Beverly Hills City Council
September 12, 2023

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: September 12, 2023
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Masa Alkire, AICP, City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Subject: HEARING DATE FOR AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S JULY 13, 2023 DECISION APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND HISTORIC INCENTIVE
PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR REHABILITATION OF AN EXISTING TWOSTORY COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND A THIRD-STORY ADDITION,

ALONG WITH WAIVERS AND DEVIATIONS FROM CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AT 9884 SOUTH SANTA MONICA

BOULEVARD
Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council schedule an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision approving a Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit Density Bonus Permit to allow the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the construction of new third story at the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard for the City Council meeting scheduled for October 17, 2023.

DISCUSSION
On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution (Attachment 2) approving a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition at the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “project site”) and to allow deviations from Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) requirements related to the minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading space requirements. The project site is an approximate 6,000 square-foot (SF) lot currently developed with a 6,288 SF Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

commercial building and a surface parking lot with seven parking spaces. The existing commercial building, known locally as the “Darrow Office Building,” was built in 1946 and was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects listed on the City’s List of Master Architects.

On July 26, 2023, Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Belvedere Hotel Partnership (“The Penisula Hotel”), filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision (Attachment 1). The appeal petition lists the following reasons for the filing of the appeal:
• Project materials submitted to the City do not accurately convey the full realistic impact the Project will have on Appellant's property, which will result in near-term and long-term impacts to Appellant.
• The Project increases the size and intensity of an office building while unlawfully reducing on-site parking to be severely inadequate. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3- 3104).
• The Project's loading area is inadequate and blocks all on-site parking spaces. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).
• The Project creates a sizable roof deck pushed up against the Appellant's villas without any measures in place to ensure this feature will not adversely affect surrounding properties and create noise and privacy issues. Therefore, the required DPR and HIP findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104,10-3-3256). • The Project Site's potential City Landmark eligibility Is not adequately justified, and findings in the Planning Commission approval are based on inaccurate historic analysis in the Project Applicant's reports.
• The Project does not conform with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation, and thus the Project is ineligible for a CEQA Class 31 CE.
• The Project Does Not Qualify for Categorical Exemptions. • The July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing was not properly noticed.

PROCESS
Pursuant to Beverly Hill Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 1-4-105, the procedure for appeals of Planning Commission decisions to the City Council is a two-step process. The matter is first placed on the Council agenda for review of the evidence presented in the appeal petition. If the evidence and information presented in the appeal is the same as was presented to the Commission, the Council can then set a public hearing to consider the appeal. However, if the appeal petition contains new information, the Council may order that the Commission rehear the matter.

Planning Staff has reviewed the appeal petition and does not believe that new information beyond what was already considered by the Planning Commission is presented therein.

Therefore, staff recommends that the Council formally schedule this matter for formal public hearing on October 17, 2023 to consider the appeal.

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the City, as this agenda item only intends to schedule a hearing date for an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.

Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner
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 COMMISSION OJ^ITY COUNCil^ COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK July 26. 2023 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 July 13 , 2023 ; which decision consisted of:

The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State allsrounds for appeal Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper if necessary.) Please see attached.

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Masa Alkire, City Planner on July^£>2023
(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:

Michael Tenner, General Counsel, Probity International, 421 N. Beverly Drive #350, Beverly Hills, OA 90210 Name Address
Signature igna\ure of appealing appealing party
421 N. Beverly Drive #350, Beverly Hills, OA 90210
Address
Phone: 310-888-1882 Fax: 310-888-8838
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid 0 0 (Por City Clerk's use) DATE RECEIVEDBEM HILLS CITV CLERK ^ 2023JUL26pm1:18
LOG NO. 2.\ ^ C y Written Notice mailed to appellant: ^ Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, i(\ Involved Department
Introduction
The Belvedere Hotel Partnership, doing business as The Peninsula Beverly Hills ("Appellant"), owner of the hotel property at 9882 S. Santa Monica Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills ("City"), is filing this Appeal of the Planning Commission's July 13, 2023 determination for Case No. PL2200237 for the property at 9884 5. Santa Monica Boulevard ("Project Site"), which abuts the Appellant's property to the west and south.

This Planning Commission determination approved a Historic Incentive Permit ("HIP") and Development Plan Review ("DPR"), subject to the approval of a City Landmark nomination, to allow for the rehabilitation and construction of a new third story at an existing two-story commercial building ("Project"), along with waivers and deviations of development standards relating to minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading space requirements. The Planning Commission also found the Project to qualify for Class 1, Class 3, and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions ("CE") under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").

Over the past three decades, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has solidified its status as an integral part of Beverly Hills' iconic identity. As the only AAA Five Diamond and Forbes Five Star-rated hotel in Southern California every year since 1993, The Peninsula Beverly Hills sets the highest standards for luxury accommodations in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and is the preferred hotel for global travelers visiting the region.^ The Peninsula Beverly Hills' restaurants, event spaces, spa, and wellness facilities are treasured by the local Beverly Hills community, and it is one of the most significant contributors to the City's tax base and its economy. The Peninsula Beverly Hills has a proven track record of being a respectful neighbor, while implementing operational procedures and providing ample on-site vehicular parking to ensure that it does not generate impacts for the surrounding neighborhood, which includes residential and commercial uses.

Appellant's priority is to maintain the highest standards for its guests and preserve the high quality of life that characterizes the surrounding neighborhood, in the near-term and the long-term. Appellant is very seriously concerned the abutting Project (which includes new office space and an outdoor roof deck pushed up against its villas, as shown in Exhibit 1) will jeopardize its ability to maintain these standards and that this Project will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood and Appellant's property and reputation, as further described in the Appeal Findings below.

Appeal Findings
The approval of Case No. PL2200237 is inconsistent with law, for the following reasons:

1. Project materials submitted to the City do not accurately convey the full realistic impact the Project will have on Appellant's property, which will result in near-term and long-term impacts to Appellant.

The Project Applicant's design materials presented to the City, including renderings on Sheet A302 of their architectural plans (see Exhibit 2) use strategic views and cropping to obscure the extent of new building height being created and prevent viewers from being able to see the actual proposed rooftop addition's impact on surrounding properties. As shown in massing studies prepared by Appellant's ^ Appellant was also voted as the #1 City Hotel in Los Angeles in 2021 by the readers of Travel + Leisure. For more information on Appellant and its awards, visit: https://www.peninsula.com/en/beverlv-hills/5-star-luxurv-hotel-beverlv-hllls architect CSA Architects (Exhibit 1), which realistically show the proposed new construction in context, and photos of existing conditions (Exhibit 3), the Project will create significant height that will be highly visible from Appellant's property and will block views from guestrooms.

Appellant is also aggrieved that Project materials do not include any acknowledgement or analysis of construction-related noise and vibration impacts, which will be detrimental to Appellant's operations and its guests during the construction period and will make the villas that literally touch the Project Site uninhabitable. The Proiect will have near-term and long-term impacts that make Appellant's property less attractive to euests. which will have a negative impact on the Appellant and its contributions to the City's tax base.

2. The Project increases the size and intensity of an office building while unlawfully reducing on-site parking to be severely inadequate. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).

The Project Site currently contains seven parking spaces. The Project will reduce this parking allocation to a total of just three spaces, including only two standard spaces and one handicap accessible space.

At the Planning Commission hearing, the Project Applicant claimed that up to 15 staff are anticipated to work at the Project Site once the Project is finished. This number does not account for visitors, building maintenance, and the fact that the building's rooftop event space and conference center would be made available to the Project Applicant's affiliates for events. Since it is fantasy that the building's employees and numerous visitors will be arriving via public transportation, it is inevitable that most of these staff and visitors will have to park on adjacent residential and commercial streets, which already lack sufficient parking to accommodate existing uses in the area. Parking demand and associated traffic will further rise when loading is taking place in the parking area, restricting access to the paltry three parking spaces. The increase in drivers circulating the neighborhood to find parking will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards.

The Project Applicant referenced the Project's proximity to a bus stop at Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, and the future Metro D Line Century City subway station (assuming it remains on schedule to open in 2025p as reasons why the Project cannot be subject to minimum vehicular parking requirements, pursuant to AB 2097, which became effective this year. In fact, AS 2097 was the sole justification for why the Planning Commission was falsely led to believe that the Applicant could reduce existing parking from seven to three spaces. However, neither AB 2097 nor the Beverly Hills Municipal Code permit the reduction of existing, required nonconforming parking provided for existing buildings.

AB 2097 prevents the City from imposing parking requirements for the new addition to the building. It does not apply retroactively to permit the removal of existing, required parking spaces from an existing building. Specifically, California Government Code Section 6S863.2(a), which codified the parking provisions of AB 2097, states that "[a] public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is 2 More information on the Metro D Line extension can be viewed at httDs://www.beverlvhil[s.org/departments/publicworks/DurplelineDrolect/ located within one-haif mile of public transit." {Cal. Gov. Code 65863.2(a)) Under AB 2097, the "project" only includes new development - in this case, the addition to the building - and cannot reasonabiy be interpreted to include existing square footage that already has parking allocated to it. Otherwise, a building owner could simply paint a building, upgrade the plumbing, and in the process argue that all parking in the building could be eliminated. That is a very dangerous precedent for the City to set and is contrary to the legislative intent of AB 2097.

In further support of this position, the Project Applicant is pursuing a DPR, which is only required for the increase in square footage for the rooftop addition. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3- 3101 provides specific exemptions from DPR, including "[fjacade remodeling of existing buildings or structures not increasing the square footage by two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more, or the height of the building or structure." The renovation of the existing building falls squarely within this exemption and is therefore hardly considered a "project" under the City's Code and could not reasonably be interpreted as a development project for purposes of applying AB 2097.

Moreover, regardless of the applicability of AB 2097 to the Project, AB 2097 does not allow the City to circumvent its Code requirements for maintenance of existing parking. Specih'cally, Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-2736 states the following: "In the event off street parking facilities required to be provided under this code, or any prior provision thereof, in connection with any structure or use are at any time not maintained for automobile parking purposes to the extent required, the city building official shall revoke and cancel the certificate of occupancy. . . ." This provision expresses the City Code's clear intent to prohibit the reduction of existing, required parking.

And there can be no question that all seven spaces are required. Today's Code actually requires 18 parking spaces for the building, making the existing 7 spaces a legal nonconforming requirement.

Accordingly, the Project Applicant cannot reduce the number of parking spaces already required for the existing building. A contrary position would allow any restaurant, grocery store, or office building in the City performing a minor renovation to get rid of all its parking. That is an absurd result that the City would not condone, and it cannot provide preferential treatment to the Applicant here.

In addition to basic compliance with the iaw, Appeilant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to enforce implementation of adequate transportation demand measures to mitigate impacts.

Recognizing that office building owners and tenants often change over time, Appellant is particularly concerned about the long-term risk of future building owners and operators having even higher staffing leveis with increased parking needs, and the associated traffic and pedestrian safety impacts.

The Planning Commission decision gives no consideration to the long-term implications of the recent Proiect approval.

3. The Project's loading area is inadequate and blocks all on-site parking spaces. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).

The Project's loading area (a requirement triggered by the proposed new construction) completely blocks access to the three available on-site parking spaces. While the Project approval references a very brief Project Applicant-prepared Loading and Deliveries Narrative, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how loading and parking activities will be managed in order to ensure effective operations and avoid traffic and pedestrian conflicts and hazards. Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone tries to enter the parking lot when a dump truck is present or loading is taking place and then realizes there is no way to get to a parking space. That vehicle will have to back out onto a busy street, and there is no analysis of any potential queuing issues from any other vehicles attempting to enter the parking lot. All of this will create significant pedestrian hazards not only within the parking lot, but on City sidewalks.

Furthermore, Appellant continues to be concerned about potential noise impacts associated with future loading activities.

4. The Project creates a sizable roof deck pushed up against the Appellant's villas without any measures in place to ensure this feature will not adversely affect surrounding properties and create noise and privacy issues. Therefore, the required DPR and HIP findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104,10-3-3256).

Appellant is very concerned about the impacts that the Project's third story and new roof deck will have on its abutting hotel and guests, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. As recently as last year, the disruptive nature of office building roof decks was at the forefront of City discussions, when the Planning Commission held a hearing to review an abundance of ongoing noise complaints and violations associated with the roof deck of the nearby Spring Place office building at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard, which emerged as a nuisance in the neighborhood.^ Given that this entire project is taking place for the construction of a roof deck (i.e., there must be significant financial motivations behind building a conference center and event space on a roof deck), it is shocking that the true, likely impacts of this deck have not been analyzed. And there is significant evidence that the City has been unable to contain the noise from parties and events at the nearby 9800 Wilshire Boulevard roof deck. As reported by the Beverly Hills Courier, one Commissioner made it abundantly clear that violators can operate with impunity for very long times:
"You've had your last chances; you've had it many times again, and again, and again, and again," said Planning Commissioner Myra Demeter, who presided as chair over the hearing. "We have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people contacting you, letting you know what is allowed and what is not allowed. And you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this, and you would do that, and we haven't seen it.

Appellant is extremely concerned about the Project Applicant and any future operator of the Project using the roof deck in a disruptive manner that generates noise and privacy issues for the abutting hotel and its guests (including Appellant's villas that are immediately next to the proposed roof deck (shown in Exhibits 1 and 3) and surrounding neighborhood. Simply put, a roof deck for parties and events is not appropriate immediately adjacent to one of Beverly Hills' most Iconic hotels, renowned throughout the world for creating perfect experiences for its guests. We do not believe the Commission understood, or gave proper consideration to, the fact that just a few noise violations that prevent guests from sleeping could irreversibly tarnish Appellant's reputation. Furthermore, this is not just about the Appellant and the City's tax revenue from its property, the Commission also failed to consider the impacts from roof deck noise on all the residential neighbors to the south. 3 For more information on the Planning Commission's rebuke of Spring Place and its roof deck, see httDs://beverlvhillscourier.com/2022/05/20/Dlanning-commission-rebukes-spring-place/ Appellant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the roof deck is operated in a responsible manner by current and future operators and that no acoustical study has been conducted to evaluate potential noise impacts of the Project. Overall, however, the City Council must consider whether this is a proper location for any roof deck, and we believe that a review of the facts here militates strongly against any roof deck, period.

5. The Project Site's potential City Landmark ellglblilty Is not adequately justified, and findings in the Planning Commission approval are based on inaccurate historic analysis in the Project Applicant's reports.

Established under BHMC Section 10-3-3212, the City of Beverly Hills' local Landmark designation criteria have a much higher bar for eligibility than criteria for other historic registries, including the California Register of Historical Resources and National Register of Historic Places. The Project Applicant's eligibility findings do not adequately justify the property's eligibility for historic designation, as described further below.

Let's be clear: the Applicant would not be seeking historic designation for the Project Site if it did not want to add the roof deck and deviate from Code requirements through a Historic Incentive Permit.

If the Applicant truly believes that the building should be deemed a Beverly Hills Landmark, then the Applicant should allow the landmark designation process to be completed first, and then allow the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the Project based on the findings of the Cultural Heritage Commission. The current process has put the cart before the horse - it has resulted in the Planning Commission making findings about compatibility with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation without the Cultural Heritage Commission first making the requisite findings about what. If anything, is a character defining feature or historic. That is arbitrary and capricious.

The Planning Commission staff report and the Project Applicant's historic resource evaluation based the property's eligibility for historic designation on a finding that the property is "an excellent example of Late Modern architectural style.'"^ The Project Applicant's historic resource evaluation uses the Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture from SurveyLA (the City of Los Angeles' historic resource survey) as the main resource for evaluating the property's significance.^ However, examination of the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement and eligibility standards (included as Exhibit 5) reveals that the oropertv is not an example of Late Modern architecture.^ As described in the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement, Late Modern buildings were designed and constructed between 1966 and 1990, representing the tail end of the broader Mid Century Modern design movement, and for Late Modern buildings to be eligible for historic designation, they must be constructed during this 1966-1990 period of significance.' The Project Site's building was constructed in 1946, decades before the emergence of the Late Modern aesthetic. As described in the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement, Late Modern buildings fall within three sub-categories, including buildings that are completely clad in glass skin (exemplified by the Century City Medical Plaza at 2080 Century Park East, Los Angeles and the Pacific Design Center at 8687 Melrose Avenue, West Hollywood), ^ Planning Commission staff report, page 5.
5 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on March 2, 2022, page 34. ® For the full SurveyLA Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture, visit:
https://plannine.lacitv.Org/odocument/de23aa2c-7d44-4f2d-a071-67354bbf9255/6.13 LateModern 1966-1990.pdf ' SurveyLA Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture, pages 36, 38, 40 Brutalist buildings that feature concrete as the dominant building material {exemplified by the Liberty Savings Building, now Chase, at 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Los Angeles), and "High Tech" buildings with exposed structural features (exemplified by the Helmut Schulitz residence at 9356 Lloydcrest Drive, Beverly Hills). The Project Site building does not represent any of these Late Modern styles.

In addition, the property lacks integrity (City Landmark Criterion A.3), as "there are no original interior spaces extant."^ Furthermore, as described in a peer review analysis completed by the City's historic consultant Ostashay & Associates, sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the property satisfies the City Landmark Section B criteria to demonstrate that it is an Exceptional Work® or Iconic Property.

6. The Project does not conform with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation, and thus the Project is ineligible for a CEQA Class 31CE.

Rooftop additions are a controversial preservation topic because they have the potential to dramatically alter a building's appearance and original design intent. The Project Includes a sizable rooftop addition that is highly visible on every building elevation.

Codified in 36 CFR Part 67, the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation are the basis for determining whether or not a project qualifies for a CEQA Class 31 CE, as well as an HIP. Within the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service has published Interpreting the Standards ("ITS") bulletins to advise on application of the Secretary's Standards to development projects. ITS #47 specifically focuses on rooftop additions.

As described in ITS #47, rooftop additions are generally "not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less." In the rare cases where a rooftop addition might be compatible, "it must be set far enough back from the primary elevation(s) of the building - usually at least one bay, so that it is not highly visible from the public riaht-of-wav."
As shown in the Project renderings on page A302 of the Applicant's architectural plans (Exhibit 2), the Project's proposed rooftop addition is extremely visible when viewed from ^ surrounding public rights-of-way and dramatically changes the appearance of the existing building. In fact, the proposed rooftop addition closely resembles the example in ITS #47 of an incompatible addition that does n^ meet the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation (see Exhibit 6). In addition, the rooftop addition's. ® 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on March 2, 2022, page 35. 9 Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3202, an Exceptional Work is defined as follows: A remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community. At a minimum, the work's exceptional quality shall have been documented by at least one of the following; a) it was the subject of a major architectural award; b) it was substantively discussed (i.e., not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in a monograph on a master architect's career; or c) it was substantively discussed or photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g., a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. A monograph or publication made available to the public solely in electronic form and without any reasonable expectation of compensation to the author, or substantially authored by the architect of the work, shall not count toward this minimum.

Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3202, an Iconic Property is defined as follows: A property that has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Beverly Hills in the popular culture and forms part of the city's identity to the world at large. ^^For ITS #47, see https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-47-rooftop-additions-mid-size-buildings.pdf 12 ITS #47, page 1
" ITS #47, page 1
including its overall style, materials, placement, and expansive size, feels incongruent with the originai design intent. Therefore, there is insufficient documentation to support the Proiecfs elieibilitv for a Class 31CE.

7. The Project Does Not Qualify For Categorical Exemptions.

Given the unusual circumstances arising from the proposed Project, especialiy noise on sensitive receptors from the proposed rooftop deck, categorical exemptions cannot be relied upon here and further environmental review in the form of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report must be prepared. As a threshold matter, the Class 1 exemption can apply where the project proposes only a "minor alteration" to the existing building, and there is "negligibie" or "no expansion" of the existing or former use. (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, sect. 15000 et seq.), sect. 15301.)(Emphasis added.) Here, the project proposes a completely new use in the form of an outdoor terrace and rooftop use. Regardless, the Class 1 exemption is subject to severai exceptions precluding its application. The exceptions that apply here include the cumulative impacts exception (State CEQA Guideiines, sect. 15300.2(b)) and the unusual circumstances exception (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(c)). Further, whiie we disagree that the project site should be considered a historic resource under Pubiic Resources Code, section 21084.1, the Class 31 categorical exemption "shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(f).) if, for sake of argument, the City's finding that the site qualifies as a historic resource for purposes of CEQA were supportable, then the Class 31 exemption cannot apply. The Class 31 categorical exemption also cannot apply, due to the applicability of the cumuiative impacts exception and the unusuai circumstances exception. (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(a), (b); see also Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4*'' 1086,1104-1105.)

8. The July 13,2023 Planning Commission hearing was not properly noticed.

The Planning Commission's resolution approving the Project entitlements finds the Project to quaiify for the following CEQA CEs: Class 1 CE for Existing Facilities, Class 3 CE for New Construction or Conversion of Smaii Structures, and Class 31 CE for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation in conformance with the Secretary of the interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ("Secretary's Standards").

However, as shown in Exhibit 4, the pubiic notice for the Planning Commission hearing inadvertently described the Project as appearing to qualify for Class 3 and Class 31 CEs only. Therefore the Project approval included a CEQA determination that was not included on the Project's public hearing notice and any such CEQA clearance violated the Brown Act and cannot be considered part of the Project's CEQA clearance. At any rate, this clearance would violate CEQA for all the reasons stated above.

Appellant appreciates the City's consideration of these findings and reserves the right to provide additional information prior to any future public hearings on this matter.

EXHIBIT 1

STUDIES SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ROOFTOP ADDITION TO ABUTTING PENINSULA HOTEL PREPARED BY CSA ARCHITEaS (APPELLANTS ARCHITECT)
Z Jiii "" ""

THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL

DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9894 S. SAWA MONICA BIVD.. BtVEftY HUS. CA 90212
im inr
HI! HI!
2rG noar addition

AERIAL VIEW
PROJ.# 2551.00
'3rd floor addHion |
%n
■fm 11 II innmi

THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
□ARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD.. ePitW-Y HIUS. CA 90212
VIEW FROM SANTA MONICA BLVD.

PROJ.# 2851 .X
3rd floor addition

THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL

DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
<JB84 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HEiS, CA 90212
llil nil
! ii i!ll iiil
l!il ill!
.ik.
0 E3S
■ ■■
III
VIEW FROM CHARLEVILLE BLVD.

P(}OJ,#2551.00
V.
|3rd floor addition ^

THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL

DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9584 S. S4NTA MONCA BIVD.. BMHV KUS, CA 90212

VIEW FROM HOTEL ROOF DECK
PROJ.#2551.00 18jaY2023
EXHIBIT 2

PROJECT APPLICANTS RENDERINGS
i
O
ro '1' f'i
icr

EXHIBITS
APPELLANTS JULY 2023 PHOTO SHOWING VIEW THAT WILL BE BLOCKED BY PROJECT

GUESTROOM VIEW THAT WILL BE BLOCKED BY PROJECT
Site where third floor
roof deck are proposed
EXHIBIT 4
PUBLIC NOTICE FOR JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTE: NOTICE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CLASS 1 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION THAT WAS APPROVED

BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: Thursday, July 13,2023
TIME: 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard
LOCATION: Meeting will be held in person at:

Conmiission Meeting Room 280A
Beverly Hills City Hall
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Members of the pubhc may also
participate via teleconference; details
provided below:

WIISHIRE BlVD WIISKKEBIVD
PROIECrSITE
9S84 SOUTH SANTA

MONICA BOULEVARD
OWttEWllE^
\ sL
PROJECT ADDRESS: 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
(Cross Street Charleville Boulevard)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, at its REGULAR meeting on Thursday, July 13,2023, will hold a public hearing beginning at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider the following:

A request to construct a third-story addition and rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed 814 square-foot (SF) third-story addition would increase the height of the building by approximately 15'-3", from 23'-9" to 39'-0". Parking for the project would be provided at the rear of the property within a surface parking lot for three vehicles. The project site is within the Cit/s C-3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The following entitlements have been requested in association with the project:

Development Plan Review. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-3100.A., Development Plan Review is required to construct an addition that would increase the height of the building.
2-48
City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141 f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org Historic Incentive Permit Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3252, waivers or deviations from any development standards may be permitted through the issuance of a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP). Such permits are available to properties that the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined merits formal consideration for nomination as a landmark at a preliminary hearing. The existing commercial building, generally referred to as the "Darrow Office Building", was designed by John Lautner, an architect on the City's List of Master Architects. Specifically, the proposed project requests waivers or deviations from the following development standards through the issuance of a HIP:
• BHMC §9-3-1: Minimum Dimensions for Rubbish Storage Facifities • BHMC § I0-3-274I: On-Site Loading Space Requirements
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New Construction) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15303 and 15331 of the state CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to find the project exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA.

How to Participate
In the interest of maintaining appropriate social distancing, members of the public can participate in, watch or listen to the conunission meetings through the following methods:
• In Person: Submit a speaker card to the Recording Secretary at the meeting. • Oral Comment: Call (310) 288-2288, select Option I when prompted. You will be placed on a brief hold, and called upon to make a comment at the appropriate time. • Video Comment: https://beverlyhills-org.zoom.us/my/bevpublic. enter passcode: 90210 when prompted. • Written Comment: Email [email protected]
• Audio Only: Call (310) 288-2288, select Option 2 when prompted. • Watch LIVE: BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable or www.beverlyhills.org/watchlive It is recommended that written public comments be submitted to the Planning Commission Recording Secretary by 11:30 AM on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item number or topic in the subject line of the email. In order to be read at the meeting, written comments will be allowed with a maximum of350 words, which corresponds to approximately three (3) minutes of speaking time.

If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Any written conunents received by end of the day on Wednesday, July 5,2023, will be attached to the agenda report regarding this item.

Any comments received after Wednesday, July 5, 2023, but prior the public hearing, will be distributed to the Commission under separate cover. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the City's 2-49
action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.

Please note that any comments received prior to or during the public hearing will be considered as part of the public record.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner in the Planning Division at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected]. Copies of the project plans and associated application materials are on file in the Community Development Department, and can be reviewed by contacting the project planner listed above.

Sincerely/ ^
nior Planner Mailed: June 23,2023
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-1126 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired. 2-50
EXHIBIT 5

SURVEYLA ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITECTURE FROM SURVEYLA HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITEaURE, 1966-1990 FOR FULL HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT, VISIT:

HTTPS://PLANNING.LACITY.ORG/ODOCUMENT/DE23AA2C-7D44'4F2D-A071- 67354BBF9255/6.13 LATEMODERN 1966-1990.PDF
SurvevLA
Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey

LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Context: Architecture and Engineering, 1850-1980
Subcontext: L.A. Modernism, 1919-1980
Theme: Late Modern, 1966-1990
Preparedfor:

City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
Office of Historic Resources
July 2020
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990

ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITECTURE
Eliglbnity Standards for Glass Skin
Summary Statement of
SigniUcance:

Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Applying the qualities of exaggeration, mutation, and paradox to Modernist architectural language, LateModernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late
Modernism expresses the conditions and new developments of Western society between 1965 and 1990, including the advent of late capitalist and post-industrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.

In the 1960s, Los Angeles' open and benevolent physical and social climate encouraged experimentation well suited to Late Modern architecture and its reactions against Modernism.

The region's dominant high-technology industry and notable art scene further encouraged this local experimentation.

Resultant designs included the all-over reflecting glass skin, a regionally developed motif that became ubiquitous In
corporate and office architecture across the Western World.

Period of Significance:

Period of Significance
Justification:

Geographic Location:
1966-1990
The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed In 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.

Citywide with concentrations of commercial examples may be found in Downtown Los Angeles, Wilshire Corridor,
Century City, the western San Fernando Valley;
concentrations of industrial examples may be found near LAX or Van Nuys Airport.

Area(s) of Significance: Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
Page ( 35
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Industrial
Property Type Description: The Late Modern glass skin was typically applied to largescale commercial and industrial buildings that frequently used sculpturally handled chamfers, cuts, punch-outs,
sloping, sharp angles, and curves to break apart the
rectangular form.

Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.

Eligibility Standards:
• Was constructed during the period of significance
• Is an excellent example of Late Modern glass skin architecture • Exhibits quality of design through distinctive features, including designs that are sculptural in character Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Typically displays bold, sculptural forms, often with chamfers or cut-outs • May have sharply articulated angles and distinctive geometric forms • Smooth, continuous surfaces over the primary massing or entirety of the building • Usually rendered in a single monochromatic palette or material • Glass skin encloses building in an all-over manner, or in certain instances set upon a base or plinth of a different material
• Glass skins are typically of reflecting or mirrored glass paired to smooth grids mullions and muntins
• Later glass skins may exhibit seamless neoprene glazing with no aluminum mullions or muntins visible.
• Window or door articulation may be subsumed into distinctive cladding or distinctive shape • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age
Integrity Considerations:
• Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship • Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
• Removal of exterior light fixtures or original signage acceptable • Original landscaping may have been altered or removed • Original use may have changed
• Skins replaced with incompatibly colored glass, transparent glass in place of reflecting glass, or of glazing having variegated color and transparency may compromise historic integrity. • Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 36
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Eligibility Standards for Brutalism
Summary Statement of
Significance:

Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Late Modernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late Modernism expresses the conditions and
new developments of Western society between 1965 and
1990, including the advent of late capitalist and postindustrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.

One expression of Late Modern is the Brutalist style.

Brutalist Late Modern designs liberated architecture from Orthodox Modernism. Brutalist buildings were typically
rendered in a single monochromatic material, usually exposed concrete, and read as sculptural, heavy, and solid. Bold oversized angular shapes break apart the typical rectangular form. Exteriors reveal the construction process, such as keeping welds or the imprint of wood used in the setting of the concrete. This style was frequently used in institutional architecture, such as civic and educational buildings, through the 1980s.

Period of Significance: 1966-1990 (Brutalist examples may predate 1966 though examples in Los Angeles are not common)
Period of Significance
Justification:

The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed in 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.

Geographic Location:

Area(s) of Significance:

Citywide
Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3

SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Institutional
Property Type Description: The Brutalist architectural style was typically applied to civic and educational buildings that used bold oversized angular shapes to break apart the rectangular form.

Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.

Eligibility Standards:
• Was constructed during the period of significance
• Is an excellent example of Brutalist architecture
• Exhibits quality of design through distinctive features Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Typically displays bold oversized angular shapes with sculptural and distinctive geometric forms to break apart the rectangular form
• Unpainted exposed concrete, raked or smooth, dominating visible elevations • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age.

Integrity Considerations:
• Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship • Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
• Original landscaping may have been altered or removed • Original use may have changed
• Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 38
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Eligibility Standards for High Tech
Summary Statement of
Significance:

Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Applying the qualities of exaggeration, mutation, and paradox to Modernist architectural language, LateModernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late
Modernism expresses the conditions and new developments of Western society between 1965 and 1990, including the advent of late capitalist and post-industrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.

One expression of Late Modernism is the High Tech style, which exaggerates Modernism's emphasis on function and
transparency by openly revealing structural and
infrastructural components such as escalators, elevators, air ducts, and structural systems, which would normally be
enclosed or hidden. Lightweight in character, designs typically employ metal and glass with an exterior color palette of white, black or grey, often with exposed components painted in bright colors.

Period of Significance: 1966-1990
Period of Significance
Justification:

The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed in 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.

Geographic Location:

Area(s) of Significance:

Citywide
Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
Page I 39
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Institutional
Industrial
Residential: Single Family and Multi-Family
Property Type Description: The High Tech architectural style was typically applied to commercial buildings, but can also be found in industrial, institutional, and particularly for Los Angeles- residential buildings. High Tech exaggerates Modernism's emphasis on function and transparency by openly revealing structural and infrastructural components.

Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.

Eligibility Standards:
• Constructed during period of significance
• Is an excellent example of the Late Modern High Tech subtype • Exhibits quality of design through distinctive feature Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Metal and glass exterior with a limited color palette of white, black, or grey • Artistically treated, deliberately exposed structural and infrastructural components (escalators, elevators, air ducts, structural systems) which may be painted in bright colors • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age.

Integrity Considerations:

Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
Original landscaping may have been altered or removed
Original use may have changed
Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 40
EXHIBIT 6
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERPRETING THE STANDARDS BULLETIN #47

ROOFTOP ADDITIONS ON MID-SIZE HISTORIC BUILDINGS
SEE PAGE 2 FOR EXAMPLE OF AN INCOMPATIBLE ROOFTOP ADDITION

THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SECRETARY'S STANDARDS, LARGELY DUE TO ITS VISIBILITY National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
ITS
Number 47
Interpreting
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character

5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes, and Craftsmanship

9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations
Issue: The roofline is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building. A large cornice, tall tower, or a projecting dormer can identify a building in the skyline. Even a simple roofline defines a building's character. Accordingly, rooftop additions proposed as part of a rehabilitation project must be carefully designed in order to preserve the building's historic character. Although a rooftop addition is not appropriate for all historic buildings, under certain circumstances a compatible rooftop addition may be constructed that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.

A successful rooftop addition does not significantly impact the character of the historic building. It is subordinate to the historic building in size and design, and compatible with its massing, scale, materials and features. It must be set far enough back from the primary elevation(s) of the building — usually at least one bay, so that it is not highly visible from the public right-of-way. In most cases, rooftop additions should not be more than one story and, generally, they are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.

Application i {Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this mid-i9th century commercial building included a rooftop addition as part of ^e project. Though the building is only four stories in height, this rooftop addition is compatible with its historic character. It is set back substantially— almost halfway
from the
front fa(;ade
and, thus, it
is minimally
visible from
the public
street and
from within
the district.

High party
walls on either
side also help
to reduce the impact of the addition and allow it to blend in with the adjacent rooflines. This rooftop addition does not detract from the historic character of the building and, therefore, meets the Standards.

Application 2 (/7ico;«par/W(? irea?we«t):Thisthree-storycommercialbuilding, originally constructed ini847butgreatly altered ini907,underwentrehabilitation for mixed commercial, office, and residential use. The rehabilitation included a substantial new rooftop addition.
m
Mid-i^th century commercial building with
1 rooftop addition as it
appeared after rehabilitation (center).

Three-story commercial buildingprior to reha
bilitation.

NEW ADDITIONS
Contrary to National Park Service guidance
which states that rooftop additions should be
limited to one story and are rarely acceptable
for low-rise buildings, this addition rises a full
story and a half above the roof. The prominent
cornice, an important character-defining feature
of the primary elevation of the historic building,
is overwhelmed and greatly diminished by the
new rooftop addition. Not only is the addition
barely set back from the front of the building, its
asymmetric, modernist design further detracts
from the character of the building's classicallystyled fagade. The rooftop addition competes for attention with the historic building and it is also
out of character with the surrounding district.

This rooftop addition is not compatible with the
historic character of the building and, therefore,
does not meet the Standards.
[■ijHH
-
PI
Drawing of front elevation with proposed rooftop
addition.
r
Three -story commercial building showing rooftop addition under construction.

Liz Crevelinq, Technical Preservation Services. National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case.

July 2007, ITS Number 47
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2029
RESOLUTION NO. 2029

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE

REHABILITATION OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY

COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION

OF A NEW THIRD STORY, ALONG WITH WAIVERS AND

DEVIATIONS OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS AT 9884 SOUTH SANTA MONICA
BOULEVARD (PL2200237)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Yaniv Tepper, on behalf of Impact Real Estate Group, LLC, (DPR)
and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition, along with deviations from certain development standards to allow for reduced minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and alternative loading area requirements
Section 2. The Project consists of the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building and the construction of a new third story at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard. The exist
was built in 1946 and was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects listed on the Local Master Architects. The Project includes the construction of a new 1,404 SF third story addition over the existing building to provide additional office space on the property and an outdoor terrace that would face South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard.

The new third floor addition would increase the existing height of the building by approximately 2 - - 8 - addition of required elevators and stair shafts that provide access to all existing and proposed floors of the building and are exempt from counting against the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site. While the proposed third story addition measures 1,404 SF, the overall Project results in a 765 SF net increase in floor area as a result of floor area reductions on the existing first and second floor to provide building-code required elevators and access stairs on each level. This results in a total floor area of 7,053 SF and a proposed FAR of 1.17. The existing structure would maintain its existing setbacks. The new third story addition is proposed within the footprint of the second floor and would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing building. The new third floor addition - onica - - differentiated from the design of the existing building through the use of building materials that clearly distinguish the historical portion of the structure from the proposed new construction, with exposed wood elements and full height storefront glazing on the front, street-side, and rear of the addition. The Project includes the reconfiguration the existing surface parking lot located at the rear of the property to provide a new transformer to provide improved electrical service to the property. The existing surface parking lot currently provides a total of seven (7) parking spaces for the existing building accessed from Charleville Boulevard by - Project would reduce the number of parking spaces on the Project site, from seven (7) to three (3) parking spaces, in order to accommodate the required van-accessible handicap stall, as well as the required transformer for the Project. Additionally, the Project requires modifications from the following BHMC development standards:
3 BHMC §9-3-1: Minimum Dimensions for Rubbish Storage Facilities BHMC §10-3-2741: On-Site Loading Space Requirements
Rubbish Storage Facilities
The existing Project site currently does not have a rubbish/trash storage room or on-site loading areas. The improvements to the site include providing a new rubbish room within the ground floor of the building, accessed directly from the parking lot to the rear, to store refuse bins inside the building and way from view of the street and sidewalk. Pursuant to BHMC §9-3-

1.F, the minimum dimensions for a rubbish room ar es to - - through the requested Historic Incentive Permit.

Loading Area
The applicant is proposing to provide an area for loading within the redesigned parking lot that would be accessible to a van providing scheduled deliveries to the Project site. The loading area would be located immediately behind the existing parking spaces and would measure ed in an
area that would block access to on-site parking areas, the use of this loading area would be managed to prevent from impacting access to available on-site parking. Deliveries would be managed by the property owner and would be limited to occurring during non-peak office hours to minimize congestion and traffic conflict from delivery vehicles and customer vehicles from accessing the parking lot at the same time. The requested deviation would allow for this managed loading area to be provided within the existing parking aisle, rather than as a standalone space, due 4 to the infeasibility of provided a standalone loading space without further eliminating available on-site parking.

Section 3. This Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Class 3 exemption is applicable to additions to existing structures that do not exceed 10,000 SF. Additionally, the Class 31 Categorical Exemption is applicable to the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI Standards).

Therefore, the Planning Commission finds the Project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on June 23, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, extended to the block face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on June 23, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing.

Section 5. In considering the request for approval of a Development Plan Review, pursuant to Section 10-3-3104 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the 5 Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:

1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Development Plan Review:

1. The proposed P
Plan Land Use Element, including City Places (Policy LU 2.1) through maintaining and enhancing the character of existing business districts, City History (Policy LU 2.6) through the preservation existing buildings while accommodating renovations of existing buildings to maintain their economic viability, and Revitalization of Vacant and Underutilized Land (LU 15.3) by promoting the revitalization of distressed, underutilized, and vacant buildings to sustain economic viability, activity, and provide income for City services. As such, the 6 proposed project is consistent with the general plan and the project site is not located in a specific plan area.

2. The Project includes the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the construction of a 1,400 SF third story addition. The project site is located directly to the east of an active construction project at 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Rosewood Residences). The project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that would be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment on-site. The small scale of this project is not anticipated to negatively impact existing development in the area, as the project would be required to submit a construction management during plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planned construction in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

3. The Project seeks to rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building that was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, notable architects listed on the approximately 1,400 SF. The proposed addition would increase the existing height of the - 8 - would be retained for the existing building facing South Santa Monica Boulevard and - -
in a net floor area increase of 765 SF, for a total building floor area of 7,053 SF and an 7 maximum FAR of 2.0. The project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable density, height, and location requirements established for commercial development within -3 Zone. The closest existing
along Durant Drive, a two-story multi-family residential property located across the street and to the south of the project site. The request includes deviations of the development standard as part of the Historic Inventive Permit request that would facilitate the introduction of services that the existing building does not provide. The project seeks to provide an on-site loading area on a site that currently has no on-site loading areas.

Similarly, the project would provide a dedicated room in the building to house rubbish storage containers where currently none are provided. These features would upgrade the existing condition of the project site while promoting the rehabilitation of an architecturally location, density, height and manner of operation of the project will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

4. The Project is screened
adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) thresholds due to the small scale of the project consisting of the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the addition of a 1,400 SF third story. The project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that would be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment on-site.

Additionally, the project would be required to submit a construction management during 8 plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planned construction in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not create any significant adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

5. The Project site is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable development standards, including adherence to maximum height, FAR, and the SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. The proposed project seeks to rehabilitate an existing commercial building that was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, a notable architect in the Southern California region that is also of
the property as a local historic landmark, preserving a building possessing a unique style of architecture in the city. As such, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

Section 7. In considering the request for approval of a Historic Incentive Permit, pursuant to Section 10-3-3252 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:

1. The proposed project complies with the "Secretary of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings."

2. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape.

3. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties. 9 4. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the neighbors' access to light and air.

5. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the neighbors' privacy.

6. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the city.

7. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare.

Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Historic Incentive Permit:

1. The Project complies with Standards of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. The project provides for the rehabilitation of the existing structure and the preservation of unique architectural elements that are character-defining features of Late Modern architecture. Deteriorated historic building features would be repaired rather than replaced unless the features are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement feature will be required to match the original element in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The new third floor addition would allow for the construction of the additional level without necessitating additions or extensions of the existing first and second floor that would cause the removal and destruction of existing architecturally significant building elements. The thoughtful design and placement of the addition keeps the design of the existing Lautner-designed building while facilitating the additional improvements at the project site.
10 2. The Project seeks to rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building, while providing a new third story addition of approximately 1,400 SF. While the project - is set back further than the existing building line along primary street frontages along South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard - South Santa Monica Boulevard, where the existing structure maintains the - -
-
frontage. The proposed setbacks for the new addition orient the scale and massing of the building toward the center of the existing building and away from view of street.

Additionally, rehabilitation of the existing John Lautner-designed building preserves the existing character of the streetscape by retaining an architecturally significant building along South Santa Monica Boulevard. As such, the project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape.

3. The new third-story addition is proposed within the footprint of the second floor and would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing building. The new third - - Boulevard, a zero - South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, the design of the addition orients the scale and massing of the building away from view of neighboring properties.

To the east, the addition includes the extension of an existing solid building wall that abuts the neighboring three-story building on the Peninsula property that would also screen the 11 proposed outdoor terrace on the third floor. To the south, the project site faces a two-story - use by hotel guests. The floor level of the proposed third-story addition would be built on - the south elevation of the third-story addition primarily consists of stairs, a stair well, and a closet. The stairwell and closet are designed with solid walls and are closest to the east side property line abutting the Peninsula Hotel property. The Project would not have a direct view of the hotel rooftop areas on the Peninsula Hotel, as the floor level of the hotel - - than the floor level of the proposed third-story addition at the project site. As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties.

4. The Project site abuts the Peninsula Hotel to the east and south. The existing hotel was developed as a fourincludes rooftop uses and pool areas. The project would increase the height of the existing - - proposed height of 38 - for development in commercial zones. In review of the provided shade and shadow study on the set of plans, shadows cast primarily during the winter month generally cast toward the street, while shadows cast from the proposed project would be largely contained onsite, with minimal shadows after 6:00 P.M. As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact to
12 5. As noted, the Project site abuts the Peninsula Hotel to the east and south.

Along the east elevation of the building abutting the hotel property, the existing building wall located at the property line would be extended, without openings to the neighboring property. This solid wall on the east elevation is designed to provide privacy to the neighboring property from working and open space areas on the third floor and outdoor terrace areas. No building programming would be visible from the east, and similarly, workers on the third-floor terrace would not be able to have a view into the hotel property.

To the south, the project site faces a two-
-
four stories that includes a rooftop pool and deck for use by hotel guests. The building programing along the south elevation of the third-story addition primarily consists of stairs, a stair well, and a closet. The project would not have a direct view of the hotel rooftop areas on the Peninsula Hotel, as the floor level of the hotel rooftop pool area begins at a - - proposed third-story addition at the project site. As such, the project would not have a

6. The Project includes a new site-wide landscape plans that would improve the quality of landscaping provided facing South Santa Monica Boulevard, Charleville Boulevard, and at the rear of the property in the redesigned surface parking lot. Typically, existing commercial development along Santa Monica Boulevard is built to the property retain existing landscape planters along these street frontages to provide a buffer from pedestrians and the property, while also enhancing the quality of landscaping on-site. As 13 such, the proposed project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the city.

7. The Project site is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable development standards, including adherence to maximum height, FAR, and the SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. The proposed project seeks to rehabilitate an existing commercial building that was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, a notable architect in the Southern California region that is also the property as a local historic landmark, preserving a building possessing a unique style of architecture in the city. As such, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

Section 9. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit associated with the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition at the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:

Project-Specific Conditions

1. The Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Historic Incentive Request, which included deviations from the applicable dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and standards for on-site loading spaces. The Applicant shall provide a rubbish storage room on the first floor of the building abutting the parking lot with interior dimensions sufficient to accommodate a two (2) cubic yard refuse bin. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide one (1) on-site loading space in the surface parking lot at the rear 14 of the property available during off-peak office to facilitate deliveries to the building. The loading area shall be

2. This approval is for those plans submitted to the Planning Commission on July 13, 2023, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.

3. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development or her/his designee. A significant change to the approved Project shall be subject to Planning Commission review.

4. Approval of the Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit shall not become effective unless and until the City Council designates the subject property as a Local Historic Landmark.

5. Project Plans are subject to compliance with all applicable zoning regulations, except as may be expressly modified herein. Project plans shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are submitted for plan check.

Compliance with all applicable Municipal Codes is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.

6. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or his/her designee for a consistency determination with the original approval.

7. Loading and Deliveries Narrative. To minimize congestion and traffic conflicts, deliveries 15 shall be coordinated so that they occur primarily during morning or evening hours, during non-peak office hours (before 8:00 A.M. and after 5:00 P.M.) however, deliveries shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. the following day. Any deliveries occurring during peak office hours (between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.) shall be coordinated and approved by building management in order to better manage access to the proposed parking areas. Delivery vehicles shall be allowed to utilize the loading area for a maximum of 10 minutes, unless additional time for a specific delivery is needed and has been authorized and coordinated by building management. The Director of Community Development shall have the authority to provide additional operational conditions on the use of the loading area if impacts result from the proposed operation, and may refer any loading operation issued to the Planning Commission for review, if necessary.

Construction-Related Conditions

8. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and such Construction Traffic affic Engineer prior to the earlier of
the issuance of a demolition or the issuance of a building permit. The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum the following:
a. Written information about the construction parking arrangements and hauling activities at different stages of demolition and construction to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works and the Building & Safety Department.
b. Information regarding the anticipated number of workers, the location of parking with respect to schedules of the demolition and construction 16 period, the arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of operation, designation of construction staging area and other pertaining information regarding construction related traffic.
c. The proposed demolition construction staging for this Project to determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for demolition, deliveries, etc., to the subject site.

9. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the Community Development Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.

10. The Applicant shall post the names and telephone numbers of two construction representatives for the Project and a City contact on all construction fence signs. The phone numbers shall be manned at all times during construction hours.

11. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

12. The Applicant shall remove and replace all curbs and gutters adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

13. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall 17 be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or his/her designee) is first obtained.

14. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by the Director of Public Works (or his/her designee), and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Development.

15. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations performed under any permits issued by the City.

16. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.

17. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

18. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the subject site. No such installations will be allowed in any City right-of-way.

19. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.

20. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline. 18 21. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards, and shall be paid for by the applicant. No privately-owned structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

Standard Conditions

22. APPEAL. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a An appeal fee is required.

23. RECORDATION. This resolution approving this Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving an amendment to the Planned Development shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180-day period, grant a written waiver from the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days if, at the time of the request, the Director determines 19 that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant.

24. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit:

The exercise of rights granted in such approvals shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date of approval of this resolution, as provided for in BHMC §10-3-207.A., unless otherwise extended.

25. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in enforcement action by the City until such violation is abated or the entitlement granted herein is revoked pursuant to Section 10-3-258 of the BHMC, or its successor regulation. All costs incurred by the City as a result of abatement of a violation on the property shall be reimbursed by the party in breach of this resolution.

26. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. ///
///
///
///
///
20 Section 10. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.

Adopted: July 13, 2023
Theresa M. Kaplan
Vice Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:

Masa Alkire, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved As To Form:

David M. Snow
Assistant City Attorney
Approved As To Content:

Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2029 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on July 13, 2023, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:

AYES: Commissioners Wolfe, Demeter, Ostroff, Vice Chair Kaplan NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Chair Ross
________________________________

KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 196601353790429EB702916DDC629D3A Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: PC Reso 2029 - 9884 SSMB.pdf
Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 21 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Karen Myron
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
7/20/2023 2:23:54 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Theresa M. Kaplan
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 75.85.175.170
Signed using mobile
Sent: 7/20/2023 2:28:51 PM
Viewed: 7/20/2023 6:16:20 PM
Signed: 7/20/2023 6:18:09 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
David M. Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 107.77.229.93
Sent: 7/20/2023 6:18:10 PM
Viewed: 7/21/2023 8:49:18 AM
Signed: 7/21/2023 8:54:27 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
Masa Alkire
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 7/21/2023 8:54:28 AM
Viewed: 7/21/2023 8:55:52 AM
Signed: 7/21/2023 9:02:52 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
Karen Myron
[email protected]

COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,

CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.181
Sent: 7/21/2023 9:02:54 AM
Viewed: 7/21/2023 10:47:57 AM
Signed: 7/21/2023 10:50:52 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/20/2023 2:28:51 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 7/21/2023 10:47:57 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 7/21/2023 10:50:52 AM Completed Security Checked 7/21/2023 10:50:52 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps