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: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 22, 2023

DECISION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

NEW SIX-STORY, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH GROUND FLOOR
COMMERCIAL USES AND 105 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AT 55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A NEW SIX-STORY MIXED

USE DEVELOPMENT WITH GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USES,
105 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON THE SECOND THROUGH

FIFTH STORIES, AND ROOFTOP RESTROOMS ON THE SIXTH STORY AT 55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD, AND DENYING A RELATED APPEAL
Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition

2. Rincon Consultants, Inc. Response to Appeal

3. Draft City Council Resolution

4. June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report

5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2028

6. No Net Loss Findings

7. Notice of Public Hearing

8. Public Correspondence

9. Project Plans

RECOMMENDATION
On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving the construction of a new six-story, mixed use development with ground floor commercial uses and 105 residential dwelling units at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard. Subsequently, a timely appeal of the Planning Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

Commission’s decision was filed on July 5, 2023, by Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) (Attachment 1). It is recommended that the City Council hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and adopt a resolution approving the project (Attachment 3) and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision (i.e., denying the appeal), which would allow the project to move forward through the City’s architectural review and building permit processes.

The City Council, as part of its de novo review, will consider not only the appeal and points raised therein, but also will conduct an independent review of whether or not the required findings can be made to approve the project.

INTRODUCTION
Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is a 38,500 SF rectangular lot located on the west side of North La Cienega Boulevard (Fig. 1), within the City’s C-3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone.

The project site is currently developed with an existing 13,500 SF commercial building and surface parking lot. The building is currently vacant, having previously been used as a restaurant, with the most recent tenant being The Stinking Rose Restaurant. Vehicular access to the site is currently provided through a driveway apron located along North La Cienega Boulevard. The project site is also located approximately 130 feet from the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station, which is currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard.

Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery
Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

The area surrounding the project site is characterized by existing commercial and residential uses. The areas located to the north and south of the site along La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard are improved with low- to high-rise commercial buildings consisting of retail, restaurant, and general and medical office uses within the City’s C-3 Zone and the MU Overlay Zone. The project site is directly adjacent to properties developed with three-story commercial buildings to the north and south. Further south, at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard, the area is developed with an 11-story commercial building on the southeast corner and a nine-story commercial building on the southwest corner. To the east of the project site, the area consists of commercial uses ranging from one to three stories along North La Cienega Boulevard also located within the C-3 Zone and MU Overlay Zone. Further east, the area is developed with low- to mid-rise multi-family residential development consisting of one- to five-story buildings along North Hamilton Drive, within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone. Lastly, the project site abuts single-family residential uses directly to the west, consisting of one- to two-story residences along North Le Doux Road, within the R-1, OneFamily Residential Zone.

Project Description
The project consists of the construction of a new five-story mixed-use building with an additional level of roof-top restrooms that are considered a sixth story based on existing BHMC regulations. The proposed building consists of ground floor commercial uses and 105 residential dwelling units located above the ground floor level (Fig. 2). The project would replace an existing 13,500 SF vacant commercial building formerly used as a restaurant with approximately 18,986 SF of new ground-floor commercial area consisting of retail, restaurant, and market/eatery type uses (Fig. 3). The residential portion of the project consists of rental units, with 11 units reserved for very low-income households. The project would provide 102 onebedroom units that range between 678 SF and 1,012 SF, along with three efficiency units (studios) of 571 SF. The proposed project requires discretionary approval of a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit for the new mixed-use building and the requested density bonus.

Fig. 2: Project Rendering Facing North La Cienega Boulevard (Without Existing Parkway Trees Shown)
Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

While modulation of the front of the building is not required by the BHMC mixed use regulations, the proposed restaurant, café, and market/eatery uses would be set back approximately 17’-0’ from the front property line on the ground floor to create areas for open air dining opportunities and promote pedestrian-oriented activities. On the south side of the building, a 5’-0” side setback is provided. On the north side, the ground floor of the building is proposed to be built to the side property line, with upper stories set back 5’-0” from the side property line. At the rear, a 10’-0” rear setback is provided on the first two floors of the building, with the setback increasing to 20’-0” to the building face on the third to fifth floors. On the third and fourth floors of the project, the applicant is proposing balconies that project 4’-0” from the rear face of the building and would provide a 16’-0” setback from the rear property line.

Fig. 3: First Floor Plan
Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

Common outdoor living space for the residential uses would be provided on the rooftop of the building, along with amenities consisting of a pool, spa, rooftop restrooms, trellis shade structures, and landscaping to assist in screening the outdoor living area from neighboring single-family residential uses to the west. Additional common and private outdoor living areas are provided within balconies located on the second floor of the project. The project provides additional balconies on the third and fourth floors of the project that are provided as unit amenity but that are not counted toward the required outdoor living space for the project due to the proposed projection into the required 20’ rear yard setback. The new mixed-use building is proposed at 57’ in height to the top of the fifth story and a maximum height of 66’-6”, inclusive of the rooftop restrooms.

Parking for the commercial and residential uses would be provided within a three-level subterranean parking structure that would be accessed by two new driveways located along North La Cienega Boulevard, providing access to a total of 196 parking spaces. One driveway of approximately 23’-0” in width would provide two-way vehicular access to the parking structure and loading areas. A second smaller driveway of approximately 14’-0” in width would provide egress only from an interior motor court on the ground floor. Parking for the commercial portion of the project would be located on the ground floor, as well as on levels P1 and P2 of the subterranean parking garage. Parking for the residential portion of the project is provided on Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

level P3. Of the 196 parking spaces proposed, 130 spaces will be allocated for the commercial portion of the project and 66 parking spaces will be allocated to the residential portion.

Project History and Planning Commission Discussion
On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the proposed mixed use development at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard and associated Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit applications (Attachment 4). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment regarding the project and considered whether the required findings for project approval could be made. Public comment included concerns regarding the proposed height of the building, the scale of the project given its proximity to single-family residential development, and the potential for shadow to be cast on neighboring properties. After discussion and deliberation of the project materials and the topics raised by the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2028 (Attachment 4) approving the Project subject to 41 conditions of approval.

Appealed Filed
On July 5, 2023, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision, seeking that the City Council require additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review for the project (Attachment 1). Specifically, the appellant states that the project would have a significant impact on indoor air quality as they assert that the project would expose the future residents to the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde from emissions from the modern building materials used in the project. Discussion and analysis of the appeal is provided in the Discussion and Analysis section of this report below.

ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
The following is an analysis of the points the appellant raised in the appeal filed on July 5, 2023 by Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”). A copy of the appeal petition is provided as Attachment 1. 1) The City incorrectly applied a Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the project and thus a full analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required on the basis that the project would have significant impacts on indoor air quality.

The appellant alleges that the City incorrectly applied a Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the project due to the City not taking into account the potential impacts to indoor air quality as a result of the off-gassing of formaldehyde from construction materials. Specifically, the appellant’s consultant, Mr. Francis J. Offerman, notes “that many composite wood products routinely used in indoor building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over long periods of time”, with some of these building materials consisting of “flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” The appeal concludes by alleging that future residents of the proposed project will be exposed to emission of the cancercausing chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and therefore additional environmental review is required.

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

In response to the appeal, Rincon Consultants, the City’s environmental consultant for this project, has prepared a memorandum addressing the concerns raised in the appeal (Attachment 2). As Rincon notes in their response letter, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency that has authority over emissions caused by the offgassing of formaldehyde in composite wood products. CARB describes formaldehyde as a colorless gas that is released to the environment from a variety of sources including the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and propane, tobacco smoke, fireplaces, and wood burning stoves. It is also found at low levels in natural wood and is commonly used to make a variety of products including resins that are used as adhesives in composite wood products. It is also found in many other products, including some furniture coatings, permanent press clothing and linens, wallpaper, carpet products, and personal care products such as nail hardeners.

On April 26, 2007, CARB approved the California Composite Wood Products (CWP) Regulation to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products that are sold, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in state. The regulation focuses on hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard. Formaldehyde emissions are further regulated by California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Sections 93120 through 93120.12.1, which sets acceptable levels for formaldehyde emissions in composite products that are sold in the state. Additionally, in 2017 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted national regulations that were based on California’s standards. Composite wood products that are currently used in construction projects are required to comply with federal and state regulations and are required to be labeled as “TSCA Title VI Compliant” (TSCA is the federal Toxic Substances Control Act) or “California 93120 Compliant for Formaldehyde” or “California Phase 2 Compliant.”1
The appeal filed by Lozeau Drury LLP includes a research paper prepared by Mr.

Offerman that studies indoor air quality in California homes. However, as noted by Rincon, the study uses data collected from 70 single-family detached homes built between 2011 and 2017. In contrast, the project does not propose single-family detached structures and the project would be built to the most current 2022 California Building Standards Code and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), not the 2013 to 2016 standards of the homes included in the referenced study. The 2022 Title 24 standards include ventilation requirements that improve indoor air quality, protecting residents from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources, including improving air quality over homes built to meet previous standards. Additionally, all wood products and finished goods used during construction of buildings in California would be required to be compliant with federal and state emission standards.

Formaldehyde generally contains the highest concentration when products are new, and such concentrations gradually decrease with age. Therefore, mitigation for these furnishing materials is not required. As such, any composite wood product used in current construction projects and in the proposed mixed used development at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard would be required to comply with federal and state regulations pertaining to formaldehyde emissions.

Based on the appeal that was filed, Rincon’s response letter, and current federal and state regulations that regulate formaldehyde emissions in composite wood products 1 CARB Frequently Asked Questions for Consumers - https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/consumerfaq#:~:text=The%20CWP%20Regulation%20includes%20provisions,resins%20in%20composite%20wood%20products.

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

used in common building materials, staff’s assessment is that no additional environmental review is required and that the project qualifies for a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption. The Class 32 report prepared by Rincon Associates (See Attachment I of Attachment 4) provides substantial evidence that the project meets the conditions required to qualify for the Class 32 Categorical Exemption.

Further, the information included in the appeal does not appear to constitute substantial evidence showing a potential for the project to have an air quality impact on the environment. The information provided by the appellant does not appear to provide substantial or credible evidence to support the assertions that there are significant environmental impacts from the project’s indoor air quality regarding formaldehyde or potentially high cancer risk from indoor air quality to warrant additional analysis or require mitigation. The information is based on speculation as to what materials would be used when the commercial and residential components of the project are constructed, and the appellant’s assumptions as related to the project are thus not based on facts associated with the project. This speculation is compounded by the suggestion that the CEQA analysis must analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions, including PM2.5, on the project, which is contrary to the California Supreme Court’s decision in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 377 (“In light of CEQA’s text, statutory structure, and purpose we conclude that agencies subject to CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a projects future users or residents.”) Because of the speculative and flawed assertions related to indoor formaldehyde concentration impacts, there is also no basis for the alleged outdoor air ventilation impact or the PM2.5 impact. The project will comply with all regulatory standards and requirements related to ventilation and building materials, further reinforcing that the impacts alleged by appellant would not occur.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(f)(5), substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.

Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment (PRC Section 21080(d) and (e)). As the claims and assertions presented by Appellant rely on speculative and unsubstantiated assumptions, the information does not impact the City’ reliance on the City’s Class 32 exemption. Finally, for the reasons documented in the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report at pages 35 through 38, there are no exceptions that would preclude reliance on the Class 32 exemption, and nothing in Appellant’s appeal changes that conclusion.

PROJECT REVIEW
In review of the appeal petition filed by Lozeau Drury LLP, the appeal appears to be solely focused on challenging the adequacy of the environmental review conducted for the project as a result of perceived impacts to indoor air quality from the off-gassing of formaldehyde in common building materials. The appeal petition does not appear to include challenges or objections to the project itself or the findings required to approve the project.

As part of the City’s appeal procedures, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review of the project upon appeal. The June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report is provided in its Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

entirety as Attachment 4 to this staff report and provides an in-depth analysis of the project, its vicinity, applicable state requirements, and the required findings for approval of the requested entitlements for the Council to consider in review of the project.

RHNA and No Net Loss Law
As part of Housing Element Law and the RHNA process, the state requires that all jurisdictions adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. To demonstrate the availability of land to accommodate future housing development, a Housing Element is required to include an inventory of housing sites with sufficient capacity to accommodate a jurisdiction’s RHNA by income category. The state adopted the No Net Loss Law (Government Code §65863) to ensure jurisdictions do not take actions to reduce the potential capacity for new development. Additional discussion regarding No Net Loss Law and its applicability to this project, and applicable findings is provided in Attachment 6.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The 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 Guidelines2(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. As part of this review, a categorical exemption report has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assess whether this project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA as an in-fill development project (Attachment I of June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4 of this report)). Based on this assessment, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that this exemption is applicable when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

As part of its review, the City Council may consider finding the project exempt from CEQA based on the analysis provided in the attached categorical exemption report.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Wednesday, August 23, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the 2 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

block face) from the project site (Attachment 7). On-site posting was also posted on the subject property on Wednesday, August 23, 2023. Additionally, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the hearing dates.

Public Comment
The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearing on June 22, 2023, where members of the pubic provided oral and written comments on the proposed project. Additionally, one new comment letter was received for the Council’s consideration expressing concerns with the proposed project. All previously provided and new public correspondence is included as Attachment 8 to this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellant at the time the appeal was filed.

Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Appeal Petition

BEU HILLS CITY CLERK
2023JUL5pm12:47
APPEAL PEXmONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDARDAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DEaSION
APPEAL TO COMMISSION OR^nT COUNCg^
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK.

Date
In accordance with the appeals procedine 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 Tune 22 2023 ; which decision consisted of:

The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State aU grounds for appeal Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper ifnecessary.) Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") appeals the Planning Commission's approval of the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326). The grounds for SAFER's appeal are set forth in the attached letter. See attachment.

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Michael Dunn -V June 27, 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:

Rebecca Davis, Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland. CA 94612 ■ Name (representing Appellant SAFER) Address
Signati^ of appealing party
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland, CA 94612
Address
510-836-4200
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid ZmIT'oo ' (For City Clerk's use) DATE RECEIVED ^ ^ LOG NO. / ? / ^3 Written Notice mailed to appellant:

Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, C lA l\J iVy f Involved Department

ATTACHMENT
LOZEAU DRURY-lp
1 J
T 510.836.4200
F 510.836.4205
1939 Harrison Slreel. Ste. 150
Oakland. CA 94612
www.l02eaudfury.com
richardlSsiozeaudrury.com
July 3, 2023
Via Email
Mayor Julian A. Gold
Vice Mayor Lester Friedman
Councilmember John A. Mirisch
Councilmember Lili Bosse
Councilmember Sharona R. Nazarian
[email protected]
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
earrovo@,beverlvhills.org
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326)
Dear Mayor Gold and Honorable Members of the City Council:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility C'SAFER"), regarding the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326), which proposes the construction of a five-story mixed-use development with 105 residential dwelling units, ground floor commercial uses, and rooftop restrooms, located at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills ("Project"). The City of Beverly Hills ("City") must fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") prior to any approvals in furtherance of the Project. SAFER hereby appeals the Planning Commission's approval of the Project which was issued on June 22, 2023, and asks you to overtum the Approvals issued pending further CEQA review.

As discussed below, exempting the Project from CEQA based on the Class 32 Exemption violates CEQA because the terms of the Class 32 exemption do not apply. Since the Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required.

DISCUSSION
A. The City Incorrectly Applied CEQA's Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the Project and Thus a Full CEQA Analysis Is Required.

The proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 In-fill Development Categorical Exemption under CEQA because of the Project's potentially significant environmental 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
July 3,2023

impacts. The City must prepare an Initial Study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review.

The Class 32 exemption provides:

Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffiCy noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].

One of the key limitations of the Exemption is that it does not apply if the project will have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. 14 CCR § 15332(d). Here, the Exemption cannot apply because the Project will have a significant impact on air quality.

1. Indoor Air Quality
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has reviewed the proposed exemption and all relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions.

Based on this review, Mr. Offermann concludes that the Project will likely expose future residents living at the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr.

Offermann's CV and expert comments are attached as Exhibit A.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State of California as a Toxic Air Contaminant ("TAC"). The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), the agency responsible for regulating air quality within the South Coast Air Basin—^which includes the City of Beverly Hills—^has established a cancer risk significance threshold from human exposure to carcinogenic TACs of 10 per million. (Ex. A., p. 2.) 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
July 3,2023

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products routinely used in indoor building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over long periods of time. He states that "[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." {Id., pp. 2-3.)
Mr. Offermann concludes that future residents of the proposed Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming that all furnishing materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. {Id., p. 4.) This risk level is 12 times greater than the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.

The California Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of air district significance thresholds in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse environmental impact under CEQA. {Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 ["As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact."].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an "unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]" exists. (See, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant impacts should be further mitigated to reduce the significant health risks that will result from indoor formaldehyde emissions. {Id., pp. 12-14.) Mr. Offermann proposes various feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, including by imposing a requirement that the Project applicant install high-capacity air filters throughout the building and commit to using only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, for all of the buildings' interior spaces.

Mr. Offermann's observations constitute substantial evidence that the Project will produce potentially significant air quality and health impacts which the exemption has failed to address. Therefore, the City must prepare an initial study to further evaluate and mitigate these impacts to the Project's future residents.

CONCLUSION
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
July 3, 2023

The City cannot rely on a Class 32 exemption because the Project does not meet the terms of the exemption. Accordingly, the City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review to undertake pursuant to CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A

TKK INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING EEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
httD://w\v\v. iee-sf.com
Date: June 30, 2023
To: Adam Franke!
Lozeau ] Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project, Los Angeles, CA (lEE File Reference: P-4727)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (lAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable lAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, lAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor lAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 pg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 pg is 2 pg/m^, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m^, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 pg/m^. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 pg/m^, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 pg/m^, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 pg/m^ NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 pg/m^, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 pg/m^ to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 pg/m^.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 pg/m^ (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 pg/m^ found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 pg/m^, which is 33% lower than the 36 pg/m^ found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project, Los Angeles, CA the buildings consist of commercial spaces.
3 of 19
The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 pg/m^ (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m^ of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 pg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 pg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 pg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 pg/m^, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures. 4 of 19
Additionally, the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study ("MATES V") identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 473 per million due to the site's elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area's high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the GARB Formaldehyde ATOM, provides analyses that show utilization of GARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATGM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with GARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the GARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under GEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the Gity's GEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
5 of 19
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (lAQ Zones). lAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For lAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates, (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single lAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each lAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m^ of material/m^ floor area, units of fumishings/m^ floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing ureaformaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehvde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (pg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (pg/m^-h) and the area (m^) of material in the LAQ Zone, and from each 6 of 19
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (pg/unit-h) and the number of units in the lAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials fumishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building fumishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or fumishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., pg/m^-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 pg/m^-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 pg/m^-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or fumishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete 7 of 19
chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory ("https://berkelevanalvtical.comL to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehvde Emission Rate. For each lAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. pg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehvde Concentration. For each lAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (pg/m^) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. pg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (mVh) for the lAQ Zone.

Qn = (Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (pg/m^)
Etotai = total formaldehyde emission rate (pg/h) into the lAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the lAQ Zone (mVh) The above Equation I is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 8 of 19

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each lAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEOA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each lAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all lAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the lAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based 9 of 19
on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

According to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills, 2023) the Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., N. La Cienega Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard, N. Le Doux Road, San Vincente Boulevard, etc.). As a result the Project site is a sound impacted site. 10 of 19
Table 1 in Appendix C of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills. 2023) reports that the existing noise levels range from 56.1 to 70.0 dBA Leq. However these noise measurements are just short-term 15 minute measurements made on a single day, Wendsday, March 8, 2023, and do not report the CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels. In order to design the building such that the interior noise levels are acceptable, long-term one-week measurements need to be conducted to assess the ambient CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels for the purpose of selecting the appropriate STC for the windows.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.S Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5.

According to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills. 2023), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 pg/m^, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 pg/m^, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

II of 19
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehvde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the GEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to 12 of 19
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft^ of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2S Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PMz.s removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2,5 particles are less than the California and National PM25 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental 13 of 19
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
httDs://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-rinal.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. httDs://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: ww\v.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energv.ca.gov/2015Dublications/CEC-40Q-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

City of Beverly Hills. 2023. Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project.
14 of 19
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 - Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. Mcllvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.aov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. Califomia Air Resources Board and Califomia Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12'^ Intemational Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker l.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
15of 19
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airqualitv-analvsis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16ofl9

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products".

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 pg/m^ (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft^), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, Califomia 17 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m^/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 15 ft^ (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board - 30 ft^ (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood - 54 fP (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF - 46 ft^ (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board - 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood - 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF - 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry. 18 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Altematively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 19 of 19
9/25/2018 Indoor Environmental Engineering - Expert Witness Services: Francis (Bud) Offermann PE CiH, Indoor Air Quaiity, Buiiding Science, lAQ lEE Indoor Environmental Engineering
Your iiuloor air ijuaiity fxpcrtf
Horns
Company Profile
Healthy Building Servlcee
Diagrtostic Services
Laboratory Services
Worlcshops & Seminars
Expert Wtness Services
Resources
News & Events
Employnwnt
Contact Us
Expert Witness Services
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann PE CiH
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering,
San Francisco. CA. December, 1981 - present,
e-mail: [email protected]
Education
• M.S. Mechanical Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, OA. • Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control University of Califbmia, Berkeley. CA.
• B.S. in Mechanical Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic Instttuts, Troy, N.Y.

Professional Affiliations
ACGIH, AIHA, ASHRAE, CSI, ASTM, ISIAQ, PARMA, and USGBC Work Experience
Mr. Offermann PE, CIH. has 36 years experience as en lAQ researcher, technical author, and workshop instructor. He is president of Indoor Environmental Engineering, a San Francisco based lAQ R&D consulting firm.

As president of indoor Environmental Englneen'ng, Mr. Offermann directs an interdisciplinary team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in indoor air quality building Investigations. Under Mr. Offermann's supervision, lEE has developed both pro-active and reactive lAQ measurement methods and diagnostic protocols. He has supeninsed over 2,000 lAQ investigations in commercial, residential, and institutional buildings and conducted numerous forensic investigations related to lAQ.

Litigation Experience
Mr. Offermann has been qualified numerous times in court as an expert in the field of Indoor air quality and ventllafion for both plaintiffe and defendants. He has been deposed over ISO times in cases Involving indoor air quality/ventilation Issues in commercial, residential, and institutional buildings involving consbuction defects, and/or operation and maintenance problems.

Examples of Indoor air quality cases he has worked on are alleged personal injury and/or property damages from mold and bacterial
contamination/moisture Intrusion, building renovation activities, insufficient outdoor air ventHation, off gassing of voiatlle organic compounds from building materials and coatings, malfunctioning gas heaters and carbon monoxide poisoning, and applications of pesticides. Mr. Offennann has testified vrith respect to the sclenbfic admlssabllity of expert testimony regarding Indoor air quality issues via Daubert and Kelly-Frye motions.

View Curriculum Vitae
(PDF)
Copyright 2006 Indoor Envkonmental EnginMrlng. SIto design OyhtrrBTechnolooyhttp://www.lee-sf.com/expert-witness-servic88/lndex.html 1/1 ExpressNetwork
A Lt(",AL SUPPORT NETWORK COMPANY
www.Cfxpressnetworkas.com
Service of Process Work Order
[email protected]
(888) 232-6077
Assigned To
LA. PROCESS DEPT
QC#; 0013244
Date: 07/05/23
Client Information
Firm Name: L02EAU DRURY LLP.

Address: 1939 HARRISON ST., #150
City/St/Zip: OAKLAND , CA 94612
lei,#: (510) 836-4200 Fax (510) 836-4205
Secretary: Molly Greene Ref. 1847
Court / Case Info
Court Name: NONE
Case Number: NONE
Plaintiff; NONE
Defendant: NONE

SERVICE INFORMATION

SPECIAL
SERVICE TYPE NEED STATUS BY 07/05/23 (Attempt immediately.) LAST DAY TO SERVE PERSON/ENTITY TO BE SERVED: CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Agent: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
ADDRESS 455 N. REXFORD DR. #290
CITY/ZIP BEVERLY HILLS , CA 90210

ALTERNATE

ADDRESS

CITY/ZIP
BUSINESS [g RESIDENCE Q BUSINESS Q RESIDENCE Q]

DOCUMENTS

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE SERVE ASAP WITH CLIENTS CHECK.

Server Report
Log Date Time Server Code Comments
•"lanner: [Bj Cancel and Return To [£] Sheriff to Serve [N] No Attempt [R] Returned Not Served [TJ By Posting [V] Posted at Business [D] Rejected Documents [H] On Hold Per Client [P] Personal Service [S] Substituted Service [U] Posted at Residence fW) Warm Body CCP lOll Date Served: Time Served: Served By: Served At:

Person Served: Title:

Relationship: Race: Sex: Age: Hair: Eyes: Height: Weight:

By Leaving Copies With: Witness Fees: $
Mailed From: Mailed Date:

ATTACHMENT 2
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Response to Appeal
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
213-788-4842
www.rinconcons ultants.com
August 23, 2023
Project No: 22-13864
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project in Beverly Hills, California Response to Filed Appeal Dated July 5, 2023
Dear Mr. Arroyo:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared responses to an appeal letter received by the Community Development Department of the City of Beverly Hills (City) following the City Planning Commission’s approval of the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (project) and Class 32 (In-fill Development) Categorical Exemption (CE) on June 22, 2023. The appeal letter was filed within the 14-day appeal period for the project on July 5, 2023 by Rebecca Davis of Lozeau Drury LLP law firm on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), who are herein referred to as “appellant”.

Rincon previously assisted the City with the preparation of a Class 32 CE and associated technical studies, including a Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Study, and Historical Resources Assessment for the project. Based on Rincon’s review of the appellant’s letter (see attachment), the appellant does not present specific comments or concerns related to the findings of the Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum or Historical Resources Assessment. Rather, with respect to air quality, the appellant presents indoor air quality concerns from exposure to formaldehyde.

The following discussion includes a summary of the appellant’s comments and responses to the specific concerns raised by the appellant. Each issue commented on by the appellant in their letter has been bracketed and assigned a number. Response 1, for example, indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in the appeal letter. The bracketed appeal letter has been included in its entirely as an attachment to this document for reference.

Appeal Letter Responses
Appellant: Rebecca Davis (Lozeau Drury LLP)/SAFER
Date: July 3, 2023
Response 1
The appellant, on behalf of SAFER, states that they appeal the City Planning Commission’s June 22, 2023 determination to approve the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project. The appellant requests an overturn of the approval, adding that the project is not exempt from the California Environmental Response to Filed Appeal
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
2 Quality Act (CEQA) and an initial study is required to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review for the project.

The comment is an introductory statement and does not yet provide specifics regarding their concerns or deficiencies in the existing environmental analysis that would necessitate preparation of a separate CEQA review. The appellant’s key concerns are addressed under Response 3 in this document.

Response 2
The appellant states that the project does not qualify for a Class 32 CE under CEQA because the project “will have a significant impact on air quality,” in reference to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d).

According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d), in-fill development pursuing a Class 32 CE must not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. The appellant does not yet provide specific project impacts related to air quality. The appellant’s key concerns are addressed under Response 3 in this document.

Response 3
The appellant references a determination on the project made by Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis Offermann, stating that the project would expose future residents of the project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, particularly from “emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde” – a known carcinogen and toxic air contaminant (TAC). The appellant adds that many composite wood products used in building materials and furnishings commonly found in urban development contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over time. The appellant states that, even if all furnishing materials are complaint with the California Air Resources Board formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure, future residents would be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, exceeding the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA significant threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.

In reference to Mr. Offermann’s findings, the appellant identifies measures to reduce indoor formaldehyde emissions, including requiring that the project applicant 1) install high-capacity air filters throughout the building, and 2) use only composite wood materials made with no-added formaldehyde resins (or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde resins) for interior spaces. The appellant requests that the City prepare an initial study to further evaluate and mitigate these health risk impacts to future residents, reiterating that the project does not meet the conditions for a Class 32 CE under CEQA.

CEQA analyzes the project against its potential future impacts on the environment and public health.

CEQA does not analyze “reverse” impacts of the environment on a project’s future inhabitants.

Nonetheless, the calculations resulting in the risk as referenced in the comment are based on highly dissimilar uses that do not reflect the actual project or compliance with current regulations.

In the analysis attached to the appellant’s letter as Exhibit A, Mr. Offerman references his most recent research paper Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation (2020). However, the study uses data collected from 70 single-family detached homes built between 2011 and 2017. In contrast, the project does not propose single-family detached structures and the project would be built to the most current 2022 California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), not the 2013 to 2016 standards of the homes included in the referenced study. The 2022 Title 24 standards include ventilation requirements that improve indoor Response to Filed Appeal
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
3 air quality, protecting residents from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources, including improving air quality over homes built to meet previous Title 24 standards.1 CARB has authority over this issue and has stated that the approved control measures for reducing emissions, including formaldehyde, from composite wood products provide a level of control that protects health and safety. CARB states directly in its Frequently Asked Questions for Consumers on Reducing Emissions from Composite Wood Products that, “from a public health standpoint, the California Composite Wood Products Regulation (CWP Regulation) emission standards are set at low levels intended to protect public health. The first emission standards (Phase 1) went into effect in 2009. The more stringent Phase 2 standards are now in effect for all composite wood panels and finished goods sold in California. Prior to the California CWP Regulation, formaldehyde emissions were often 10- to 20-fold higher than the current allowable levels.”2 The regulation also includes provisions to encourage the use of no-added formaldehyde and ultra-low emitting formaldehyde-based resins in composite wood products.

The project would be required to comply with all applicable City, State, and federal requirements pertaining to the use of indoor building materials. As the project would be built to the 2022 Title 24 standards, evidence demonstrates that compliance with applicable regulations will be effective in reducing indoor formaldehyde concentrations to levels that are acceptable to CARB for the protection of public health.3
Formaldehyde in wood products is regulated by the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 17, Sections 93120 through 93120.12. 1. The purpose of the Airborne Toxic Control Measure is to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California.

All manufacturers of hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density fiberboard products must comply with the emission requirements of CCR Section 93120.2(a) as tested in accordance with ASTM E 1333. Therefore, all wood products and finished goods used during construction of buildings in California would be compliant with the emission standards as promulgated in the CCR. Formaldehyde, which can be found in wood products, generally contains the highest concentration when products are new, and such concentrations gradually decrease with age. Therefore, mitigation for these furnishing materials is not required.

Conclusion
Comments included in the appeal letter submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of SAFER are addressed in this document and do not raise any concerns regarding significant impacts that have not been identified and mitigated or would otherwise substantially change the conclusions of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption originally approved by the City’s Planning Commission on June 22, 2023. 1 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-andtopics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022-building-energy-efficiency. Accessed August 2023. 2 California Air Resources Board, Frequently Asked Questions for Consumers, Reducing Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products,
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/consumer_faq.pdf?_ga=2.32900281.682464648.1573169874- 1026610208.1565143819. Accessed August 2023.
3 California Air Resources Board, Frequently Asked Questions for Consumers, Reducing Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products,
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/compwood/consumer_faq.pdf?_ga=2.32900281.682464648.1573169874- 1026610208.1565143819. Accessed August 2023.

Response to Filed Appeal
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
4 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Vanessa Villanueva at (213) 444-3482 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Vanessa Villanueva Deanna Hansen
Senior Environmental Planner Vice President/Principal
Attachment
Lozeau Drury LLP/SAFER Appeal Letter

BEU HILLS CITY CLERK
2023JUL5pm12:47
APPEAL PEXmONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDARDAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DEaSION
APPEAL TO COMMISSION OR^nT COUNCg^
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK.

Date
In accordance with the appeals procedine 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 Tune 22 2023 ; which decision consisted of:

The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State aU grounds for appeal Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper ifnecessary.) Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") appeals the Planning Commission's approval of the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326). The grounds for SAFER's appeal are set forth in the attached letter. See attachment.

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Michael Dunn -V June 27, 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:

Rebecca Davis, Lozeau Drury LLP 1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland. CA 94612 ■ Name (representing Appellant SAFER) Address
Signati^ of appealing party
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150, Oakland, CA 94612
Address
510-836-4200
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid ZmIT'oo ' (For City Clerk's use) DATE RECEIVED ^ ^ LOG NO. / ? / ^3 Written Notice mailed to appellant:

Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, C lA l\J iVy f Involved Department

ATTACHMENT
LOZEAU DRURY-lp
1 J
T 510.836.4200
F 510.836.4205
1939 Harrison Slreel. Ste. 150
Oakland. CA 94612
www.l02eaudfury.com
richardlSsiozeaudrury.com
July 3, 2023
Via Email
Mayor Julian A. Gold
Vice Mayor Lester Friedman
Councilmember John A. Mirisch
Councilmember Lili Bosse
Councilmember Sharona R. Nazarian
[email protected]
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
earrovo@,beverlvhills.org
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326)
Dear Mayor Gold and Honorable Members of the City Council:

This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility C'SAFER"), regarding the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326), which proposes the construction of a five-story mixed-use development with 105 residential dwelling units, ground floor commercial uses, and rooftop restrooms, located at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills ("Project"). The City of Beverly Hills ("City") must fully comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") prior to any approvals in furtherance of the Project. SAFER hereby appeals the Planning Commission's approval of the Project which was issued on June 22, 2023, and asks you to overtum the Approvals issued pending further CEQA review.

As discussed below, exempting the Project from CEQA based on the Class 32 Exemption violates CEQA because the terms of the Class 32 exemption do not apply. Since the Project is not exempt from CEQA, an initial study must be prepared to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review required.

DISCUSSION
A. The City Incorrectly Applied CEQA's Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the Project and Thus a Full CEQA Analysis Is Required.

The proposed Project does not qualify for a Class 32 In-fill Development Categorical Exemption under CEQA because of the Project's potentially significant environmental 1 2
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
July 3,2023

impacts. The City must prepare an Initial Study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review.

The Class 32 exemption provides:

Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffiCy noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].

One of the key limitations of the Exemption is that it does not apply if the project will have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. 14 CCR § 15332(d). Here, the Exemption cannot apply because the Project will have a significant impact on air quality.

1. Indoor Air Quality
Certified Industrial Hygienist, Francis "Bud" Offermann, PE, CIH, has reviewed the proposed exemption and all relevant documents regarding the Project's indoor air emissions.

Based on this review, Mr. Offermann concludes that the Project will likely expose future residents living at the Project to significant impacts related to indoor air quality, and in particular, emissions of the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde. Mr. Offermann is a leading expert on indoor air quality and has published extensively on the topic. Mr.

Offermann's CV and expert comments are attached as Exhibit A.

Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen and is listed by the State of California as a Toxic Air Contaminant ("TAC"). The South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), the agency responsible for regulating air quality within the South Coast Air Basin—^which includes the City of Beverly Hills—^has established a cancer risk significance threshold from human exposure to carcinogenic TACs of 10 per million. (Ex. A., p. 2.) 2 cont.
3 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
July 3,2023

Mr. Offermann explains that many composite wood products routinely used in indoor building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over long periods of time. He states that "[t]he primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims." {Id., pp. 2-3.)
Mr. Offermann concludes that future residents of the proposed Project will be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately 120 per million, even assuming that all furnishing materials are compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure. {Id., p. 4.) This risk level is 12 times greater than the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million.

The California Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of air district significance thresholds in providing substantial evidence of a significant adverse environmental impact under CEQA. {Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 327 ["As the [South Coast Air Quality Management] District's established significance threshold for NOx is 55 pounds per day, these estimates [of NOx emissions of 201 to 456 pounds per day] constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument for a significant adverse impact."].) Since expert evidence demonstrates that the Project will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold, there is substantial evidence that an "unstudied, potentially significant environmental effect[]" exists. (See, Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) Mr. Offermann concludes that these significant impacts should be further mitigated to reduce the significant health risks that will result from indoor formaldehyde emissions. {Id., pp. 12-14.) Mr. Offermann proposes various feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, including by imposing a requirement that the Project applicant install high-capacity air filters throughout the building and commit to using only composite wood materials that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, for all of the buildings' interior spaces.

Mr. Offermann's observations constitute substantial evidence that the Project will produce potentially significant air quality and health impacts which the exemption has failed to address. Therefore, the City must prepare an initial study to further evaluate and mitigate these impacts to the Project's future residents.

CONCLUSION
3 cont.
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
July 3, 2023

The City cannot rely on a Class 32 exemption because the Project does not meet the terms of the exemption. Accordingly, the City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of environmental review to undertake pursuant to CEQA. Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
3 cont.

EXHIBIT A

TKK INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING EEE
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
httD://w\v\v. iee-sf.com
Date: June 30, 2023
To: Adam Franke!
Lozeau ] Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, California 94612
From: Francis J. Offermann PE CIH
Subject: Indoor Air Quality: 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project, Los Angeles, CA (lEE File Reference: P-4727)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (lAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable lAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, lAQ is addressed by major highperformance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014). Indoor air quality in homes is particularly important because occupants, on average, spend approximately ninety percent of their time indoors with the majority of this time spent at home (EPA, 2011). Some segments of the population that are most susceptible to the effects of poor lAQ, such as the very young and the elderly, occupy their homes almost continuously. Additionally, an increasing number of adults are working from home at least some of the time during the workweek.

Indoor air quality also is a serious concern for workers in hotels, offices and other business establishments.

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 pg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 pg is 2 pg/m^, assuming a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m^, and 100% absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 pg/m^. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 pg/m^, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 pg/m^, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 pg/m^ NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 pg/m^, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 pg/m^ to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 pg/m^.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 2 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

In January 2009, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) adopted an airborne toxics control measure (ATCM) to reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, including hardwood plywood, particleboard, medium density fiberboard, and also furniture and other finished products made with these wood products (California Air Resources Board 2009). While this formaldehyde ATCM has resulted in reduced emissions from composite wood products sold in California, they do not preclude that homes built with composite wood products meeting the CARB ATCM will have indoor formaldehyde concentrations below cancer and non-cancer exposure guidelines.

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 pg/m^ (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 pg/m^ found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 pg/m^, which is 33% lower than the 36 pg/m^ found in the 2007 CNHS.

Thus, while new homes built after the 2009 CARB formaldehyde ATCM have a 33% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk, the median lifetime cancer risk is still 120 per million for homes built with CARB compliant composite wood products. This median lifetime cancer risk is more than 12 times the OEHHA 10 in a million cancer risk threshold (OEHHA, 2017a).

With respect to the 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project, Los Angeles, CA the buildings consist of commercial spaces.
3 of 19
The employees of the commercial spaces are expected to experience significant indoor exposures (e.g., 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year). These exposures for employees are anticipated to result in significant cancer risks resulting from exposures to formaldehyde released by the building materials and furnishing commonly found in offices, warehouses, residences and hotels.

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 pg/m^ (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m^ of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 pg/day.

Assuming that these employees work 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year for 45 years (start at age 20 and retire at age 65) the average 70-year lifetime formaldehyde daily dose is 70.9 pg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 pg/day and represents a cancer risk of 17.7 per million, which exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. This impact should be analyzed in an environmental impact report ("EIR"), and the agency should impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce this impact. Several feasible mitigation measures are discussed below and these and other measures should be analyzed in an EIR.

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 pg/m^, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures. 4 of 19
Additionally, the SCAQMD's Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study ("MATES V") identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 473 per million due to the site's elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area's high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

Appendix A, Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations and the GARB Formaldehyde ATOM, provides analyses that show utilization of GARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATGM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

Even composite wood products manufactured with GARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the GARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under GEQA, for determining whether the indoor concentrations resulting from the formaldehyde emissions of specific building materials/furnishings selected exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines. Such a design analyses can be used to identify those materials/furnishings prior to the completion of the Gity's GEQA review and project approval, that have formaldehyde emission rates that contribute to indoor concentrations that exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, so that alternative lower emitting materials/furnishings may be selected and/or higher minimum outdoor air ventilation rates can be increased to achieve acceptable indoor concentrations and incorporated as mitigation measures for this project.
5 of 19
Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment This formaldehyde emissions assessment should be used in the environmental review under CEQA to assess the indoor formaldehyde concentrations from the proposed loading of building materials/furnishings, the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate data for building materials/furnishings, and the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates. This assessment allows the applicant (and the City) to determine, before the conclusion of the environmental review process and the building materials/furnishings are specified, purchased, and installed, if the total chemical emissions will exceed cancer and non-cancer guidelines, and if so, allow for changes in the selection of specific material/furnishings and/or the design minimum outdoor air ventilations rates such that cancer and non-cancer guidelines are not exceeded.

1.) Define Indoor Air Quality Zones. Divide the building into separate indoor air quality zones, (lAQ Zones). lAQ Zones are defined as areas of well-mixed air. Thus, each ventilation system with recirculating air is considered a single zone, and each room or group of rooms where air is not recirculated (e.g. 100% outdoor air) is considered a separate zone. For lAQ Zones with the same construction material/furnishings and design minimum outdoor air ventilation rates, (e.g. hotel rooms, apartments, condominiums, etc.) the formaldehyde emission rates need only be assessed for a single lAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each lAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m^ of material/m^ floor area, units of fumishings/m^ floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing ureaformaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehvde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (pg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (pg/m^-h) and the area (m^) of material in the LAQ Zone, and from each 6 of 19
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (pg/unit-h) and the number of units in the lAQ Zone.

NOTE: As a result of the high-performance building rating systems and building codes (California Building Standards Commission, 2014; USGBC, 2014), most manufacturers of building materials fumishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods. Most manufacturers of building fumishings sold in the United States conduct chemical emission rate tests using ANSI/BIFMA M7.1 Standard Test Method for Determining VOC Emissions (BIFMA, 2018), or other equivalent chemical emission rate testing methods.

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or fumishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., pg/m^-h) of the product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 pg/m^-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 pg/m^-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or fumishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete 7 of 19
chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

Alternatively, a sample of the building material or furnishing can be submitted to a chemical emission rate testing laboratory, such as Berkeley Analytical Laboratory ("https://berkelevanalvtical.comL to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

4.) Calculate the Total Formaldehvde Emission Rate. For each lAQ Zone, calculate the total formaldehyde emission rate (i.e. pg/h) from the individual formaldehyde emission rates from each of the building material/furnishings as determined in Step 3.

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehvde Concentration. For each lAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (pg/m^) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. pg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (mVh) for the lAQ Zone.

Qn = (Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (pg/m^)
Etotai = total formaldehyde emission rate (pg/h) into the lAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the lAQ Zone (mVh) The above Equation I is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 "Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations" of the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017). 8 of 19

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each lAQ Zone, calculate the cancer and non-cancer health risks from the indoor formaldehyde concentrations determined in Step 5 and as described in the OEHHA Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (OEHHA, 2015).

7.) Mitigate Indoor Formaldehyde Exposures of exceeding the CEOA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each lAQ Zone, provide mitigation for any formaldehyde exposure risk as determined in Step 6, that exceeds the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million or the CEQA non-cancer Hazard Quotient of 1.0.

Provide the source and/or ventilation mitigation required in all lAQ Zones to reduce the health risks of the chemical exposures below the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

1.) reducing the amount materials and/or furnishings that emit formaldehyde

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde
Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

1.) increasing the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the lAQ Zone.

NOTE: Mitigating the formaldehyde emissions through use of less material/furnishings, or use of lower emitting materials/furnishings, is the preferred mitigation option, as mitigation with increased outdoor air ventilation increases initial and operating costs associated with the heating/cooling systems.

Further, we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based 9 of 19
on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers," (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Impact. Another important finding of the CNHS, was that the outdoor air ventilation rates in the homes were very low. Outdoor air ventilation is a very important factor influencing the indoor concentrations of air contaminants, as it is the primary removal mechanism of all indoor air generated contaminants. Lower outdoor air exchange rates cause indoor generated air contaminants to accumulate to higher indoor air concentrations. Many homeowners rarely open their windows or doors for ventilation as a result of their concerns for security/safety, noise, dust, and odor concerns (Price, 2007). In the CNHS field study, 32% of the homes did not use their windows during the 24-hour Test Day, and 15% of the homes did not use their windows during the entire preceding week. Most of the homes with no window usage were homes in the winter field session.

Thus, a substantial percentage of homeowners never open their windows, especially in the winter season. The median 24-hour measurement was 0.26 air changes per hour (ach), with a range of 0.09 ach to 5.3 ach. A total of 67% of the homes had outdoor air exchange rates below the minimum California Building Code (2001) requirement of 0.35 ach. Thus, the relatively tight envelope construction, combined with the fact that many people never open their windows for ventilation, results in homes with low outdoor air exchange rates and higher indoor air contaminant concentrations.

According to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills, 2023) the Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., N. La Cienega Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard, N. Le Doux Road, San Vincente Boulevard, etc.). As a result the Project site is a sound impacted site. 10 of 19
Table 1 in Appendix C of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills. 2023) reports that the existing noise levels range from 56.1 to 70.0 dBA Leq. However these noise measurements are just short-term 15 minute measurements made on a single day, Wendsday, March 8, 2023, and do not report the CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels. In order to design the building such that the interior noise levels are acceptable, long-term one-week measurements need to be conducted to assess the ambient CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels for the purpose of selecting the appropriate STC for the windows.

As a result of the high outdoor noise levels, the current project will require a mechanical supply of outdoor air ventilation to allow for a habitable interior environment with closed windows and doors. Such a ventilation system would allow windows and doors to be kept closed at the occupant's discretion to control exterior noise within building interiors.

PM2.S Outdoor Concentrations Impact. An additional impact of the nearby motor vehicle traffic associated with this project, are the outdoor concentrations of PM2.5.

According to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills. 2023), the Project is located in the South Coast Air Basin, which is a State and Federal non-attainment area for PM2.5.

An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 pg/m^, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 pg/m^, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

II of 19
It is my experience that based on the projected high traffic noise levels, the annual average concentration of PM2.5 will exceed the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards and warrant installation of high efficiency air filters (i.e. MERV 13 or higher) in all mechanically supplied outdoor air ventilation systems.

Indoor Air Quality Impact Mitigation Measures
The following are recommended mitigation measures to minimize the impacts upon indoor quality:

Indoor Formaldehvde Concentrations Mitigation. Use only composite wood materials (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins (CARB, 2009). CARB Phase 2 certified composite wood products, or ultra-low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins, do not insure indoor formaldehyde concentrations that are below the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million. Only composite wood products manufactured with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins, such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the GEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

Alternatively, conduct the previously described Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Chemical Emissions Assessment, to determine that the combination of formaldehyde emissions from building materials and furnishings do not create indoor formaldehyde concentrations that exceed the CEQA cancer and non-cancer health risks.

It is important to note that we are not asking that the builder "speculate" on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health "Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers", (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described above (i.e.

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to 12 of 19
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft^ of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

PM2S Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PMz.s removal efficiency (e.g. MERV 13 or higher) to filter the outdoor air entering the mechanical outdoor air supply systems, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2,5 particles are less than the California and National PM25 annual and 24-hour standards. Install the air filters in the system such that they are accessible for replacement by the occupants or maintenance personnel. Include in the mechanical outdoor air ventilation system manual instructions on how to replace the air filters and the estimated frequency of replacement.

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental 13 of 19
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
httDs://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-rinal.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. httDs://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm
California Building Code. 2001. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2 Volume 1, Appendix Chapter 12, Interior Environment, Division 1, Ventilation, Section 1207:
2001 California Building Code, California Building Standards Commission. Sacramento, CA.

California Building Standards Commission (2014). 2013 California Green Building Standards Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11. California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Home/CALGreen.aspx.

California Energy Commission, PIER Program. CEC-500-2007-033. Final Report, ARB Contract 03-326. Available at: ww\v.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/03-326.pdf.

California Energy Commission, 2015. 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6. http://www.energv.ca.gov/2015Dublications/CEC-40Q-2015-037/CEC-400-2015-037- CMF.pdf
CDPH. 2017. Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1.

California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

City of Beverly Hills. 2023. Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project.
14 of 19
EPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition, Chapter 16 - Activity Factors.

Report EPA/600/R-09/052F, September 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Hodgson, A. T., D. Beal, J.E.R. Mcllvaine. 2002. Sources of formaldehyde, other aldehydes and terpenes in a new manufactured house. Indoor Air 12: 235-242.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines; Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.aov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. Califomia Air Resources Board and Califomia Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12'^ Intemational Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

Singer, B.C, Chan, W.R, Kim, Y., Offermann, F.J., and Walker l.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
15of 19
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2015. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/airqualitv-analvsis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
16ofl9

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

CARB FORMALDEHYDE ATCM
With respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, the CARB ATCM regulations of formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, do not assure healthful indoor air quality. The following is the stated purpose of the CARB ATCM regulation - The purpose of this airborne toxic control measure is to "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products, and finished goods that contain composite wood products, that are sold, offered for sale, supplied, used, or manufactured for sale in California In other words, the CARB ATCM regulations do not "assure healthful indoor air quality", but rather "reduce formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products".

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not assure healthful indoor air quality" when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 pg/m^ (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

Another way of looking at how much protection the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products is to calculate the maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft^), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, Califomia 17 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m^/h) calculated for this model residence.

For the composite wood formaldehyde emission rates I used the CARB ATCM Phase 2 rates.

The calculated maximum number of square feet of composite wood product that can be in a residence, without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 15 ft^ (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board - 30 ft^ (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood - 54 fP (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF - 46 ft^ (2.0 % of the floor area).

For offices and hotels the calculated maximum amount of composite wood product (% of floor area) that can be used without exceeding the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million for occupants, assuming 8 hours/day occupancy, and the California Mechanical Code minimum outdoor air ventilation rates are as follows for the different types of regulated composite wood products.

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) - 3.6 % (offices) and 4.6% (hotel rooms), or Particle Board - 7.2 % (offices) and 9.4% (hotel rooms), or Hardwood Plywood - 13 % (offices) and 17% (hotel rooms), or Thin MDF - 11 % (offices) and 14 % (hotel rooms)
Clearly the CARB ATCM does not regulate the formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products such that the potentially large areas of these products, such as for flooring, baseboards, interior doors, window and door trims, and kitchen and bathroom cabinetry. 18 of 19
could be used without causing indoor formaldehyde concentrations that result in CEQA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million for occupants with continuous occupancy.

Even composite wood products manufactured with CARB certified ultra low emitting formaldehyde (ULEF) resins do not insure that the indoor air will have concentrations of formaldehyde the meet the OEHHA cancer risks that substantially exceed 10 per million.

The permissible emission rates for ULEF composite wood products are only 11-15% lower than the CARB Phase 2 emission rates. Only use of composite wood products made with no-added formaldehyde resins (NAF), such as resins made from soy, polyvinyl acetate, or methylene diisocyanate can insure that the OEHHA cancer risk of 10 per million is met.

If CARB Phase 2 compliant or ULEF composite wood products are utilized in construction, then the resulting indoor formaldehyde concentrations should be determined in the design phase using the specific amounts of each type of composite wood product, the specific formaldehyde emission rates, and the volume and outdoor air ventilation rates of the indoor spaces, and all feasible mitigation measures employed to reduce this impact (e.g. use less formaldehyde containing composite wood products and/or incorporate mechanical systems capable of higher outdoor air ventilation rates). See the procedure described earlier (i.e. Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Altematively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins. 19 of 19
9/25/2018 Indoor Environmental Engineering - Expert Witness Services: Francis (Bud) Offermann PE CiH, Indoor Air Quaiity, Buiiding Science, lAQ lEE Indoor Environmental Engineering
Your iiuloor air ijuaiity fxpcrtf
Horns
Company Profile
Healthy Building Servlcee
Diagrtostic Services
Laboratory Services
Worlcshops & Seminars
Expert Wtness Services
Resources
News & Events
Employnwnt
Contact Us
Expert Witness Services
Francis (Bud) J. Offermann PE CiH
President: Indoor Environmental Engineering,
San Francisco. CA. December, 1981 - present,
e-mail: [email protected]
Education
• M.S. Mechanical Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, OA. • Graduate Studies in Air Pollution Monitoring and Control University of Califbmia, Berkeley. CA.
• B.S. in Mechanical Engineering Rensselaer Polytechnic Instttuts, Troy, N.Y.

Professional Affiliations
ACGIH, AIHA, ASHRAE, CSI, ASTM, ISIAQ, PARMA, and USGBC Work Experience
Mr. Offermann PE, CIH. has 36 years experience as en lAQ researcher, technical author, and workshop instructor. He is president of Indoor Environmental Engineering, a San Francisco based lAQ R&D consulting firm.

As president of indoor Environmental Englneen'ng, Mr. Offermann directs an interdisciplinary team of environmental scientists, chemists, and mechanical engineers in indoor air quality building Investigations. Under Mr. Offermann's supervision, lEE has developed both pro-active and reactive lAQ measurement methods and diagnostic protocols. He has supeninsed over 2,000 lAQ investigations in commercial, residential, and institutional buildings and conducted numerous forensic investigations related to lAQ.

Litigation Experience
Mr. Offermann has been qualified numerous times in court as an expert in the field of Indoor air quality and ventllafion for both plaintiffe and defendants. He has been deposed over ISO times in cases Involving indoor air quality/ventilation Issues in commercial, residential, and institutional buildings involving consbuction defects, and/or operation and maintenance problems.

Examples of Indoor air quality cases he has worked on are alleged personal injury and/or property damages from mold and bacterial
contamination/moisture Intrusion, building renovation activities, insufficient outdoor air ventHation, off gassing of voiatlle organic compounds from building materials and coatings, malfunctioning gas heaters and carbon monoxide poisoning, and applications of pesticides. Mr. Offennann has testified vrith respect to the sclenbfic admlssabllity of expert testimony regarding Indoor air quality issues via Daubert and Kelly-Frye motions.

View Curriculum Vitae
(PDF)
Copyright 2006 Indoor Envkonmental EnginMrlng. SIto design OyhtrrBTechnolooyhttp://www.lee-sf.com/expert-witness-servic88/lndex.html 1/1 ExpressNetwork
A Lt(",AL SUPPORT NETWORK COMPANY
www.Cfxpressnetworkas.com
Service of Process Work Order
[email protected]
(888) 232-6077
Assigned To
LA. PROCESS DEPT
QC#; 0013244
Date: 07/05/23
Client Information
Firm Name: L02EAU DRURY LLP.

Address: 1939 HARRISON ST., #150
City/St/Zip: OAKLAND , CA 94612
lei,#: (510) 836-4200 Fax (510) 836-4205
Secretary: Molly Greene Ref. 1847
Court / Case Info
Court Name: NONE
Case Number: NONE
Plaintiff; NONE
Defendant: NONE

SERVICE INFORMATION

SPECIAL
SERVICE TYPE NEED STATUS BY 07/05/23 (Attempt immediately.) LAST DAY TO SERVE PERSON/ENTITY TO BE SERVED: CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: Agent: CITY CLERKS OFFICE
ADDRESS 455 N. REXFORD DR. #290
CITY/ZIP BEVERLY HILLS , CA 90210

ALTERNATE

ADDRESS

CITY/ZIP
BUSINESS [g RESIDENCE Q BUSINESS Q RESIDENCE Q]

DOCUMENTS

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE SERVE ASAP WITH CLIENTS CHECK.

Server Report
Log Date Time Server Code Comments
•"lanner: [Bj Cancel and Return To [£] Sheriff to Serve [N] No Attempt [R] Returned Not Served [TJ By Posting [V] Posted at Business [D] Rejected Documents [H] On Hold Per Client [P] Personal Service [S] Substituted Service [U] Posted at Residence fW) Warm Body CCP lOll Date Served: Time Served: Served By: Served At:

Person Served: Title:

Relationship: Race: Sex: Age: Hair: Eyes: Height: Weight:

By Leaving Copies With: Witness Fees: $
Mailed From: Mailed Date:

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft City Council Resolution












  !"#$$"#$%" &'% # $(!% !))'* ! (')+)!',!((%& )+!,"!,-%+-( (')+,#*("$++$! ./01(!(,*# $(#*#""#.!(") +#-#%!11#! $*!&'!(.!((%*!!( !))!  23$456$789:4;7<523$4567<&3=3>;6#4;;?23>@6<49A?.>3?7;=3?B9AA353>C493?B? <7;;7D?E3:5479/  !@>B2BC!??4;.79@32B;<7<11(3;7>53.$.F:7;;3:54=3;6523 GHIIJKLMNOPQRSMTRTUVWKOOXYRMNRMIIJKLMOKZNR[Z\RMR]X^XJZIWXNOR_JMNR`X^KXaRMNYR]XNTKObRcZNUTR )3>C4557B;;7D523:79?5>8:54797<B93D?4d?57>6.C4d3A8?3@84;A49eD452e>789A<;77> :7CC3>:4B;8?3?./01C8;54<BC4;6>3?4A3954B;AD3;;49e8945?B@7=3523e>789A<;77>.B9A>77<57f \XTO\ZZWTRaKOSRMNRZ^X\MJJRSXKgSORZ[RhhihPjRMNYRMR]XNTKObRcZNUTR_X\WKOROZRMJJZaR[Z\RMRklmRYXNTKObR @798?49BAA4547957:3>5B4949:3954=3?n:79:3??479?<>7CA3=3;7fC395?5B9AB>A?57f>7=4A3// M[[Z\YMVJXRSZUTKNgRUNKOTRoOSXRG_\ZpXLOPQqR_U\TUMNOROZRcX^X\JbRrKJJTRsUNKLKIMJRtZYXRocrstQRuuvl

/00
!B9A/0
/1
w.B(3=3;7fC395);B93=43DB9A(39?456&798?)3>C45B>3>3x84>3A57 :79?5>8:552393DC8;54<BC4;6>3?4A3954B;@84;A49e  3:5479

 23)>7y3:5:79?4?5?7<523:79?5>8:54797<B93D?4d?57>6C4d3A8?3 @84;A49e.D452e>789A<;77>:7CC3>:4B;8?3?B9A/01>3?4A3954B;AD3;;49e8945?;7:B53AB@7=3523 e>789A<;77>;3=3; 23)>7y3:5D78;A>3f;B:3B93d4?549e/
.100"=B:B95:7CC3>:4B;@84;A49e <7>C3>;68?3AB?B>3?5B8>B95D452Bff>7d4CB53;6/z.{z|"7<93De>789A<;77>:7CC3>:4B;B>3B :79?4?549e7<>35B4;.>3?5B8>B95.B9ACB>}35n3B53>656f38?3? 23>3?4A3954B;f7>54797<523)>7y3:5
~€‚ƒ„
†‡
ˆ‰Š‹‰†Œ~†Ž‘’~~“”•–—~”˜˜™”™–š”–˜‡~’š‡‘‡“

 







 !""
#$#%
 &'!
!
$()!*+ 

$ ,#$"-.&/$'
!

0/ 12345
$"-".45
$!%
 6
$782"45()! /

$0,,$//

!,,%


09! :
;0
<

#
$/
 

$

$,!/

$0!

'$

$
$/
= /
=
,!'
0!/

$0 !


,#$0$,!
$


!/

$0 

$(>!0
$
!,,$



?
$'
=@
%
 

$/ ABCDEBFFGHIJKBLMNOEPQR&SRETGHKELUMETGHVL,,% 


,
$0 ,,

$,',$
&$
#(>!
!WJXMEHTELUMEAYJNXJVZ[EBE\R&S]E $/
=,#$$(>!!$!0
$
!/

$0 

//

!$ FGHFMGLOENJVM[E^JLUEYFFMGEWLHGJMWEWMLABCDE\R&S]ETGHKELUMEWJXMEFGHFMGLOENJVM_E`LELUMEGMBG[EBEPSR&S]E GMBGEWMLABCDEJWEFGHaJXMXEHVELUMETJGWLEL^HETNHHGWEHTELUMEAYJNXJVZ[E^JLUELUMEWMLABCDEJVCGMBWJVZELHEbSR& S]ELHELUMEAYJNXJVZETBCMEHVELUMELUJGXELHETJTLUETNHHG_EcVE!!$ $
!
!*+! BFFNJCBVLEJWEFGHFHWJVZEABNCHVJMWELUBLEdGHeMCLEfR&S]ETGHKELUMEGMBGETBCMEHTELUMEAYJNXJVZEBVXEWMLABCDE PgR&S]ETGHKELUMEGMBGEFGHFMGLOENJVM_EhHKKHVEHYLXHHGENJaJVZEWFBCMETHGELUMEGMWJXMVLJBNEYWMWE^HYNXEAME ,#$$!,!/ 
$0

0 !
'0
,
,
, '

!
$


$

$
,0
0!0!/00
& 
'
%$


! 

09!:i
jk
$'!
$
#0

( l$$

''
$,#

$
#0


,#$$ !/



$! $
!*+()! 'j$&YWMEAYJNXJVZEJWEFGHFHWMXEBLEBEKBIJKYKEUMJZULEHTEggR& g][E^UJCUEJVCNYXMWELUME#&%,!/ 
$0!
0!''


$$

 YWMWEBLEBEUMJZULEHTE\QR&S][EBNHVZE^JLUEBFFGHIJKBLMNOEf\SEmnEHTEGHHTLHFE'!! $ WHYLUEWJXMWEHTELUMEAYJNXJVZE^JLUEBEUMJZULEHTEoR&g]()!,'$$ j!% /
$!<pq;$%(*
=0!''


$$


 

$/
rstuvwxyz{y|}~s}z€rz‚ƒ„
†rr‡ˆ‰Š‹rˆŒŒ„ˆƒŠŽˆŠŒ{r†Ž{
ƒ{‡ƒ

 









  !"#




$
%!"&"

" #
&&!!#'
 
'! &


%(
)
*
%
+" 
,
%
&&!!

-./0
$
% !
&!12
$
%-
&33&

-
24&" # &


%"
- ,
!  
!
  !2.

25-
!"#




$
%%

%12
$
%-
!


 -
24&!
  2617-
./0
$
%!
&!!,.68!
&! #
&
-
&33&

-
24&

00
$
%!
&! #
&

 !


19
24&!!
6:,;88<=&

%"
  &


!!-(

>?@ABCDCE?@FGHICJ?KLM@NBOPBD@OPC@ABOQRS@A6,*33&
T


UV,UWV!7
' T
1X!&

' 3




!Y"-
&
!"&
-

 #" 
%,


Y"!
!'#
"!31 9
24&
!
& "!
- 
%&3

!
!

!
!'#
"!
!Z X
!'+
"!Z<

!'#
"!!


!
-
&

&

% BD[KC?SC@BD@LCDSBOQM@NPB[P@BS@\?SCL@GD@OPC@]KG]GKOBGD@G^@HDBOS@G^@OPC@SBOCRS@\?SC@LCDSBOQ@_B`C`,  3
W3"3
"3#-"
!
"
a

2



+ 'b !U"
&
 *c+bU*d
!'!


!
"

& "!
-#
"!"
!d


!%


!
--
# 
"!
%"
!1e

&
!-
24&,

"3#-#
!"
!

3
' \C@\HBIO@HDLCK@OPC@ABOQRS@fCDCK?I@gI?D@?DL@FhiA@BS@jk@HDBOS@?DL@OPC@DHl\CK@G^@?^^GKL?\IC@ "!
%"
!!
.."
!c' 
&3d,!" 
%




--
#  "
&

%-.;1mn19

!'#
"!!


!!




.;n3 -
24&RS@\?SC@LCDSBOQ@BS@LCSBED?OCL@?S@?^^GKL?\IC@OG@JCKQ@IGN &3
"!
 !,
 ;8n
&
!

!'!

#



!'&
&"

!
Y"# "
"

W
 
"3#19
-,

-
X
!'+
"!23,
opqrstuvwxvyz{p|zw}o~w€‚ƒoo„
†‡ˆo
‰‰Š
Š€‡‹
‡‰xoƒ‹x‚€x„€

 










!" #

$
% 


! & '&&"
(

)* 
+,-
.&/-
01 



23!
 

 "
(#

 % "-
.&.!
4
! 
*5

#

 !

!" #
-!(
6 
&


"
 !"
!"-
.&-
0




7!
! !
!!"






8%!
"
 # "  

!"


 .!
-"

!

!" #

$



!

!!


 .9:;<=>?@ABCC:9DBEF<AG:H@IJKAHJI>@LA M. ! (% N.. & ( 

!O
 -!

!
&"-
.&
 " !"
  - 



.(
 (.!"$

!


 "-
.& "

 
"
!




.!&"+1




 " -
&
#$! "


 !O

" 
 
.
 "-!
.# 
!

(&. % !& 

! .!
.!(%
!
"#
! !(
 (
 
!
"!  
+P -!
"



 



 "!

&
&#!

"-
.&
 " !" -!
  & (#!O
"
!$! ".!
-"" 
".!""-
.& "

 
"
!




.!&"+N
!"$(%-
0




 "  -!
!O
"#(N..  !




2 1




2 +Q R"$S$2RST1UU)6V6WW) ")6V6XW)Y  #
 ZB[IZHZABFF:\BEF<AG<IKG>AC:9AD<]<F:^Z<J>A^9:^:@<DAIJA>G<A_I>`?@AabAc]<9FB`Ad:J<LAeG<A 3! 4


 "S$,
!N "
#4
 & '&& 
 #$

 fg?LAeG<AB^^FI=BJ>AI@A9<hH<@>IJKABJAIJ=<J>I]<i=:J=<@@I:JA>:ABFF:\ABDDI>I:JBFAG<IKG>Ajkl?6 mnoAC:9ABA>:>BFAZB[IZHZAEHIFDIJKAG<IKG>A:CAmm?6mnL pqrstuvwxywz{|q}{x~px€‚ƒ„pp
†‡ˆ‰p†ŠŠ‚‹†‹ˆŒ†ˆŠyp„Œyƒy


 
 



 



 !"#$%&''()*+*(,,)-./()*+*,)0!-1 !22 34563738973:;<8=>8?@=<6;?84AA=B;C8>=<8C;D;A=E3;9@8E<=E=?;C8698@F;8G6@HI!%JKL1-M N .O2P
QR!  !1
R-/ .$ S2T ! RU-./!QR
--V 

2 W+X!
 !O2UYY1 R-. !Z! .S-. .R. L[R
.R!!
.
-11
\-.-//
.-12 !
 !] .R1! L

20^)
_



Y!

!]\2 R2-R
.! //2! V2!
M
2 1/ .SY!-.
22 S2Y
L !
.!

2#$%& + `-
-Ra!"#$%&'()*+*(b^#!-1 !2!2Z /!-Ra!

 C;D;A=E3;9@8=>8E<=c;d@?8A=d4@;C8698@F;8G6@HI?8G=33;<d64A*`! /. -1O-.! .U- e7<?749@8@=8@F6?8?;d@6=9f848ghI*hi8<;4<8?;@:4dj86?8<;k76<;C8>=<8@F;8E=<@6=98=>848:76AC69l8=D;<8 @B=8?@=<6;?mnhI*hi8698F;6lF@o8pF;84EEA6d49@86?8<;k7;?@69l849869d;9@6D;md=9d;??6=98@=84AA=B8

-/R
. .2Z /-!-Ra
.22 /-./

2
1 !

2P
QR
 4AA=B8>=<8@F;8:4Ad=96;?8E<=E=?;C8>=<8@F;8796@?8=98@F;?;8>A==<?8@=8;9d<=4dF8qI*hi869@=8@F;8 Z /!-Ra--O2Y Y
!-1\
1//R2Z /!-Ra
.22 /-./ >=7<@F8>A==<?8><=38ghI*hi8@=8rsI*hio88 t- L!"  . U1.- LP-a .S
-./-/!"U!!1M# 11WU#X)bu]\2 R2R-

R L
.v-.-M(])+]Y
2  !Y1 R-S.R !

 Y
! .S
.

R .S-.M .  -

 1Y-a .SZ .
.R- .! /. -1]R
R -1]

2/L1
Y. Y
QR!2--1
R-/\ 2 .w 1

--Q
-.! !
YO2P
QR!  !1
R-/ \ 2 .w* 1

2
%
PY1WTx .X
-
.]\2 R2 !R.1M./ R
.!R
.
.2.
2-!R
.

t 1!2 #
1L-/-./
2x-& .S- #
1L-/P

2 !R2-.S .!-1-\]2P
QR\
1/2-L.Z /
 Y
L /-
-1(0bY-a .S!Y-R!U12
S2Y!-.
U#)bu].
Y-a .SR
1/
yz{|}~€‚€ƒ„
z†„‡yˆ‰Š‹ŒyyŽ‘’y““‹””Š‘•‘“‚y•‚ŒŠ‚ŽŠ

 







 
!""#!$%""%$&"'()*"!+$&%"!%,-  !""#!$
!%%&$


"'"!+$&
&$#..!#%% $#'#%
(!$
/
%0!$!$"!+$&&!!& 1
!!#(2)"!+$&"' ..!#%%, !+$&
%$!#"$


1#0"' 3#%'#4$#'#
5 1
**"!+$&%"!%"'$
%#'#
!1#0$#4 !%%0#%$%
0#$&,6$#4%$%
0#$&1##
!'+4! !%%!$$4!$3&!#!$#'# /!%%
%$!#"!+$&$ #'#
5,-
!""#!$!$"!%
1#0$!$%
0#$&
!1#
% $
!'!$!.0#3%$&!$!'!#!0#"0#!$%,7%% 
 !""#!$""%%
!'%$!#"!+$&!'!#!0#$!%8.%8%'0!%% $!$%%$&!"!+$&%"!!%"! #!%,6$!$!$!%"!+$&!% "!
#!% 
$!%""!+$&%"!1#0!%%&$
!$1
$

5"!+$&#'#,-
"!+$&%"!%1#0.!!'!#!0#$!#.%!##$!$%  &!#%%$.#'# !$%0 !'!#!0#4, 9$5, 6$:$// /;/5 

#!$$$&<..%%$
#!#4$"0#
!$&!1

!"=%#$>,/;/) $$!##4!""'$& ?'#".$
#!$='1!$?$%4@$%
.!""#!$%!##1
$%$
$1.3 ABCDECFCGHIJCKLMDNOCDPGQKKRKSDTHJJRBBRHKUBDECLCVJRKQLRHKDWQBDXQBCEDHKDYRKERKSBDLOQLDLOCD 
JIGRCEDWRLODLOCDTRLZUBD[CKCVQGDPGQK\DWHAGEDKHLD]QABCDQKZDBRSKRYR]QKLDHVDQEFCVBCDRJIQ]LBD  %$$&%$!#""%!%%.$%$%!$%%$1 
..! '$4^$$'#'!..!#%^1#$%#$!$4%&$!$#4!'%! ."!% !%!4 !_!% "%!$8'
#$#% "%!$%!4
!_!%^!$
`abcdefghigjklamkhn`ohpqrst``uvwxy`vzzr{v{qx|vxzi`t|isqiuq
 
 










 !
"

!
#""
$#

!

%
&'(!
%
! )

*!"
&+!(",
- )
!.- /!01234564787964:4;<=>234:??>:24@A4;B>4C2:DD<DE4F@==<GG<@DHG4I>J<G<@D4  "$&,K
(*#(#&,,LM!

$$)(#
#"N
!$#O! #!!

 P>G?@DG<Q<2<;34RSTUVWPXY64<D4:JJ@ZI:DJ>4[<;B4\]^F4_`a.abcb "d-M"e!f%
&%(! # $

L
DD<DE4F@==<GG<@DHG4:??Z@g:24@A4;B>4CZ@h>J;i )
!j- /!)
#bkMkcklM

%
&%(!

(&!




#!fM
$
#
!f
m
$L(n
#!f

##
&!#"
!#"!

(
!
" [<;B<D4:4588H4Z:I<1G4op
!


e$
q$

L#r
"

!"
!f
m
$L( n
#!f"f!!

L##
&- )
!s- t!!"#!f

#d("
$#
#
$
* !
L
!u 
! *!"
&+!("L#
M(#"(
!

)
!bcalalbc.$

+ #&n"'(!
% o+n'%qM

%
&%(!!"#


#
(
e

$!f$!!f"!"(#
$

L#r
v b-w x
#"
!"!""
!




f!#

!
!
!&"$
!"

$#


#
- k-w x
#"
!!

 #"&
$$
p"
!f
!
!


  !
!

 !
&
!#


#!(" !
$


#
- l-w x
!

(#M!$f(#

!M

!M!"
&M
f


!
!!#$#

! $
!&#
 !
#"&


!!
"f!$
!
&
!
 #"& !
#$#



("
!!r&!
$#"!

##
"!

 !
&$

"(r
 ##
&-
yz{|}~€‚€ƒ„
z†„‡yˆ‰Š‹ŒyyŽ‘’y““‹””Š‘•‘“‚y•‚ŒŠ‚ŽŠ

 




 


!"

 #$# %
"& "'"$ #
%
(
#''"$")$#
* #''"$
'#%+

*

#" ,("$
$ '
"$#
*

#" 
'#%+

 - 


!"

 #.
#") #
##/.
"$
#*
'#% & 
!
' 0$#" 1 2'#$
/$#" &
 (/.
"$" &*#3"#%3/ $"
)
# '

!" &'"
" &
#(4(
) #5
6("!
4
"#%7 /
5)"#'# 58$#*
8$#
#
.

/  
%
"
'#

 "

 #("! '#("
 $$ #" 
" #$
3"#%3/ $"
.%)9
#'

!" &'"
" &
 &
" &#58$#: ; 58$#*
/#"+
.%#0##4
"#%7 /
0##/#*)#


 
"$.
+ " &</") #


. 
#)" 
#.$
"
# #!"## 
"$.
</") #

&/"
$'#= 
5
')">
/

(
) #
$#
!"#" #?@*?">
@
4(
) #A(
%B 
#3,C*3))$"
 DEFGHIJKKLMLEFNOOPQIMRGISTEUGVMWXIRGLYRMINFKIKGFXLMPINTGIZNXGKIEFIMRGINOOE[NZO"&# 


"#"
'#= 
5
*7(
%\"

?/ "$"
3
*

("#"

)"##
 /
0##4
"#%7 /
0##/#'*#58$#"
$
"
# #!"##= 
 5
]/#)*#58$#"
 #
$#
!"#"  %
$"'"$


#
'# ^  $#"(</
#
'
"
$#" %
" &(
' ! $))$"
*)/
#",')"
%*
" &
,_N`LOPITGXLKGFVGXI[LMRLFIabbWIE_IMRGISTEUGVMIXLMGHI 2

"#"

%*#58$#!/

.</"
#
/.)"#$
#/$#" ) &) #

/" &./"

" &
$$9#
/###

!9!/

.$
" #
!"##  &" &$
#/$#" '#?#5/
c4d" e
##"  # #
#$ '
fghijklmnompqrgsqntfunvwxyzff{|}~f|€€x|w~‚|~€ofz‚oywo{w
 






 ! "#!$


 %&'
()*+

 !*!,- 

./!*
!*'
()**! */-
*!)!$
0*
***).**/-..

*
,))*+**1*!$)
//)2
*
*.
.
 !)!$* ! 
) *0)34
+
2*
!3-*
!0**,
*
 

./!*
,!0- 5675869:8;<=>;=?@9@68=A8B8C75D8E9=F:9G:E=9G8=H:9IJ;=D:K8A=@;8=7B86CLI=L68L=7MM@6;N=:9=:;= 3-**2

*/2!+ 

./!***.
.
 !*/1 


-O
! +

 !)
 $!**/!)! /*
*'
()*%&'
()*
 !
*1.)* *
10*!-
!$P*!$/.)*
!1*!$!0- 

./!*0)
 *)
!*!*+**..)0Q!'!.
)! *!  ! 0)
1*!$ 

./!**
*

*
,*'
()**$!)*!*'
()*2+*!!P ! !RRP*
-0
 !$ 

. 
!.
.*
)* 
!*)
!
, 


 ! "#!$


 %S1*!$)
//) 

./!* )*- ()!* *
*!
*2

*2! +*
,*'
()**)
!*
,*P*
-)
//)0
 !$ F:9G=LE=L5567K:DL98CI=G8:TG9=7?=UVJ<W
)2*'
()*2)
! *
! 2+!
*
-,,)*1*!$! !*).*  

./!*!*
)!*-! +.
/
* /
!

 

./!*
,*% X%Y &'
()*.

 )
//)
1)

-
!*$

! ,

%&
..*

,*'
()*+

 0
))
. 0-/
*P,/- !*
! !
* )
//)
%&)
//).
*
!
,*'
()*!
* $! +*!-.
0)- ))0
.!!$*
*
 
,*.
.*-*


 !-.
*!**
)
!

.
)-/.)**
!$0
!$!$P,/- !*.
.*
)* *
*
, *.
()*
!Z
*"[

1\
%&)
//)
 $! *
0
!*  *
+ Z
*"#!$


 %W *
!-2
)
! 
!$))+

 
]^_`abcdefdghi^jhek]lemnopq]]rstuv]swwoxsxnuysuwf]qyfpnfrn
 
 







! "
#$ %
&'(% $

 ))

!* !%)+$ 
&,
 ! 
$ )& !
$**  ) !')'( )-.))'  !  '!"
!'$
!'& !)/' "
!&
!! * 
!  
$ *! & % $* !**) &($&!)"! !$/
!&
&% ) $/!   (  ) 
!& !,/ ! )& !
$**  )! %!/ )+, ** /- 0-1 .)*%& &!2 !3-045 " 607! 

89.
$
))3:

 "
$ 8; *!< *' 5, )) ! &*%&!" 

!
$/))*   =>?@ABCDEFG?HECIHJ>KLHCM>LHBCN
% $ &4OPQ7 )$&)+ 
) )$
 &(!
 Q
!)5/.
&  *;/ P 5*$ 4R
! 7)
!!  !
)! S$) #$ %
&
!&


! "
#$ %
&-.&&!
$$/'($ !  T &

89.'


$Q
!)*
!.)) )) !4
Q.7(
)* *
 & 5,   %
$
 $ % $) % 4
U27*
)&!"*
V)
)"!
$W &! ) !)- Q ! ) !) %
$
 &
)*
))&/(  $
 &
X67


! "
#$ %
&
!&2
!O ! #$ %
&Y:7


! "
#$ %
&
!&S$) #$ %
&Y
!&'37


! "
#$ %
&
!&U$/*#$ %
&-Q 
Q.&  ! &
 *,  !
) )!! ) !& $
/)
 )&/! ) !)4Z-Z6-6) !&)7
$$+ $(   )$&) )
+$) &+/ 
/& !/!"* !
$
&% ) !&!)
$
!) * 
!"

U2R() ')!! ) !*%  !)($&+  T &+/  /-5 & )
!
!&% $ 
 )) 5, ) ($&!! + *%& &+/ 


! "
#$ %
&-Q 5, ($&!$&  !)!! (&% ( / DG[F\BC>\CKF]GL>D\KHC^>?JC=>?@ABCE[>_H^D@CB?D\ED[EBC?FC>]G[F_HC>\`[HBBCD\ECH`[HBBC?FC?JHC 5, ) -.)&  $ &! 
Q.'!*%  !)  ;)!"
&(
/($&+   T &
)
 )$ 5, 
!& 5, ($&!
$   ;)!"
*
 !)
abcdefghijhklmbnlioapiqrstuaavwxyzaw{{s|w|ry}wy{jau}jtrjvr

 
 







 !"
#
#$%&'((!)*#()($!#+ 
#!)#$!#
#!)(
,)!
"(*#
!(
()(*
)-,+. (!((&/!

-
*-,-01
2)$!#)
$+(
!)( -
)%))((1
2)
&3
0
*1
2)$!#)
% (0)%#"
(
00)-,)(*
00)(0%4
#(*,#(
.")()0)(* 
,#(
(0%4
#& 5&6 31
2)(()#$
--
).7(#3
( '
&3
0
*1
2)-!(+)(($
!(
8!
 -,-0)
#(0!
(*$))!#9(+):0
-
(# ,
,
(*)(
!)0($(*#(0#(),, "#+!00
 +$1
2)##2)(.0-%
(#,
,
($(&3 ,
,(#
0,
((+):0
-#

0##(),#,
"#"(! ()
+()!
"$(0
-
0,#2)(0-%
(#
 #--4,
")%-,)(
(#,
,
($(&'##%*( )##*1
2))
,
(-(!
(--4(#,
-,)( (()#$)--
)!(()#,
;-%
(#!((&'((!)* 1
2)$+#
-,!+)*(0%

$0
& <)=& >"!1
2)*
%
!))(#
#$
1
2) -(0$+2)"(0?;#@(A" %B*,!
(!<)CD.E.C=FG0  H?
*(##+$9
IJKLMNOPQRPSTUJVTQWIXQYZ[\]II^_`abI_cc[d_dZae_acRI]eR\ZR^Z
 





 

!
!"

!!#
$
 "
%!#
& #

&!'' #&(
#! #
)
!* #"

 + (! #"
,)
((!*

%!#
&!',
!"
!%
&!'' #&(
$" "-

'$(
.%'()
# " 
(
$" "
"$,/ &

!
" &%&
"
#"-
#$( "

#!& $# "

0 1# 


!

(
%!#
'!#

"+
 + (!' 


& #

 
,!#!!"-
*(
'


# ("
&
,$%% #"
,
* 
&!'' #&(

# " 
(
2! "

!
"$#

#
"
#'!!$"
 + (!' 



# 
3 

!$"

!
!"
%!#
+ #"
"!&! &!!'&
!$(
!"


1
)
&($

" !#"-
)!$

 !( -
!$(
!"



*"

!
,

#"
./& 


!$(
!"



*((
,  %

%#!'
 + (!' 

 #

$#,
&!# 
4 5


&!'' #&(


,"

"
#
"&
&#&
#



"
"


1
)
,)
&!$#


 
,!#!!." #+


  "
#.%# ()
&!'' #&(
$" "
6 1!& 
#


 *
!$"


' 
 "
 #
"




&


#"!#

!
! "

"

!"

!
&!$#

$"
!%
(
#
+
'! "
!%

#"!#

!

!
$
!'!,(

#+ (
7 8((!*

#!/ &
"



#
#!#
()
 "
 

!
& +

 "# 
 
,!#!!
&#&
#-
*(
#!+

 + (!' 

"
#"

!
''2
'&
"
!%
&!'' #&(
$" "

!
/& 

# " 
(
2! "-


!
&!$#

")',!
&
$" "
9 &
!
:
;" 
!

%!#
!
-

1
)
1!$&(
# ,)
%"


#' "
"
%!((!*"
*

# " &

!

!,/ &
+ "
!%

< 
="
>+ #()
?! @
 A
B#!/ &

" C"

!
#  + (!

"


+&


$ #$
(2 
&!'' #&(
#! #
)
%!#
 *
' 
$"
 + (!' 



&($ "
  "
#." #+

#
(

# "
$#

$" "-
"
* ((
"
 *
'$(
.%'()
# " 
(
# 
(
!$"

"
!&C
A
B#!/ &

*!$(
#!+
D-:D7
9E
!%
 *
&!'' #&(
$" "
!

#!$
%(!!#



*!$(

FGHIJKLMNOMPQRGSQNTFUNVWXYZFF[\]^_F\``Xa\aW^b\^`OFZbOYWO[W
 











 
!





"

!# $%"
&'





#$%"( 


#)*+
((

,

-))

#(
"(
.#

!(/

"0 &1

- $%"

"0.



#"00"



0 
/#
0 ! 
$%"



,


"0

"(


"
.0





234
! 5





!.

(& 6&7 8$%"

,

#0



0



 9:;<=;>?@ABCC9DA;EF@ABDD;GBD@H>BI>@E<@=J9@A;=KL<@MN9<=EODE>=@NBIPQ@RJ9@$%"(   "

S


,
/!-)T-+**UV
"

"00"

.


,#0! 

 


-(

0
S#

,.
"

,

-0
W-




 
 ,
##
"

,XY
Z

,
[ 
&'S
0 !-)\-]\^UV#
( "00"

#

( .

#
#-(
)*+
((

,

 

"
 ,#
###$%"&8$%"

,
(
 
!

,.


,.
"W

#!
( 

. ##.(
 S


,

,/#
0 !



 "
(#$%"


 $%"L<@_DB_B<9G@ABCC9DA;EF@E>G@D9<;G9>=;EF@O<9<Q@@`=@=J9@D9EDa@E@bcL/cP@D9ED@<9=dEAH@;<@  
#
(##.


,-(
.
"W
>AD9E<;>?@=B@ecL/cP@=B@=J9@ .


,#
"

#
##&4



# ##$%"- E__F;AE>=@;<@_DB_B<;>?@dEFAB>;9<@=JE=@_DBf9A=@gL/cP@hDBC@=J9@D9ED@hEA9@Bh@=J9@dO;FG;>?@E>G@ IBOFG@_DBi;G9@E@bjL/cP@<9=dEAH@hDBC@=J9@D9E!

&8
!
( .

 (


 "
#

"


,0





0
S
0 0
,.(
 kL@E>G@lcL@=EFFQ@mJ9>@CE=OD9a@=J9@_DB_B<9G@FE>G<AE_;>?@IBOFG@AB>=D;dO=9@=B@_DBi;G;>?@  
"!#

,.

,

=;EF@_DB_9D=;9<Q@nE<=FKa@E@>9I@jL/cP@=EFF@dFBAH@IEFF@;<@EF<B@ opqrstuvwxvyz{p|zw}o~w€‚ƒoo„
†‡ˆo
‰‰Š
Š€‡‹
‡‰xoƒ‹x‚€x„€

 









 !"#$   %#% %&'!%  ( )(* + 
,-% %
" %& %
 $  %, "# % % .'.$  %&/01%!!## %&"% 2! 34"%  ,56%#" %&%//!## %&"% $ %#$. #!6 %,"#(+# % 

% - , ."'#  % %,.%"&" #% $,
% %",' # $#(4(* +

!"#$ /723789:
%!,, #"% &"%
#!"#$ % #"%.%  %$  % . 

 (+&"%
#,, #"%  %& 
 #%"%"! %  % %&% $.!"#$  % #"% % 
 % %%!5# % $  % . 

(+

;<=>?@ABC=DE@@?=F@GGH?FIJE=A<H<=?HKJIB=KLH=

<IKH;<= F@BK?IMAKI@B=K@=KLH=NIKO;<=F@GGH?FIJE=KJP=MJ<HQ=RLH= 
;<=SHCH<K?IJB=JFFH<<IMEH=>?@ABC=
#,, ## %  %6 % $ .#%& TU %&V"#$( 1(* + 
!"#$ /01%!!## %&"% # %# - , .-  %&%"'# % (+ 
!"#'$'. -  %&W'"# %$##%&X # V"#$%TU %&V"#$ %!"##'$'. ""W
"#YZT %[ %"%#."% %" %%%% X # V"#$%TU %&V"#$2 !  #- ,#./)0 Y0(0\, #[
,

 (+# %

]^_`abcdefdghi^jhek]lemnopq]]rstuv]swwoxsxnuysuwf]qyfpnfrn
 
 







 !
"
# $%&



"#
$'$(&

) "
(



$"%
&)&* +*, -  
 .$&
 )

"
!(
. 


/)

' ""
&$


."$&
/("
&#



&$

'
"


 

 $ (012)&#3
%# )

'("
!
$
)& "
 
$')
%
4.&5%&

'%
4

)
&%
&
#($

'4

 )

')
&
#(!


'""
&

*- .$&



$
. 
&4"54

$
$.$&
)
%#""
&





&$
)


#(4.&&($$



&

(  
678
.&&

'$




)& "
*-


'



" &

.
  &
%&
)& "





012)&#9





#%
$&.* -

&$
&

 
%$
&

'%5(
 )

 %$((%.


'%

'



&  
.

  
%$
&

'* :

67* ;
)&$

'(" &

.


& )


4 $$
<)
"
=
>+8?+@4=
#=$

&%#(




"

(&&.A 6*, -  

."
!
$
)& "
.$&
 )

&(678
.
.&&

'$




#4.
&




'66$

(
&)#/&.

" $&
*-"

'BC$

.$&
%)
&%&(
%)/"


" $&
*-
 
D$

'E&"
FGHIJKHLMKNFLOPIQLFKHIRNSKNFTUVIOPPTWOFKMIXYIPTZ/ LNWT[KI\NLFHIFTIF]LHIHLFK^I_TZKSKU`IZ]LPKIF]KIOaaPLWONFGHI 
 )


$"%(&.

"((
%&$

 





)
#4.$&
 )

(@8"
.&&

'$



'

&&#&&.
%# &
%&3

'


# $'


#%
$b$ $$
:c

#d
$e.*-=
#


$
fghijklmnompqrgsqntfunvwxyzff{|}~f|€€x|w~‚|~€ofz‚oywo{w
 










 ! "#
 $%#!" &'

(" ) 

  *+,-./0+1/234253678192-1:2;300618/<2*+=+>3,0+1/23127/-/+2?+./848?-/8312342/@+2;8/<A72 &' 
(" ) BC'
D ' 
 ' %
#
' D


 E '
 

"F
 ' GH #BI
'
!" ' D
 ) ' E '
 

"F
 'GH #
 
D#



""!

'D" 
!) 
'

 ! '

!#!" BI   D
 ) '
 

!

 
 
D#



"'
 '
  D 
 '' JKL
 " 
!) 
'D
""
!" '"D)
H
"D
'MN !BC' O
 P# QH ) % R$ST$UV!WVJWX
N
'
!

' O
 )
 
H

"
P" 



"
 O
 '
 '
!!))
   O
 '
 D


"'

 P#
!) " H " 

YTZ
#'D
N !P


H B[
'  
"
#!)"  




" H
'
 $%#!" &'

(" ) X %
#

!

 '

D

)  E '
 

"F
 'GH #
 
D#

H #"L
"L
!) '


 78/+72812+\?+772342/@+2;8/<A72]5^_2->>3?-/8D' ! 

'

YTZ
#'BC' '!X 
H
"D MN !
'


 
'

""H
 YZS ""


'D   
"'

'!
 !
#
!''


D
!) !


'B F !
YYB I %
#%!
" N !' 

"
 ' ! ` H ") M"
 E H

` '
#['M )
 D""


'a bcd I 
 ""

""
'
 %
#
! !"#
"

%"
''UJGLe
"" ` H ") %


!
"(f )
 MN !  %
#




!!   

"
)
!'


O
"
#
'
 '"D DDL

''

DD)
" #  4.302?317/.6?/83120-/+.8->7g2h,+?848?->><i2/@+2-,,+>>-1/A72?3176>/-1/i2j.g2k.-1?872lg2 m44+.0-1i213/+72n/@-/20-1<2?30,378/+2o33:2,.3:6?/72.36/81+><267+:281281:33P "

 )
 

"'
D
'

'!))"#D
DD
! 'X '
 ! 'X
 "'!


pqrstuvwxywz{|q}{x~px€‚ƒ„pp
†‡ˆ‰p†ŠŠ‚‹†‹ˆŒ†ˆŠyp„Œyƒy


 
 







 !
"#$
%&'()*+,&-./01./(*2/+(-*3%(4/+5*.'(*)(65,/78(9560( '*,/(*)(60/'/(:;5-.53%(,&6/+5&-'(<*3'5'653%(*)(=)-**+53%8(<&:53/6+18(:&'/:*& >"#?" '0&./'8(536/+5*+(.**+'8(&3.(953.*9(&3.(.**+(6+5,'@7(A0/(&44/&-(<*3<-;./'(:1(&--/%53%(60&6( !B! #?B
BCD$B"#
EF
B#

#?B$?$
$!
#? $#$ >G?"?$$#? ?>?B#B#??H#??BH#"# +/I;5+/.@(J3(+/'4*3'/(6*(60/(&44/&-8(K53<*3(L*3';-6&36'8(60/(L561M'(/325+*3,/36&-( $? !B?BB#
CD$B>
FF?!

#? B$?$?
#
#? BFFNO
P#?$??B
#?B#
F?
BB>BQ#?#O#P
!$
R SQOPRT#
B
BB ?$BB
!B#BH#

#?
$!

B


#?  #?$F
#B"F!$B
NQOPR
$#


$


BB#

BB?H#??BH#B
!$
#?$!#? B$
!
B#? 

#!

!$

#??FF?>B
$$
G>#F$
>?"
!?#?
BH
NUB#

!?B"H
#??B!"?#
$?!
BG H#BF!$B
#?$!#? 
#?
BB!


#H
#?$F
#B"F!$B
N UB#

!?#??BF!$B
>#?$!#?
!?#B!$B#?
>F??BF

$B#? ?#??
>"FF>$FBF!$B
>?F
?$F!$B

!$
?# ?
NV?OF#WX>WYYZ>QOPRFFHBQ#?#QF #B[C!$B
SQ[CTP !B#?B!$#

#?
$F
#B"F!$B
BB 
>
!FF#>!
>?!$B!
#?
BBN\ !B#?$!

? "F">FB#$
>?#!?
#B#

N] #

#?
!B !B
Q#?#QP !B#?
>\#B^Z>_$B#?
`a^WY B! `a^WYN^WN^>"#$
B
$$FB
H
#

#?
#?$F
#B F!$B
BB
#?B
BBNO#B#?>#?WY^ZBb?#B_BB
c?H#??B
defghijklmknopeqolrdsltuvwxddyz{|}dz~~vzu|€z|~mdx€mwumyu
 
 







 !"#"!!$
%$!&'!()*+,-./0.1*234/503*6+. &!"!"&789#&("#"%&'!!%$ %&"&%#:&! ;%"9#$
('<"!$!"&!
%$!&!"!;%"=$!=$"!& >?@1A.?3B2,.CD.1/EF23*[email protected]+.BI,.4,-,5*2.?/J3K.@L)+!&8$  >1*234/503*.MNOPQ.1/EF23*0B.4/5.R/5E*2-,IS-,G./5.>1*234/503*.TI*+,.P.1/EF23*0BUG.?I,. !##!$<$"= VW!%X%
VV$%"&!&!'#!###!"=
Y7Z<<9! '!&%"&"!;%!$
8!$<!'9&7[(\]!&"=
^]'&%"
 %&&"!!$$"<9_`&
$a<!9$
"!'"'9&=%$=(b`cc!"b`c_7d !&]':"&##&& $a<!9$
"!'"&%%&!"': (%$"==%$'9&%b`bb8!$<!e%$" f!"!"&8"!"g$bh <'8!$<!8"<^ %$!&
88^ ]'b`cib`cj&!"!"&<''9& $%""'<"&%" 7g'b`bbg$bh&!"!"&$%"\$! ;%9&'!9#\"!;%!$ ]#
&"&<9!#$$% 
!
<9%"!""&%&]$%"
9#\
!;%!$
\'9& =%$9#\%&&!"!"&7""!$$ ]!$$("#"%&!"<&'"
"&%&" "%
&%<=%$"
&8!$<!(%$"=;%"=9#$!(' <"!$!"&!9&&&!"!"&7k9!$"' "
!$$
!&''
'& !('#"%&!(]!"&%'!& !"%!$$
"!&(' !
7g'<]9
!<'&<%&'
9!!$&&;%"7&&%']!
 9#&("#"%%&"%&%#:&!"'##&"9l" %&""\$#9!mmn'V!8 !e%$\!"(%$"=;%"9#$
(' <"!$!"&!
%$!&#!
<9!$"'
"9&&&7e!&"'!##!$ BI*B.o*+.432,-p.q30K/06+.5,+F/0+,.2,BB,5p.*0-.KL55,0B.4,-,5*2.*0-.+B*B,.5,rL2*B3/0+.BI*B. stuvwxyz{|z}~t€~{s‚{ƒ„
†‡ssˆ‰Š‹Œs‰
Ž‰Ž„‹‰‹|s‡|†„|ˆ„

 










!""!
#"!#$

%
"!&

%

$""
!#$

#'!
!# ()*+,-)./01/*)223/1)//+//(+4*1-/1*5)#


!!
##6!
#
#6!&!"7!
#
 8""9:8
!$;<
%!
#%
%%

=
>$!"$$%'
$

%  &!8!
#!;#6!
#
#?! @$ABC
"
#""
!# "#
D!#$
## ""C8! 8
#$!!#
"!#

!
#!#$

!#%%

"#
$
#"!"'"#!6!
#$"
&!#%
#!
=
>$
6#! 7! !
%$
##6!
#
#AE!#

!
#%
6!

' %%#

"#
 %
6!
"'"#!
$
!'6!
#$
"%%
""!
#""!#!!$# +4F-,G4(+4*).1-(H)I*/12,G(1*5+1J,GK+I*3/1-4LGG,1)-,1MN).-*O1,+P),L-4P12G,().L+5OL+1G,1 % #! !$#$!"Q

!#

!7! 
&#

!!
## "!"
7!
!!!
#AE!#

!
#!"'"

#%"%$!
#"
&
!"&

' "
&#$

$!#
"!
#!$

%
##"
%
>$$
#"$
C#
 ""
%!
#""

=
>$"#
'"

#$"""
$!
&! =
>$AE!""%$!
#!"$

%
#

' ""!
#8;?@# "!"
" # R!
%$
<!"!##6!
#
#$
#
!!
#"C!#$
!#=S:ATC
#=
>$C &!$!"$
# 
8!
#!U%
VGN,*3"
$!"!
#!#WXYZ[\]^_[YW`a[Zb[_cW d_baef^gWhee]i[Yf[]_WjkW`YgWh^lYWh[^WmaYZ[fgWnY_Yclol_fWp[ef^[ifWq:rsTtu:8Av9uwC xyy1z{|41.-P5*1G21V}~3/1*+€*01/*)*N*G,O1/*,NI*N,+01)4L1HN,HG/+1+1IG4I.NL+1*5)*1)P+4I-+/1 "'>$ 8;?@# #
7!

# R!
%$
<!"!##6!
#
# IG4L-*-G4/1G41)1H,GK+I*/12N*N,+1N/+,/1G,1,+/-L+4*/‚ƒ„11 +I)N/+1G21*5+1/H+IN.)*-F+1)4L12.)+L1 ""!
#"

!#





$
#$#!
#!
%$"C!""
#
'"!"
 



!6#!!
#!
%$
=S:AT!
%$AE=
>$&!$

%  &!
 "#

"#
7!
#"

6#!!
##
'!
!#
!"C
†‡ˆ‰Š‹ŒŽ‘’‡“‘Ž”†•Ž–—˜™š††›œžŸ†œ  ˜¡œ¡—ž¢œž †š¢™—›—
 









!
""
#$%
""
&"#

'(
)!
*+,-.#"!/0
1234567627/!$!

"8#

"#!

/
 
!
$"
!!  #

# 

/9  ! #$%

' 0$!

"8#
!

/! 
"
/!$!

# 

8/ 8#

!
"
"%


!/8#
!

"



! 
#
$/


!#$%/ %!

"

!86):* 0
;13<36#7
#677'-!
"
!
#
!!! !#$%- ""

 !
#"%! 
"
8
#!$!

#
!! !/
#! 

=>?@ABCD>EFGCHIFH?JCH=>?@AKH=DEKKHLMHCNCOP?>IFQHR ""%/
!! #
#*"
!!S;*



"+9 : 


!S2
S</
9
 !
&"# 
"#"

*"
!!S;9 /
#
 TPPCDDEF?AKHEPPCEDHGJEFUCKH?JE?HGIFGDVK>IFQH(
0
1;' W!)X

!$
!!!!#

#

&
%
#



#*
"
+8
",
"%-
6*+,-/)$"
:!
!*#0
! ;1333!Y'7/0
*+,-.#"!6*
"
*#:
"
!/W"15/0
! 12333!Y'7/
#8
"
"
!*%'W*%*
"
!8&# *"
!!S;+9   
#)X
/
#$
!#


"%!!#!
Y! !9 *+,- !
0
12SS;*+,-.#"!'-*"
!!S;*



" +9 !
"

$"
!
Z""#8"  X
!'W/*% *
"$%#!)X
9 8&#*+,-' 0
1S' [
!# 8#


#
#!

# #
!!/*%*
"$%X
!

"/
#
8!Y!#
\]^_`abcdecfgh]igdj\kdlmnop\\qrstu\rvvnwrwmtxrtve\pxeomeqm
 







 
!"#$%"
&
""'
! (('"&%'(  ")*"&#)!%"! &+' (,&%!-&'&'
%""./01! ,%".
!&-2
(&"
113&(4
5,
$%
&!."%2+'(- ,'!"-
&
6
&+'*7'-'5!" /89 :(5#5%'(&2# &"(&;%"!''"""-&2%!, (,(.%2&-"&". !&
&"2
'<&;%&"8:(
(,("(
)'! ==>*=?@ABCDEFGBHIAJKALMIANJJKLJOANIGLNJJPGQARMIACFPSINAJKAGLJNBIGAGMTEEACJLAIUDIIVAGBUA "&".'%"-(&-&"&"W&"! %""(
2'
!
2( KBKLMAGLJNXQARMIANITNAGILSTDYAGMTEEASIAZ[>*[?AJCATEEAKEJJNGAJKALMIASFBEVBC\@ATGAPITGFNIVAKNJPA (& &&&#(-
'-(2%!,8] &.(&"!2
'"'
! ((&!
!-%&(-(&
&-(2%!,"(
&&!'&
'(
 PTUBPFPAJKA^>*[?ABCLJALMIANI_FBNIVAZ[>*[?AGILSTDYQA`CACJAIHICLAGMTEEALMIASTEDJCBIGAJCALMIA LMBNVATCVAKJFNLMAKEJJNAPTBCLTBCAEIGGALMTCATAa=>*[?ANITNAXTNVAGILSTDY@ATGAPITGF&!-&( & &&&#(
&"!,-(2
'#8 b89 :("
&
"-&("
""%2!(5#5%'72& /b.b0bc. '#- ('("(
2

!(-"-(5#

,"8
&+'!"(
2'"" ("%'(
".)'
"(& ""'-! ("'!"-
&
8 c89 d&
!"(
""(
2"%2+'
&
2#(&'& -5%#&(&e("!",8f",-' '(
,(
&!
&+'"(
2"%2+'

,5""& 8
ghijklmnopnqrshtrougvowxyz{gg|}~€g}y‚}‚xƒ}pg{ƒpzxp|x

 




 



!"

#$
%

&%'

$$
%
"

(%)
)!

% *
+$

#
,
"
+$
,
#-%.%-
'%

$

'

"
!"


#$

/-
/#$
%

0%&
&'
"!%
-%)
$


!"#%-
.
$

'1
/#$
%

&%'

$$
%
"

2!%%$

/-
%
3!%-
$%

'
% !

.

"!%
-%)
$#%
4!'*
'

'

#$
,
&%'

$3!% %

'
% !

.

-#
%%
$#%


.'
%
'
2!%%$

/-

-
' 
-%%
.

$$0

".

,
!'
-#
%%
$#%
'

"
% !-
5 %

'
% !

.
"!%
-%)
$#% *
'
- %)*
#
%

*

-
.%% '
.
'
"!%
-%)

-

- 
$%)
'

"
!"

'
0%&

-

$$0

",
'
6'%!

/##% %
7 8
- 
$%)
'

"
#
%
%-
.
'

%.
.
'

%
!" 
%

#$
%

&%'
'

- 
$
$

%
!--
%
'

$$0-
$


9'

- 
$%)
'-)
$$ -


'


.
'
$$,
'

"
% 

-
&%'
!..%%
'%)'


'
:;<=>?<@;AB;CDE;F>@<>G;AG=H,

.#
'
% !

.

/%.%

.

I!$
,
.
'
"!%
-%)
6,
#-%.%
%


- 
$%)
'

"
!"

0%&

-

$$0

",
'
/##!%,
J0
$#
J%

'% K'
- %)
.

 % ,
-#%
%
&%'
'
%)%

$$0


L 9'

'

"
$
-



$$,

-
'

#
%
%

#%%#!#
.

0
MNNO
H"-#
-&

%)
!%
- %)
-
.
!$
,
",
0,

&H%#
'! '
- 
9'
/%,
.

P0
,
Q%


%
- %)
'

"
 $ %"

.

-#%% %)
' 
!% 

6..-
"%
%,
.
' 
!%
",

%-
'! '
-
'

"
)!

-
.

#%%#!#
.
55 ,


-
!"


--

..-
"%
%,
 %%

RSTUVWXYZ[Y\]^S_]Z`RaZbcdefRRghijkRhlldmhmcjnhjl[Rfn[ec[gc
 








 
!"#$%&'("&$
)
"*+,"




"""
& -&. /#
011%"
#%%
 (
"
 2



""


"

 3
"#
$"
0""

"


"#""#

"%1
"#
 3%
#
4"
 

"
5 "
"

"3
 3%
"(

%!6
#

#%
&7

%!6 
#

#%



$%&'("&$
)
"889+& "#
$% :
1"
";
4 $"
:
(
%1
"1(

1


"
4  3%
#
4
"
&/#
(
"
 2

""
"#
 3%
#
4
#%% 3


"1
 "%

"#


& +&. 0%

#
44


"!##%

1(

 "

 <=>?@AABCDE?BFA?>AGHC>A@ADBI?=<?BFA?JCBKLI?CDMNHIC=DO>K?F=HICDE?>AGHC>A@ADBI?IFONN?PA? 11( 3
"#
"
4
 "
""

Q 






""4
" "#
11
"
1"



"#
4 43% 41
"Q!##
(



"& ,8&. /#
1"
"#
 3%
#
4"
!"#"#
RS
"
#%%#(
 "#




""#

"

Q

Q 
"

Q% 4 1T4Q
"#
1"
"#
T
"6"
#
4"
 "#
 3%
#
4"

#%%"3

%"
"
1 %

1 %&U"#
Q"#
 3%
 #
4"
#%%#(
"#


3
 "
1 11%


"#
6 3%
 #
4"
Q!##
#%%%
Q"Q
V,W
4
"Q
V,W!
#
Q  
V,W 

& ,,&. /"4"
1"
"%

1"
"
4#34


"
Q

"#

T


#%%3
%"
"3
"!

"#
#
9X88&&"+X881&&Y 
 "#4#/#

Q9X88&&",8X881&&U 
Q+X88&&",8X881&&)" 

Q
Z[\]^_`abcadef[gebhZibjklmnZZopqrsZpttlupukrvprtcZnvcmkcok
 









 
!""#!!$!"%$&'#%'!$!
%%&(()#!%((#
&#'

*

 +,- .
(!*!#%!$/
!$#%%&(()#
'
&!)!#
&#'

*

 +0- 1!"&!"
&#2'
3#$%!#4!$(!"'

*

'#%4%&(($

( (( 56789:;65<:5<8:=8>8?@A:B6@@9:CDE6F6GH@:IJK8L9:?895?6F56JE9:JE:@6M<56EM:JN:G?876989O +P- .(( 

'(!/!"%
$#%*
'&#2'
3#$4!$(!"&
%#
'
/!#
 )($
!#%&#'

*

'#%%&((
( )##/!()(#*
'%#) 2'
3#$'#%!#% &#!'"#%%Q
$
#'$!(
$$

*&#2'

#' %&((%#&#'

*

*$!(!!#%
' )($
 '#% !# +R- .((
'S!"%((%
%)#''#
'S!"(#/#(20%&(()#'#%#'/#*
'%# *
'
'S!"*
'&#'#%!#!(

'!

*&#2'
3#$T&!%
'S!"'#%&((
( )# $$#%%!)(#
'#%!#%
*&#)!(!"&#!'&
'!U#"#%% +V- T&#2'
3#$%&((

#'#((!#%!#'
#'!#(
 %''
!"
'

#'!#%
''#%!#%) '#%

*(!"&4
!%#4$!/!!#%4
'S!"4
'
&#' $!
%+W- T&#2'
3#$%&((

#'#((!#%!$

(!$#X!&Y!$!
(Z
# '#[!'##%*
'Q
!%#\#"(!
 +]- T&#.

(!$%&((%)!Z
%'$!
T'**!$Y"##2(
&# Z
! ^#/#(

#^#
'#*
''#/!#X%$&Z
%'$!
T'**!$ CHEHM878E5:_@HE:9<H@@:`8:HGG?J>8K:`A:5<8:I65AL9:a?HNN6F:bEM6E88?:G?6J?:5J:5<8:8H?@68?:J* &#!%%$# *#
(!!

'&#!%%$#
*)!(!"
#'!T&#Z
%'$!
 Y"##2(%&((!$(#4!!&#*
((
X!"
cdefghijkljmnodpnkqcrkstuvwccxyz{|cy}}u~y~t{y{}lcwlvtlxt
 




 




!"
# "
$%&&
# '! (&")#'

#&#

'

(
'"
# "

 )*''$$
)'+!,&&-)#


. ("
%#'! / ('&01
+-$
  2



&'&!"$'


*
%#3! (
"


$%&*!#$"
#"!' (#

!'

(
'"
# "
 $
'3!&
#

'()#3! (&")#3!(&!





$
3'#&


"
# "
#&&'
!$&



 &'&"
# "
('

" " 4!$
$
#''

(
"
# "
#&&

!#.
5"
 '
!

3$$
$
#'


'+

!)+! (& "% 

""##+

'

(
3'()#3"3
!# 5"# 67 4!8$$("#!((
!$$
$$
#


!9

+ -)(
$
-$


!$("


"
# "
"
$#3
"#3"3

! "
# "


+
$
)
#!$ ("&!:

:*+3'

 #

!$ (" &!:

:*+

#&&';
! (&"< $
'
(#('
! .
5"=> 4!8$$("#!(($
#!
#'($!

#

*
 "
# "
$#)#

!.
5"'9+"
"
(("
# "

" #&#4!$!

##!((
'((
#' &"
# "
!
# =6 4!8$$("#!(($
)'("")!"("!&&#
#

! "

"('#'($%&#3"( '&("")!"("!&&# #


?@ABCDEFGHFIJK@LJGM?NGOPQRS??TUVWX?UYYQZUZPW[UWYH?S[HRPHTP
 

 









 
!"



#
$ 


 % &'( ) "%'*+
, --,. /+'#+'$ 
+
0

""
++'
&'+ 
+ 
!"
'+''&+1'2
+' 0 13#+


+
 
'0 +' 456'&+
+ 
!"



7+
+44890' + 
+
 '+ + +'&
 +++'

'++$&':0 4
""'& 
+
0

, %'
+
+'9; +%'+'
 -3,. 1'+'+


'& "
*+# 


 1!;
+' <
 +
=>
$+?

 %'
 
, -@,. =A


+
 *'0

 
 

7 !
2
++'+ 1'2
+
+++&
+0

 +'&1'2
+
'
+
+'#
+*$ +%+$B", -5,. =A


+
 *'0

 

"++
2
++'+ 1'2
+
+++&
+0

 +'&1'2
+
'
+
+'#
+*$ +%+$B", -C,. =A


+
 
'+
+ >
+"
+++
2
++'+
2
+
+"
'
+
+''&+1'2
+,B0$&&'+
 *+'+*+
++ +
,D'
+++
#
"+'

+++

"+'+
 *$

#
  *'0E' '
+ 

7++

'0 &'*+1 
F'!
G
+*+ +%+$B"H'
E
"I
&
+'+, -J,. ;*'0 E'

*+'&$
+++

 '+
'**
 

 + +A


+

'0+%+$7+*
'0*+

+$+'
+ 
+ 
*+'&$ '
+'


+++
,=

+$*'+7 
KLMNOPQRSTRUVWLXVSYKZS[\]^_KK`abcdKaee]faf\cgaceTK_gT^\T`\
 







 !"#
$%&'
&(
&)*+,&
,##,  ,--.


 /"
.#-0 1203 4
5--#
,&
,##.,
&"
,6&)-.& 
-"#
)
7 78,,,)")
&"
-,&- ", -&&&" /0 1903 /&, :;5/, ),<"-& ,##,
 &,,&8+
",&0 =>03 4
5--#
,&
,##-.
,,##)"8,&

,)&,& ,05##)"8,&

,)&"&
,.,-'?!
@A* 
B),#$, C",#/#D,0/
,&,&
,##,

-#&

, ,--.
/@),
E&5)#&/"
-, !"#
$%&0 =F03 4
5--#
,&
,##-. ,##"# ,
#&+
#")#

,# ,& &<" &.

--&&"
"'&*+&,##
&"G
 &0?&"

&,##,&8##,##8,/)
7 78,0 =103 4
5--#
,&
,##")"+ 
&&,+
"#&,G,
 &&-<"& 
H#/-,,
/0 ==03 IJKLMNNOPQRSTLUJROOLVRWKLQXSSKQTPXSLTXLTJKLYPTZ[ULURSPTR\ZL&8&&  ")

6&)

&,.,#,#
&"G
&+"#&&
8&,--. 
/@)+,&
,##-,
,--#
,#&8

 04

&& , "-),&
&&,-.
!G
8
"#

&&
,##
 &-&# 
,--#
,0 =]03 IJKLMNNOPQRSTLUJROOLVRWKLQXSSKQTPXSLTXLTJKLYPTZ[UL^RTK\LUZUTKVLTJ\X_`JLTJKL 6&)8,&. 

"#&&
8&,--.
/@)04

abcdefghijhklmbnlioapiqrstuaavwxyzaw{{s|w|ry}wy{jau}jtrjvr
 








!"#$$% &$



#


$'($$%
 !$&")*
+
$,-" !
(+$

 $$%
".$/ #" (


 
"

0"$
0
!"
 
, 12,3 4
$($$(


+".$/ "$
&+
$(
! .$/ 
$( 
"

0$%


$$
"$ 
$

, 15,3 4

($%&
(&
$
+"

(

$+$(

(



 6
+!!&$%&
!! 
0"
$( 
"

0$70
"
  $

+")

$


"

0
!$0"
 
,8$%
7#

 $( ($$&$%&
$$&
#"
"(0
 $+"7!7##"(
 
$ "&
$&, 9

$
)


 1:,3 ;*)<;=4-><8,-"$
(
$%
+"=%
&
.

 ;%#

=
?
(.$&"


0 &!! %(

"#
$!".$/  $ $
 %

! $
!$&



")4$
 
+"


!$%
!$"
"$
(
,-" %

"



(
 ! "$
(

6"0,-"4
 
"



%$"6 (
 %

" =$&
!)&&(
=%
&
#"
@AB
!"))(


 
,4 "&""4
 


%$" %

")"4
 
"


 $%
")#"

!
 $$ $
"
(&
#"")(
; $
$, >!"4
 
!


%$"6 (
 %

#"
"$'($
@AB
" $
(
$%
+=%
&
.

;%#

=
?
(.$&"

0
(

 

%


!
!($"$!! ,8#"


+"!$+
+"=$ $! )&&(
=%
&
&(
#$
$'(0"4
 
(0&
$$
CDEFGHIJKLJMNODPNKQCRKSTUVWCCXYZ[\CY]]U^Y^T[_Y[]LCW_LVTLXT
 



 



 !"#
$#%&


'
'
(
) !"#
$)*)

#

)

 !#
$+
%
)
,-+%./#)
+ 

(0

+-0+


*/

&+

$
#
*%+
*/
**
'
'-*#

/12/34&
#*++
)*
++

+/
#
%

(
+
**
0-*#
&)0++-#/#


/(

3 5 36 78194:;9<=3.(*)
1*

4('

#.
+$>
-+1)?; /+
&+&

#
+-/
(
*++
**0/))
/#'
@5A$
+

 #


(
*
++*-
%
+(##

>BCDE!"5"F!G3:3%-
*++ '+
##3 5H36 I9<J:;9<=<KD<=.9;9<=L?:(*




$
+/
#
+

(
*)
$+-*


/)

/
0$D$-
*+-/(*

+
0 # 
*)
&

#
+(M#-+-

L/
!"5"FN 
>BCD%+ +-//++&-*

3:**/++
/-#0$D$
+
+-*

0 )


(*

 
$+
**0)0-+#0$
$
0
/
++*-
3 O!36 :114<I:J4P=LQ9;BJ:=.3;+/
#
++
**-
'*

#

#+
**)



-**
/
#-


*

12/3 RRR
RRRRRRRRR
STUVWXYZ[\Z]^_T`^[aSb[cdefgSShijklSimmenindkoikm\Sgo\fd\hd
 








 !"#$
%!!"& 
%'(&
$"$!)%'$
%!!%)$ 
$"$!)%'
""&%*"'
+#&,$!)$&
)!&
$ 
 
-'('.     /012-3-
451678
6  8% "&
 &+9"! :!!$7 %!&"% 
-

;
. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 
:08--:8;6  !"# 
=;-1> -??,5@;6-
5A5,8.  -??,5@;6-
553
;3
. 1-0,;3;
B2;3;,  -"   3-3C:03
D5AA;C  8%%E"     ,C-345:12:7-2? -$$$% 8%%E"F2"G6""& GG) 69!(G    HIJKLMNOPQORSTIUSPVHWPXYZ[\HH]^_`aH^bbZc^cY`d^`bQH\dQ[YQ]Y

 


 

!"#$$
%%"&"$
&
  '()(*+'( '*,-.(/(01(2.*'13

456)13)7+*(18"5&59 9
:!4#65; '*<. .*/(=)3+
'13)(*<+9 ><131)(< <(1;1.)(=)3+9 1(1)+ 1?.2 #*(4)), '()/13), @1/A8B@C D :=).1;1.@1/8B'E))): $

457F;<<1 %<GH1+I#" 9
0.2J,<G21+5<3 =#<++
"D59$
5 D"5
 K

LMNO '()(*+><131) "P&P9 9



$

#Q H<1?.2 0.2J,<G21+5<3 6.)(1.*'13 RO
ST
U ROV
M
U

7G)W21.2 <321.2J,<G21+5<3 #++1+()(1(GQ))3< '.*<1(G6/)1I#..*(#*(2(1.)(1 84: '13)(*<#(1=<C+.('(G B+13=#<++ "D59$
5 D"5
D
'("P&P9 9



&9
#Q X10"P&P9 9


9 $"#Q '13"P&P9 9


9


#Q S


K

LLROV
YU
UV
Z 4(>;;<1).*'13 )1Q5'0 +0J,<G21+5<3 '.*<1(G6/)1I#..*(#*(2(1.)(1 84: '13)(*<#(1<)01. B+13=#<++& 5 D&5
$
59  '("P&P9 9


9

&#Q X10"P&P9 9




$D#Q '13"P&P9 9



&9
#Q S


K

LLROV
YU
UV
Z 4(>;;<1).*'13 1G>0+ .0+J,<G21+5<3 =1.GEQ))3/(#)G+( 1(G;%<GH1+ '.*<1(G6/)1I#..*(#*(2(1.)(1 84: '("P&P9 9 


&9$#Q S


K

LLROV
YU
UV
Z 4(>;;<1).*'13 4).GH*(C;;G 2*(.;;GJ,<G21+5<3 '.*<1(G6/)1I#..*(#*(2(1.)(1 84: S

K

LLROV
YU
UV
Z 4(>;;<1).*'13 [*1)#5W -3J,<G21+5<3 '.*<1(G6/)1I#..*(#*(2(1.)(1 84: S

K

LLROV
YU
UV
Z 4(>;;<1).*'13









  



!"
# $%
&
'
()
*%%"+&&+&%&"+ ,-"+. /0 1
02013
3


4

0/1

5 -"&677
8"%$#+ 9:
1








 3
14/
;



 < 4/
;



 9 3

;4/
;



 =
>
34/
;



 =
?1=1;



 8"
+@"+ "+



!"
# $%
&
'
()
*%%"+&&+&%&"+ ,-"+. /0 1
02013
3


4

0/1

5 -"&677
8"%$#+ 
++A
B"+ &
B"+



!"
# $%
&
'
()
*%%"+&&+&%&"+ ,-"+. /0 1
02013
3


4

0/1

5 -"&677
8"%$#+ C










 D1
;







 /1

;




)+
"E$+&  F)+%

E& GFHFIJIKLL(LH(IK@ :
; 





ATTACHMENT 4
June 22, 2023
Planning Commission Staff Report
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Applicable Beverly Hills Municipal Code Sections and Findings B. Draft Resolution
C. Public Notices
D. Voluntary Neighborhood Meeting Notice
E. Public Correspondence
F. State Statues
G. Applicant’s Project Narrative
H. Shade and Shadow Study
I. Class 32 Exemption Report
J. Architectural Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment) Report Author and Contact Information:

Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1138
[email protected]
Meeting Date: June 22, 2023
Subject: 55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD
Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit (PL2200289) Request for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit to allow for the construction of a new five-story, mixed use development with ground floor commercial uses, 105 residential dwelling units, and rooftop restrooms. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Project Applicant: 55 Del Norte, LLC
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
The proposed project involves a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Density Bonus Permit to allow for the construction of a five-story mixed use development with rooftop bathrooms at the property located at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard (the “project site”). The project site is an approximate 38,500 square-foot (SF) lot currently developed with a vacant commercial building with a surface parking lot that was formerly used for restaurant uses (“The Stinking Rose”). The applicant is proposing the removal all existing site improvements to facilitate the construction of the new mixed-use development, which includes approximately 18,986 SF of ground floor commercial space consisting of retail and restaurant uses, along with 105 residential dwelling units for rental above the ground floor, 11 units of which would be reserved for very lowincome households. Outdoor living space with restrooms for the residential portion of the project is proposed on the rooftop of the building. Additional common and private outdoor living space is provided within balconies located throughout the upper levels of the project. Parking for the residential and commercial uses would be provided within a three-level subterranean parking structure providing a total of 196 parking spaces for both the residential and commercial portions of the project. The project site is located in the City’s C-3, Commercial Zone and the MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone.

Architectural Plans Provided as Attachment 9 to September 12, 2023 City Council Agenda Report
Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

This report details the physical context of the property and its vicinity; outlines the findings that are required to be made for the requested entitlements; and analyzes key project issues, which include: the proposed use of the property in relation to the adjacent residential uses, physical characteristics of the subject property, parking, and discussion on applicable state law requirements related to density bonus projects. Based on analysis contained in this report, staff’s recommendation is to conditionally approve the project.

BACKGROUND
File Date 6/30/2022
Application Complete 6/1/2023
Subdivision Deadline N/A
CEQA Recommendation Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-fill Development Projects)
CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination
Permit Streamlining 60 days from Determination of CEQA Exemption Applicant(s) 55 Del Norte, LLC
Owner(s) 55 Del Norte, LLC
Representative(s) John Reed, Reed Architectural Group
Matthew Hayden, Hayden Planning
Registered Legislative Advocates1 No active advocates listed on registry.

Prior Planning Commission Action Resolution No. 1935 (2/11/2021) – Denial of a Zoning Amendment, Zone Text Amendment, and General Plan
Amendment to create a Planned Development Overlay Zone, and denial of a request for a planned development for a new eight-story hotel development on the property located at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard.

Prior City Council Action None

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address(es) 55 North La Cienega Boulevard
Assessor’s ID No. 4334-018-058
Zoning District C-3 – Commercial Zone
1 Registered advocate search run on June 14, 2023. City Clerk has late filings submitted by John Reed and Matthew Hayden that are under review.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone
General Plan Low Density General/Mixed Use Overlay – Commercial Existing Land Use(s) Commercial (Restaurant)
Lot Dimensions & Area 350’ x 110’ (≈ 38,500 SF)
Year Built 1947
Historic Resource The existing commercial building was built in 1947 and the building and site improvements were originally designed by Wayne McAllister, an architected listed on the City’s List of Master Architects. However, the property does not
convey potentially significant associations and is ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR), and the Beverly Hills Local Register. A Historic Resources Assessment (HRA) was prepared by Rincon
Consultants to the evaluate the property and is provided as Appendix E to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption
Report (Attachment I).

Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Medical and General Office, and Restaurant Uses) South C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Medical and General Office, and Restaurant Uses) East C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Medical and General Office, and Restaurant Uses) West R-1 – One-Family Residential Zone (Single Family
Residences)
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) North La Cienega Boulevard
Adjacent Alleys None
Parkways & Sidewalks North La Cienega Boulevard Parkway – 15’ from curb face to property line
Parking Restrictions North La Cienega Boulevard – Two-hour metered parking from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. No Stopping/Anti-Gridlock Zone from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday (east and west sides of street).

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

Nearest Intersection Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard Circulation Element Wilshire Boulevard – Arterial Street North La Cienega Boulevard – Arterial Street
Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is a 38,500 SF rectangular lot located on the west side of North La Cienega Boulevard (Fig. 1), within the City’s C-3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone.

The project site is currently developed with an existing 13,500 SF commercial building and surface parking lot. The building is currently vacant, having previously been used as a restaurant, with the most recent tenant being The Stinking Rose Restaurant. Vehicular access to the site is currently provided through a driveway apron located along North La Cienega Boulevard. The project site is also located within ½-mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station which is currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard.2
Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery
The area surrounding the project site is characterized by existing commercial and residential uses. The areas located to the north and south of the site along La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard are improved with low- to high-rise commercial buildings consisting of retail, 2 The project site at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard is located approximately 130 feet (0.02 miles) from the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station at 8741 Wilshire Boulevard (northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard).

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

restaurant, and general and medical office uses within the City’s C-3 Zone and the MU Overlay Zone. The project site is directly adjacent to properties developed with three-story commercial buildings to the north and south. Further south, at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard, the area is developed with an 11-story commercial building on the southeast corner and a nine-story commercial building on the southwest corner. To the east of the project site, the area consists of commercial uses ranging from one to three stories along North La Cienega Boulevard also located within the C-3 Zone and MU Overlay Zone. Further east, the area is developed with low- to mid-rise multi-family residential development consisting of one- to fivestory buildings along North Hamilton Drive, within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone. Lastly, the project site abuts single-family residential uses directly to the west, consisting of one- to twostory residences along North Le Doux Road, within the R-1, One-Family Residential Zone.

Mixed Use Overlay Zone
On November 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance No, 20-O-2825, establishing the City’s MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone and creating development standards to guide future commercial/residential mixed use development proposals along specific commercial corridors within the City’s C-3 Zone. The MU Overlay Zone was established to provide areas of the city where mixed use development is allowed in order to encourage vibrant, walkable neighborhoods and increase the availability of housing in the city, while preserving the vitality of existing commercial corridors and minimizing displacement of existing residents. Properties included in the overlay zone are located in commercial areas of the city outside of the Business Triangle in order to preserve that area as primarily commercial in nature and maintaining an area in the city where businesses can operate into the evening without disturbing residential neighborhoods.

Additional consideration was also given to placing the overlay zone on corridors that are in close proximity to future Metro Purple (D Line) subway stations at Wilshire and La Cienega Boulevards (“La Cienega Station”) and Wilshire Boulevard and Reeves Drive (“Rodeo Station”).

The proposed project at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard is the first mixed use development under consideration by the Planning Commission. This project is designed to provide ground floor commercial uses, with multi-family residential uses above the ground floor. The proposed commercial uses consist of retail and restaurant type uses, with areas dedicated to open air dining on private property to help to activate the streetscape and promote additional pedestrian-oriented activity along La Cienega Boulevard. The dining uses proposed as part of this project would contribute to maintaining these uses within the area of the City known as “Restaurant Row”, home to restaurants like Lawry’s The Prime Rib and Matsuhisa, as well as other long-time dining establishments along this corridor.

The proposed residential portion of the project would provide 105 new dwelling units that would augment the supply of available rental housing in the city without causing displacement of existing residents or removal of existing dwelling units from the rental market. Prior to the adoption of the MU Overlay Zone, the development of new multi-family housing was limited to occurring within the City’s established multi-family residential zones. Because the majority of the city is already built out, the construction of new multi-family residential units often relies on the redevelopment of existing multi-family properties, where such development often leads to the displacement of existing residents. The project seeks to redevelop an existing underutilized commercial property by providing for the replacement of existing restaurant uses and new retail uses while providing new housing opportunities that would be available to a mix of income types. The project would Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

include 94 dwelling units available for market-rate rental, along with 11 units that would be reserved for very-low income households. The project would assist in providing new housing stock with a mix of income types that could be credited toward meeting the City’s obligation to provide housing under the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), which requires the City to plan for the creation of 3,104 new dwelling units.3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of a new five-story mixed-use building, with ground floor commercial uses and 105 residential dwelling units located above the ground floor level (Fig. 2).

The project would replace an existing 13,500 SF vacant commercial building formerly used as a restaurant with approximately 18,986 SF of new ground-floor commercial area consisting of retail, restaurant, and market/eatery type uses (Fig. 3). The residential portion of the project consists of rental units, with 11 units reserved for very low-income households. The project would provide 102 one-bedroom units that range between 678 SF and 1,012 SF, along with three efficiency units (studios) of 571 SF. The proposed project requires discretionary approval from the Planning Commission for the new mixed-use building and the requested density bonus.

Fig. 2: Project Rendering Facing North La Cienega Boulevard (Without Existing Parkway Trees Shown)
Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

The new building is proposed to be built to the front property line along North La Cienega Boulevard, but would include portions of the building that are modulated and set back to break up the massing of the building, while also providing depth and articulation of the building facade. 3 Information regarding the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (allocation) is available online at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th_cycle_final_rhna_allocation_plan_070121.pdf?1646938785 Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

While modulation of the building is not required, the proposed restaurant, café, and market/eatery uses would be set back approximately 17’-0’ from the front property line on the ground floor to create areas for open air dining opportunities and promote pedestrian-oriented activities. On the north side of the building, a 5’-0” side setback is provided. On the south side, the ground floor of the building is proposed to be built to the side property line, with upper stories set back 5’-0” from the side property line. At the rear, a 10’-0” rear setback is provided on the first two floors of the building, with the setback increasing to 20’-0” to the building face on the third to fifth floors. On the third and fourth floors of the project, the applicant is proposing balconies that project 4’-0” from the rear face of the building and would provide a 16’-0” setback from the rear property line.

Fig. 3: First Floor Plan
Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

Common outdoor living space for the residential uses would be provided on the rooftop of the building, along with amenities consisting of a pool, spa, rooftop restrooms, trellis shade structures, and landscaping to assist in screening the outdoor living area from neighboring single-family residential uses to the west. Additional common and private outdoor living areas are provided within balconies located on the second floor of the project. The new mixed-use building is proposed at a maximum height of 66’-6”, inclusive of the rooftop restrooms.

Parking for the commercial and residential uses would be provided within a three-level subterranean parking structure that would be accessed by two new driveways located along North La Cienega Boulevard, providing access to a total of 196 parking spaces. One driveway of approximately 23’-0” in width would provide two-way vehicular access to the parking structure and loading areas. A second smaller driveway of approximately 14’-0” in width would provide egress only from an interior motor court on the ground floor. Parking for the commercial portion of the project would be located on the ground floor, as well as on levels P1 and P2 of the subterranean parking garage. Parking for the residential portion of the project is provided on level P3. Of the 196 parking spaces proposed, 130 spaces will be allocated for the commercial portion of the project and 66 parking spaces will be allocated to the residential portion. Additional project Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

information, including an analysis of the applicable development standards, is provided in Table

1. Table 1: Project Summary
Required/Allowed per BHMC,
General Plan, or State Law Proposed
Commercial Density 77,000 SF / Floor Area Ratio - 2.0 18,986 SF / Floor Area Ratio - 0.49 Base Residential
Density
70 Units
(1 unit / 550 SF of lot area)
70 Units
(1 unit / 550 SF of lot area)
Density Bonus 35 Additional Units
(50% Max Density Bonus)
35 Additional Units
(50% Max Density Bonus)
Total Units
w/Density Bonus 105 Units 105 Units
Unit Size 500 SF
Efficiency & One-Bedroom Units
571 SF - 1,012 SF
Efficiency & One-Bedroom Units
Height 45’-0”
57’-0” (1st – 5
th stories)
+ 9’-6” (Rooftop Restrooms)1
66’-6” 2
Stories 4 Stories
5 Stories
+ Rooftop Restrooms (@ 450 SF)
1 6 Stories3
Front Setback None 0’
Side Setback None North: 5’-0”
South: 0’ (1
st floor)/ 5’ (2nd-5th stories)
Rear Setback4 Up to 2 stories/30’ Height: 10’-0”
Over 2 Stories/30’ Height: 20’-0”
Up to 2 stories/30’ Height: 10’-0”
Over 2 Stories/30’ Height: 16’-0”
(Building @ 20’ / Balconies @ 16’)5
Parking Minimum Parking Standards Not
Applicable
Residential Parking: 66 Spaces
+Commercial Parking: 130 Spaces
Total: 196 Spaces
Outdoor Living Space 200 SF / Unit
21,000 SF
15,645 SF (Common Space)
+ 5,355 SF (Private Space)
Total: 21,000 SF
Density Bonus
Affordable Units 11 units @ Very Low-Income 11 units @ Very Low-Income (15% of Base Density) Inclusionary Housing
Affordable Units 7 Affordable Units 11 Affordable Units Note: All figures approximate.

BHMC = Beverly Hills Municipal Code
1 Proposed rooftop restrooms (450 SF) are not exempt from building height and number of stories. 2 Incentive requested to allow height increase from 45’ to 66’-0”. 3 Incentive requested to allow increase from 4 stories to 6 stories, to include rooftop restrooms. 4 Rear setback applicable to projects within the Commercial-Residential Transition Area 5 Incentive requested for reduction in required rear yard setback for portion of building over 2 stories / 30’ in height to allow for balconies to encroach 4’-0” into the required 20’ setback. Building face is setback 20’ from rear property line.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS4
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
• Development Plan Review
A Development Plan Review (DPR) is required pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3100 to allow the construction of a new five-story mixed use building with rooftop restrooms. • Density Bonus Permit
Pursuant to Sections 65400 and 65915 of the California Government Code, a Density Bonus is required to allow an additional number of units that may be constructed on site in addition to certain incentives/waivers from development standards to accommodate the provision of 11 proposed affordable housing units.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES5
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the city. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project include the following:

Land Use Element Goals and Policies
• Policy LU 2.1 – City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors.

Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces.
• Policy LU 2.8 – Pedestrian-Active Streets.

Require that buildings in business districts be oriented to, and actively engage the street through design features such as build-to lines, articulated and modulated façades, ground floor transparency such as large windows, and the limitation of parking entries directly on the street. Parking ingress and egress should be accessed from alleys where feasible. • Policy LU 2.10 – Development Transitions and Compatibility.

Require that sites and buildings be planned, located, and designed to assure functional and visual transitions between areas of differing uses and densities by addressing property and height setbacks, window and entry placement, lighting, landscape buffers, and service access.
• Policy LU 3.2 – Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs.

Meet State requirements to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, contingent upon the ability to maintain the qualities that distinguish and contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City's fiscal resources. 4 Pursuant to Government Code §65905.5.(a) , the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete.
5 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/communitydevelopment/longrangeplanning/generalplan/ Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

• Policy LU 10.1 – Local-Serving Business.

Promote appropriate development of businesses that serve, are located in proximity to, and are accessible to adjoining residential neighborhoods, such as grocery stores, dry cleaners, and personal care businesses.
• Policy LU 11.3 – Retail Street Frontages.

Require that development and street frontages in districts containing retail uses be designed and developed to promote pedestrian activity including: (a) location and orientation of the building to the sidewalk; (b) transparency of and direct access to the ground floor elevation from the sidewalk; (c) articulation of street-facing elevations to promote interest and sense of quality; (d) inclusion of uses and public spaces that extend interior functions to the sidewalk such as cafes and plazas; and (e) use of pedestrianoriented signage and lighting. • Policy LU 16.10 – Affordable Housing.

Support the development of affordable housing as required by state law.

Housing Element Element Goals and Policies
• Goal H2 – Housing Supply and Diversity.

Provide a variety of housing types and adequate affordable housing supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community.
• Policy H 2.1 – Affordable Housing Incentives.

Offer incentives, including density bonuses, where feasible, to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing. Proactively seek out new approaches in the provision of affordable housing.
• Policy H 2.2 – Inclusionary Housing.

Continue to implement an inclusionary housing program to integrate affordable units within market rate developments, and increase the availability of affordable housing throughout the community.
• Policy H 2.8 – Transit-Oriented Housing.

Promote access, where feasible, from residential neighborhoods and new residential development to existing transit stops and to the anticipated subway stations. • Goal H4 – Reducing Constraints.

Mitigate potential governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, while maintaining community character.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The 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 Guidelines6(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), 6 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

and the environmental regulations of the City. As part of this review, a categorical exemption report has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assess whether this project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA as an in-fill development project (Attachment I). Based on this assessment, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that this exemption is applicable when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Table 2: Public Notification Table
Type of Notice Required
Period
Actual
Period
Required
Date
Actual
Date
Notice of Pending Application
(Owners & Occupants – 500' Radius +
block-face)
Within 45
Days 43 Days 8/14/2022 8/12/2022
Adjacent Neighbors Notice
(Owners & Occupants – 100’ Radius) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notice of Public Hearing
(Owners & Occupants – 500' Radius +
block-face)
20 Days 20 Days 6/2/2023 6/2/2023
Newspaper Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A
Property Posting 20 Days 20 Days 6/2/2023 6/2/2023
Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 6/19/2023 6/15/2023
Website (Agenda) 72 Hours 7 Days 6/19/2023 6/15/2023
Applicant Outreach Efforts
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023, the applicant hosted a voluntary virtual neighborhood meeting to inform the public of the proposed project. The applicant informed the City that the copy of the notice was mailed out to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500’ radius of the project site, extended to block-face. A copy of the notice is provided as Attachment D.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

Public Comment
Staff has fielded numerous inquiries regarding processing of the application, and has also received public correspondence related to the project. All public correspondence is included as Attachment E.

ANALYSIS7
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary action requested by the applicant. This section is intended to provide a detailed analysis of the project to assist the Planning Commission in assessing whether a project is able to meet the required findings for approval of the requested entitlements. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided as Attachment A to this report.

Additionally, the draft resolution provided as Attachment B contains draft language for findings that may be used to guide the Planning Commission’s deliberation on the subject project.

Density Bonus. Pursuant to California Government Code §65915, local agencies are required to allow a certain number of additional units beyond the base density to be constructed on site, along with certain incentives/waivers from development standards to accommodate the provision of affordable housing units depending on the number and level of affordable housing units included in the proposal.

Under State Density Bonus Law, applicants of residential projects of five or more units are entitled to a density bonus if the project provides a certain level of affordable housing units.

The amount of the density bonus is determined pursuant to State law based on the number of affordable units and the level of affordability of those units. Eligible projects may also be entitled to receive a limited number of development incentives (incentives/concessions), depending on the proportion of affordable units and level of income targeted. These development incentives are intended to result in cost reductions for the project to be able provide for affordable housing costs or rents. Additionally, project applicants may request a waiver of, or reduction in, local development standards (waivers). Unlike incentives, there is no numerical limit on waivers, and waivers must be granted from any development standard that would physically prevent the project from being built at the permitted density and with the granted incentives/concessions.

The affordable housing units required under the City’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance also count as affordable housing units to qualify for a density bonus under state law.

Project Density Calculation.

The proposed project includes the construction of 105 dwelling units, 11 of which would be reserved for rental to very low-income households. The project site’s land use designation is Low Density General Commercial and Mixed Use Overlay, as identified on the City’s General Plan Land Use Map, which allows for a maximum of 79.2 dwelling units per acre (1 unit for every 550 SF of site area). With a total lot size of approximately 38,500 SF, this results in a 7 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

base density of 70 dwelling units (38,500 / 550 = 70). As the proposed project will be providing a total of 11 affordable units set aside for a very low-income households (or 15.7% of base density (11 / 70 = 0.157)), the total density bonus that to which the applicant is entitles to is 50%, resulting in a total of 105 units, inclusive of both market rate and affordable units.

The proposed number of dwelling units is consistent with state density bonus regulations, pursuant to California Government Code §65915(f)(2), which allows for a maximum 50% density bonus on top of the base density for the lot as shown in the City’s General Plan Land Use map.8 While the density calculations noted above result in whole numbers, this section also states that “Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number”.

The applicable state density calculations result in an additional 35 units (70 x 0.5 = 35) of bonus density, for a total maximum density of 105 units.

Incentives and Concessions.

In addition to a density bonus, state density bonus law requires that a local municipality provide one or more “incentives” or “concessions” to each project that qualifies for a density bonus. These are intended to result in cost reductions for the project to be able provide for affordable housing costs or rents. The developer may propose to have a limited number of development requirements waived or modified based on the percentage of affordable units in the project. These incentives or concessions are defined under Government Code § 65915(k) as:
• A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements, such as a reduction in setback or minimum square footage requirements; or,
• Approval of mixed use zoning; or
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions.

The number of incentives or concessions that may be obtained by a mixed income project range from one to three. Pursuant to state density bonus law, development projects with at least 15% of the base units designated for very low income households are eligible to request up to three development incentives. Separately, an applicant may also request a waiver from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development unless such a request would cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or would be contrary to state or federal law. Waivers do not count as an incentive or concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted. In the case of the proposed project, approximately 15.7% of the base units (11 units) are designated for very low income households, which qualifies the project to receive three development incentives. The applicant is requesting three incentives/concessions. No waivers from development standards are requested. The incentives/concessions requested by the applicant are as follows:
8 A copy of the General Plan Land Use Map is available online at:
http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/84235805295768211/GPLanduse_11_17_Final20211005.pdf Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

• Building Height9
BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the maximum allowable height for development proposed in the City’s MU Overlay Zone. The project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum allowable height of 45’. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow additional height (21’-6”) for a total maximum building height of 66’-6”.
• Number of Stories9
BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the maximum number of stories allowed for development proposed in the City’s MU Overlay Zone. The project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum of three (3) stories. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow an additional three stories, to include the fourth and fifth story of the project, as well as the proposed 450 SF of rooftop restrooms, which is counted as a sixth story to the building in the BHMC.10 • Rear Setbacks
BHMC §10-3-1952.B. establishes the required setbacks for development of projects located in the City’s Commercial-Residential Transition Area. Pursuant to this section, a 20’-0” rear setback is required for the portion of a building over two stories/30’-0” in height. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow for a reduction in the required rear setback on the third and fourth floor of the project to allow for the balconies proposed for the units on these floors to encroach 4’-0” into the required setback area. The proposal would reduce the required setback on the third and fourth floors from 20’-0” to 16’-0”.

Per state law, the City is limited in its ability to deny requests for incentives or concessions for a density bonus project and is required to grant the requested incentive/concession unless it can make certain findings established by the state (Attachment F) that the incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for rents for the targeted affordable units; would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or would be contrary to state or federal law. Pursuant to California Government Code §65915(d)(4), the City has the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive. While not required, in support of the project, the applicant has prepared a narrative with information detailing the need for their incentive/concession requests, which is provided as Attachment G to this report.

Mixed Use Overlay Zone Objectives. As established in BHMC §10-3-1872, the purpose of the MU Overlay Zone is to provide areas of the city where mixed use development is allowed in order to encourage vibrant, walkable neighborhoods and increase the availability of housing in the City, while preserving the vitality of existing commercial corridors and minimizing displacement of existing residents. In creating the MU Overlay Zone, the City Council adopted 9 Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-1880, for the purposes of applying the provisions of Government Code §65915, the height limitations and story limitations set forth in this article shall be considered separate requirements. 10 See definition of “Story” in BHMC §10-3-100.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

key objectives to guide future development within the overlay zone. As proposed, the project appears to meet following objectives of the MU Overlay Zone:
• Expanding the options and opportunities for certain commercial property owners and developers by allowing for combinations of commercial uses, and multi-family residential uses subject to specific standards, rules and procedures.

The proposed project seeks to redevelop an existing vacant and underutilized commercial property for new mixed use development that includes pedestrian-serving retail and restaurant uses, as well as new multi-family residential rental housing stock.

The project would provide 18,986 SF of new commercial uses on the ground floor that would serve the proposed residential uses on the property and properties in the vicinity of the project site. A residential portion of the project would provide a total of 105 new dwelling units, 11 units of which will be reserved for rental to very low-income households. In all, the project provides a combination of commercial and multi-family uses at the project site in designed in compliance with the applicable development standards in the MU Overlay Zone and state density bonus law. • Creating the potential for more intensive development in certain neighborhoods, while maintaining realistic buffers between commercial and residential zones to ensure there is harmonious development in the area.

The proposed project is designed to provide for more intensive development on an existing commercial corridor known as the city’s “Restaurant Row”. The project would replace an existing one-story, 13,500 SF vacant commercial building formerly used as a restaurant, with a mix of neighborhood servicing retail, market, and restaurant uses on the ground floor facing North La Cienega Boulevard. Approximately, 18,986 SF of new commercial floor area would be provided on the first floor, with 105 new dwelling units provided on the second through fifth floors of the project. The project is designed with varying building setbacks at the rear of the property that would provide a buffer between the existing single-family residential uses located to the west of the project site and the project’s proposed commercial and residential uses. At the rear, a 10’-0” rear setback is provided on the first two floors of the building, with the setback increasing to 20’-0” to the building face on the third to fifth floors. On the third and fourth floors of the project, the applicant is proposing balconies that project 4’-0” from the rear face of the building and would provide a 16’-0” setback from the rear property line. The rear yard would be planted with various species of landscaping material proposed at varied maximum heights between 8’ and 30’ tall. When mature, the proposed landscaping would contribute to providing privacy for the neighboring residential properties. Lastly, a new 6’-0” tall block wall is also proposed at the rear of the project site that would provide additional screening between properties.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

• Expanding housing options for diverse socioeconomic populations in the City including seniors, young people, populations that wish to be transit-adjacent and populations that will benefit from development near an urban core.

The project promotes the expansion of housing options for diverse socioeconomic populations in the city by providing 105 new dwelling units, with 94 units proposed as market-rate rental housing and 11 dwelling units reserved for rental to very low-income households. The location of the project and its proximity to public transportation may encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to automobile travel.

• Retaining the commercial tax base and streetscape character that exists in the City by encouraging neighborhood-serving and pedestrian-friendly commercial uses.

The project would provide 18,986 SF of new commercial uses on the ground floor that would serve the proposed residential uses on the property and properties in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed ground floor commercial uses consisting of retail and restaurant uses with open air dining areas on private property would serve the proposed residential units on the project site and other residents and workers located in the vicinity of the project. The project’s ground floor commercial uses retain the project site’s contribution to the City’s commercial tax base. The project’s pedestrian accessible ground floor commercial also retains the streetscape character of pedestrian-oriented activity along La Cienega Boulevard. • Concentrating new housing and amenities near existing and anticipated transportation nodes and stations to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to automobile travel.

The project would provide 105 new dwelling units located in close proximity to existing and proposed public transit stops. The project would be served by existing Metro bus lines that travel along Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard and would also be served by the future Metro Purple (D Line) station currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard, which is located approximately 130 feet (0.02 miles) from the project site. The location of the project and its proximity to public transportation may encourage the use of alternative modes of transposition to automobile travel.
• Allowing projects that are appropriately designed to achieve the desired neighborhood character, while providing development standards to minimize impacts of commercial uses to adjacent residential zones, and to encourage symbiotic uses.

The proposed project would provide a mix of new pedestrian-serving commercial uses and new multi-family residential uses that are design to meet the desired character and purpose of the MU Overlay zone by providing for mixed use development to encourage vibrant, walkable neighborhoods, increase the availability of housing, and preserving the vitality of existing commercial corridors. The project would introduce new retail, market, and restaurant uses that would serve nearby commercial and residential uses near the vicinity of the project, as well the future residential tenants of Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

the proposed 105 dwelling units in the development. The project is designed in compliance with the applicable development standards in the MU Overlay Zone and state density bonus law and is designed to provided landscaped building setbacks at the rear of the project site to provide a buffer between the neighboring residential properties to the west of the project site.

As detailed above, the proposed project appears to meet the purpose and objectives of the MU Overlay Zone.

Building Height. The proposed five-story mixed use building with rooftop bathrooms is proposed at a height of 66’-6”. The ground floor of the building is dedicated for commercial uses and the residential portion of the project is located directly above the ground floor commercial areas, with a total of 105 dwelling units proposed. The dwelling units consist of 102 one-bedroom units and three studio units. The second and third floors of the project consist of 71 units that are designed as single-story units. The fourth and fifth floors of the project are designed with 31 units that have double-height volumes, with the fourth floor providing the living room, kitchen, and restroom areas, while the fifth floor (noted as mezzanine on the plans) providing a loft-type bedroom and bathroom for each unit (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Building Section
Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

The five-story portion of the building housing the commercial tenant spaces and the proposed residential units would be built to a height of 57’-0”. Additionally, the project includes the construction of approximately 450 SF of rooftop bathroom areas on the north and south sides of the building with a height of 9’-6”, as measure from the adjacent roof deck. While the proposed rooftop bathroom area is smaller in scale and floor area than the programming Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

proposed on the first five stories of the project, the proposed rooftop restrooms are not exempt from counting toward building height or the number of stories in the applicable development standards for the MU Overlay Zone. As such, the overall height of the building includes the height of the rooftop bathrooms, for a total height of 66’-6” and six stories.

As part of the applicant’s Density Bonus Permit request, the applicant is seeking incentives/concessions to allow for additional building height and number of stories for the project. The project site is located in Height District A, which allows for a maximum of three stories and a maximum building height of 45’. The applicant is seeking an incentive/concession to increase the allowable height, from 45’ to 66’-6”, which would provide an additional 21’-6’ of building height. Additionally, the applicant seeks an incentive/concession to allow additional building stories, from three stories to six stories, to allow for the loft-style units on the fourth and fifth floors, as well as the 450 SF restrooms located on the rooftop of the building, which are not exempt from building height and the number of stories and are counted as a sixth story to the building.

Development in direct vicinity of the project site consist of three-story commercial buildings with a height of approximately 45’ to the north, south, and east. Additionally, existing commercial development located further south of the project site is larger in scale when compared to the proposed project, with a nine- and an 11-story building developed on properties located on the southwest and southeast corners of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard, respectively. While the proposed development would be larger in scale than neighboring development, it does not appear to be out of scale with other larger projects noted at the intersection of Wilshire and La Cienega.

Shade and Shadow
A shade and shadow study was prepared by the applicant and included in the project application materials (Attachment H). However pursuant to Public Resource Code §21099, aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Furthermore, pursuant to Public Resource Source Code §21099(a)(7) Transit priority area means an area within ½ mile of a major transit stop. In accordance with Public Resource Code Section 21099(d)(1) the project’s aesthetic impacts have not been evaluated under CEQA as these impacts cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Pursuant to a report prepared by the City’s environmental consultant, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines for in-fill development projects, which states that a Class 32 Categorical Exemption is allowed when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Shade and Shadow analysis is not a required component of a Class 32 Exemption report, which limits the topic of study to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality.

Additionally, the City does not have a locally adopted objective development standard for purposes of determining shade and shadow impacts. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code §65589(j)(1) the City cannot disapprove the project or impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, unless the City bases its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Furthermore, the City does not have an objective written public health and safety standards that existed on the day the application was deemed complete.

Parking. The proposed mixed-use project would provide 196 parking spaces for the commercial and residential portions of the project within a three-level subterranean parking structure accessed from North La Cienega Boulevard.

AB 2097: Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which became effective on January 1, 2023, prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on certain residential, commercial, or other development projects that are located within ½ mile of a major transit stop11. The project site is located within ½-mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station, which is currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard.12 As summarized in Table 3 below, prior to this change in state law, this project would have been required to provide a total 149 parking spaces. The project is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. Accordingly, pursuant to 11 Government Code Section 65863.2.(a)
12 Pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21155(b), a major transit stop also includes proposed stops that are included in a jurisdiction’s applicable regional transportation plan.

Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

AB 2097, no parking would be required for this project; however, the applicant is proposing to provide 196 parking spaces.

City Commercial Parking Requirements: The standard parking requirements set forth in the BHMC for commercial uses are provided for comparison purposes as, pursuant to AB 2097, these standards are not applicable to this project:
• Retail Uses: One parking space for every 350 SF of floor area. • Restaurant Uses: One parking space for every 350 SF of floor area for the first 3,000 SF of floor area, with any additional floor area over 3,000 SF subject to a parking ratio of one parking space for every 100 SF of floor area.
• At the noted BHMC parking ratios, the project would be required to provide 96 parking spaces for the approximate 18,986 SF proposed ground floor commercial uses (Table 3).

Table 3: Combined Commercial / Residential Parking Summary BHMC
Commercial
Parking Required
State Density
Bonus
Parking
Requirement
AB 2097
Parking
Requirement
Proposed Parking
Commercial
Uses 96 spaces --- 0
130 spaces
(1st: 2 / P1: 64 / P2: 64)
Residential
Uses --- 53 spaces 0
66 spaces
(P3: 66)
Total 149 spaces 0 196 spaces
State Density Bonus Residential Parking Requirements: Although the project is not required to provide residential parking pursuant to AB 2097, the applicant has proposed residential parking consistent with the parking requirements set forth in the state’s Density Bonus regulations (California Government Code §65915(p)(2)(A)). As designed, the applicant is proposing residential parking at a half a parking space per dwelling unit (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking). Under these standards, the proposed 105 dwelling units would require 53 parking spaces.

Parking Operation: The applicant has designed the project to provide parking for the ground floor commercial uses on levels P1 and P2 of the subterranean parking garage, with a total of 149 parking provide for commercial uses. Parking for the residential portion of the project would be provided exclusively on level P3, with 66 parking spaces provided on this level that would be only accessible to residents of the building. Only residents of the building will have key card access to an entry and exit gate located on level P2 to access the residential parking on level P3. The applicant anticipates there would be tenants of the building that would choose to not have an automobile due to existing and future available public transit. As such, the applicant proposed to have residential parking available on a first-come first-served basis.

The proposal is for the parking for the units to be unbundled, where tenants desiring parking would be able to add parking as part of their lease for an added cost. Once a tenant adds parking as part of their lease, then a specific parking space would be assigned to that unit Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

within the P3 parking level. The parking spaces would be made available to all tenants, regardless of income level and subject to availability.

Rooftop Uses and Open Space. The project would include a mix of common and private outdoor living space areas to provide the required outdoor living areas for the residential portion of the project. The majority of the common outdoor living space for the residential uses would be provided on the rooftop of the building, along with amenities consisting of a pool, spa, rooftop restrooms, trellis shade structures, and landscaping to assist in screening the outdoor living area from neighboring single-family residential uses to the west, along North Le Doux Road. Additional common and private outdoor living areas are provided within balconies located on the various floors of the project.

Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2803, 200 SF of usable outdoor living space is required for each dwelling unit, for a total of 21,000 SF of outdoor living space required this project. The building’s rooftop area is designed to provide 12,788 SF of common outdoor living space.

Along with the common and private open space provided through balconies and terraces on the upper levels of the project, a total of 21,000 SF of outdoor living area would be provided, in compliance with the applicable development standards.

Fig. 5: Roof Plan w/ Open Space Area
Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

The proposed rooftop outdoor living area is designed to be set back from the neighboring single-family residential uses to the west of the project site and would also be screened with a 3’-wide landscape area to provide additional privacy to neighboring properties (Fig. 5). While the proposed building is designed with a 20’-0” setback at the fifth floor, in compliance with the applicable rear setback requirements for properties in the Commercial-Residential Transition Area, the outdoor living space provided on the rooftop would be set back approximately 33’-0” from the rear property line, an additional 13’-0” from the edge of the building at the rear. This 13’-0” wide area at the rear of the rooftop area is reserved for the placement of building mechanical equipment, including air conditioning units that would be screened from view of neighboring properties (Fig. 6). In between the mechanical equipment and the rooftop outdoor living areas, landscaping planters would be installed toward the west side of the rooftop area with trees and hedges that would measure 6’ to 8’ in height. The screening provided thought the proposed landscaping and the additional setback from the Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

edge of the building to the outdoor living area on the rooftop would provide privacy to singlefamily residential properties to the rear of the property site and would not provide any direct lines of sight to rear yards of these properties.

Fig. 6: Project Rendering – Rear of Building and Rooftop Areas Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

Additionally, the proposed private outdoor living area on the second floor at the rear of the building would also be screened by proposed landscaping within the rear yard of the project.

The various species of landscaping material proposed in the rear yard has varied maximum heights between 8’ and 30’. Therefore, when mature, the proposed landscaping would provide a privacy buffer between residential properties that abut the project site at the rear and the proposed development. Additionally, a new 6’-0” tall block wall is also proposed at the rear of the property. The proposed outdoor living area would be reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the building and would not be accessible to the commercial uses proposed for the project. The project is designed so that only the residential uses have access to the open space areas. Furthermore, while staff supports the general design of the rooftop amenities, staff has recommended conditions regarding rooftop hours, music, and use, similar to conditions imposed on other projects with residential rooftop amenities (Conditions No. 10 and 11).

Street Level Commercial Operation. The proposed project would provide for new retail and restaurant uses located on the ground floor of the site facing North La Cienega Boulevard, which includes a new market with restaurant/eatery uses within the tenant space, as well as separate standalone restaurant/café tenant spaces. Each of these spaces is designed with street-facing areas that would provide open air dining opportunities on private property that would activate the streetscape with pedestrian-orientated amenities. Additionally, because the Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

project site is located within a Commercial-Residential Transition Area, the business hours of each use would be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 9:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays, unless extended hours are approved by the Planning Commission as part of an Extended Hours Permit. While the applicant has not informed the City of any specific tenants planned for the commercial portions of the project, separate permits for open air dining and extended hours would need to be obtained by each respective business, should they seek to establish open air dining or operate with extended hours.

The project is designed with two commercial loading spaces that measure 13’ in width by 35’ in length to accommodate on-site truck deliveries. The commercial loading areas would also be available to accommodate deliveries by vans and smaller vehicles, including standard package delivery services (e.g., UPS, FedEx, USPS, etc.). The loading areas are designed to located within the ground floor of the building and out of view from street or neighboring properties. At the rear of the property, the commercial portion of the building is completely enclosed so that the commercial loading areas are not viewable from the single-family residential properties to the east of the property.

Development Plan Review.

Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3104, the Planning Commission’s review of a Development Plan Review application is based on the following findings:
• The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

As discussed in Section 3 (Page 8) of the attached Class 32 categorical exemption report (Attachment I), the project is consistent with various goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, in particular, the land use and housing elements of the Plan.

Additionally, the proposed height and density of the proposed project are based on the approved base heights and densities of the BHMC, taking into account concessions pursuant to state density bonus law which would render certain standards inapplicable to this project. Additional General Plan goals and policies for the Commission to consider are provided on Page 9 of this report.
• The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

As of the preparation of this report, there are no active requests for discretionary planning approval of new commercial, multi-family, or single-family residences within 500’ of the project site. Additionally, 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 of the Metro Purple (D Line) station on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Las Cienega Boulevard.

The proposed project would intensify development on the project site and it may result in changes visible to the streetscape that may appear out of character with the existing commercial area, due to the proposed increase in height and reduced setbacks; Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

however, it is unlikely to inhibit the future development of nearby properties. As future development within the City’s mixed use overlay area occurs, it is likely that, over time, new developments that are proposed in the mixed use overlay zone would include designs that are similar in scale and mass to the proposed project, particularly when density bonuses are involved.

The proposed project is also not expected to exhibit any long-lasting impacts on existing nearby development because it is consistent with the General Plan and because existing development to the south of the project site is larger in scale to the proposed project, with a nine- and an 11-story building developed on properties located on the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. Existing commercial development directly adjacent to the north, south, and west of the project site consists of three-story commercial buildings with an approximately height of 45’. • 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.

The proposed mixed use project provides commercial uses exclusively on the ground floor of the project. The upper stories of the project would be occupied by multi-family residential uses and not commercial uses. The commercial portion of the project is not designed with any publicly accessible openings to the rear or sides of the property that would have the potential to cause significant noise or privacy impacts to neighboring single-family residential properties to the rear along North Le Doux Road. The commercial uses are designed to be oriented toward North La Cienega Boulevard.

Additionally, all vehicular and loading access would occur from North La Cienega Boulevard, with vehicular access area not open or visible to adjacent commercial or residential properties to the north, south, or west. Furthermore, any retail or restaurant use would be required to comply with the prescribed hours of operation outlined in the BHMC for properties in the commercial-residential transition area, unless otherwise authorized by the Planning Commission as part of an Extended Hours Permit. As such, the nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of the commercial portion of the development proposed would not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
• The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

As provided in Section 3.4 (Page 14) in the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report (Attachment I), the proposed project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA). Additionally, while not required for CEQA, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the project to evaluate level of service (LOS) impacts during peak hours at signalized intersections (Appendix B of Attachment I). The intersection evaluated as part of this study were located at: 1) Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard; 2) La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard; and, 3) La Cienega Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard. The LTA determined that the increases in intersection delays at the study intersections would be relatively small (0.0 to 1.1 seconds) and that the project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. The minor increases in delay at the study intersections fall below the thresholds established by the City for identifying potential adverse conditions at locations operating at LOS D or worse, so no improvements would be required at the study intersection as a result of the project.

Pedestrian and vehicle access to the project site would continue to be provided by North La Cienega Boulevard. The project would include the construction of new driveway aprons in compliance with City’s driveway standards to improve ingress and egress to the project site. As detailed in the LTA, no improvements to the existing roadway would be required as a result of the project and the project would not alter the existing traffic patterns along the North La Cienega Boulevard roadway. As such, no design changes would be introduced that would introduce sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible on-site uses. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not create new obstructions to emergency access in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard. • The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

The project site is located within a Commercial-Residential Transition Area.

Therefore, the Project must be consistent with regulations that require the implementation of certain design features, which include: a setback from residential properties, construction of site walls, and installation of landscaping to provide a buffer between the project and the adjacent single-family residential properties to the west.

The proposed rooftop area is setback from the edge or the roof and landscaped to provide visual screening of the area and additional privacy to the residential properties to the west. Additionally, as conditioned, the project incorporates measures to minimize noise and operational impacts associated with commercial uses located in proximity to residential uses. As such, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Additional Considerations. While not specifically required for project approval, staff has provided additional information that the Planning Commission may take into account in consideration of the project.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

The construction the proposed project would result in a net addition of 105 housing units within the city that would be counted towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the current housing cycle. The proposed 11 affordable housing units would count toward meeting the 1,008 very-low income housing units required for this housing cycle, with the remaining 94 market-rate units meeting the 814 units required in the above- Planning Commission Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023