AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: November 15, 2022
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Timothea Tway, AICP, City Planner
Chloe Chen, Associate Planner
Subject: A REQUEST TO CONTINUE AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S MAY 26, 2022 DECISION AMENDING A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REGULATING ROOFTOP USES AT
9800 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD AND 121 SPALDING DRIVE (SPRING
PLACE)
Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council continue a public hearing to consider an appeal filed by Mark Egerman of Egerman Law Group, LLP, on behalf of the project applicant, Spring Place (collectively, the appellant) to a date certain. Staff recommends this item is continued to the formal City Council meeting on December 6, 2022.
INTRODUCTION
The appeal petition (Attachment 1) challenges the Planning Commission’s decision on May 26, 2022 to adopt an amended Development Plan Review (DPR) resolution that regulates the use of the rooftop operations of the buildings located at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard and 121 Spalding Drive (the project site).
DISCUSSION
This item was previously scheduled for this meeting, and noticing was completed in compliance with the applicable requirements. However, staff recommends that this item is continued to a date certain on December 6, 2022 so that additional noticing will not need to be completed.
F-4
Meeting Date: November 15, 2022
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City at this time since the appellant has paid the required filing fee.
Ryan Gohlich, AICP,
Director of Community Development
Approved By
Attachment 1
Appeal Petition
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK June 8. 2022
Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of the PLANNING COMMISSION (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on M a y 2 6 , 2022; which decision consisted of: Imposing conditions on Spring Place for use of its rooftop and limitations on use of the building proper.
The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State qHgrounds for appeal Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper if necessary.) See Attachment.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
Not Applicable on Not Applicable
(Department Head(s) Involved) Date
It is requested that written notice of the time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:
Mark Egerman, Egerman Law Group, LLP, 280 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 304, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Name Address
Spring Place
__ ^ , attorney
Signature of appealing/arty
9800 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90212 and
121 Spalding Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Address
310-248-6299 (telephone) 310-248-6288 (facsimile)
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid ^ 5'^ 5/? 00 (For City Clerk's use) DATE RECEIVED ' bem hills citv clerk
LOG NO. ^5V Written Notice mailed to appellant: 2022 JUN 8 PM4.07 Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, ) Ty r>(Ci/lLlLAK>M(ri\i ) f^O (2^ f^L Z2- 006 WLj Involved Department
ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FROM RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPTED ON MAY 26, 2022,
REGARDING SPRING PLACE AND THE USE OF THE ROOFTOP AT
9800 WILSHIRE BLVD. AND 121 SPALDING, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 Spring Place appeals the Resolution of the Planning Commission adopted on May 26, 2022.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The property in question is 9800 Wilshire Boulevard and 121 Spalding Drive, Beverly Hills, California which consists of two office buildings in a C-3 zone in the City of Beverly Hills. The rooftops of the building are connected by a bridge over the alley separating the buildings and are improved outdoor areas of just under 7,000 square feet. In 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Development Plan Review (Planning Commission Resolution No. 1683) for the property to allow rooftop structures and uses, consisting of unenclosed architectural features (shade structures) and a rooftop lunchroom facility for employees of the offices.
Spring Place became a tenant of the project site in October 2018, renting the the first two levels of office space in the 9800 Wilshire Boulevard building and the fourth level of the 121 Spalding Drive building. It invested millions of dollars in tenant improvements to develop the space into a private membership-based, co-working office that provides common and dedicated spaces and amenities. Its business model is to provide co-working office space on varies levels, foster interaction among its members and the exchange of ideas and concepts, and provide members with unique event experiences. The events hosted by Spring Place are events designed to create memorable experiences for members and to cultivate connections to brands, publications, personalities, and cultural institutions. Discretionary approval is not required for these activities, as they are allowed by right under the Beverly Hills Municipal Code in a 0-3 zone. Rooftop uses, however, do require discretionary approval under BHMC §10-3-3107.
The Planning Commission on May 25, 2018, approved an Amendment to the Development Plan Review (Resolution No. 1846) to permit food and beverage services on the rooftops of both buildings and to allow up to three guests per Spring Place member to utilize the rooftop facilities. In November, 2020, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1927, which (1) provided greater flexibility regarding the requirement to provide valet services while operations were diminished during the pandemic; (2) clarified that Spring Place shall comply with the City's private club regulations; and (3) clarified that Spring Place shall not be responsible for enforcing business tax license requirements, but shall inform its members of such requirements.
The success of Spring Place's business is dependent upon providing a unique environment in which people gather together to work, interact, network, and mingle at unique events. It was the perfect business model prior to Covid-19, which Covid-19 unfortunately largely destroyed. By March, 2020, Covid-19 essentially shut down Spring Place. While Spring Place attempted to cut its costs by reducing its overhead (e.g., termination of valet parking, reducing staff, etc.), its costs, particularly its monthly rent, remained high. For over a year, it was bleeding cash at an unsustainable rate.
With the development of vaccines against Covid-19, life slowly began to become somewhat more normal commencing in 2021. Businesses, including Spring Place, many on the verge of bankruptcy, began the painful process of recovery by attempting to generate revenue to sustain its operations. Spring Place began the process of trying to once again become viable and rebuild its staff. To do so, it seized every legitimate business opportunity that was available to build back its business.
The City received complaints regarding events being held at Spring Place and on its rooftop. It referred the matter to the City Prosecutor, which resulted in a meeting between the City Prosecutor, City Code enforcement officers, and representatives of Spring Place on March 16, 2022. The meeting resulted in Spring Place changing attendance requirements for two upcoming events and changing its advertising. Spring Place also put into place various measures to insure greater compliance with the rules and regulations under which it operates.
The Planning Commission contemporaneously called Spring Place for a hearing to review the conditions under which it could conduct activities on its rooftop. The original hearing date was set for April 28, 2022, but this date was continued to May 12, 2022. Prior to the hearing date of May 12, 2022, Spring Place instituted the following compliance steps:
1. Ann Kleinhenz, a Vice President of Spring Place, was designated as the compliance officer to ensure that Spring Place follows all of the requirements of the City of Beverly Hills in its daily operations. In addition, she is responsible for monitoring all marketing communications on an ongoing basis as part of her position as the compliance officer.
Specifically, she has been instructed to ensure that all marketing materials specify that programing and events are open only to members of Spring Place and a limited number of their invited guests.
All employees involved in programming events and booked events are required to complete an in-house training program by Spring Place's legal counsel of the various rules and regulations regarding its operations. Two one hour long in-house training programs have been completed.
3. A checklist of City Requirements is being developed for each and every programing event held by Spring Place.
4. Gaby Alexander was retained to reintroduce her successful outreach program. She developed a communication card to be given to surrounding neighbors of Spring Place. She has reached out with Karim Elfeky, Vice President of Member Care at Spring Place, going door-todoor to speak with residents, introduce them to Karim Elfeky, and to leave with them his contact number should the residents have any concerns or problems. The response from the residents they have already contacted has been very positive. Many have expressed appreciation for the effort and the direct access they have been given.
5. Spring Place is negotiating with Veneklasen Associates, a sound engineering firm, for testing to ensure that any noise resulting from permitted events at Spring Place is below the legal threshold, and, if not, to design proper engineering modifications to ensure that there will be no noise violations or negative impacts on neighbors. Christian Toraldo, the CEO of Spring Place, and Mark Egerman, attorney for Spring Place, met with Steven Martin of Veneklasen at Spring Place. The physical premises were toured, and Mr. Martin was asked to develop a testing program to ensure that any and all activities and noises resulting from operations at Spring Place comply with all City ordinances and requirements.
II.
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
A. The Planning Commission Meeting of May 26, 2022, Was Not Noticed.
The Resolution adopted on May 26, 2022, contains material and substantive new restrictions that were not raised or discussed at the hearing of the Planning Commission on May 12, 2022, and staff was never directed to include those additional restrictions in the Resolution. Specifically, at the hearing on May 12, 2022, the Planning Commission recognized that its proposed limitations on activities related only to rooftop use and not the building itself. Staff was directed to draft a resolution: (1) prohibiting events on the rooftop; (2) limiting rooftop use to thirty (30) individuals at any given time; (3) prohibiting food and beverage service on the rooftop; and (4) limiting the hours of rooftop use to between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. Further restrictions, which had never been discussed at the Planning Commission meeting on May 12, 2022, and which staff was not directed to include in the Resolution, included a prohibition on events inside of the buildings unless related to "an ancillary function of the co-working office use" and specifically prohibited events inside of the buildings "unrelated to a commercial office use." The proposed Resolution also deleted the prior provision that valet parking not be required during the Covid-19 pandemic. Since these were totally new issues that were taken up, of which the Spring Place and the public were unaware and not notified, proper notice of the hearing was required, but was not given.^ B. Restrictions Only Allowing Events Inside Of The Buildings That Are "An Ancillary Function of the Co-working Office Use" And Prohibiting Events Inside the Buildings "Unrelated to a Commercial Office Use" And The Deletion of the Prior Provision That Valet Parking Not Be Required During the Covld-19 Pandemic Were Improperly Obtained.
Two new and previously not discussed restrictions were included in the proposed resolution given to the Planning Commission by Staff for the May 26, 2022, meeting: (1) Events in the buildings (not on the rooftop) were prohibited if they are "unrelated to a commercial office use;" and (2) the exemption to the requirement of valet parking during the pandemic was eliminated.
It is clear from the transcript of the May 12, 2022, Planning Commission hearing (at the close of public comment) that the Planning Commissioners were considering restrictions only on use of the rooftop." A sampling of the Commissioners* statements is as follows:
P: "In any event, we are here today to deal with the use of the rooftop. That's the only thing we have any jurisdiction over. I'm sure ..." P: "I just wanna bring us into the precise issue in front of us, which is "what are we going to do about the rooftop?" are we going to change the conditions? I say yes. I think that it may be some day that the new leadership can earn our trust and confidence but it hasn't happened yet and we've seen the movie before and I don't want to go through it all again. I wanna se if commissioner Ross ...
M: Commissioner Ross, do you want to comment on that? He's suggesting that we...
P: Well, I haven't finished. Did you want to say anything? M: No
P: OK, I think what we have to take the findings to deal with and we have to craft something respecting the limitations on the use of the roof that are 1 A partial transcript of the hearing of May 12, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 4 consistent with what the findings require and take into account the past history, I'm prepared to suggest some things, but Commissioner Ross, it looked like you wanted to raise an issue
M: Commissioner Ross?
G: We're just doing public commentary and deliberations, yes? M: Yes
G: I'm very disappointed in what I've seen over the last two years. I am extremely disappointed with what has been alleged over the last three or four months since the new team has been put in place. You're all saying the right things since Mr. Toraldo took over in December of 2021. There are a number of alleged violations with the hiring of Ann in March 2022, subsequent allegations of violations, so when it comes to the rooftop I do share in large measure Commissioner Osteroffs concerns. I also am a believer in, because I'm newer to this than Commissioner Osteroff, in last chances. And in my mind, you are all on very, very thin ice and I am open minded to a final warning double secret probation zero tolerance going fonward. I am open minded to giving this new management team a last best chance going forward with a narrow permission to continue on the rooftop with stricter conditions, but I am disappointed in the presentation, not from you, Mr. Egerman, but from Mr. Toraldo, who was either ill prepared or unwilling to answer some of our questions. As CEO, he's here today and we asked him very specific questions that a hands on resident CEO operator should know about what types of people attended events that are under scrutiny right now, how much they were charged, so I don't know if its an inadequate answer today because he knew what was on the table and what kind of questions we were asking. So I'm not ready to drop the hammer and shut down the roof, but I'm close, and I would only permit in my mind continued rooftop operations with a very, very short leash, and have you evaluate them over the next 12 weeks, three months with a very, very strict zero tolerance policy and any close calls in my mind will be construed against Spring Place. I'm very close to being with Commissioner Ostroff, on this, but I do have a sense that I'd like to give them one last best chance."
P: "I'm not suggesting that we shut down the roof. I am suggesting that we have much stricter conditions and conditions that we can enforce. We can't enforce who is a member and who isn't. You guys change membership categories every day and you do whatever you want. So I think the limitations have to be in terms of the hours of use, the nature of the use, the number of people whether they're members, giraffes. whatever they may be, that's what I think we should do. So I wasn't suggesting that we close down the roof. What I am suggesting is that there are very, very strict limits on it that are enforceable. And we are not going to have to quibble about who is a member and who isn't, but we would limit it to a certain number, limit commission hours, not have food and beverage service, things of that nature. That's what I had in mind.
Sorry to interrupt."
P: "I am not sure whether, where I go between the two of you, but I will make some specific suggestions, but I do think we need to have a very, very strict limits on the use of the roof and they have to be clearly enforceable.
So I would not purport to talk about what categories of people, but would talk about the number and my number would be 10. No more than 10 people. No events, but if people who work there want to go up on the roof, sit, talk, I would permit that during the normal business hours 9-6 Monday through Friday. I could be persuaded to do it on Saturday, but there is no events, no parties, no amplification, no microphones, no weddings, nothing. No more than 10 people at a time with a specific working hours like 9-6. Something like that, and no food or beverage service, period. Those are things that we can, that someone can observe and enforce, and we don't to quibble about whether somebody's a member or whether it was a ticketed event or whatever it was. So that's the kind of thing that I would support is limits on those types.
M: Commissioner Ross, do you have any comments? Because I hear you didn't. Commissioner Osteroff, you didn't enumerate how many events of this type you believe they should be allowed to have.
P: No, zero was my number...
M: No, no, should they be allowed to have 10 people on the roof 30 days a month or should ...
P: Well, I think that I would prefer that it just be weekdays, but I don't feel terribly strongly about that, I just want to make sure there's no food or beverage up there, that there's no, that it just can't be that many people gathering. That would be my focus.
M: Commissioner Ross, your comments?
G: I would tend to be a bit more lenient. I am operating off of Resolution 1927 and guess I would ask our own staff if 1 am correct in the following assumptions, that's the operative condition, am I correct? 1927 and that allows Spring Place to hold roof time operations until 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. Am I correct?
staff: Yes"
G: "Well, I'm in agreement that we should limit the number of events, the number of people, their hours should be shrunk, and that they should not have amplification or parties up there. Where I might be more lenient than you is just on the numbers, but we're not that far apart.
P: Give me your number and maybe we can split the difference.
G: Where are we on the number of events? Oh, no events, zero events, I agree with you. I would allow them to have 20 people on the roof at any particular time.
P: Well, you were at 15."
P: "The one thing that Mr. Egerman has said that I find a little persuasive is that its 6,000 square feet so maybe I can be a little more flexible in terms of the gross number of people. I really can't get involved in whether they're members, I think we have to have an absolute limit on the number people that are there at any given time and I can be persuaded to go above 20 people, 25 people, but not in any organized way but if the workers or, unfortunately, as far as I can tell is a very small minority of the total membership that actually has the right to use either an office or a desk and I may be wrong about that. I don't really care. What I thought we were getting was an office environment where almost everyone who was a member was either going to be somebody who had a dedicated office or at least a dedicated workspace and that would be my own concept of what was presented to begin with. So maybe there'd be a couple of the, 10% of the folks, would have some lesser rights than that but nothing like this. I don't mean to give a speech, but I'd be willing to say 20 to 25 people could go up there and I would also have no objections if they brought their own sandwiches or drinks up there but I'd like to limit the hours, certainly not until 10 at night. There's no need for that with a lunchroom. So if I could make a specific proposal, I would say that there's no food or beverage service there, but people can bring [food or drinks] if they get something down below and they want to bring a sandwich or a drink or both up that's ok and I would limit the number to say 25 people and at any one time. No more than 25 total and the hours would be maybe 9 to 7 or 9 to 8, something like that. That's where I would go.
M: Commissioner Ross do you want to comment on that?
G: Sure, we're getting very close. I agree with 9 to 8. I would, one category 7 of membership is like 450 members and the community member is 356. I would advocate for a larger number than you are given the space, it's quite large, and narrow their hours from 9 to 8 instead of 10:00 I would be comfortable with the number in the range of 30 to 45 from 9 to 8, no food service up there, although they can bring food up there from the first or second floor, whatever it is, and I would want to see them in 90 days, meaning they're coming back to us in 90 days akin to an Order to Show Cause regarding whether or not behaved ...
P: That may be a little short. There's notices and all kinds of things.
G: OK, I wanna see them back here in a time that's ...
P: I'll go with 30
G: 30 people?
P: Yeah
G: OK. And, so we're 15 people apart...
P: No, you said 30-45, I'm taking the 30
G: Um, and with a strict return date to see how they're doing. I want to give, I was impressed by Miss Kleinzhenz. I want to give, um Gaby Alexander has a fantastic reputation. I think they put a good team in place. I would like Mr. Toraldo to be back when they come back and be more informed, and I'd like to give them 90 days, if that's too short, I'm just gonna use that as shorthand, and see how they do ...
P: Say 6 months ...
G: Fine, 6 months and see how they do and what neighborhood complaints there are or aren't and evaluating at that time, I think we narrow their rights, give them some rights, and have them come back along the lines of perameters as we've discussed. I think we're 30 to 45 apart.
M: Thank you. Um, I'm gonna go with the 30. That's way beyond what I originally started with. In fact, it's double. It is a space that people to couple off, or whatever and do business or be by themselves or eat lunch or discuss things privately. I think that's fine, but bring your own drinks and food. No food service on the roof. The hours 9 to 8, but nothing less than a 6 month review. 6 months or 9 months. It takes time. Let's see how this works, and uh, I think we're all in agreement, so we've given direction to our staff. Are you satisfied with the ..."
8 As can be seen from the excepts, there was no discussion or consideration of restricting events in the co-working office premises to events that are "an ancillary function of the co-working office use" and prohibiting them if they are "not related to a commercial office use." Further, there was no discussion at all of eliminating the exemption to the requirement of valet parking during the pandemic.
C. The Requirement That an Event in the Co-working Office Space inside of the Buiidings Be "An Anciiiary Function of the Co-Working Office Use" and Prohibiting Events Inside of the Building If They Are "Not Related to a Commercial Office Use" is Beyond the Jurisdiction of the Planning Commission in That Those Events Have Nothing to Do with Regulation of the Rooftop Uses and Are Contrary to the BHMC.
The Resolution places a condition on the use of the building, i.e., events inside of the buildings are limited to those that are "an ancillary function of the co-working office use" and are barred inside of the buildings if they are "unrelated to a commercial office use." This restriction has no relationship to the rooftop uses of Spring Place and, therefore, exceeds the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Further, it is explicitly contrary to the uses allowed in a 0-3 zone.
D. The Terms "An Anciiiary Function of the Co-Working Office Use" And "Unrelated to a Commercial Office Use" Are Vague, Ambiguous, and Uninteiligibie.
The criteria of allowing events inside of the buildings only if they are "an ancillary function of the co-working office use" and banning all events inside of the buildings unless if they are "unrelated to a commercial office use" are vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. It places Spring Place in the untenable position of having to determine whether an event is "an ancillary function of the co-working office use" and if the event is "unrelated to a commercial office use." Keep in mind that there are criminal penalties if Spring Place is found to violate the terms of the resolution. Literally, the language if narrowly construed bars all events inside of the buildings, but in broadly construed would allow any event inside of the buildings.
E. The Banning of Events Inside of the Buildings Is Designed to Destroy Spring Place as a Viable Business Entity.
As previously stated by Spring Place, its business model is to provide co-working office space on varies levels, foster interaction among its members and the exchange of ideas and concepts, and provide members with unique event experiences. The events hosted by Spring Place are designed to create memorable experiences for members and to cultivate connections to brands, publications, personalities, and cultural institutions. The requirement to allow events inside of the buildings only if they have "an ancillary function of the co-working office use" and to prohibit them if they are "unrelated to a commercial office use" undermines the ability of Spring Place to develop and maintain a viable business model. Events for members and guests are an integral part of Spring Place's business model. Spring Place invested millions of dollars to develop a state-ofthe-art environment for a co-working office space. To attract members, one of the key offerings is unique outstanding events for its members. To prohibit events, is to effectively destroy its business.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectively requested that the Resolution of the Planning Commission of May 26, 2022, be overturned and that no new restrictions be placed on Spring Place. Existing restrictions and limitations on, private clubs, noise, and entertainment outside of the business triangle are more than sufficient to protect the neighbors.
Dated: June 8, 2022
Egerman Law Group, LLP
By:.
Mark Egerman, Attorn^s for
Spring Place
10 % /
EXHIBIT "A"
11 Planning Commission
May 12,2022
1:42:11 start
P: In any event, we are here today to deal with the use of the rooftop. That's the only thing we have any jurisdiction over. I'm sure ...
M: Maybe we should move into deliberations. It sounds as if you're already ready.
P: that's where I am
M: you're already there and we have to catch up. I'm going got close the public hearing.
P: I thought that you did.
M: no, I didn't
P: Can I continue my speech?
M: No we didn't, but now that we did...
P: I wanna come to the point, which is, I think, thank you for setting me straight procedurally. I don't always know quite how to do that.
C: may I make a comment, is that permitted?
M: if you ask him a question, now that the public comment hearing is closed, commissioner Osteroff, do you have a question for him?
P: No, I don't have any questions for him
M: I think we're at the commissioner deliberations so we're going to continue in that vain.
P: I just wanna bring us into the precise issue in front of us, which is "what are we going to do about the rooftop?" are we going to change the conditions? I say yes. I think that it may be some day that the new leadership can earn our trust and confidence but it hasn't happened yet and we've seen the movie before and I don't want to go through it all again.
I wanna se if commissioner Ross ...
M: Commissioner Ross, do you want to comment on that? He's suggesting that we ...
P: Well, I haven't finished. Did you want to say anything? M: No
P: OK, I think what we have to take the findings to deal with and we have to craft something respecting the limitations on the use of the roof that are consistent with what the findings require and take into account the past history, I'm prepared to suggest some things, but Commissioner Ross, it looked like you wanted to raise an issue M: Commissioner Ross?
G: We're just doing public commentary and deliberations, yes? M: Yes
G: I'm very disappointed in what I've seen over the last two years. I am extremely disappointed with what has been alleged over the last three or four months since the new team has been put in place. You're all saying the right things since Mr. Toraldo took over in December of 2021, there are a number of alleged violations with the hiring of Ann in March 2022, subsequent allegations of violations, so when it comes to the rooftop I do share in large measure Commissioner Osteroff s concerns. I also am a believer in, because I'm newer to this than Commissioner Osteroff, in last chances. And in my mind, you are all on very very thin ice and I am open minded to a final warning double secret probation zero tolerance going forward. I am open minded to giving this new management team a last best chance going forward with a narrow permission to continue on the rooftop with stricter conditions, but I am disappointed in the presentation, not from you, Mr. Egerman, but from Mr. Toraldo who was eidier ill prepared or unwilhng to answer some of our questions. As CEO, he's here today and we asked him very specific questions that a hands on resident CEO operator should know about what types of people attended events that are under scrutiny right now, how much they were charged, so I don't know is an inadequate answer today because he knew what was on the table and what kind of questions we were asking, so I'm not ready to drop the hammer and shut down the roof, but I'm close, and I would only permit in my mind continued rooftop operations with very very short leash and have you evaluate them over the next 12 weeks, three months with a very very strict zero tolerance policy and any close calls in my mind will be construed against Spring Place. I'm very close to being with Commissioner Osteroff, on this, but I do have a sense that I'd like to give them one last best chance.
P: Can I be heard?
M: No, I like to say some things.
P: Can I just finish my thoughts on this?
M: OK, because, I have...
P: I'm not suggesting that we shut down the roof. I am suggesting that we have much stricter conditions and conditions that we can enforce. We can't enforce who is a member and who isn't. You guys change membership categories every day and you do whatever you want. So I think the limitations have to be in terms of the hours of use, the nature of the use, the number of people whether they're members, giraffes, whatever they may be, that's what 1 think we should do. So 1 wasn't suggesting that we close down the roof.
What 1 am suggesting is that there are very very strict limits on it that are enforceable.
And we are not going to have to quibble about who is a member and who isn't but we would limit it to a certain number, limit commission hours, not have food and beverage service, things of that nature. That's what 1 had in mind. Sorry to interrupt.
M: Thank you, 1 just wanted to give my opinion so that you heard, 1 think that Spring Place opened with a wonderful concept in mind, something we really need in this community, I've heard it said by some young people at some campaign events that they would like a coworking social place for younger people so 1 think that your initial concept and your presentation when 1 wasn't on the planning commission was a very good one. 1 think that you have repeatedly not only disregarded the regulations but you have blatantly gone ahead and continued in non compliance to everything that has been indicated including letters from the City and code enforcement. You've taken a lot of time also of our staff and our lawyers, etc. so my faith in your continuing or discontinuing the type of behavior that has been going on for several years is very very slight. However, 1 do not believe in last chances. You've had your last chances. You've had it again and again and again and again and we have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people who told you what is allowed and what is not allowed and you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this and do that and we haven't seen it. 1 know that you've changed your legal representation and that have also changed your administration and brought on new people and 1 think that's a good first step, but to the only way 1 would consider continuing any type of rooftop is to include the most stringent of regulations which would include the number of events that we would allow. That has to be limited. The times that they would be allowed. The nature of the events. The numbers of people involved. And 1 think as you said Commissioner Osteroff, it has to be enforceable. We have given you years and years and a again a lot of staff time, attorney time has been taken to try to help you to come back to compliance. So 1 will entertain some suggestions because we're supposed give staff some direction on allow the rooftop to continue under the strictest regulations possible. So would either of my fellow commissioners, oh! Commissioner Osteroff...
P: 1 am not sure whether, where 1 go between the two of you, but 1 will make some specific suggestion but 1 do think we need to have very very strict limits on the use of the roof and they have to be clearly enforceable. So 1 would not purport to talk about what categories of people but would talk about the number and my number would be 10. No more than 10 people. No events, but if people who work there want to go up on the roof, sit, talk, 1 would permit that for during the normal business hours 9-6 Monday through Friday. 1 could be persuaded to do it on Saturday but there is no events, no parties, no amplification, no microphones, no weddings, nothing, no more than 10 people at a time with a specific working hours like 9-6, something like that, and no food or beverage service, period. Those are things that we can, that someone can observe and enforce and we don't to quibble about whether somebody's a member or whether it was a ticketed event or whatever it was. So that's the kind of thing that I would support is limits on those types.
M: Commissioner Ross, do you have any comments? Because I hear you didn't.
Commissioner Osteroff, you didn't enumerate how many events of this type you believe they should be allowed to have.
P: No, zero was my number...
M: No, no, should they be allowed to have 10 people on the roof 30 days a month or should P: Well, I think that I would prefer that it just be weekdays, but I don't feel terribly strongly about that, I just want to make sure there's no food or beverage up there, that there's no, that it just can't be that many people gathering. That would be my focus.
M: Commissioner Ross, your comments?
G: I would tend to be a bit more lenient. I am operating off of Resolution 1927 and guess I would ask our own staff if I am correct in the following assumptions, that's the operative condition, am I correct? 1927 and that allows Spring Place to hold roof time operations until 10:00 p.m. seven days a week. Am I correct?
Staff: Yes
G: and that allows Spring Place to have their members bring 10 guests up per member.
Staff: I believe its 3 guests per member.
OS: There's 10 guests per member allowed inside the facility but a limit of 3 guests per member on the rooftop under the prior conditions.
G: So I'll ask my colleague, when you say 10 people on the roof maximum, would that be 10 members or do you care?
P: No, I don't care, because that is unenforceable. This >vill be the, you know, the St.
Patrick's day special membership, or whatever they have, they charge them $25 and now this person is a member. We can't distinguish and I don't want to get involved in it. I want to make it simple, that a City person can go and count how many people are there and not worry about whether they're members, or zebras, or whatever they might be.
G: Well, I'm in agreement that we should limit the number of events, the number of people, their hours should be shrunk, and that they should not have amplification or parties up there. Where I might be more lenient than you is just on the numbers, but we're not that far apart.
P: Give me your number and maybe we can split the difference.
G: Where are we on the number of events? Oh, no events, zero events, I agree with you. I would allow them to have 20 people on the roof at any particular time.
P: Well, you were at 15.
G: I would shrink their hours to 10:00 p.m. under their behaviors is too late. I would let them be up there until 8:00 p.m. And I personally would allow them to serve food and drinks up there. I'd probably get out voted, but that's just how I would vote P: I won't vote for that.
M: OK I'm going to propose then a modification, I'll go between the two of you. I lean towards the 10 but because you are suggesting 20, I'll suggest no more than 15 people.
Period. Up on the roof. I think that to give them some evening I would allow 9-8:00 p.m. but I would not allow food and beverage. They can go up there and talk, do whatever they'd like to do, discuss, but I think we have to be a little bit pimitive in terms of what they are doing. I think that's manageable, no events, no amplification, etc. and I think that would work for me.
G: May I ask Mr. Egerman a question?
M: Yeah
G: I know that you and your client are probably not happy with any of this, but in terms of the topics that we're discussing, how important is your ability to serve food and beverage on the rooftop?
ME: Well, it is obviously an amenity, but let me simply point out that the rooftop area, I believe, is 6,000 square feet. A no event limitation is what is says: no events on the rooftop. To say that members or employees are limited to 10, 15 or 20, as Christian's lawyer, I would probably advise him to simply close the rooftop rather than risk the violations so that is effectively what you're doing.
M: But you've not answered the question. I'm sorry. The Commissioner asked you a question about food and drink. You haven't answered. We went off on a tangent.
ME: I would divide food and drink into two categories and I would request you to clarify this issue. Does no food and drink mean that the service staff cannot bring food and drink up, or does it mean that someone who buys a drink at the bar cannot walk up the stairs to the rooftop with it, because it's a different enforcement issue that we have to know the answer to. Did that answer the question?
M: Now I'll give it back to Commissioner
G: The existing circumstances at Spring Place sells food on the rooftop? ME: 1 believe they can order food and drink that will be brought up to them by staff.
G: Got it. Now to get to the food. Narrowing it to the food. How important is that to the operations of Spring Place?
ME: Well if there's only going to be 10-15 people 1 don't think it's going to be very important.
G: How many people are on that rooftop typically on Monday through Thursday between 6 and 10?
ME: Every time I've been there there have not been many people. 1 think what you're doing is effectively eliminating the rooftop as a viable component of their business, once you eliminate and disallow any event.
G: That's the difficult part of what we might be doing, we haven't done anything yet. It's the events. It's not just the causal meeting that takes place on the roof that populates the roof, it's the events that is the important component and the difficult part of what we're considering. Am 1 correct?
ME: that is correct.
M: Thank you. Commissioner Osteroff?
P: Unfortunately what we've seen is gross abuse of that permission. We simply ... consistent with the findings that we have to make, we couldn't, in my view, it would be imprincipled of us to allow that to occur again and so when 1 talk about a number of people, its just one or two go up and talk and whatever it is, but never more than N number on the roof at any given time. Whether, 1 don't want to get involved in whether somebody could bring a drink up or a cup of coffee or something like that, my restriction that there be no service up there so that a couple of people wanted to walk up there with a cup of coffee, nobody's going to take it out of their hands. It's just not a place that we can, with any good conscious, allow, given what's going on in the past. 1 don't share that notion that there's anything punitive about this. This is taking the findings that we have and applying them to this particular operation given what has gone before. And like 1 said, the world did not start in March, it didn't start in January, we've been going with this for a long time, and it circumstances change, there's a little more inflation and "oh my goodness, business isn't so good, we've gotta do something, and we'll ignore the conditions." We can't do that again. We just can't do it.
ME: You could require for any event involving X number of people that there be a code compliant officer present.
P: There's a lot of things we could do, but 1 think we're past that point, Mark. 1 think that, and 1 do have the disappointment that no one but the applicant has chosen to address what has to be paramount in our lives which is that we have been consistently misled by this enterprise. I'm not pointing the finger at Mr. Toraldo, but he didn't change things when he was told to cease and desist, it didn't happen, and so 1 don't, but even if you did, we just, next month is then and this is now and we just, how can we have any confidence that whatever things we allow will not be abused as they have been abused consistently and materially in a way that really did a bad thing for our City that you were mayor of...
M: This is not a discussion. I'm going to stop it now. You've already said your piece. We need to come to some conclusions here.
G: 1 have another question or two. 1 think ?? Had a question:
R: 1 just wanted to add one clarification because 1 think it sort of, the conversation about events, the commission is somewhat constrained by the code regardless of what Mr.
Egerman may or may not be asking for. The way that this rooftop was originally permitted the section of the code that it relies on is the rooftop lunchroom provision which allows for rooftop lunchrooms but also includes sort of ancillary outdoor events that go along with this and that the only way the events have been permitted through the prior resolutions is because it was understood that these were occasional events and they there for the folks who were the co-working members, the were essentially office workers within the building and that was a component of the feature available to them. There is not an ability in the code even to use this as a venue for outside events where you're hosting things which is frankly why that's written into the conditions already to begin with, so there's really nothing the code to allow for outside events on this rooftop.
M: Very helpful. Thank you.
G: So they're not allowed to have any events on the rooftop.
M: Correct.
R: Well, with the exception of those events that are specific for the coworking members of the club because that was viewed as an ancillary component of the office use. It was never intended to be something that could turn into an event venue.
G: So, when we speak of events and we speak of Spring Place, we're speaking of member only events.
R: that is essentially the only types of events that could be hosted ...
P: I thought you said co-worker?
R: Co-workers are the members, essentially.
P: We can't get into a situation where we are quibbling over whether someone is a bonafide member, we just can't get into that. Whether people could take their lunch up there, I don't feel strongly about that. But I'm not, more confused now than I was before about what you're suggesting we can't limit in that way?
R: No, I'm not sure what Mr. Egerman was asking for the ability to do events. I don't know what types of events he was referring to, all I'm suggesting is that the idea of outside events and basically renting the rooftop out as a venue or outside events to take place, that's something that the code doesn't even allow. If Spring Place wants to say "hey, we're going to bring in Depok Shopra to do some sort of event with our members," then that's just an amenity that they're offering to the members, that's fine. That's what was intended with the original conditions, but if he's coming in and they're doing a ticketed event or something like that there where it's hey bring whoever you want, that is not what was intended with the conditions.
M: so what we're trying to do is figure out conditions that we can give direction to staff to put into to make a, to come back with, and that's what we're discussing right now. So we have on the table several different suggestions.
G: one last question, Mr. Egerman, may I?
M: Yeah
G: when you said that shutting down your events is tantamount to shutting down the rooftop, did I understand you correctly?
ME: I think I was referring to the fact that if you say no more than 10,15 or 20 members at any one time could be on the rooftop it will probably be my legal advice to shut it down because the risk of a violation from my prospective is greater than any amenity to a very small number of people having access to 6,000 square feet of space and it would also require them dedicating personnel to continue to monitor this as a practical matter it just doesn't work. That's what I'm saying.
P: You're a wonderful lawyer, you can give whatever advice you want to give and that may be your advice, that's fine, that's a business decision for you to make. We have to deal widi the City, the residents, the findings and try to apply them here in a way that is consistent with everything that you have seen.
G: I'm sorry I'm still confused. I heard you speaking in terms of events and I heard you say something like if we blocked Spring Place from having events, correct me if I'm wrong, that's the equivalent of rendering the rooftop useless as a practical matter. Did I misunderstand you? What were you referring to when you said events. I'm trying here.
I'm trying to find something that might work for you guys.
ME: No, I appreciate that. I am referring to a member or group of members getting together for an event on the rooftop with the possibility that under current regulations which may change momentarily, bring three guests with them. And I am also referring generally to the absolute limitation to the number of people which would be members and employees being limited to 10,15, or 20 in a space that is 6,000 square feet.
M: I just wanted to remind every to what Mr. Gohlich told us, the purpose of the rooftop in approving it was a Ixmch time area where people could bring food up, no service and it was not designed, if I'm correctly interpreting what you said, it was for lunch time employee or coworker use.
R: You are generally correct. It's considered a lunch room under the code. However, it doesn't mean that it's only during lunch hours, that's just the terminology. The condition has defined the hours for this particular user and we have other rooftop lunch areas in the city where the commission has imposed hours based on potential impacts and things like that, but yes it is intended as a space for the members to utilize as an ancillary space to the office environment. We have allowed them to provide drink service, again as an ancillary and then you can go up to the rooftop to do some work, or take a meeting up there and have some food provided. But again it was not intended and the code does not provide for it to become an event venue working or renting it out. Go back and give another example: let's say Spring Place has some connection with Elon Musk and they say hey we're gonna bring in Elon Musk, he's goima give a talk on the rooftop, come and members, if you want to bring three guests you can come do that. That would be allowed the way the conditions are currently written because again that's a minor ancillary thing it's not a recurring event venue, but that would also be a situation where they couldn't charge the members to participate in that, it's really just an offering they're providing as prograimning for the membership.
M: Thank you for the explanation, do you want to start by giving some suggestions and we'll see how it goes?
P: The one thing that Mr. Egerman has said that I find a little persuasive is that its 6,000 square feet so maybe I can be a little more flexible in terms of the gross number of people. I really can't get involved in whether they're members, I think we have to have an absolute limit on the number people that are there at any given time and I can be persuaded to go above 20 people, 25 people but not in any organized way but if the workers or, unfortunately, as far as I can tell is a very small minority of the total membership that actually has the right to use either an office or a desk and I may be wrong about that, I don't really care, what I thought we were getting was an office environment where almost everyone who was a member was either going to be somebody who had a dedicated office or at least a dedicated workspace and that would be my own concept of what was presented to begin with so maybe there'd be a couple of the 10% of the folks would have some lesser rights than that but nothing like this, I don't mean to give a speech but I'd be willing to say 20 to 25 people could go up there and I would also have no objections if they brought their own sandwiches or drinks up there but I'd like to limit the hours, certainly not until 10 at night, there's no need for that with a lunchroom.
So if I could make a specific proposal I would say that there's no food or beverage service there but people can bring if they get something down below and they want to bring a sandwich or a drink or both up that's Ok and I would limited the number of say 25 people and at any one time no more llian 25 total and the hours would be maybe 9 to 7 or 9 to 8, something like that. That's where I would go.
M: Commissioner Ross do you want to conunent on that?
G: Sure, we're getting very close. I agree with 9 to 8. I would, one category of membership is like 450 members and the community member is 356. I would advocate for a larger number than you are given the space, it's quite large, and narrow their hours from 9 to 8 instead of 10:001 would be comfortable with the number in the range of 30 to 45 from 9 to 8, no food service up there, although they can bring food up there from the first or second floor, whatever it is, and I would want to see them in 90 days, meaning they're coming back to us in 90 days akin to an Order to Show Cause regarding whether or not behaved...
P: that may be a little short. There's notices and all kinds of things. 0: OK, I wanna see them back here in a time that's ...
P: I'll go with 30
G: 30 people?
10 P: Yeah
G: OK. And, so we're 15 people apart...
P: No, you said 30-45, I'm taking the 30
G: Um, and with a strict return date to see how they're doing. I want to give, I was impressed by Miss Kleinzhenz, I want to give, um Gaby Alexander has a fantastic reputation, I think they put a good team in place. I would like Mr. Toraldo to be back when they come back and be more informed, and I'd like to give them 90 days, if that's too short, I'm just gonna use that as shorthand, and see how they do ...
P; Say 6 months...
G: Fine, 6 months and see how they do and what neighborhood complaints there are or aren't and evaulating at that time, I think we narrow their rights, give them some rights and have them come back along the lines of perameters as we've discussed. I think we're 30 to 45 apart.
M: Thank you. Um, I'm gonna go with the 30. That's way beyond what I originally started with, in fact it's double. It is a space that people to couple off, or whatever and do business or be by themselves or eat lunch or discuss things privately, I think that's fine, but bring your own drinks and food, no food service on the roof. The hours 9 to 8 but nothing less than a 6 month review. 6 months or 9 months. It takes time. Let's see how this works, and uh, I think we're all in agreement so we've given direction to our staff.
Are you satisfied with the...
Staff: So we have the direction we need for a resolution, I just ask that you continue the item, ask Staff to return to a date certain. May 26^ is the next planning commission meeting, so if you tell us that it's already been noticed, we wouldn't have to wait to renotice it or renotice it.
M: So, you have your direction and we're going to ask you to return to a date certain of May 26* with a resolution and we appreciate the cooperation of everybody and look forward to seeing you back then.
ME: thank you for your time. I take it that none of my principals need to be present on May 26?
P: It's up to you.
ME: Well, alright. It was my understanding that what happens on May 26* is that the formal resolution will be brought back to you by staff for adoption, correct? 11 DS: Yes, madam chair, at first I would say leave it to Mr. Egerman and his team to decide who should be here when the resolution is presented to the commission for consideration, and I suggest that the commission take a motion and formally continue the matter until that meeting on May 26*.
M: Ok, thank you, so we're going to accept the motion
P: I would vote that we return on May 26* with the thread of resolution that is consistent with what we said, I'm not entirely clear whether it was unanimous as to 30 or whether we have. Commissioner Ross, are you OK with the 30?
G: May I ask Mr. Egerman one more question on that topic? Because I'm trying to get close with what we're doing here. I'd like to hear from you an argument, or from Mr. Toraldo an argument to persuade us to 30 or 45
ME: Sure, I believe that the events that concern the commission and the community that occurred on the roof could not be replicated under the resolution you will pass on May 26*. Given that situation, what we're really dealing with is whether members have an added amenity and flexibility to use, it's a fabulous area, by the way, it's a wonderful area, this area on the roof that is 6,000 square feet. Certainly 6,000 square feet can accommodate 45 people that are either lunch chatting or on their computer. I think you pretty well nailed down extremely hard what you are concerned with and did not like which are event type of activities that cannot now happen. So it is simply a question of if there is a desire of members and we're in Southern California so most of the days are very pleasant and sunny, to use the roof in a way that has no impact on anyone, frankly, given the conditions you've set, other than a punitive measure, is there a reason to limit, so I think 45 people is a rather severe limitation in itself for 6,000 square feet, but again, what my client will have to concentrate on is enhancing the experience of the members and building that membership because it's such a pleasant, desirable place to be. And so to the extent you take one component, which is in may the most desirable place to be, and severely limit it, it has an impact that in my view in punitive and does not in fact accomplish what you have already accomplished regardless of what number you put on it.
M: Yeah, I just wanted to say I will not go above 30, so if my colleagues do there's going to be a split vote and it's not going to go forward amicably. So, make a decision.
G: I think we're splitting hairs here. Between local members and resident members you have 71 members. So 30 of them can use the rooftop, I think that's probably OK, so yes, I would go with that, I would do more, but I'm OK with that.
M: OK so we have a motion.
RG: The one question I wanted to ask and maybe it was intentionally not included but there 12 wasn't any conversation in having any kind of penalty structure or any kind of deposit for fees or anything like that, it was just something we had in the report here P: I think that those, I didn't really support those, I don't think they're necessaiy under these circumstances. I think it's pretty clear that the penalty if somehow, I mean, I think this is a, what I wanted was something that's self-executing and easy to enforce. I think we have it and I don't think we need anything more in terms of a specific penalty but I appreciate the...
M: So we have a motion to continue to May 26^. We have a second, commisioner Ross? G: I'll second that.
M: May we have a vote, please?
Staff: and just to clarify, Commissioner Ostroff, that was continuing to May 26^ with the direction to staff to prepare a resolution memorializing findings, correct? P: Correct.
Staff: Thank you. Commissioner Ross?
G: Yes.
Staff: Mr. Ostroff?
P: Yes.
Staff: Acting Chair Demeter?
M: Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.
Ends. 2:26:53
13 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Cashiering Govolutlon MID
455 N. REXFORD DR
BEVERLY HILLS, OA 90210
33347867-0008 Francisco 06/08/2022 04:11PM
CASH RECEIPTS
2022 Item: 3970
1.0 1 5,958.00 5,958.00
5,958.00
Subtotal 5,958.00
Total 5,958.00
CHECK 5,958.00
Check NumberO14048
Change due 0.00
Paid by: Egerman
Thank you for your payment.
CUSTOMER COPY