Okay. Good evening. Welcome everybody. This is the City of Beverly Hills City Council regular meeting and important authority meeting. Today is March 4th, 2025 and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. And if I can ask Sandy Pressman, if she would please. meeting. Today is March 4th, 2025, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. And if I can ask Sandy Pressman, if she would please lead us in the the roll call. Yes thank you there are two roll calls for this evening. The first one is for City Council. Council member Wells here. Council member Cormin. Here. Council member Mirish. Here. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Here. And Mayor Friedman. Here. And the next is for the parking authority. Director Wells. Here. Director Cormin. Here. Director Mirish. Friedman here. Okay, so we have some recognitions and a proclamation so if I could have my colleagues here and Chair Friedman. Here. Okay, so we have some recognitions and a proclamation, so if I could have my colleagues please join me at the dayus. Thank you. Okay, so we have a very, very, very special guest here today. We are going to be honoring a former mayor of the City of Beverly Hills. In fact, the second female mayor of the city of Beverly Hills, and it is my great honor to have Donna Elman Garber, we are commemorating her remarkable career as a distinguished public servant to the city of Beverly Hills. Donna, you've left an incredible imprint on our community. As the second woman to serve on the Beverly Hills City Council, it is befitting that we reflect on your accomplishments this March during women's history month. During your tenure, some of your most impactful initiatives included offering senior housing to all Beverly Hills residents and spearheading the in-loop parking program for Roe Deo Drive. Tonight we also honor Donna for a significant milestone, her upcoming 100th birthday. We are recognizing not only your decades of public service, but also your extraordinary wisdom and unwavering commitment to the City of Beverly Hills. Donna, you have been an incredible leader in our city. So we are also presenting you with a very prestigious honor, a key to the city of Beverly Hills. Yes, so this is going to be the key. So I'd like to turn it over to Donna to speak a little more in detail about her 12 year experience on the City Council and the legacy that you have left upon us all. May I give you the microphone? I'll hold onto this. No, I'll hold onto this. Well, actually. Right up close to your mouth. Here I am. Do you want me to move in front of you, please? to take these off and read better. No, that's all right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Friedman, for giving me this wonderful experience and moments of remembrance for years past. Each mayor seems to make contributions to this city that are lasting. And this is uniquely, and that makes this city uniquely theirs. Last year, years, during this term, has put a little bit different. You hosted some 200 North American mayors who were fighting anti-Semitism, the oldest form of racism and hate in the world, and at a purely local level. You, sorry, you strengthened our public safety and integrated our private by integrating our private and public camera technology so that our residents and businesses can integrate their home and business cameras with the police departments in real time, in their real time what said, most significant. the police departments in real time, in their real time what said. Most significantly during the last fire crisis, this mayor kept us informed and communicated with the residents he gave us a clear and accurate assessment of what the conditions were in the city. So we all... residents he gave us a clear and accurate assessment of what the conditions were in the city so we all knew that we were safe. The introduction of the 12 warding sirens throughout the city have also added to the toolbox of methods to keep us safe in case of emergency. Lester, we thank you. You know the strange part is that each mayor leaves behind memories and a little drop, and with each drop comes a flower. And when the flower blooms, it becomes a more beautiful, beautiful city. Beverly Hills didn't just happen. It's the result of everyone who has served and who will serve this community. We thank all of you, those who preceded me, who thought that computers were garbage and garbage out, but they went ahead with them anyway and made it work. And we thank those who come ahead who will make Beverly Hills continue to be the most to sort after City of America. Thank you all. APPLAUSE We're going to keep Bonnie here just for a second. So all of us here on Council now really stand in the footsteps of the pioneers such as Donna Garber-Ellman and the work that she has done over the years. Not only for the city, but also for other charitable organizations. Donna, we are really indebted to you for everything that you have done for the city of Beverly Hills. Where is my key? The key is not... No, the key is... I'm going to put it in here. Oh, you have to put it in a picture. Oh, yeah, I'm going to put it in. Oh, okay. I'm going to hold the key. There you go. Here, oh, yeah. And you have a proclamation here next to you. You can hold that. And we're going to look in the camera over there to Vince. And you want to tip that the other way. You should go under the building. Yeah. Let's look up here. Let's look. Let's look up. So I'm showing my stomach. All right. And then through and then through. Thank you to all of you. You're the guys who are taking it over now. And you do a great job. Well, you're the second nurse. I knew you were that. Oh, yes. We met a long time ago. But anyway, it's a pleasure. Thank you so much, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you for this. It's fun. After all these years, it's been over 50 years now. That's amazing. That's the coast. How's the So grateful for you Sharon, here the second in Sharon is going to be the 10th female mayor. Yeah, there you go. Yeah That's amazing. That's amazing. That's the couch. That's a great, cool, very big room. Sharon, here are the second and Sharon is going to be the tenth female mayor. Yes. Yeah, there you go. Yeah. We've come a long way, baby. Yeah. For a long time, yes. Thank you, thank you, go home. Thank you, somebody, for all of us. Thank you, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Congratulations. There's so some voices who I I don't think. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. Congratulations. There's so some voices too. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Now for our next people who are honoring is kind of a hard act to follow. I realize that. Sorry about that. Okay. So I'd like to acknowledge our first departing city commissioner. The city commissioners do so much for our city in terms of hearing the issues that are really day to day issues that need to be dealt with on an immediate basis and they are really advisers to us on city council. Our first departing commissioner is Barry Bernstein from the Design Review Commission amongst other commissions. Barry, come on up. So Barry, I think that you've been on what two two commissions and we even kept you on overtime on this last one as I recall right Six and a half to seven to seven to half years. There you go We can't we couldn't get rid of them. That's that's a problem. So Barry Let you say a few words please. I want to thank the city council members for allowing me to become part of those commissions and give me the opportunity to help make our city a better looking city and help things out. I really appreciate it. I'd like to be involved in the future if it's up to you guys. Okay, well think about it. Let me give it to my colleagues for a few words, please, Mary. Well, thank you so much, Mary. You've made such a huge contribution. And I know how much you care about the city. And I would love to have you continue to be involved in the city. It would be nothing more than an honor to have you continue to help serve the city. But thank you for all that you've done so far and helping to make the city more beautiful. I agree. I'd also like to add my thanks, Barry. You've been on commissions for a long time, as long as I've been around and been involved in the city. And that's exactly what we love about the city. It's a small community and it has that hometown feeling and we heard it from Mayor Elman Garber and it is something that continues also with our commissioner. So thank you so much for everything you've done and indeed we look forward to your continuing your contribution Barry thanks for all your years of service both to the city and also for rotary you're there every every Monday It's great to see you Where's my lunch And it'll be great to see you continue serving the city in the future. It's been a pleasure to work with you not only in the city but in Rotary as well. You are a great leader and thank you for sharing your expertise and the great wisdom and knowledge that you have and for sharing all of that with our city and for your service, we appreciate it. Thank you. So those of you who do not know, Barry is not a one-trick horse. Barry is involved in the city, he's very involved in rotary, and he's involved in many of the charities that are around the city. He collects a lot of donations from city businesses and that support our city. So Barry, for the fire department, that's absolutely correct. So wonderful to have you around. You're going to walk off with some prizes here. We have a beautiful purple bag which signifies a... Turqu. I'm sorry. I knew that. I knew that. So now my wife's here. So now she knows why I dress with colors that don't matter at all and a beautiful plaque for you to hang up as a commemorative of your service for the design review committee. So we are going to go and take a picture. Thank you very tell him. Oh, sorry. I want to remove this here. Okay, so now, it's getting harder, Sandy, huh? We're getting down the line. I'd like to acknowledge our second departing City Commissioner, Sandra Pressman, also from the Design Review Commission. Sandy, come on. So the Pressman family is integral to our city. Of course, Sandy's husband is our representative to the Metropolitan Waller District and Sandy's been on at least two commissions over years. Also such a great, great, great commitment to the city of Beverly Hills and We're really really appreciative of it and I'd like to have my colleagues say a few words What's my pleasure Sandy? Thank you so much for your work in the city And I just so appreciate your wisdom and your passion and bringing your expertise To the city and really caring about what happens in the city. So thank you for all your work and I don't think at all that you're going anywhere, so I hope not. And I will continue to always use you as a very valued resource for my decisions on city council. So thank you. I'd also like to add my thanks and congratulations I mean the Presman family will be able to help you make decisions on everything from water policy to fine arts and I truly especially as someone who recognizes the value of arts and culture to the cultural life of a city and to the spirit and soul of a city that you have been so involved, not just in Beverly Hills, but in Southern California with contributions to arts and culture and music and all of that. It is so important and continues to be. And having people like you and Barry in the community really make it a special and richer place. So as said I know that you'll continue to be involved and along with Barry and hopefully next time when there's one of these water trips for the MWD you'll join us. Well we go back to when you were the head of the Grandparents Committee at the center. And you had a keen sense of style way back then and your sense of style and aesthetics that you had been valuable for the city. It's going to be slowly missed and hopefully we can continue to get your input on those things as we go forward. But thank you for everything. Well, he took it right out of my mouth because I was going to say your sense of style is always so fantastic and you do everything with such grace and class and we're so grateful for the service that you've provided to our community. I really look forward to working with you in the future. are a confidant and more importantly your dear friend. And we appreciate the service that you've given to our community as a family with Barry as well. So thank you so much for all of that. and more importantly, your dear friend. And we appreciate the service that you've given to our community as a family with Barry as well. So thank you so much for all of that. Before I give it to you to say a few words, I just wanted to say also, you know, just like others in our community, the pressmen are not one trick horses. I've been over at their home for political events, non-political events. They're just great hosts and it's really, really my pleasure to be a part of this community with you. So if you could just say a few words. I will say a few words, it's hard to follow. I do wanna say to all of you, thank you to Donna, Elman Garber, because she started the Fine Art Commission and that was my first commission so I don't want that to go missed during this time. It has been such a pleasure to serve. I hope to serve in the future. I love serving Beverly Hills. I think you are all wonderful. Your addition is great and to Mary good pututs in the future. Thank you all. That's PUTS. Okay, and last but not least, I'd like to acknowledge our third departing city commissioner, Kansas, Lindsey Sequay, I'm gonna get us right, sir, K, rock. Please come up. I knew I was gonna screw that up, I knew I was gonna screw it up, please. So, Candace served on a commission of that, was in its infancy, was formed during my first term as mayor, oh no, as a council member, and I wasn't even mayor, and the charge that the Rent Stabilization Commission had was really to implement some of the regulations that came down when we passed that ordinance. And they didn't absolutely Yomans job in the environment that was very, very challenging. It was really the first time that we had ever gone down that path. And we thank you, thank you so much for what you did. I'm going to have my Councillor Embers say a few words and I'm going to let you say something. Well, first thank you for your service. I watched many of those meetings and I really appreciate that you were serving on that commission. So thank you. I also want to thank you for your service with our school district. And I hope that you continue to participate. There's so much to do and you have so much to offer. And I just want to tell you I appreciate you and your family. So thank you. It's nice to see everybody today. Thank you. So first I want to say thank you for your service on the commission. It was really important because people sometimes don't realize that over 50% of our residents are renters. And to have someone who is an advocate for renters is extremely important. And so very much value, but of course beyond that is your contributions to the community. We talked about arts and culture as well. And you've performed many times in our city and enriched our city. You've given it Bossa Nova music, for example, that we love, and we hope that you will continue being involved in many ways. But also, even though the commission has taken another direction, it is so important to have advocates for the renters. And so hopefully you will continue to communicate with us to speak out and to help advise us on policies that will need to be making as We move forward to protect the protect our renters who are as said they're over 50% of our residents and an extremely valuable part of our community as you and your family are so thank you Candace They high Thank you very much for serving on the rent stabilization commission I mean,, there are commissions a lot of them are fun. That one had a lot of challenges and it inherently had potential conflicts built into it. And you navigated those potential conflicts extraordinarily well. I think the city benefited from your participation on that commission and we're just very glad that you were able to help us out on that one. So thank you. Yes. Thank you. I hope you're doing good. Yes. Candice, it's been such a pleasure to be able to work with you. You've brought so much light and energy to our city. I'm so grateful for your leadership, not only in the city, but also in the schools. And I think that sometimes it's not easy. And you had a tough commission, and you dealt with it with such grace. And we really appreciate that. And also it's not common and often that we see a commission fulfill their mission and and that commission did which is a great task So congratulations and thank you so much and I hope that you continue on and continue to serve the city So we're gonna well, we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna give you a few words to say please Please. Oh, maybe something serious. Thank you so much everybody for having me here. It was such a pleasure serving on this commission. Being a part of this community and serving the community. I've been living here since 1998 really started getting a lot more involved once my son started school here in the district. So it's just been a pleasure. I've been on executive boards at the PTA and with on each of the schools and then with getting more involved with commissions and then my aerial inaugurations and all those fabulous things about Beverly Hills. So it's just my pleasure and it's so nice to see familiar faces and nice faces and we've always had a nice warm feeling with everybody here. So I really, truly appreciate that. Good. I'm going to give this back to you to hold. We're going to take a picture. But then I'm going to ask your family to come up and we'll take a picture with them also. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so a chance to just make a couple comments for former Mayor Donna Elman Garber. So let me start with Council Member Wells. Thank you so much. I just wanted to say what an honor it is to see you here tonight and I want to thank you for paving the way for me as a woman, for me as a council member in Beverly Hills. You really are a hard act to follow in so many ways. And as well, not just as a woman and as a council member and someone who's been so passionate and contributed so much to our city, but also to really show us how to age well. And you make it look easy and I know it's not. So I just really want to say I don't think I can follow that act. But it's certainly something I will aspire to do. But I'm really, really grateful and really impressed. And I just want to acknowledge how impressed I am with you and what you've been able to accomplish. So thank you. Thank you and I'd like to add my congratulations. I see your picture up there. We look at it every time we're here and there you are among Phyllis Seaton and Richard Stone and Chuck Aaron Berg and Johtilla, Mennetti Brown and Ben Stansbury and Ben Norton and Annabelle Hartford. And all the legends of the council, who I remember growing up in the city, I went to school with Jo Tillam's son Jeff. And so I was aware of the council even in those days. And to have you here with us as a pioneer, it's so wonderful for the entire community. It goes to show that we can, in our community, have people who are here for almost an entire lifetime in agent place. And I'm not sure if you're the first mayor to turn 100. I'd be interested to know that, but I certainly hope you're not the last. Thank you so much for everything that you've done. You really, the motto of the high school is, life will live to something along those lines, isn't it? Life will live. And I think that you've embodied that. And really, it's wonderful. I hope on your actual birthday, you'll come back and we can have cake and sing happy birthday for you. Thank you so much. What made you have a party? Yeah, you think you're down, Elmer? Well, Donna, as John said, you are a legend. And you lived up to your legendary reputation today coming here and giving you a really wonderful speech. And it was an honor for me personally to be here and to participate and you're getting the key to the city. You're welcome back anytime. We have a birthday party with cake if you'd like but it was terrific to have you here tonight. I just wanted to let you know that. You truly are a legend Donna and we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us and for you International Women's Day so it truly is an honor to be able to recognize you. You are a pioneer in our city. Right now there's an upward trend of women running for office, but you did that. You were the starting founders of something like that. So we're so grateful for your leadership and the vision that you had and for really paving the way. So we're so grateful for the service. You still have so much elegance and style and we're so grateful for everything that you've brought forth for our city and we're looking forward to more. Thank you. So when I first ran for office, Donna was one of the first people I reached out to, to get some information about what was going on, what would be expected. And Donna has her organizing papers from when she ran for office. And she gave me this pack of information of how to run a campaign. Now Donna mentioned something which she was up here about computers and the dangers they bring. None of the stuff was on computers that Donna had. It was all handwritten notes, some type written notes on a typewriter, but Donna's always one that I have gone to for counsel in terms of what's going on in the city. And certainly when I was when I first ran just to find out the land of the land. So Donna, I'm really indebted to you. As you know, I've been friends with your daughter. Daughters in fact, years and we spend time together and I'll always, always cherish those times. But most important Remember that you are one of the founders of our city and I thank you so so much for that Okay, we will it on the top. Okay, sure. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the board. So I'm going to take that and I'm going to go to the board. And then I'm going to go to the board. And then I'm sorry. So we're almost ready to adjourn the meeting now. We have some business still. Okay. Moving right along. Text B.H. Text messages on any city-related topic. maybe sent to 310-596-4265. City staff will acknowledge. Text messages on any city-related topic. Maybe sent to 310-596-4265. City staff will acknowledge receipt of the text message within one business day, however, resolution of issues may take longer. If you would like to receive updated text alerts from the Beverly Hills Police Department, please text bhpdal alert to 888-777. Text alerts will keep you informed of any police activity within the city. It was now the time for public comment on non-agentized items. And for those of you who are watching, if anyone wants to call in, the number is 310-288-2288. And we will start with public comment from those who have provided slips in chambers. And the first speaker card I have on non-agentized items is Chandler Webber. Welcome, sir. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilmembers. As you said, that is a tough act to follow. My name is Chandler Webber. I am a public information officer with the US Small Business Administration. So I just wanted to shop in really fast, give you a quick update kind of where we're at. And it's worse comes to worse. I leave you with a little bit of information that even if you didn't have anyone directly impacted by the wins and wildfires, maybe you know someone that could benefit from our information. So the name Small Business Administration doesn't win itself well to knowing We actually help homeowners and renters. So that's what I want to start with there. Kind of the quick overview of our services, we can offer homeowners and renters. So that's what I want to start with there. Kind of the quick overview of our services, we can offer homeowners up to 500,000 at a 2.563 interest rate. And these terms can go all the way up to 30 years. And then for renters and also homeowners, we can offer a low interest of a loan that goes up to 100,000 could be used for personal property like your vehicle, closing your back, all the things, you know, live day when necessities. Switching over to the business side, we can offer again up to 30-year terms and the interest rate on our business loans are going to be 4% and can go all the way up to $2 million and that's both for a pet physical loans and we also have economic injuries. So as we move into the summer months when business plans are written, not counting for having a wildfire. Say you lost in tourism dollars and things of that nature as we move in to the summer, just something to keep in mind for your constituents and that's going to be our economic injury disaster loans. Again, can also be up to $2 million and can cover anything from working capital to payroll to just keeping a business up low And that goes for not just Los Angeles County, but all of the contiguous counties around here as well So again, if I leave you with anything, hopefully maybe you know someone that our information can benefit from I'll tell you that right now the deadline for FEMA and ourselves is March 10th So we're really trying trying to get the push on for everyone for physical damage. So if you know anyone that has not applied with us, please tell them March 10th is the dead one to do that. There's not any obligation to take a loan from us, but you least walk that option in. And the first 12 months, there is no interest and there's no payments on that. And you can also turn around and pay it back tomorrow. No, are we pre-payment penalty? Outside of that, for private nonprofits, we have a fixed term of 3.563%. So if any private nonprofits had fundraisers, anything that was organized for January, February, in a March and had to move that down the road, please let them know that there are options available with the small business administration. And I do have a couple fire sheets for you that if I can lead that with you, I'd be happy to. And I also left my biscuits card at the, do you have any questions? Give us a shout. Please do. And if you could just give a phone number that people could, if they're listening and want to get a hold of you. Absolutely. Is it okay if I read my email and phone number? True. Okay, so my email is going to be Chandler, that is CHAN, dl-e-r.weber-web-r-at-s-b-a-dot-gov. And then my cell number is going to be area code 916-866-2898. And again, March 10th is the deadline for individuals and for physical damage to buildings. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here and giving that information. Next speaker card I have is from slide. Hi. This is incredibly intimidating. I am a resident. I live on Spalding right near the high school in Marino. We've been there for almost three years. We're renters. We're in the area because of the schools. We just wanted to bring it to your attention that when we moved in, there was always a problem with parking, but it was usually people that would park on spawning and go to the office buildings during the day, because the parking is expensive there. And we just dealt with it, whatever. But now they've taken away all the parking at the high school, I guess, because of the construction.'s almost unbearable the parking situation on this building because almost every weeknight there is an event at the high school so people are parking and then every weekday during the day there's an event at the high school and every weekday night there's an event at the high school and then during the week days people go and park for the office building. So there is truly never anywhere to park for the residents. And there are some elderly residents. There are people, you know, just to park and bring your groceries from like two blocks away. I mean, I can't tell you how many parking tickets I've gotten because there's just no where to park and you end up parking somewhere when you shouldn't park. And then, you know, disaster strikes, you didn't take it, but what are we supposed to do? So I just wanted to politely say it's a really big problem and I do have a neighbor Alma who I think you guys have all heard from and I just I don't know her that well but she seems to be really involved in this she was sick so she gave me these letters that I handed to you guys that is from from her. And yeah, and the other thing I've noticed is also people, I don't know if anyone thought of this, but like, you know, people don't park right. So it would really help just to even maybe put some like parking spots on the street, so like people wouldn't take like four spots. Anyway, that's it. Okay. Hang on one second. I think our city manager wants to say something. Hi. Good evening. Hi. Hi. So thank you, Alma, wherever you may be. I think she's going to call in. At this moment, yes. She raised this concern. The parking lot is the one that's down by the kind of the swim gym area. Correct. by the tennis courts, by the tennis courts there. So yesterday we do have the city has programs at the high school as well. And so we are in the process of sending out a reminder to all of the pitchers pins and R classes to remind them not to park on those streets they are to park in the, our programs are after hours so they can park in the structures at the school. I'll be talking with Dr. Hastie at the school district about reminding his community about not parking in the neighborhoods and once we've gotten those communications out we will be doing more enforcement in the area. So the residents that have. All it can do is try. Permit parking, yes, can park near their homes. City manager, just a quick question. Isn't there a larger parking, I know they're working on the smaller parking lot next to the swim gym, but isn't there a larger parking lot that is connected to the school? Is that available for people who are visiting the school to park at? So there is a large parking structure that is on the campus. One site is for teachers and the other is for students. Perhaps in the evenings that could be an alternative for now while they're working on that? Maybe. Yes. And the participants in our programs, which are after hours, are supposed to park in those structures. And so if we have folks that are not parking in the right place, we're going to try to get them parking in the right place. Well, FYI, it starts early in the morning. I think basketball's first, and then it's soccer, and then it's football, and then each time. It's just like it's a two-hour limit. So even if they're there for two hours, by the time that's over, next two hours it's just the entire day, the entire night. And nobody, I'm sure you're telling people about nobody seems to know about the other lot, not to mention it's far. So anyway, that's it. Thank you. Okay, thank you guys. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you for hearing me. Next speaker card I have is from David Hunt Stafford. If it's David Hunt Stafford it must be Theatre 40. Good evening. Very nice to see you all. I've not seen you in a while so I wanted to drop by and say hello and thank you all for all you've done for Theatre 40. Things are good at theater 40 we've I've not seen you in a while, so I wanted to drop by and say hello and thank you all for all you've done for theater 40 Things are good at theater 40. We've I'm not here to complain. I got no complaints no grievances to speak about I got no problems not here to ask for help I'm only here to say thanks for the enormous support bear Friedman vice mayor Nazarian John Marish, never wavering advocate for the arts. For support of the theater 40, I thank you all, Craig Korman, compassionate, grateful for your support and Mary Wells from School Board, the City Council. You're very important to us and I thank you very much. And Nancy Hunt Coffee. I love your middle name. And all the individuals who are part of the city who are amazing and incredible people, how can I appreciate them enough? Sarah Scrimshaw, Anna, Yanna, but Graystone, those are fantastic people. Wonderful to work with. Stephanie Harris, Dean of Dana Beeson, have been wonderful supporters of Theater 40, and I thank you for them. And we recently met with Christopher Paulson and Matthew Brown, again, very wonderful, supportive, friendly, helpful individuals. And I thank you for them. And again, I give you many thanks for all you've done and for what you do and for the constant concern and support for theater 40 and very grateful for the excellent people and for the tremendous partnership and even more grateful that it will continue into the future for the benefit of all involved. Thank you. Oh. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for coming. Last speaker card in chambers I have, and if there's anybody who hasn't filled one out would like to speak that would be the time to bring it up, but the last one I have is Steve Mayer. Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members, good evening. My name is Steve Mayer, and the topic I wish to talk about is the City Council Policy Manual Ad hoc Committee. First, I wish to praise both Vice Mayor Nazarian and Council Member Cormin. This is an enormous task they've undertaken, and they're doing a fabulous job. And it's going to mean that when it comes to council, it's going to be far easier than what it had been in the past. Second, I wish this, thank staff in particular Nancy and coffee for the work which she has done to get this to this point. This is a very important document and it's going to be what will be used probably for the next two or three decades. And last, I wish to thank Mayor Friedman because he had the wisdom to see that this should be in a hat odd committee as opposed to going line by line by the Council. Thank you. Keep up the good work. And we'll see you around town also, Steve. Okay, we'll go to public comment on any electronic means. Yes, we have, well not electronic, but we do have Alma or Daz on the phone. Alma, you're on. Hey, you hear me? Yeah, OK. Good evening. On the world mayor of Freightman by smear, Nazarian and city council. I had hoped to be there to see me, but I'm playing a little under the weather. I'm speaking for myself, my mother and other friends and neighbors on the 300 block of south solving. Our current parking restrictions are simply no longer meeting the needs of the residents. We're in competition for parking with the Century City Medical Building, the Century City Rehabilitation Institute, and the various sports leagues which use the high school. I'll do that to change the demographic and its losing battle. 20 plus years ago, when I first moved to South Spalding, there were many young families there were school-aged children. Today due to many factors, we represent both an aging community which require additional parking for caregivers, or a younger demographic, two to three roommates per apartment, with the requisite two to three parking, with the two to three parking cars. On weekends, unless we're willing to risk waiting half an hour or more for parking. We are held virtual hostages in our home. Once we go out, good luck parking again. I've tried reaching out to the school administration, but my calls have been unanswered. I'm given current circumstances. I don't expect to return call anytime soon. There's also no parking enforcement. I have pictures of cars clearly parked in the red who are not getting ticketed or even cars that are parked in front of the fire hydrants. What we need is a parking or traffic study. Given the nature of a multi-family dwelling, we need the city's help in an administrative study reaching out to area residents as there are large apartments and condominiums with restricted entry. I know that we have an agreement with the schools, with the JPA for use of playgrounds, etc. But that should not come to the cost of disrupting the quality of life for residents and, frankly, with our ever declining student body, especially in the high school with 1200 students, parking should be easier and not nearly impossible as it is today. Parking restrictions need to be modified to address the current needs of the community and also to improve the quality of life and safety for residents. On a personal note, I would like to especially thank Mayor Friedman and Vice Mayor Nazarian for making yourself available to my concerns. It really is much appreciated and one of the many reasons why I am so grateful to call Beverly Hills home. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alma. And I hope you heard city manager Nancy Hunt Coffee's comments before, if not, I know where you can find them online. And we will, we can talk about that later. Okay, thank you. So now any other public comment on non-agentized items? I'm sorry Mayor, one other thing. If we could please do perhaps a traffic study in that area, it sounds like it might be worth looking into with all the different congestion that's happening and if people are improperly parking in that area, I think it's going to be very difficult for the residents to maneuver. The traffic and parking study as well. That's what I meant. Yes, we'll take a look at that area and see what else can be done to improve the situation. Thank you. I can close public comment. Okay. So we'll go to the parking authority consent calendar and as usual I will ask Councilmember Wells to do that. Okay I move the adoption of the consent agenda as follows number one consideration by the parking authority of the minutes of the meeting of January 28th 2025. Is my here of second? Second and we could have the roll. your Wells? Yes. Director Cormin? Yes. Director Mirish? Yes. Vice Chair Nazarian? Yes. And Chair Friedman? Yes. Going on to the City Council, consent calendar. Does anybody have any polls on the consent calendar? Having seen none, if I could ask Council Member Cormin to read numbers one through nine and Councilmember Mirish ten through fourteen. We have a correction on this. We're good on this one. I move the adoption of the consent agenda as follows. One, consideration for the City Council of the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2025. Two, consideration by the City Council of the Ministers of the Adjurent Study Session Meeting of January 28, 2025. Three, consideration by the City Council of the Minutes of the Adjurent Regular Meeting of January 28, 2025. paid for Review of Budget Demand's budget demands paid, covering dates February 11, 2025 to February 24, 2025. Five payroll dispersion report, covering dates February 11, 2025 to February 24, 2025. Resolution of the Council of the City of Beverly Hills number six, authorizing the application and participation in the permanent local housing allocation program issued by the Los Angeles County Development Authority. And number seven, acknowledging receipt of a report made by the fire chief of the Beverly Hills Fire Department regarding compliance with the annual inspection of certain occupancies pursuant to sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code. Approval of number 8, request from not today, cancer to host a run of the stars. A 5K run walk on Sunday, October 19, 2025. Number 9, request to open the Beverly Hills Public Library late on Thursday, March 2025 for the Paley Center for Media to host their grand opening event. 10, an agreement with FlameMapper LLC for the creation of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan, CWP, and approval of a corresponding purchase order to FlameMapper LLC in the amount of $143,000 for these services. 11, an agreement with Rust Bassett Corp for Police Department Dispatch Furniture Replacement Project, an approval of a corresponding purchase order, and the not-to-exceed amount of $194,669, and approval of plans and specifications, therefore, with respect to design criteria. 12, amendment number one to the agreement with Star Sports Theatre Arts and Recreationing, DBA Star Education for after school program instruction through the city's community services department, and approval of a change purchase order for Star Sports Theatre Arts and Recreationing, DBA Star Education in the amount of $700,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,400,000 for fiscal year 2024, 2025. 13, amendment number one to the agreement with BBA-CA-INC, DBA, Block by Block, California for safety and hospitality and basseter services. And approval of a change purchase order for BBC, BBB-CA-INC, DBA, Block by Block, California in the amount of $453,999 for $59,999 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,639,248 for fiscal year 2024, 2025, and appropriation from the general fund of $220,722 and an appropriation from the parking enterprise fund of $233,277. 14 second amendment of lease, buy-and-wift Umbro Realty Corp. DBA the agency at 331 Foothill Road, Suite 10150, and broker leasing commission agreement, buy-and-wift CBRE Inc, for leasing of 331 Foothill Road, and an appropriation from the general fund of $153,956 and 72 cents. And I'll second it. And if we could have the role. Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Korman? Yes. Council Member Mirish? Yes. Vice Mayor Nazarian? Yes. is yes and mayor Friedman yes Going on to item number f1 an appeal of these of staffs October 3rd 2024 incomplete application determination If we could ask the clerk what is this the time and place for? Well, thank you mayor this is a time and place set for a public hearing to consider an appeal of staffs October 3, 2024 in complete application determination. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943C. Pertaining to the review of an application for a proposed 15 story residential building at 140 South Camden Drive and a resolution of the Council of the City of Beverly Hills denying an appeal of staff's October 3, 2024 incomplete application determination and upholding the city's incomplete application determination and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Let the record show that the notice of this hearing was published as required by law. The records and files of the community development department and the report of the assistant director of community development, city planner, concerning this matter, will be entered into the record. Now is also the time for council members to enter into the record any communications or other evidence not currently in the record that council members have received before this evening's hearing. Okay, we will start with council member Wells. I have nothing to report. Councillor Member Corman. I had no expartio application with anyone. Nothing. Councillor Member Mears, Vice Mayor Nizarian. Nothing as well. And I have nothing as well. So we will go to a report on this matter from the Assistant Director of Community Development City Planner. I'll carry. Thank you, Mayor Freeman and members of the City Council. So this is an appeal hearing for an incomplete application determination issued by the planning division. As background, the project site is 140 South Camden Drive. This is the site of a Builders Remedy proposal for a 15 story building. That's 194 feet tall, located on a 6,375 square foot multi-family zoned residential lot. There are 27 residential units proposed, 21 of which are condos, and then a six units of lowincome affordable rental units in the proposed structure. There are four levels of subterranean mechanical parking with room for 44 vehicles proposed. Here's a take a look at a rendering of the proposal looking eastbound. So the purpose of today's hearing, our tonight's hearing is an appeal. Petition has been received regarding the planning division's issuance of an incomplete application determination letter. The government code, the Permit Streamlining Act includes a statute or includes a requirement that the public agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, that's the incomplete determination in writing to the governing body of the agency. So the city does have that process included in our municipal code in section one, four, three. It's entitled Appeals of Administrative Decisions to Council. As background, a preliminary application, which is a provision of the Permit Streamlining Act allows a applicant to submit some preliminary information about a project, and that preliminary application vests the project rights under the ordinances, policies, and standards that are in effect at the time of the PA filing. So that PA was filed on March 15th, 2024. And the characteristics of that project were a 15 story project, 175 feet tall, 26 rental units, four subterranean levels, three of which were mechanical parking. So this was filed as a Builders Ramady project under the Housing Accountability Act. And in order to keep the vested rights of this PA for the formal application, the submittal of the formal application is required within 180 days. So on September 3rd, 2024, which is 174 days later, the applicant did submit a formal application, and that's within the required timeline within 180 days. So that formal application had slightly different characteristics, 15 stories, 194 feet tall, seven units and was a mix of condos and rentals, six of which were affordable, and four levels of subterranean parking. So on October 3rd, 2024, the planning division issued an incomplete application determination letter, and that is the subject of this appeal, the issuance of that letter. That letter included a review of the project that included identifying the missing checklist items from the city's applications. So in October 16th, 2024, the appellant filed a timely appeal of the incomplete determination and pursuant to state law, the city is required to make a determination on that appeal within 60 days. However, in November 5th, the city and the applicant agreed to extend this deadline to February 28th. And then on January 14th, that deadline was extended once again to March 31st. It should be noted that on December 31st, the applicant did submit a second formal application with revised information. So Builders Remedy refers to certain findings in the Housing Accountability Act that must be made in order for an agency to disprove a qualifying housing development project and which findings require a certified housing element. So in short, under certain circumstances, this limits the local agency's authority to deny a project that includes affordable housing even if that project is inconsistent with applicable general plan and zoning regulations. So this is an overview of what was included in the appeal petition. The first basis was the project was deemed complete by operation of law on September 30th, 2024. The second basis of the appellance petition is the City must complete an initial environmental study by October 3rd, which I do think is a typo in the repeal petition. I think they meant 30th to comply with CEQA. And there was also additional basis for the appeal that a general plan amendment and zoning amendment cannot be required for builders remedy projects ever let alone during a completeness review and that the project's final development application does not materially deviate from the corresponding PA in any manner recognized by law. So running through these items in a little more detail, the first ground that the project was deemed complete by operation of law on September 30th, the appellant is asserting that the city failed to meet the 30-day deadline, pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, and the city's arguments concerning commencement of 30 days and the time of day have no foundation in any relevant city or state law. So the applicant is asserting that the submittal date is August 30th and is challenging the city's position that the filing date was September 3rd. So this is a timeline. The city's position is that the project was not deemed complete by operation of law on September 30th and running through the timeline on the review of the project. On Friday, August 30th, application materials were emailed and fees paid after city hall business hours. So the fees were paid after the close of business at 5 PM on Friday. So soon as staff came back on Tuesday, the next operating day because it was the Labor Day Monday, see confirmed receipt of the payment and you'll see that in your packet, the internal emails. At 802, the planner on duty identified that the fee had been paid, provided that information to the principal planner, and the project was immediately assigned. So on the assigned planner did send an email to the applicant confirming the receipt, and providing that the application was received on September 3rd and identified the 30-day review period in her email to the applicant. So it was identified in the email that it was September 3rd through October 3rd. Both the applicant's legal representative and architect acknowledged the email and no objections were raised. So on October 3rd, the city issued an incomplete letter, determination letter, as the city said it was going to do, and actually that project planner emailed that letter to the applicant at 458 pm. So before the close of business, a corrected letter was sent at 703 that did add an additional comment. So on Thursday, October 3rd, the applicant's legal counsel then contested the submittal date after, you know, at the end of this time period. So the city's policy is that application submitted, including payment, after city hall business hours are considered submitted the next business day. We have consistently identified that in emails, and actually there is an email note at the bottom of every current planners' email underneath their signature that that an application is not submitted until acknowledged by city staff. So the applicant's second grounds for appeal is the city must complete an environmental study by October 3rd, 2024, to comply with SEQUA. I think what was meant here was October 30th, based on them saying September 30th, as the semiddle date. But the applicant states that the CEQA requires the city to complete an initial study within 30 days from the date that a project is deemed complete. So the appellant further asserts that because the project was deemed complete by operation of law on September 30th, the city must perform its initial study and determine the sequel document that will be required expeditiously. So the city's position is that the initial environmental review has not been triggered because the application remains incomplete. We issued the incomplete letter on October 3rd. We identified the missing checklist items and this included missing architectural details and missing environmental and technical studies and the applicant does not dispute the deficiencies in their appeal. December 31stst, the applicant also submitted a second round of application materials, and that was deemed complete by the city on June 30th, January 30th, 2025. So in short, the environmental review will begin when all required application materials are submitted. their third grounds for appeal, no other additional basis for appeal is that a general plan or zoning amendment can't be required for a builder's remedy project and second that the project's final development application does not materially deviate from the corresponding preliminary application in any manner recognized by law. So the applicant is asserting that we are requiring a general plan in zoning amendment. And the applicant states that the city is without any legal support saying that the final formal application deviates from the preliminary application. So the city's position is that the city doesn't require general plan in zoning applications. There's only a amendment applications for builders remedy projects. We've received varying guidance from the state. There was initially a letter to Compton that said, yeah, you can. Ask for this type application, and then a letter was specifically addressed to Beverly Hills saying you can't. And then state law was changed in January that no one can ask for this. So the, and then the city's other position is that the final, at the formal application, submittal deviated from the preliminary application. As a timeline in June, HCD clarified that general plan amendments are not required for a builder's remedy projects. That was that letter to Beverly Hills. In December of last year, the city notified the applicant of that change. I'll note that we did include that in a subsequent review letter, but we did correct that in an email that we would not require. The general plan or zoning amendment applications. So on January 1st, AB 1893 took effect prohibiting cities from requiring these amendments. And then at your last meeting, the city council confirmed the policy of not requiring this. So as far as the deviation, determination for the PA, the PA was submitted pursuant to permit streamlining. The first formal application introduced a vesting tentative track map. So this application was not included in the PA and so the 188 day deadline expired on September 11th without a conforming formal application so the PA is invalidated. We've noticed this per city requirements. We have not received any public comment. And the staff recommendation is that the hold the public hearing consider the appeal of staff's October 3rd determination regarding the project that won for the South Camden Drive and a doctor resolution denying the appeal and upholding the incomplete application determination. Thank you. Thank you. Before we hear from the applicant appellant, I will call those members of the public in council chambers who need or want to leave early or have any other reason to speak before the applicant appellant and wish to provide early public comment. Not seeing any, we will go to the applicant or applicant's representatives to be heard on this matter. Good evening Honorable Mayor, Council members, Ryan Leedermann once again for Holland and and for the applicant, App. A pellant will shirt camden. Thank you for having me here tonight and I have a brief PowerPoint and I'll try to go along. The Permit Streamlining Act requires local governments to issue an application completeness determination within 30 days. I think everyone here in this room agrees with that law, that if it's not deemed complete within 30, if it's not the city doesn't determine it complete within 30 days, is deemed complete by operation of law. It's a law and there's no dispute. One of the key disputes here though is that we submitted the application on August 30th, 2024. And the city issued an incompleteness determination on October 3rd, 2024. I'm an attorney, so math is maybe not my highest skill, but that's more than 30 days. So the city's incompleteness determination was issued 34 calendar days after the city received the application. Therefore, this project is deemed complete by operation of law by the Permit Stream Money Act. And further, the city's actions constitute a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. Because what the city is maintaining or what staff is maintaining is that this is a denial of this project by divesting the project of the preliminary application, make no mistake, the city staff is advocating for a denial. I won't go over the project details, Mosa gave a fair presentation and here are some renderings of the project. And so I would just like to walk through some of the state law provisions, Housing Accountability Act. A housing development project submitted within a jurisdiction that does not possess a substantially compliant housing element cannot be denied for inconsistency with local development standards unless certain findings can be made. The staff report or the proposed resolution does not include any of those findings required to deny a project under the Housing Accountability Act. That is going to be a violation. That is a violation of the law. Second, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. A Housing Development Project shall be subject only to those ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when the preliminary application was submitted, so long as a subsequent development application is submitted within 180 days. We did do that. Permit Streamlining act, you heard it earlier about the 30 days. So I won't repeat too much. Not later than 30 calendar days. So the statute does not talk about paying fees later on, it says calendar days. It doesn't say business days. It says calendar days. The application and the fees were paid on the same day. Therefore, by operation of law, it is deemed complete because the application was filed on August 30th, 2024, not with standing staff's representation that it was filed on September 3rd. So let me go through the timeline. March 15th, applicants submitted SB 330 preliminary application, no dispute. April 3rd, 2024, HCD certified, the housing element. That means Builder allowed to pay the public public. The public is not allowed to pay public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public public 30 on that date. On that calendar day there is no dispute. There's no factual dispute whatsoever. And the statute says again 30 calendar days from the state to provide a completeness determination which the city did not do. So maybe I could give or we could give a little bit of grace to the city because 30 days would be Sunday 929 930 still no completeness determination. October 3rd the city issued is in completeness determination after hours after 7 p.m. when it issued a superseding letter and after the applicant after I informed the city that the application was deemed complete. So the city's position, or at least staff's position, because you are the decision makers tonight, not staff. The fees were not paid until 5.30 p.m. that day, which was after the city offices closed. And this is a city's position or or the city staff's position, that the applications were deemed submitted on the next business day. That's from city attorney. So let me give you the facts. The permit streamlining access, it's based upon when an application is filed. That was August 30th. The fees were paid August 30th. City admits that the application was filed on August 30th. The application form that the city has does not require payment of fees on the list of submission materials. But of course, the fees were paid. The city's local operating hours are irrelevant for purposes of determining compliance with the Permissory Mining Act. And then 30 days after August 30th, is September 29th, 2024. So there's been a lot of discussion about business hours rules. We're about to city. the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the last year, and the, rather, even though payment was made and received the same business day and application filing because the payment was made outside of quote unquote business hours, that submission is effectively received the next business days. This business hours standard is not an objective standard under the law. It's not codified anywhere. It's not uniformly verifiable, available, or knowable by both an applicant and the city before submission of an application. And that comes from the Housing Crisis Act, section 66, 300 of the government code. And so the Housing Crisis Act prohibits the imposition of design standards that are not objective standards. This is not an objective standard under the law with respect to the business hours, because the Permit Streamlining Act even says calendar days. So, and city staff is disregarding the business hours at its convenience. According to the city, when an applicant submits an application for housing development project after business hours, that submission is effectively received the next business day. But what happens if the city issues a completeness determination after hours? Does that happen the same day? Or does that roll over to the next business day? Not a trick question, because that's exactly what happened here. According to the city, when the applicants submit payment, so not the submission of the application, but submits payment. And we didn't receive an invoice till about 4.30 that day, four hours after we submitted the application. Not even giving us a half hour to pay the fees under the city's own policies. That's ridiculous. And you guys know that. So that day, everyone acknowledges, the application was submitted that day and payment was paid that same day. So city cannot arbitrarily and unreasonably have it both ways with respect to business hours, because that is what happened here. Outside of same day calendar, when it's in the city's favor, according to city staff, that's the application submission, but within the same calendar day, when it's in the city's favor, that's exactly what happened here, and that is arbitrary and it's capricious. The operative in completeness determination, the superseding letter which the city told us to disregard prior correspondence was submitted or was provided by the city at 7.03pm on Thursday, October 3, 2024. After hours, city closes at 5.30 on Thursdays. Even by the city's own purported and un-codified business hours rule, the city submitted its incompleteness determination or letter more than 30 days after application submission. So even if you don't agree with me about submitting on August 3rd, notwithstanding all the facts that show that it was submitted in August 30th, the city's own policies dictate that they sent an incompleteness determination more than 30 days. The Housing Crisis Act prevents the imposition of non-codified subjective standards such as this one that the city is trying to impose here. And which the city breaks or the city staff is attempting to break in which we are appealing when it is in the favor to do so. So there's technical advisory from HED that addresses the 30-day completeness, determination, 30 calendar days. Another technical advisory to the city of Santa Ana, again, 30 days. So under the Housing Accountability Act, which was just strengthened in January once again, disapprove the Housing Development Project includes any instance by which a local agency does any of the following. And I'm not going to read off all the different examples. But the operative one here is when it votes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application, and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlement necessary for the issuance of the ballooning permit. Courts will apply a heightened preponderance of evidence standard. Make no mistake that the draft resolution before you is for denial of this project. It is a denial and that would be a violation of the Housing Accountability Act that was just strengthened in January or when it would affect in January. In addition, another violation is under F1 of 655, 899.5, H6, and that's when a city determines that an application for housing development project is incomplete. That's this situation right here right now is another Housing Accountability Act violation. The local agencies shall bear the burden of proof that the required item is listed on the submittal requirement checklist. So there are a few issues over here. Don't want to belabor it. We've got the 30 days. It's obvious. Even me, an attorney can count 30 days and know that the city's determination was more than 30 days. There's no ambiguity with this. There's none. Another violation is when a city makes a written determination that a preliminary application has expired or the applicant has otherwise lost its festive rights. That is exactly precisely what the city staff is proposing that you adopt tonight and that is another clear violation of the Housing Accountability Act. And the way the city is saying this is that or city staff I should correct because you are the decision makers is that the project included a vesting tentative shock map on the final application or the submitted application and not on the preliminary application. And I'll grant the preliminary application as whether a map is proposed. When we prepared the preliminary application, we didn't know that my client wanted to prepare, wanted a map. We just didn't know. That's it. There's no hide the ball. There's no trying to deceive anyone on it. And yet, city staff is trying to divest of legal rights because of this one issue. And that's a clear violation of the Housing Accountability Act. And other violations, city's business hour rule is not an objective standard. We already talked about that. I'm under J1 in order to deny the project which is at stake here tonight. The city must make findings. There are no findings that are required under the Housing Accountability Act to deny the project as proposed by city staff. It's another violation. So I know the city unfortunately is aware of litigation with the Housing Accountability Act with Housing Element Law, very familiar, unfortunately. I'm very familiar with it as well. The Housing Accountability Act makes attorneys fees and costs of a suit presumptively available to prevailing plaintiffs. Local agency in violation shall be fined $10,000 per dwelling unit. If the city is acting in bad faith, there's a 5x multiplier. And then I want to bring your attention to the and you know to Flint Ridge case. I litigated that case and my team litigated that no longer involved with the appeal but look and you know how to was found to violate the housing accountability act were failed to process a builder's remedy project as required by state. And I remember going in front of that city council making very similar arguments. It's about completeness. We got shout out 5-0 for denial on completeness. So within the past week, February 28th, the city ordered the city to issue a $14 million bond to appeal that determination that the city had lost. So it could be quite dangerous if the city continues to violate the Housing Accountability Act. So, and case law is in support of our position. 30 days means 30 days. So, by operation of law, the application is complete. Thank you and if you have any questions, I may be able to answer them. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone in council chambers who would like to be heard on this matter? I haven't received any speaker slips but now would be the time if there's anyone in chambers. Not seeing any. Is there anyone on the phone or video who wishes to be heard on this matter? We do not have anyone on phone or video and Are there any emails to be read into the record? Yes, we do Go ahead, please The first one is from Jody Horwitz due to my work schedule I will be unable to attend the hearing on March 4th and am submitting my comments here. I am a Beverly Hills resident. I live on the block where the 15th story building is being proposed. I love this beautiful residential neighborhood and it is a residential neighborhood. A 15th story building will seriously impact our quality of life. Any construction of this building and subsequent occupancy will result in greatly increased noise, traffic, parking nightmares and overall congestion. Even the Beverly Wilshire hotel is not that tall. I implore you to consider the needs of the residents who pay rent, taxes, mortgages to live here and not just the desires of the developers. The next comment is from Matthew Gelfand. He is from the Californians for Home Ownership. It appears his comment may be within the three minute reading time, so I'll just read up to three minutes. That's fine, please. To the Mayor and City Council, as you know, Californians for Home Ownership is a 501-C3 organization devoted to using impact litigation to address California's housing crisis. We have sued the city twice already. This letter follows up on our May 2, 2024 letter regarding the proposed development at 140 South Camden Drive. That letter established our standing challenge any denial of the application under subdivision K2 of the Housing Accountability Act, HAA, Government Codes Section 65589.5. Now that the city stands at the precipice of denying the application, we are notifying the city of our intention to initiate litigation against the city under the HAA if it does so. As we explained in our prior letter, this project is subject to the so-called, quote, builders remedy, end quote, under the HAA. Because the project qualifies as a quote, housing development project for very low, low or moderate income households and quote, the city must approve it unless the city can demonstrate the applicability of one of the exceptions and subdivisions D1 through D5 of the HAA. And because the city has not adopted a general plan housing element that substantially complies with state law, it is further prohibited from using subdivision D1 or D5 to reject the project. When a locality rejects a housing development project without complying with the HAA, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure, 109 4.5, government code 65589.5M. The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last decade and an effort to increase compliance. Today the law provides a private right of action to nonprofit organizations like Californians for homeownership. Government code 65589.5K. Okay. This is the locality bears the burden approved in HAA litigation and must pay prevailing challengers attorney's fees. Government code 65589.5. IK1A2. K2. In certain cases, the court will also impose fines at start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. And then he still lays the government codes. Indeed, last year, a court fined the city of Berkeley $2.6 million on this basis and that city was also forced to pay $1.4 million in attorney's fees, arising out of a developer's HAA lawsuit. We have successfully litigated under the HAA in Californians for Home Ownership versus City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court, and you provide the court number. The rest of the letter is in the record already as is the attachment. And the council has received a copy. Okay. With the attachment, 39 pages with the attachment. Okay. Any other written comments? And then the other one is Mr. James Lloyd, Director of Planning and Investigations for California Housing Defense Fund. His comment was already sent to the council. It's too long to read here, but it is part of the official record. Okay, thank you. That concludes public comment. Okay, thank you. That concludes public comment. Okay, thank you. And. There it says now to go to the applicant appellant. Well usually you have public testimony and we had some in the emails tonight. So if the applicant has any rebuttal testimony or any closing comments that's we take that at this point and then there will be questions. Okay, so we'll do that. Does the applicant appellant wish to provide any response and rebuttal and closing remarks? Thank you, Ryan Leederman for the record again. We don't wish to pursue litigation. We want to build housing. But staff's treatment in this situation is just not right. And what it's done is it's inviting lawsuit from advocates who want housing in the city. I think there's a better way of doing this not to necessarily litigate, but we will litigate if we have to. But what happened here is just not right. And so we hope that you'll correct that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone who would like to rebut the applicant's remarks? Not seeing any? We will go to any questions of staff, applicant or members of the public from Council starting with Council Member Wells. Okay. Thank you. thank you. I have a couple questions for staff. First. Hi, Masha. Hi. So with regard to the communication regarding when the city recognizes a submittal for the application and payment, I know that it was on the emails. Can you remind me where that is first seen by an applicant? That communication? Well, the communication that an applicant is, like an application is received when staff acknowledges it, that's at the bottom of every email that's sent by a current planner in the department. Well, the communication that an applicant is like an application is received when staff acknowledges it. That's at the bottom of every email that's sent by a current planner in the department. So before they submit that preliminary application, anytime that any individual, for example, Mr. Leaderment communicates with one of our planners, he would have seen that note at the bottom. Is it anywhere else besides on those emails? The statement is also included on the application page on the city's website. At the top of the page it says that an application is not considered submitted until planning staff acknowledges receipt. And that's the page where people would go to download the application form. And does it also reference the fee? On the application form itself, it says fee schedule or filing fees and provides a link to the fee schedule. So it is inferred that a filing fee is required because it's stated on the forum. Go here to see what the filing fee is. Okay. And then if I remember correctly in your presentation, when the response was sent on, I guess it's October the 3rd, the city's response. Yes. There were two responses. One was at earlier and then there was an amended response at 7-073. Yes, the project planner sent the incomplete determination letter at 458 and a regular city hall hours on Thursday at R530. There was an addition made to that, and that was that subsequent letter that was sent at around seven. If you sent that subsequent letter the following day would it have been materially changing the initial letter that was sent at 458? I mean there was an added comment about the need for historic information. That's what was added to the letter. Okay. With, when we talk about the language around the first preliminary application that submitted and what is required, can you read that language to me with regard to the issue that we're talking about regarding the vesting tentative track map? That I'm sorry, I'm not following that. And this talks, when you submit the preliminary application that you need to include the details, I think that there was specific language around that. Yeah, there's a list of 17 requirements. I think what it is is like the project involved subdivision and that was maybe a material component to the application and they did not include that in their initial Submitted right but the language for the code for I got six five four nine Four one point one the permit that's not permits you know, I mean I'm sorry the Housing accountability act Yes, mr. Mayor members the City Council. I think you're asking for the specific item of the requirements for a preliminary application that references the subdivision map. It is 6.5941.1a. 12 and it states whether any approvals undertergeant map act including but not limited to a parcel map, tentative map or condominium map are being requested. That's the statutory. Okay, so that's pretty explicit. And that was David Snow for the record. Thank you. What's the number again? I'm so sorry. It's 65494. 65941.1A12. Thank you. Let me see. Okay, then I just have a couple questions for the applicant. Thank you. So I have a couple questions for the applicant. Hi, thanks for coming back up. My question on when you submitted the preliminary application, I understand that you submitted it on 830. Is that correct? Right. The actual application, the preliminary application was in springtime. You're correct. The March 15th, I guess. And then when you submitted the application on 8.30 at 12.32 PM and then you provided the fee payment at 5.30 PM on the same day, which is after the business hours and it was a holiday weekend. You have submitted these preliminary applications before to the city for other builders remedy projects. Right. Okay. So if the language is on the application and it's throughout, it's not new information about how the city recognizes the application. So the fee what the planning director said is just not true. The fee is not listed on the application. It's not listed there, it's not part of the application. So it's just not there. It's not not only is it not implied, it's just not there. So it's just that's not part of the application form which has a list of materials. Sure, we have to pay the fee. I mean, and we paid it within a half hour, the same calendar day. But the application form does not actually say that you must pay the fee and under the law. There has to be a list of items in order to be complete. And the fee, shockingly, the city hasn't put that on the actual application. But if I understand correctly, the language is that the application and or the fee, leaving aside whether or not it specifically states fee, which I believe we can verify, that until you receive from the city acknowledgement receipt of that application, they don't deem it as having been officially submitted. That's the language if I'm correct. That does seem quite arbitrary because the facts are we submitted an application a city could play games by not determining or not acknowledging it. The fact of the matter is that application was submitted and I don't recall seeing any language on the actual application itself. I think that's a factual question. It shouldn't be too hard to find out whether that's on there. But the application was submitted and it should not be contingent upon someone recognizing or acknowledging that it was submitted. We know it was submitted because we submitted it. Understood, but the practice of the city has been that language is on the emails. It's repeatedly on the emails. But the application, you don't get an email, you submit the application and then perhaps there's an email response back. And I believe you received an email response from the city on the fifth, acknowledging receipt as well as stating that the start date would be, to be considered, would be the September 3rd start date, not August 30th. Sure, and the city has raised that as an argument, but there was no waiver of our 30 days. I have a lot of battles in my life. I'm not going to contest every single statement that someone makes. Life is too short. This, we know the law on this, that there's 30 days. I don't think that the city was arguing that it wasn't 30 days. I think that from looking at the email, they're stating that it's 30 days in the start day was September 3rd. So if you disagreed with that and it was pretty clear in the email that the city sent, and I don't think the city was trying to play games, I think they were trying to be very clear because I do think that we are approaching these in good faith. If you saw that and you had a different opinion that it should have started on August 30th and the city referenced that it's on our communication and this is the date and this is when you should be expecting to get a response and you acknowledged receipt of that. Why wouldn't you have been said, well, I actually disagree with that time frame? Because I have no administrative remedy, I cannot do anything. There's no decision to appeal. There's nothing for me to appeal or dispute that until the 30 days happen. And that's what I did. So there's just people say stupid things all the time. I can't appeal that I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just saying, I'm just have been wanting to work together, not wanting to litigate, that that would be the approach to make that clear just as starting place to start off on a good foot to make sure that everybody was clear and on the same page. It could have been something but it's somewhat immaterial to the fact that it was actually submitted on the 30th. So I understand we want to work with the city. We really do. We have a number of projects. But you also have to remember that the city's incomplete letter said that a general plan of amendments required when it wasn't required. The city also said you're divested of all laws because you've asked for different incentives and waivers. So I have to pick my battles with the city. And I wanted to see what the city would say and when they would say it. And so I couldn't fight this battle. And I'm not gonna get in an argument with the city two days after submitting an application. I was giving the city the benefit of the doubt that maybe they would do or city staff would do the right thing and determine that as in 30 days but I can't always help the city do the right thing. I mean I think the city was clear in the email that you could expect to get a response by the October 3rd date so I don't think you needed to wait and see since they made it pretty clear and you acknowledged receipt of it. I'm just saying, that seems a little murky to me given that you've applied before the information on everything and to be off to a good start if there was a miscommunication or a difference of interpretation of when the actual start date was, it would have been appropriate to at least, instead of acknowledging receipt, say that you didn't agree and you expected it earlier. But that's not what we're here to talk about. I'm just asking the question about how that actually transpired and trying to understand how we got here today. My other question is after hearing the description of the planning, the preliminary application and what was required. And you said mentioned earlier that you were, you know, it was not in your preliminary application about putting in the track map. And then later you found out about that. I guess my question would be, it was pretty explicit in the reading that we just read. And so I'm curious how you interpret that differently. Sure, sure, it's a great question. So under the preliminary application laws, 65941. There are two bases, it's in C and D to divest or to not allow a project that goes forward after a preliminary application. And the sole, the only two reasons why, there are three reasons. One, you don't submit the preliminary, the full application within 180 days. So we can all take that off the table. Another change is if there are a deviation of 20% or more dwelling units, we were within the 20%. And then the third reason, the third deviation that would stop the vesting from a preliminary application to a full application if the area of construction deviates by more than 20%. So 659, 4 1.1, only gives these three reasons. So you can change the project substantially. And I'm not saying that someone should fraudulently submit a preliminary application for a different project, but the law only provides very narrow reasons or why a project could lose its besting. The city's asserted reason is not one of those codified reasons to divest. It's not in the statute, it's also not in the Housing Accountability Act. The new provisions that were recently added specifically say if it's not C&D those three reasons that's a denial of the project and that's a situation we're dealing with over here. The city's assertion that because the developer hey, condos would be a really good idea here after the preliminary application submission, that's not a basis by which to divest a project of its vested rights. With regard to completing the application and completing the checklist items, do you believe that the application is complete? That's not what the appeal is about today. Under the law, the application is deemed complete because it was submitted. And 30 days later, there was no determination that it was complete or incomplete. So therefore under the law it's deemed complete. Separate from that argument, do you believe that the application is complete today? Yes, because the law says that it's deemed complete. Whether you're asking are there materials? Hey, we'll work with the city and the plan is to work with the city on the application. But what the law says now is because it's deemed complete, it goes to an inconsistency phase. And almost all these issues are inconsistency sort of items that we can work through. Well, that's up for question in terms of whether or not that's true about August 30th or September 3rd. All right, thank you for your time. I have a question for staff. Well Mr. Alkair is up there, perhaps you could reference the website, which describes the application, whether the fee is on there, etc. First off, I mean, I have the application, the applications that were submitted on this 140 South Camden application. I'm looking at the first page of the tentative map application. It says required information for submission of tentative maps. Item number says fee. So, and then if you go to the multi-family application on the first page, it says filing fee and it provides you a link directly to our fee schedule. Michael's out there trying to find on the sorry yes so Michael's out with you're trying to find on the. Sorry, yes. So if we HTV wants to bring up the laptop. So this is the page on our the application filing page on our website. And there's a paragraph at the top. It says note planning applications and project resubmittles are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittles are not considered received by the city until such submittal is acknowledged by a planning division staff member. If you have questions, blah, blah, blah. And then I also wanted to bring up the application form that Mosa was referencing. So this is the first page of our application form and it says here filing fee, see current planning division fee schedule at Beverly Hills dot work blah, blah. You click on that and it takes you to the fee schedule. It's very common not to have the actual amount of the fee listed on the application form because we use a common application form for many different types of projects and types of applications. So because the price is differed depending on what you're applying for and what type of project it is There is a separate fee schedule that contains that information rather than listing all of those numbers here in the application form So there there is a filing fee referenced on the cover page with a link to where those amounts can be found Michael, can you just scroll up to the top of that page? I see the file, let me just look at that. And as well, the city followed up with the email acknowledging the receipt and what the start date was along these same lines and reiterated that exact language, I believe, in the email. And then it was received and acknowledged by the applicant. Yes, it was. If we can get VHTV to get screenshots of this page and the other page so we can make that a part of the record. And for the record, I will clarify that the forum I'm showing on the screen right now is the current version of our forum, which has been slightly modified from what was filed for this project. However, that particular statement is identical to what is on the forum that was filed for this project. I just don't have the ability to bring that particular forum up here now. Right. If we have that ability, that should probably be made a part of the record. And then I would just read the letter from Thursday, September 5th at 1.28 p.m. on 2024 from Judy Gutierrez. Dear Mr. Leader, my name is Judy Gutierrez. I will be serving as the project planner for the proposed project located at 140 South Camden Drive. Officially received by the city on Tuesday, September 3, 2024. Following payment after close of business on Friday, August 30, 2024, the 30-day review period will end on Thursday, October 3, 2024. And you can expect to receive comments on that date. Should you have any questions in the meantime, please feel free email me. And then it also again on that email includes that language. And there's a response saying thank you, I believe, but I'm not sure where that. Thanks for your email. We look forward to working with you on this exciting project. And that was a response following on Thursday September 5th at 146 p.m. So I just wanted to read that for the record. Any other questions? The last question, I just wanted to know if there was any response that you had with regard to the language regarding the change in the track map from the preliminary application to the formal application. I think Mr. Schnoll was going to answer that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. if I understand the question, it is related to deviations that the change in the application from the preliminary application to the formal application and the inclusion of the subdivision map. I think Mr. Leaderman gave arguments that under the Statute Housing Accountability Act references to paragraphs in the preliminary application statute. It refers to paragraphs C and D. Those have actually been re-lettered by subsequent legislation. So we're actually now, it's D and E. But in each of those, not only is it a discussion about the deviation of 20% or more or submittal of an application within 100, 80 days, each of those begin, well D begins with formally C, begins with after submittal of all of the information required in subdivision A. And so the argument is that this is information that was not provided. They said no subdivision was contemplated. So when the formal application comes in, it's a project that is different than the preliminary application because that preliminary application did not include all of the information as related to the formal application that they submitted. And that's the same language that you see in with respect to the 180 day filing requirement within 180 calendar days after submitting a preliminary application with all of the information required by sub-division A. Again, sub-division A, as you asked earlier, a 12 requires the information regarding subdivision. All right. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying. Did you want to respond? Yes, sir. If I may, thank you. Councillor Member Wells. So we have an email from the city from Minji saying that she received the planning application. And there was no discussion of fee in here. So Minji says once payment, well once payment is posted, we will route your application to review Well, I think that would be mentioning the fee. So she said at 1.30 at 1.30. Hi, Luca, thank you for the application items. The city acknowledged it at 1.30 PM, and then she'll look through these things to verify. So it was received at 1 went through and it was acknowledged. But the rest of that sentence, if you read the rest of it, I think what she was referencing, if I just heard what you said, is she received that, she was then going to provide you what the fee would be, and that once that's provided, then that would be processed. But the law says an application, and I'm looking at the application form that was actually submitted, and not something that's the current form, and it says the application table of contents. Section 1, property information, Section 2, owner authorization, Section 3, project entitlement request, Section 4, submit all requirements in checklist. The fees are not part of Section 1, 2, 3, or 4. Yes, it does say the filing fees see the schedule, but it doesn't make it part of the table of contents for the fee. I hear what you're saying, but thank you. And I don't have any more questions, thank you. Questions, Councillor McCormick. Mr. Leader, don't come on back. Don't sit down so quickly. So obviously there's been a lot of discussion tonight about when response, when your formal application was submitted and when the city's response was provided. So just so we're clear, you believe the city's response was due on September 30th and the city believed its response was due on October 30th. In fact, it got you a response on October 30th. Is that correct? After hours on October 30th, yes. Well, actually, the initial response was at 4.58 p.m. and our hours ended 5.30 p.m. So the initial response was not after hours on the 30th on the 3rd was it that is correct Okay, that's all I'm asking that's all I'm asking. Thank you So so my question is this Did your client suffer any identifiable harm as Result of the sustencible 3day delay, independent of the question of completeness or incompleteness? The harm is that I'm here tonight having to argue, though. So yeah, there it is. That has to do with whether it's been deemed complete or incomplete. So for example, let's assume for a minute that the city's right, and it could have responded on October 3rd. Let's assume just for sake of argument that it had 45 days to response, it was well within the time. What I'm asking is, did your clients suffer any identifiable harm financially otherwise? But because the city responded on October 3rd as opposed to September 30th. I don't know my clients's financial, so I don't know what his harm is or was caused by this. Other than the fact that we're trying to comply with the law and the law says 30 days. So at this point, you can't point in identifiable harm as a result of the three days. Putting aside the complete, the complete, the complete, and this a question. I can't put that aside because that is the crux of why we're here because the law says 30 days. And so there is great harm. There's a key difference between being deemed complete and an inconsistency with the law. And that provides incentives to produce housing to further this along. Again, that is mixing apples and oranges. I'm not asking about whether you either client is suffered, identifier follow harm is a result of the incompleteness or completeness. I'm saying the three days, just the three days, was there any financial harm to your client independent of the completeness determination? I don't know. I haven't asked him. Okay. Now, in the October 3rd letter, the City identified a number of factual issues that it said took issue as far as being incomplete in the application. Correct? Yes. All right. And am I correct that you're not challenging the actresses, those factually determinations tonight, you're simply challenging the timeliness of the city's response We were Challenging the incompleteness determination the timeliness that was the key factor But when we saw the draft resolution Indicating that this is a denial of the project that really changed everything. If the cities response was timely as the city contends, would you acknowledge the application is incomplete or was incomplete in October 3rd due to the factual incomplete aspects described in the Dr. Bothered letter. So assuming that that is not an issue, the city identified issues with the application that we're working through. And many of those issues have gone away. And we have been working in good faith to resolve those issues. You're saying, you did actually make some corrections, correct? It is a result of that. Yeah, we're responding. The October 3rd letter. Yes, correct. Okay, just want to be clear. Okay, so there's been a lot of discussion tonight about government codes, 65, 9, 4, 1.1 and its requirements. Now under under section, under that part of the Housing Crisis Act, applicants are required to provide 17 pieces of information about their project in a polymer application. Correct? I believe it's 17. Yes. It's under A and there's 17 factors. All right. Now those are mandatory disclosures. Correct? Yes. Well if they're on the city's application, which they were on. Okay, well that's an interesting question because if it's if they're required by law and they're not on the checklist, you're saying that you don't have to provide them? A city can supplement or change the checklist. So I believe those 17 are minimums, but a city does have the ability to add or to supplement on their preliminary application. So my recollection is that the city's preliminary application pretty much matches the state requirements for my recollection. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. So 65, 941.1A states, an applicant shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information about the proposed project of the city. And as Mr. Snow pointed out earlier, the safe harbor that you were referring to earlier about the 20% deviation up and down in unit size or unit number or square footage also begins after the submittal of all of the information required by subdivision A. It's a predicate prerequisite. So my question to you is you've heard they obviously stressed the word all in A and D. What do you think the legislature meant by the word all? So the city did have an opportunity to consider the preliminary application incomplete. But at no point has the city ever said that the preliminary application was incomplete, not once, never. Well actually I'm not sure that's true. Okay. Because what they said was the preliminary application omitted information that was in the subsequent development application, correct? Yes, but they never said it was incomplete. Well, okay, so you're, but, okay, you want to use those semantics as fine. But they did, they did, they did, and they have stated that they do not match up. Well, at the time, the preliminary application was submitted. It was accurate. And it's a preliminary application. It's not locked down in stone. You change applications. That's anyone who's gone through the development process knows things change, move things around, you change things around, you realize, hey, this is going to make it a better project. So you change things and that's why it's a preliminary application. Would you say is better could be just different? So let me ask you this. So government code section 65941.1a12, which is one I think we're all concerned about. Specifically requires a preliminary application state whether, quote, whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including but not limited to a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map are being requested. That's the language, correct? I believe so. I don't have any friends. Sorry, you don't have any friends of you, but trust me, it's the correct language. So is it fair to say that your client's preliminary application did not request any approvals under the subdivision map act? That is correct. Okay. Or did not say a tentative map act, a tentative map was being requested. Yeah, that's correct. Or that a parsing map was being requested. Yeah. Or the condominium map was requested. Yeah. Okay. dispute about that. Good. All right. So, in fact, as you pointed out, the city's preliminary application checklist matches the statutory requirements and did, in fact, ask for that information. Yes. The city's form from my recollection does request the information about track maps and condo or parcel maps. You remember what your client's response to that question was? Back when we submitted I don't recall. So I'll quote you what's on the Plume application. No approvals under the subdivision map act requested. Does that sound familiar? Yeah. Is there a functional difference between that answer and simply not asking at all, not answering at all? Again, this is a preliminary application in things. It can change. You can have a deviation of up to 20%. And the reasons to divest don't include that reason. It doesn't say, whereas it specifies certain different factors which can divest a project. But whether or not a project in this iterative process to size a map or not have a map, that's not one of the bases by which the law says an application can be divested. Well, okay, that's your position, but I'm just saying factually speaking. You know, the application, the checklist said, asked, is you are you asking for something under subdivision map act? And you said no, right? Right. And it's just like how we didn't list every single density bonus incentive or waiver. We just didn't know. And the city conceded that, hey, okay. Well, this. This is not change. This is you didn't provide the information requested. Correct? It asked you, is it you? Are you listening? Are you requesting approvals and you said no? The application also asks about incentives and waivers and we change them. I'm not talking about changing. I'm talking about yes or no. It asked you for something and you didn't give it to us, did you? At that time, that was an accurate information. Okay. But at that time, you did not give it to us, right? We gave you what was accurate at that time. But you did not provide the information. You did not provide the information that you were seeking approvals under a tent or a tent about. that time and things change and it's like okay, it's not the client and he wanted to do condoms. And that's the city's whole point, the project changed. It's exactly right. Okay. So you also talk about the fact that there are no, there's the city's whole point the project changed it's exactly right Okay, so you also talk about the fact that there are no there's the fees the filing fees not requested on the preliminary application checklist The actual application not the preliminary application Okay, okay the application fine But you knew that fees will be quiet, right? Yeah, we paid them within a half hour being invoiced on the same day that we submitted the application. Fees are always required, right? Yeah, and we submitted it that within a half hour of an invoice being generated, the same day. Did the application checklist say that you shouldn't commit fraud on the application checklist? Are you implying that we fraudulently submitted any of these questions? It's a straight question. Did it say you shouldn't commit fraud on the application checklist. Are you implying that we fraudulently submit an application? No, no, I'm asking. It's a straight question. Did it say you shouldn't commit fraud in filing your application? I don't believe it. It said that, but there might be some sort of certification that's required in a signature. I don't recall every... But you wouldn't have assumed that you could do that, simply because it wasn't on the No, but there's usually with the signature you're usually attesting to the truth. Okay, so when are things that are so commonly known and subject to common sense, when do they have to be on an application checklist as opposed to, you know, that's what you got to do. Well, the law says that an application has to list everything that's required. But then you're saying you didn't have to pay a fee because it wasn't on the checklist. Well there is a statute. So but that's not for the purpose of determining whether it's complete. No, no, no. So there's a distinction. We may still have to pay a fee but it's not listed on the application for purposes of completeness. So but you knew you had to pay the fee in order for for the application to be filed? We knew that we had to pay a fee, but whether that goes to the issue of application completeness is a different story. So you're saying, basically, because it wasn't on the checklist, you could have filed the application, never submitted the fee, and we would have been obligated to file to process it. You would have determined it to be incomplete. Okay, well, I, and in a sense, that's what we did until you, until you, you, you paid the fee, right? Yeah, that half hour that the city waited for the fee. We paid that and we have the receipt to show that it was paid the same day. After close to business. Well, I mean, you can understand the trickery that can happen if after you wait four hours and then 20 minutes or a half hour before closing an invoice is generated. This was $40,000.00. It's not like someone has $41,000 just lying around and they were able to scrounge up $41,000 and a half hour. That's quite a testament and showing that we did not, my client did not waste its time that they were intent on filing it that day. And then I haven't looked at the 180 days going back to when we originally filed our preliminary application. I'm sure there would have been an argument that we would have been divested if it would have flipped to Tuesday because the fee wasn't paid till Tuesday. I mean, that's kind of ridiculous. You want to talk about trickery? The city was open with you that as far as the city was concerned, the date of the response date was October 3rd, you saw that and you didn't say anything. As Cameras were, well, pointed out earlier. I didn't say anything. You're're right. I didn't say anything but there was no waiver of any arguments over here because the law says 30 days from when an application submitted Okay, I understand not arguing waiver. I'm just pointing it out So let me ask you a question the other thing is we're talking about 65941.1 a in the requirements and you say actually the project can change and as long as you're within the safe harbors of it's now D but it was c you can make changes like adding a request for a you know a relief under the subdivision map act. So you know a a one required to describe the parcel are you saying that you could actually file put in an application and change the parcel, change the property that applies to? That would be fine. Those aren't the facts that we have here, so I don't want to speculate about that. So we're in 65, 941.1A, does it distinguish between the requirements in A1, A2, A1212 and the other ones. I mean, where is the deceiving A1 and A12 in the statute? Where is the A1 can't be changed, but A12 can. Where's the authority for that? Well, you have three factors that can be changed under the law. So I don't want to speculate about, let's say, you change ownership. So what? You change ownership. So D, you're just said that if you, as long as you're in the safe harbor, you don't change the number of units or the square footage up and down 20% under D, you can make changes. You can ask for a relief under the subdivision map. You can change your mind. I'm saying, well, okay, so by that logic, you could change the property under A1 because there's no difference in the code between A1 and A12 as far as the requirements. They're all part of the 17 requirements that A says all of them have to be satisfied. I think you're having a factual question then, if you're transferring it to a different property, whether you've actually filed a preliminary application on that property. And we're in the statute does the distinguish between the requirement of A1 and A12? I don't know offhand. Okay. I mean, if you want, we can have a study session to go through 6.5.941.1 Okay, thank you those are my questions. I appreciate it Okay councilmember Mirish questions Yes, we Yes. I believe Mr. Snow would want to help to address an issue or two. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Councillor Member, Corman asked a couple of questions. I'm not sure this is particularly relevant necessarily, but I just wanted to clarify. You asked questions about the checklist form, the 17 items. Mr. Leedon suggested there was some flexibility, some latitude on that. The statute, 65941.1. I'm A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A. A otherwise that the city has to review preliminary applications and deem them complete or not. There's a provision in the statute as well. It's currently under E3 and it says this section shall not require an affirmative determination by a city, county, city or city and county regarding the completeness of a preliminary application or development application for purposes of compliance with the section So there isn't any obligation under the statute for a completeness determination for preliminary applications like there are for others I just thought I clarified Thank you Okay, thank you. Councillor mirrors So it says on online that An application shall be deemed to have been submitted once a staff member responds is that correct Once the staff member acknowledges received the application. Yes, but is there a time period? You know, I understand if something comes in after office hours, it would be the next business day. But do we have a policy or is it listed there that when someone submits something, assuming it is received, that there's a certain period of time in which the acknowledgement will take place. We don't have anything in writing but it would generally be the next business day. Okay and in this case it was the next business day. It was submitted after hours on September 30th and because of the holiday it was deemed to have been received October 3rd, correct? Correct. So, Mr. Leaderman's argument is that, okay, even if you trigger the 30 days then, from which we would need to respond, and if we didn't, then it would be deemed complete by virtue of non-response. By the way, it's very interesting to note the state. The state gives cities 30 days to respond. Developers have 180 days. Very expensive to run a city. I'm not sure that the state appreciates that, but. And we're doing a lot of things, but nonetheless, the argument here is that our response, even if you accept that it was October 3rd wasn't timely, because we responded after hours on, what was it November 3rd or, no sorry, October 3rd from September 3rd to October 3rd. And they're suggesting it's more than 30 days because we responded after hours. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, that's what the applicant is asserting that we're not following the same rule about business hours of operation, but we did respond actually prior to that at 4.50. We did, and then we, okay okay. Now he mentions that that's not a, I was a little confused. You know, design standards have to be objective. How is a deadline by which someone submits a payment or an email or whatever? How is that a design standard? Are we thought design standards referred to actual architectural standards, if you will? Yes, that is our understanding of it as well. The objective standards as they are used in the context of state housing law are development standards applicable to the development of the project. Safety standards or, not policy standards. Correct. Not process matters and business hours and payments and things like that. Those would not be considered objective standards under the law in our view. Let me ask you a city attorney. I mean, it could, could something like when something is deemed timely or not timely or business hours, how could that possibly be interpreted as a design standard? Now I don't think the reference to design standards is relevant to the question that is before the councillors is on the table this evening, which is the process standards that are in place. It's not relevant to it. Another question is this project just, again, may not be directly applicable to the appeal, is this project committed to be using either union labor or to have a project labor agreement. There's no prevailing wage requirement for a builder's remedy project. There is no prevailing, so they could use what? Anybody. My understanding that there isn't for this particular type of. Does the city have the ability to, I mean again, I don't know if it's considered objective or not, but for all projects, all builders or remedy projects or other projects require union labor or project labor agreements. I know that once something has been submitted, that may not be possible or whatever because it's under those rules. But let's say we felt that we're going to have higher quality projects because it's using union Labor. It will last longer. It will also be fair to the employees. Do we have the ability in general to have that as a requirement? I can say, I cannot say whether we could have that as a requirement, but we can certainly get back to you on that. I mean, I get it. It's not maybe applicable for this project if it were timely, but going forward, again, going forward, hopefully there won't be builders remedy because we'll be in compliance, but nonetheless. Dave, did you have something you wanted to say? Mr. Mayor and Council Member Mirish. I think one limit, one absolute limitation is adopting an ordinance that would apply only to and set a specific rule that's different than other applications for builders' armory applications. And one of the changes in legislation this year that certainly would not be allowed. So I want you to do it. We'll put you to do it for projects of a certain scope and size and scale and. That square footage and height and that sort of thing because obviously if you're building a two story building it's a little bit different than building a 15 story building in terms of construction in terms of expertise in terms of engineering and so on. And again I think we'd want to research and get back to to you on the larger question, but the distinguishing just for things to apply to builders remedies, projects would be problematic under the process. I wouldn't suggest builders remedy. I'd suggest to any project of a certain size scope and especially where they could benefit from having a project labor agreement. You know, not when Mrs. Smith or Mrs. Goldstein wants to add a balcony or something. Thank you. I'd like for us to look into that just going forward. Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Nuzerian. Yes. First of all, I'd like to thank my colleagues for being so thorough. And also thank you to staff and thank you for your presentation. I don't have too many questions because a lot of them have already been addressed. But I do have one question. If someone were to make a submittal and in similar situations and they did not submit the payments would you still abide by the same course of action? Yes, and I think we make that quite clear because we include that statement. So this project is not being singled out for any specific reason? There's even the same treatment as any application. We require that. We need some materials and we require the fee. And what are our business hours? They are 730 to 530 Monday through Thursday, and then 8 to 5 on Fridays. And that's posted on the building. That's multiple locations on our website. And just for clarity, if you could, I understand that a payment was made after hours. Why was there a something sent to the applicant after at 7 p.m.? From the, from people doing work at City Hall, I mean, you know, the City Hall is open for the hours that it's open to the public. Sometimes staff does work late and to work on assignments. So the expectation that they're available to just members of the public at that point, I mean they are working on a specific assignment. But in this case, I mean the information was sent prior to the close of business. And so a sequel, there's also talk about a sequel being completed. Yes, when this is deemed complete, we need to make a determination on theA path, but we still consider this incomplete. When it gets to complete, we will do that within 30 days. Because it was not complete, the CEQA was not complete. Yes. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you. Thank you. I'm still in the manufacturer. I can ask you a couple questions. So at the filing of the preliminary application, no subdivision was contemplated. Is that correct? Correct. So at some point in time, there was a change and a subdivision was contemplated. Correct. And you're saying that was a change and it didn't need to be identified in the preliminary application. Well, the preliminary application was already submitted. So it's just like, okay, we're going to change some balconies. We're going to change the floor plans. It was one of those things that the developer said we would like to do condos here. So that came from me. We're going to change it from apartments to condominiums. Yeah. And I think your comment was anyone that has filed a preliminary application knows there can be changes. Yes. Yes. And does anyone who files a preliminary application and then a final application know that there are going to be fees required when that application is finalized? Sure. We're not disputing about the fees. And I just want to bring your attention actually to what's on your screen right now. And it says planning applications are currently accepted by email but they're not considered received by the city until they're acknowledged. It was acknowledged at 1.30 p.m. on that day when we received an email from Mindy. We didn't get an invoice to less than a half hour before close of business hours. And importantly, we, the city received the payment. But you knew, but you knew when you filed the application at 130 you say that a fee was required. At 12.30 when we filed it, yes. 12.30, I'm sorry. Yes, of course. But we didn't know exactly what the fee is. Usually they're little tiny fees. you're adding on a subdivision, it might depend on how many units there are typical, it's not. But we didn't know exactly what the fee is usually their little tiny fees You're you're adding on a subdivision to it might depend on how many units there are typical It's not always it may seem easy to ascertain exactly what that fee is But it's not always obvious because there are a lot of considerations with which application what form etc So we were not able to file that fee until we received an invoice from the city, which happened several hours after the city acknowledged receipt of the application. So whoever it was that filed the final application, didn't go to the bottom and click and see what the fees were. It doesn't work that way. It doesn't work that way. How does it work? So you have to wait till the city tells you what the fee is going to be. So if the city was going to take two weeks to tell us what the fee is, according to the city's reasoning, we would not have submitted an application for another two weeks. So is that what you're used to is getting an invoice two weeks later? No, we're used to paying the fee right away. Well, that's my whole point. It showed on the screen that a filing fee, all you have to do is click this hyperlink, right? That doesn't work that way, no. Once you get an invoice, you click the link, and then you submit your credit card information. So I think the city staff could probably better describe it. Okay, Mr. Forbes, can you explain that? Or Cindy Ward? I'll let Ms. Gordon explain it. Thank you so much. So the link that's on the application takes any applicant or any member of the public to the city's fee schedule where one could generally discern the application fees that would be assessed based on their particular type of project. It also identifies the public noticing fees, the per label charge that we have in any additional surcharge. So one could, in theory, provide an estimate. And then once an application, those are provided, it's reviewed by staff. They're not able to review it immediately, but it takes some time to review the application materials. And once it's determined that there is sufficient information for the city to take in the application formally, then a specific invoice is generated for each project. And that provides the exact amount that the applicant must pay based on the application. And what's the timing on that? In this case, they emailed application materials. I believe around 130 in the afternoon, 1230. And that invoice was then generated around 430 that afternoon, which anecdotally I would just say is fairly quick for that type of review, especially given some of the complexities of property ownership information that's in those applications. I think typically the turnaround is providing an invoice within one to two business days as standard practice in this case it was done in about four hours. And who was it, who was it that actually submitted the application? Was that the answer? Standard practice in this case it was done in about four hours. Okay, and who was it? Who was it that actually Submitted the application was that my colleague Luca Trumble who's over there, okay? and Who is the one who forwarded the fee to the city? That was assistant to my client. Was it pinky? Submitted it so once we got the invoice then we had to send it to the client, and then she paid it within a half hour. And if this weren't a Friday, the normal business hours are 530. So it just happened to be a lark that there are half hour shorter on Fridays. Yeah, but you don't dispute that the fact is that the business hours have been from 8 to 5 on Fridays for years probably. I dispute that. They are what they are. I'm interested in terms of fees having to be made within 30 days. You agree with that comment that the fees have to be done within 30 days. And in fact, you believe that they were done within 30 days. The fees were paid within a half hour of an invoice. I'm going to the 30 days. Do they pay, do you maintain they were paid within 30 days?, the fees were paid the same day within a half hour of an invoice. It was generated and was at the same day that the application was submitted. So you've got everything is consistent with the project. 1230, the application is filed. 130, the city acknowledges receipt by the city's own web page, which is in front of you right now. It says that an application's received once it's acknowledged by staff and that was done at 130. So my question, if it hadn't been sent by email, let's say the fee was placed under the closed doors of City Hall in an envelope and shoved under the door. Would you still maintain that the fee had been paid within the 30 days? Given Beverly Hills security and the cameras that are present in this building, I would say yes because someone knows that the fees were paid that day. Who would know that they were paid in that situation? The camera would know that? Yeah, whoever shows up for work the next day or that evening, but you can document that the fees were paid because you would have, in this city, the city of LA, I wouldn't take that chance. This city, if I'm sliding a fee under a door, there's so many cameras here and so much security that I would know that has paid that same day. Is that essentially equivalent to what your argument is here that somebody must have known after five o'clock on that Friday that the fee had been paid? It's not the same. The fee was paid. We received the money was taken that same day. I'm sorry, the money was taken by who? By the city, it was paid by credit card. It was all submitted online. So the money was paid and the city received the money. The city never said, we're gonna refund this money and Tuesday, why don't you pay it on Tuesday? That never happened. The city took the money, received the money on the same day. It never happened similarly to the fact that I don't believe you acknowledged the letter that was sent by the city that receipt of the preliminary application was done on the, I believe the third as opposed, I'm sorry, the final application was done on the third. Same kind of situation, isn't it? Not quite. What's different about that is the city's subsequent letter said that it completely supersedes the first letter. It didn't supplement, didn't add a little bit, it superseded, and those are the city's words in the letter. Okay. I think there was something said about anybody knows that the if it's the same day and and it's after hours it's really still the same day. I think you said something like that, that's common knowledge, something like that. Well, the law says calendar days. Doesn't say business hours. It doesn't say business days are operating hours during a business. The law is clear and it says calendar days. And the application was submitted on the 30, is it 29th, the 30th, it was submitted that, that are the 24th. It was submitted on that day, and the fees were paid that day. And you think that's common practice kind of in business in general, just as long as it's there that day. If I go online and it says, payment must be made by five o'clock on that day, I really have the time and maybe you can argue against my credit card company that says, no, you didn't get it in by five o'clock. I mean, it seems so arbitrary to say that, to have a cut off when the city received the money that day. And but even if you could say that the money was received the next business day, the application itself was filed on that day. So is that really your key argument? Is that the application? Forget about the fee altogether. Your argument is just the application was timely? Well, several arguments. The application was timely and the payment was made the same day as the application. And they were timely. And given the facts that the city generated the invoice a half hour before closing, even though it had four whole hours to get it, that you get that invoice out there, they really delayed that. Is that what you're saying? But the key is the submission of the application, and the application was submitted in the middle of the day. So is that really the good faith argument that we have here is whether or not the payment is timely? Is that really the good faith argument here? It's not just the payment, it's the fact that the application was filed. The application is a submission of all the materials. And your own website that I'm looking at, that thank you, that staff pointed out, says, planning applications and project resumables are not considered received by the city until such submittal is acknowledged by a planning division staff member. That happened. So that was a submission. And then, you know, with the fees, it takes time to go ahead and calculate. And it shouldn't be that the city penalizes a hold of an applicant hostage until it gets around to creating an invoice. The law doesn't support that because the application was submitted on that day. But if the payment is part of the application, if the payment is part of the application, isn't that really a good faith dispute that we have with the applicant in terms of whether or not the entire thing was timely? But there is a factual dispute over here. We don't agree that the fee payment is part of the application. The form that we submitted does not identify the fee. It may be implied. But it's not. That's my whole point. Isn't that really a good faith dispute that we have and that why we're here? I think so because I think that's the only justification I could think of for the city's determination that it wasn't filed on the day that it was actually filed. I mean, that's, I mean, it's. So you agree with my premise at least, that's a good faith dispute that we have that we're trying to decide? Well, it's a good faith dispute that we have that we're trying to decide. Well it's a good faith dispute but then it's going to dispossess a property rights and kill a project as a result of this determination. Okay and so with the housing crisis that we're in where we need housing and there's such an obligation to build housing. It seems kind of stupid to fight over something so minor like this. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. I have no other questions. Mayor Friedman, if I can just add a clarifying thing just to the record as far as the payment, I think there was mention of the payment being made within 30 days. And I just want to clarify that the receipt of payment is the start of the 30 days. We don't start that 30 day review clock until that payment is made. And in this case, it was made after hours so it rolled over to the next business day. And I think that's somewhat alluded to in the email that Ms. Homs sent to the applicant team. On Friday, stating once payment is posted, it will then be routed. And that information was reaffirmed by Ms. Gouda here as on the email on September 5th. Right, and there was no dispute by the applicant appellant regarding that letter. So they were certainly on notice of the time frame when they got that letter. Yes, that is correct. And Mariff, I may add to what Ms. Gordon said. I wanna go back in history just a little bit to talk about what our process has been. So prior to COVID, we would only take applications in person at the public counter at City Hall. And I know Mr. Leaderman has made multiple comments about he submitted the application that was therefore received, even though there was no fee with it that should count. When we got to COVID we started doing everything electronically. We have continued the ability to submit electronically as a convenience to our applicants. However, when we took applications in person over the counter, if somebody did not pay their fees, we would reject the application we would say you can't pay your app you can't submit your application until you have paid your fees Now that we offer the convenience of somebody submitting online We don't have the ability to block that that email with the plans from coming in and say oh you haven't paid What you get is exactly what the planners did is they received the email. They looked and said, oh, you haven't paid your fees. You need to go pay your fees. And that will be what starts the processing of your application. And I think that's the difference here is the transition from in person to electronic. We're now electronic. They can come in at any hour of the day. OK. Thank Thank you for that clarification. Okay. So at this point, the hearing is now closed and we can go to discussion and comments from members of council starting with council member Wells. Okay, thank you. What was regard to the timing of the application and the response by the city? I think that it's really clear from the city's communication and its practice that the application and fee needs to be received and acknowledged by the city and I think that that the acknowledged by the city is an important part of that. I think in the email that Mr. Letterman is referencing, they're referencing that once they receive the payment and then it's not just that communication there's multiple communication that follows that that states that once that we've received the payment, that the start date is now September the third You should be hearing by October the third if we're talking about You know really trying to not be tricky and to be proceeding in the fourth right manner I think that that everything that I've read from how the staff has Processed application, given that it was received on a Friday on a holiday weekend, the city closed at 5 o'clock, the payment wasn't received until 5.30. If the purpose of this 30-day time frame is to make certain that the city is responding in a timely manner, I don't think that anybody expected that getting a payment and application after a close of business on a holiday weekend on a Friday that clock would have started at Friday evening on a holiday weekend. So again, that just makes all the more sense as to why once it was acknowledged and received and you were received an email informing you of such and you didn't dispute it and you didn't you had plenty of opportunity to do so and you followed along and then waited until what seemed like it was either opportune or convenient to then dispute what that time frame would be. I find that to be that the city really did operate in a fourth right manner and what our practice is and was very clear about when we consider the application to have been submitted to start the clock for 30 days. I also believe that with regard to the application and filling out the preliminary application as well as the information that was on the formal application. That it does, that the government code section does require preliminary applications to include all of the information listed in the paragraph A and I do believe that when they received the formal application, adding the, not having the subdivision or adding the of division after the fact is making that application in complete. adding the, not having the subdivision or adding the subdivision after the fact is making that application incomplete. I believe that the application is still incomplete today as far as I understand. And so I also believe that this changed as a sign that it went from the rental units to having condos and moving, I believe part of this is due to moving the affordable housing to a separate area. And so all of these changes, I don't think are really what the intent is of having the state laws that have been around the builders' remedy and how city should be operating. And we talk about really wanting to work with developers and to resolve these projects and to move them along to the best extent that we can. But when this gray area comes up like this in terms of this dispute, I do feel from looking at what the city staff has made their decisions. I can make the findings to support the city's findings at the city staff's finding and I would deny the appeal as well I don't believe because the application was incomplete that the CQA applies in this case at this time as well. Thank you. So I'd like to reopen the hearing just for a moment and ask Mr. Snow to address an issue. And then Mr. Leader, I'll give you the opportunity to respond to to that. Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council. As was referenced in staff's presentation this evening, there was the timely, if you accept Mr. Leaderman's argument about the business hours, you know, our business hours and sending the letter at 7 o'clock after the close of business hours. Staff has provided the information about the 459 email that transmitted the incompleteness letter. That information is not currently reflected in the resolution. And I think that the impact of that is if, to the extent that Mr. Leiderman is correct in his argument, which again I think we would say once you establish the starting point of the 30 day period, it is calendar days. It's not 30 calendar days minus what's left of the 30th day after close of business. But nonetheless, if you accept his argument, then in any event here, there was a timely, incompleteness letter issued at 459. So then the issue is what about the information that was different, which was really historic resource information and requests about historic resource information, which ultimately the city has dropped that argument in any event. So I think the point is that even if Mr. Leederman was correct and if we just basically take the seven o'clock letter off the table is being untimely. We still have the timely for 59 letter and all of the comments, but for the historic issues raised in that seven o'clock letter would still be on the table. And that would moot any argument about the seven o'clock versus four o'clock. So you're turning one to add anything or? No, I mean just, I'm probably just reiterating what Mr. Snow has already said, but the 459 letter could be the appropriate letter. The information that was added to the second letter, it was dropped. So there really isn't a purpose to that second letter. Thank you. Mr. Leaderman, do you have any comments? Thank you Mayor Friedman. The letter says the 7 o'clock letter says it supersedes the prior letter. So I got to take the city at its word when they give me a letter saying it completely supersedes any prior correspondence. And to the point about the city dropping the argument about historic resources, my client spent tens of thousands of dollars or thousands of dollars really on a historic report. We're still in the process of that as well. So the city's actions do have consequences. And then, and I do wanna go back just one last time to the payment of the fees. The city accepted the fees on the same day. City accepted the fees, same day. Thank you. By the way, it sounds as if he could stop the work on the historic resources at this point and time based on the fact that it was dropped, right? In other words, I wouldn't necessarily incur any additional expenses. Mr. Snow, and now I'll give Mr. Wheeter a last chance at it. Mr. Mayor, I would just clarify that to the extent this project goes forward, there would be sequel review and there could be historic issue so that there's historic information that still could be required. It's an issue of the historic information vis-a-vis the preliminary application requirement that has been dropped. Okay. Mr. Leader, may I have anything else? Yes, it's just one more example of other differences between the preliminary application and the full app. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. I don't know if you can see it. So it's just kind of weird and inconsistent of the city. Everything else was conceded to General Plan amendment, C. Tancyhi bonus law, historic resources, not this issue. Thank you. Councillor Member Wells, if it was anything you had to add, I would go back to you if not I'll go on to Councillor Member Corbyn. Now I mean the only thing I would clarify as well as I do believe the city responded within the 30 calendar days. Thank you. Okay, and then here is now closed and we'll go to Council Member Corbyn. Thank you. So I too believe we should deny the appeal for the reasons stated in the draft resolution. First, I believe the city's October 3rd, 2024 letter was timely under state law in light of the policies and procedures adopted by the city and uniformly applied in this and other instances. We've had a lot of discussion back and forth, but it's clear that the city's policy has been and continues to be and been inserted tonight in good faith that we only begin to process and considered applications complete and ready to be reviewed after receive the fees the filing fees It's undispeated that the filing fee in this instance was submitted after the close of business on August 30th, 2024. It's clear that under policies that the city continues to follow, that the payments received after the close of business are processed, the following business day, and that the 30-day deadline was estimated at October 30th as 30 calendar days from the following, I guess it was Tuesday, when the pain was processed. There was no height in the ball. The applicant was notified immediately when the fee was deemed to have been received. and then as a result when the city believed its response to the formal application was due, there was never any objection. And it was only as if the applicant was lying and waiting thinking, well, this is an argument I can pull out if I need it. So that made, I'm not, may or may not have been the case, but that's the way it appears at this point in time. So in addition since the city's October 3rd letter was timely, I do not believe that the development application is to be deemed complete as a matter of law on October on October 3rd and Also, I note that the October 3rd letter identified a number of factual incompletions with the application and That the applicant in fact admittedly worked to correct those Those those incomplete items subsequently and so I think it's undisputed that as of October 3rd, and afterwards, the application was incomplete. Next I think that the applicants preliminary application, on question we described, a different project than the one that was the sub-diped subsequent formal application. We've talked tonight about how the plenary application law requires, requires as mandatory disclosures, 17 pieces of information. It's undisputed that the applicant was asked as number number 12, which corresponds to the number 12 item in the statute, whether they were seeking approvals under the subdivision map act, and they said no. And then later on, they said yes. And I think that given the fact that a no was the equivalent of just not even answering, just omitted that information, that means that the preliminary application does not match up with the formal application. The applicant will say, what's better? Well, maybe better, but it's a different project under the law. So and I think that the assertion that, well, I can make it ever change as I want, as long as I comply with the subdivision D, well now the new D, formalist, former C of the plenary application law. It's an interesting argument, but the truth is, I think that's more properly viewed as a safe harbor for adjustments to size and unit numbers and buildings because those are the types of things that do change. And so the legislature was recognizing that and gave the applicants a safe harbor. It doesn't mean that it said, it doesn't mean that that meant that you could change any other information or emit any other information that was required under the preliminary application. And I would also just point out to support what I just said. But if you look at at 65, 941.1A3, there's a recognition that you're supposed to, that the applicant in this preliminary application is going to give an approximate square footage of the buildings. So clearly, everyone knows that at that early stage, it's hard to know exactly how many units and what size. But you should know whether it's going to have a subdivision map act approval or not. Just as like you should know what the parcel is. And you should know the other things that are required mandatory disclosures under 65, 941.1A. So I do believe that the preliminary application describes a different legal prod, legally describes a different project than the formal application. And since there was no formal application that was submitted within 180 days, describing a project that did not have condominiums, I think the preliminary application has lapsed as the staff indicates. So I would, I would deny the appeal for the reason state and the draft resolution again. I think that the city's October 3rd, 2024 letter of incompleteness was timely. And therefore the application was in remains incomplete. and I also think that the preliminary application does not match up with the formal application and is no longer an effect and that's where we are today. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Mierish. Well, you know, I think for me the crux is, you know, was it September 3rd or August 30th? And I think it was September 3rd. I mean, I think if you submit something after an office closes, you can't somehow sneak into the building and stick it under and that that should count. So I mean, this is, yeah, by a day, I guess, technical, but you've got to follow the rules. That said, the argument was, well, why are we making a big deal about this? That we need the housing and I would encourage the applicant to resubmit. There are, as I'm sure you know, and you've been using very generous density bonus rules and other waivers and concessions that can be made under existing law. I just think it's a question in this case of us following the rules. Our staff, I believe, acted correctly. as opposed to other cities. We have a very highly professional staff. We have a lot of staff and they know the rules and I think this is just reflective of that. But as said, I would encourage the applicant to go back and to consider a housing project that would take advantage of the many other goodies and freebies that Sacramento offers to developers. And we'll be happy to work with the applicant going forward. I would also say that, again, I'm hoping we can look at this, that for projects of a certain scope and scale, that we can look at that adding prevailing wage or union requirements. It's just fair to the workers and the people who are in in our community and I think it results in a better project as well. Thank you Thank you vice mayor Yes, thank you very much. So initially Mr Leaderman said that we want to build housing we just want housing, right? And I want to state that we too agree with that. And we too want to build housing, and we fully support that. But there are rules and regulations that we as a city need to abide by. And there was some talk about how this project was singled out and it's very clear we have a very very professional staff that we pride ourselves on. A four hour response time is unheard of. I would venture to say find another city that would have that type of turnaround. So to imply that there was some kind of malice action, I don't think is correct. If someone else were to make the same submittal, we would abide by the same rules and the same course of action. So no one's disputing that there's a housing shortage and we all agree that we need to do what we can to have more housing and affordable housing. There were changes that were made to the preliminary application. The fee was required. That's understood. It's not, you're not new to this. It's not a new process. Everybody understands that when an application is made, a fee is also required and you move forward from there. So I want to restate that we want to work with developers, but again, we need to abide by rules and regulations. The application was incomplete so there was no sequel required at that time and I too hope that we can revisit this with the project and reapply in a way that abides by the city rules. Thank Thank you. You know, as an attorney, I am well aware of time limitations. And certainly in the courts that I practice in, if I don't get things in by five o'clock, I get a notation. This is considered to be filed. Whatever day it is. Usually electronically, they'll tell me it's the next day. Unless it's a weekend or a holiday weekend, then it'll be three days later. So I think it's something that we're all really as attorneys familiar with that an act with the court is not complete until all those requirements are made. And I think the same holds true for the city. The applicant was certainly well aware of what it takes to get an application perfected so that it is properly filed. So I also find that it was not timely and I would deny the appeal also for the reason stated, all the reason stated in the resolution. The least of which is the fact that it was a significantly different project than had been originally applied for. The formal application was different in terms of what type of building it was going to be. It wasn't a change of just within the 20%. And I can't believe that the Housing Accessibility Act would not say that you can change anything under the Earth, make it a whole different project. Yes, it says you can change it by 20%, but that is as to number of units and square footage, et cetera. So it just doesn't make sense to me. But the most important thing that I want to point out is that, you know, this law is new. It was necessary for the legislature this January to make some clarifying language because it was unclear up until January. And certainly the city made changes to its approach once the state made those changes. And we immediately took steps to reverse positions that we had taken in good faith at that time but once the law was clarified we changed our laws. And I think that's what we have here at a minimum is a good faith dispute which you know even Mr. Leaderman acknowledged is what we're talking about. So with that, you know, minds can differ on issues and we just differ on this. And again, for that reason, I think we have unanimity amongst us and I will call for, no, I won't, what will I what I do well I was going to suggest Mr Snow has a couple of Clrifications to the resolution based on the testimony here this evening and the city council's comments and if he could read those and We would ask that the resolution be amended is as Mr Snow will read We just get to the resolution and if we can have page and thank you, Mr. Snow will read. Okay. We just get to the resolution and if we can have. Page and. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My first suggestion is on page five of the resolution. On page five of the resolution. End of the second paragraph. We just just acknowledging 4.59 PM letter from October 3rd and just adding at the end of that paragraph the following. An initial version of the incompleteness letter was sent at 4.59 PM followed by a revised letter at 7.03 PM. sorry, was that, was it 458 or 459? Leave it was 459? Okay, I'm sorry, I thought I had heard 459. 459 or 458? 458? Okay. 458, thank you. The second comment is on the page seven of the resolution. And I'll pose a new paragraph. So the first edit is to just strike finally on the second folk paragraph. That second paragraph will just start with while. And then a new paragraph after that paragraph that would read further, the city initially issued an incompleteness letter at 4.50pm, which is within business hours. There after a revised letter with a minor revision was sent at 7.03 p.m. on October 3rd. Thus to the extent that the 7.03 p.m. letter was untimely the city relies on the letter issued at 4.59 p.m. And for those. V8, thank you. And for goes, the additional information added to the 703 letter, thus rendering appellance after the hour's transmittal argument moot. Okay, those are consistent with our comments, I believe. Correct? I don't see any. Okay. And then the final one that I'd suggest adding is on page 14. And this is in response to there were a couple of comments about the findings and questioning the adequacy of the findings under the Housing Accountability Act. And so, to suggest adding a new paragraph just before the paragraph that begins based on the foregoing. This paragraph would read that although the city has found the application incomplete to the extent that the preliminary application has lapsed, the city finds that when the formal application was filed, the city had a housing element and substantial compliance with housing element law, and that the project contemplated under the formal application is inconsistent with both the city's zoning ordinance and general plan based on among other things the buildings height and density. Do you have a comment on that? No, I think it's right. The other thing I was going to add was as long as we're meaning the thing on page six we have in the second paragraph that starts in support of its argument. There's a duplicate of, in support of its argument, on the third line, I would strike that duplicate of, in support of its argument. There's a duplicate of in support of its argument on the third line, I would strike that duplicate of in support of its argument just. The heck of it? As long as we're amending, getting the purpose of purfluis language. Yes. You see that? You're okay with that, do you? Okay. Okay, hang on a second. Let me make sure that's what it says. Yes, so the mayor will now entertain a motion. I move that the City Council adopts the resolution entitled, the amended resolution entitled, a resolution of the Council of the City of Beverly Hills, Denying and Appeal of Staffs, October 3, 2024, incomplete application determination, and holding the city's incomplete application determination, and finding the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. As amended. I'll second it. I'll second it. Wait, who seconded? I did. Okay, so made by Council Member Wells, seconded by Council Member Cormin, and if we could have a welcome. Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Cormin? Yes. Council Member Mirish? Yes. Vice-Marianis Arian? Yes. Mayor Friedman? Yes. Okay. Thank you all and we will move on to City Council continue to new business report from the city attorney on closed session items. There was nothing to report this evening. Going to report from the city manager if any. Nothing this evening. Council member and committee reports and comments starting with council member Wilson. I will keep it brief. On February the 20th we had a next liaison committee meeting with mayor Friedman and myself and will be planning the they're planning their next year's work plan. On February 21st and 22nd there was a two day state water project and and Sacramento, San Joaquin Delta inspection trip and I'm going to let Vice Mayor Sharon and Isarian speak about that. And then on February 26th, Council Member Marish and I attended as liaison for the Rec and Park Commission meeting and we discussed the pickable study that's been going on since 2020 and the recommendations of the Rec and Parks Commission and that will be forthcoming for the City Council. To review and on Sunday we were at the Vanity Fair Party, Oscar Party and I think that And I think that it was overall a great success and brought so much spotlight to Beverly Hills. There was a piece that was done for the road to the Oscars and there was a great piece on Beverly Hills that really focused on all the great attributes in our city. And that was a great piece of media that we got for that as well as all the media that I saw on the weekend supporting Beverly Hills and really positioning us as the premier place to be. So I think that was a great success. So thank you to all the staff and everyone that made that go off without a hitch. And that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Corman. Thank you, Alcutebrieve as well. Last week, as Steve Mayor indicated, Vice Mayor Desarin and I had another meeting of the Policy Manual AHA Committee. We managed to get through the rest of the policy manual. And so I think we're gonna meet one more time just to prove what we've gone over and hopefully get to the council very shortly for their discussion by the entire council. Thank you, councilmember Miers. So I also attended the MWD inspection trip to the Delta. It sounds like the vice mayor is going to talk about it in more detail, but certainly It impressed upon the need for us for the stability of our water supply to have the Delta Convance project move forward. I also want to say that and I hope next meeting will be able to perhaps adjourn the meeting in her memory but Susan Susan Mischler, who was a former commissioner and a mainstay of our community, passed away. And I just wanted to say a few words about her. And again, hopefully, at the next meeting we can more formally recognize her. Susan Mischler was one of a kind. What in the past some people might have referred to as an original in the very best sense of the word. She was fearless, opinionated, intelligent, informed, kind, and no nonsense in a very New York way. She always was a straight shooter and you would never ever have any questions about what she thought or why. She was a person who had a great sense of community and a love of Beverly Hills which was her community. She recognized that on our best days we were like Mayberry R.F.D. but on our worst days we were to quote her directly like Peyton Place in an Ibsen play. Susan did not suffer fools gladly. Knowing that it was my extreme honor to have her support from, before I first decided to run for council in 2009, she was intimately involved in that campaign and always supportive in the following campaigns through the years It's not like it's not like Susan became more cynical over the years From the get-go she was cynical with all her cynicism being perfectly justified and completely on the mark Susan's love of community also led her from activism to join the dreaded establishment as the City of Beverly Hills Commissioner. She certainly had her reservations about joining a commission, but I'm glad that I helped convince her to serve on our parks and rec commission, where Commissioner Mish was a natural, eloquent, straightforward, and always with a sense of what was best for Beverly Hills. Susan Mischler may have been the quintessential New Yorker, but in Beverly Hills she was never a fish out of water. Susan is one of the reasons that Beverly Hills, on our best days, not only aspired to be Mayberry R-F-D, but somehow became that village every one of us would be proud to call our home where we are all connected in too many ways to name. Susan will be missed by all of us who care about Beverly Hills the way she did, whether we agreed with her on every issue or whether we had our differences. If I know Susan, she won't only be right at home in heaven among our ancestors and the angels, she'll be running the place, or at least telling God how it should be run. May the Lord keep and protect you, Susan, Mishler, and if I didn't say it enough, I say it now. Thank you for everything you've done for me and for everything you've done for our community. And please know that I loved you very much. I also want to mention that we see what's going on now in the Middle East. And again, some of the solutions to post-war Gaza, we see that the problems are coming from surprise, surprise, Qatar, that we know it came out now on October 7th of 2023, blamed Israel for the attacks. So as I do every meeting, I will propose that we declare Qatar and designate Qatar a state sponsor of terrorism. That we sanction Qatar, that we freeze Qatar assets and use them to compensate the victims of Qatar-funded terrorism. That we ban Al Jazeera, which has been used as one of the worst propaganda tools and we see it to this day filled with vile anti-Semitism and anti-Israel sentiment and that we ask the State Department to please expel the guitarry consulate from the city of Beverly Hills because supporters of terrorism and Jew-hating racists are not welcome in our city. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor of New Zealand. Yes, thank you very much. Before I begin, I wanted to take a moment, first of all, to also say may Susan's memory be a blessing. And I also wanted to take a moment to remind everyone that Adon Alexander, a 20-year-old American citizen, is still being held hostage by Hamas and Gaza since the October 7th massacre. That's over 500 days. He is the last known living American hostage. Edden had his whole life ahead of him. His family is desperately waiting for a safe return. Yet surprisingly, his name is not on the front page of every newspaper, not leading every broadcast, as it should be. And we cannot allow him to be forgotten. An American citizen with an American passport is being held captive. This should matter to all of us and we must continue to demand his immediate release along with all the rest of the hostages. Additionally, I wanted to just share that we completed interviews for the Traffic and Parking Commission for new commissioners that once it's complete should be coming to Council soon. We had our legislative lobby committee meeting, and that also will be coming to Council, that was with my colleagues, John Marish. And we went, I attended the LA Italian Film Festival with the Council General of Italy, Rafael Valentini at the iconic Chinese theater. We presented the legendary producer, Poppy Avati with an award, among others. We also, as mentioned by my colleagues, we had the Vanity Fair Oscar Gala here in Beverly Hills. I too agree it was a great event as well as great coverage for our city. Many people felt that it was an inconvenience to close down Crescent Drive. We too were inconvenience, but it was worth it and hopefully that will be down soon and we could go back to normal. Also I wanted to take a moment to thank my fellow council member Korman. We did finally complete the council policy manual and handbook and this was really important work in cleaning up our current guiding documents. And I'm very excited to be able to bring this to Council soon, hopefully, for our colleagues to be able to review. We're happy with the final product, hopefully. And I attended a female empowerment summit with the Consul General of Romania today, Lucia Sava at the Waldorf in Astoria. It was just in time for International Women's Day. And I want to highlight and celebrate all of our fabulous women in our community and my colleagues. all sitting right up here, a lot of them. And finally, we went on a water trip on February 21st and 22nd. The purpose of this year's Metropolitan Water District inspection trip was led by Director Pressman and it was for Metropolitan Member Agency representatives to visit dams, reservoirs, farms, and other state water project infrastructure in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta, and to learn more about the complexities and challenges associated with delivering water to Southern California through the Bay Delta conveyance system. And there were many commissioners there. We had several of our staff who took the time on their weekend to attend, to visit these sites and to learn more because it's extremely important. One factor that I heard that I thought was really interesting was that 60% of the runoff water goes straight into the ocean. If we were able to collect that water, we would be able to provide water for the entire state of California with ease. So that's something that we do need to look at. are're facing challenges such as an aging levy system, salt water intrusion, subsidies and various changes. And it's important for us to support projects that move forward to be able to help us with that collection process to ensure that we are set with getting the proper amount of water for the city and beyond. That's my report. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And I just want to take a moment, hopefully on behalf of my other two male colleagues that is male minority colleagues and wish the women on the day a happy international women's day. And with that we will adjourn this meeting to our next scheduled meeting which is March 18th 2025. Thank you all very much.