WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED — Beverly Hills City Council, September 12, 2023

WRITTEN PUBLIC

COMMENTS RECEIVED
From: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
To: City Clerk
Cc: Keith Sterling
Subject: FW: DuPont Clinic
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:26:24 AM
From: Gay Abrams
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2023 5:59 PM
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL < >
Cc: 12-Julian Gold < >; Lili Bosse < >; John Mirisch
>; 13-Lester J. Friedman >; 14-Sharona
Nazarian < >
Subject: DuPont Clinic
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear City Council Members,
In recent weeks I have been reading about the situation involving the City of Beverly Hills, Douglas Emmett, DuPont Clinic and “Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust”.

The intimidation from the ant-abortion extremist group leading to the rescinding of DuPont’s lease by Douglas Emmett is very troubling. I am not writing to defend nor debate the practice of ‘third term abortions’, I am writing to defend the rule of law.And although I empathize with the quandary that the landlord, Douglas Emmett and the Beverly Hills City Council Members and City Officials were placed, I have significant concerns regarding the following:

1.The outcome.Beverly Hills did not stand by their May 2022 public statements in support women’s
reproductive freedom.

2. Beverly Hills did not defend the rule of law.

3. The communications between Beverly Hills Council Members and officials with leaders from ‘Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust”.

4. The appearance of our city officials’ capitulation to the demands of an extremist group.

5. The unfair treatment and lack of support for DuPont Clinic.

6. The perceived lack of support for the landlord, Douglas Emmett, in dealing with the intimidation and threats from the extremists.

7. The consequences of empowering an anti-abortion extremist group.

8. The legal consequences and the cost to taxpayers to defend the lawsuit.

Granted, I recognize that I may not have all the facts. Will you give me and a few concerned citizens the opportunity to sit down with you as you did with Tim Clements, the outspoken anti-abortion extremists who lives outside of our community?
It would be beneficial to understand what course
of events led to the decisions that were made leading to this unfortunate outcome.

Respectfully,
Gay Abrams

From: Kathryn Albergate Davis
To: City Clerk
Subject: Please open Dupont Clinic in Beverly Hills
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:11:46 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello,
I am a Los Angeles native, a voter, a mother, and a public health professional. I urge you to proceed with letting Dupont Clinic open their doors in the city of Beverly Hills. Abortion care IS healthcare. In the rare case that someone needs a late term abortion (which is DEVASTATING for the pregnant person, because it almost always indicates something terrible has happened to the baby), they should have the decency and right to attend a medical facility that can save their life. Pregnancy is a beautiful thing, but it can also be dangerous for the mother.

As you are (hopefully) aware, the California Legislature just passed Senate bill 345 which makes California officially a safe haven state for people seeking abortion care. EVERY kind of woman gets an abortion. Rich women, poor women, women who are usually already mothers. Please stand up and do the right thing. Dupont Clinic has a fantastic medical record and would be providing life saving care for women not only in Beverly Hills, but for the nation.

Thank you for your consideration,
Kathryn Davis
--
Kathryn Albergate Davis, MPH
From: Ritu Aparajita
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL; City Clerk
Subject: DuPont Clinic
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:22:04 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I support women’s reproductive rights. I am opposed to extremist groups and am appalled by the events surrounding Dupont Clinic. I demand transparency and explanation from Beverly Hills city officials regarding accusations of collusion and corruption.

Respectfully,
Ritu Aparajita, MD
Vascular Surgery
The information contained in this email is intended solely for the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.

If you have received this email in error, return to sender.

From: Brooke Binkowski
To: City Clerk
Subject: DuPort closure
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:04:07 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello!
I'm emailing you to request that more information regarding the closure of the DuPont clinic be released to the public. It is a public health issue.

Thank you!
From: Lindsay Carlson
To: City Clerk; WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Subject: Public comment / item not on the agenda
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:28:10 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear councilmembers,
I was very concerned to hear about the apparent collusion between Mayor Julian Gold, Police Chief Mark Stainbrook, and other city officials and anti-choice extremists and landlord Douglas Emmett to block an all-trimester abortion clinic from opening in Beverly Hills. I am sure that you are receiving many comments from the public leading up to and at your meeting tonight, and I certainly do not need to rehash the facts.

I wanted to add my voice, however, to the demands of organizers that you move forward with (1) a full investigation and public disclosure of contact between City Hall officials, BHPD, Douglas Emmett and anti-choice groups; and (2) legislation prohibiting city agencies from using city resources to cooperate with out-of-state entities related to abortions performed in California.

I am a resident of Culver City, which has a lot in common with Beverly Hills in that it is a city that also is surrounded by Los Angeles and does not operate in a vacuum. As I am sure that you know, many come to Beverly Hills seeking reproductive healthcare, because their doctors are located there. Indeed, my former ob/gyn had an office just outside your city limits, and I delivered my son at Cedars-Sinai in 2018.

My experience with pregnancy and childbirth has made me even more steadfast in my belief that no pregnancy should be forced. I'm sure that you know, but in case you do not, late-term abortions are incredibly rare and the need for one usually means that something has gone terribly wrong. Terminating such a pregnancy is a heartbreaking decision, and we should be providing all of the support we can and ensuring that the full range of healthcare options are available and accessible.

Thanks for your consideration of this comment.

Lindsay G Carlson, Esq.

President, Heart of LA Democratic Club
Member, Board of Directors of the National Association of Women Lawyers --
Lindsay G. Carlson
mobile:

From: Diba and Rudy
To: City Clerk; WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 10:11:14 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
To whom it may concernI support women’s reproductive rights. I am opposed to extremist groups and am appalled by the events surrounding Dupont Clinic. I demand transparency and explanation from Beverly Hills city officials regarding accusations of collusion and corruption.

Diba Daneshrad MD MPH
Sent from my iPhone
From: Samantha Deming-Berr
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Dupont clinic
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 2:04:24 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please consider the terrible impact on women’s health that will result from limiting abortion access in a “haven” state like California.

Women’s lives depend on safe, legal abortion care.

Dr. Samantha Deming-Berr
From: Christina Drostin
To: City Clerk; WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Subject: Support access to reproductive rights
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 9:50:09 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor and City Council of Beverly Hills,
I'm writing to voice my concern for the recent decision by the Town of Beverly Hills to not renew the lease for a clinic that provides abortions. Abortion access is an important part of healthcare and an important part of women having control over their bodies. As a physician and a public health professional, I can speak firsthand to the harms and consequences of women not being able to access abortions. Please reconsider your decision and let healthcare experts continue to do our work providing the public with the health care they request, need and deserve.

Respectfully,
Christina Drostin (she/her), MD, MPH
Family Physician
Maryland
From: Rebecca Drye
To: City Clerk
Subject: Women’s healthcare
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 9:34:23 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I was disgusted to hear that an abortion clinic was blocked due to anti choice extremism.

Women need access to healthcare and should not have to continue pregnancies that they cannot support. Not one man should have a day in this devastating decision that MANY women have to make.

Every other civilized democratic country understands this right for women. This country is not a theocracy.

Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: erin0816
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL; City Clerk
Subject: Reproductive rights
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 3:21:36 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
As a physician in California & as a woman I support women’s reproductive rights. I am opposed to extremist groups and am appalled by the events surrounding Dupont Clinic. I demand transparency and explanation from Beverly Hills city officials regarding accusations of collusion and corruption.

Erin
From: Vanessa Keiko Flanders
To: City Clerk
Subject: DuPont Clinic and interference with healthcare Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:14:12 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To Whom It May Concern:

Like many women, I used to work in Beverly Hills, lived nearby, and regularly commuted the city daily. I am deeply troubled by the allegations that city leadership and city employees appear to have cooperated with anti-choice groups to prevent the DuPont Clinic from opening its doors to patients.

I (like the city council unanimously voted) believe that abortion is healthcare, and that abortion is a human right. The people of Beverly Hills and the surrounding areas deserve to know whether there is any merit to the claims that city officials have acted improperly.

There should be a full investigation by a third party, along with public disclosure of the contact and communications between city officials and antichoice groups, and whether any city officials interfered in the contractual relations between DuPont Clinic and their landlord.

If there is not already legislation in place that would prevent the use of city resources to act on behalf of political activists, that needs to happen.

Access to healthcare is not something that any city should be interfering with, let alone one which professes to support women's rights.

Thank you for you consideration.

Vanessa Keiko Flanders

From: Sandra Gonzalez
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Support reproductive rights
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:30:27 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear staff at city of Beverly Hills,
I support women’s reproductive rights. I am opposed to extremist groups and am appalled by the events surrounding Dupont Clinic. I demand transparency and explanation from Beverly Hills city officials regarding accusations of collusion and corruption.

Sincerely,
Sandra N. González

From: Rebecca Gundzik
To: City Clerk
Subject: Assault on abortionrights
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 7:12:39 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
The idea of conspiring to prevent women from exercising their reproductive rights is appalling. It should not and cannot be tolerated. The city of Beverly Hills and Douglas Emmett are not offering to take on the burden of unwanted offspring, and are not willing to accept responsibility for the people who can’t afford homes in the city but have nowhere to live.

Prop 1 is our constitutional right—do not permit the city do infringe upon it.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Sharon Hartmans
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL; City Clerk
Subject: Clinic Closure
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:49:02 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear City Council and Mayor,
I'm extremely disappointed in the city's decision to not back the health care clinic that was set to provide appropriate and law abiding care for patients in need.

We are a democratic city and support equal rights for all; this includes women who need an abortion.

I'm very disappointed in the City Council. Shame on you for denying women their rights. We are Los Angeles. Let's be leaders in abortion care, not cower to the vocal few who wish to deny a basic healthcare right. If those protestors don't wish to have an abortion themselves, that's their right. But don't steal the right from others.

Signed,
Sharon Hartmans, MD
From: Joan Isaacs
To: City Clerk
Subject: Assault on Abortion Rights
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:15:55 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
As a very long-time resident of Beverly Hills (and consistent voter) I am shocked and appalled to learn about the role the mayor, the police chief and the counsel has played in joining forcer with Douglas Emnmett to block an abortion clinic in the city of Beverly Hills.

Unless this course of action is reversed immediately this shameful position is one that I shall not soon forget.

I really thought and hoped that our city was better than this.

Regards,
Joan Isaacs
Isaacs Reallty LLC
From: Linda Jackson
To: City Clerk
Subject: Abortion Clinic in Beverly Hills
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:52:36 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am appalled to learn that Beverly Hills is taking action to prevent the opening of the alltrimester abortion facility. Abortion care is healthcare, and the city should not bow to a few extremists (including those from out of state) who don't represent the values of the overwhelming majority of Beverly Hills residents and businesses.

From: Nicole Katano
To: City Clerk
Subject: PROTECT ABORTION ACCESS IN BEVERLY HILLS
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:19:03 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To the City Council:

The LA Times reported that Mayor Julian Gold, Police Chief Mark G. Stainbrook, and city officials conspired with anti-choice extremists and landlord Douglas Emmett to block an alltrimester clinic from opening in Beverly Hills.

The city of Beverly Hills has NO BUSINESS interfering with citizens' access to legal healthcare! We do not want anti-abortion extremists deciding our fates. If someone objects to abortion they don't have to have one. It is absolutely none of their business what others choose to do.

This is a shocking and horrifying development here in southern California that goes hand in hand with the anti-Woman, anti-Semitic, anti-LGBTQI, anti-Black, anti-Asian hate that has spread through our country since the 2016 election of Trump. This Pandora's Box of hate, lies and bigotry is just one of the horrific legacies of him and his time in office.

The citizens of this state want a full investigation and public disclosure of the contact between Beverly HIlls City Hall officials, the Beverly Hills Police Department, Douglas Emmett and anti-choice groups. We also call for legislation prohibiting city agencies from using city resources to cooperate with out-of-state entities related to abortions performed within the state of California.

Most sincerely,
Nicole Katano
From: LISA KING
To: City Clerk
Subject: Abortion is Healthcare
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:55:24 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
And should be available to all Californians, no matter the city or county. Voters already decided this issue last year and we expect the elected officials of Beverly Hills to respect our votes, thank you.

Sincerely,
A voter in California, Lisa King
Sent from my iPad
From: Kimberly Kirven
To: City Clerk
Subject: Abortion Clinic Access re: Tonight"s City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:14:13 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Hello,
Regarding tonight’s city council meeting, I feel that it is imperative that women are allowed access to safe, effective and licensed abortion rights and clinics. YIMBY tactics are the reason why homelessness in Los Angeles is out of control.

A full investigation and public disclosure needs to happen regarding correspondence between City Hall officials, the Beverly Hills Police Department, Douglas Emmett, and antichoice groups. This is the only way for our democracy to move forward.

May the city council make the right choice. May the media continue to shine light on this corruption. May the opinions of 1% not outweigh the needs of many more that will be affected.

A concerned Los Angeles citizen,
Kimberly Kirven

From: elisa marks
To: City Clerk
Subject: Protection of women’s choice
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:00:57 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I wish to register my disappointment and frustration that DuPont Clinic had their lease rescinded after anti abortion groups lobbied Beverly Hills city officials. This is a travesty of the way government should work. Nothing about DuPont clinic services are against the law and as matter of fact are desperately needed in these times. You should be investigating every step of this awful fall out. DuPont Thoughtfully,
Elisa Marks
From: Molly McKibben
To: City Clerk
Subject: Interference with Private Business
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:56:02 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express my concern about city officials working in concert with anti-choice extremists to pressure a private business, Douglas Emmett, to block an abortion clinic from opening in Beverly Hills.

Having the City's police chief write a draft letter intended to send to other building tenants to Douglas Emmett threatening that protesters would disrupt their business is a clear case of interference with economic opportunities. Revoking permits that were previously granted because the City was pressured by activists is doing business in bad faith.

I am requesting a full investigation and public disclosure of contact between City Hall officials, the Beverly Hills Police Department, Douglas Emmett, and anti-choice groups.

Thank you,
Molly McKibben
From: Ramsay McNear
To: City Clerk
Subject: Council meeting comment: Defending healthcare in Beverly Hills Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:19:06 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
To whom it may concern,
I am disappointed to hear that the city council has capitulated to anti-choice extremists. Women’s healthcare access can not be sacrificed to appease religious fanatics. As a resident of this great city, I strongly urge you to reconsider and repudiate your support of this fringe minority - most of whom do not even live in or visit this city.

Best regards,
Ramsay McNear
From: Meera Mehta
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL; City Clerk
Subject: Clinic
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:09:58 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
To Whom It May Concern,
As a pediatrician and mother who has had the horrible experience of watching her child die as an infant from a genetic cause, I implore you to do everything needed to keep the abortion clinic open. I was privileged to be able to have an abortion with my second child so I did not have to see her suffer through 2 weeks of pokes, prods, pain, and seizures like her older (deceased) sibling. This is a right any parent should be able to access to prevent a child from suffering due to a genetic condition, inability to provide, or maternal health. Do the right thing for the many women who need this service and keep the clinic open.

Meera Mehta, M.D.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Michele Mendelsohn
To: City Clerk
Subject: DuPont Clinic
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:38:20 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Deer City Clerk and Members of the City Council,
For the record, I wanted to state my strong opposition to shutting down the DuPont Clinic in Beverly Hills.

As a former resident, student, and BHUSD teacher, I am a huge advocate for women’s rights and I hope the City Of Beverly Hills will join me in respecting women’s reproductive freedom.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Michele Mendelsohn
Sent from my iPhone
From: Lynn Morris
To: City Clerk
Subject: DuPont Clinic vs. Douglas Emmett
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 3:05:08 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear City ClerK,
I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting but I cannot let the voice of anti-women, anti- choice extremists happen without weighing in.

A lease was offered on with clear understanding about what the tenant aimed to do with the space. Large sums of money were spent on making the space agreeable to announced tenant’s plans. Rescinding a lease because some protests may take place destroys contract validity.

That late term abortions might take place under the care of a licensed physician is a privacy issue, one of grave importance. You have only to read the headlines to understand this issue and I refer you to the Opinon piece in the LA Times of 8/24 for more confirmation of this position.

Thank you,
Lynn H. Morris
Marina Del Rey.

I was shocked to learn about the unlawful rescinding of DuPont Clinic’s lease by Douglas Emmett. If this is allowed, Beverly Hills will have succumbed to the brazen tactics of anti-choice extremists. Having succeeded in shutting down an array of women’s health care including abortion in many states, they are now focusing on states where reason has prevailed. They do this by creating fear and chaos designed to derail health care providers from offering services that are essential, safe and legal.

The late term abortion argument is a red herring. Women do not opt for discretionary abortions late in pregnancy. They are performed in those rare instances when the fetus is deceased or so impaired that normal life is not feasible, or when the pregnant woman’s life is in jeopardy. They are always the result of a tragic situation.

I urge you to not let California (led here by Beverly Hills) join the bandwagon of the zealots around our country.

Renée Dernburg
From: Isabella Morton
To: City Clerk
Subject: DuPont clinic
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 2:11:27 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
Dear Beverly Hills City Council,
Regarding the DuPont Clinic situation, I am a Los Angeles resident and a physician who lives very close to beverly Hills. I was shocked to learn that an extremist group was able to successfully coerce the landlord to rescind the clinic’s lease. Why didn’t the city send a clear message to the anti-abortion group that Beverly Hills supports Women’s Reproductive Rights and we do not succumb to the tactics of intimidation from anyone? Thank you,
Isabella Morton MD MPH
From: Bennett Ross
To: City Clerk
Subject: public comment
Date: Sunday, August 20, 2023 12:48:16 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I would like this to be submitted as public comment. If it could be read at the next city council meeting during the public comment period, that would be best. If not, then could it be submitted to each City Council member, perhaps in thier Board packet? Thaniks so much, Bennett Ross
As a resident of Beverly Hills, I am following with interest the dispute about the potential opening of a medical clinic that will provide abortion services. The City has rescinded the permits for this clinic. Deputy City Manager Keith Sterling is quoted in the Times as saying, “….

Our No. 1 responsibility is to keep our community safe.” I assume this means that the City will not allow the clinic because there might be disruptive and/or dangerous demonstrations against the clinic which could impact community members.

Previously, the Beverly Hills City Council voted 5 to 0 in support of abortion rights. Wouldn’t it be the proper position for the City and all its employees (who represent our residents, businesses and laws) to keep our community safe by protecting us from civil disturbances directed against a legally permitted business? Mr. Sterling and by implication the City Council are taking the position that the fear of illegal acts should be dealt with by getting rid of the things that provoke someone to act illegally. By extension, if I dislike yellow cars enough that I threaten to break the windows of all yellow cars, the city will outlaw yellow cars to protect community safety. Shame on you, City Council. What a bad (and gutless) precedent you are establishing.

From: trisha roth
To: Megan Mumby
Subject: Re: Support All Term Abortion Clinic in Beverly Hills@7 pm Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:41:39 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am a pediatrician
I want to support an all term abortion
Clinic
5783
G’mar Chatimah Tovah
A Good Final Sealing
May you be written in the Book of Life
On Sep 12, 2023, at 4:19 PM, Megan Mumby < > wrote:

Good Afternoon,
Did you want to submit a comment? The body of your email only contains your address and phone number?
Megan Mumby
Executive Assistant (Temp)
City of Beverly Hills
City Clerk’s Office
455 North Rexford Drive, Room 290
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Office: (310) 285-1102
Fax: (310) 385-0862
<image001.jpg>
From: trisha roth < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:46 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support All Term Abortion Clinic in Beverly Hills@7 pm CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am a pediatrician who lived in BH
For 18 years 1983-2000 at 516 N Rodeo
I now reside in
Gratefully
Trisha Roth
5783
<~WRD2398.jpg>
G’mar Chatimah Tovah
A Good Final Sealing
May you be written in the Book of Life
The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.

From: Amanda Rykoff
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment re: Attack on Reproductive Freedom in Beverly Hills Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 1:30:36 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To the elected officials of Beverly Hills:

I am disgusted and furious over the recent Los Angeles Times report that Beverly Hills Mayor Julian Gold, Police Chief Mark G. Stainbrook, and city officials conspired with anti-choice extremists and landlord Douglas Emmett to block an all-trimester clinic from opening in Beverly Hills.

In 2022, California voted to enshrine explicit protections for reproductive freedom, including abortion care and contraception, into the state constitution. The Beverly Hills City Council unanimously passed a resolution supporting the right to an abortion. With attacks on reproductive freedom and abortion across the country, California and Beverly Hills must stand strong. The elected and city officials have not only caved to these extremists, but taken action to prevent residents of Beverly Hills and the greater Los Angeles area from access to vital reproductive healthcare.

We demand the following:

1. A full investigation and public disclosure of contact between City Hall officials, the Beverly Hills Police Department, Douglas Emmett, and anti-choice groups.

2. Legislation prohibiting city agencies from using city resources to cooperate with out-ofstate entities related to abortions performed within California state.

Cities need to take action to protect the right to an abortion. For example, New York City passed legislation to protect access to safe and affordable abortions. Beverly Hills prides itself on world-class doctors. Access to healthcare does not know city limits. The city of Beverly Hills has no business interfering with access to legal healthcare.

This despicable conspiracy impacts all of us who live in Southern California. Supporting the right to abortion means standing up to those trying to destroy reproductive rights, not joining with them to harm the community. .

Thank you,
Amanda Rykoff
West Hollywood, CA
From: Nicole Satterfield
To: City Clerk; WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Subject: Dupont Clinic
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:40:04 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mayor and City Council of Beverly Hills,
I support women’s reproductive rights. I am opposed to extremist groups and am appalled by the events surrounding Dupont Clinic. I demand transparency and explanation from Beverly Hills city officials regarding accusations of collusion and corruption.

Sincerely,
Nicole McLawrence, MD

BRUCE SCHWARTZ

City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA
Attention: To be read into the Record during public comment at City Council Formal Meeting September 12, 2023
September 11, 2023
To the City Council:

Below is a reprint of my letter to the Editor of the Los Angeles Times which was the only such letter published by the Editor under the heading:
“BEVERLY HILLS’ “fickle support”
“Re Beverly Hills city official say they support abortion access,’ editorial Aug. 25 Thank you for pointing out the two-faced approach by the Beverly Hills City Council on abortion.

When it was popular in California to support the pro-choice movement, leaders were touting their supportive proclamations. When an abortion clinic decided to open in the city and spend millions of dollars here, the Beverly Hills City Council was all in favor.

But as soon as the mayor and police chief learned that the clinic would face negative publicity from the radical right, the council’s support wilted like an un-watered flower, and the landlord rescinded the clinic’s lease.

Welcome to Beverly Hills?”

BRUCE SCHWARTZ
Beverly Hills
From: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
To: City Clerk
Cc: Keith Sterling
Subject: FW: Abortion Access
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:25:35 AM
From: Kelsey Seger < >
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2023 11:09 AM
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL < >
Subject: Abortion Access
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To the Mayor and City Council,
To deny women the right to an abortion is to deny women healthcare. It is awful that you're treating women as second class citizens.

You need to do better.
-Kelsey Seger
From: Jan shure-hurwitz
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: DuPont Clinic vs. Douglas Emmett
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:26:16 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Disgusting! Abortion and women’s care will be here to stay, no matter what the radicals wish.

I urge you to not let California (led here by Beverly Hills) join the bandwagon of the zealots around our country.

Renée Dernburg

From: Daria Somers
To: City Clerk
Subject: Comment for today"s meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:23:25 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
As a former but longtime resident of Beverly Hills, I was appalled to read about city officials conspiring with anti-choice extremists to block the planned abortion clinic.

This corrupt action necessitates a full investigation and public disclosure of all contact between city hall officials, Douglas Emmett, anti-choice groups, and the BHPD. We also need legislation that prohibits city agencies from using city resources to work with out-of-state entities related to abortions performed within California.

Thank you,
Daria Somers

From: Analisa Swan
To: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment re: Attack on Reproductive Freedom in Beverly Hills Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:45:55 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Good afternoon.

I am writing in support of abortion access and the planned opening of a reproductive clinic offering all-trimester abortion procedures.

Californians’ right to abortion and our state’s role as an abortion safe haven is enshrined in our state’s constitution.

It is unacceptable that a Beverly Hills landlord, police chief, and various city officials in Beverly Hills would impede abortion services by opposing the opening of the clinic.

The nation looks to California, especially in the County of Los Angeles, to lead on reproductive rights and healthcare access.

Please uphold women’s rights by welcoming the clinic and withdrawing opposition to the clinic.

Analisa Swan, Esq. (she/her)
ADEM/CADEM Executive Board AD 44
This e-mail message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee names above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone.

From: Rebecca Thomson
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: In support of DuPont
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:19:32 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
________________________________
I am writing in support of the DuPont clinic planned for Beverly Hills.

Please consider the terrible impact on women’s health that will result from limiting abortion access in a “haven” state like California. Here in NC we have women driving 8+hr from many other states to access the care that has been restricted in their state. We see the waits and travel distance increase each time a clinic in a neighboring state closes or new restrictions are passed.

Women’s lives depend on safe, legal abortion care.
———————
Rebecca T Putnam, MD
Family physician
From: Valerie Wisot
To: City Clerk
Subject: To be read into record. Public comment Beverly Hills City Council formal meeting September 12, 2023.

Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 6:04:55 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please see attached for meeting referenced above:

VALERIE WISOT
Beverly Hills, CA
City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA
Attention: to be read into the record during public comment at City Council formal meeting -September 12, 2023 September 11, 2023
To the City Council:

I am embarrassed and ashamed at the conduct of some leaders of our city who took it upon themselves to impose their own personal views and assumptions over the law, the California Constitution, and just ordinary good sense, when involving themselves in the opening of a legal abortion clinic in our city….a city where practitioners engage in many of the same medical practices on a regular basis.

Since when are City leaders allowed to take it upon themselves to interfere in legal businesses by meeting privately with a landlord to rescind an executed lease; or to contact tenants at a business site with threatening letters sent under the apparent auspices of our police department, citing the potential danger of a business which has not even opened? Or by meeting in private with one extremist political group to assure them that the legal clinic they oppose would never open, despite the fact that the City had already issued a license to the business? Never, I would hope. Except, that is what has happened with the opening of the DuPont Clinic.This was not a debate between pro- choice activists and anti- choice activists. It was a business transaction which was objected to by one extremist group, which bullied to get its way by using our City government and leaders as tools to advance its agenda.

Since when, prior to a business opening, does our City assume that the business will be a threat to public safety? Again, never, I would hope. We don’t do this when a hotel, synagogue, mosque, glass-fronted department store or other office building, or any other entity that has exposure to public dissent.is opening, so why in this instance? Sincerely,

VALERIE WISOT

402402861.1
Mayor Julian A. Gold and City Council
September 12, 2023

Page 2 ends

While the Peninsula had previously agreed to have its appeal held on the October 17 date, we did so before having an opportunity to meet with Impact yesterday. That meeting gives us hope that we might be able to resolve the two matters amicably. As such, we respectfully request that the appeal be rescheduled to allow the parties time to work together.

As always, thank you for your time and consideration of this request.

Very sincerely yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, Community Development Department From:

To: Edgar Arroyo; City Clerk
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: 55 N. La Cienega Blvd - Project Update and City Council Public Hearing Information Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 11:53:10 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
We are unfortunately unable to attend this meeting tomorrow evening but have the following comment to share:
"City Council Members, we are the homeowners on . This community has long standing and committed elderly folks with health issues, we have working professionals, we have children -- we matter and your decisions will significantly impact our street, our homes and our families. This project, if it moves forward, should go through an environmental review - a legal process that is meant to ensure that the project is sound and takes into account the health and safety of all stakeholders. Without proper environmental review, you will not know what impacts this project will have. The rooftop amenities and pool can not have unrestricted use -- there should be no amplified sound permitted whatsoever (this is not a hotel and should not become party central for the younger population that the owner believes will be the majority of tenants in the building), no large private events (more than 20 people), no use of rooftop amenities past 7pm in the evening, no balconies overlooking private backyards, construction should be limited to 8:30am-6pm Monday-Friday, no AC units and mechanical equipment on the north side of the rooftop, at least one parking spot per unit. North Le Doux is already facing increased loitering and unauthorized vehicles. Please do not permit this to become a building that encroaches upon the free use, privacy and enjoyment of a purely residential street. The restrictions on time and manner of rooftop amenities are paramount.

Thank you for your time."
-For the safety of our family, I prefer that this comment be submitted anonymously and not using our name.

Thank you.

On Sun, Sep 10, 2023 at 9:57 PM Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Evening:

You are receiving this message because you have previously expressed interest in the proposed mixed use development project at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard.

The City Council is scheduled to review the appeal of this item at their upcoming meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 7:00 P.M. A copy of the agenda and staff report for this item are available online and can be accessed using the links provided below:

City Council Regular Meeting – 9/12/2023
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=49&event_id=6222

55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
September 12, 2023

Page 2 of 3 ends

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 traffic, 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 noise. See Exhibit 1. As previously stated in SAFER’s July 3, 2023 comments, attached at Exhibit 2, the Exemption also cannot apply because the Project will have a significant impact on air quality. See Exhibit 2.

1. Noise Impacts
Mr. Meighan’s expert comments constitute substantial evidence of a significant operational and construction-related noise impacts as a result of the Project, precluding the City from relying on a Class 32 Exemption. See Exhibit 1, pp. 1-4. Furthermore, as evidenced by Mr.

Meighan’s expert comment at Exhibit 1, the fact that this significant impact will occur constitutes an unusual circumstance, precluding the City’s reliance on an exemption. Id. For example, with regard to operational noise impacts, Mr. Meighan states:
[O]perational noise from the project may represent long-term changes in the surrounding noise environment for nearby receptors. Appendix C adequately identifies 50 dBA as an operational threshold for the project. The current analysis uses 1 HVAC system with a sound power level of 76 dBA. This is calculated to have a resulting Leq at the project line of 39 dBA, 11 dBA under the impact threshold. However, some of these assumptions may be optimistic. Usually there are multiple HVAC units on the roof of a large apartment complex. Two noise sources doubles the sound power, increasing the sound levels by 3 dBA.

Additionally, the sound power level of 76 dBA is a low estimate. This corresponds to a sound pressure level of 68 dBA at 3 feet. Some units can have a 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
September 12, 2023

Page 3 of 3 ends

sound power level as high as 100 dBA. Using the same analysis, but with 2 rooftop units with a sound power level of 84 dBA exceeds the 50 dBA threshold.

This is a more realistic scenario, the use of multiple fans at a more conservative source level. As such, the potential for an operational impact exists and thus a categorical exemption cannot be issued. Exhibit 2, p. 4.

Additionally, after applying the appropriate thresholds for construction vibration based on California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Mr. Meighan states the following about construction-related noise impacts:
[T]he following scenarios are over the construction vibration limit: large bulldozer, hoe ram, loaded trucks, and drill rig for residential buildings directly to the west and commercial buildings directly to the north and south, and the vibratory plate compactor for commercial buildings directly to the north and the south of the site. The analysis shows an impact, and as such should not qualify for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA. Exhibit 1, pp. 3-4.

Hence, an initial study and full CEQA analysis, may it be a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report, is required for this Project.

CONCLUSION
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,
Victoria Yundt
LOZEAU | DRURY LLP
EXHIBIT 1
July 24, 2023
Victoria Yundt
Lozeau | Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
P: 510.836.4200
SUBJECT: 55 N La Cienega, Comments on the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Noise Analysis Dear Ms. Yundt,
Per your request, we have reviewed the subject matter document for 55 La Cienega development in the City of Beverly Hills. The proposed project would construct a 105-unit mixed-use apartment building between Wilshire Blvd and Clifton Way on the site of the former Stinking Rose Restaurant.

The site is surrounded by sensitive uses, most notably single-family residences directly to the west of the project site and a medical office building directly to the north.

Adverse Effects of Noise1
Although the health effects of noise are not taken as seriously in the United States as they are in other countries, they are real and, in many parts of the country, pervasive.

Noise-Induced Hearing Loss. If a person is repeatedly exposed to loud noises, he or she may experience noise-induced hearing impairment or loss. In the United States, both the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) promote standards and regulations to protect the hearing of people exposed to high levels of industrial noise.

Speech Interference. Another common problem associated with noise is speech interference. In addition to the obvious issues that may arise from misunderstandings, speech interference also leads to problems with concentration fatigue, irritation, decreased working capacity, and automatic stress reactions. For complete speech intelligibility, the sound level of the speech should be 15 to 18 dBA higher than the background noise. Typical indoor speech levels are 45 to 50 dBA at 1 meter, so any noise above 30 dBA begins to interfere with speech intelligibility. The common reaction to higher background noise levels is to raise one’s voice. If this is required persistently for long periods of time, stress reactions and irritation will likely result.

Sleep Disturbance. Noise can disturb sleep by making it more difficult to fall asleep, by waking someone after they are asleep, or by altering their sleep stage, e.g., reducing the amount of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. Noise exposure for people who are sleeping has also been linked to increased blood pressure, increased heart rate, increase in body movements, and other physiological 1 More information on these and other adverse effects of noise may be found in Guidelines for Community Noise, eds B Berglund, T Lindvall, and D Schwela, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1999. (https://www.who.int/docstore/peh/noise/Comnoise-1.pdf)

WILSON IHRIG
55 N La Cienega
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 2 ends

effects. Not surprisingly, people whose sleep is disturbed by noise often experience secondary effects such as increased fatigue, depressed mood, and decreased work performance.

Cardiovascular and Physiological Effects. Human’s bodily reactions to noise are rooted in the “fight or flight” response that evolved when many noises signaled imminent danger. These include increased blood pressure, elevated heart rate, and vasoconstriction. Prolonged exposure to acute noises can result in permanent effects such as hypertension and heart disease.

Impaired Cognitive Performance. Studies have established that noise exposure impairs people’s abilities to perform complex tasks (tasks that require attention to detail or analytical processes), and it makes reading, paying attention, solving problems, and memorizing more difficult. Therefore, there are standards for classroom background noise levels and why offices and libraries are designed to provide quiet work environments. One societal change brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic is that many people now routinely work and learn from home, and this has given rise to more noise complaints from loud activities such as construction work.

Baseline Noise Levels are not Properly Established
The Categorical Exemption (CatEx) relies on short-term measurements of 15-minute duration (Appendix C Table 1). To conduct the CEQA analysis, the baseline must be established for evening, and possibly nighttime conditions. Without this data, it is not possible to evaluate the significance of noise sources operating during non-daytime hours.

Furthermore, the noise analysis relies on these short-term measurements without any discussion of how typical these data were for daytime conditions or how they would apply to evening or nighttime conditions. La Cienega Blvd. is a highly trafficked road and there's no evidence provided that the time selected for noise measurements is representative of rest of the day Environmental noise can vary widely throughout the day (perhaps +/-10 dBA or more for areas with intermittent local traffic) and relying on measurements that represent only 2% of the daytime hours (7 AM to 7 PM) leaves quite a lot for interpretation.

Significance Criteria are Improperly Established
Noise Criteria Lacking for Daytime Construction
A categorical exemption requires evaluation of whether “approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.” (CatEx p. 14). Appendix C establishes only the City’s Municipal Code Section 5-1-2052 as the threshold for significant noise exposure from the construction noise generated by the project, which limits construction activities to daytime hours Monday through Saturday, excluding holidays. Appendix C states “a less thansignificant noise impact would result from construction activities” because “the project would be built in compliance with the standard construction hours detailed in BHMC Section 5-1-205.” This document’s interpretation of this statute implies that there are no thresholds of significance for daytime construction noise, and any increase in noise is insignificant so long as the construction activities are conducted only during daytime hours. Hypothetically, under the logic of this document, there is no noise level – no matter how extreme – where daytime construction noise would be 2 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-5299#JD_5-1-205

WILSON IHRIG
55 N La Cienega
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 3 ends

considered an impact. CEQA as a law requires the project applicants to assess if there will be a substantial increase in ambient levels, which was not done for this project.

Other applicable standards do exist for daytime construction noise impacts, such as in Section 7.1 of the Federal Transit Administration’s Transit (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual3, which sets a daytime construction noise threshold at 80 dBA. Construction noise has the potential to reach this level. Table 2 in Appendix C details predicted construction noise levels. The levels at the adjacent single-family residences to the west are 86 dBA – a level over both the proposed short-term threshold and 27 decibels over the ambient levels presented in Table 1. Both would almost always be considered an impact. As such, mitigation should be considered as part of the project, such as a temporary sound wall. This measure, along with other mitigation measures, should be studied and noise levels presented with and without these measures and compared to a set threshold of significance to show mitigation is required, and reduces noise levels an appropriate amount. To completely ignore the level of the construction noise, either at an absolute level or as an increase over the ambient, does not adequately consider community impacts.

Noise Analysis Misinterprets Cited Threshold Documents.

Appendix C sets thresholds for construction vibration based on California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual.4 The analysis states “Based on the Caltrans criteria, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.5 in/sec PPV at residential and commercial structures, which is the limit for potential building damage at these structures.” It appears that this level is taken from Table 19 for Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria in the row for “Older residential structures.” Based on the age of single-family houses to the west of the project site, this appears to be the appropriate category to use.

However, there are two columns in Table 19, one for Transient Sources, and one for Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources. The Caltrans document states “transient sources create a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or drop balls. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.” Caltrans states that transient sources has a recommended threshold of 0.5 PPV while the threshold is 0.3 PPV for intermittent sources.

All of the vibration sources in Table 3 of Appendix C are more applicable for the intermittent threshold. Every listed piece of equipment -large bulldozer, hoe ram, small bulldozer, loaded trucks, drill rig, and a vibratory plate compactor- are not single isolated events. Transient sources are generally interpreted to be large, isolated events, such as blasting, one-off events that generate an extreme amount of vibration. All of the studied items in Appendix C will be used more than once, and almost consistently for the entire duration of time when the device is active. The vibratory compactor, studied in Appendix C, is explicitly called out as an Intermittent source in the Caltrans document.
3 https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf 4 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf

WILSON IHRIG
55 N La Cienega
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 4 ends

As such, the threshold for all locations should be 0.3 PPV. Based on Appendix C’s own analysis in Table 3, the following scenarios are over the construction vibration limit: large bulldozer, hoe ram, loaded trucks, and drill rig for residential buildings directly to the west and commercial buildings directly to the north and south, and the vibratory plate compactor for commercial buildings directly to the north and the south of the site. The analysis shows an impact, and as such should not qualify for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA.

Document Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts
Finally, operational noise from the project may represent long-term changes in the surrounding noise environment for nearby receptors. Appendix C adequately identifies 50 dBA as an operational threshold for the project. The current analysis uses 1 HVAC system with a sound power level of 76 dBA. This is calculated to have a resulting Leq at the project line of 39 dBA, 11 dBA under the impact threshold.

However, some of these assumptions may be optimistic. Usually there are multiple HVAC units on the roof of a large apartment complex. Two noise sources doubles the sound power, increasing the sound levels by 3 dBA5. Additionally, the sound power level of 76 dBA is a low estimate. This corresponds to a sound pressure level of 68 dBA at 3 feet. Some units can have a sound power level as high as 100 dBA. Using the same analysis, but with 2 rooftop units with a sound power level of 84 dBA exceeds the 50 dBA threshold. This is a more realistic scenario, the use of multiple fans at a more conservative source level. As such, the potential for an operational impact exists and thus a categorical exemption cannot be issued.

Conclusions
There are several errors and omissions in the noise analysis. Correcting these would potentially identify several significant impacts which require mitigation.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions on this information.

Very truly yours,

WILSON IHRIG
Jack Meighan
Associate
5 https://iosh.com/health-and-safety-professionals/improve-your-knowledge/occupational-healthtoolkit/noise/sound-levels-and-theirrelevance/#:~:text=The%203dB%20'trading%20effect'%20means,to%20hazardous%20level%20of%20noise.

EXHIBIT 2
July 3, 2023
Via Email
Mayor Julian A. Gold
Vice Mayor Lester Friedman
Councilmember John A. Mirisch
Councilmember Lili Bosse
Councilmember Sharona R. Nazarian

Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210

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 (“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 overturn 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

Page 2 of 4 ends

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 traffic, 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].

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

Page 4 of 4 ends

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,
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A

INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
1448 Pine Street, Suite 103 San Francisco, California 94109 Telephone: (415) 567-7700
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.iee-sf.com
Date: June 30, 2023
To: Adam Frankel
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 (IEE File Reference: P-4727)
Pages: 19
Indoor Air Quality Impacts
Indoor air quality (IAQ) directly impacts the comfort and health of building occupants, and the achievement of acceptable IAQ in newly constructed and renovated buildings is a well-recognized design objective. For example, IAQ 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 IAQ, 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, 2 of 19
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 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3 , assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3 , and 100%
absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3
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 µg/m3, 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 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 3 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 (CARB) 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 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 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 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 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.
4 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 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/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 µg/day.

This is 1.77 times the NSRL (OEHHA, 2017a) of 40 µg/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 µg/m3
, (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. 5 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 CARB Formaldehyde ATCM, provides analyses that show utilization of CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials will not ensure acceptable cancer risks with respect to formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products.

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.

The following describes a method that should be used, prior to construction in the environmental review under CEQA, 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 City’s CEQA 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.
6 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, (IAQ Zones). IAQ 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 IAQ 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 IAQ Zone of that type.

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 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 Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each 7 of 19
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ 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 furnishings 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 furnishings 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 furnishing 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., µg/m2 -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 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-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 furnishing 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 8 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://berkeleyanalytical.com), to measure the formaldehyde emission rate.

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

5.) Calculate the Indoor Formaldehyde Concentration. For each IAQ Zone, calculate the indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3) from Equation 1 by dividing the total formaldehyde emission rates (i.e. µg/h) as determined in Step 4, by the design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate (m3/h) for the IAQ Zone.

𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑄𝑄 (Equation 1)
where:

Cin = indoor formaldehyde concentration (µg/m3)
Etotal = total formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) into the IAQ Zone.

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 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). 9 of 19

6.) Calculate the Indoor Exposure Cancer and Non-Cancer Health Risks. For each IAQ 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 CEQA Cancer and/or Non-Cancer Health Risks. In each IAQ 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 IAQ 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 IAQ 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 10 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. 11 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.

PM2.5 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 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, 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.

12 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 Formaldehyde 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 OEHHA 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 13 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/ft2 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.

PM2.5 Outdoor Air Concentration Mitigation. Install air filtration with sufficient PM2.5 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 PM2.5 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 14 of 19
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA. https://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: www.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.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/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.
15 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. McIlvaine. 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.gov/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. California Air Resources Board and California 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 (12th International 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 I.S. 2020. Indoor Air Quality in California Homes with Code-Required Mechanical Ventilation. Indoor Air, Vol 30, Issue 5, 885-899.
16 of 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/airquality-analysis-handbook USGBC. 2014. LEED BD+C Homes v4. U.S. Green Building Council, Washington, D.C. http://www.usgbc.org/credits/homes/v4
17 of 19

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 µg/m3 (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 ft2 ), 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, California 18 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 m3
/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 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (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, 19 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.

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.

Alternatively, 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.

!"
#
$%%

&
'()

+",)
!"

)
*+
-
.../%/

.

/-
0123 4125678
9:1;<=3
036=>?8
@A<=B<7C
D3:E<F3G
H<6C71G><F
D3:E<F3G
I6J1:6>1:8
D3:E<F3G
K1:LG?15G
M
D32<76:G
NO53:>
K<>73GG
D3:E<F3G
P3G1A:F3G
Q3RG
M
NE37>G
N25=18237>
417>6F>
SG
NO53:>
K<>73GG
D3:E<F3G
T:67F<G
U@ABV
WX
Y;;3:2677
9N
4Z0
&

)

)
'*/
[
\
)

/

1;;3:2677]<33^G;XF12
NBAF6><17
_/
/
_
-

`
,)

)
'*/
a

"

"

*

&
"

`
,

%
'%

)
!
b,)
'*/
!/
/

_
-

c

&
,
-

")
d

,)
e/f/
9:1;3GG<176=
g;;<=<6><17G
*'a()
*(*)
*
(c*)
'
)
*
d_)

*+)
&*c_*)

`
a!'

K1:L
NO53:<37F3
_
/
$%%

&)
'()
-
hi
,

*+

-
)

-

"-

)

b-

"

/
(

)

*+
cj[

"
%
/ *

)
_
/
$%%

)

k",
\"

/
`

_
/
$%%
l
"

)

-

\
-

*+
"

-

/
(
-
"

)
*+

)

"

\"

"
%

*+/

I<><C6><17
NO53:<37F3
_
/
$%%

-
\
k"%

"

-
%

k",

\
-
%%

%
/
(
-
\

k",

)

"

\"

%
)

k",

-
-
.

m"
,

,

%

"

"
)
\"

)
"%%

)

"

%

)
%"

-

)

%

/
_
/
$%%

-
%

-

%

%

,

k",
"

["\

n,
,

/

o<3R
4A::<FA=A2
o<>63 U9HTV

'
,
-
i

\,
d

d
-

,/

September 12, 2023

Page 2 ends

a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,” meaning that the project would have “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.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A); see Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)(i)(II).

Once again, “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).

Even if the City identifies legally sufficient health and safety concerns about a project, it may only reject the project if “[t]here is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact . . . other than the disapproval of the housing development project . . . .” Gov.

Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B). Thus, before rejecting a project, the City must consider all reasonable measures that could be used to mitigate the impact at issue.

These provisions apply to the full range of housing types, including single-family homes, market-rate multifamily projects, and mixed-use developments. Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(2); see Honchariw v. Cty. of Stanislaus, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, 1074-76 (2011). And the Legislature has directed that the Act be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).

When a locality rejects or downsizes a housing development project without complying with the rules described above, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov.

Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).

The City is also prohibited from denying a project on the basis that (as is the case here) the project involves the development of fewer lower income housing units than anticipated in the City’s housing element. Gov Code § 65863(c)(2). However, because the project leaves the City unable to meet its lower income housing allocation, even under the City’s inadequate housing element, the City is required to make findings under the No Net Loss Law. Gov. Code § 65863(b).

In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce these rules:
 In Honchariw, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1066, the Court of Appeal vacated the County of Stanislaus’s denial of an application to subdivide a parcel into eight lots for the

Sep 12, 2023
City of Beverly Hills
Room 280A, 455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard By email:

Cc:

Dear Beverly Hills City Council:

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Commission of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed six-story, 105-unit residential building at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard, calendared as agenda item F-2.

I. The Housing Accountability Act and Density Bonus Law The Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5; the “HAA”) requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made.

The proposed development complies with local land use rules, including the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code land use designation. The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City must not reject the project, except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915; the “DBL”) offers the proposed development certain protections. The Council must respect these protections. Specifically, it must not deny the project the proposed concessions and waivers with respect to height limits, number of stories, and rear setbacks. 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local businesses, and it will reduce displacement of existing residents. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City Council to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

II. The City’s No-Net-Loss Obligations
The staff report, in attachment 6, explains the consequences of the proposed development for the City’s obligation, under the “no net loss law,” to maintain an adequate inventory of sites with zoning suitable for low-income housing. (Gov. Code § 65863, subd. (c)(2).) CalHDF agrees with staff’s assessment that the City must, following approval of the project, identify and rezone additional sites to accommodate the low-income unit shortfall. The City’s obligation to do this does not, however, override its duty under the HAA to approve the project: it must do both.
⧫⧫⧫
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
Courtney Welch
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigation
2 of 2

Beverly Hills City CouncilSeptember 12, 2023

Beverly Hills City Council
September 12, 2023