Item F-1 Agenda Report — Beverly Hills City Council, November 7, 2023 (part 2 of 5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Project Density Calculation.

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

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

Page 13 of 26 ends

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

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

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

Incentives and Concessions.

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

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

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

Page 14 of 26 ends

• Building Height9
BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the maximum allowable height for development proposed in the City’s MU Overlay Zone. The project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum allowable height of 45’. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow additional height (21’-6”) for a total maximum building height of 66’-6”.

• Number of Stories9
BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the maximum number of stories allowed for development proposed in the City’s MU Overlay Zone. The project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum of three (3) stories. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow an additional three stories, to include the fourth and fifth story of the project, as well as the proposed 450 SF of rooftop restrooms, which is counted as a sixth story to the building in the BHMC.10

• Rear Setbacks
BHMC §10-3-1952.B. establishes the required setbacks for development of projects located in the City’s Commercial-Residential Transition Area. Pursuant to this section, a 20’-0” rear setback is required for the portion of a building over two stories/30’-0” in height. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow for a reduction in the required rear setback on the third and fourth floor of the project to allow for the balconies proposed for the units on these floors to encroach 4’-0” into the required setback area. The proposal would reduce the required setback on the third and fourth floors from 20’-0” to 16’-0”.

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

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

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

Page 15 of 26 ends

key objectives to guide future development within the overlay zone. As proposed, the project appears to meet following objectives of the MU Overlay Zone:

• Expanding the options and opportunities for certain commercial property owners and developers by allowing for combinations of commercial uses, and multi-family residential uses subject to specific standards, rules and procedures.

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

The project would provide 18,986 SF of new commercial uses on the ground floor that would serve the proposed residential uses on the property and properties in the vicinity of the project site. A residential portion of the project would provide a total of 105 new dwelling units, 11 units of which will be reserved for rental to very low-income households. In all, the project provides a combination of commercial and multi-family uses at the project site in designed in compliance with the applicable development standards in the MU Overlay Zone and state density bonus law.

• Creating the potential for more intensive development in certain neighborhoods, while maintaining realistic buffers between commercial and residential zones to ensure there is harmonious development in the area.

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

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

Page 16 of 26 ends

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

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

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

The project would provide 18,986 SF of new commercial uses on the ground floor that would serve the proposed residential uses on the property and properties in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed ground floor commercial uses consisting of retail and restaurant uses with open air dining areas on private property would serve the proposed residential units on the project site and other residents and workers located in the vicinity of the project. The project’s ground floor commercial uses retain the project site’s contribution to the City’s commercial tax base. The project’s pedestrian accessible ground floor commercial also retains the streetscape character of pedestrian-oriented activity along La Cienega Boulevard.

• Concentrating new housing and amenities near existing and anticipated transportation nodes and stations to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to automobile travel.

The project would provide 105 new dwelling units located in close proximity to existing and proposed public transit stops. The project would be served by existing Metro bus lines that travel along Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard and would also be served by the future Metro Purple (D Line) station currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard, which is located approximately 130 feet (0.02 miles) from the project site. The location of the project and its proximity to public transportation may encourage the use of alternative modes of transposition to automobile travel.

• Allowing projects that are appropriately designed to achieve the desired neighborhood character, while providing development standards to minimize impacts of commercial uses to adjacent residential zones, and to encourage symbiotic uses.

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

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

Page 17 of 26 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 18 of 26 ends

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to a report prepared by the City’s environmental consultant, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines for in-fill development projects, which states that a Class 32 Categorical Exemption is allowed when:

a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

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

Page 19 of 26 ends

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

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

Additionally, the City does not have a locally adopted objective development standard for purposes of determining shade and shadow impacts. Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code §65589(j)(1) the City cannot disapprove the project or impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, unless the City bases its decision upon written findings supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

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

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

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

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

Page 20 of 26 ends

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

City Commercial Parking Requirements: The standard parking requirements set forth in the BHMC for commercial uses are provided for comparison purposes as, pursuant to AB 2097, these standards are not applicable to this project:

• Retail Uses: One parking space for every 350 SF of floor area. • Restaurant Uses: One parking space for every 350 SF of floor area for the first 3,000 SF of floor area, with any additional floor area over 3,000 SF subject to a parking ratio of one parking space for every 100 SF of floor area.
• At the noted BHMC parking ratios, the project would be required to provide 96 parking spaces for the approximate 18,986 SF proposed ground floor commercial uses (Table 3).

Table 3: Combined Commercial / Residential Parking Summary BHMC
Commercial
Parking Required
State Density
Bonus
Parking
Requirement
AB 2097
Parking
Requirement
Proposed Parking
Commercial
Uses 96 spaces --- 0
130 spaces
(1st: 2 / P1: 64 / P2: 64)
Residential
Uses --- 53 spaces 0
66 spaces
(P3: 66)
Total 149 spaces 0 196 spaces

State Density Bonus Residential Parking Requirements: Although the project is not required to provide residential parking pursuant to AB 2097, the applicant has proposed residential parking consistent with the parking requirements set forth in the state’s Density Bonus regulations (California Government Code §65915(p)(2)(A)). As designed, the applicant is proposing residential parking at a half a parking space per dwelling unit (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking). Under these standards, the proposed 105 dwelling units would require 53 parking spaces.

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

The proposal is for the parking for the units to be unbundled, where tenants desiring parking would be able to add parking as part of their lease for an added cost. Once a tenant adds parking as part of their lease, then a specific parking space would be assigned to that unit

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

Page 21 of 26 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 22 of 26 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 23 of 26 ends

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

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

Development Plan Review.

Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3104, the Planning Commission’s review of a Development Plan Review application is based on the following findings:

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

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

Additionally, the proposed height and density of the proposed project are based on the approved base heights and densities of the BHMC, taking into account concessions pursuant to state density bonus law which would render certain standards inapplicable to this project. Additional General Plan goals and policies for the Commission to consider are provided on Page 9 of this report.

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

As of the preparation of this report, there are no active requests for discretionary planning approval of new commercial, multi-family, or single-family residences within 500’ of the project site. Additionally, the project would be required to submit a construction management during plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planned construction of the Metro Purple (D Line) station on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Las Cienega Boulevard.

The proposed project would intensify development on the project site and it may result in changes visible to the streetscape that may appear out of character with the existing commercial area, due to the proposed increase in height and reduced setbacks;

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

Page 24 of 26 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 25 of 26 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

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

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

Page 26 of 26 ends

moderate income category. Moreover, the proposed project complies with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements by providing 11 affordable housing units for rent to very low income households.

State Housing Laws.

Certain aspects of state density bonus law are a state mandate, meaning that an applicant is entitled to take advantage of the benefits afforded by that law and the City has limited ability to deny the request. For example, the developer is entitled to the additional density and incentives/concessions and waivers because it is a density bonus project.

Pursuant to Government Code §65905.5.(a)13, the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. In order to retain sufficient public hearings for Architectural Review and any potential City Council review, it is recommended that the Planning Commission complete their review of this project in two meetings or less. Finally, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the City’s ability to deny a housing development project is constrained, and to do so specific findings would need to be made. Pursuant to the HAA, only objective standards can be the basis for project denial, although there is some authority to impose conditions on a project to further compliance with subjective standards, provided that the conditions don’t have the effect of reducing density or making the project infeasible.

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Review and Density Bonus Permit for the proposed mixed-use development project at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:

1. Approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions of approval.

2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings.

3. Direct staff or Applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines.

Report Reviewed By:

Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner
13 As amended by Senate Bill (SB) 330 – The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 Planning Commission Staff Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

ATTACHMENT A
Required Findings
OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Approval of the requested Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit require the following findings to be made by the Planning Commission. 10-3-3104: STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS:

Except as provided in this section for development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the reviewing authority shall approve a development plan review application only if it makes all of the following findings:

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

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

For those proposed plans to be located in the C-5 Zone that are reviewed by the Planning Commission, the commission shall consider the factors set forth in section 10-3-2021 of this chapter as part of the commission's determination regarding whether a project will promote harmonious development of the area.

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

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

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

In approving a development plan application, the reviewing authority may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.

With regard to development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and to be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the review of the Director shall be ministerial and limited to whether such building conforms to the requirements of the C-5 Zone. (Ord. 11-O-2615, eff. 12-16-2011) (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. (2) The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions:
(A) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least IO percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 5 percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(B) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(C) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(D) Four incentives or concessions for a project meeting the criteria of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet.
(E) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development. (3) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court The following findings do not need to be made by the Commission in order to approve the Project. Rather, they are provided to the Commission for information purposes and the Commission would be required to make such findings in order to deny the requested incentives/concessions associated with the project.

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65915
( d) (1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c ). (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) ofsubdivision (d) ofSection 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register ofHistorical Resources and for which there is nofeasiblemethod to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.
finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be inte1preted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be inte1preted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for canying out this section that shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section.
( 4) The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.I
Planning Commission Staff Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

ATTACHMENT B
Draft Resolution

OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND
DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A NEW SIXSTORY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USES, 105 RESIDENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS ON THE SECOND THROUGH FIFTH

STORIES, AND ROOFTOP RESTROOMS ON THE SIXTH
STORY AT 55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD
(PL2200289)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Abraham Assil, on behalf of 55 Del Norte, LLC, (collectively the “Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit to allow the construction of a new six-story, mixed use building with ground floor commercial uses, 105 multi-family residential dwelling units above the ground floor, and rooftoprestrooms with an overall height of (66’-6”, and a Density Bonus Permit to allow for a 50% density bonus in addition to certain incentives/concessions from development standards to provide 11 affordable housing units (the “Project”). Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §§10- 3-3100.A and 10-3-1524, a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit are required to construct the new multi-family residential building.

On the third and fourth floors of the Project, the applicant is proposing balconies that Project 4’- 0” from the rear face of the building and setback 16’-0” from the rear property line. Common outdoor living space for the residential uses would be provided on the rooftop of the building, along with amenities consisting of a pool, spa, rooftop restrooms, trellis shade structures, and landscaping to assist in screening the neighboring single-family residential uses to the west, along North Le Doux Road from the outdoor living area. Additional common and private outdoor living areas are provided within balconies located on the second floor of the Project. The new mixed-use building is proposed at a maximum height of 66’-6”, which includes the six-story portion of the building housing the commercial and residential uses at a height of 57’-0”, along with approximately 450 SF of rooftop bathroom areas on the north and south sides of the building with 3 a height of 9’-6”. Parking for the commercial and residential uses would be provided within a three-level subterranean parking structure that would be accessed by two new-driveways located along North La Cienega Boulevard, providing access to a total of 196 parking spaces. Parking for the commercial portion of the Project would be located on the ground floor, as well as on levels P1 and P2 of the subterranean parking garage. Parking for the residential portion of the Project is provided on level P3. Of the 196 parking spaces proposed, 130 spaces will be allocated for the commercial portion of the Project and 66 parking spaces will be allocated to the residential portion.

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

Discretionary development plan review approval from the Planning Commission is required for the construction of the new building, and the requested density bonus permit.

The Project also includes the following components as it pertains to density bonus laws:

Density Bonus: State density bonus standards allow for a certain percentage increase in density, which is based on the proportion of units of the site’s base density (i.e., the maximum number of units allowed under General Plan and Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) density standards without the inclusion of bonus units) that are designated as affordable housing units. In the case of the Project, the number of base units that may be built under the City’s General Plan and BHMC is 70 units and the number of affordable housing units proposed are 11 units (very low income), resulting in an overall affordable unit percentage of 15.7%. The density bonus standards state that whenever 15% or more of a project’s base density is designated as affordable to very low-income households, a 50% increase in density shall be provided and all density calculations are required to be 4 rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, approval of the Density Bonus Permit, with the inclusion of 11 affordable housing units, will allow for a maximum density of 105 units.

Separately, an Applicant may also request waivers from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Concessions and waives must be granted unless such a request would cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or would be contrary to any state or federal laws. Waivers do not count as a concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted provided each would preclude development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Accordingly, the incentives/concessions and waivers requested by the Applicant are as follows:

Concessions:

1. Building Height: BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the maximum allowable height for development proposed in the City’s MU Overlay Zone. The Project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum allowable height of 5 45’. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow additional height (21’- 6”) for a total maximum building height of 66’-6”.

2. Number of Stories: BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the maximum number of stories allowed for development proposed in the City’s MU Overlay Zone. The Project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum of three (3) stories. The Applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow an additional three stories, inclusive of the 450 SF of rooftop restrooms, which are considered the sixth story to the building pursuant to the height provisions of the BHMC.

3. Rear Setbacks: BHMC §10-3-1952.B. establishes the required setbacks for development of projects located in the City’s Commercial-Residential Transition Area.

Pursuant to this section, a 20’-0” rear setback is required for the portion of a building over two stories/30’-0” in height. The applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow for a reduction in the required rear setback on the third and fourth floors of the Project to allow for the balconies proposed for the units on these floors to encroach 4’-0” into the required setback area. The proposal would reduce the required setback on the third and fourth floors from 20’-0” to 16’-0”.

Waivers: None
Alternative Parking Standards: Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which became effective on January 1, 2023, prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on certain residential, commercial, or other development projects that are located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The project site is located within ½-mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station, which is currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega 6 Boulevard. Prior to this change in state law, this project would have been required to provide a total 149 parking spaces. Although pursuant to AB 2097, no parking could be required for this project the applicant is proposing to provide 196 parking spaces. The applicant has designed the Project to provide parking for the ground floor commercial uses on levels P1 and P2 of the subterranean parking garage, with a total of 149 parking provided for commercial uses. Parking for the residential portion of the project would be provided exclusively on level P3, with 66 parking spaces provided on this level that would be only accessible to residents of the building. Only residents of the building will have key card access to an entry and exit gate located on level P2 to access the residential parking on level P3. The applicant anticipates there would be tenants of the building that would choose to not have an automobile due to existing and future available public transit. As such, the applicant proposes to have residential parking available on a first-come first-served basis to tenants requesting a parking space as part of their lease. Once a tenant adds parking as part of their lease, then a specific parking space would be assigned to that unit within the P3 parking level. The parking spaces would be made available on equal terms to all tenants, regardless of income level, and subject to availability.

Section 3. This Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Class 32 Exemption report prepared for the Project, and based on that analysis finds that the request is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.

A Class 32 Categorical Exemption is applicable to the construction of in-fill development projects. 7 Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds the Project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on June 2, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, extended to the block face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on June 2, 2023. On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing.

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

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

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

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

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

5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
8 Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit:

1. The Project, as authorized by the State Density Bonus Statute, meets all applicable zoning requirements and has been determined to be consistent with the applicable requirements and guidance of the General Plan for mixed use development located within the MU, Mixed Use Development Overlay Zone and the C-3, Commercial Zone. Additionally, the Project’s height and density are based on the allowable heights and densities of the General Plan, Beverly Hills Municipal Code, and deviations as permitted under State Density Bonus Statute. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Furthermore, the Project is not located within any specific plans adopted for the area.

2. There are no active requests for discretionary planning approval of new commercial, multi-family, or single-family residences within 500’ of the Project site.

Additionally, the Project would be required to submit a construction management plan during building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planning improvements to the construction of the Metro Purple (D Line) station on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. The proposed Project would intensify development on the Project site and it may result in changes visible to the streetscape that may appear out of character with the existing commercial area, due to the proposed increase in height and reduced setbacks; however, it is unlikely to inhibit the future development of nearby properties. As future development within the City’s mixed use overlay area occurs, it is likely that, over time, new developments that are proposed in the mixed use overlay zone would include designs that are similar in scale and mass to the proposed Project. The proposed Project is also not expected to exhibit any long-lasting 9 impacts on existing nearby development because it is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and standards and because existing development to the south of the Project site is larger in scale than the proposed Project, with a nine- and an 11-story building developed on properties located on the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. Existing commercial development directly adjacent to the north, south, and west of the Project site consists of three-story commercial buildings with an approximately height of 45’. As such, the Project, as conditioned, will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

3. The proposed mixed use Project provides commercial uses exclusively on the ground floor of the Project. The upper stories of the Project would be occupied by multi-family residential uses and not commercial uses. The commercial portion of the Project is not designed with any publicly accessible openings to the rear or sides of the property to avoid any potential to cause noise or privacy impacts to neighboring singlefamily residential properties to the rear along North Le Doux Road. The commercial uses are designed to be oriented toward North La Cienega Boulevard. Additionally, all vehicular and loading access would occur from North La Cienega Boulevard, with vehicular access area not open or visible to adjacent commercial or residential properties to the north, south, or west. As such, the nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of the commercial portion of the development proposed would not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
10 4. As provided in Section 3.4 (Page 14) in the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report (Attachment I of the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission staff report), the proposed project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) due to the proximity to the Metro Purple (D Line) station on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. Additionally, while not required for CEQA, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the project to evaluate level of service (LOS) impacts during peak hours at signalized intersections (Appendix B of Attachment I of the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission staff report). The intersections evaluated as part of this study were located at: 1) La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard; 2) La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard; and, 3) La Cienega Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard. The LTA determined that the increases in intersection delays at the study intersections would be relatively small (0.0 to 1.1 seconds) and that the project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. The minor increases in delay at the study intersections fall below the thresholds established by the City for identifying potential adverse conditions at locations operating at LOS D or worse, so no improvements would be required at the study intersections as a result of the project. Pedestrian and vehicle access to the project site would continue to be provided by North La Cienega Boulevard. The project would include the construction of new driveway aprons in compliance with City’s driveway standards to improve ingress and egress to the project site. As detailed in the LTA, no improvements to the existing roadway would be required as a result of the project and the project would not alter the existing traffic patterns along the North La Cienega Boulevard roadway. As such, 11 no design changes would be introduced that would introduce sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible on-site uses. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not create new obstructions to emergency access in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard.

5. The Project site is located within a Commercial-Residential Transition Area. Therefore, the Project must be consistent with regulations that require the implementation of certain design features, which include: a setback from residential properties, construction of site walls, and installation of landscaping to provide a buffer between the project and the adjacent single-family residential properties to the west. The proposed rooftop area is setback from the edge or the roof and landscaped to provide visual screening to obscure views from the rooftop into the adjacent single family residential area and minimize privacy impacts on the residential properties to the west. Additionally, as conditioned, the project incorporates measures to minimize noise and operational impacts associated with commercial uses located in proximity to residential uses. As such, the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Section 7. In evaluating the Project, the Planning Commission considered whether the Project meets the following objectives of the Mixed Use Overlay Zone, pursuant to Section 10-3-1872 of the BHMC, as detailed below:

1. Expanding the options and opportunities for certain commercial property owners and developers by allowing for combinations of commercial uses, and multi-family residential uses subject to specific standards, rules and procedures. 12 2. Creating the potential for more intensive development in certain neighborhoods, while maintaining realistic buffers between commercial and residential zones to ensure there is harmonious development in the area.

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

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

5. Concentrating new housing and amenities near existing and anticipated transportation nodes and stations to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to automobile travel.

6. Allowing projects that are appropriately designed to achieve the desired neighborhood character, while providing development standards to minimize impacts of commercial uses to adjacent residential zones, and to encourage symbiotic uses.

Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the objectives of the Mixed Use Overlay Zone:

1. The proposed project seeks to redevelop an existing vacant and underutilized commercial property for new mixed use development that includes pedestrian-serving retail and restaurant uses, as well as new multi-family residential rental housing stock. The project would provide 18,986 SF of new commercial uses on the ground floor that would serve the proposed residential uses on the property and properties in the vicinity of the project site. A residential portion of the project would provide a total of 105 new dwelling units, 11 units of which will be reserved for rental to very low-income 13 households. In all, the project provides a combination of commercial and multi-family uses at the project site in designed in compliance with the applicable development standards in the MU Overlay Zone and state density bonus law.

2. The proposed project is designed to provide for more intensive development on an existing commercial corridor known as the city’s “Restaurant Row”. The project would replace an existing one-story, 13,500 SF vacant commercial building formerly used as a restaurant, with a mix of neighborhood servicing retail, market, and restaurant uses on the ground floor facing North La Cienega Boulevard. Approximately, 18,986 SF of new commercial floor area would be provided on the first floor, with 105 new dwelling units provided on the second through fifth floors of the project. The project is designed with varying building setbacks at the rear of the property that would provide a buffer between the existing single-family residential uses located to the west of the project site and the project’s proposed commercial and residential uses. At the rear, a 10’-0” rear setback is provided on the first two floors of the building, with the setback increasing to 20’-0” to the building face on the third to fifth floors. On the third and fourth floors of the project, the applicant is proposing balconies that project 4’-0” from the rear face of the building and would provide a 16’-0” setback from the rear property line. The rear yard would be planted with various species of landscaping material proposed at varied maximum heights between 8’ and 30’ tall. When mature, the proposed landscaping would contribute to providing privacy for the neighboring residential properties. Lastly, a new 6’-0” tall block wall is also proposed at the rear of the project site that would provide additional screening between properties.
14 3. The project promotes the expansion of housing options for diverse socioeconomic populations in the city by providing 105 new dwelling units, with 94 units proposed as market-rate rental housing and 11 dwelling units reserved for rental to very low-income households. The location of the project and its proximity to public transportation may encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to automobile travel.

4. The project would provide 18,986 SF of new commercial uses on the ground floor that would serve the proposed residential uses on the property and properties in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed ground floor commercial uses consisting of retail and restaurant uses with open air dining areas on private property would serve the proposed residential units on the project site and other residents and workers located in the vicinity of the project. The project’s ground floor commercial uses retain the project site’s contribution to the City’s commercial tax base. The project’s pedestrian accessible ground floor commercial also retains the streetscape character of pedestrian-oriented activity along La Cienega Boulevard.

5. The project would provide 105 new dwelling units located in close proximity to existing and proposed public transit stops. The project would be served by existing Metro bus lines that travel along Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard and would also be served by the future Metro Purple (D Line) station currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard, which is located approximately 130 feet (0.02 miles) from the project site. The location of the project and its proximity to public transportation may encourage the use of alternative modes of transposition to automobile travel.
15 6. The proposed project would provide a mix of new pedestrian-serving commercial uses and new multi-family residential uses that are design to meet the desired character and purpose of the MU Overlay zone by providing for mixed use development to encourage vibrant, walkable neighborhoods, increase the availability of housing, and preserving the vitality of existing commercial corridors. The project would introduce new retail, market, and restaurant uses that would serve nearby commercial and residential uses near the vicinity of the project, as well the future residential tenants of the proposed 105 dwelling units in the development. The project is designed in compliance with the applicable development standards in the MU Overlay Zone and state density bonus law and is designed to provided landscaped building setbacks at the rear of the project site to provide a buffer between the neighboring residential properties to the west of the project site.

Section 9. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit associated with the construction the new six-story mixed use development Project with ground floor commercial uses, 105 dwelling units, and rooftop bathrooms at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:

Project-Specific Conditions

1. The Planning Commission hereby approves the requested concessions for building height, number of stories, and rear setback requirements. The total height shall not exceed 66’-6”, inclusive of the rooftop restrooms. The number of stories shall not exceed six stories, inclusive of the rooftop restrooms; no residential units shall be located above the fifth story. The rear setback shall be 20’-0” on all floors of the building, as 16 measured from the rear property line to the face of the building. However, the proposed balconies located on the third and fourth of the rear of the building shall per permitted to encroach a maximum of 4’-0” into the required 20’-0” setback. In no event shall the balconies on the third and fourth floor maintain less than a 16’-0” rear yard setback, as measured from the rear property line to the nearest edge of the balcony.

2. This approval is for those plans submitted to the Planning Commission on June 22, 2023, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.

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

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

Compliance with all applicable Municipal Codes is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Further, the Project shall comply with all prerequisites to the issuance of a demolition permit as set forth in the Municipal Code and these conditions of approval before any such demolition permit shall be issued.

5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials, and finish of the building and landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval by the Architectural Commission.
17 6. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or his/her designee for a consistency determination with the original approval.

7. The Project shall be operated as a rental property and shall maintain a minimum of eleven (11) one-bedroom dwelling units designated for occupancy by very low-income households. The City of Beverly Hills or its designee shall be responsible for administering these units. Affordability of these units by said households shall be guaranteed for a minimum of 55 years and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for a minimum of 55 years in accordance with Cal. Govt. Code Section 65915 or its successor statute.

8. The Applicant shall record covenants and/or deed restrictions as determined by the City Attorney to ensure that the rental price of the affordable housing units does not exceed an amount determined to be affordable to very low-income households. Very lowincome households are defined in Cal. Govt. Code Section 50079.5 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development provides a process for determining affordable housing costs. The covenants and/or restrictions on the affordable housing shall be in effect for a period of not less than 55 years.

9. An inclusionary housing agreement which includes provisions and terms for meeting the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements shall be approved by the city manager and city attorney, and recorded as a deed restriction against the property prior to issuance of either a grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 18 10. The occupants of the affordable housing units within the Project shall have the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and amenities, including parking, as the occupants of the market-rate housing units and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor. Further, the affordable housing unit shall have the same number and type of appliances as the non-affordable housing units, which shall include, at a minimum, one (1) refrigerator, one (1) washer, and one (1) dryer.

11. To mitigate potential noise impacts to neighboring residents, use of the roof deck areas shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., daily, and signage indicating such restrictions shall be installed on the rooftop.

12. Amplified music and voices shall be prohibited on the rooftop.

13. Lighting on the Project site, including rooftop areas, shall comply at all times with the Beverly Hills Municipal Code’s restrictions on lighting of premises.

15. All parking stalls on subterranean parking level P3 shall be reserved for use for parking for the residential portion of the Project. This parking area shall only be accessible to residents of the building and their authorized guests.

16. The Project shall operate at all times in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of light, noise, activities, parking, or other actions.
19 17. The Project shall operate at all times in compliance with Municipal Code requirements for Noise Regulation.

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

19. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the Community Development Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public 20 right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.

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

21. The Applicant shall provide electric vehicle charging stations for the commercial and residential parking areas, including electric vehicle charging stations for required handicap accessible parking spaces, as required by all applicable California Green Building Code requirements.

Construction-Related Conditions

22. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid.

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

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

25. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or his/her designee) is first obtained. 21 26. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by the Director of Public Works (or his/her designee), and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Development.

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

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

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

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

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

32. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system through the existing connections available to the subject site, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee. The costs of any 22 upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

33. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s water system through the existing water service connection unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter installation will also require approval from the City Engineer. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

34. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline.

35. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards, and shall be paid for by the applicant. No privately-owned structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

Standard Conditions

36. APPEAL. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk’s office.

An appeal fee is required.

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

38. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit: The exercise of rights granted in such approvals shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date of approval of this resolution, as provided for in BHMC §10-3-207.A., unless otherwise extended.

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

40. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. 24 Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.

Adopted: June 22, 2023
Myra Demeter, Ph.D.

Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:

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

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

Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner
Planning Commission Staff Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

ATTACHMENT C
Public Notices
OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Front Renderings
Source: Reed Architectural Group, Inc.

-
2-
•
•
•
•
•
•
- 3 -
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-1126 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired.

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

ATTACHMENT D
Voluntary Neighborhood Meeting Notice

OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

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

ATTACHMENT E
Public Correspondence
OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
From: Cindy Gordon
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Fw: 55 N la cienega project
Date: Monday, June 5, 2023 5:34:42 AM
From: shahryar manavi < >
Sent: Sunday, June 4, 2023 11:25 PM
To: CommentPC <[email protected]>
Cc: sherol manavi < >
Subject: 55 N la cienega project
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello, I live on N Le Doux Rd. i am adjacent to 55 La Cienega project. I would like standard building codes for La Cienega Blvd to be enforced and allowed. If the buildings on that block of La Cienega are suppose to be 3 floors high, then I would like the city council to ask the developer to not build over 3 floors. A taller building than what is allowed by standard city code for that street will affect my enjoyment of my house. There will be worst air quality during the building phase if the developer is allowed to build higher than what is standard for that street. Also, my privacy will be adversely affected since more people on 55 N La Cienega will be overlooking on my house because the developer build extra floors.

Thank you,
Shahryar Shawn Manavi
From: Adrianne Tarazon
To: Edgar Arroyo
Cc: Karen Myron
Subject: FW: Project: 55 N. La Cienega/ Urgent response! Date: Monday, June 12, 2023 4:48:50 PM
Hi Edgar,
Please see email received for Council below and please include as public comment for the Planning Commission hearing.

Thank you,
Adrianne Rosas
Executive Assistant to the City Council
City of Beverly Hills
Phone: (310) 285-1013 | Email: [email protected] www.beverlyhills.org
From: Ryan Gohlich <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 3:02 PM
To: Adrianne Tarazon <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: ྃ Project: 55 N. La Cienega/ Urgent response! Do you know if Edgar Arroyo received it? If not, please send to him so he can include it as public comment for the PC hearing. Thanks.

From: Mitra Shoaee < >
Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2023 10:54 PM
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL <[email protected]> Subject:ྃ Project: 55 N. La Cienega/ Urgent response!
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
*Attention: Mayor and City Council
Hello Edgar,
We have become aware of 55 N. La Cienega project via
your letter. Please convey our extreme opposition to this project to the Planning Committee.

The owner of this project needs to realize that this large residential apartment building will bring more people,
more traffic and more potential crime in our
neighborhood.

In addition, this five-story building will completely block our view of the nature and the city beyond. We have
already been surrounded by irresponsible construction of tall buildings around N. Hamilton Dr. The City of Beverly Hills literally destroyed any green land or nature around our neighborhood for the sake of construction of these
very tall buildings.

Please bear in mind that this project will negatively affect the value of our properties as we will be surrounded with tall and unsightly buildings.

We must stop the temptation of construction of tall and multi- family constructions in our immediate vicinity.

This neighborhood does not have any capacity to expand.

It has already reached its limit in terms of tall building construction.

As homeowners who care about our neighborhood and the
value of our properties, we are asking you to seriously oppose the construction of this project.

Please bear in mind that we are already fed up with
Metro's construction activities.
55 N. La Cienega must remain a one-story building in that commercial zoning. We will no longer tolerate any
construction noise, dust, destruction of our view,
tremendously increased traffic and an increase in
potential crime.

There is not a single positive contribution of this project to our neighborhood. As such, we are vehemently opposing
this project.

Best regards,
Mitra Yadegari
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dan Yadegari
To: Edgar Arroyo
Cc: Mitra Shoaee
Subject: 55 N. La Cienega Blvd.

Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 10:09:06 AM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello Edgar,
Please see the attached files for your review.

Sincerely,

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

ATTACHMENT F
State Statutes
OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
State Statues – California Government Code
California Government Code §65589(j)(1): When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

California Government Code §65915(d)(4): The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.

California Government Code §65915(e)(1): In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.

California Government Code §65915(f)(2): For the purposes of this chapter, “density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density as of the date of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and county, or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density. The amount of density increase to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in subdivision (b).
(2) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:

Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
California Government Code §65915(k): For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).

California Government Code §65915(p)(1): Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivisions (b) and (c), that exceeds the following ratios:
(A) Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
(B) Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half onsite parking spaces. (C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.

California Government Code §65915(p)(2): Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes at least 20 percent low-income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) or at least 11 percent very low income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes at least 40 percent moderate-income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), is located within onehalf mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom.

California Government Code §65915(q): Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. The Legislature finds and declares that this provision is declaratory of existing law.

Section 65863.2 is added to the Government Code, to read: (a) (1) In a county with a population of 600,000 or more, a public agency shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforce a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the parcel is located within one-half mile of public transit. A development shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the development have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the development are farther than one-half mile from the stop.
(2) In a county with a population of less than 600,000:
(A) In a city with a population of 75,000 or more, a public agency shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforce a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the project is located within one-quarter mile of public transit. A development shall be considered to be within one-quarter mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the development have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-quarter mile from the stop and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the development are farther than one-quarter mile from the stop. (B) A city with a population of less than 75,000, or a county with a population of less than 600,000, may adopt an ordinance or resolution that applies the prohibitions of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) or paragraph (1) within its boundaries. This authority is in addition to any other authority provided by law for a city or county to reduce automobile parking requirements within its jurisdiction.
(b) When a project provides parking voluntarily, a public agency may impose requirements on that voluntary parking to require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public, or require parking owners to charge for parking. (c) Subdivision (a) shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply. (d) (1) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2022, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. This subdivision shall apply to an existing contractual agreement that is amended after January 1, 2022, provided that the amendments do not increase commercial parking requirements. (2) A project may voluntarily build additional parking that is not shared with the public. (e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Public agency” means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision. (2) “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, except that it also includes a major transit stop that is included in an applicable regional transportation plan.
(f) The Legislature finds and declares that reducing the negative environmental and social effects associated with required parking minimums; the provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state; and the need to support infill development, are matters of statewide concern and are not municipal affairs as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

State Statues – Public Resource Code
Public Resource Source Code §21099(a)(7): “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.

Public Resource Code §21099(d)(1): Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Public Resources Code §21155: (a) This chapter applies only to a transit priority project that is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, a transit priority project shall (1) contain at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage and, if the project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75; (2) provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; and (3) be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.

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

ATTACHMENT G
Applicant’s Project Narrative

OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Hayden Planning
10100 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90232 Ph. 310-614-2964 1 ATTACHMENT “A” - Updated

DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION
55 N. LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Street Address: 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Legal Description: Lots 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, and 323, Tract 4988 Assessor’s Parcel Number: 4334-018-0588
Lot Area: Approximately 38,500 square feet / 0.88 acres

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
New construction, use, and maintenance of a 5-story plus mezzanine, approximate 66- foot, 6-inch in height, approximate 116,273-square foot mixed use building (the project), with 105 total units (71 one-bedroom / 31 one-bedroom lofts / 3 studio), including 11 units (15%) set aside as affordable housing for Very Low Income (VLI) households, with three levels of subterranean parking providing 196 on-site vehicular parking spaces (66 residential, 92 commercial, 38 surplus). Existing site improvements and landscaping to be removed / replaced.

ENTITLEMENT REQUESTS
Development Plan Review
Density Bonus for a project setting aside 15% (11 units) for VLI households as follows:
 A 50% increase in density.
 Reduced parking of 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
o Incentive 1 – Height: Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3- 1880.C. Allow an increase in height limit from 45 feet to 66-feet, 6-inches.

Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
2 o Incentive 2 – Stories: BHMC Section 10-3-1880.C. Allow an increase in the number of stories from 3 stories to 5 stories plus a mezzanine (the rooftop bathrooms will be located at the 5th story).
o Incentive 3 – Balcony Encroachment: BHMC Section 10-3-1952.B.3. To permit balconies above the 2nd floor to project 4 feet into the required 20- foot rear yard setback.

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

The subject property is located in the City’s C-3 Commercial Zone and MU Mixed Use Overly Zone. The proposed mixed use project with 105 units (71 onebedroom / 31 one-bedroom lofts / 3 studio), including 11 units (15%) set aside as affordable housing for Very Low Income (VLI) households, over approximately 18,479 square feet of ground floor neighborhood serving uses is consistent with the property’s planning and zoning. The property is also within the City’s Commercial-Residential Transition Area and the mixed use development is appropriate in this location. The redevelopment of the subject property with new housing, including affordable units, and ground floor uses will meet the City’s housing and service needs. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

B. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area. For those proposed plans to be located in the C-5 Zone that are reviewed by the Planning Commission, the commission shall consider the factors set forth in section 10-3-2021 of this chapter as part of the commission's determination regarding whether a project will promote harmonious development of the area.

The property is located along a commercial street and major thoroughfare within the City. The site is served by transit and in proximity to other services, businesses, and amenities for future residents and is well situated. The development will comply with all applicable development requirements and regulations, including the City’s Density Bonus program, and will be compatibility with the surrounding area. The project will provide new housing to the Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
3 community, including 11 units set aside for VLI households. Thus, the proposed project will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

The proposed project, as eligible through the City’s Density Bonus program, will comply with all applicable development regulations and requirements. The project has been designed for optimal building orientation, lot coverage, massing, parking, and other required improvements for a mixed use project. The proposed configuration for this new project (including height, bulk, and setbacks), off-street parking, loading, lighting, landscaping, trash collection, and other such pertinent improvements, will be consistent with the property’s zoning. The project will also be compatible with existing and future development on neighboring properties along La Cienega Boulevard and similarly zoned.

All parking, trash, loading, and other back-of-house uses have been carefully located within the interior of the building and/or underground, out of sight from residents of the community, or from neighboring properties. The entrance to the parking levels is located conveniently along La Cienega Boulevard and separated from the residential entry. All rooftop areas and equipment will be carefully screened to ensure development compatible with existing properties. The project at the ground floor has been carefully designed to maximize the pedestrian experience, with a primary ground-floor entrance to the main residential lobby located centrally in the building. Ground floor restaurants with sidewalk dining and retail space open out and will enliven this portion of La Cienega Boulevard, where there was previously a significant amount of surface parking.

The project will improve the pedestrian and ground floor experience along the street to create a sense of space and transition from the street. The project’s varied materials and color palette includes smooth stucco, cladding, metal, and glass accents and will provide visual interest for the development. A central building step back area with courtyards breaks up the building mass and provides articulation for the project. Thus, the project consists of an arrangement of buildings and structures and other such pertinent improvements that will be compatible with existing and future development on adjacent properties and Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
4 neighboring properties.

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

The project site is presently developed with a vacant restaurant and surface parking. The proposed project constitutes in-fill redevelopment in a neighborhood characterized by existing commercial uses, multi-family residential buildings, and single-family dwellings. Given the proximity of the property to transit and other neighborhood and regional amenities, the addition of 105 new residential units, including 11 affordable units set aside for VLI households, will serve to increase safe, high-quality housing stock that complies with the current green building code and other environmentally friendly regulations.

Analysis of the proposed project will likely involve the preparation of a Categorical Exemption, Negative Declaration, or Mitigated Negative Declaration. If required, mitigation measures will reduce impacts to less than significant, and will be imposed as Conditions of Approval in the project approval. Pursuant to requirements of CEQA, the project will comply with the environmental clearance issued by the City of Beverly Hills. Therefore, the proposed project will not have specific adverse impacts.

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

In general, properties along this portion of La Cienega Boulevard are occupied by a mix of commercial uses. The subject site is planned and zoned for commercial and mixed uses within the C-3 Commercial Zone and MU Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The proposed mixed use development is permitted by right and is appropriate for the subject site. The project will comply with all applicable development requirements and regulations, as permitted through the City’s Density Bonus program. The site is well situated along a major street and connected to transit and services for the use, enjoyment, and convenience of future residents. The project will additionally provide 11 affordable units set aside for VLI households and provide for the community’s housing needs, both market rate and affordable. Thus, the proposed project’s location, size, height, operation, and significant features will be compatible with, will not adversely affect or be detrimental to adjacent properties or the surrounding neighborhood.

Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
5 DENSITY BONUS
Background
The California State Legislature has declared that "[t]he availability of housing is of vital statewide importance," and has determined that state and local governments have a responsibility to "make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community." Section 65580, subds. (a), (d). With Senate Bill 1818 (2004), state law created a requirement that local jurisdictions approve a density bonus and up to three “concessions or incentives” for projects that include defined levels of affordable housing in their projects. In exchange for setting aside a defined number of affordable dwelling units within a development, applicants may request up to three incentives in addition to the density bonus and parking relief which are permitted by right. The incentives are deviations from the City’s development standards, thus providing greater relief from regulatory constraints. Utilization of the Density Bonus/Affordable Housing Incentives Program (“Density Bonus program”) supersedes requirements of the City’s Zoning Code and development standards relative to density, number of units, parking, and other requirements relative to incentives, if requested. Section 65915 further provides that an applicant must agree to, and the municipality must ensure, the "continued affordability of all low and very low income units that qualified the applicant” for the density bonus.

On September 26, 2016, Governor Brown signed Assembly bills 2501, 2556, 2442, and 1934, which amended the State Density Bonus law. The amendments took place on January 1, 2017. In particular, AB 2501 restricted the ability of local jurisdictions to require special studies unless they meet the provisions of State law. Financial proformas and third-party reviews are no longer required for any Density Bonus case filing.

In addition, the 2016 changes to State Density Bonus law also modified the finding required to deny an incentive. Now a requested concession or incentive shall be granted unless the City makes a written finding, based on substantial evidence, of any of the following: a) the concession or incentive "does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions," to provide for affordable housing costs or rents for the targeted units; b) the concession or incentive has a specific adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable; or c) if the concession or incentive is contrary to state or federal law.

Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
6 Pursuant to Section 65915 of the California Government Code, the City shall approve a density bonus and requested incentive(s) unless the City finds that:

A. The Incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5 or Section 50053 for rents for the affordable units.

The record does not contain substantial evidence that would allow the City to make a finding that the requested incentives do not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs per State Law. The California Health & Safety Code Sections 50052.5 and 50053 define formulas for calculating affordable housing costs for very low, low, and moderate income households. Section 50052.5 addresses owner-occupied housing and Section 50053 addresses rental households. Affordable housing costs are a calculation of residential rent or ownership pricing not to exceed 25% gross income based on area median income thresholds dependent on affordability levels.

As an eligible Housing Development Project, the project is seeking to utilize the provisions of State Density Bonus law. Based on the underlying zone, the project is permitted a base density of 70 units. The applicant proposes to utilize the Density Bonus program to construct a total of 105 dwelling units, with 11 units (fifteen percent) restricted to Very Low Income (“VLI”) household occupancy for a period of 55 years and 94 market-rate units. In exchange for setting aside at least 15 percent of the base number of units for VLI households, the project is permitted an increase in density of up to 50 percent (per Assembly Bill 2334), to allow 105 total project units.

The project will not be required to provide a minimum amount of vehicular parking in accordance with the provisions of Assembly Bill 2097.

Furthermore, the Density Bonus program grants various incentives to deviate from development standards in order to facilitate the provision of affordable housing at the site. In exchange for setting aside at least 15 percent of the base number of units for VLI households, the project is also eligible for up to three development Incentives. A Housing Development Project may qualify for one, two, or three incentives based on the percentage of units set aside for Very Low Income, Low Income, or Moderate-Income Households. The Project has a base density of 70 units and is providing 11 units, or fifteen percent, for VLI households, which Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
7 qualifies the Project to utilize up to three incentives. The Project includes requests for three incentives for increased height, increased stories, and increased balcony projections. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, the City must grant up to three incentives for a project that includes fifteen percent of the total (base density) units for VLI households. The requested incentives are as follows:

Building Height – The requested increase in building height permits an exception to zoning requirements that result in building design or construction efficiencies that provide for affordable housing costs. For the property, Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) Section 10-3-1880.C allows an overall building height up to 45 feet. The Density Bonus height incentive allows for an additional 21 feet, 6-inches of height, thereby creating a building envelope with the area necessary to accommodate the proposed density, including the affordable housing units. The project is a 5-story plus mezzanine building. The requested height incentive, in combination with the requested number of stories, will allow the developer to increase the number of units in the building so 11 units for VLI households can be constructed and the overall space dedicated to residential uses increased. This incentive supports the applicant’s decision to reserve 11 units as affordable housing units reserved for VLI households.

Number of Stories – The requested incentive for an increase in the number of building stories would remove a regulatory zoning constraint that would otherwise limit the development of the project and its proposed density / building envelope. BHMC Section 10-3-1880.C allows up to three stories of building for the subject property. The requested incentive to increase number of stories up to five is to accommodate the proposed building program, the proposed floor area, and the expanded envelope, which could not be achieved within the allowed number of stories. The applicant is requesting the increased number of stories to accommodate the new 105-unit project and allows for a building envelope with the area necessary to accommodate the proposed density, including the 11 affordable housing units. Without the increased number of stories the development would lose residential floor area. The requested incentive, in combination with the requested increase in building height, will allow the developer to increase the number of units in the building so 11 units for VLI households can be constructed and the overall space dedicated to residential uses increased. This incentive supports the applicant’s decision to reserve 11 units as affordable housing units reserved for VLI households.

Balcony Projections – The requested incentive for increased balcony projections Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
8 in the rear yard permits exceptions to zoning requirements that result in building design or construction efficiencies that provide for affordable housing costs.

Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-1952.B.3, balconies above the 2nd floor have a 20- foot rear yard setback. The requested incentive to allow the balconies to project into the rear yard 4 feet allows the project to increase the overall space dedicated to residential use, thereby allowing for the provision of affordable residential units.

The projections and reduced yard allows for more area to provide amenities for the project units, including the 11 affordable units. This incentive supports the applicant’s decision to reserve 11 units as an affordable housing unit reserved for VLI households.

These incentives support the applicant’s decision to set aside 11 dwelling units for VLI households for 55 years.

2. The Incentives will have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there are no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the Specific Adverse Impact without rendering the development unaffordable to Very Low, Low and Moderate Income households. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

There is no evidence that the proposed incentives will have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, or any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. A "specific adverse impact" is defined as "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." The project does not involve a contributing structure in a designated Historic District or one on the City’s list of Historical Monuments. Accordingly, the project will not have a significant impact on any on-site resource or any resource in the surrounding area. The project is not located within any special hazard area; accordingly, the project will not have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment. The property is not located any special hazard area. The project is required to comply with all other pertinent regulations including those governing construction, use, and maintenance, and will not create any significant direct impacts on public health and safety. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the proposed project, and thus the requested incentives, Hayden Planning
55 N. La Cienega Boulevard – Attachment “A”
9 will have a specific adverse impact on the physical environment, on public health and safety or the physical environment, or on any Historical Resource.

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

ATTACHMENT H

Shade and Shadow Study

OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
1 6+$'($1'6+$'2:678'<
35(3$5('%<

6RODUJ\,QF
9HQWXUD%RXOHYDUG6XLWH
:RRGODQG+LOOV&$

ZZZVRODUJ\FRP
6HSWHPEHU-RE
352-(&7$''5(66

1RUWK/D&LHQHJD%RXOHYDUG
%HYHUO\+LOOV&$

'(9(/23(5

:HVWODQG'HYHORSPHQW*URXS
6RXWK%DUULQJWRQ$YHQXH6XLWH
/RV$QJHOHV&$

$5&+,7(&7

5HHG$UFKLWHFWXUDO*URXS,QF
5RVH$YHQXH
9HQLFH&$

2 6800$5<2)6+$',1*',$*5$06

7KHSURSRVHGSURMHFWZDVDQDO\]HGIRUWKHDWWDFKHGKRXUO\UDQJHRIDPWR SPLQ
WKUHHKRXULQFUHPHQWVIRUWKH:LQWHUDQG6XPPHU6ROVWLFHV :LQWHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
DP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146 146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
Wilshire Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
:LQWHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP

DP 1/H'RX[5RDG
&RPPHUFLDO
%XLOGLQJ
DQGVWRU\
VLQJOHIDPLO\
KRPHVVWRU\
DFFHVVRU\

EXLOGLQJV
DQGJDUDJHV
:HVWRI
SRSRVHG

SURMHFW

7\SLFDO

&RPPHUFLDO
%XLOGLQJ
0XOWL8QLW
%XLOGLQJV
$ORQJ
+DPLOWRQ'U

7\SLFDO

6FDOHa

&RPPHUFLDO
%XLOGLQJ
9DFDQW
:LOVKLUH %RXOHYDUG
1+DPLOWRQ'ULYH
/D&LHQHJD%RXOHYDUG
&RQVWUXFWLRQ
6LWH
$XWR5HSDLU

!"#$%&'(!)"$%*+, -$.+-#+/
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$2&&
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
:LQWHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
SP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
:LQWHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
6SP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
6XPPHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
DP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
6XPPHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP

DP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
6XPPHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
1RRQ
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
6XPPHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
SP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
6XPPHU6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
SP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
S ummer 6ROVWLFH6KDGLQJ'LDJUDP
9SP
1 and 2-story
single-family
homes, 1-story
accessory
buildings
and garages
West of
poposed
project
(Typical)
146
144
142
140
138
136
134
132
130
128
126
124
122
120
Multi-Unit
Buildings
Along
Hamilton Dr
(Typical)
Scale 1"~120'
Commercial
Building
50 La Cienega Boulevard
N Hamilton Drive
Vacant
N Le Doux Road
Construction
Site
Wilshire Boulevard
Commercial
Building
55 Commercial
Building
Planning Commission Staff Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard
June 22, 2023

ATTACHMENT I

Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report
OF JUNE 22, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

A COPY OF THE ORIGINAL CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION REPORT CAN BE ACCESSED ONLINE AT:
https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/2898868 211668288910/55NLaCienega-Class32Report.pdf
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2028
RESOLUTION NO. 2028

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY

APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND
DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A NEW SIXSTORY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITH GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL USES, 105 RESIDENTIAL

DWELLING UNITS ON THE SECOND THROUGH FIFTH

STORIES, AND ROOFTOP RESTROOMS ON THE SIXTH
STORY AT 55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD
(PL2200289)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Abraham Assil, on behalf of 55 Del Norte, LLC, (collectively the and Density Bonus
Permit to allow the construction of a new six-story, mixed use building with ground floor commercial uses, 105 multi-family residential dwelling units above the ground floor, and rooftoprestrooms with an overall height of - bonus in addition to certain incentives/concessions from development standards to provide 11 affordable housing units . Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §§10- 3-3100.A and 10-3-1524, a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit are required to construct the new multi-family residential building.

Section 2. The Project consists of the construction of a new six-story mixeduse building, with ground floor commercial uses and 105 residential dwelling units located above the ground floor level. The Project would replace an existing 13,500 SF vacant commercial building formerly used as a restaurant with approximately 18,986 SF of new ground-floor 2 commercial area consisting of retail, restaurant, and market/eatery type uses. The residential portion of the Project consists of rental units, with 11 units reserved for very low-income households. The Project would provide 102 one-bedroom units that range between 678 SF and 1,012 SF, along with three efficiency units (studios) of 571 SF. The new building is proposed to be built to the front property line along North La Cienega Boulevard, but would include portions of the building that are modulated and set back to break up the massing of the building, while also providing depth and articulation of the building facade. On the ground floor, the proposed restaurant, café, and market/eatery uses would be set - property line to create areas for open air dining opportunities and promote pedestrian-oriented activities. On the nor -
-
- ided on the first two floors of - On the third and fourth floors of the Project, the applicant is proposing balconies that P - - outdoor living space for the residential uses would be provided on the rooftop of the building, along with amenities consisting of a pool, spa, rooftop restrooms, trellis shade structures, and landscaping to assist in screening the neighboring single-family residential uses to the west, along North Le Doux Road from the outdoor living area. Additional common and private outdoor living areas are provided within balconies located on the second floor of the Project. The new mixed-use - six-story portion of the - approximately 450 SF of rooftop bathroom areas on the north and south sides of the building with 3 -
three-level subterranean parking structure that would be accessed by two new-driveways located along North La Cienega Boulevard, providing access to a total of 196 parking spaces. Parking for the commercial portion of the Project would be located on the ground floor, as well as on levels P1 and P2 of the subterranean parking garage. Parking for the residential portion of the Project is provided on level P3. Of the 196 parking spaces proposed, 130 spaces will be allocated for the commercial portion of the Project and 66 parking spaces will be allocated to the residential portion.

The Project site is a 38,500 SF rectangular lot located on the west side of North La Cienega -3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone.

Discretionary development plan review approval from the Planning Commission is required for the construction of the new building, and the requested density bonus permit.

The Project also includes the following components as it pertains to density bonus laws:

Density Bonus: State density bonus standards allow for a certain percentage the maximum number of units allowed under General Plan and Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) density standards without the inclusion of bonus units) that are designated as affordable housing units. In the case of the Project, the number of base units that may affordable
housing units proposed are 11 units (very low income), resulting in an overall affordable unit percentage of 15.7%. The density bonus standards state that whenever 15% or more low-income households, a
50% increase in density shall be provided and all density calculations are required to be 4 rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, approval of the Density Bonus Permit, with the inclusion of 11 affordable housing units, will allow for a maximum density of 105 units.

Development Incentives/Concessions: Pursuant to state density bonus law, development projects where at least 15% of the base units are affordable to very lowincome households are entitled to three development incentives/concessions (hereafter referred to as concessions), which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to Separately, an Applicant may also request waivers from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Concessions and waives must be granted unless such a request would cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or would be contrary to any state or federal laws. Waivers do not count as a concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted provided each would preclude development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Accordingly, the incentives/concessions and waivers requested by the Applicant are as follows:

Concessions:

1. Building Height: BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the Project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum allowable height of 5 -
- 2. Number of Stories: BHMC §§10-3-1880 and 10-3-2804 establish the s MU Overlay
Zone. The Project site is located in Height District A and subject to a maximum of three (3) stories. The Applicant is requesting an incentive/concession to allow an additional three stories, inclusive of the 450 SF of rooftop restrooms, which are considered the sixth story to the building pursuant to the height provisions of the BHMC.

3. Rear Setbacks: BHMC §10-3-1952.B. establishes the required setbacks for -Residential Transition Area. -
-
for a reduction in the required rear setback on the third and fourth floors of the Project to - required setback area. The proposal would reduce the required setback on the third and - - Waivers: None Alternative Parking Standards: Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which became effective on January 1, 2023, prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on certain residential, commercial, or other development projects that are located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The project site is located within ½-mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station, which is currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega 6 Boulevard. Prior to this change in state law, this project would have been required to provide a total 149 parking spaces. Although pursuant to AB 2097, no parking could be required for this project the applicant is proposing to provide 196 parking spaces. The applicant has designed the Project to provide parking for the ground floor commercial uses on levels P1 and P2 of the subterranean parking garage, with a total of 149 parking provided for commercial uses. Parking for the residential portion of the project would be provided exclusively on level P3, with 66 parking spaces provided on this level that would be only accessible to residents of the building. Only residents of the building will have key card access to an entry and exit gate located on level P2 to access the residential parking on level P3. The applicant anticipates there would be tenants of the building that would choose to not have an automobile due to existing and future available public transit. As such, the applicant proposes to have residential parking available on a first-come first-served basis to tenants requesting a parking space as part of their lease. Once a tenant adds parking as part of their lease, then a specific parking space would be assigned to that unit within the P3 parking level. The parking spaces would be made available on equal terms to all tenants, regardless of income level, and subject to availability.

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

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

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

1. The Project, as authorized by the State Density Bonus Statute, meets all applicable zoning requirements and has been determined to be consistent with the applicable requirements and guidance of the General Plan for mixed use development located within the MU, Mixed Use Development Overlay Zone and the C-3, Commercial allowable heights and
densities of the General Plan, Beverly Hills Municipal Code, and deviations as permitted under State Density Bonus Statute. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Furthermore, the Project is not located within any specific plans adopted for the area.

2. There are no active requests for discretionary planning approval of new commercial, multi-family, or single- Project site.

Additionally, the Project would be required to submit a construction management plan during building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planning improvements to the construction of the Metro Purple (D Line) station on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. The proposed Project would intensify development on the Project site and it may result in changes visible to the streetscape that may appear out of character with the existing commercial area, due to the proposed increase in height and reduced setbacks; however, it is unlikely to inhibit the use overlay area occurs, it is likely that, over time, new developments that are proposed in the mixed use overlay zone would include designs that are similar in scale and mass to the proposed Project. The proposed Project is also not expected to exhibit any long-lasting 9 impacts on existing nearby development because it is consistent with the applicable General Plan policies and standards and because existing development to the south of the Project site is larger in scale than the proposed Project, with a nine- and an 11-story building developed on properties located on the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. Existing commercial development directly adjacent to the north, south, and west of the Project site consists of three-story commercial buildings with an As such, the Project, as conditioned, will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

3. The proposed mixed use Project provides commercial uses exclusively on the ground floor of the Project. The upper stories of the Project would be occupied by multi-family residential uses and not commercial uses. The commercial portion of the Project is not designed with any publicly accessible openings to the rear or sides of the property to avoid any potential to cause noise or privacy impacts to neighboring singlefamily residential properties to the rear along North Le Doux Road. The commercial uses are designed to be oriented toward North La Cienega Boulevard. Additionally, all vehicular and loading access would occur from North La Cienega Boulevard, with vehicular access area not open or visible to adjacent commercial or residential properties to the north, south, or west. As such, the nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of the commercial portion of the development proposed would not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
10 4. As provided in Section 3.4 (Page 14) in the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report (Attachment I of the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission staff report), Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) due to the proximity to the Metro Purple (D Line) station on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. Additionally, while not required for CEQA, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the project to evaluate level of service (LOS) impacts during peak hours at signalized intersections (Appendix B of Attachment I of the June 22, 2023 Planning Commission staff report). The intersections evaluated as part of this study were located at: 1) La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard; 2) La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard; and, 3) La Cienega Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard. The LTA determined that the increases in intersection delays at the study intersections would be relatively small (0.0 to 1.1 seconds) and that the project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. The minor increases in delay at the study intersections fall below the thresholds established by the City for identifying potential adverse conditions at locations operating at LOS D or worse, so no improvements would be required at the study intersections as a result of the project. Pedestrian and vehicle access to the project site would continue to be provided by North La Cienega Boulevard. The project would include improve ingress and egress to the project site. As detailed in the LTA, no improvements to the existing roadway would be required as a result of the project and the project would not alter the existing traffic patterns along the North La Cienega Boulevard roadway. As such, 11 no design changes would be introduced that would introduce sharp curves, dangerous intersections, or incompatible on-site uses. Furthermore, implementation of the project would not create new obstructions to emergency access in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard.

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

5. Concentrating new housing and amenities near existing and anticipated transportation nodes and stations to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to automobile travel.

Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the objectives of the Mixed Use Overlay Zone:

2. The proposed project is designed to provide for more intensive development would replace an existing one-story, 13,500 SF vacant commercial building formerly used as a restaurant, with a mix of neighborhood servicing retail, market, and restaurant uses on the ground floor facing North La Cienega Boulevard. Approximately, 18,986 SF of new commercial floor area would be provided on the first floor, with 105 new dwelling units provided on the second through fifth floors of the project. The project is designed with varying building setbacks at the rear of the property that would provide a buffer between the existing single-family residential uses located to the west of the project site and the - - building face on the third to fifth floors. On the third and fourth floors of the project, the - - with various species of landscaping material proposed at varied maximum heights between contribute to providing - proposed at the rear of the project site that would provide additional screening between properties.
14 3. The project promotes the expansion of housing options for diverse socioeconomic populations in the city by providing 105 new dwelling units, with 94 units proposed as market-rate rental housing and 11 dwelling units reserved for rental to very low-income households. The location of the project and its proximity to public transportation may encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation to automobile travel.

4. The project would provide 18,986 SF of new commercial uses on the ground floor that would serve the proposed residential uses on the property and properties in the vicinity of the project site. The proposed ground floor commercial uses consisting of retail and restaurant uses with open air dining areas on private property would serve the proposed residential units on the project site and other residents and workers located in the vicinity floor commercial also retains the streetscape character of pedestrian-oriented activity along La Cienega Boulevard.

Project-Specific Conditions

1. The Planning Commission hereby approves the requested concessions for building height, number of stories, and rear setback requirements. The total height shall - exceed six stories, inclusive of the rooftop restrooms; no residential units shall be located above the fifth story. The rear setback shall be -
16 measured from the rear property line to the face of the building. However, the proposed balconies located on the third and fourth of the rear of the building shall per permitted to - - balconies on the third and four - measured from the rear property line to the nearest edge of the balcony.

5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials, and finish of the building and landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval by the Architectural Commission.
17 6. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. The landscaping hedges proposed at the rear of the property shall be installed with sufficient height to reach -year from the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of the building. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or his/her designee for a consistency determination with the original approval.

9. An inclusionary housing agreement which includes provisions and terms 18 approved by the city manager and city attorney, and recorded as a deed restriction against the property prior to issuance of either a grading or building permit, whichever comes first.

10. The occupants of the affordable housing units within the Project shall have the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and amenities, including parking, as the occupants of the market-rate housing units and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor. Further, the affordable housing unit shall have the same number and type of appliances as the non-affordable housing units, which shall include, at a minimum, one (1) refrigerator, one (1) washer, and one (1) dryer.

11. To mitigate potential noise impacts to neighboring residents, use of the roof deck areas shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. Signage indicating such restrictions shall be installed on the rooftop.

12. Amplified music and voices shall be prohibited on the rooftop.

13. Lighting on the Project site, including rooftop areas, shall comply at all

14. All outdoor living spaces for the project, including those provided on balconies and the rooftop areas shall only be made available for use by Project residents and their guests. No commercial occupant of the Property shall use the rooftop facilities or balcony areas at any time.
19 15. All parking stalls on subterranean parking level P3 shall be reserved for use for parking for the residential portion of the Project. This parking area shall only be accessible to residents of the building and their authorized guests.

16. The Project shall operate at all times in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of light, noise, activities, parking, or other actions.

17. The Project shall operate at all times in compliance with Municipal Code requirements for Noise Regulation.

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

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

22. In addition, to any electric vehicle charging stations required for the residential parking portion of the project on level P3, the applicant shall provide an additional 15% of the residential parking spaces with a standard 110-volt electrical outlet to facilitate the opportunity for Level 1 charging of electric vehicles.

Construction-Related Conditions

23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid. 21 24. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

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

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

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

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

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

30. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water 22 Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

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

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

33. through the existing connections available to the subject site, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

34. The Applicant shall make connect
existing water service connection unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter installation will also require approval from the City Engineer. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

35. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline.

36. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards, and shall be paid for by the applicant. No privately-owned 23 structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

Standard Conditions

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

38. RECORDATION. This resolution approving this Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving an amendment to the Planned Development shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180-day period, grant a written waiver from the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant. 24 39. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit: The exercise of rights granted in such approvals shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date of approval of this resolution, as provided for in BHMC §10-3-207.A., unless otherwise extended.

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

41. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. ///
///
///
///
///
///
25 Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.

Adopted: June 22, 2023
Myra Demeter, Ph.D.

Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:

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

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

Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2028 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on June 22, 2023, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:

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

KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California

ATTACHMENT 6
September 12, 2023
City Council Report
w/o Attachments

Page 1 of 9 ends

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

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council

From: Masa Alkire, AICP, City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner

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

DECISION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

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

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

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

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

FIFTH STORIES, AND ROOFTOP RESTROOMS ON THE SIXTH STORY AT 55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD, AND DENYING A RELATED APPEAL

Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition

2. Rincon Consultants, Inc. Response to Appeal

3. Draft City Council Resolution

4. June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report

5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2028

6. No Net Loss Findings

7. Notice of Public Hearing

8. Public Correspondence

9. Project Plans

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

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

Page 2 of 9 ends

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

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

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

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

Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

Page 3 of 9 ends

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

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

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

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

Page 4 of 9 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 5 of 9 ends

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

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

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

ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
The following is an analysis of the points the appellant raised in the appeal filed on July 5, 2023 by Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”). A copy of the appeal petition is provided as Attachment 1.

1) The City incorrectly applied a Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the project and thus a full analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required on the basis that the project would have significant impacts on indoor air quality.

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

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

Page 6 of 9 ends

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

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

The appeal filed by Lozeau Drury LLP includes a research paper prepared by Mr.

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

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

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

Meeting Date: September 12, 2023

Page 7 of 9 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 8 of 9 ends

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines2 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. As part of this review, a categorical exemption report has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assess whether this project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA as an in-fill development project (Attachment I of June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 4 of this report)). Based on this assessment, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that this exemption is applicable when:

a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

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

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

Page 9 of 9 ends

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

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

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

Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 7
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

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

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

Date
In accordance with the appeals procedine as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on Tune 22 2023 ; which decision consisted of:

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

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Michael Dunn -V June 27, 2023
(Department Head(s) Involved) ^ Date
It is requested that written notice of the time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 traffiCy noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].

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

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

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

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

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
3 cont.
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,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP
3 cont.

EXHIBIT A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qn = (Equation 1)
where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERVICE INFORMATION

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

ALTERNATE

ADDRESS

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

DOCUMENTS

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE SERVE ASAP WITH CLIENTS CHECK.

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

Person Served: Title:

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

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

ATTACHMENT 8
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Response to Appeal – Noise and
Vibration

Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
213-788-4842
www.rinconcons ultants.com
November 1, 2023
Project No: 22-13864
Edgar Arroyo, Senio Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project in Beverly Hills, California Response to Appeal Letter Dated September 12, 2023
Dear Mr. Arroyo:

Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) has prepared responses to a second appeal letter received by the Community Development Department of the City of Beverly Hills (City) following the City Planning Commission’s approval of the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (project) and Class 32 (In-fill Development) Categorical Exemption (CE) on June 22, 2023. The first appeal letter was filed within the 14-day appeal period for the project on July 5, 2023 by Rebecca Davis of Lozeau Drury LLP law firm on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER), who are herein referred to as “appellant”. In the first appeal letter, the appellant presented indoor air quality concerns from exposure to formaldehyde. Rincon responded to these concerns on August 23, 2023. Lozeau Drury LLP followed up with a second appeal letter sent to the City on September 12, 2023 presenting noise concerns from project construction and operation in reference to an analysis prepared by Wilson Ihrig on July 24, 2023. Also on September 12 2023, Rincon virtually attended an appeal hearing that was held for the project in which the project applicant and their legal team elected to continue consideration of the appeal to a future hearing scheduled for November 7, 2023.

The following discussion includes a summary of the appellant’s noise-related comments and responses to the specific concerns raised by the appellant.

Appeal Letter Responses
Appellant: Rebecca Davis (Lozeau Drury LLP)/SAFER
Date: September 12, 2023
Response 1
The appellant, on behalf of SAFER, states that the CE relies on short-term, 15-minute measurements and adds that the noise baseline should be established for evening and nighttime conditions. The appellant adds that without evening/nighttime noise data, it is not possible to evaluate the significance of project noise sources during non-daytime hours.

As a mixed-use residential project, there are no substantial noise sources anticipated during the evening and nighttime hours requiring a noise analysis during non-daytime hours. As such, daytime short-term measurements were adequate to characterize a surrounding noise environment for this analysis. Moreover, ground-floor commercial uses would be facing La Cienega and away from the Response to Appeal Letter
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
2 nearest residential receivers west of the site. Nonetheless, Rincon conducted a 24-hour measurement between October 12 and October 13, 2023 at the western boundary of the project site and adjacent to the nearest noise-sensitive receivers (i.e., single-family residences to the west). Rincon also took the opportunity to reconduct the short-term, 15-minute measurements on October 12, 2023. Rincon incorporated the results of all new measurements into the Class 32 CE and associated Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum (Appendix C to the Class 32 CE). The results of the 24-hour measurement were subsequently used to redefine the lowest ambient noise level at the project site and revise the operational noise analysis evaluating HVAC noise (see Response 4). Although the 24- hour measurement results provided additional information on the site, the integration of this data did not alter the significance findings of the project’s operational noise impacts reported in the Class 32 CE or Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum.

Response 2
The appellant states that significance criteria for construction noise are improperly established and applicable standards exist for daytime construction noise impacts (i.e., the Federal Transit Administrations’ [FTA] daytime construction noise level of 80 dBA). The appellant adds that the project construction noise levels would exceed 80 dBA and would be considered an impact necessitating sound attenuation mitigation.

The proposed project does not involve atypical construction activities unique to a developed urban environment. Project construction would not be unusually lengthy, loud, or occur at unusual times due to compliance with the daytime hours for construction specified in Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 5-1-205. As clarified in the revised Class 32 CE and Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum, and consistent with the approach of previous environmental
documentation1 2, construction noise would be significant if 1) construction activities occurring on the project site generate a noise increase of five dBA or more outside the hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance at the project site (i.e., between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, or at any time on Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday), or 2) construction activities occurring on a project site generate a noise increase of five dBA or more during daytime hours at uses identified in BHMC Section 5-1-206, which include schools, hospitals, churches, or institutes of learning.

Noise generated by project construction would be higher than and would temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residences; however, construction noise would be temporary and cease once project construction is completed. Moreover, pursuant to BHMC Section 5-1-205, construction activities are limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday (excluding public holidays) within 500 feet of a residential zone, unless the City issues an after-hours construction permit for the project. Construction activities at the project site would comply with BHMC Section 5-1-205 and would not occur during nighttime hours. Therefore, construction activities at the project site would not generate a significant noise increase of five dBA or more outside the hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance.

Furthermore, the project site is not located near any school, hospital, church, or institute of learning and daytime construction activities at the project site would not result in a significant impact at these receivers. The nearest school (Horace Mann Elementary School) is located 0.25 mile west of the project site at 8701 Charleville Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills, the nearest hospital (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center) is located 0.48 mile north of the project site at 8700 Beverly Boulevard in the City of 1 City of Beverly Hills, One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan FSEIR, March 2021, p. 4.8-18 2 City of Beverly Hills, Cheval Blanc Specific Plan FEIR, February 2022, p. 4.8-20 Response to Appeal Letter
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
3 Los Angeles, and the nearest church (Our Lady of Mt. Lebanon Catholic Church) is located at 0.37 mile north of the project site at 333 South San Vicente Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles. Based on the location of these receivers, with the nearest being the school at 0.25 mile to the west, on-site construction noise would attenuate over long distances such that construction activities would not be audible at these receivers. Moreover, the school is located along Wilshire Boulevard, which is a highvolume commercial corridor, and is already exposed to higher ambient noise levels. Similarly, the hospital and church are located near South San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, other commercial corridors. Considering the nearest hospital and church are located at distances greater than 0.25-mile, construction noise would also not result in a significant noise above ambient at these uses. Therefore, construction activities would not generate a noise increase of five dBA or more during daytime hours at any uses identified in BHMC Section 5-1-206.

Overall, construction activities at the project site would comply with BHMC Section 5-1-205 and would not occur during nighttime hours. The project is also not proposing construction outside of permitted construction hours. While construction noise may cause short-term annoyance to adjacent uses, it would be temporary and restricted to the hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance. In addition, as noted in this analysis, the project site is also not located in close proximity to any school, hospital, church, or institute of learning and would not result in an increase of 5 dBA or more at these uses during permitted construction hours. Therefore, a less-than-significant noise impact would result from construction activities, as originally concluded. The added details included in the construction noise analysis did not alter the significance findings of the project’s construction noise impacts reported in the Class 32 CE or Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum.

Response 3
The appellant states, in reference to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020), the vibration threshold for comparison of construction vibration to adjacent commercial and residential buildings misinterprets the cited threshold document and adds that the threshold should be 0.3 peak particle velocity (PPV).

The appellant adds that, based on a threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV, various equipment exceeds the construction vibration limit.

The Caltrans document presents different possible vibration thresholds for building damage in Section

7.2 (Evaluating Potential Vibration Impacts) and doesn’t clearly recommend use of one over the other.

Use of 0.5 in/sec PPV to determine damage to adjacent buildings stems from the thresholds found in Table 15 (AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage) of Section 7.2, which identifies a threshold between 0.4 – 0.5 in/sec PPV for residential buildings and 1.0 – 1.5 in/sec PPV for engineered structures without plaster and those found in Table 19 (Guideline Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria) of Section 7.3, which identifies a threshold of 0.5 in/sec PPV for newer residential structures, which is consistent with residential buildings in good repair (the types of residential buildings closest to the project to the west on Le Doux Road) from Table 15 of Caltrans 2020.

In terms of the adjacent commercial structures to the north and south, the use of 0.5 in/sec PPV is consistent with the Federal Transit Administration’s 2018 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual which recommends a criterion of 0.5 in/sec PPV for buildings with reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster). Information provided by the City engineers in the City of Beverly Hills Building and Safety confirms that the commercial buildings on these adjacent properties to the north and south were constructed of reinforced concrete with rebar. It is noted that use of 0.5 in/sec PPV to evaluate vibration impacts to adjacent commercial buildings is conservative given that Caltrans 2020 also gives a range of 1.0 – 1.5 in/sec PPV, as discussed above. Therefore, the thresholds and project vibration analysis are appropriate and no revisions to the vibration analysis are warranted.

Response to Appeal Letter
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
4 Response 4
The appellant states that the noise analysis’ use of one HVAC system with a sound power level of 76 dBA is a low estimate. The appellant adds that some HVAC units can have a sound power level as high as 100 dBA. The appellant states that using two rooftop units with a sound power level of 84 dBA exceeds the applied 50 dBA Leq threshold for HVAC noise.

The appellant does not provide a source for an HVAC unit with a sound power rating as high as 100 dBA. An HVAC unit of this magnitude would be typically found at industrial or hospital uses rather than mixed-use development and would greatly exaggerate project noise impacts. While the make and model of the HVAC units for the project were previously unknown at the time of the original completion of the Class 32 CE, the project applicant has since then identified the specific HVAC units that would be incorporated into the project. As such, the analysis in the Class 32 CE and Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum (Appendix C to the Class 32 CE) has be revised to incorporate the sound power level of the project-specific HVAC unit.

As stated in the revised analysis, the HVAC system that will be installed is a Goodman GPHH33641- PRS4110 3-ton 13.4 SEER2 air conditioner that has a sound power level of 78 dBA. To provide a reasonable worst-case analysis, three HVAC units operating simultaneously were modeled at the same location on the proposed roof closest to the residential property lines to the west. This represents a reasonable worst-case analysis due to the logarithmic nature of decibel addition since adding three sound sources of equal strength would result in a combined noise level approximately 5 dBA louder than one individual source (e.g., three sources of 60 dBA combined would equal 65 dBA); whereas, adding a fourth source would result in only 1 additional dBA to the overall noise level. Because the HVAC units would be spaced apart on the roof and not on top of each other at the same exact location, the actual noise level from an HVAC unit at a given receptor point would be less than the three modeled at the same exact location. Therefore, the approach of modeling three HVAC units at the same location represents a reasonable worst-case scenario. The three HVAC units modeled on the western side of the proposed multi-family building roof would be approximately 30 feet from the nearest off-site sensitive residential property line to the west when considering the distance to the property line plus the height from the project’s rooftop to the ground.

Based upon a sound power level of 78 dBA, it is estimated that the sound power level of a single HVAC unit would generate an equivalent sound pressure level of 70 dBA at three feet. The combined sound pressure level of three HVAC units would be 75 dBA at three feet. An approximately four-foot parapet wall would be located on the roof. In addition, given that the HVAC units would be setback 10 feet from the edge of the roof, there would be an estimated noise reduction of at least 5 dBA from the rooftop parapet wall. Based on the distance to the residential property line to the west and the parapet wall attenuation, noise levels generated by the three rooftop HVAC units operating simultaneously would be approximately 50 dBA Leq at 30 feet, which would not cause an exceedance of the quietest measured nighttime ambient noise level at LT-1 of 53 dBA Leq by more than 5 decibels. Therefore, operational noise impacts associated with HVAC equipment would remain less than significant as originally concluded.

Response to Appeal Letter
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
5 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Josh Carman at (510) 356-2811 or [email protected].

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Josh Carman Vanessa Villanueva
Director – Noise, Air Quality & GHG Senior Environmental Planner Attachment
Lozeau Drury LLP/SAFER Appeal Letter

September 12, 2023
Via Email
Mayor Julian A. Gold
Vice Mayor Lester Friedman
Councilmember John A. Mirisch
Councilmember Lili Bosse
Councilmember Sharona R. Nazarian
[email protected]
[email protected]
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
[email protected]
Re: Enclosed Expert Noise Comment in Support of SAFER’s 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.

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 impacts.

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

Beverly Hills City CouncilNovember 7, 2023

Beverly Hills City Council
November 7, 2023