Welcome everyone. This is the City of Beverly Hills City Council regular meeting and parking authority meeting. It is December 3rd 2024. It is a little after 7 PM and we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance. If I can everyone rise and if I could ask Officer Yoshimoto if she would please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. The House of Representatives. And if we could have our city clerk, please call the rule. Thank you. Good evening. The first rule calls for city council. Council member Wells. Here. Council member Cormin. Here. Council member Mirish. Here. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Here. And Mayor Friedman. Here. The next is for the parking authority. Director Wells. Here. Director Cormin. Here. Director Mirish, Vice Chair Nazarian, and Chair Friedman. Here. Okay, text BH. Text messages on any city-related topic may be sent to 310-596-4265. City staff will acknowledge receipt of the text message within one business day, however resolution of issues may take longer. If you would like to receive updated text alerts from the Beverly Hills Police Department, please text BHPD Alert 2-888-777. Text alerts will keep you informed of any police activity within the city. And our telephone call in number for those of you who would like to communicate with us is 310-288-2288. At this time, I'd like to invite anyone who would like to address us on any item that is not on our agenda. Anyone is in chambers now would be the time to bring up your speaker would like to address us on any item that is not on our agenda. Anyone is in chambers now would be the time to bring up your speaker slip, not seeing anyone. We will go to electronic communications. We did not have any comments for non-agent items. Moving right along, going to the parking authority consent calendar if we could have council member Wells read The entire consent calendar, which is two items All right, I move for the adoption of the consent agenda as follows number one consideration of the parking authority of the minutes of the meeting of August 6, 2024, and number two, third amendment to broker leasing and commission agreement with Kushman Wakefield of California Inc. For the lease of tenant space at 439 North Cannon Drive, his second floor. And if we could have a second. Second. And if we have the clerk, please read the roll. Director Wells. Yes. Director Corman. Yes. Director Mirish. Yes. Vice Chair Nazarian. Yes. And Chair Friedman. Yes. And going on to item E, the City Council consent calendar. Are there any polls from the consent calendar? Not seeing any, we will go to the reading of it if we could have council member Korman read items 1 through 7. I move the adoption of the consent agenda as follows. One, consideration by the City Council of the Minutes of the Study Session Meeting of August 6, 2024. Two, consideration by the City Council of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 6, 2024. Two, consideration by the City Council of the Minus of the regular meeting of August 6, 2024. Three, review of budget demands paid covering days November 8, 2024 to November 21, 2024. Four, payroll dispersion report covering days November 8, 2024 to November 21, 2024. Ordinance of the City of Beverly Hills, number five, amending Beverly Hills Municipal Code regulations for emergency shelters, family, single house keeping units, and single family residences, community care facilities, transitional or supportive housing, replacement units for parcels in the site's inventory of the housing element, and making a determination of exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act, SEQUA, second reading for adoption. Number eight, amending the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to revise the process pertaining to the ground for eviction based on a finding that a tenant is a disruptive tenant, and finding the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Sequa, second reading for adoption. Number seven, amending the Beverly Hills Municipal Code to eliminate the Rent Stabilization Commission, and finding the ordinance exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Sequa, second reading for adoption. If I can make you go out on a limb and read numbers eight and nine. Okay. So I like the limb reading, okay. 8, request for the City Council to consider a free use day for the U.S. Conference of Mayors against Anti-Semitism on Thursday, December 12, 2024, at the Wallace Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts. And number 9, acceptance of the contract work for A, 438 North Beverly to 439 North Cannon Drive, tenant building, partial roofing replacement project, with specific single-ply roofing ink in the final amount of $767,000, 260, I'm going to try it again. $767,000,260.47 cents and authorization of city clerk to record notice of completion. B, fire station number three parking garage roll up doors project with commercial door company ink in the final amount of 138,961 dollars and authorization of city clerk to record notice of completion. And if we could have a second. Thank you. And City Clerk, please read the roll. Council Member Wells. Yes. Council Member Cormin. Yes. Council Member Mirish. Yes. Vice Mayor Nazarian. Yes. And Mayor Friedman. Yes. Okay. Going on now to item F1, amendment to an existing covenant to remove medical use limitations and if we could have the city clerk tell us what is the time and place for. This is the time and place set for a public hearing to consider amendment to an existing covenant to remove medical use limitations and the existing commercial building and Request to authorize the city manager to execute a new covenant located at 9150 Wilshire Boulevard 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 shall be entered into the record. And may we have an oral report on this matter from the Assistant Director of Community Development, who is also our city planner? All right. Well, thank you, Mayor Freeman, and members of the council. I was not expecting to be presenting at 709, but I think this might be a record. All right. So, this is a covenant amendment. I requested covenant amendment for medical uses for a building in 9,150, Wilshire Boulevard. So the request is to remove the covenant provision, prohibiting additional medical use floor area in the building, and to authorize the city manager to execute the new covenant. The location is on Walshaw Boulevard. It is an existing building built in 1992 and taking the full block between Palm and Oakhurst on the south side of Walshaw. It is an 85,000 square foot building approximately, three levels above ground with subterranean parking containing 333 spaces. Here's a couple of views, one from Oakhurst and one from Palm, of the building. You can see the three levels above ground. So this particular request has had quite a extensive history. So I'll just go down this timeline. On the upper part of the timeline are city regulations. And our the lower part of the timeline is the events that have occurred on this building. So this is showing between 88 and 2009. The sort of overall medical restriction of that time was the parking rate. There was a higher parking rate for medical than there was for general retail. That parking ratio was 1 to 200. So that was maybe the controlling factor on certain buildings adding medical at the time. So this building was approved after extensive sets of hearings that included appeals from the Environmental Review Board up to the City Council. When the council did approve it, they first prohibited medical in the building and then they came back and allowed for up to 5,000 square feet of medical in the building. And that was recorded as a covenant against the property. So fast-boarding to 2009, there was quite a bit of excess parking in the building, and a neighboring building, 1990 Wilshire Boulevard, which is located on the north side of Wilshire across from this building. The Planning Commission approved 51 spaces for off-site use by that neighboring building within this building. So things got a little busier between 2011 and 20 and present. So in 2011 the medical use ordinance was adopted. So at the time, there was some thought that medical uses, maybe pushed out other types of office uses. And there was a sort of grandfathering of existing medical uses and a limited prohibition to add additional medical by right into existing medical buildings, up to 6,000 square feet. And also there were medical use overlay provisions added to the code in 2011 that allowed somebody to come in and apply for a new medical building or to convert medical building, but that required council approval. So in 2011, the subject building was still limited by the covenant so it could not avail itself of the new medical use ordinance in 2011. So in 2017, the applicant came in to request an increase in medical floria of up to 6,000 square feet. The council reviewed this item, remanded it to the planning commission. With some guidance that you might want to consider a public benefit, that was to sort of mirror the medical use overlay provisions that require a public benefit for the councils of approval of a medical use overlay provisions that require a public benefit for the councils approval of a medical use. So in 2017 the Planning Commission held a hearing with direction on denial, but they said that based on a reasonable public benefit, that might be something that the city could accept. So November, the PC held another hearing, the ultimately denied, they recommended denial of the request, but still identified that the identification of a public benefit might lead to the city being able to approve this. So the liaison met between November 2018 to discuss public benefits at that time. The applicant came back with a public parking, public benefit. The liaison did not find that acceptable. So when they went back to council in August, 2018, 19, they had to change the benefit to a medical clinic, providing a medical clinic once a week, and also providing parking at certain times for NISA. However, there was a sunset clause in that new proposal, and ultimately the council said, no, this public benefit has not mutually agreeable to us. So at that point, it was sent back to the liaison and the applicant did not take action between 2019 and 2023. So subsequent, as far as city rules go, in 2022, the medical conversion ordinance was adopted. And this was a real change in policy direction for the city. It generally allowed office buildings to add new medical uses by right above the first floor. And it also changed the parking requirements. So, you no longer have that one to 200 parking ratio. It became a one to 350 parking ratio, which matched a general office, so that was no longer a barrier to adding medical to a building. So in 2023, staff checked back in with the applicant because there was five years of inaction on this item to see if we could just re-thraw the application and they indicated that actually they wanted to continue processing and they would like to remove the medical prohibition and not provide a public benefit. So in summary, since 2022 the city's treatment of medical conversion has significantly changed. Neighboring buildings to this building can establish new medical by right with no public benefit. So removal of the building's medical use covenant restriction would allow for consistent treatment of this building with other office buildings in the city. And they would just need to allow for medical uses consistent with the 2022 medical conversion ordinance requirements. So, in taking a look at the packet, there is one correction to the draft covenant on page two, item seven. It identifies 65 excess parking spaces. That should be corrected to 86. What we're trying to do in the covenant is just to remove the medical restriction and leave all other terms of the covenant the same. So the staff recommendation is for the Council to approve the covenant amendment to remove the prohibition on additional medical floor area and authorize the city manager to execute the revised covenant. Thank you. And available for questions, staffs available for questions. And I'm not seeing the applicant here. I believe we're hearing the applicant is probably five minutes or so away. Okay. All right. Okay, we're throwing everybody for a loop here. Okay, is there anyone? Is there anyone? Is there anyone? Okay, now is the time for public comment anybody in chambers who would like to comment. Please bring your speaker cards to the city clerk. Not seeing any. We will go to electronic communication if there is any. We do not have any comments for this item. Okay. I'm going to suggest that we know if the applicant is going, is it an applicant or is this city initiated? This is from the applicant. Okay, so do we know if the applicant is going to want to be heard or should we go straight to questions because if not we should take a recess if the applicant is going to be heard or we can... I presume they had comments to make although I guess it would also depend on whether the council feels that's a necessary component of discussing this. If you have questions for the applicant or maybe there are questions staff can answer. Okay, when we go around and at least initially ask staff, if any council members have questions of staff and then we'll circle back. Is that acceptable? Procedurally? Yes, that's acceptable. Okay. So questions, Council member Wells, if any? I just want to clarify. So the building with the correction with the parking spaces, they meet the parking requirements today if it were to be converted to the medical. Yes, they would. Okay, thank you. Okay, Council Member Recorder. Thanks, have a few questions. So, Masha, when the medical use ordinance, that was passed, maybe you may have used overlay zone ordinance was passed back in 2011. Now it was in the planning commission. And one of the concerns we had as you sort of alluded to was that the concern was that medical use could push out general office use in some of the buildings. And the specific concern was that we tax medical uses differently than general office uses and that could lead to lower business tax revenues from our commercial areas. And then I see that the medical conversion to lower business tax revenues from our commercial areas. And then I see that the medical conversion ordinance was passed in, well, the final ordinance was passed 2022, but it was originally passed as an urgency ordinance in November 2020, according to our report. So that's obviously the teeth of the COVID pandemic. Was that one of the things that prompted the pastor, that ordinance, because of COVID, that a general office space was not been used as much and landowners were suffering as a result when there was actually a greater demand for medical use? I think in part, I wasn't at that particular area and Ryan was, but I can respond to that one. COVID was the primary driver for when we first did the urgency ordinance to allow relaxation of the medical standards. And then we did the subsequent extension. So we had two years total. When we came back for the permanent ordinance, I think the primary factors were one, we didn't see any measurable impacts from allowing the increase in medical. We also didn't see a title wave of medical conversions. We did see some, but not to the point where it was excluding general office uses from the city. And in the other factor, I don't remember how heavily it weighed, but we did have, we have an economic sustainability plan. And one of the provisions in that plan actually suggested that we look at relaxing our medical standard, medical regulations in order to be more competitive with our surrounding cities and also to take advantage of the city's proximity to cedars and other medical providers. Okay. Is it, is it generally the case that medical use is to generate lower business tax to the city or is it, or do some medical use is to generate lower and some higher than general uses? That's all. I'll answer that too because I did research on it when we did the ordinance. It's the latter. What we found is that some medical providers actually pay more in taxes. So the way we charge taxes for medical providers is you pay based on the number of payroll hours that are worked. We don't charge based on the gross receipts for services they provide. However, for other businesses we charge our business taxes based on gross receipts. And so the argument has usually centered around, we have medical providers that don't pay based on gross receipts. And so the argument has usually centered around, we have medical providers that don't pay based on gross receipts. And therefore, they're getting a better tax deal. What we found when we did our research is that some medical providers actually pay more in taxes based on payroll hours. It tends to be your smaller offices, your general practitioners, people that are not doing high value procedures in a relatively short period of time. The flip side of that is that we believe offices that are doing very high value procedures. So surgery centers, plastic surgeons, those types of businesses that are doing high value procedures in a relatively short period of time, they're paying based on the payroll hours which are limited rather than the gross receipts of the expensive procedure. And so those providers are probably paying less in taxes than they would if they were paying on gross receipts. And that's one of the reasons that our current medical ordinance prohibits new surgery centers in the city. So surgery centers are actually don't, I can't take advantage of the medical conversion ordinances, that's correct. So what would happen if someone wanted to put in or have a new surgery center in one of our commercialies. Would they be thrown back into the medical use overlay zone that ordinance? I think there's two ways to do a surgery center. They could either do the medical overlay zone ordinance. The other thing that we have seen, and this tends to be the case, is that they locate in spaces that have been medical, been grandfather's medical prior to our current ordinance, and so therefore they're not considered a conversion. It's just existing medical that dates from the 70s, 80s, 90s, and they're going into those spaces. But if they didn't go into those spaces and they were, if they were a new space, so they wanted to build out a new space in a pre-existing commercial property, they would be subject to the medical use overlay zone. That's correct. There's no other way to do a surgery center. And then they have to provide some kind of a public benefit as you know, to get the use, right? Yes. Okay. Those are my questions. Thanks. I'll continue with questions and then we'll go to the applicant. So further to Craig's point, is there any way if we approve this, we could limit the medical uses to those that generate the revenue, as Ryan said, that are even better than if we'd have had gross receipts. How could we do that? I think it's sort of baked in because the specialty clinics are not allowed. It would just be the medical uses. So no medical use that would be allowed would generate less revenue for the city than like you were talking about before. I don't think we can guarantee that because it really is a function of what are your payroll hours versus what are your gross receipts and when do you reach the tipping point between there being a benefit one way or the other. I think if there was a desire to further limit medical, I would suggest that be a separate ordinance that we come back and talk about rather than being specific to this property. The other thing I will say is when we went to this- Why those? If we're concerned about maintaining a revenue base why wouldn't we want to do that for this property? I think it's difficult on a one-off basis and I think we also when we researched this previously. We encountered, I would say, significant regulatory issues in actually defining different types of medical uses, the thing that we struggled with, and we actually worked. I think I remember having many conversations with Dr. Gold about this, but you have different medical providers that may be a general practitioner, but may also have one particular specialty that they do. There's a lot of overlap. There are HIPAA regulations where we actually can't find out information about what types of procedures physicians are doing. So I think we would have to really spend some time on trying to categorize the different types of medical uses. So could we make a provision if we approve this today that any subsequent regulations that we have limiting in line with the goal of not losing revenue would also apply? I think that would be the case even without us doing something specific here. The one caveat I would say is any medical provider that goes into a space prior to us adopting new regulations, they would be grandfathered in under the laws that existed at that time. Somebody wouldn't be kicked out of their medical space just because we changed the rules. Okay, so is this going to be something mirror that we could agenda? Is because this isn't going to be a one off. There are going to be others who want it. And I think it makes sense for us to look at ensuring that we're not losing revenue. I mean, the other alternative is to go to the voters and to look to change the tax structure, but I'm not sure we want to go that far. Well I think it's something to be discussed in the future. Okay thank you. Vice Mayor Nusserion. Yes thank you thank you for the report. That was one of my questions as well if it was possible to increase our revenue by addressing what you were speaking to Council Member Mersh. So the year that this covenant was created was 1989 or 1991? 1991. 1991. And the current makeup of the city has changed significantly, wouldn't you say? Yes. And if we were to, you know, we were talking about revenue and the amount of revenue brings, I would say if we have empty office buildings compared to medical buildings that are actually occupied, which one would you say would provide more revenue for the city? One thing we have heard from the commercial brokers is that the medical conversion ordinance has been important for them in leasing out of space in the last couple years. All right, because office use has significantly gone down. That's what the research is showing. And yeah, that's what we're anecdotally hearing as well. We're still seeing, and we attend regularly, the brokers roundtable meeting that the chamber puts on, where we meet with commercial real estate brokers and talk about what's happening in the market, what occupancies are there seeing, and for general office space. I think we are still seeing vacancy rates in the high teens, if not pushing 20%, which is pretty significant compared to what we used to see prior to COVID, we would see vacancy rates. I wanna say in the four to five percent, which is about 100% full if you account for turnover and other things. And so certainly some tax revenue from medical is better than no tax revenue from a vacant space. And so far we've not seen medical offices taking away from the ability of general offices to locate in the city because the vacancy rates remain high. All right. And so what is being proposed for the first floor, the ground level? I mean, the language in the proposed covenant, it just refers to the code saying that the medical conversion requirements of the code apply, you could not convert the ground floor to medical. The ground floor would stay the same. Have we gotten any community feedback or any, the community was noticed obviously. Yes, and then the site was posted as well. And we have not received any comment. We have not received any public comment in any form, any kind of pushback. No. All right. Has any research or any thoughts been done as to, would this include drug rehab centers? In the sense that if it was a therapeutic treatment, I think that would be a medical use. Yes, if it's on an outpatient basis, we don't allow for overnight stays in medical facilities without a special permit. And so if you're talking about like a sober living type situation, that this would not allow for that, because those would be overnight stays that are not allowed into the code. And could you tell me what it would look like if it was a? If it was on an outpatient basis, it would be similar, I guess, to going to see a therapist or something, you know, you would go and interact with whoever is treating you. They may prescribe you some sort of medication. You would be there presumably for half hour to a couple hours and then you would leave and go home. All right. Those are my questions. Thank you very much. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there any public benefit or suggestions that are being offered at this time for this committee? No, there's no public benefit being offered and I think that's sort of a result of the sort of change in the city's regulations. All right, well, yes. All right. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. So I wanted to go back and I see the, I assume the applicant is here and if they wanted to address us, we're kind of a little bit ahead of schedule. So we went a little bit out of order. So I want to give you the opportunity if you could come up now. I have some goodies for everyone. 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. residents of Beverly Hills and Dr. Newman has been living here for 35 years, which is older than I've been alive. But we're long time residents of this city and he's been a physician, practicing physician since. So this obviously hits very close for him being that he's a medical professional. And about 10 years ago, he purchased 9150 Walsh Reher Boulevard, which is what we're talking about today. And I just wanted to give a little bit of a building overview and a history of this covenant that a little bit of this is going to be a bit different from what the city has already gone through, which is that this is a seven-story building. There are three stories of office space. Floors one, two, and three. And then there's a ground floor lobby, which is parking, There are three stories of office space. Floors 1, 2, and 3. And then there's a ground floor lobby, which is parking, and a little lobby area. And then there are three stories of sub-training park. Excuse me, parking below that. The building uses a European method of numbering. So, floors 1, 2, and 3, there is no direct access to floors one, two, and three. And that is the attachment I sent you. All right, I just gave out. If you look at it, this is floor one. You can't get to floor one from the street. You need to go to the lobby and then you have to take an elevator up to get to floor one. My understanding when you guys passed this ordinance in 2022 was that you don't want retail sales to stop one because it provides sales tax Which is obviously great benefit for the city, but that's not an issue here. This is general office space on that so-called first floor and Again, it requires elevator access. So the floor is one, two, and three here. We would be asking for City Council to allow it on all three floors because none of that is ground floor space. And if you go through all these photos, you will see the ground floor, which is you can enter through Oakhurst or through Wilshire. But if you enter through Oakhurst from the garage, there's no ramp to go down. That entire floor, that entire ground floor is parking. There's no office space there. There's no medical space proposed there. The only way to get to the medical space we're proposing would be to go inside the building, inside an elevator lobby, go up that lobby after you check in with security, and then only then can you get to that floor. And if you go later in this little packet I gave everyone you can see the elevator lobby there. The first one is that ground floor elevator lobby and then you have the second one is the so-called first floor elevator lobby. You can see that's clearly above Wulsh for Boulevard and does not have access from the street. And then the second to last photo again, that is the first floor so-called first floor of the building which in America we would think of that as the second floor. And then the last photo you will see the corridor of that exact same first floor. So this is not retail space or anything like that. This is purely office space. I understand it's a little bit unique, but it's not ground floor space. So yes, we would like please the city to provide the medical for all three floors. In addition, in 1991, I want to talk about a little bit about that covenant that we had. And our request today, I know the city's proposing for us to perhaps just get rid of the medical part of that covenant. But I think it would be a lot more streamlined and a lot more in line with Council Member Mersh and Miss Nazarian's perspectives on potential tax issues, which is if we completely get rid of the covenant to begin with, then this building would be governed under whatever code is made at that time, whatever ordinance. So there would be no preferential treatment for this building, which originally in 1991, when they got the medical covenant, although it was a restrictive covenant, it was a benefit at the time. People couldn't just get medical space. So that 5,000 square feet of medical use was a negotiated benefit, although it did restrict restaurants, which, yeah, I don't really see how you can put a restaurant in this building, but that was a negotiated benefit that they got, not a negative thing. So in a way, they had this benefit from 1991 that was to have something people otherwise didn't get, and they just want that to be completely rid of, completely terminated, and it would be completely without that covenant. I'd also like to go and touch a little bit on impacts potentially to the city and economic viability, which I know are two very important things. In terms of impacts from 2022, the medical ordinance that the city passed, we understand that traffic, parking, pedestrian access, the city has addressed that and it's according to the city a non-issue. This building is no different than 9100 WSUR, which is right next to it, or 9200 WSUR, which is the mandarin oriental residences, which actually will have retail ground floor for restaurants, which will create a lot more parking issues and access issues, but it will also create tax for the city and business is good. But to get to one of the perspectives of an empty building is pretty bad for the city for two reasons. One, the more the building is full, there's revenue coming in from both the tenant and the landlord. You get grocery seats on tenants renting, and you also get gross receipts from the tenants that are in there. So a big issue we're having is the largest tenant of the building, which comprises about one third of that whole building. They're signaling, they're ready to pack up and go. And once they go, if we are unable to give this to a medical user or medical users, not only is Dr. Newman going to have a problem with financially with the building, but it's just going to sit empty and that's lost revenue for the city. So it's a win-win situation both for Dr. Newman and for the city to terminate this covenant in its entirety and treat them just like every other buildings being treated. It also promotes fairness because it provides no preferential treatment or no, I guess, no negative treatment to 91.50 we'll sure. So at the end of it, our request is for medical use across all applicable floors, which is floors one, two, and three. Again, floor one, although I know in America, we think a floor one is ground floor. It is not a ground level floor. You cannot access it from the ground. You would have to go into an elevator lobby, have to go into an elevator. And then only then can you get to that floor. And you can see those photos in the attachment. And then we'd also like to completely terminate the covenant. So that would bring us just like every other building to be treated just like one of those. Thank you. Okay, thank you, and I'm going to go back to Councilmember questions. Starting with Councilmember. Yeah. It's the, so thank you for coming and presenting and also it's an, an explaining the floors because that's not something that we've discussed. So it makes it pretty clear from your drawing, I mean from your photographs, what you're talking about. I have a question about the covenant when you're asking for it to just be eliminated. Is the parking agreement with the 90, 90, I think that is the address for parking on the fourth P4. Is that part of that covenant or is that completely separate from the covenant that you're talking about? So we'd be asking that that would be separate. We'd only be asking the city to remove its covenant, a private covenant that we have with another property like 1990, that would be in full force and effect. Okay. And with regard to amending it versus removing it, what is different? I think number one is simpler for everyone because it just completely removes this issue later down the road. Just like in 1991, they didn't think 30 years later that there would be a need for adjusting it. I think this is just easier and it's more clean, it's simpler for the city, and it just provides the same rules across the board for this building or for another one. For example, if parking regulation in California changes, and I think it's AB 2007, regarding parking within half of my love public transport, if California for example got rid of that, then the city could impose restrictions on our property. But otherwise, whatever the current or state local code is should apply to our property? If with regard to the first floor, I mean, I'm not certain that that is a clear definition in terms of what the medical ordinances that was from 2022, the most recent one. I guess this is really a question from Mausa. If this is, would question from us if this is would require I'm going to planning to clarify that whether or not that first floor versus the ground floor where parking is is considered ground floor retail Looking at the building permit records for this building it was approved as a three-story building with four levels of Subterranean parking underneath So yeah, no, we took a look at the building permit records for this building It was approved as a three-story building with four levels of underground and then there's this sort of a subterranean lobby And we would consider that first floor, the ground floor of the building. If we were to review this in plan check. So if you wanted to, if the applicant wanted to have that first floor be medical use, he would have to go back to planning to, for that to be clarified, or approved through planning or not. I mean, if he brought in a plan check with medical on that first level, we would say that this doesn't meet the medical conversion ordinance. Okay. And that's not as well on what our agenda for today to consider that for us. No, it isn't. Yes. This is a plan check issue of how you would apply the medical ordinance, yes. Okay. Thank you. Yes. A plan check issue of how you would apply the medical ordinance. Yes. Thank you. Correct. Ma'am says, okay. It's three floor of subterranean parking, not four floors. The one, the ground level is parking and the lobby. So you've got to take the stairs, go to the three floors upstairs. If you want to go to the parking downstairs, you've got to go three down. So the parking is not four sub-training and parking levels. It's one floor which has got the parking and the lobby, and then you've got to take the stairs to three floors upstairs. I see. I understand what you're saying, and it's clear from me, from the pictures what you're talking about. I think the discrepancy is what's on the, from a permitting standpoint and going through planning is that issue would have to be addressed separate from today with the council with regard to defining that first floor versus parking. That's not on our agenda for today and I think you would have to take that one back to planning. And I'll just chime in real quickly. So the ordinance limits prohibits medical on the ground floor in order to allow it there that would require a new ordinance. So that's not something that the city council has purview over this evening. I will also note what's not shown in the applicant's images is that when the, there's a substantial grade difference because the building goes all the way across a whole block and the grade slopes downwards as you go east on Wilshire Boulevard. And so as the building comes around on to Palm Drive, it actually is right at the sidewalk level. There's not a grade difference there. So it's right at sidewalk level on Palm and then as you go east on Wilshire you start to have that separation but for code purposes that is the ground floor and medical is not allowed. Right. I'm sorry with apologies if I can just provide further insight to that. Although the grade does become very close on the corner of Palm and Wilshire again there is no access to that so-called first floor, you cannot possibly get there without going into the elevator lobby, which is perhaps located on what the city might consider a mezzanine floor. But nonetheless, it's not a ground floor to get to that first floor. It cannot access it through, it's not like walking into Starbucks. I understand what you're saying. I think that we don't have that information and we're not equipped or prepared right now to make that determination. So that's, it's just, we don't, it would take more than this for us to be able to make a determination for that. I don't think I'm speaking out of turn here. In stating that, I think what was on our agenda is whether or not to amend the covenants to remove the prohibition of the additional medical floor area, which would be aligned with the ordinance with the city, the most recent ordinance with the city. So anything further than that, I think would have to go back to planning and be addressed that way. I don't have to be agendas and probably would have to go through planning and if not our planning commission. So on our bill wells, if that's the case, then we land ourselves in a situation where we would modify the existing covenant as the city is recommending and we would maintain the right to have 5,000 square feet as currently written plus on the second and third floor we would be able to unlock that into full medical. I'm gonna let everybody else go around with what was just said, Ryan. That's not for us or in terms of what we have presented here or is it? Ground floor medical. Yeah, I mean, is that what he or to modify the covenant in the next? The covenant, if modified, it would essentially eliminate the allowance for the 5,000 square feet of medical and just refer you back to what the municipal code allows at whatever point and time today or into the future. And right now that municipal code provisions as you can do medical in the whole building except for on the ground floor. And so the council does not have the ability to grant medical on the ground floor. And so the council does not have the ability to grant medical on the ground floor as we sit here tonight that would have to be a wholly separate ordinance to allow ground floor medical. And to further define our read address what they're asking to reconsider whether that is truly a ground floor and not is not for the council to decide tonight that's for it to go back to planning. That is correct. Okay. Okay, so let's continue with any other. I don't have any other further questions. Thank you. Thank you for coming and addressing us. I have no questions for you. Thank you. And Councillor Murrish us to amend the medical. So we have additional medical. That's what it it on the agenda. So additional medical means we have the 5,000 we don't lose our 5,000 and we get additional medical. Now you're saying we can't have it on the first floor but we can have it on the second and third floor. Is that a question? No that's what that's what is on the agenda. And then you're saying that you're going to take away the 5,000 that wasn't on the agenda. Perhaps you can just write it down there. It's written down there. It's an addition to that. Dr. Newman, let's let this the Let this be The manager explain exactly what it is that we can do or or or our city attorney either way So the 5,000 square feet that you have today that is I'm not sure where that is located in the building do we know? We don't have that information So so I don't think anybody is suggesting that you're losing 5,000 square feet. It's just that you would go to the new code provision, which allows you to do medical anywhere in the building except for on the ground floor. But I think that's a part of the disagreement though. We don't view that as ground floor because you can't access it from the ground floor. It's not. And that's not the code standard. The code doesn't say if you can access it, it's ground floor and if you can't access it, it's not ground floor. And so that's a disagreement you have with how the code is written, but that is something that would require an ordinance separate from this, it's not something that the City Council can grant this evening. So let's go on to my question. What is the how many square feet on the second floor and how many square feet on the third floor? On the second and third floor, it's about 30,000 square feet per floor. Total per floor. So 60,000 square feet. Correct. Currently of those 60,000 square feet, they're only allowed to do 5,000 square feet medical, correct? Throughout the entire building, so including the first floor, which would be an additional 30,000 square feet approximately, they could do 5,000 square feet. So if they switch from the current covenant to the existing status quo for other buildings. They can have any medical on the first floor, but they can have 60,000 square feet of medical on the second and third floor. But there's one issue with that. I think that there might be a bit of a misunderstanding on the part of the applicant. If the code provides that there is no medical allowed on the ground floor, that's the code. This covenant does not amend it. This covenant provides for a maximum of 5,000 square feet in the building. So, it's- Well, Larry, that's what I'm saying is currently under the current circumstances, they can have 5,000 square feet in the entire building, which is 90,000 square feet. If we are to rescind the covenant, but I'm saying they can't have it on the first floor. So even now they can't have it on the first floor. Okay, but who cares because you can either have 5,000, let's say you could have it on the first floor or you can have 60,000. What would you rather have? I mean to me that that that's kind of the issue at hand is if we remove the covenant, then they're going from having 5,000 square feet of medical wherever it may be to the ability to have 60,000 square feet. Okay. Again, one of the tremendous issues here is that the largest tenant in the building, which is largely on that first floor of the property, is signaling to vacate within a very short period of time. Roughly, we're looking at under- Who is that? Who is that tenant? It's an entertainment firm. And once they leave, assuming that there's no medical that's being allowed there from the 5,000 or from doing it there to begin with, then that space is highly likely going to remain empty. Okay, but who's on the second and third floor currently? They do have a portion as well on the third floor and you have other tenants there. You have lawyers, you have a dentist, you have a chiropractor. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you. Okay, Vice Mayor. Thank you for being here. Just for clarity, when we look at this building, you said that there's a grade. I don't see, how is there access? This doesn't look like a ground floor to me from the pictures that I'm seeing. So I'm wondering is it maybe perhaps half the building is street at street level versus the other half that because of the grade has gone in a direction that, because I could understand, well, the whole point of this is to increase walkability and allow people to be able to walk into a store into a retail shop, a coffee shop, something like that. And the way, see, for this side, I understand if the first floor would be designed in a way that it has retail space. But when I look at the other side of the building on the first floor, it looks like it would be a lot more challenging. And from what I, what's being described, I guess it would be helpful if somebody could explain to us, if the first floor at the ground level is parking and only a lobby or there other I'm not understanding the make-up of it. I haven't been to the building so I guess explaining it a little further would be helpful. So I don't know that I'm the most qualified to explain what the building looks like when you go into it. However, what I would say is I do think this image here, so on the bottom right, shows the corner at Wilshire and Palm. There is probably about a four to five foot grade change as you traverse the whole block there. And this is very typical if you look at any building that spans a block or close to a block. That's about the standard grade change you'll see when people develop these buildings. They either choose to have one end of the building come up above the grade of the way that this does. Or one end of the building is sunken down below grade. And so you're never going to have the whole building right at street level unless you provide for steps internally within the building, which structurally is not a great way to build a building. And so you normally do see where you have a flat floor plate and you just end up with grade differences on it. Our municipal code does not contemplate the grade changes as you go along. It's basically ground floor is ground floor even if the grade changes as you go along. It's basically ground floor is ground floor even if the grade changes as you go along. And so I think that's the challenge here. I you know I recognize that as you go further east on the building the grade separation gets higher. It's not likely that you're going to have access to the building there or retail. However, it is still ground floor for the purposes of our code. So what would they be able to put in those areas? General office, which is what they have currently. It would be general office. Correct. So is it three floors and then an additional floor? Because what is here? Is that sunken in the center over here? There's a semi-sunken lobby that you step down the courtyard into off of Wilshire Boulevard. And then the rest of, is there another floor beneath this that is considered the ground floor, which is considered the right? The parking is below that level. All right, Dr. Newman, how long have your units vacant right now in the building? So what would be the process if they wanted to create the first floor to be? Would there be any kind of variance allowed or what is the process if they wanted to change the first floor? Perhaps you could speak to the process. Sure. They could apply for a variance. I don't know that I would necessarily recommend it because there needs to be something unique about the property that deprives them of privileges other people get. That seems like a high bar in this instance, but they're entitled to apply. The other option would be to apply to amend the municipal code via a zone text amendment and either redefine how we treat ground floor or just say that, you know, we're going to allow medical on ground floors. Right. And that's pretty close to the metro coming, right? Relatively, yes. I mean, it would be considered. It's just a little bit east of the triangle and the metro stop is at reaves or bevelly there. So so handful of blocks away. I do have another question. There was talk from some other buildings within the city that have turned their parking into additional units. Is that a possibility? Because it sounds like they have three grounds of parking. Right now, right? Or the ground level itself and then minus three below it. Four levels of parking. Right now with the regulations that are to code with regard to being near the metro and what have you, is that a possibility of conversion? It could happen. I don't know from just a purely practical standpoint. Even though the building rises up above the grade, they don't really have enough height there to create spaces. There's another project that will be coming before you that's making a request, but that parking is actually right at grade level And so you could walk into a retail space here. So it you know There's a chance they could figure out how to do something, but it seems unlikely the way the building is designed All right, okay, those are my questions. Thank you. So just out of humor So if the parking level was if some of those parking spaces were converted into a medical use or office use, that would be allowed for the city because it's not on the ground level. The city would look at that as minus one. Per the current code would the city allow that? So sorry, I don't, we don't have all the details on that. I don't think we're here to hypothesize about what a conversion Would or would not be if that's something you want to propose in the future. We would look at it Let me just ask a couple of my questions if I could just so I understand Ryan The the applicant wanted to be treated as other buildings, similar situated because of the new medical rules we have. Is that really what was presented to staff? Or anyone? Oh Cindy. I think yes, but go ahead, Cindy. I was looking up something for the covenant and anticipation of perhaps answering a different question. So if you could repeat the question, I'm more than happy to answer it. So the applicant's request as I see it, and I just wanted to see if that confirmed that, is that they wanted to be treated similarly to other buildings in terms of what we've done with the medical uses. Yes, that is correct. Is that your understanding? Do you want to be treated similarly to those other buildings who don't have, you had only the ability to have 5,000 square feet, you want to be treated similarly to those buildings? Correct. And in this instance, if the city is going to restrict the first floor, then we would ask for that 5,000 square foot covenant to the 5,000 square feet. For that to still be a part of the covenant and for this to be a modification. So we would have floors two and three be added on, but floors one would have the 5,000 square feet available to. Where is the 5,000 square feet right now? Right now it is on the upper floors of the building. So that would be to me if that's, is that not correct? I'm sorry. Some of the medical uses on the floor? Yes, because you were allowed to. Our 5,000 square feet is not prohibited to only the second and third floors. This 5,000 square feet can be used anywhere. OK. So the covenant does not say that. So you have to buy by the covenant and abide by the zoning code. The zoning code prohibits medical uses on the ground floor. Maybe there is a non-conforming medical use on the ground floor, and that's possible. But generally, the covenant says that medical office uses shall not exceed a cumulative total of 5,000 square feet. So you combine that with the zoning code and that would tell you that the medical offices have to be on the second and third floor. Unless there's a non-conforming medical office there now. And I believe anything that is on the ground floor today would be non-conforming because it would have predated our current prohibition. We've only had the ground floor prohibition for the last couple of years. Okay, so just so I had just getting deeper into this. So right now with the way it is presented to us by staff. The second and third floor would be entitled to be in for medical uses. What would happen with the nonconforming use on the first floor? The nonconforming use on the first floor? The non-conforming use would be allowed to be maintained until it's replaced by a conforming use, but it could not be expanded. Okay. Okay, those are my questions. Okay, do you have anything else to add before we go to because I like to to to to the attorney said that- The 5,000 square feet that you have medical in that building before all this in 1991. They couldn't have been used for surgery center? Of course they can. Could you answer that? Yes. In 1991, yes, it could have been used for that. Today, if the Doning Code prohibits surgery centers and there isn't a nonconforming surgery center currently in the building, then there's no surgery center that would be allowed. Okay. My apologies. If I may chime in on that one. Right before I had the honor of speaking in front of you, the city was contemplating this exact thing. And yes, if there's existing grandfathered medical, it can be used for any purpose, including surgery center. And here, we're talking about 5,000 square feet of grandfathered medical right to the building that could absolutely be used for surgery center. Okay, anything else? Just so any, again, any existing legally nonconforming medical space can remain. It can be medical, but it cannot be expanded. And what is being proposed here, unless the applicant wants to stay with 5,000 square feet only, what is being proposed here is to eliminate that provision from the covenant and let them follow the current rules which allow for 60,000 square feet of medical space. And the second and third floor. That's correct. Although they could maintain whatever amount of medical they currently have on the ground floor. They just can't expand it. Mayor, I have a question. Sure. So just to clarify, currently they have 5,000 square feet, which could be used for medical and surgery centers, because it was grandfathered in. Yes. If it was already in use. Yes. It's not currently in use. Right now, what is being proposed is to change the covenant to the current code and what that would do is would that take away the 5,000 and start over again with the new code is that what we're saying they're asking if they could keep the 5,000 and change to the new code. And we're saying if you convert to the new code, everything has to be changed, including that the first floor cannot be used for medical. Is that, Larry, I'm asking you. No, I think if they have a nonconforming use on the first floor, then that can continue. I do not know whether they have an on-conforming use, I'm told they do, and I accept that. I don't know how big it is, I'm sure they know how big it is. So that could continue. Otherwise, you cannot put a new medical use on the ground floor. Okay. It does that make sense? Do you understand what he's explaining? But the City Council could approve for us to maintain the 5,000 square feet and switch to allow the second and third four. No, no. The City Council cannot violate the zoning code through this covenant. That's what I just said. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm asking you. I'm asking you if we allow for this new that we change the covenant, which is what is being requested so that the other floors can be made into medical. What will happen to their original 5,000 that they're concerned about? Part of it's subsumed. Does it get? Part of it's already subsumed because they're using it on the second floor. So that five, that whatever, how many square feet are being used for non-conforming medical use on the first floor? Okay, so if, if two thousand is being used on the ground floor right now, then that three thousand that was used on the second floor or third floor wherever else is now subsumed in the fact that you have 60,000 square feet there. The non-conforming use, if it's legal, maintains. So then theoretically, again, using your numbers, you have 62,000 square feet because the 2,000 square feet can stay. Is that correct analysis? If this is not a want clarity on, exactly. Yes, you have, if they have, let's presume that they have 2000 square feet as the applicant is indicated. That 2000 can remain, it cannot be expanded, it cannot be used for a purpose that's contrary to the zoning code. But that 2000 square feet can remain medical office. So 5,000 versus 62,000? That's what is being compared right now. But that 5,000 is allowed anywhere currently. I think that peace is not missing. No, it's not. When you did it, the 5,000 was allowed anywhere and tell the ordinance came in that you could not have a medical on the ground floor. So the 5,000 anywhere is no longer anywhere because if you in the from that point on wanted to put medical on the ground floor it wouldn't have been allowed. If you already had medical on the ground floor before that ordinance went into effect it's grandfathered. So do you do that make sense? I definitely understand what City Council is saying. I also think that- That's also the code. That's the ordinance. That's the- Yeah. Well, so, okay, let's, let's, You do have a call, a public comment. Okay, so is there anything else that you'd like to, to state before the rest of the public comment, and then we're gonna go into deliberation. In conclusion, when the city in 2022 allowed the medical ordinance, and they prohibited it on the ground floor, it was precisely to stop retail shops and restaurants and those from being converted into surgery centers and MRIs and that type of stuff. We're not talking about that here. And this whole issue of walkability is a non-issue in this building. In this building, that so-called again, first floor, second floor, and third floor, they're all equally the same exact office spaces. The access is the exact same. You still have to go to an elevator. You have to check in with a security at the front and then you have to go up. So the city's intention was always from the beginning in 2022 when it allowed this ordinance. It was to allow medical on all these office spaces that don't have direct access to the city itself, which is exactly what we're looking at here. So for that reason, I think it's appropriate for the City Council to provide the medical for floors one, two, and three. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Let's go to any other public comment. Thank you very much. You can take a seat. We did receive one written comment. This is from Mr. Steve Mayer. Honorable Mayor and Vice Bear and Council members, thank you for allowing me to make this public comment regarding item F1, a requested covenant change for 91.50 Wilshire. There are aspects of this communication which combine questions, provides perspective and or corrections about the agenda report. Number one, why is this being brought directly to the City Council instead of through the planning commission? Number two, in 2017, the owner wanted to increase his private medical practice for square footage from 5,000 to 11,000 in order to expand into a family medical practice, which would include his physician children. The 6000 square foot expansion was modest. He was very agreeable to one of the community benefits being free parking for NASA. Number three, there is a reference to AB 2097. This building does not qualify under AB 2097 based upon the description in the agenda report. There is reference to a major transit stop at Wilshire and Beverly. There is no major transit stop at Wilshire and Beverly, not only because of the metro station construction, but lack of intersecting bus lines during peak hours. Lines 20 and 720 transits east and west on Wilshire, while lines 617 on Beverly Drive intersects those lines at Wilshire. The stops for Lines 20 and 720 lines has been pushed to Rodeo and Raxford due to the Metro station construction. Lines 617 does not stop at Wilshire. Its stops are at mid-Beverly and Charlieville. Most importantly, Lines 617 does not meet the 15 minute minimum during peak frequency. It offers a frequency of no sooner than 40 minutes. AB 2097 is unequivocable. And unequivocable. Unequivocable. Sorry, having that day today. It is about what exists today and not tomorrow. What has been presented in the agenda report raises doubts about whether this request is viable for consideration by the council. There are other ways for the owner to achieve its goal. The suggestion is that the initial form should be the planning commission as the council's time should be preserved for other matters. It should also be noted that I was and continue to be in favor of the expansion of the existing medical office square footage from 5,000 square feet to 11,000 square feet. There should have been an accommodation for a long standing Beverly Hills physician who just wanted to slightly expand the medical office use in a building he owns. That concludes public comment. Okay, thank you. So with that, we will close the hearing and we will go to comments from members of the council starting with council member Wells. Okay, thank you. So with regard to what has been proposed from staff for the Council to consider today to amend the covenant so that it removes the medical, the prohibition of the second and third floors being used for medical use. And in accordance in alignment really with our current ordinance, I would be in support of that. My question is, is that it sounds as though the applicant may not be in support of that. So from a council standpoint, I think it does give them more flexibility to give them more square footage to be able to have medical use. The question is to whether or not the first floor is a ground floor is not a question that I can answer up here today as a council member. We don't have the information and I do believe that that should go to planning to the planning commission if or to our staff to talk about the details of that and understanding that. I do think that if there is medical use on the first floor, our ground floor right now, that's grandfathered in, then it's grandfathered in. But what is before us in terms of removing and amending the covenant so that it can be aligned with our current ordinance today. I am in support of that if that's what the applicant would like. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Member Corman. Thank you. So I too am in favor of what staffs proposed. My understanding coming to the meeting was that what we were being asked to do is have this building which was subject to a restrictive covenant that limited to 5,000 square feet of medical be subject to instead to the generally applicable medical conversion ordinance with the proviso that there were still some aspects of the old covenant involving parking, which were a public benefit that was given to the city at the time the covenant was entered into. And the reason why you wouldn't just do away with the covenant was to preserve those public benefits. So I am in support of doing that that's been proposed, amending the covenant to do away with the 5,000 square foot medical use limitation, but preserving the public benefits of the parking issues that are mentioned in the covenant. the 5,000 square foot medical use limitation, but preserving the public benefits of the parking issues that are mentioned in the covenant. Now I know the applicant has also said they would like to have special permission or they would like to have they would like to be able to have medical on what they deem to be the ground floor and that's the entrance of the building. And I understand that, I appreciate that. But what I think staff and everyone else has been trying to convey tonight is that that's the entrance of the building. And I understand that, I appreciate that. But what I think staff and everyone else has been trying to convey tonight is that that's not anything that we have the ability to grant tonight. Because what that really is is a disagreement with staff over what is the ground floor in this building based on the grading and the construction of the building. And we can't just say, well, we deem the ground floor to be what is essentially, I guess, the top floor of the parking and slash lobby. If that is the proper interpretation under the code, then they should have medical on that floor. If that's not the proper interpretation of the current code, then obviously the applicant has been given advice on how to address that, either through a variance application which I also agree may not be successful under state law, or a zone tax amendment which would redefine what is the ground floor and include the floor they would like to put the medical on. With respect to the 5,000 square feet of medical, I think it's been made pretty clear that even if we take out the limitation of the 5,000 square feet in the medical in the covenant, there is still, to the extent there is still ground, still there is, to the extent there is today medical on a floor that otherwise would be prohibited under our code. That gets to stay because it's a legally non-conforming use. So if it's 2,000 square feet on the floor that the applicant feels is the ground floor, but our code says it's not, they get to keep the 2,000 square feet on that floor of the pre-existing non-conforming medical use. Now the caveat is, because there was some mentioned about surgeries, if the existing medical use is not a surgery center, and surgery centers are prohibited on what we deem to be the ground floor, you can't get rid of a general medical use, so to speak, and add a surgery center. In other words, the 2,000 square feet is not a get out of jail free card for any medical use to meet you may want to put in. It's a it's the medical use that's there now, guess to say. That's I think the most important thing with lealy non-conforming issue. Am I correct? You are correct only you say the medical use that is there now. It's possible that that could change if it goes from a general practice doctor to a dentist. Yes, but the character couldn't change. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Now, there was some discussion at the early earlier before we got to the covenant and all that and what is really the ground floor under our code. About the fact that as a policy matter, we have some medical uses generate less business tax to the city. And I don't think that's something we can address tonight. I think that fair is fair. I think that the applicant is asking to be subject to the generally applicable medical conversion ordinance. And I think that is fair and I would remove the 5,000 square foot limitation on medical uses and the covenant for that reason. But I do think that it might make sense for us to look at potential code tweaks in the definition of the types of medical uses we would allow in a medical conversion ordinance application. We know surgery centers are prohibited. And there may be other uses that should be prohibited as well if we think that it would be beneficial to the city financially. For example, I think the trend is to have high value procedures, not just surgeries, but things like scans, testing facilities, things that used to be in hospitals are now in medical office throughout the city. And it may be that those uses also should not be subject to the medical conversion ordinance. And that doesn't mean we wouldn't allow them. It just means that it would be then fall back into the medical use overlay zone ordinance, which would allow us to ask for a public benefit if such uses were put into the medical, into the building. And that would allow us to make sure we don't get short change in a business tax basis without having necessarily go to the voters and change the whole tax structure. So I would suggest perhaps at some future point we have staff look at that and see if there are minor tweaks that we can make to the medical conversion ordinance to exclude even more high value, um, um, um, you know, facilities, um, from, from that ordinance. Um, and as I said, not to preclude them, but just to make sure we're not taking a financial hit by having those take over a lot of our general office based in the city. 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. Okay, Council Member Mairish. I'd like to thank the applicants and the staff for the report. I know it just seems to me that right now, I think the general tone is that we want to be able to do more medical because it's more lucrative and we can make more money. And right now, in a building with 90,000 square feet, you can do 5,000 square feet of medical. And we're saying, okay, the current rules allow you to do it on the second and the third floor. That's 60,000 square feet. That's a lot better than 5,000. I mean, and if you're really interested in having medical and making more money because you can charge higher rents, then that's a good deal. I don't buy this. Well, it's not the first floor. Basically, they're saying there is no first floor in this building. It's sort of like the haunted mansion, where there are no windows and no doors or something. But in reality, there are windows and there are doors. And there is always a first floor. And I think the whole point of the medical ordinance, the revision about the first floor, if we would allow this, and again, it's nothing that we can discuss now. But if we would say, well, we're going to deem that the first floor is not a first floor because you need an elevator to get there, then in theory anyone who wanted to do ground floor medical would use the same theory and say, well, it's not really a first floor, it's sort of in that sort of thing. So I kind of feel very strongly that if we're going to be saying and we should, that we're going to lift the previous covenants except for the public benefits. And we're going to allow the developer to have medical in the second and third floor for the entire building, the way we do for other buildings. That's Diana. It should be good enough, you know? And so I know it's nothing that we can discuss now, but I know it's something that may be going to the planning commission and then maybe eventually coming back to us, but we do see that there are other non-medical uses, including office uses, you could do in the first four, is that correct, Ryan? That's correct, any general office. Except for bank, correct? Even a bank would be allowed because this is not in the pedestrian oriented zone. Okay, so there are plenty of other options. Yes, restaurants and cafes and that sort of thing to serve maybe the people who are at the new apartments that are empty across the road would be good but so I actually think the city is being flexible and I think the city is doing the right thing here. I do think we need to in general and I would like to see the ordinance come back to us before October of next year because we want to maintain that balance. We heard that maybe this building is losing a floor of entertainment use. Well, from my perspective, entertainment is the sweet spot of the city. And we should be looking to attract more entertainment businesses. And if we're going to replace entertainment with medical, and in this case, as said, they may be moving for various reasons, I think that's an issue. And it's something that we need to address. And that said though, you have a building with general office and other uses and we're now saying thank you for the parking public benefit and we'll keep that but you can now do two-thirds of the building you can do medical whereas before you could do a little more than 5%. So I actually think that's a pretty good deal for the developer. And hopefully they'll be able to figure out ground floor uses because as said, if we were to make an exception then in theory, everyone else would come and say, well, you know, they think of some reason. So I'll be able to support the staff recommendations, but I would like to ask for the ordinance to come back to us. And as said, I would be very strongly opposed to saying that there are buildings that don't have a first floor, because that isn't even logical. Thank you. Vice-member. Yes, thank you very much. So I want to thank staff for the report and also I want to thank the newmen for coming out. Thank you for being here. I think that this is an issue that has come up so many times and to me when an issue keeps coming back over and over and over again, we really need to do better to come to solutions. These are residents who live in our city. They care for our city. They have a thriving medical practice that they want to be able to expand. They have their family. It's a family business. This is exactly the type of thing that we want to see in Beverly Hills and that sense of community that they're able to share. So for me, I'm in support of approving an amendment to the covenant and I do think that if we're able to support the 2,000 square feet additional to be able to allow for all of the medical that currently exists as part of that 5,000 square feet to continue on. And I find this this request to be viable. So those are my comments. So I'm looking at the exhibit B, Planning Commission Resolution 1556, which interestingly enough, then Commissioner Nal Councilmember Korman was involved in. But the interesting thing about that is that the area estimates of the square footage are much different in the resolution. It says the third floor is 20,101 square feet. I'm sorry. The third floor is 20,101. And then the first and second floors are 26, 4, 4, 9. So I don't know if it was just an estimate of 30,000 or whether or not these numbers are correct. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because the mayor, those numbers refer to the building at 90, 90, well sure. It's just a 90, 90? Okay, I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon. So that- Is that really? Resolution 1556. It says 12 up here on the top. Yes. So that was the resolution that we allowed 44 Austro-Earthly Parking spaces to be dedicated to the other health. So whatever I straight, whatever it is, whether it's 30,000, 25,000, 30,000, the reality is that those two floors are now being enhanced by this amendment to the covenant. And it is a significant difference. I mean, it really is. That's significant. And I think the idea, first proposed by the applicant, you know, perhaps they wanted more than that, but certainly what staff picked up on was the fact that they wanted to be treated like the other buildings. And not only wanted to be treated like the other buildings. And not only are they being treated like the other buildings, they still have the ability to use that nonconforming use on the first floor, whatever that legally nonconforming use is. So I think that the goal of what the staff recommendation is really hits at the heart of what the applicant wants. Now I know the applicant wants much more than that, but that's not something that's before us and it would have to go as you've heard to the Planning Commission initially. I think this makes the building much more marketable in terms of it having its the ability to have the medical use. This is something when we first came on council would have been unheard of, at least during my time on council, that we were expanding medical uses. But of course we had the pandemic and life has changed. And I think that's what we're doing is really catching this building up to what the other buildings have. So I am in support of it also. And at that point, I would like to hear. I have motion. Actually, before the motion, can I just identify that one correction, changing the number 65 to 86 on page two of the proposed covenant. It is item number seven on page two. So, it'll be out of the way. As amended, right. Okay. So, I move to approve an amendment to an existing covenant to remove the medical use prohibition and the existing commercial building located at 91550 Wohlscher Boulevard and to authorize the city manager to execute a new covenant, a set forth in attachment number one of staff's report and to find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as amended. Second. Second was from Council Member Wells. And if we have a role. Council Member Wells. And if we have a roll. Council Member Wells. Yes. Council Member Corman. Yes. Council Member Mirish. Yes. Vice Mayor Nizariant. Yes. And Mayor Friedman. Yes. Okay. Thank you all very much. We will now go on to item G1 report from the city attorney on closed session items. There is nothing to report from the closed session this evening. And report from the assistance city manager? No items to report tonight. And any brief city council member and committee reports and comments starting with council member Wells. First I would like to congratulate and welcome Nathan Hockman, our new Los Angeles County City Attorney, district attorney who was sworn in today and as well as to acknowledge our City Manager Nancy Hunt Coffee's birthday, which was yesterday. And then in terms of meetings that we've been attending, we've had three liaison meetings. Two special event meetings. One was to review the events that the city puts on overall throughout the year, be it through commissions or different committees or special events so that we can align that with what the priorities are for city council, so that's ongoing. Second, we had a meeting with special events to review permit requests for vanity fair and the Los Angeles marathon for this 2025 year. And that will be forthcoming to the council. And third, we had a meeting for the Community Charitable Foundation Committee and with Vice Mayor and myself and we're moving along with revising those bylaws and talking about our next meeting will be to start talking about fundraising for the October 7th Memorial. And lastly, with regards to event in the city, we went to the opening for G.ane, Onrodeo Drive. It's their flagship store at the Frank Lloyd Wright building which was really exciting to see those two merge onrodeo Drive. I think it's a perfect match and it was really exciting to see that and the renovation that they did in that building and will continue to do so that was really exciting and this past Sunday We had a tree planting with the Vaughan Satan Satan Satan Satan Satyon thank you foundation in honor of a Han and and To plant a tree at the Los Antigua Park representing piece. So that's the events for the last week and I'll be back on Tuesday. Thank you. Council Member Corman, in keeping through request to keep things short at nothing additional report. Thank you and Council Member Mirish. Today I attended the swearing in ceremony at the Hall of Justice of our new county district DA, Nathan Hawkman. A special congratulations to Nathan from the city of Beverly Hills. Nathan grew up in Beverly Hills. Nathan went to Beverly Hills schools from K through 12. I voted for Nathan as Beverly High President and was pleased to also vote for him as- Mr. President, his career. Please, please, please, as A.S.B. President, also pleased to vote for him for D.A. And he was sworn in by Governor Schwarzenegger and there were some lovely speeches but the just is it's a new day. It's a new day in which we can look forward to an understanding that criminal justice reform is not mutually exclusive with public safety and victim's rights and I think we can look forward to accountability and more safe communities. I know that our police department is at a number of instances where they've arrested people within the same week after catch and releases for the same crimes. I think that's not going to happen. And Nathan laid out a plan that starts today that's already started reversing some of the noxious and I guess you could say politically motivated ideological policies of Gaston and I think we are on our way to not just us but the other 87 cities in the county and the unincorporated areas to be a safer, better place and look forward to helping Nathan however we can and working with him as well. As said, his family, his mom still lives in town and they have deep Beverly Hills roots. So this is a very special moment for the city and I'm trying to think if we've had any other Beverly Hills residents who've gone on to much higher office. I know Nixon lived here once, but I don't know if that really counts. He was, he's from Jorbalinda, slash Whittier and Nathan is a Beverly Hills guy. We had a Chief Justice who was. Yes. Ron Jordan. Yes, that's true. Yeah. Chief Justice, but that he wasn't elected, wasn't he? No, yeah. So, so that was important. I'd also like to say I know we're all looking forward to next week. We're going to have our meeting before to the mayor's summit against anti-Semitism. I attended last year and I know we're all going to participate. What an honor for that and how appropriate for that to be in Beverly Hills. I will also note that when he was sworn in, Nathan War the yellow ribbon. And I think that means a lot. We haven't forgotten our hostages. And I know we're going to have a minute of silence for Rabbi Kogan, but I'd also like to note that we were devastated when we found out that Omer Noetra from New York, who was an American citizen, who we had hoped was alive, where the IDF announced that he probably been killed already on October 7th. And his parents spoke at the Republican Convention and had been a pillar of strength. And along with them, I think our community is devastated. And it goes to show that we need to bring the remaining hostages home, bring the body, some of those who passed away so that the parents can actually have a proper burial. And it's, you know, I'm looking forward to a lot more interesting discussions in panels next week. And appreciative that the council decided to interesting discussions and panels next week and appreciative that the council decided to bring back the flags next week. I think it's going to be a powerful remembrance and memorial for Omer and all the others who passed away. Finally, I'd like to say that I furthermore propose that Qatar be designated a state sponsor of terrorism, that Qatar be sanctioned, including its assets being frozen and used to compensate the victims of Qatar-funded terrorism, and that the State Department, that we asked the State Department, that the State Department expel State Department, expel the Cotari Consulate from Beverly Hills. I will note that yesterday or two days ago when I was walking by on Dohenny, I saw a couple of service workers who were finally removing the plaque of the former location of the Consulate of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, which was on Dohani. It is no longer there. I believe there are no diplomatic representations of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan anywhere in the United States, but it is not only no longer in Beverly Hills, but the signs aren't there. And I look forward to seeing either that happened with Qatar or hopefully Qatar changing its wicked, wicked ways and joining the family of civilized nations and peace-loving nations and hopefully joining an expanded version of the Abraham Accords, which I know we will be discussing next week. With that, I'd like to also thank the mayor for a job well done and looks like we're going to be out before 9 o'clock. Thank you. Thank you for your abbreviated comments. We'll go on to vice mayor Deserion. Thank you very much. We held a property owners task for us and we heard from our large stakeholders in the city this week. We also attended the opening of Jivanshi on Rodeo Drive and their brand new iconic building and we attended the CTN Family Family Tree dedication which was very meaningful and really was a great way to bring our community together. They've taken a very tragic and difficult situation for any parent and they've really tried to bring blessings and peace and light by bringing the community together and we're very grateful for that. As Councilmember Wells mentioned, the Community Charitable Foundation had a meeting and this is going to be a great segue for the community to be able to participate and support initiatives that are meaningful to them and We're looking forward to bringing that through our 501c3 arm of the city especially as we go into some budgetary restraints that may tire hands this will be a great way to open new doors for us. And I'd also like to offer my condolences with regard to the passing of the tragic murder of Rabbi Sv Kogan. And today marks day 432. So today marks Day 422 since the tragic events of the October 7th massacre. And we mourn the loss of American Israeli Omar Nutra, who has believed to have been held captive since October 7th, but now has been reported to be dead. His body, along with many others, are still being held captive in Gaza by Hamas, denying their family's closure that they need and deserve after such a horrific and traumatic event that happened on October 7th. So this is a heartbreaking reminder of the ongoing frantic and psychological torture endured by families of the 101 hostages still in captivity. Among them, I want to remind you are eight American citizens. These are Americans with American passports. And may their pain end and may we see the release of all of the hostages. We must continue to stand united and speak out for their freedom because the words never again are exactly for moments like these. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And I also want to congratulate D.A. Nathan Hoffman. He's been extremely accessible throughout his campaign to members of our council. And I look forward to continuing that relationship with him throughout his term as DA. It's very heartening, not only did he wear the yellow ribbon on his lapel. Today he has worn it at every event that I have seen throughout his campaign. And it's very heartening to see that kind of support of the state of Israel. In closing, I wanted to adjourn the meeting in the memory of Rabbi Sv Kogan. This moment of silence reflects our sorrow that Rabbi's v Kogan, who was brutally murdered in the United Arab Emirates last month, Rabbi Kogan, who's a dual citizen of Israel and Moldova, worked in the UAE as part of the Khabad Lubavitch movement, conducting Jewish outreach around the world. He was a visible member of the Jewish community, and it disheartens me and my colleagues that he was targeted by cowards who decided to end his life much too soon. I, like everyone on this council, was shaken to hear about the Satrocious and Hienus Act and we are reminded to always stand strong and united against anti-Semitism and hatred of all kind. There is simply no room in this world for this level of brutal and barbaric behavior and everyone should be able to worship their beliefs freely and without fearing for their life. May his memory be a blessing and let us now remember the incredible life of Rabbi Kogan and our hearts go out to his family and loved ones who are so impacted from this loss. If we may have a moment of silence. Thank you. And at this moment, we will adjourn this meeting to our December 10th, 2024 meeting at 7 p.m. and good night everyone.