the city for violating state law. Have any other cities tried to fight builderer's Remedy projects. Yes, cities have challenged different aspects of the Builder's Remedy law and the process and so far the results of those have not been favourable to cities. So have any other cities who have fought back been successful? I am not aware of any, but I'm gonna look at Mr. Wiener for that also. Because the last I asked this question and we checked, no other city has been successful. I guess it would depend on what you meant by successful. And I'm looking at Mr. Snow who's still sitting behind me. But let me clarify my question. If a city has denied Builders Remedy projects and it's gone to court. Oh, I'm not sure that, well, I don't think that. Well, go ahead, you can answer Mr. Snow. Thank you. Yes, Madam Vice Mayor. To my knowledge, there have been a number of challenges from procedural steps. Some of those as the council's familiar can be qualified or considered denials or rejections of a project, even though it's not a kind of on the merits we're denying this project. It's a completeness determination or other such things. There has been litigation about that. And as Mr. Forbes indicated that agencies have not been particularly successful in those challenges. I am not aware of any one that was a formal, we are denying a builder's remedy project that has gone through the full litigation process. I'm not aware of any, and that type of posture. And Vice Mayor Nazarian and Council members, I also want to add beyond the risks of litigation from an applicant or housing advocacy groups themselves. There have also been threats of potential litigation from the state attorney general. And then one other very serious potential consequence is that the state Department of Housing Community Development could potentially take back the certification of our housing element, which would then reopen the door for yet more builders' remedy applications to come in. I'd like you to repeat that again, please, because I want to hear it one more time. Just please specify exactly what you said. So in the event that the State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD believes that cities are not complying with state housing laws. An example might be disapproving projects that are otherwise entitled to approvals. So let's go step by step. So if the city said there was a project before us and the city said for some reason we do not approve this. We said we do not approve this. What would likely happen, and we've already seen this happen even just in some of the initial processing of builders' remedy applications. Likely the applicant or somebody else would file a complaint with HCD. HCD would review the matter and they would make, they would reach whatever conclusion they reached, but one of the tools at their disposal is to desertify a city's housing element. And if a housing element is desertified, you are reopened to more builder's remedy projects. And so the problem just compounds itself. So if this was, if we were to be in that position then we could open the door to even more builders remedy projects being imposed on the city. Potentially. Because I just finished my train of you guys like my train so. So can you let us know about any letters that we've received from HCD thus far regarding our Builders Remedies and projects and what has been posed? Yes, through the course of processing these Builders Remedies applications, we deemed several of remedy applications. We deemed several of the applications, actually, various points we've probably deemed all of the applications incomplete for various reasons. Some of those applications are now incomplete, some remain incomplete. But and this was not even a denial of the project. This was city staff reviewing it saying, hey, you're missing this piece of information or you changed this piece of information about a project. And in response to that, we received a notice of violation from HCD and the notice of violation essentially ordered us to undo our incompleteness determination and threatened that if we didn't, they would potentially refer the matter to the State Attorney General. All right. Let's continue this process, please. So there was some talk about Sequa. If there were, would that be a base? Let's say there were issues that came up with Sequa. Would that be a base to deny a project? No, the city would not be able to deny a project. Even if there were impacts that were identified through the Sequa process, we would not be able to deny a Builders Remedy project on that basis. And I see Mr. Snow coming. Good. I think that's generally correct to the extent that there are impacts identified and there's some feasible mitigation available to address those. There is a, I think, interesting scenario in which a project goes through a full environmental impact report, and if there is a significant, unmitigable impact, an impact that has been identified, and there is no feasible mitigation. Just regardless of what type of project it is before the project could be approved. The decision maker must adopt what's called a statement of overriding considerations, finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the environmental impacts. In that situation, it's this balancing act as to whether the benefits outweigh the environmental impacts and that traditionally has been viewed as a kind of a legislative type of action with a lot of deference from the courts to that balancing between those different factors. How that plays out in a housing development project context and the language, specific language with respect to public health, or published health safety standards. I think there's, it's an interesting area that has not been addressed by the courts at this point. I just want to put some time limits on this. We do have to go into a closed session at five o'clock. I'll wrap it up and just I don't mean to rush you as just that we need to have comments after this. Two quick questions. So there was mention about Shilval Blanc being denied and the city being able to respond to it. And I don't know who needs to respond to this. But can that happen with Builder's Remedy projects? You're talking about a referendum type of process. No, because there is not a legislative action involved in these. These are adjudicative type matters. They are not subject to referendum. And okay, and then thank you. Thank you very much. My last question is around parking with regard to builders remedy projects and what the requirements are because I didn't hear that part very clearly. So just for our friends here I'd like to specify what the current regulations are as it relates to parking. Why are we, why are these projects not putting in sufficient parking for the number of units that they are proposing? So there are multiple state laws now that actually override our local municipal code with regard to how much parking projects are required to provide, but for specifically when we're talking about Builders Remedy projects, the developers are not required to comply with any of our standards, including parking. So specifically for Builders Remedy projects, it's the developers discretion, how much parking they would like to provide or don't want to provide. So then it becomes an economic decision for them as far as whether renting their units or selling their units would require to have parking with them. But there is no parking requirement that they have to comply with. Right. And as one of my colleagues mentioned, Council Member Korme, we do have potential requirements that we are putting in place to support our current residents. Yes, the council has directed us to come back with an ordinance that would say any project that is not meeting the city's municipal code required parking. The residents of that project would not be eligible for our overnight parking program or special permit parking programs. All right, thank you very much. Those are my thoughts. I'm sorry, one more just to add parking wise because this is a hot topic. Even if these projects were not builders remedy projects, there was state legislation again adopted a couple years back AB 2097. If anybody wants to go read it, that largely prohibits us from requiring any parking on any residential or commercial project if it's within certain proximity of transit which in the case of Beverly Hills were in a dense urban area there is Almost no part of the city that is not subject to that. They're very limited areas So even builders remedy or no builders remedy. we don't have the ability to require parking. So really by us potentially passing that ordinance, we're really helping the state of California in their goal of not having people have cars, right? Yes. John, you had something to add? Yeah, I'm theory. So if I understand correctly, if we're trying to impose any of our standards or not issuing permits because some of these projects don't conform to our standards. It's possible that HCD and or the Attorney General will sue us and they will claim that they are enforcing state law because we, according to them, would be ignoring state laws, that correct? Well, the Attorney General would sue us, HCD would decertify our housing out of it. And their reasoning would be because we are according to them ignoring state law. Yes, that's correct. So what happens when the Attorney General, their federal laws, like about voter ID or immigration or whatever. What happens when the feds come here and the attorney general says, I'm not going to enforce federal law? Are there any consequences? Well that would be between the attorney general and the federal government. So if I understand correctly the attorney general while trying to crack down on us for not enforcing what he considers to be state law has vocally said that he's going to ignore federal law. Is that I think that's a rhetorical question. Why don't we why don't we go forward? Well, I mean I think that's what we're faced with and we should be very clear about the double standards that are involved here. Thank you. Point will take it. I had some questions but really it'll just be a rehash of what was asked before so let's go to comments starting with council member Wells. Basically what we want to hit on first is should there be the consideration of a ministerial process and if so, should it apply to builders remedy and density bonus projects. And then I think in terms of the latter part, if there is sufficient movement forward on the ministerial review process, whether or not all objective development standards should be touched upon in that and come back to us. So let's hit the first one, first whether or not we even want to consider a ministerial review process. Starting with, comments? All of them? No. Yeah, well, it's really the first two. If we don't do the first two, then we never get to the last four. Yeah. You can cover them all. OK. Thank you. I mean, from my understanding of this is what we're looking for is a solution for the Builders Remedy projects, which right now we have very little control over and there's a range. It could be from seven stories to 14 stories, 19 stories. And is there something that we as a city can create or offer that will help for us to mitigate that for us as a city that's some sort of a compromise to what we're already seeing happening in the city. So on one hand what we're seeing happening in the city is our our density bonus projects which are eight stories, typically seven to eight stories, we're not seeing them more than that. We have a lot of restrictions around that with regard to parking, what the parking requirements are, what the density is, what things they can ask for as concessions are waver as based to meet the density that they are allowing for based on their affordable housing. So we know that that in in some way its own new standard for the density bonus projects. And then we have this anomaly of these builders remedy projects. And which yes, we could go and try and negotiate each and every one of them individually. But is there a way to make it, what can we and our toolbox use that we can offer that will get us maybe closer to what has become these standards as opposed to having these giant projects and And is there anything there? I think that this is a great question to ask for the builders remedy projects Is there something in our toolbox that works? This hasn't gone to our planning commission So I think that at the minimum, we should consider this and we should take it to the planning commission and have them address this and see if they based on what they're seeing with all the builders remedy projects that they've been grappling with and hearing the public comment and making certain that we are noticing this repeatedly far and wide so that the public knows that this is a discussion happening that we can have education maybe even separate and apart from that about what builders remedy is in our limitations, what the density bonus projects are in that law and what those limitations are and what that impact is for our city and our general plan and zoning so that when people go to the planning commission and hear them grapple with this, they have the context for it and I would encourage people to go and tell people to go and hear that. And as well, if it comes to the council that we have as much public hearing as we can so people understand that because I think at a minimum it's an education for everybody to see where we are at as a city and as a state. So I support that consideration, but only for Builders Remedy, because I think that's the step that we first and foremost need to address. And as we said, it's one option. They're not, by creating a ministerial permit process, it doesn't mean every Builders Remedy project is going down this path. I mean, some may choose it and it may be a better compromise for all of us. Whatever that ends up being. When we talk about what are the development standards that should be applied, I would like to hear from the planning commission but I think we're starting to see what some of those things are. I would say it wouldn't be any more than eight feet, eight stories. But maybe I would ask that they consider the different conditions in the neighborhoods that some of these projects are in and maybe they might have some differentiation in there. So maybe it is eight stories, but there may be conditions where a different location or a set of conditions may change what that is. There can be some differentiation in there. I think that we should include all the things that they have put in as their conditions and the builders in the density bonus projects that they've been approving because I think they've been very conscientious about advocating for the communities about what that should be. Be it permit parking, be it noise levels or setbacks on the roof or considering the sight line from balconies into neighborhoods and backyards. I think all of those things we should consider still to do because they could just, you could have a builder's remedy project and if we don't come to an agreement or they decide that are we find that it's not, it's no longer a legitimate builder builders remedy project if there's some things that are being debated right now. They can go to builders remedy and get those things anyway. So what do we, there has to be a compromise in it because it has to be a reason why someone with a builders remedy application would be willing to not just go to a density bonus. There has to be something that sweetens that pot for them that at the same time Works for us as a city and I think that's worth considering for us as a city because if we can make it work In a way that's better and more efficient for all of us With the less litigation with the less risk of the housing element getting pulled from us and really allowing us to focus on the future and how do we really want to be proactive instead of reactive. If that, if this allows us to be in that position, that's a better position, I think for us as a city and I would encourage as many people as possible to be engaged in this process with the planning commission and if it then comes to council they have something to propose that they be involved in it because it affects all of us and I think it's educational and it's important to have that feedback along the way. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Membracorn. Thank you. So yeah, likes to be blunt. No one up here likes Builders Remedy Projects. And no one in the community likes Builders Remedy Projects. And I think that, you know, from my perspective, what is the best way to either oppose or mitigate or ameliorate the effects of Builders Remedy Projects? That's the goal, right? We don't want to have 19 story buildings built in the city. We don't want to have 19 story buildings built in the city. We don't. We don't want to have 20 story buildings built in the city. Not in our multifamily areas, certainly, that only have now two or three story buildings. So how do we accomplish that goal? Well, there are a number of strategies, obviously. We talked about litigating. Steve Mayer mentioned the fact that years ago, we talked about, well, you can go to court and we'll see you later. Unfortunately, the laws have changed, honest. Sacramento has made it harder and harder for us to oppose projects that we don't like. With respect to Builders' Rowny Projects, we can't even impose our own zoning ordinances, our own zoning standards. They're completely irrelevant for purposes of Builders' Remedy Projects. And we also heard that even if we were to litigate every building's remedy project with every applicant There's always the Possibility if we were to lose we owe costs and attorneys fees, but the bigger risk is you know maybe HCD says You know Vanta sue them and maybe HCD somewhere down a line Says we're gonna pull your housing element certification. We've already heard several comments today criticizing the prior council for not being careful enough to get the housing element certified to avoid build-as-remedy projects. So how do we feel up here saying, well, let's go down a road, a strategy, a strategy which could lead to that building's window opening up again. I think that would be irresponsible for us to do that. So we need to figure out what is the best way, the most realistic way to oppose these projects. And one of the issues, this is one possibility and we're only talking tonight about is this a concept we want to explore. The potential elements of the ministerial ordinance, these are just potential. These are just some, not all, maybe not even the ones we want. It's just, there are examples of things we might include in the ordinance if we decided to go on that road. So if we were to go down this road of ministerial review, now what's the downside? What do we lose by doing this? Well, we've heard that we lose the ability to analyze projects under SQL. But we've also heard that even when you analyze a project under SQL, most of the time, even if you identify environmental impacts, unless they're significant and unmitigated, which is a very high standard, you can't actually block the project because of those impacts. The applicant gets a chance to mitigate them, whatever they need to do to mitigate them you're stuck with. And even beyond that, there are now potential SQL exemptions that the state is creating, Cass created, which may or may not apply to some of these projects. And if they can prove that those exemptions apply, it short circuits the SQL environmental analysis, and there's no defense under SQL. So there's a lot of uncertainty with respect to that. Now, yes, when you also go through the normal process, even a build-in-the-project, besides the build-in-the-sremity, there are these potential conditions that can be imposed on projects in independent of our zoning code. And we've seen those types of conditions applied in other contexts, the density bonus projects that have come to the Planning Commission as Councillor number Wells just said. We've had the Planning Commission impose some of these conditions to ameliorate the effects, the negative effects of the large buildings on the neighborhood. And again, some of those conditions have become sort of standard. They've become prevalent. They started on an individual project or a few individual projects and they've been applied across the board because they seem to apply across the board. And some of those conditions are actually the proposed conditions in this ministerial review process. So assuming that if we did the ministerial process and we did it correctly and that has obviously we want to make sure we do it, then if we did the correct conditions in the ministerial process, we would essentially be duplicating what the planning commission would do on an individual basis so there's not much of a gain again going through the standard process. So given the cost benefit, I see this as a potential benefit to the city. Now we could also negotiate on every single project. Some of those, then negotiations is going to happen in private. Then we would come to the Planning Commission, the Council, and the community certainly have an ability to discuss and weigh in on those settlements. But again, we have very limited ability to block the projects under SEQUA or oppose conditions or under our zoning code, especially the builders' remedy project. So, the bottom line for me is I don't love the ministerial process. I certainly would not apply it to anything other than the dense, the builders' remedy projects because I do think even after everything I said, there is some value to having the community be able to come out and voice their opinions. Even if there's very little we can do about it. And it's frustrating, I know. And believe me, there's value, but it's also frustrating. The community, we've seen it in the planning committee, we've seen it here. People come, they complain, and we say, hey, we can't do anything under state law. It's frustrating for us, there's very little, there's so little for us to be able to defend the projects on. And there are some defenses that we have asserted against some of them, and some of them I think are valid and we will continue to assert them. But, well, some of them we have decided not to continue to assert, I guess, is my point. Under new state law. Again, state law keeps changing on us. So I see this as something that could be useful to get rid of the build-in-the-sremony projects, but I would not agree to a ministerial process that would ever give a developer anything more than they possibly could get under a density bonus project. That is the maximum I would ever agree to. And I think that's what's contemplated here. I just wonder it wouldn't be clear. Because obviously if they didn't have their build is going to be a project they could still proceed with a density bonus project and so we have to deal with it then. So I am supportive of exploring this. I'm not sure I'm there yet with the density bonus projects and so we have to deal with it then. So I am supportive of exploring this. I'm not sure I'm there yet with the details, the devil's always in the details. But I think it could be a useful way to get red of builders' remedy projects. And that I think we can all agree is our overarching goal. So that's right. Thanks. Okay. Once again, I just want to make note of the time because it will push us into starting our formal session late. So with that council member Mirish. So what Craig just said makes a lot of sense. We're here not because we want to be discussing this issue. Someone made the point that ministerial approval means that there will not be public input. Well, the fact is Sacramento doesn't want your public input. Sacramento doesn't care. They don't care about your voice. Sacramento doesn't care about your feelings. Sacramento doesn't care about affordable housing. Sacramento does care about money, money, money. This is what this is about. The ability of special interest groups who are funding Sacramento politicians to make money without having to have the nuisance of residents who are complaining about their ability, without the nuisance of residents who care about their neighborhoods ability without the nuisance of residents who care about their neighborhoods, without the nuisance of residents who care about their quality of life. Sacramento doesn't care about your quality of life and they don't care about your feelings. I feel that Sacramento's laws, housing laws over these past few years, and I've been pointing it out, they're punitive, they're veno, they're corrupt. And the notion that we somehow are going to be able to be proactive, I just don't see that because the laws constantly take away the ability of communities to make their own decisions. This is a developer, corporate driven agenda versus a community driven form of government, which is what I believe in, is that communities should be able to determine how we live and what kind of community we are. I also don't take particularly well to blackmail, extortion, or hypocrisy. And our passing this means basically that we've given into all of that. But as Craig pointed out, this may be the case of doing the least damage. However, if we do so, I'd like for us to have three, at least three requirements. And I agree with the union, I think we should require a local workforce and apprenticeship program as part of it. I think we should require training requirements to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. And I do think we should mandate project labor agreements because PLAs ensure that the job is going to get done in a good way and it's going to ensure a certain quality so that we're not left with junky buildings that may wear down. So I don't know that I'll vote for it, yes or no, because this may be a bridge too far for me personally. Having gone through all of this over the last 10 years and dealing with these people. I certainly am open to exploring it further to mitigate the damage that we will do to our communities. But my message to Sacramento politicians has not changed over the years. And right now it's a pretty simple message. And for those of you who don't speak Yiddish, feel free to look it up. But my message to Sacramento politicians, Gait Kha'Khanoff and Yom. OK, and with that, we'll go to Vice Mayor Nazariah. Sorry about that. I don't know what that means, but I have a feeling I would be in favor of that. So I think that this is our attempt at trying to be as proactive as possible and be a voice for our community. All of us are here because we do represent you. That's why I sit here and I believe that my colleagues are the same. So there's currently 14 builders remedy projects ranging anywhere from 8 to 20 stories. And these projects are driven by state imposed restrictions. And first off, I want to recognize the California is facing a housing crisis and as a city we are obligated to contribute to these solutions and we're committed. However, I'm deeply frustrated by the heavy-handed approach that the state has taken effectively stripping cities like the City of Beverly Hills, our ability to make thoughtful, localized decisions about our city's future. So I think that moving forward with this ministerial permit process, at least will give us a pathway to streamline project approval while also controlling high density and design. I look forward to hearing back from our planning commission so that they could give us some suggestions and study it further and standardize some while we work with our consultants and get some feedback from the commission. And hopefully this will build some balance with the state requirements and are very much local values. And with the due to time, I'm going to leave it at that. Thank you. Okay. Just to be clear, builders remedy projects only or both density bonus and builders remedy. I mean, I think that we need to start looking at our height limits in certain areas that of the city that would lend itself. But let's start with this first. The just the builders remedy. Is your real review process of builders remedy at this point only? Yes. So, but let's start with this first. The just the builders are. The real review process of builders remedy at this point only. Yes. Okay, and I think that's where I am at on this and let me explain why. For most of the reasons my colleagues have stated, there is no one up here who likes builders remedy projects. It was forced upon us, we're stuck with it, and now we've got to move on. This gives a soft landing for those builder remedy projects, for those builders who, by the way, are now confronted with a whole different building scenario than there was before the palisades and the eaten fires. I mean, everything is much different right now. So I think this will give them a soft landing in terms of construction cost, getting a project done if they want to get it done. And if not, I don't see how a builder's remedy project is going to get built, but then they were right back to the density bonus project. So why not at least hone in on the builders remedy projects at this point in time. So I would limit it to the builders remedy projects. In terms of parking, we talked about that already. It is, I believe the intention of council to make sure that if builders do not meet the builders, the parking requirements of the city of Beverly Hills, that they're not gonna be able to have preferential parking on the streets. That may give rise to builders wanting to provide parking because they're gonna be required most likely to indicate to any tenant or purchaser that they're not going to be able to get parking on the street. So I think for all those reasons, it's something that should be explored. And again, I would encourage us to just do it with builders remedy projects and in terms of whatever other objective development and performance standards I would leave that to the planning commission based on what they have seen in the past. So with that I think we have unanimity. Sir, your name was Mr. Letterman? No, I'm sorry. Yes. I just wanted to recommend we have applications available for our planning commission and I would like to invite you to consider applying. Thank you. Okay so with that we will go to our close session for those items on the closed session agenda we will have a roll call first though. We have two roll calls for closed session first one is for a regular closed session council member member Wells. Here. Council member Korman. Here. Council member Mirish. Here. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Here. And Mayor Friedman. Here. And the next is for the parking authority close session. Director Wells. Here. Director Korman. Here. Director Mirish. Here. Vice Chair Nazarian. Here. And Chair Friedman. have any public comments for close session. So now we will go to those items. We will adjourn to those items on our close session agenda. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.