Item F-1 Agenda Report — Beverly Hills City Council, November 7, 2023 (part 3 of 5)

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

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

Noise Analysis Misinterprets Cited Threshold Documents.

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

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

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

WILSON IHRIG
55 N La Cienega
Comments on the Noise Analysis

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Very truly yours,

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

EXHIBIT 2
July 3, 2023
Via Email
Mayor Julian A. Gold
Vice Mayor Lester Friedman
Councilmember John A. Mirisch
Councilmember Lili Bosse
Councilmember Sharona R. Nazarian
[email protected]
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
[email protected]
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326)
Dear Mayor Gold and Honorable Members of the City Council:

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

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

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

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

Page 2 of 4 ends

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

The Class 32 exemption provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 4 of 4 ends

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

Sincerely,
Richard Drury
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A

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

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

The concentrations of many air pollutants often are elevated in homes and other buildings relative to outdoor air because many of the materials and products used indoors contain and release a variety of pollutants to air (Hodgson et al., 2002; Offermann and Hodgson, 2 of 19
2011). With respect to indoor air contaminants for which inhalation is the primary route of exposure, the critical design and construction parameters are the provision of adequate ventilation and the reduction of indoor sources of the contaminants.

Indoor Formaldehyde Concentrations Impact. In the California New Home Study (CNHS) of 108 new homes in California (Offermann, 2009), 25 air contaminants were measured, and formaldehyde was identified as the indoor air contaminant with the highest cancer risk as determined by the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), No Significant Risk Levels (NSRL) for carcinogens. The NSRL is the daily intake level calculated to result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000 (i.e., ten in one million cancer risk) and for formaldehyde is 40 µg/day. The NSRL concentration of formaldehyde that represents a daily dose of 40 µg is 2 µg/m3 , assuming
a continuous 24-hour exposure, a total daily inhaled air volume of 20 m3 , and 100%
absorption by the respiratory system. All of the CNHS homes exceeded this NSRL concentration of 2 µg/m3. The median indoor formaldehyde concentration was 36 µg/m3, and ranged from 4.8 to 136 µg/m3, which corresponds to a median exceedance of the 2 µg/m3
NSRL concentration of 18 and a range of 2.3 to 68.

Therefore, the cancer risk of a resident living in a California home with the median indoor formaldehyde concentration of 36 µg/m3, is 180 per million as a result of formaldehyde alone. The CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk is 10 per million, as established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD, 2015).

Besides being a human carcinogen, formaldehyde is also a potent eye and respiratory irritant. In the CNHS, many homes exceeded the non-cancer reference exposure levels (RELs) prescribed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA, 2017b). The percentage of homes exceeding the RELs ranged from 98% for the Chronic REL of 9 µg/m3 to 28% for the Acute REL of 55 µg/m3.

The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea-formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and 3 of 19
particleboard. These materials are commonly used in building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.

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

A follow up study to the California New Home Study (CNHS) was conducted in 2016- 2018 (Singer et. al., 2019), and found that the median indoor formaldehyde in new homes built after 2009 with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials had lower indoor formaldehyde concentrations, with a median indoor concentrations of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb) as compared to a median of 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS. Unlike in the CNHS study where formaldehyde concentrations were measured with pumped DNPH samplers, the formaldehyde concentrations in the HENGH study were measured with passive samplers, which were estimated to under-measure the true indoor formaldehyde concentrations by approximately 7.5%. Applying this correction to the HENGH indoor formaldehyde concentrations results in a median indoor concentration of 24.1 µg/m3, which is 33% lower than the 36 µg/m3 found in the 2007 CNHS.

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

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

Because the commercial spaces will be constructed with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, and be ventilated with the minimum code required amount of outdoor air, the indoor formaldehyde concentrations are likely similar to those concentrations observed in residences built with CARB Phase 2 Formaldehyde ATCM materials, which is a median of 24.1 µg/m3 (Singer et. al., 2020)
Assuming that the employees of commercial spaces work 8 hours per day and inhale 20 m3 of air per day, the formaldehyde dose per work-day at the offices is 161 µg/day.

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

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

In addition, we note that the average outdoor air concentration of formaldehyde in California is 3 ppb, or 3.7 µg/m3
, (California Air Resources Board, 2004), and thus
represents an average pre-existing background airborne cancer risk of 1.85 per million.

Thus, the indoor air formaldehyde exposures describe above exacerbate this pre-existing risk resulting from outdoor air formaldehyde exposures. 5 of 19
Additionally, the SCAQMD’s Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (“MATES V”) identifies an existing cancer risk at the Project site of 473 per million due to the site’s elevated ambient air contaminant concentrations, which are due to the area’s high levels of vehicle traffic. These impacts would further exacerbate the pre-existing cancer risk to the building occupants, which result from exposure to formaldehyde in both indoor and outdoor air.

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

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

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

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

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

2.) Calculate Material/Furnishing Loading. For each IAQ Zone, determine the building material and furnishing loadings (e.g., m2 of material/m2 floor area, units of furnishings/m2 floor area) from an inventory of all potential indoor formaldehyde sources, including flooring, ceiling tiles, furnishings, finishes, insulation, sealants, adhesives, and any products constructed with composite wood products containing ureaformaldehyde resins (e.g., plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard).

3.) Calculate the Formaldehyde Emission Rate. For each building material, calculate the formaldehyde emission rate (µg/h) from the product of the area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/m2-h) and the area (m2) of material in the IAQ Zone, and from each 7 of 19
furnishing (e.g. chairs, desks, etc.) from the unit-specific formaldehyde emission rate (µg/unit-h) and the number of units in the IAQ Zone.

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

CDPH, BIFMA, and other chemical emission rate testing programs, typically certify that a material or furnishing does not create indoor chemical concentrations in excess of the maximum concentrations permitted by their certification. For instance, the CDPH emission rate testing requires that the measured emission rates when input into an office, school, or residential model do not exceed one-half of the OEHHA Chronic Exposure Guidelines (OEHHA, 2017b) for the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017). These certifications themselves do not provide the actual area-specific formaldehyde emission rate (i.e., µg/m2 -h) of the
product, but rather provide data that the formaldehyde emission rates do not exceed the maximum rate allowed for the certification. Thus, for example, the data for a certification of a specific type of flooring may be used to calculate that the area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde is less than 31 µg/m2-h, but not the actual measured specific emission rate, which may be 3, 18, or 30 µg/m2-h. These area-specific emission rates determined from the product certifications of CDPH, BIFA, and other certification programs can be used as an initial estimate of the formaldehyde emission rate.

If the actual area-specific emission rates of a building material or furnishing is needed (i.e. the initial emission rates estimates from the product certifications are higher than desired), then that data can be acquired by requesting from the manufacturer the complete 8 of 19
chemical emission rate test report. For instance if the complete CDPH emission test report is requested for a CDHP certified product, that report will provide the actual areaspecific emission rates for not only the 35 specific VOCs, including formaldehyde, listed in Table 4-1 of the CDPH test method (CDPH, 2017), but also all of the cancer and reproductive/developmental chemicals listed in the California Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels (OEHHA, 2017a), all of the toxic air contaminants (TACs) in the California Air Resources Board Toxic Air Contamination List (CARB, 2011), and the 10 chemicals with the greatest emission rates.

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

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

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

𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 =
𝐸𝐸𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡
𝑄𝑄 (Equation 1)
where:

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

Qoa = design minimum outdoor air ventilation rate to the IAQ Zone (m3/h) The above Equation 1 is based upon mass balance theory, and is referenced in Section

3.10.2 “Calculation of Estimated Building Concentrations” of the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers”, (CDPH, 2017). 9 of 19

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

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

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

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

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

2.) substituting a different material with a lower area-specific emission rate of formaldehyde

Ventilation mitigation for formaldehyde emitted from building materials and/or furnishings may include:

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

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

Further, we are not asking that the builder “speculate” on what and how much composite materials be used, but rather at the design stage to select composite wood materials based 10 of 19
on the formaldehyde emission rates that manufacturers routinely conduct using the California Department of Health “Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers,” (CDPH, 2017), and use the procedure described earlier above (i.e. PreConstruction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

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

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

According to the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills, 2023) the Project is close to roads with moderate to high traffic (e.g., N. La Cienega Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard, N. Le Doux Road, San Vincente Boulevard, etc.). As a result the Project site is a sound impacted site. 11 of 19
Table 1 in Appendix C of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report - 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (City of Beverly Hills. 2023) reports that the existing noise levels range from 56.1 to 70.0 dBA Leq. However these noise measurements are just short-term 15 minute measurements made on a single day, Wendsday, March 8, 2023, and do not report the CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels. In order to design the building such that the interior noise levels are acceptable, long-term one-week measurements need to be conducted to assess the ambient CNEL or Ldn dBA sound levels for the purpose of selecting the appropriate STC for the windows.

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

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

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

An air quality analyses should to be conducted to determine the concentrations of PM2.5 in the outdoor and indoor air that people inhale each day. This air quality analyses needs to consider the cumulative impacts of the project related emissions, existing and projected future emissions from local PM2.5 sources (e.g. stationary sources, motor vehicles, and airport traffic) upon the outdoor air concentrations at the Project site. If the outdoor concentrations are determined to exceed the California and National annual average PM2.5 exceedence concentration of 12 µg/m3, or the National 24-hour average exceedence concentration of 35 µg/m3, then the buildings need to have a mechanical supply of outdoor air that has air filtration with sufficient removal efficiency, such that the indoor concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 particles is less than the California and National PM2.5 annual and 24-hour standards.

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

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

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

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

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

Pre-Construction Building Material/Furnishing Formaldehyde Emissions Assessment) to 13 of 19
insure that the materials selected achieve acceptable cancer risks from material off gassing of formaldehyde.

Outdoor Air Ventilation Mitigation. Provide each habitable room with a continuous mechanical supply of outdoor air that meets or exceeds the California 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Commission, 2015) requirements of the greater of 15 cfm/occupant or 0.15 cfm/ft2 of floor area. Following installation of the system conduct testing and balancing to insure that required amount of outdoor air is entering each habitable room and provide a written report documenting the outdoor airflow rates. Do not use exhaust only mechanical outdoor air systems, use only balanced outdoor air supply and exhaust systems or outdoor air supply only systems. Provide a manual for the occupants or maintenance personnel, that describes the purpose of the mechanical outdoor air system and the operation and maintenance requirements of the system.

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

References
BIFA. 2018. BIFMA Product Safety and Performance Standards and Guidelines. www.bifma.org/page/standardsoverview
California Air Resources Board. 2009. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Reduce Formaldehyde Emissions from Composite Wood Products. California Environmental 14 of 19
Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/compwood07/fro-final.pdf California Air Resources Board. 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2017a. Proposition 65 Safe Harbor Levels. No Significant Risk Levels for Carcinogens and Maximum Allowable Dose Levels for Chemicals Causing Reproductive Toxicity. Available at:
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/pdf/safeharbor081513.pdf OEHHA - Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2017b. All OEHHA Acute, 8-hour and Chronic Reference Exposure Levels. Available at:
http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html
Offermann, F. J. 2009. Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality in New Homes. California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. Collaborative Report. CEC-500-2009-085. https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/04-310.pdf
Offermann, F. J. and A. T. Hodgson. 2011. Emission Rates of Volatile Organic Compounds in New Homes. Proceedings Indoor Air 2011 (12th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate 2011), June 5-10, 2011, Austin, TX.

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

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

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

Just how much protection do the CARB ATCM regulations provide building occupants from the formaldehyde emissions generated by composite wood products? Definitely some, but certainly the regulations do not “assure healthful indoor air quality” when CARB Phase 2 products are utilized. As shown in the Chan 2019 study of new California homes, the median indoor formaldehyde concentration was of 22.4 µg/m3 (18.2 ppb), which corresponds to a cancer risk of 112 per million for occupants with continuous exposure, which is more than 11 times the CEQA cancer risk of 10 per million.

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

For this calculation I utilized the floor area (2,272 ft2 ), the ceiling height (8.5 ft), and the
number of bedrooms (4) as defined in Appendix B (New Single-Family Residence Scenario) of the Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic Chemical Emissions for Indoor Sources Using Environmental Chambers, Version 1.1, 2017, California 18 of 19
Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/ DEODC/EHLB/IAQ/Pages/VOC.aspx.

For the outdoor air ventilation rate I used the 2019 Title 24 code required mechanical ventilation rate (ASHRAE 62.2) of 106 cfm (180 m3
/h) calculated for this model residence.

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

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

Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) – 15 ft2 (0.7% of the floor area), or Particle Board – 30 ft2 (1.3% of the floor area), or
Hardwood Plywood – 54 ft2 (2.4% of the floor area), or
Thin MDF – 46 ft2 (2.0 % of the floor area).

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

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

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

Alternatively, and perhaps a simpler approach, is to use only composite wood products (e.g. hardwood plywood, medium density fiberboard, particleboard) for all interior finish systems that are made with CARB approved no-added formaldehyde (NAF) resins.

!"
#
$%%

&
'()

+",)
!"

)
*+
-
.../%/

.

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

)

)
'*/
[
\
)

/

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

`
,)

)
'*/
a

"

"

*

&
"

`
,

%
'%

)
!
b,)
'*/
!/
/

_
-

c

&
,
-

")
d

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

*+)
&*c_*)

`
a!'

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

&)
'()
-
hi
,

*+

-
)

-

"-

)

b-

"

/
(

)

*+
cj[

"
%
/ *

)
_
/
$%%

)

k",
\"

/
`

_
/
$%%
l
"

)

-

\
-

*+
"

-

/
(
-
"

)
*+

)

"

\"

"
%

*+/

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

-
\
k"%

"

-
%

k",

\
-
%%

%
/
(
-
\

k",

)

"

\"

%
)

k",

-
-
.

m"
,

,

%

"

"
)
\"

)
"%%

)

"

%

)
%"

-

)

%

/
_
/
$%%

-
%

-

%

%

,

k",
"

["\

n,
,

/

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

'
,
-
i

\,
d

d
-

,/

ATTACHMENT 9
Updated Class 32 Exemption Report
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report
prepared by
City of Beverly Hills
Community Development Department
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, California 90210
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
November 2023
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report
prepared by
City of Beverly Hills
Community Development Department
455 North Rexford Drive, First Floor
Beverly Hills, California 9021
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
November 2023
Table of Contents
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 2 Project Location and Description....................................................................................................2

2.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................2

2.2 Project Description..............................................................................................................2 3 Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis....................................................................................................8

3.1 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning.........................................................................8

3.2 Location, Size, and Surroundings......................................................................................13

3.3 Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species Habitat...........................................................13

3.4 Significant Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, and Water Quality Impacts...................................14

3.5 Utilities and Public Services ..............................................................................................36 4 Class 32 CE Exceptions Analysis....................................................................................................37

4.1 Location.............................................................................................................................37

4.2 Cumulative Impacts ..........................................................................................................37

4.3 Significant Effect ...............................................................................................................38

4.4 Scenic Highways................................................................................................................38

4.5 Hazardous Waste Sites......................................................................................................39

4.6 Historical Resources..........................................................................................................39 5 Summary.......................................................................................................................................41 6 References....................................................................................................................................42 Tables
Table 1 Proposed Unit Summary ...................................................................................................3 Table 2 Consistency with City of Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Element Policies...............8 Table 3 Project Comparison with C-3 Mixed Use Overlay Zoning Requirements........................13 Table 4 Short-Term (15-Minute) Noise Measurement Results....................................................19 Table 5 Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Measurement Results (October 12-13, 2023)....................19 Table 6 Construction Noise Levels...............................................................................................21 Table 7 Construction Vibration Levels.........................................................................................25 Table 8 Estimated Construction Emissions..................................................................................29 Table 9 Estimated Operational Emissions....................................................................................31 Table 10 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases...............................................34 Table 11 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases........................................................34 City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
ii
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Project Location..................................................................................................4 Figure 2 Project Site Location..........................................................................................................5 Figure 3 Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................6 Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations........................................................................................20 Figure 5 Nearest School, Hospital, and Church to the Project Site...............................................23 Appendices
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and Local Transportation Assessment Appendix C Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum
Appendix D Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum Appendix E Historical Resources Assessment
Introduction
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 1
1 Introduction
This report serves as the technical documentation of an environmental analysis performed by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project (herein referred to as “proposed project” or “project”) in Beverly Hills, California. The intent of the analysis is to document whether the project is eligible for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The report provides an introduction, project description, and evaluation of the project’s consistency with the requirements for a Class 32 CE. This includes an analysis of the project’s potential impacts in the areas of biological resources, traffic, air quality, noise, water quality, and historic resources.

The City of Beverly Hills (City) will consider adopting Class 32 CE for the proposed project 55 North La Cienega Boulevard. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a CE 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. 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.

Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 outlines the cases in which projects that would normally be exempt from CEQA review would not be exempt. For a Class 32 CE, these exceptions are as follows:
▪ Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
▪ Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
▪ Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR). ▪ Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
▪ Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

Rincon evaluated the project’s consistency with the above requirements, as well as the applicability of the exceptions to use of a Class 32 CE to confirm the project’s eligibility for the Class 32 CE.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
2 2 Project Location and Description

2.1 Project Location
The project site is located at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills, California and consists of one parcel identified by Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 4334-018-058. The site is a rectangular-shaped, approximately 38,500-square-foot (sf) or 0.88-acre, lot fronting North La Cienega Boulevard. The site is zoned C-3 (Commercial Zone) with a Mixed Use Overlay Zone, and the land use designation is Commercial – Low Density General with Mixed Use Overlay.

The project site is currently developed with an approximately 15,535-sf, one-story restaurant building and associated parking lot with 84 spaces. Pedestrian and vehicle access to the site is provided by North La Cienega Boulevard. Primary vehicle access to the on-site lot is provided via one ingress/egress driveway, and a separate egress-only driveway is provided at the southeastern corner of the site. The site is surrounded by residential and commercial uses. Specifically, the site is bounded by:
▪ A three-story commercial development to the north of approximately 44 feet in height; ▪ North La Cienega Boulevard to the east with a commercial building and parking lot along North La Cienega Boulevard and two- to -three-story multi-family residential uses beyond along North Hamilton Drive;
▪ A three-story commercial building of approximately 45 feet in height along Wilshire Boulevard to the south; and
▪ One- and two-story single-family homes to the west along North Le Doux Road.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 on the following pages show the project site in a regional context and at a local scale, respectively.

2.2 Project Description
The project involves the demolition of the existing 15,535-sf restaurant building and associated parking lot for the construction of a five-story, approximately 67-foot-tall mixed-use building consisting of approximately 18,500 sf of ground-floor commercial/retailspace facing North La Cienega Boulevard and 105 multi-family residential units available as rentals between floors two through five.

The proposed commercial/retail space would be comprised of a 12,045-sf market and eatery (with 687 sf of outdoor space), a 2,008-sf restaurant (with 880 sf of outdoor space), a 920-sf café (with 424 sf of outdoor space), and 1,450 sf of retail uses. The project would also provide an 1,830-sf residential entry/lobby accessible from North La Cienega for residents. Of the 105 multi-family residential units proposed, 71 would be one-bedroom units, 31 would be two-story one-bedroom loft units, and three would be studio units. Furthermore, 11 of the 105 total units would be designated affordable units reserved for very low-income households. Table 1 on the following page breaks down the unit type, bedroom count, and square footage of each unit type.

The project would alter the existing vehicular access points and create a new ingress/egress driveway and a separate egress-only driveway, both still accessible to/from North La Cienega Boulevard. The driveway would provide an entryway into commercial loading areas, short-term parking spaces, and Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 3
a down-ramp into an enclosed parking garage with three subterranean levels. The project would provide a total of 196 parking spaces, consisting of 66 residential spaces, 92 commercial spaces, and 38 surplus (non-required) spaces. Of the total 196 parking spaces proposed, 10 spaces would be ADAaccessible and 20 spaces would be designated for electric vehicles (EV). Other project amenities include a 706-sf gym on the second floor, 4,649 sf of private outdoor living space on the second floor, and 15,645 sf of common outdoor living space. Included among the common outdoor living space, the 12,788-sf roof terrace roof terrace would include a pool and spa, patio and lounge areas with seating, cabanas, BBQ stations, and restrooms. Refer to Figure 3 on the following pages for the project site plan and Appendix A for the full plan set.

Table 1 Proposed Unit Summary
Unit Type No. of Unit Types Bedroom Count Unit Square Footage (gross sf) A
A-1
5 1
one-bedroom 678
B
B-1
B-2
16 1
3 one-bedroom 706
C
C-1
18 18 one-bedroom 688
D
D-1
D-2
D-3
1 1
1 1
one-bedroom 693
E
E-1
4 1
one-bedroom 737
F
F-1
2 1
one-bedroom studio 571
G 18 one-bedroom loft 869
H
H-1
8 2
one-bedroom loft 794
I 1 one-bedroom loft 837
J 1 one-bedroom loft 880
K 1 one-bedroom loft 880
Total 105 71 one-bedroom
31 one-bedroom loft
3 one-bedroom studio
77,305
sf = square feet
The entitlements requested by the project applicant include a Development Plan Review and a Density Bonus application, which includes three Density Bonus incentives: 1) increase the height limit from 45 feet to 67 feet; 2) increase the number of stories from three stories to six stories, to include the proposed rooftop bathrooms; and 3) allow balconies above the second floor to project four feet into the required 20-foot rear yard setback.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
4 Figure 1 Regional Project Location
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 5
Figure 2 Project Site Location
City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
6 Figure 3 Project Site Plan
Project Location and Description
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 7
Construction
Construction of the project is anticipated to begin May 2024. The project would be built in compliance with the standard construction hours detailed in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 5-1- 205, which allows for construction activities Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No construction would occur on Saturday’s unless an after-hours permit is issued by Building and Safety pursuant to BHMC Section 5-1-205.C. Existing on-site landscape vegetation including trees within the parking lot would be removed from the project site as part of demolition and site preparation activities. The project would result in approximately 44,722 cubic yards (cy) of cut soil materials from the project to construct the subterranean parking garage. All 44,722 cy of cut soil would be exported off-site. Construction is anticipated to be completed October 2026, for a total construction period of approximately 30 months.

Operation
Operation of the proposed project would comply with the City’s noise ordinance in BHMC Title 5, Chapter 1 (Noise Regulations). Retail/commercial uses such as cafés, retail, and restaurants would be open between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Common outdoor living spaces at the second floor, fourth floor, and mezzanine levels would also be open between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Rooftop terrace uses would be open between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and would also be subject to the City’s applicable noise regulations.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
8 3 Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis

3.1 Consistency with General Plan and Zoning
15332(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.

According to the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, the project site is designated Commercial – Low Density General with Mixed Use Overlay, which permits multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 79.2 units per acre and a maximum height of 45 feet (Beverly Hills 2010a).

Under a Density Bonus, an applicant may request an increase of up to 50 percent of the total units for a project. Under the applicable development standards for the Mixed Use Overlay Zone, the allowable density within the zone would allow a total of 70 units (one unit per 550 sf of site area). The requested Density Bonus increase would facilitate an additional 35 dwelling units (a 50 percent increase), for a total of 105 dwelling units for the project, with 11 of the dwelling units reserved for very-low income households.

The proposed project involves construction of a five-story (67-foot-tall), mixed-use building with rooftop restrooms consisting of approximately 18,500 sf of commercial/retail space and 105 residential units. As discussed under Section 2.2, Project Description, the project applicant is requesting three Density Bonus incentives for an increase in the height limit from 45 feet to 67 feet, an increase in the number of stories from three stories to six stories (i.e., a five story building with the proposed rooftop bathrooms counting as an additional story), and to allow balconies above the second floor to project four feet into the required 20-foot rear yard setback. Therefore, upon approval of requested Density Bonus incentives, the proposed commercial/residential mixed-use project would be consistent with the Commercial – Low Density General with Mixed Use Overlay designation.

Project consistency with applicable Land Use Element goals and policies is presented in Table 2. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Element.

Table 2 Consistency with City of Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Element Policies Goals and Policies Consistency
LU 2 Community Character and Quality
LU 2.1 City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and
Corridors. Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City’s distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces.

Consistent. The site is surrounded by residential and
commercial uses. Specifically, the site is bounded by a three-story commercial building to the north, North La
Cienega Boulevard to the east with a commercial building and parking lot along North La Cienega Boulevard and
two- to -three-story multi-family residential uses beyond along North Hamilton Drive, a three-story medical
laboratory and Wilshire Boulevard to the south, and oneto two-story single-family homes to the west along North Le Doux Road. The proposed five-story mixed-use building with rooftop restrooms would be similar in scale to
surrounding development along the North La Cienega
Boulevard corridor, which generally consists of
commercial buildings of approximately 45 feet in height, and would be consistent with the character and quality of Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 9
Goals and Policies Consistency
the area. Additional existing development located on the corner of North La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire
Boulevard consist of a 10-story building on the southeast corner and a 10-story building on the southwest corner.

LU 2.2 Public Streetscapes and Landscape. Maintain and
enhance the quality and health of the “green infrastructure” that contributes to the City’s identity and quality of life, including its street trees, landscaped medians and parkways, parks, and open spaces, while seeking to conserve water resources.

Consistent. Existing on-site landscape vegetation,
including trees, would be removed from the project site as part of demolition and site preparation activities,
whereas some of the trees located along the side of the sidewalk would remain. Furthermore, the project would
include on-site landscaping at its frontage along North La Cienega Boulevard and the western project site boundary, and in the outdoor living spaces located on the second
floor, mezzanine level, and rooftop terrace.

LU 2.4. Architectural and Site Design. Require that new construction and renovation of existing buildings and
properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and construction practices, landscaping, and
amenities that contribute to the City’s distinctive image and complement existing development.

Consistent. The proposed residential building would be
poured-in-place concrete with a smooth stucco finish.

Articulated building elements include parapets and trellis with a varied roofline, wall recesses, and glass guardrails along the roof deck. The exterior color palette for the proposed residential building would be composed of
various neutral colors, including shades of white and
champagne. Project landscaping would be ornamental in
nature and would feature trees and shrubs. All
landscaping would be located along the western and
southwestern site boundary. In addition, some existing
trees would remain along the site’s frontage with North La Cienega Boulevard.

LU 2.6. City History. Acknowledge the City’s history of places and buildings, preserving historic sites, buildings, and districts that contribute to the City’s identity while
accommodating renovations of existing buildings to
maintain their economic viability, provided the new
construction contextually “fits” and complements the site or building.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.6, Historical
Resources, the project site contains a commercial
building, which was constructed in 1925. The former
restaurant building, which was constructed in 1947 for
Lawry’s Prime Rib Restaurant, was designed by noted
local master architect Wayne McAllister and constructed by M.J. Brock and Sons Inc. In 1994, the property was sold to the San Francisco-based restaurant, the Stinking Rose.

Physical alterations took place from 1947 to 2022. Due to these changes, the property no longer expresses the
original workmanship of McAllister; therefore, the
property does not qualify for historical resources
eligibility. Furthermore, the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) records search and a review of City of Beverly Hills historic resources listings failed to identify any other historical resources which would have potential to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. The site is adjacent to similar
development along the North La Cienega Boulevard
corridor; therefore, the project would exist as an
extension of the existing development patterns in the
area.

LU 2.9. Public Safety. Require that development be located and designed to promote public safety by providing streetfronting uses, lighting, sightlines, and features that enhance community safety.

Consistent. Existing streetlights along the site’s frontage at North La Cienega Boulevard would remain. The project would include building entrance lighting and tree lighting, which is required to comply with BHMC Section 10-4-314.

The proposed building would be equipped with an
automatic fire extinguishing system complying with
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA-13). The
City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
10 Goals and Policies Consistency
proposed sprinkler system would be approved by Building and Safety and the Fire Department prior to installation.

LU 2.10. Development Transitions and Compatibility.

Require that sites and buildings be planned, located, and designed to assure functional and visual transitions between areas of differing uses and densities by addressing property and height setbacks, window and entry placement, lighting, landscape buffers, and service access.

Consistency. As described in Section 2.2, Project
Description, the project applicant is requesting three
Density Bonus incentives for an increase in the height limit from 45 feet to 67 feet, an increase in the number of
stories from three stories to five stories with rooftop bathrooms, and to allow balconies above the second floor to project four feet into the required 20-foot rear yard setback. Although the project would deviate from the
base zoning requirements, approval of the requested
Density Bonus incentives would result in consistency with the applicable zoning regulations. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the applicable general plan
designation and general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations. The
proposed mixed-use building would be designed similarly in scale to the surrounding development along the North La Cienega Boulevard corridor, which are developed with commercial buildings of approximately 45 feet in height.

LU 2.11. Property Maintenance. Provide an effective and responsive code enforcement program for property
maintenance to ensure the high quality of the City’s built environment and public places.

Consistent. The project would be required to comply with the City’s code enforcement program; therefore, the
project would meet this criterion.

LU 3 Managed Change
LU 3.2. Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs. Meet State requirements to accommodate the City’s fair share of
regional housing needs, contingent upon the ability to
maintain the qualities that distinguish and contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City’s fiscal resources.

Consistent. The project involves development of a mixeduse building providing 105-unit multi-family residential units. Of the 105 units, 11 units would be set aside for very low-income households. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with State requirements to accommodate the
City’s fair share of regional housing needs. The proposed commercial/residential mixed-use project would be
consistent with the Commercial – Low Density General
with Mixed Use Overlay designation; therefore, the 105
units have been accounted for in the City’s General Plan and would maintain the qualities that distinguish and
contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City’s fiscal resources.

LU 5 Complete, Livable, and Quality Neighborhoods
LU 5.1. Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses,
densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City’s identity, economic value, and quality of life.

Consistent. The site is adjacent to single-family and multifamily residential uses to the east and west as well as commercial uses to the north and south along North La
Cienega Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed mixed-use
building would be compatible with its surrounding uses.

The proposed mixed-use building would also be 0.5-mile
from public transit facilities and other commercial/retail development. As such, the project would add value to the City’s identity, economic value, and quality of life.

LU 5.2 Infill and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new
and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form and scale.

Consistent. The project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant building and associated parking lot for the construction of a five-story, mixed-use building
consisting of approximately 18,500 sf of commercial
space and 105 multi-family residential units. Commercial and residential development surrounding the site
Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 11
Goals and Policies Consistency
includes two- to three-story buildings. The project would be similar in scale to surrounding development along the North La Cienega Boulevard corridor and would be
consistent with the character and quality of the area.

Existing commercial buildings adjacent to the project site along North La Cienega Boulevard are at a height of
approximately 45 feet tall. Additional existing
development located on the corner of North La Cienega
Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard consist of a 10-story
building on the southeast corner and a 10-story building on the southwest corner. Upon approval of the requested Density Bonus incentives, the project would be consistent with the Commercial – Low Density General with Mixed
Use Overlay designation.

LU 5.5. Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks,
parkways, street trees, and landscaping in residential
neighborhoods to promote walking as an enjoyable and
healthy activity and an alternative to automobile use.

Consistent. The proposed landscaping on the site would
be ornamental in nature and would feature trees and
shrubs. All landscaping would be located along the
western and southwestern site boundary. In addition,
some existing trees would remain along the site’s
frontage with North La Cienega Boulevard. Thus, the
proposed landscaping would add value to walkable
neighborhoods. The existing sidewalk along North La
Cienega Boulevard would also remain to promote healthy
activity and an alternative to automobile use.

LU 7 Multi-Family Residential Neighborhoods
LU 7.1 Character and Design. Require that multi-family
dwellings and properties be designed to reflect the high level of architectural and landscape quality that distinguishes existing neighborhoods.

Consistent. The surrounding development consists largely of one- to three-story residential and commercial
buildings. The proposed five-story residential building with rooftop restrooms would be similar in scale to
surrounding development along the North La Cienega
Boulevard corridor, which consists of commercial
buildings of approximately 45 feet in height, and would be consistent with the character and quality of the area. With respect to landscape quality, some of the existing trees located at the frontage of the side along the sidewalk
would remain. Furthermore, the project would include
on-site landscaping at its frontage along North La Cienega Boulevard and the western project site boundary, and in the outdoor living spaces located on the second floor,
mezzanine level, and rooftop terrace. The proposed
landscaping would be consistent with landscaping on
surrounding properties.

LU 7.2 Amenities. Encourage new multi-family development to provide amenities for residents such as on-site
recreational facilities, community meeting spaces, and
require useable private open space, public open space, or both.

Consistent. The project would provide a 12,045-sf market and eatery (with 687 sf of outdoor space), a 2,008-sf
restaurant (with 880 sf of outdoor space), a 920-sf café (with 424 sf of outdoor space), and 1,450 sf of retail uses.

Other project amenities include a 706-sf gym on the
second floor, 4,649 sf of private outdoor living space on the second floor, and 15,645 sf of common outdoor living space. Included among the common outdoor living space,
the 12,788-sf roof terrace roof terrace would include a pool and spa, patio and lounge areas with seating,
cabanas, BBQ stations, and restrooms.

LU 14.2. Site Development. Require that sites and buildings be planned and designed to meet applicable environmental Consistent. The project site is located within 0.5-mile of public transit facilities along Wilshire Boulevard, North La City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
12 Goals and Policies Consistency
sustainability objectives by: (a) facilitating pedestrian access between properties and access to public transit; (b)
providing solar access; (c) assuring natural ventilation; (d) enabling capture and re-use of stormwater and graywater on-site while reducing discharge into the stormwater
system; and (e) using techniques consistent with the City’s sustainability programs such as the City’s Green Building Ordinance.

Cienega Boulevard, and commercial/retail development.

Because the entirety of the site is currently developed with a mix of impervious and pervious surfaces, the
project would not substantially alter existing site
conditions or significantly increase the quantity or velocity of stormwater runoff. The proposed building would be
designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s
Green Building Ordinance and CalGreen’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards.

LU 14.4. New Construction of Private Buildings. Require that new and substantially renovated buildings be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s sustainability programs such as the City’s Green Building Ordinance or comparable criteria to reduce energy, water, and natural resource consumption, minimize construction wastes, use recycled materials, and avoid the use of toxics and hazardous materials.

Consistent. The proposed building would be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance and CalGreen’s Title 24 energy efficiency
standards.

LU 14.8. Private Development Landscaping Material and
Irrigation. Require the use of landscaping materials and irrigation systems that minimize water use and runoff onto public streets and drainage systems.

Consistent. The project’s proposed landscaping would
consist of drought-tolerant plants, which would minimize water use and runoff onto public streets and drainage
systems.

LU 16.10. Affordable Housing. Support the development of affordable housing as required by State law.

Consistent. The project involves development of a mixeduse building providing 105 multi-family residential units.

Of the 105 units, 11 units would be set aside for very lowincome households. Therefore, the project would support affordable housing as required by State law.

Source: Beverly Hills 2010a
The project site is zoned C-3 (Commercial Zone) with a Mixed Use Overlay Zone, which, according to the City’s Zoning Code, permits a residential mixed-use project. The proposed residential mixed-use project would thus be consistent with the allowable uses of the project site. A comparison of project features with base zoning requirements for the C-3 Mixed Use Overlay Zone is presented in Table 3 on the following page.

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 13
Table 3 Project Comparison with C-3 Mixed Use Overlay Zoning Requirements C-3 and MU Overlay Requirements Proposed Project
Density (Total Number of Allowed Units) 79.2 DU/acre or 1 DU/550 sf 105 DU (under Density Bonus)
105 units
Outdoor Living Space 21,000 sf 21,000 sf
Parking 149 spaces 196 spaces
Setbacks
Front (La Cienega Boulevard)
Rear (West – 1
st Floor)
Rear (West – 2
nd Floor)
Rear (West – 3
rd Floor)
Rear (West – 4
th Floor)
Rear (Mezzanine – 5
th Floor)
Side (North – Commercial)
Side (North – Residential)
Side (South – Commercial)
Side (South – Residential)
0 ft
10 ft
10 ft
20 ft
20 ft
20 ft
0 ft
0 ft
0 ft
0 ft
0 ft
10 ft
20 ft (10 ft at balcony)
20 ft (16 sf at balcony)
20 ft (16 ft at balcony)
20 ft
0 ft
5 ft
5 ft
5 ft
Stories/Height 3 stories/45 ft 5 stories plus rooftop
restrooms/67 ft
MU = Mixed Use; DU = dwelling unit; sf = square feet; ft = feet The project applicant is requesting three Density Bonus incentives for an increase in the height limit from 45 feet to 67 feet, an increase in the number of stories from three stories to five stories with rooftop bathrooms, and to allow balconies above the second floor to project four feet into the required 20-foot rear yard setback. Although the project would deviate from the base zoning requirements, approval of the requested Density Bonus incentives would also result in consistency with the applicable zoning regulations. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the applicable general plan designation and general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project meets this criterion.

3.2 Location, Size, and Surroundings
15332(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The project site is located within the limits of the city of Beverly Hills on a project site of less than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. As shown in Figure 2, the project is located on a

0.88-acre site and is surrounded by commercial and residential development. Specifically, the site is bounded by commercial development to the north, North La Cienega Boulevard to the east with an office building and parking lot and additional multi-family residential uses beyond along North Hamilton Drive, a medical laboratory building to the south, and single-family homes to the west.

Therefore, the project meets this criterion.

3.3 Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species Habitat
15332(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
14 The project site is located within a highly developed urban area that lacks habitat that would be suitable for sensitive animal or plant species. As discussed in Section 2.1, Project Description, existing on-site landscape vegetation, including trees, would be removed from the project site as part of demolition and site preparation activities, whereas some trees located at the frontage of the side along the sidewalk would remain. According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), there is potential for the presence of Lasionycteris noctivagans (silver-haired bat) and Eumops perotic californicus (western mastiff bat) within a five-mile radius of the site (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] 2023). The silver-haired bat does not have any current protections, but the western mastiff bat is classified by the CDFW as a Species of Special Concern (SSC). Because the western mastiff bat is cliff dwelling and favor rock slabs, it is unlikely on-site trees would be suitable habitat for bats and impacts to special-status bats would be less than significant. Furthermore, the project site does not provide habitat for sensitive species due to its small size, lack of native vegetation, and highly urban context. Since the project site does not provide value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, the project meets this criterion.

3.4 Significant Traffic, Noise, Air Quality, and Water
Quality Impacts
15332(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

The following discussion provides an analysis of the project’s potential effects with respect to traffic, noise, air quality, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and water quality.

Traffic
The following analysis references the CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and Local Transportation Assessment (Transportation Assessment) prepared for the project by KOA Corporation (KOA) dated September 20, 2022, which is included as Appendix B.

Construction Traffic
Construction traffic impacts could be significant if the project would create a prolonged impact due to lane closure; impede emergency vehicle access; create traffic hazards to bicycles and/or pedestrians; or result in similar substantial impediments to circulation or safety (Association of Environmental Professionals [AEP] 2020).

Construction of the project would be temporary, occurring over an approximately 30-month period.

The project would be built in compliance with the standard construction hours detailed in BHMC Section 5-1-205, which allows for construction activities Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No construction would occur on Saturday’s unless an after-hours permit is issued by Building and Safety pursuant to BHMC Section 5-1-205.C. Construction activities would be primarily limited to the project site with partial lane closures to allow for deliveries and staging of equipment during construction hours, as needed, occurring along the portion of North La Cienega Boulevard adjacent to the project site. As a requirement for building permits pursuant to BHMC Section 9-1-109, the project would be required to implement a construction management plan (CMP) for all work to be performed for the project. As part of the CMP, any lane closures would require a traffic control plan to minimize construction conflicts and hazards with access/circulation around the project site, including access and circulation for emergency vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians.

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 15
Grading activities associated with project construction would require an estimated 50 daily truck trips for exporting debris from the site, which would occur for approximately one month. The anticipated haul distance would be approximately 30 miles to an aggregates landfill facility located at 13550 Live Oak Avenue, Irwindale, California. According to BHMC Section 7-2-203 and the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, the City has designated heavy truck routes, which include La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard (Beverly Hills 2010b). Therefore, the project would comply with designated truck routes and would not route construction traffic on roadways unequipped for accommodating heavy duty truck travel.

Construction traffic impacts would be temporary by nature and would have no effect on traffic and circulation beyond the construction period. Furthermore, construction would not significantly contribute to local traffic during the construction period upon compliance with applicable BHMC regulations, including obtaining a Class A Permit required under BHMC Section 8-2-3. Construction traffic impacts would be less than significant.

VMT Assessment
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) identifies appropriate criteria for evaluating transportation impacts. According to the CEQA Guidelines, land use projects with vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding an applicable threshold of significance may indicate a significant impact and projects that decrease VMT compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, the City adopted local CEQA thresholds of significance for transportation impacts in October 2019, which requires use of VMT to analyze transportation impacts. The City-approved thresholds “screen out” certain projects from requiring VMT analysis because they would not cause significant impacts based on State guidance, data, and the characteristics of the city. Based on the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory, the City adopted three screening criteria to identify if a proposed project is expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study (Beverly Hills 2019):

1. Project Type Screening: Local serving retail projects (defined as less than 50,000 sf in size) and projects that generate less than 110 average daily trips.

2. Low VMT Area Screening: Residential projects located in low VMT-generated traffic analysis zones (TAZs) These TAZs generate total daily VMT per capita that is 15 percent less than the baseline level for the region.

3. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: Projects located in the commercial zone of TPAs (defined as within 0.5-mile of a Metro Rapid bus stop) and does not have the following characteristics:
▪ FAR less than 0.75;
▪ More parking than required by the City, unless additional parking is being provided for design feasibility, such as completing the floor of a subterranean or structured parking facility, or if additional parking is located within the project site to serve adjacent uses; or
▪ Inconsistent with applicable Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Once a project component qualifies under one of the screening criteria, that component is screened out for further consideration.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
16 According to the Transportation Assessment, the project site is located within a TPA, with the intersection of North La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard designated as a Major Transit Stop due to a high frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods. In addition, both Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard corridors are classified as High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) because these transit corridors are also well-serviced with 15-minute or less service frequency during peak commute hours. Compared to the TPA screening criteria, the project would have an FAR of just over 3.0, which would exceed 0.75, and the project would not provide more parking than required by the City. Furthermore, and as discussed under Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project is consistent with the current SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS as a mixed-use project promoting denser development near a Major Transit Stop, HQTAs, and future Metro Purple Line (D line) station. As such, the project meets all of the criteria for TPA screening and is screened out of VMT analysis based on the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation impacts.

The project would result in less-than-significant VMT impacts.1 Site Access
Pedestrian and vehicle access to the project site would continue to be provided by North La Cienega Boulevard, which would be subject to the City’s driveway and driveway approach requirements identified in BHMC Section 8-4-4. The project would not alter North La Cienega Boulevard, and thus does not include 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, no significant impacts would occur regarding site access.

Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant traffic impacts.

Noise
The following analysis is based on the Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum prepared by Rincon dated October 31, 2023, which is included as Appendix C.

Noise Fundamentals
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response, which is most sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 Hertz and less sensitive to frequencies around and below 100 Hertz (Kinsler, et. al. 1999).

Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Crocker 2007).

Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible 1 The Transportation Assessment (Appendix B) also includes a level of service (LOS) analysis of the project. However, the LOS analysis is no longer required under CEQA and, therefore, is maintained in the Transportation Assessment for informational purposes only.

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 17
(8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud as what is readily perceptible (Crocker 2007).

Sound changes occur in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in level as the distance from the source increases.

The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line, the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions). Noise levels from a point source typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, ventilation units). Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013). The propagation of noise is also affected by the intervening ground, known as ground absorption. A hard site, such as a parking lot or smooth body of water, receives no additional ground attenuation and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) result from simply the geometric spreading of the source. An additional ground attenuation value of 1.5 dBA per doubling of distance applies to a soft site (e.g., soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to interior noise as well.

The FHWA’s guidelines indicate that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-tointerior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA, with closed windows.

The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs, and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed by academics and industry professionals. One of the most frequently used noise metrics is the equivalent noise level (Leq); it considers both duration and sound power level. Leq is defined as the single steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over time.

Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. There is also the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL usually differ by about 1 dBA. The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the Ldn/CNEL depends on the distribution of traffic during the day, evening, and night.

Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The Aweighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes.

One of the most frequently-used noise metrics that considers duration as well as sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A-weighted sound level City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
18 equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period is specified, a one-hour period is assumed.

Vibration Fundamentals
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent structures. The number of cycles per second of oscillation makes up the vibration frequency, described in terms of Hertz (Hz). The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it oscillates. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt by the human body starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz and goes to a high of about 200 Hz (Crocker 2007).

While people have varying sensitivities to vibrations at different frequencies, in general they are most sensitive to low-frequency vibration. Vibration in buildings, such as from nearby construction activities, may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Vibration of building components can also take the form of an audible low-frequency rumbling noise, referred to as groundborne noise. Groundborne noise is usually only a problem when the originating vibration spectrum is dominated by frequencies in the upper end of the range (60 to 200 Hz), or when foundations or utilities, such as sewer and water pipes, physically connect the structure and the vibration source (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. However, the primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants and vibration-sensitive land uses.

Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec).

PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used in monitoring of blasting vibration because it is related to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020a).

Sensitive Receivers
The City’s General Plan Noise Element identifies noise sensitive receivers as residential uses, (including residences for the elderly), schools, churches, and libraries (Beverly Hills 2010c). The nearest sensitive receivers to the project are the residential uses adjacent to the site to the west.

Table 5 Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Measurement Results (October 12-13, 2023) Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
2:01 p.m. 58 2:01 a.m. 61
3:01 p.m. 60 3:01 a.m. 54
4:01 p.m. 58 4:01 a.m. 59
5:01 p.m. 59 5:01 a.m. 58
6:01 p.m. 57 6:01 a.m. 56
7:01 p.m. 58 7:01 a.m. 56
8:01 p.m. 58 8:01 a.m. 56
9:01 p.m. 57 9:01 a.m. 56
10:01 p.m. 59 10:01 a.m. 57
11:01 p.m. 59 11:01 a.m. 57
Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 19
Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
12:01 a.m. 53 12:01 p.m. 54
1:01 a.m. 53 1:01 p.m. 57
24-hour Noise Level (dBA CNEL) 64
24-hour Average (Leq) 58
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; CNEL = community equivalent noise level See Figure 4 for approximate noise measurement locations and Appendix C for full noise measurement details.

Figure 4 displays the sensitive receivers (single-family and multi-family residential uses) in the vicinity of the project site.

Existing Noise Setting
The most common source of noise in the project site vicinity is vehicular traffic from North La Cienega Boulevard. To characterize ambient sound levels at and near the project site, three short-term 15- minute sound level measurements were conducted on Thursday, October 12, 2023, using an Extech, Model 407780A, American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Type 2 integrating sound level meter.

Short-term noise measurement 1 (ST-1) was taken on North Le Doux Road further west of the project site to capture ambient noise levels at the nearest road lined with residences. ST-2 was taken along the western boundary of the project site to capture ambient noise levels at adjacent residences. ST3 was taken on North La Cienega Boulevard, east of the project site, to capture noise levels from North La Cienega Boulevard. Long-term noise measurement (LT-1) was taken near ST-1 along the western boundary of the project site between Thursday, October 12 and Friday, October 13, 2023, to capture 24-hour ambient noise levels at the project location nearest to the main noise source and adjacent to the nearest noise-sensitive receivers.

Table 4 summarizes the results of the short-term noise measurements, Table 5 summarizes the results of the long-term noise measurement, and Table 5 Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Measurement Results (October 12-13, 2023)
Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
2:01 p.m. 58 2:01 a.m. 61
3:01 p.m. 60 3:01 a.m. 54
4:01 p.m. 58 4:01 a.m. 59
5:01 p.m. 59 5:01 a.m. 58
6:01 p.m. 57 6:01 a.m. 56
7:01 p.m. 58 7:01 a.m. 56
8:01 p.m. 58 8:01 a.m. 56
9:01 p.m. 57 9:01 a.m. 56
10:01 p.m. 59 10:01 a.m. 57
11:01 p.m. 59 11:01 a.m. 57
12:01 a.m. 53 12:01 p.m. 54
1:01 a.m. 53 1:01 p.m. 57
24-hour Noise Level (dBA CNEL) 64
24-hour Average (Leq) 58
City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
20 Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; CNEL = community equivalent noise level See Figure 4 for approximate noise measurement locations and Appendix C for full noise measurement details.

Figure 4 on the following page shows the locations of all noise measurements. Detailed sound level measurement data are included in Appendix C.

Table 4 Short-Term (15-Minute) Noise Measurement Results Measurement Location Sample Times
Approximate Distance
to Primary Noise Source
Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA)
ST-1 North Le Doux Road,
west of the project site
12:48 – 1:03 p.m. 20 feet from centerline of
North Le Doux Road

58.4 48.2 94.9
ST-2 Western boundary of
project site
1:09 – 1:24 p.m. 150 feet from centerline
of North La Cienega Boulevard1

66.0 54.1 92.5
ST-3 North La Cienega
Boulevard, east of the
project site
1:29 – 1:44 p.m. 40 feet from centerline of
North La Cienega Boulevard

70.0 56.1 98.5
Leq = average noise level equivalent; dBA = A-weighted decibel; Lmin = minimum instantaneous noise level; Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
1 This measurement captured intermittent emergency siren noise from an ambulance traveling on North La Cienega Boulevard.

See Figure 4 for approximate noise measurement locations and Appendix C for full noise measurement details.

Table 5 Long-Term (24-Hour) Noise Measurement Results (October 12-13, 2023) Sample Time dBA Leq Sample Time dBA Leq
2:01 p.m. 58 2:01 a.m. 61
3:01 p.m. 60 3:01 a.m. 54
4:01 p.m. 58 4:01 a.m. 59
5:01 p.m. 59 5:01 a.m. 58
6:01 p.m. 57 6:01 a.m. 56
7:01 p.m. 58 7:01 a.m. 56
8:01 p.m. 58 8:01 a.m. 56
9:01 p.m. 57 9:01 a.m. 56
10:01 p.m. 59 10:01 a.m. 57
11:01 p.m. 59 11:01 a.m. 57
12:01 a.m. 53 12:01 p.m. 54
1:01 a.m. 53 1:01 p.m. 57
24-hour Noise Level (dBA CNEL) 64
24-hour Average (Leq) 58
dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = equivalent noise level; CNEL = community equivalent noise level See Figure 4 for approximate noise measurement locations and Appendix C for full noise measurement details.

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 21
Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations
City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
22 Project Noise Impacts

CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Temporary noise levels caused by construction activity would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, the location and sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of noise-generating activities. The demolition, site preparation, and grading phases of construction tend to create the highest noise levels because of the operation of heavy equipment. Typical heavy construction equipment would include tractors, bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, and stationary equipment, such as compressors and generators. It is assumed that diesel engines would power all construction equipment. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or location. In addition, construction equipment would not be in constant use during the 8-hour operating day.

Construction noise was estimated using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) Version 1.1. Over the course of a typical construction day, construction equipment would be located as close as approximately 10 feet to the adjacent residential properties but would typically be located at an average distance farther away due to the nature of construction and the lot size of the project. For example, during a typical construction day when performing construction near these residences, the equipment may operate across a horizontal distance (e.g., 10 to 100 feet) from a nearby noise receiver. Therefore, it is assumed that over the course of a typical construction day the construction equipment would operate at an average distance of 50 feet from the single-family residences to the west and 250 feet from single-family and multifamily residences to the east. Table 6 shows the estimated combined noise level from pieces of equipment assumed to generate the highest noise levels (dBA Leq) during construction at a distance of 50 feet and 250 feet from construction activity.

Table 6 Construction Noise Levels
Construction Equipment
dBA Leq dBA Leq
Adjacent Residences to the West
50 feet
Residences to the East
250 feet
Roller, Crane, Tractor, Dozer, and Jackhammer 86 72
RCNM data sheets and assumptions are included in Appendix C.

Consistent with the approach of previous environmental documentation2,3, 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.

As shown in Table 6, noise generated by project construction would be higher than and would temporarily increase existing ambient noise levels at the nearest residences; however, construction 2 City of Beverly Hills, One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan FSEIR, March 2021, p. 4.8-18 3 City of Beverly Hills, Cheval Blanc Specific Plan FEIR, February 2022, p. 4.8-20 Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 23
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 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. Figure 5 on the following page shows the location of these receivers with respect to the project site. 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 high-volume 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.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
24 Figure 5 Nearest School, Hospital, and Church to the Project Site Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 25

OPERATIONAL NOISE
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Units The primary on-site operational noise source from the project would be from mechanical equipment such as HVAC units. 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 (see Appendix C). 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. 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.

Pursuant to BHMC Section 5-1-202, operational noise from on-site machinery, equipment, pumps, fans, air conditioning apparatus, or similar mechanical devices would result in a significant impact if such devices create noise that would cause the noise level at the property line of any property to exceed the ambient noise level by more than 5 decibels.

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. Operational noise impacts associated with HVAC equipment would be less than significant. Additional on-site noise sources such as landscape maintenance and conversations would be typical of noise generated by neighboring land uses and would not substantially contribute to overall ambient noise levels. Therefore, on-site operations would have a less than significant impact.

Off-site Traffic Noise
Based on traffic counts conducted by the City of Beverly Hills in 2019, North La Cienega Boulevard has a total average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 24,300. As discussed in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum prepared by Rincon for the project, the project would generate approximately 1,040 daily trips. Therefore, project trips would increase traffic by approximately 4.3 percent over existing conditions on North La Cienega Boulevard. A 4.3 percent increase in traffic on a roadway would equate to an increase of approximately 0.2 dBA CNEL.

Therefore, the project would not double the existing mobile noise source and would not increase noise levels by 3 dBA, which is considered a barely perceptible noise increase. Off-site traffic noise impacts would be less than significant.

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
The project does not include any substantial vibration sources associated with operation. Therefore, construction activities have the greatest potential to generate groundborne vibration affecting nearby receivers, especially during grading and excavation of the project site. According to the project applicant, pile driving is not proposed. Foundation piles would be drilled and set. Rubber-tire loaders would be used when within close distances to nearby buildings. According to the project applicant, construction activities would occur as close as eight feet from adjacent commercial buildings to the north and south, 10 feet from adjacent residential buildings to the west, and 200 feet to the City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
26 residential buildings to the east. Table 7 identifies vibration velocity levels at the nearby sensitive receptors for the various types of equipment that would operate during project construction.

Table 7 Construction Vibration Levels
Equipment
in/sec PPV
Adjacent
Residences to the
West
10 Feet
Residences to the
East
200 Feet
Adjacent
Commercial
Building to the
North
8 Feet
Adjacent
Commercial
Building to the
South
8 Feet
Large Bulldozer 0.352 0.004 0.492 0.492
Hoe Ram 0.352 0.004 0.492 0.492
Small Bulldozer 0.012 <0.001 0.017 0.017
Loaded Trucks 0.3 0.003 0.420 0.420
Drill Rig 0.352 0.004 0.492 0.492
Vibratory Plate
Compactor 0.28 0.003 0.391 0.391
Caltrans Threshold for
Building Damage 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: FTA 2018.

PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second 1 Vibration levels measured for caisson drilling were used to approximate vibration levels from shoring installation using a drill rig.

Vibration analysis worksheets are included in Appendix C.

The City has not adopted specific standards for vibration impacts during construction. Therefore, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020) is used to evaluate construction vibration impacts related to potential building damage. Based on the Caltrans criteria, construction vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels exceed 0.5 in/sec PPV at residential and commercial structures, which is the limit for potential building damage at these structures. Based on the information presented in Table 7, vibration levels could be up to approximately 0.492 in/sec PPV at the commercial buildings adjacent to the northern and southern boundaries of the project site. Therefore, construction vibration would not exceed the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold for structural damage to nearby residential and commercial structures and impacts would be less than significant.

AIRPORT NOISE
The airport nearest to the project site, Santa Monica Municipal Airport, is located approximately

5.4 miles to the southwest. The project would not be located within the 65 dBA CNEL noise contour of the Santa Monica Municipal Airport (Los Angeles County, 2009). Therefore, no substantial noise exposure from airport noise would occur to workers or residents of the project and no impacts would occur.

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 27
Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts.

Air Quality
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum prepared by Rincon dated June 7, 2023, which is included as Appendix D.

Environmental Setting
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants.

Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),4 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between VOC and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).

Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:

Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack.

Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. ▪ Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products.

Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories:
▪ On-road sources may be legally operated on roadways and highways. ▪ Off-road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment.

Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles.

Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the 4 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term VOC is used in this analysis.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
28 standards are met or exceeded, the SCAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” In areas designated as non-attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition. Under State law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-attainment. The SCAB is currently designated nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS and CAAQS, the PM10 CAAQS, and the PM2.5 NAAQS and CAAQS. The SCAB is either unclassified or designated attainment for all other NAAQS and CAAQS (SCAQMD 2018).

Because the project site is located within SCAB and falls under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, this air quality analysis conforms to the methodologies recommended in SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (1993). The following significance thresholds have been recommended by the SCAQMD for project operations in the SCAB (SCAQMD 2019):
▪ 55 pounds per day of VOC
▪ 55 pounds per day of NOX
▪ 550 pounds per day of CO
▪ 150 pounds per day of PM10
▪ 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
Construction-related air quality impacts are considered significant if emissions associated with construction activity would exceed adopted SCAQMD thresholds. Temporary construction emission thresholds have been recommended by the SCAQMD on a daily basis as follows (SCAQMD 2019):
▪ 75 pounds per day of VOC
▪ 100 pounds per day of NOX
▪ 550 pounds per day of CO
▪ 150 pounds per day of PM10
▪ 55 pounds per day of PM2.5
In addition to the regional air quality thresholds shown above, SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook. LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into account factors such as ambient concentrations in each source receptor area (SRA), project size, and distance to the sensitive receptor. However, LSTs only apply to emissions from a fixed stationary location, including idling emissions during both project construction and operation, and do not apply to mobile sources such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2003a). LSTs have been developed for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Since the majority of emissions from a residential project would be generated by vehicle trips on roadways, LSTs for operational emissions would not apply to the proposed project. However, LSTs would apply for construction emissions. Localized LSTs for the project site were based on the SCAQMD’s LSTs for one-acre project sites in SRA 2 for Northwest Coastal LA County.

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 29
Project Air Quality Impacts

PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts estimate the city’s population to reach 35,800 persons by 2045, representing a total increase of 1,100 persons between 2016 and 2040. The project would induce population growth directly through the construction of 105 residential units, replacing the existing restaurant and parking lot. Based on an average household size of 2.20 in the city in 2022, the project would result in a population increase of approximately 231 persons (California Department of Finance 2022). While it is likely that some future residents already live in the city, this analysis conservatively assumes all 231 future residents would move into the city.

The employment growth forecasts for the city in SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS estimate that the total number of jobs would increase from 74,600 in 2016 to 81,300 in 2045, for an increase of 6,700 jobs.

Based on median square footage per employee for each land use, project operation would require approximately 32 employees (United States Energy Information Administration [USEIA] 2016), and these employees would likely be sourced from within the existing local and regional workforce.

Therefore, employment resulting from the project would be within SCAG’s projected 2045 employment increase of 6,700 jobs from 2016, and the project would not cause the city to exceed official regional employment projections.

The project’s potential direct population growth (231 persons) represents 21 percent of the city’s anticipated growth between 2016 and 2045, and only 0.65 percent of the city’s total projected 2045 population. Therefore, the project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity and would be considered consistent with the General Plan upon the City’s approvals on the required permits and density bonus incentives. Furthermore, the population and housing, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the city. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, the proposed project would be consistent with the projections and impact would be less than significant.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Development of the proposed project would involve demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction-related activities that have the potential to generate substantial air pollutant emissions. Temporary construction emissions from these activities were estimated in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2022.1 using project-specific construction schedules, equipment lists, and site plans. Project-specific information for hauling and soil export was also used to estimate total haul trips. Under the provided schedule, construction would begin in May 2024 and occur six days a week for approximately 30 months, ending in October 2026. Saturday construction would be subject to City review and approval of an after-hours permit to allow for weekend construction activities at the project site. Table 8 on the following page shows maximum daily construction emissions.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
30 Table 8 Estimated Construction Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
VOC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 16 30 40 5 2
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No
Maximum On-site Emissions 15 10 29 <1 <1
Localized Significance Thresholds1 N/A 103 562 4 3
Exceed LST? No No No No No
1 Allowable emissions (pounds per day) as a function of receptor distance (25 meters) from site boundary. LST for Source Receptor Area 2: Northwest Coastal LA County.

Source: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations/ceqa/air-quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds Note: See Appendix D for complete modeling results.

As indicated in Table 8, emissions from construction activities would not exceed SCAQMD daily significance thresholds and thus would not result in significant air quality impacts. Moreover, SCAQMD Rule 403 requires the following regulatory measures on all construction sites to reduce fugitive dust (SCAQMD 2005):
▪ Minimization of Disturbance. Construction contractors should minimize the area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
▪ Soil Treatment. Construction contractors should treat all graded and excavated material, exposed soil areas, and active portions of the construction site, including unpaved on-site roadways to minimize fugitive dust. Treatment shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, periodic watering, application of environmentally safe soil stabilization materials, and/or roll compaction as appropriate. Watering shall be done as often as necessary, and at least twice daily, preferably in the late morning and after work is done for the day.
▪ Soil Stabilization. Construction contractors should monitor all graded and/or excavated inactive areas of the construction site at least weekly for dust stabilization. Soil stabilization methods, such as water and roll compaction and environmentally safe dust control materials, shall be applied to portions of the construction site that are inactive for over four days. If no further grading or excavation operations are planned for the area, the area shall be seeded and watered until landscape growth is evident, or periodically treated with environmentally safe dust suppressants, to prevent excessive fugitive dust. ▪ No Grading During High Winds. Construction contractors should stop all clearing, grading, earth moving, and excavation operations during periods of high winds (20 miles per hour or greater, as measured continuously over a one-hour period).

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 31
▪ Street Sweeping. Construction contractors should sweep all on-site driveways and adjacent streets and roads at least once per day, preferably at the end of the day, if visible soil material is carried over to adjacent streets and roads.

The use of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead paint was common in building construction prior to 1978. Because the project site contains a 1925 structure, there is the potential that ACMs and/or lead paint is present on the project site. Federal asbestos requirements are found in National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40 and are enforced in the project area by SCAQMD. In conformance with NESHAP, SCAQMD Rule 1403 establishes surveying, notification, and work practice requirements to prevent asbestos emissions from emanating during building demolition activities (SCAQMD 2007). Mandatory compliance with the provisions of Rule 1403 would ensure that construction-related grading, clearing, and demolition activities do not expose construction workers or nearby sensitive receptors to significant health risks associated with ACMs. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act and Toxic Substances Control Act, which would ensure safe handling and disposal of ACMs. Therefore, project construction would not result in significant impacts related to asbestos. Title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 1, Chapter 8: Accreditation, Certification and Work Practices for Lead-Based Paint and Lead Hazards, defines and regulates lead-based paint. The project would be required to comply with Title 17, CCR Division 1, Chapter 8, which includes requirements such as employer provided training, air monitoring, protective clothing, respirators, and hand washing facilities. Mandatory compliance with these requirements would ensure that construction workers and the public are not exposed to significant lead-based paint health hazards during construction activities; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term operational emissions associated with the proposed project are those associated with vehicle trips (mobile emissions) and the use of natural gas, consumer products, and architectural coatings (area source emissions) upon buildout of the project. Operational emissions were estimated in CalEEMod version 2022.1 based on the proposed use and the number of associated vehicle trips generated by the project as discussed above. Refer to Appendix D for CalEEMod results.

As shown in Table 9 on the following page, the emissions generated by the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s daily operational thresholds for any pollutant and would not significantly affect regional air quality. Therefore, the project’s operational impacts to air quality would be less than significant.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
32 Table 9 Estimated Operational Emissions
Emissions (pounds per day)
ROG NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Emissions from the Proposed Project 7 3 33 2 <1
SCAQMD Thresholds 55 55 550 150 50
Exceed Thresholds? No No No No No
Note: See Appendix D for complete modeling results.

For a conservative estimate of project emissions, construction and operational emissions were modeled during winter and summer, then reported for the maximum day during the winter or summer, whichever was highest. Maximum daily mission estimates are then compared to the SCAQMD thresholds measured in pounds-per-day. The annual emissions listed in the tables in Appendix D show the average annual emissions in terms of metric tons per year. These estimates are used for analysis of greenhouse gas emissions impacts since the greenhouse gas emission thresholds are based on metric tons per year.

Heavily congested intersections can lead to long-term mobile emissions that exceed carbon monoxide (CO) standards and lead to CO hotspots. CO hotspots are locations where the federal or State ambient air quality standards could be exceeded because of the concentration of motor vehicles that are idling. Other factors contributing to a CO hotspot include the configuration of the intersection, distance to sensitive receptors, and patterns of air circulation.

A detailed carbon monoxide analysis was conducted during the preparation of the SCAQMD’s 2003 AQMP. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the 2003 AQMP included high ADT intersections in the South Coast Air Basin, those which would be expected to experience the highest CO concentrations. The highest CO concentration was observed at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue on the west side of Los Angeles near Interstate 405. The concentration of CO at this intersection was 4.6 ppm, which is well below the State and federal standards. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection has an ADT of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day (SCAQMD 2003b).

Based on the project-specific Transportation Assessment prepared by KOA Corporation (KOA 2022), the project would generate approximately 1,040 daily trips, which would not cause any nearby intersections to exceed 100,000 ADT. Project-generated local mobile-source CO emissions would not result in or substantially contribute to concentrations that exceed the one-hour or eight-hour CO standard. Therefore, impacts associated with CO hotspots would be less than significant.

ODORS
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, construction-related odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 33
no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also comply with the SCAQMD Rule 1113, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and are less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum prepared by Rincon dated June 7, 2023, which is included as Appendix D.

Environmental Setting
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of GHGs. GHGs contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” which is a natural occurrence that helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the Sun hits the Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping back into space and re-radiate it in all directions. This process is essential to supporting life on Earth because it warms the planet by approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, thereby contributing to an average increase in the Earth’s temperature.

GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs include the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation); methane from landfill wastes and raising livestock, deforestation activities; and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Emissions of GHGs affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition while changes to the land surface indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in which the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (California Energy Commission 2018).

Project GHG Impacts

CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES
The SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS is expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing transportation related GHG emissions by 19 percent from 2005 levels by 2035. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS includes implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, supporting implementation of sustainability policies, and promoting a green region. Further specific actions to reduce GHG emissions under the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS include designing transportation options that reduce the reliance on solo car trips, promoting low emission technologies such as electric vehicles City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
34 and ride sharing, supporting statewide GHG emissions legislation, and pursuing funding opportunities to support local sustainable development projects that reduce GHG emissions.

The project would be within walking and biking distance of the Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard commercial corridors. Existing public transit facilities are located within 0.5 mile of the project site along Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard, consisting of Metro Lines 14, 16, 20, 105, 218, 617, 720, and 786. In addition, the future Metro Purple Line (D line) station, which is currently under construction, would be available for residents at La Cienega and Wilshire Boulevard in the near future. As such, both roadways are well served by bus lines that would provide transit options for project residents to reach other commercial/retail areas in the city, such as Rodeo Drive.

Therefore, the proposed project would focus growth near destinations and public transit would be available within a walkable distance of the project site for residents to use. Thus, the project would be consistent with applicable goals of the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Beverly Hills adopted the Sustainable City Plan, which contains goals intended to support sustainable development in the city. Implementation of this plan would contribute to a reduction in the city’s overall GHG emissions. Of the goals included in the Sustainable City Plan, the proposed project is consistent with the Goal 3 Energy, which encourages “the use of energy in a clean and efficient manner and the use of renewable resources.” The project would include approximately 1,300 sf of PV solar panels and all light fixtures would be high-efficiency light emitting diodes (LEDs). The project would also be consistent with Goal 4 Water, which states “Reduce water use while maintaining a garden-like quality in the City.” The project would implement water-efficient irrigation with a smart controller to reduce water consumption. In addition, all plumbing fixtures would be low-flow to meet current code requirements set forth in the California Building Code.

The project would be served by Southern California Edison (SCE) which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets. SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. It requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Furthermore, the proposed project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan goals as the project would be required to comply with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards and install energy-efficient LED lighting, water-efficient faucets and toilets, water efficient landscaping and irrigation, rooftop solar, and EV charging stations. The 2022 Scoping Plan is a plan approved by CARB that lays out the path for the State to achieve targets for carbon neutrality by 2045 and reduce GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. The proposed project would therefore be consistent with the California Executive Order B-55-18 goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.

Given the aforementioned plan consistency, impacts related to generation of GHG emissions and consistency with State GHG reduction plans due to the proposed residential mixed-use building would be less than significant.

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS
Based on the CalEEMod results, construction activity for the project would generate an estimated 2,069 metric tons (MT) of CO2e (as shown in Table 10 on the following page) during construction.

Amortized over a 30-year period (the assumed life of the project), construction of the proposed project would generate approximately 69 MT CO2e per year. Emissions from construction are amortized for the purpose of comparison with annual operational emissions over the estimated 30- year life of the project.

Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 35
Table 10 Estimated Construction Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Construction Emissions (MT CO2e)
Total Emissions 2,069 MT CO2e
Amortized over 30 years 69 MT CO2e per year
See Appendix D for GHG emission worksheets and assumptions.

OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Long-term emissions relate to area sources, energy use, solid waste, water use, and transportation, as shown in Table 11. As shown in the table, annual GHG emissions for the project would be an estimated 1,287 MT CO2e. Each of these sources is discussed below the table.

Table 11 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source
Annual Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Project Construction 69
Project Operational
Area
Energy
Solid Waste
Water
Mobile
4 346
88 23
757
Project Emissions 1,287
See Appendix D for GHG emission worksheets and assumptions.

Area emissions include consumer product use, the reapplication of architectural coatings, and landscape maintenance equipment. As shown in Table 11, area emissions would be approximately 4 MT CO2e per year.

Project operation would consume an estimated 1,293,902 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity and 2,657,183 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas per year (refer to Appendix D).

Electricity would be supplied to the project site by SCE. The generation of electricity used by the project would occur at off-site power plants, some of which would be generated by the combustion of fossil fuels that yields CO2, and to a smaller extent N2O and CH4. On-site electricity generation from the proposed solar panels was conservatively excluded from this analysis. Overall energy use at the project site would generate an estimated 346 MT CO2e per year.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
36 The CalEEMod output for GHG emissions from solid waste relies on current waste disposal rates provided by CalRecycle. Solid waste generation associated with the project would generate an estimated 88 MT CO2e per year.

Based on the amount of electricity generated in order to supply and convey water for the proposed project, the project would generate 23 MT CO2e per year.

Mobile source GHG emissions were based on trip rates contained in the project specific Transportation Assessment for each land use subtype in CalEEMod. The proposed project would generate an estimated 2,158,257 annual VMT and mobile sources associated with the project would emit an estimated 757 MT CO2e per year.

Based on CARB’s California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2019, California produced 418.2 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e in 2019. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 40 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions (CARB 2021).

Therefore, by comparison, the incremental increase of 1,287 MT CO2e per year associated with the project would not substantially contribute to statewide emissions or affect the climate. Furthermore, modeled emissions may overstate the actual increase in GHG emissions from the project since GHG emissions from the existing one-story restaurant are not subtracted from the project generated GHG emissions and the placement of residential uses near transit may reduce travel distances for some patrons.

Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant GHG impacts.

Water Quality
Urban runoff can have a variety of deleterious effects. Oil and grease contain a number of hydrocarbon compounds, some of which are toxic to aquatic organisms at low concentrations. Heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, and copper are the most common metals found in urban stormwater runoff. These metals can be toxic to aquatic organisms and have the potential to contaminate drinking water supplies. Nutrients from fertilizers, including nitrogen and phosphorous, can result in excessive or accelerated growth of vegetation or algae, resulting in oxygen depletion and additional impaired uses of water.

As part of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the USEPA has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) facilitates the NPDES permitting program, which regulates construction and operation pollutant discharges, and is responsible for developing its requirements in coordination with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

The Los Angeles RWQCB implements the CWA by issuing permits for the County and its incorporated cities (e.g., Beverly Hills). The Los Angeles RWQCB reissued the Los Angeles County Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (Los Angeles County MS4 Permit) in which the City is a co-permittee.

Therefore, development in the city, including the project, is required to adhere to the CWA requirements.

According to project plans, the proposed building would comprise approximately 86 percent of the site and landscaping would comprise the remaining 18 percent of the site. Because the entirety of the site is currently developed with a mix of impervious and pervious surfaces, the project would not substantially alter existing site conditions or significantly increase the quantity or velocity of stormwater runoff. Nonetheless, the proposed project would be required to comply with the Los Class 32 CE Consistency Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 37
Angeles County MS4 Permit requirements, which are also incorporated into BHMC Section 9-4-508.

The applicant would also be required to control pollutant discharge and runoff volume by utilizing low impact development (LID) best management practices (BMPs) during construction and operation. The project would comply with regulatory requirements and therefore the potential for detrimental water quality and hydrology effects are less than significant. The proposed project would be required to comply with the current municipal NPDES permit and LID requirements, which would also include submittal of a SUSMP for review and approval prior to issuance of a construction permit. Since the project would comply with BMPs during construction and permanent LID measures for ongoing operation, impacts related to water quality would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in significant water quality impacts.

3.5 Utilities and Public Services
15332(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The project site is located within a highly developed urban area already served by existing public utilities and services. The City of Beverly Hills Public Works Department provides water, sewer, solid waste collection services, whereas the Beverly Hills Police and Fire Departments provide police and fire protection services to the city. Furthermore, gas and electricity services are provided to the city by the Southern California Gas Company and SCE/Clean Energy Alliance, respectively.

The project involves the demolition of the existing 15,535-sf restaurant building and associated parking lot for the construction of a five-story, mixed-use building consisting of approximately 18,500 sf of commercial/retail space and 105 multi-family residential units. The project would incrementally increase demand for public services and utilities compared to existing conditions; however, the site is already served and connected to all utilities and public services. In addition, the City of Beverly Hills Public Works Department relies on the adopted land use designations contained within the City’s General Plan to determine the projected public services and utilities demand. Because the project would be consistent with the existing land use designation and zoning under the proposed Density Bonus, the proposed multi-family development has already been planned for and taken into account.

Furthermore, project development would include payment of standard utilities connection fees and ongoing user fees would offset the project’s future demand on utilities. The project would also be compatible with other residential and commercial land uses and would not substantially increase the demand for police and fire protection services. The site would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services and the project would meet this criterion.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
38 4 Class 32 CE Exceptions Analysis
The following sections evaluate whether any of the exceptions to the use of a Class 32 CE pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 are applicable to the proposed project.

4.1 Location
15300.2(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant.

Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, State, or local agencies.

The use of a Class 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11 CE is not proposed for the project. Therefore, this exception does not apply.

4.2 Cumulative Impacts
15300.2(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

The project would involve the demolition of the existing restaurant building and associated parking lot for construction of a five-story, residential mixed-use building consisting of approximately 18,500 sf of commercial/retail space and 105 residential units located at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard. No successive projects of the same type are currently located adjacent to the site. As discussed in the previous analyses included in this CE, particularly under Criterion 15332(d) for impacts to traffic, noise, air quality, and water quality, the project would not result in a significant impact in these issue areas.

The potential for cumulative impacts during project construction is a function of several factors, including the proximity of other proposed development projects surrounding the project site, which could potentially generate construction traffic, noise, air quality and water quality emissions at the same time as the project’s construction. However, no successive projects of the same type are currently located adjacent to the site. Furthermore, construction of the project would be temporary and would comply with applicable regulations. Construction of the project would not result in significant cumulative impacts.

With respect to cumulative operational traffic impacts, the project meets the TPA Screening criterion for additional VMT analysis. Furthermore, the project would not modify existing pedestrian or vehicle access to the site from North La Cienega Boulevard. Therefore, the project would have a less-thansignificant traffic impact at the project level and would not contribute a significant cumulative traffic impact.

Cumulative operational noise impacts would consist of the exposure of nearby sensitive residential receivers to the combined operational noise of the proposed project in conjunction with planned Class 32 CE Exceptions Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 39
projects in the vicinity. However, all development in the city would be required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance in Section 5-1-104, which includes regulations for machinery (e.g., air conditioning) and leaf blowers. The project would not contribute to a significant cumulative noise impact.

SCAQMD recommends that project-specific air quality impacts be used to determine the potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality. As previously discussed, the project’s long-term operational emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, in accordance with SCAQMD guidance on determining cumulative impacts, the project would not result in a significant cumulative air quality impact.

The project would also not substantially alter existing site conditions or significantly increase the quantity and speed of stormwater runoff. Similar to the project, all development would comply with permanent LID measures for ongoing operation. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant cumulative water quality impact.

Based on the foregoing analysis, no significant cumulative impacts would result from successive projects in the same place over time, and this exception to a CE does not apply to the proposed project.

4.3 Significant Effect
15300.2(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

The project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The project site is currently developed with a restaurant building in a commercial/residential neighborhood and will continue to operate with commercial and residential uses under the proposed project. The proposed project is a permitted use under the site’s Commercial – Low Density General with Mixed Use Overlay land use designation and C-3 zoning. Although the project would deviate from the base zoning requirements, approval of the requested Density Bonus incentives would result in consistency with the applicable zoning regulations. Furthermore, the site is not located within a sensitive resource area and no site-specific environmental constraints, such as biological resources, geology and soils, and hazards and hazardous material exist on-site. There are no unusual circumstances applicable to this project or site and thus this exception to a CE does not apply to the proposed project.

4.4 Scenic Highways
15300.2(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

According to the Caltrans State Scenic Highway System Map, there are no officially designated or eligible state scenic highways adjacent to or in proximity of the project site. The nearest officially City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
40 designated scenic highway is a portion of State Route 27 (SR-27) located approximately 11.8 miles west of the project site. At this distance, this portion of the highway is not visible from the project site (Caltrans 2019). Therefore, the project would not impact scenic resources within a state scenic highway. This exception to a CE does not apply to the proposed project.

4.5 Hazardous Waste Sites
15300.2(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

The following databases and listings compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 were checked for known hazardous materials contamination at the project site:
▪ Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
o Envirostor database for hazardous waste facilities or known contamination sites ▪ SWRCB
o GeoTracker search for leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) and other cleanup sites In addition to the above-listed databases, other “Cortese List” resources identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) were searched for the known contamination at the project site. According to these databases and resources, the project site is not located on or directly adjacent to any known hazardous or contaminated site. The two nearest known contaminated sites, as identified by the GeoTracker database, are located approximately 0.2-mile southwest of the site at 8536 Wilshire Boulevard and 8567 Wilshire Boulevard. Both sites are listed as LUST Cleanup Sites for potential waste gasoline contamination. However, according to GeoTracker, the cleanup status of the sites is completed, and the cases have been closed since 1996 for 8536 Wilshire Boulevard and 2010 for 8567 Wilshire Boulevard (SWRCB 2023, DTSC 2023, CalEPA 2023). Therefore, the project site is not located on and is not affected by any site included on a list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. This exception to a CE does not apply to the proposed project.

4.6 Historical Resources
15300.2(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The following analysis is based on the Historical Resources Assessment prepared by Rincon dated March 13, 2023, which is included as Appendix E.

A substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resources means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alternation of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” such as by destroying the physical characteristics that convey the resource’s historical significance and account for its inclusion on the local register of historical resources or the California Register of Historical Resources. Under existing conditions, the project site contains a single commercial building constructed in 1947. According to the City of Beverly Hills General Plan Update Technical Background Report from 2010, Beverly Hills, like much of Southern California, expanded significantly in the years after World War II (Beverly Hills 2010). Much of the commercial growth which occurred during this period was focused along the Class 32 CE Exceptions Analysis
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 41
western and easternmost sections of the city (Appendix E). The project site was a part of the commercial development which occurred along North La Cienega Boulevard and the creation of Restaurant Row, a tourist destination of restaurants. The building is a former restaurant building which was constructed in 1947 for Lawry’s Prime Rib Restaurant. The building was designed by noted local architect Wayne McAllister and constructed by M.J. Brock and Sons Inc. By the 1950s, Lawry’s was part of what had become known as Restaurant Row, a concentration of restaurants which originally extended along La Cienega Boulevard from Wilshire Boulevard to West 3rd Street. Lawry’s occupied the project site until 1993 and made several alterations to the building during their ownership. In 1994, the property was sold to the San Francisco-based restaurant, the Stinking Rose.

Based on historical research, the property has potential significance under Criterion A for its association with Lawry’s, which contributed to the commercial development of Beverly Hills in the post-World War II Era and was a leading and well-known business within Beverly Hills and California.

The property also has potential significance under Criterion C as an example of the work of master architect Wayne McAllister. However, since its initial construction in 1947, the property has been significantly altered and no longer possesses sufficient historical or architectural integrity to convey its potentially significant associations with Lawry’s or McAllister. Physical alterations during Lawry’s occupancy of the property from 1947 to 1994 include expansion of the porte-cochere, replacement of all windows and doors, plastering of brick piers along the east elevation, and construction of several additions including a gift shop on the south elevation, a decorative concrete block wall on the east (primary) elevation, and enclosure of a curved section of wall of the east elevation. The second occupant, the Stinking Rose from 1994 to 2022, removed the concrete block wall, constructed an outdoor patio on the primary elevation, removed all Lawry’s signage, replaced all windows and doors, and removed all original outdoor lighting. Due to these changes, the property no longer expresses the original workmanship of McAllister or possesses the materials and designs of the restaurant associated with Lawry’s during its period of its most noteworthy achievements during the 1940s through the 1960s; therefore, the property is not able to convey potentially significant associations and is recommended ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), and the Beverly Hills Local Register. As such, it does not qualify as a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.

To identify previous cultural resources work and previously recorded cultural resources within a 0.25- mile radius of the project site, Rincon conducted a search of the CHRIS at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) at California State University Fullerton on February 21, 2023 (Appendix E).

The CHRIS records search and a review of City of Beverly Hills historic resources listings failed to identify any other historical resources which would have potential to be significantly impacted by the proposed project. Based on these findings, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource and therefore would not have a significant impact.

Therefore, this exception to a CE does not apply to the proposed project.

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
42 5 Summary
Based on this analysis, the proposed 55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project meets all criteria for a Class 32 CE pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Article 19.

References
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 43
6 References
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2020. CEQA Portal Topic Paper. https://ceqaportal.org/tp/CEQA%20Portal%20Topic%20Paper_Thresholds%20of%20Signifca nce_2020%20Update.pdf#:~:text=CEQA%20requires%20a%20Lead%20Agency%20to%20det ermine%20the,aesthetics%20impacts%20are%20typically%20evaluated%20using%20qualita tive%20thresholds (accessed March 2023).

Beverly Hills, City of. 2004. Historic Resources Survey Report. https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/5439787091543355201/HistoricResourc esSurveyReport(2004).pdf (accessed January 2023).
_____. 2009. Sustainable City Plan
http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/24347783778629768/SustainableCityPla n.pdf. (accessed January 2023).
_____. 2010a. General Plan Land Use Element.
http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10—8-- 2_LandUse%2001122010.pdf. (accessed January 2023).
_____. 2010b. General Plan Circulation Element.
https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10281-- 6_Circulation%2001122010.pdf. (accessed February 2023). _____. 2010c. General Plan Noise Element.
http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/filebank/10284-- 8_Noise%2001122010.pdf. (accessed January 2023).
_____. 2019. CEQA Thresholds of Significance for Transportation Impacts. https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/4460592531431926648/RFP-20-270-2- ATTACHMENTCCITY'SCEQATHRESHOLDS.pdf (accessed January 2023). _____. 2022. Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/overview (accessed February 2023).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2021. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2019 Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2019/ghg_inventory_trends_00-

19.pdf (accessed January 2023).
_____. 2022. The 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ourwork/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan (accessed January 2023).

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2023. California Natural Diversity Database. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB#:~:text=The%20California%20Natural%20Diversity%20 Database%20%28CNDDB%29%20is%20an,ever-growing%20database%20of%20GISmapped%20locations%20for%20these%20species. (accessed June 2023).

City of Beverly Hills
55 North La Cienega Boulevard Project
44 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.2). https://www.dtscssfl.com/files/lib_ceqa/ref_draft_peir/Chap4_10- Noise/Caltrans_2013a_Tech_Noise_Supplement.pdf (accessed January 2023). _____. 2019. Scenic Highways. California State Scenic Highways. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-communitylivability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways (accessed February 2023). _____. 2020a. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol For New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/traffic-noise-protocol-april2020- a11y.pdf#:~:text=The%20purpose%20of%20this%20Traffic%20Noise%20Analysis%20Protoc ol,Projects%20authorized%20under%20title%2023%2C%20United%20States%20Code (accessed April 2023).
_____. 2020b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. https://dot.ca.gov/- /media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf (accessed January 2023).

California Energy Commission. 2018. Statewide Summary Report. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4- 2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed January 2023).

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2023. Cortese List Data Resources. https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ (accessed February 2023).

Crocker, Malcolm J. Crocker (Editor). 2007. Handbook of Noise and Vibration Control Book, ISBN:
978-0-471-39599-7, Wiley-VCH, October 2007.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2023. Envirostor. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=332+south+doheny+drive. (accessed February 2023).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/rcnm/ (accessed January 2023).
_____. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance (FHWA-HEP-10-025). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed April 2023).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed January 2023).

Kinsler, Lawrence E. and R. Frey, Austin and B. Coppens, Alan and V. Sanders, James. 1999.

Fundamentals of Acoustics, 4th Edition. ISBN 0-471-84789-5. Wiley-VCH, December 1999.

KOA, 2022. CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and Local Transportation Assessment. September 30, 2022. (Appendix B)
References
Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 45
Los Angeles County. 2009. Airport Land Use Commission. Santa Monica Municipal Airport. https://planning.lacounty.gov/aluc/airports (accessed January 2023).

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2003a. Localized Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysishandbook/localized-significance-thresholds (accessed January 2023). _____. 2003b. 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/cleanair-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/2003-aqmp (accessed January 2023) _____. 2005. Rule 403. Fugitive Dust. https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/ruleiv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (accessed January 2023). _____. 2007. Rule 1403. Asbestos Emissions From Demolition/Renovation Activities. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/reg-xiv/rule-1403.pdf?sfvrsn=4 (accessed January 2023).
_____. 2018. NAAQS and CAAQS Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-managementplans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=14 (accessed January 2023). _____. 2019. Air Quality Significance Thresholds. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/defaultsource/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf?sfvrsn=2. (accessed January 2023).

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 (accessed February 2023).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2023. GeoTracker. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=332+south+doh eny+drive (accessed February 2023).

United States Department of Finance. 2022. E-5 Populations and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2022.
https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housingestimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ (accessed January 2023).

United States Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2019. Table PBA2. Summary table: total and medians of floorspace, number of workers, hours of operation, and age of building by building activity subcategories, 2012.
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/bc/cfm/pba2.php (accessed February 2023)
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1974. Information on levels of environmental noise requisite to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. Report No. 550/9-74-004 March 1974.
https://www.rosemonteis.us/documents/usepa-1974 (accessed January 2023. _____. 2022. “Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter (PM) https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matterpm (accessed January 2023).

Appendix A
Project Plans
A1
June 8, 2023
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N. LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS CA90211. THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE ANDUSE AS A APARTMENT PROJECT MEETING MINIMUMBUILDING CODE STANDARDS ONLY. THIS PROJECTHAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR FUTURE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION. THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL

COVER SHEET
55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BLVD. BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211
PROJECT INFORMATION:

RESIDENTIAL PARKING - THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN 750 FEET OF THE LA CIENEGA / WILSHIRE PURPLE LINE METRO STOP WHICH WOULD QUALIFY FOR 0.5 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT OR 53 PARKING SPACES.
92 COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED. FOR THIS PERMIT APPLICATION ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL USE SPACE WILL BE PERMITTED AS SHELL ONLY BECAUSE THERE ARE NOTENANTS AT THIS TIME.THE GROUND FLOOR DESIGN WILL INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING USES:

MARKET / RETAIL USES:
x 10,045 SF (MARKET) + 1,450 SF (RETAIL) = 11,495 SF / 350 = 32.84 SPACES DINING AND BAR / RESTAURANT USES:
x 3,000 SF (EATERY) + 920 SF (CAFÉ) + 2,008 SF (RESTAURANT) + 1,991 SF (OPEN AIR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY) = 7,919 SF
x FIRST 3,000 SF OF DINING AND BAR AREA @ 1/350: 3,000/350 = 8.57 SPACESx REMAINING DINING AND BAR AREA @ 1/100 (7,919 SF - 3,000 SF): 4,919/100 = 49.19 SPACES TOTAL DINING AND BAR / RESTAURANT PARKING (8.57 + 49.19): 57.76 SPACES STORAGE / RUBBISH / OTHER NON-EXEMPT AREAS:
x 923 SF (STORAGE @ FIRST FLOOR) + 440 SF (RESIDENTIAL RUBBISH AREA) + 200 (COMMERCIAL RUBBISH AREA) = 1,795 SF
1,563 @ 1/350 = 4.47 SPACES
REQUIRED COMMERCIAL PARKING:

32.84 (MARKET / RETAIL) + 57.76 (DINING AND BAR / RESTAURANT) + 4.47 (STORAGE/ RUBBISH/ OTHER NON-EXEMPT AREAS): 95.06 -> 96 SPACES
TOTAL REQUIRED: 96 COMMERCIAL PARKING SPACES
AB2345 - 50% DENSITY BONUS PROJECT WITH 15% SET ASIDE VERY LOW INCOME UNITS. 3 INCENTIVES PROPOSED:
5 STORY WITH ROOFTOP BATHROOMS USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 1 STORY GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL, 4 STORIES PLUS MEZZANINE RESIDENTIAL LEVELS, AND 3 LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE.

SHEET INDEX VICINITY MAP

FLOOR STANDARD NON-REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE EV TOTAL
P3 42 RESIDENTIAL 13 RESIDENTIAL 4 RESIDENTIAL 7 RESIDENTIAL 66P2 17 COMMERCIAL 38 SURPLUS 3 COMMERCIAL 6 COMMERCIAL 64 P1 54 COMMERCIAL - 3 COMMERCIAL 7 COMMERCIAL 64
L1 2 COMMERCIAL - - - 2
196
TOTAL
SPACES

PROJECT ADDRESS & LEGAL INFO & APN

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BEVERYLY

HILLS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOTS 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322 AND 323 OF TRACT NO. 4988, IN THE CITY OFBEVERLY HILLS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED BOOK 54, PAGES 98 THROUGH 99, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THE EASTERLY 20 FEET THEREOF, AS GRANTED TO THE CITY OF BEVERLYHILLS, FOR STREET PURPOSES, BY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 3976, PAGE 81 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN 4334-018-058

PROJECT SIZE
FLOOR

COMMERCIAL

AND OTHER

FIRST FLOOR
USES

RESIDENTIAL PARKING MEP
SCE

CUSTOMER

SERVICE

STATION

COMMERCIAL
&RESIDENTIAL
TRASH

BUILDING

STORAGE
P3 -- 31,980 SF 788 SF - --P2 - - 30,648 SF 788 SF - -- P1 -- 30,704 SF 733 SF - --
1ST LEVEL 18,479 SF 1,453 SF 9,714 SF 777 SF 715 SF 405 SF 1,390 SF 2ND LEVEL - 26,901 SF -- - - -
3RD LEVEL - 26,901 SF -- - - -
4TH LEVEL - 25,531 SF -- - - -
MEZZANINE - 11,008 SF -- - - -
TOTAL 18,479 SF 97,794 SF 103,046
SF
3,086
SF
715 SF 405 SF 1,390 SF

FIRST FLOOR
1- RESTAURANT INDOOR 2,008 SF
2- RESTAURANT OUTDOOR 880 SF
3- CAFE INDOOR 920 SF
4- CAFE OUTDOOR 424 SF
5- EATERY INDOOR 12,045
6- EATERY OUTDOOR 687 SF
7- RETAIL 1 737 SF
8- RETAIL 2 713 SF9- RESIDENTIAL ENTRY 374 SF
10- RESIDENTIAL LOBBY & 1,456 SF

COMMON AREA
11- GARAGE SF 9,714 SF12- BUILDING STORAGE 1,390 SF13- ELECTRICAL ROOM 427 SF14- SCE CUSTOMER SERVICE STATION 766 SF
15- COMMERCIAL TRASH 180 SF16- RESIDENTIAL TRASH 225 SF17- MEZZANINE ABOVE EATERY 1000 SF

SECOND TO MEZANNINE LEVELS
2ND FL- 34 EFFICIENCY+ 1 -1BEDROOM 26,901 SF
3RD FL- 34 EFFICIENCY+ 2 -1BEDROOM 26,901 SF
4TH FL - 1 EFFICIENCY+ 33 -1BEDROOM 25,531 SF
MEZZANINE - 31 LOFT 11,008 SFBUILDING AREA USE CALCULATION 55 N LA CIENEGA BLVDMETRO STATION
A1.0 COVER SHEETA2.0 SITE PLANA3.0 P-3 PARKINGA4.0 P-2 PARKINGA5.0 P-1 PARKINGA6.0 1ST FLOOR PLANA6.1 1ST FLOOR DIM PLANA7.0 2ND FLOOR PLANA8.0 3RD FLOOR PLANA9.0 4TH FLOOR PLANA10.0 MEZZANINE FLOOR PLANA11.0 ROOF PLANA12.0 ELEVATIONA13.0 ELEVATIONSA14.0 SECTION A-AA15.0 SECTIONS B-B & C-CA16.0 SECTION D-DA17.0 OPEN SPACEA18.0 FARA19.0 NOT USEA20.0 NOT USEA21.0 NOT USEA22.0 UNIT PLANSA23.0 UNIT PLANSA24.0 UNIT PLANSA25.0 UNIT PLANSA26.0 UNIT PLANSA27 UNIT PLANSA28.0 IMAGES SURVEY
LEVELS EFFICIENCY 1BEDROOM
2ND FL 1 34
3RD FL 1 35
4TH FL 1 33
TOTAL 3 102
11 AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR VERY LOW-INCOME,
94 MARKET RATE UNITS
TOTAL - 105 UNITS TOTAL UNITS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
50% DENSITY BONUS MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF 105 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL AND 3 LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE.

LOT SIZE 38,500 SF
ZONING C3 MIXED USE OVERLAY ZONE
EXISTING USE RESTAURANT WITH ON 84 ON GRADE PARKING SPACES. THE EXISTING 1 STORY RESTAURANT WILL BE DEMOLISHED.
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211
PROPOSED USE 3 LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN + COMMERCIAL AT 1ST FLOOR + RESIDENTIAL AT 2ND, 3RD, 4TH FLOOR & MEZZANINE FLOOR
DENSITY 38,500 SF LOT AREA / 550 SF AREA PER UNIT = 70 BASE UNIT 70 BASE UNITS x 50% DENSITY BONUS = 105 UNITS TOTAL
W/ 11 VERY LOW INCOME UNITS
UNIT

BREAKDOWN
71(1BR UNITS) + 31(1BR LOFT UNITS(MEZZANINE COUNTS AS BEDROOM))+ 3 STUDIO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT LIMIT FROM 45 FEET TO 66'-6" OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CALCULATION- iNCENTIVE 3
105 UNITS x 200 SF PER UNIT = 21,000 SF REQUIRED AND 21,000 PROVIDED FIRE

SPRINKLERS

THE BUILDING SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1 OR NFPA13
EMERGENCY RESPONDER RADIO COVERAGE IS REQUIRED. LAFC 510 TWO WAY COMMUNICATION REQUIRED AT ELEVATOR LOBBIES PER LAFC 1008.8.

FIRE ALARM IS REQUIRED. LAFC 902.

SETBACKS REQUIRED PROVIDED
FRONT ( LA CIENEGA - COMMERCIAL) 0 0
REAR (WEST) :
1ST FLOOR) 10' 10'
2ND FLOOR 15' 20'
3RD FLOOR 20' 20'
4TH FLOOR 20' 20'
MEZZANINE FLOOR 20' 20'
SIDE (NORTH- COMMERCIAL) 0 0SIDE (NORTH - RESIDENTIAL) 0 5'SIDE (SOUTH - COMMERCIAL) 0 5'SIDE (SOUTH - RESIDENTIAL) 0 5'

REQUIRED PARKING

PROVIDED PARKING

UNIT MIX

OWNER AND CONSULTANTS
OWNER :
55 DEL NORTE LLC3172 S. BARRINGTON AVE. # 101
LOS ANGELES, CA 90066
ARCHITECT :

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP
657 ROSE AVE.

VENICE, CA 90291
PHONE: (310) 393 9128
E-MAIL: [email protected]
SURVEYOR :

JOSEPH C. TRUXAW AND ASSOCIATES, INC
265 S. ANITA DR., SUITE 111
ORANGE, CA. 92868
PHONE: (714) 935 0265

RENDERING - VIEW FROM LA CIENEGA

CONSTRUCTION TYPE
3 LEVELS BASEMENT OF TYPE IA CONSTRUCTION (S OCCUPANCY) , GROUND FLOOR TYPE IA CONSTRUCTION (A GROUP, M GROUP OCCUPANCY) AND 3 LEVELS + MEZZANINE TYPE IIIA CONSTRUCTION ( R2 OCCUPANCY)
66 RESIDENTIAL, 92 COMMERCIAL, 38 SURPLUS (NON-REQUIRED) = DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE 1- HEIGHT - BHMC SECTION 10-3-1880.C TO PERMIT BALCONIES ABOVE THE 2ND FLOOR TO PROJECT 4 FEET INTO THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK
DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE 3- BALCONY ENCROACHMENT - BHMC SECTION 10-3-1952.B.3 ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF STORIES FROM 3 STORIES TO 5 STORIES

WITH ROOFTOP BATHROOMS
DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE 2- STORIES - BHMC SECTION 10.3-1880.C ENTITLEMENTS REQUESTED: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION AND DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION LAND USE CONSULTANT :

HAYDEN PLANNING
10008 W NATIONAL BLVD. SUITE 229
LOS ANGELES, CA 90034PHONE: (310) 614-2964
E-MAIL: [email protected]

LEVELS AFFORDABLE
2ND FL 5 UNITS 202,203,214,215,227
3RD FL 5 UNITS 321,235,327,330,333
4TH FL 1 UNIT 425
TOTAL 11

AFFORDABLE UNITS
A1.1
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"X36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT
DATE: ISSUE / REVISION:

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL
SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.

PLOT DATE
55 N
LA CIENEGA BLVD.,

BEVERLY HILLS,
CA. 90211
08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL
3D RENDERS

LA CIENEGA VIEW - NO STREET TREESLA CIENEGA VIEW - WITH EXISTING STREET TREES

AERIAL VIEW OF REAR SIDE
ELEV.
5'-0"
10'-0"

SETBACK
@ 1ST
FLOOR
350'-0"
82'-6"

PROPERTY LINE

MEZZANINE LEVEL
1ST FLOOR OUTLINE
2ND, 3RD & 4TH

LEVEL OUTLINE
STAIR # 2 STAIR #1

MEZZANINE LEVEL

OUTLINE
ROOF DECK @

MEZZANINELEVEL
1ST FLOOR

OUTLINE
BALCONY @ 3RD AND
4TH FLOOR

OPEN TO BELOW

MEZZANINE LEVEL

OUTLINE
ELEV.

DECK / PRIVATE BALCONY @
BALCONY @ 3RD AND 2ND FLOOR
4TH FLOOR
ROOF DECK @ MEZZANINE LEVEL COURTYARD @
4TH FLOOR
COURTYARD @
4TH FLOOR
BALCONY @ 2ND 3RD
& 4TH FLOOR ROOF DECK @
2ND LEVEL
4TH LEVEL 4TH LEVEL 4TH LEVEL
BALCONY @ 2ND,
3RD & 4TH
FLOOR
BALCONY @ 3RD -

MEZZANINELEVEL
BALCONY @ 2ND
LEVEL
ROOF DECK @ 2ND
LEVEL
BALCONY @ 3RD -

MEZZANINELEVEL
BALCONY @ 2ND
LEVEL
3RD & 4TH LEVEL

OUTLINE
BALCONY @ 2ND 3RD
& 4TH FLOOR
4TH LEVEL 4TH LEVEL
4TH LEVEL
BALCONY @ 2ND
LEVEL
4TH LEVEL
BALCONY @ 2ND 3RD
& 4TH FLOOR
DATUM 1
DATUM 2
DATUM 1
140.29 (BACK OF SIDEWALK TO BE FIELD

VERIFIED) HIGHEST (E) GRADE ELEVATIONALONG PROPERTY LINE AND SIDEWALK DATUM 2NATURAL 142.2 (EG) HIGHEST (E) GRADEELEVATION @ REAR PROPERTY LINENORTH / WEST CORNER ( E)P.P. ( E)P.P.
13'-6"
4'-0"
13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 13'-6" 159'-1"
15'-3"
82'-6"
6'-0"
6'-812 6'-0" " 6'-514"
8'-9"
6'-0"
10'-2"
21'-1" 31'-1"
4'-1" 7'-3" 10'-5"
11'-4"
6'-5"
6'-5" 22'-3"
6'-514"
17'-2"
36'-1"
25'-9"
10'-8"
5'-8"
24'-10"
15'-7" 11'-4"
133'-1"
7'-3"
6'-0"
340'-0"
17'-2"
22'-2" 6'-5" 6'-7" 22'-3"
6'-5" 6'-5" 11'-4"
16'-4"
17'-10" 10'-2"
99'-8"
20'-10"
79'-0"
35'-3"
57'-3"
52'-10"
115'-5"
4'-0"
7'-3"
10'-0"
5'-0"
159'-1"
20'-0"
SET BACK ON 2ND &
STORIES ABOVE 21'-10"

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
(N) 8" MASONRY WALL 6'

HIGH ALONG REAR

PROPERTY LINE
3'-0" 14'-0" 3'-0" 3'-0" 23'-0" 3'-0"
11'-0"

NEW DRIVEWAY

CLOSE PORTION OF
(E) DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY

CLOSE PORTION OF
(E) DRIVEWAY
1ST LEVEL
STREET
LIGHT

CLOSE PORTION
OF (E)

DRIVEWAY

PARKING
METER

PARKING
METER
STREET
LIGHT
STREET
LIGHT

VENT PARKING
METER
5'x6'
SCE
VAULT

PARKING
METER

VENT PARKING
METER
3'x4.2'
WATER
VAULT
PB

CONTROL

BOX RELOCATE WATER
METER

PARKING
METER
WATER
METER
SDMH

RELOCATE
STREET
LIGHT

RELOCATE

UTILITY
GV
FH
SM
GV

LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT(LID)
PURSUANT TO BHMC SECTION 9-4-.508, THE CITY'S LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLICABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

THE UNEXCAVATED 10 FOOT REAR YARD WILL INCLUDE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) THAT PROMOTE NATURAL INFILTRATION, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND BENEFICIAL USE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF.

A2
N
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SITE PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

SITE PLAN
ELEV.
26'-0"
26'-0"
30'-0"
8'-0"
10'-0"
2'-4"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
10" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0"
1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-47 1'-0" 8" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1112" 19'-0"
TYP.
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
TYP.
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
19'-0"
TYP. 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
2'-4"
26'-0" 1'-6" 26'-0" 1'-6" 1'-6"
15'-8"
26'-0" 1'-6"
24'-0" 5'-0" 4'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 8'-1158"
1'-0" 1'-0"
2'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 26'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0"
28'-4"
32'-938"
38'-0"
9'-0"
ELEV.

ELEV.
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0"
TYP.
19'-0"
TYP.

LA CIENEGA BLVD

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE
RAMP UP. TO P2
1 16171819
43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 575859
60 52 51 50 49 48 47
61 62 63
STAIR #2 STAIR #1
64 65 66
RAMP DN. TO P3
ELEV.ELEV.

ELEV.
9 53
11 12

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.
1 23 4 5 6 7 8
21 20
141513
46 45 44
545556
10 18'-4"
19'-0" 19'-0" 26'-0"
1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"

RESIDENTIAL PARKINGRESIDENTIAL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL PARKING
9'-0"
MECH.

ROOM

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
5'-0"
10'-0"
MECH.

ROOM
8'-4" 6'-11"
344'-8"
2'-0"
31'-4" 19'-4" 30'-334" 18'-9" 27'-11" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 34'-114" 12'-11" 99'-8"
17'-3" 29'-3" 21'-2" 32'-0"
18'-9" 27'-9" 21'-2" 32'-0"
35'-11" 26'-412" 30'-4" 30'-4" 21'-4" 30'-834" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 8'-4" 6'-934" 12'-2" 30'-4" 21'-0" 344'-8"
27'-11" 18'-9"
30'-0"
28'-6"
FOW
A
FOW
0 FOW
PB
FOW
PD
FOW
PG
FOW
PL
FOW
PN
FOW
PP
FOW
PR
FOW
PT
FOW
PV
FOW
PX
FOW
PY
FOW
PAA
FOW
PJ
FOW
PE
FOW
PF
FOW
PH
FOW
PK
FOW
PM
FOW
PQ
FOW
PS
FOW
PU
FOW
GG
FOW
HH
FOW
PW
FOW
PZ
FOW
U
FOW
T
FOW
D
FOW
E
FOW
PC
FOW
F
FOW
0 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW
9 FOW

5.6 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW

5.5 FOW
9 FOW

1.8 FOW 3.4
FOW 1.8
FOW 3.4
FOW
A
FOW
PBB
FOW
PBB
6'-0" 1'-0" 6'-0"
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15

ONE WAYONE WAY
A3
N
September 26, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P3- PARKING SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
P3 - PARKING
ELEV.
26'-0"
26'-0"
8'-0" 8'-0"
10'-0"
2'-4"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
10" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0"
1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 19'-0"
TYP.
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
TYP.
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
19'-0"
TYP. 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
2'-4"
26'-0" 1'-6" 26'-0" 1'-6" 1'-6"
15'-8"
26'-0" 1'-6"
24'-0" 5'-0" 4'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
2'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 26'-0"
1'-0"
27'-4"
28'-4"
32'-9"
38'-0"
9'-0"
ELEV.
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0"
TYP.
19'-0"
TYP.

RAMP UP TO P2
1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
131415161718
41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 535455565758
48 47 46 45 44 43
62 63 64
STAIR #2 STAIR #1
60 61
RAMP DN. TO P3
ELEV.ELEV.
2 5
51 UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.
49 42
50 12
52 59

COMMERCIAL PARKINGCOMMERCIAL PARKING

RESIDENTIAL

ACCESS GATE
4'-11"
LEVEL P3
9'-0"
MECH.

ROOM
MECH.

ROOM
5'-0"
10'-0"

PROPERTY LINE

LA CIENEGA BLVD
6'-0"
1'-0"
8'-4" 6'-11"
344'-8"
2'-0"
31'-4" 19'-4" 30'-334" 18'-9" 27'-11" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 34'-114" 12'-11" 99'-8"
17'-3" 29'-3" 21'-2" 32'-0"
18'-9" 27'-9" 21'-2" 32'-0"
35'-11" 26'-412" 30'-4" 30'-4" 21'-4" 30'-834" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 8'-4" 6'-934" 12'-2" 30'-4" 21'-0" 344'-8"
27'-11" 18'-9"
30'-0"
28'-6"
FOW
A
FOW
0 FOW
PB
FOW
PD
FOW
PG
FOW
PL
FOW
PN
FOW
PP
FOW
PR
FOW
PT
FOW
PV
FOW
PX
FOW
PY
FOW
PAA
FOW
PJ
FOW
PE
FOW
PF
FOW
PH
FOW
PK
FOW
PM
FOW
PQ
FOW
PS
FOW
PU
FOW
GG
FOW
HH
FOW
PW
FOW
PZ
FOW
U
FOW
T
FOW
D
FOW
E
FOW
PC
FOW
F
FOW
0 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW
9 FOW

5.6 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW

5.5 FOW
9 FOW

1.8 FOW 3.4
FOW 1.8
FOW 3.4
FOW
A
FOW
PBB
FOW
PBB

BOLLARDS
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S

RESIDENTIAL PARKING

ACCESS TO
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15

ONE WAYONE WAY
A4
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P2- PARKING SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
P2 - PARKING
N
ELEV.

RAMP UP. TO L1
1 23 45 6 7 89
121314151617
51 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 525354555657
49 48 47 46 45 44 43
59 60
STAIR #2 STAIR #1
62 63
10 RAMP DN. TO P2
ELEV.

ELEV.

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
11 18
42 50
58 61
64 26'-0"
26'-0"
8'-0" 8'-0"
10'-0"
2'-4"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
10" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0" 26'-0" 26'-0"
1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-5"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0" 9'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0" 8'-0" 19'-0"
TYP.
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
TYP.
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
19'-0"
TYP. 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
2'-4"
26'-0" 1'-6" 26'-0" 1'-6" 1'-6"
15'-8"
26'-0"
1'-6"
24'-0"
5'-0" 4'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0"
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
1'-0" 1'-0"
2'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 26'-0"
1'-0"
27'-4"
28'-4"
20'-0"
38'-0"
9'-0"
9'-0"
26'-0"
ELEV.
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
19'-0"
TYP.
19'-0"
TYP.

LA CIENEGA BLVD
12'-9" 14'-0" 6'-0"

PARKING

ATTENDANT
BOOTH
CURB
ENTER
GATE
EXIT
GATE

PARKING ACCESS

CONTROL

COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

COMMERCIAL PARKINGCOMMERCIAL PARKING

COMMERCIAL PARKING
8'-0"

COMMERCIAL PARKING
9'-0"
19'-0"
MECH.

ROOM

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
5'-0"
10'-0"
MECH.

ROOM
1'-0"
6'-0"
8'-4" 6'-11"
344'-8"
2'-0"
31'-4" 19'-4" 30'-334" 18'-9" 27'-11" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 34'-114" 12'-11" 99'-8"
17'-3" 29'-3" 21'-2" 32'-0"
18'-9" 27'-9" 21'-2" 32'-0"
35'-11" 26'-412" 30'-4" 30'-4" 21'-4" 30'-834" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 8'-4" 6'-934" 12'-2" 30'-4" 21'-0" 344'-8"
27'-11" 18'-9"
30'-0"
28'-6"
FOW
A
FOW
0 FOW
PB
FOW
PD
FOW
PG
FOW
PL
FOW
PN
FOW
PP
FOW
PR
FOW
PT
FOW
PV
FOW
PX
FOW
PY
FOW
PAA
FOW
PJ
FOW
PE
FOW
PF
FOW
PH
FOW
PK
FOW
PM
FOW
PQ
FOW
PS
FOW
PU
FOW
GG
FOW
HH
FOW
PW
FOW
PZ
FOW
U
FOW
T
FOW
D
FOW
E
FOW
PC
FOW
F
FOW
0 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW
9 FOW

5.6 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW

5.5 FOW
9 FOW

1.8 FOW 3.4
FOW 1.8
FOW 3.4
FOW
A
FOW
PBB
FOW
PBB

BOLLARDS
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S

LAUNDRY ROOM
Ø5'-0"
24'-0"
23 LONG TERM BIKE
4'-0"
2'-0"
TYP.

PROPERTY LINE
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15

ONE WAY

ONE WAY
A5
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL P1- PARKING SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
P1 - PARKING
N
RMV

EXTG EXTG
RMV
EXTG
RMV
EXTG
RMV
EXTG
RMV
ELEV.
5'-0"
10'-0"

SETBACK
ELEV.

DN
UP
40' RADIUS
EATERY
ENTRY
10' REAR YARD

RAMP DOWN

ELECTRICAL
SCE

CUSTOMER

SERVICE

STATION RETAIL
737 SF
2,008 SF

RESIDENTIALLOBBY & COMMON AREA

RECEIVING

RESIDENTIAL

TRASH/RECYCLE
COMMERCIALLOADING SPACE 1
COMMERCIALLOADING SPACE 2

RESIDENTIALENTRY
13'x35'
13'x35'
40' RADIUS 1,456 SF
923SF
CAFE920 SF

OUTDOOR EATERY SEATING
EATERY12,045 SF
ROOM

SEATINGOUTDOOR

EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY

EXIT CORRIDOR

EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY
9' x 19' PARKING
9' x 19' PARKING

AUTO DROP OFF
40' RADIUS

BUILDING MAINTENANCE

STORAGE

COMMERCIAL
TRASH
200 SF

RESTAURANT
RETAIL
713 SF
74 SF

COMMERCIAL

LOADING BACKUP AREA
715 SF
544 SF
9,714 SF
ENTRY

RESTAURANT
880 SF
TOTAL = 2,888 SF TOTAL = 1,344 SF
424 SF
687 SF
TOTAL = 13,732 SF.
374 SF

OPEN TO SKY
TOTAL = 1,830
15 MIN. PARKING15 MIN. PARKING

GARAGE SF
440 SF

MEZZANINE ABOVE
1,000 SF
UP

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE
DN
UP
STAIR #1
STAIR #2

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

ELECTROOM
233 SF 24'-0"
25'-6"
22'-6" 9'-0" 9'-0" 1'-0"
23'-2"
53'-7 83 128"
38'-5"
14'-0"
5'-312"
(E) SIDEWALK
(N) 8" MASONRY 6' HIGH WALL AT

PROPERTY LINE
(E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK
(N) DRIVEWAY
14'-0" (N) DRIVEWAY 23'-0"

PROPERTY LINE

LA CIENEGA BLVD

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
10'-0"
8'-4" 6'-11"
344'-8"
2'-0"
31'-4" 19'-4" 30'-334" 18'-9" 27'-11" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 34'-114" 12'-11" 99'-8"
17'-3" 29'-3" 21'-2" 32'-0"
18'-9" 27'-9" 21'-2" 32'-0"
35'-11" 26'-412" 30'-4" 30'-4" 21'-4" 30'-834" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 8'-4" 6'-934" 12'-2" 30'-4" 21'-0" 344'-8"
27'-11" 18'-9"
30'-0"
28'-6"
FOW
A
FOW
0 FOW
GB
FOW
GD
FOW
GG
FOW
PL
FOW
GN
FOW
GP
FOW
GR
FOW
GT
FOW
GV
FOW
GX
FOW
GY
FOW
GAA
FOW
GJ
FOW
GE
FOW
GF
FOW
GH
FOW
GK
FOW
GM
FOW
GQ
FOW
GS
FOW
GU
FOW
GG
FOW
HH
FOW
PW
FOW
PZ
FOW
U
FOW
T
FOW
D
FOW
E
FOW
GC
FOW
F
FOW
0 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW
9 FOW

5.6 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW

5.5 FOW
9 FOW

1.8 FOW 3.4
FOW 1.8
FOW 3.4
FOW
A
FOW
GBB
FOW
PBB
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S

GROUP A

GROUP M MARKET W/
3000 SF. GROUP A RESTURANT

GROUP A

GROUP M GROUP M

PLANTER
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15
23'-0"
3'-0" 3'-0" 14'-0" 3'-0" 23'-0" 3'-0"
STREET
LIGHT

PARKING
METER

PARKING
METER
STREET
LIGHT
STREET
LIGHT

VENT PARKING
METER
5'x6'
SCE
VAULT

PARKING
METER

VENT PARKING
METER
3'x4.2'
WATER
VAULT

CONTROL

BOX RELOCATE WATER
METER

PARKING
METER
WATER
METER
SDMH

RELOCATE

STREET LIGHT

RELOCATE UTILITY
GV
FH
SM
GV
4'-0"

WALKWAY

EATERYRETAILRESTAURANTUTILITIES / TRASHRESIDENTIAL

BUILDING STORAGE
A6
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
1ST FLOOR PLAN
N
ELEV.
5'-0"
10'-0"

SETBACK
ELEV.

ELEV.

DN
UP
10' REAR YARD

BUILDING MAINTENANCE

STORAGE

COMMERCIAL
TRASH
200 SF

RESTAURANT

RESTAURANT
UP

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE
DN
UP
STAIR #1
STAIR #2

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.
53'-758"
14'-0" 28'-1118"
5'-312"
(E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK (E) SIDEWALK
(N) DW
(N) DW

LA CIENEGA BLVD
( E)P.P. ( E)P.P.

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
5'-0"
10'-0"
12'-2"
17'-2"
33'-8"
15'-1"
16'-1014"
16'-7 916"
27'-8" 17'-10"
18'-112" 18'-1112"
30'-6
12 " 21'-7"
50'-10" 1'-3"
15'-012"
24'-212"
15'-4"
24'-2
12 "
31'-1"
5'-11"
24'-2
12 "
5'-11"
31'-8"
22'-3"
5'-912" 8'-8" 8'-6"
24'-8" 3'-11" 2'-1112"
27'-2"
16'-012"
48'-9"
27'-8
12 "
34'-10
1 16
"
39'-0"
17'-515
16 "
8'-4" 6'-11"
344'-8"
2'-0"
31'-4" 19'-4" 30'-334" 18'-9" 27'-11" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 34'-114" 12'-11" 99'-8"
17'-3" 29'-3" 21'-2" 32'-0"
18'-9" 27'-9" 21'-2" 32'-0"
35'-11" 26'-412" 30'-4" 30'-4" 21'-4" 30'-834" 30'-4" 30'-4" 30'-4" 8'-4" 6'-934" 12'-2" 30'-4" 21'-0" 344'-8"
27'-11" 18'-9"
30'-0"
28'-6"
FOW
A
FOW
0 FOW
GB
FOW
GD
FOW
GG
FOW
PL
FOW
GN
FOW
GP
FOW
GR
FOW
GT
FOW
GV
FOW
GX
FOW
GY
FOW
GAA
FOW
GJ
FOW
GE
FOW
GF
FOW
GH
FOW
GK
FOW
GM
FOW
GQ
FOW
GS
FOW
GU
FOW
GG
FOW
HH
FOW
PW
FOW
PZ
FOW
U
FOW
T
FOW
D
FOW
E
FOW
GC
FOW
F
FOW
0 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW
9 FOW

5.6 FOW

2.1 FOW

3.5 FOW

5.5 FOW
9 FOW

1.8 FOW 3.4
FOW 1.8
FOW 3.4
FOW
A
FOW
GBB
FOW
PBB
21'-738"
8'-0"
29'-2"
7"
(N) 6' HIGH MASONRY WALL AT

PROPERTY LINE
(N) 8" MASONRY WALL 6'

HIGH ALONG REAR

PROPERTY LINE
STREET
LIGHT

PARKING
METER

PARKING
METER
STREET
LIGHT
STREET
LIGHT

VENT PARKING
METER
5'x6'
SCE
VAULT

PARKING
METER

VENT PARKING
METER
3'x4.2'
WATER
VAULT

CONTROL

BOX RELOCATE WATER
METER

PARKING
METER
WATER
METER
SDMH

RELOCATE

STREET LIGHT

RELOCATE UTILITY
GV
FH
SM
GV
A6.1
N
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
1ST FLOOR DIM
PLAN
ELEV.

ELEV.

 


 



 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 



 



 



 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 



 


 


 



 



 


 



 


 



 



 



 


 


 



 



SMOKE GUARD

DN UP DN UP
TRASH
ROOM
SHAFT
SHAFT
FOS
AA
FOS

B CB D F
G

H J L N P R U Y AA CC EE GG HH KK LL MM

I K M O Q S W X Z BB DD FF JJ KK LL MM
E
T V
1245987
10 6
3 3
1245987
10 6
FOS
FOS
FOS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS
FOS
COS
COS
COS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS FOS 5'-0" 340'-0" 4'-8" 4"
GBB
FOW
GBB
17'-1014" 18'-034" 3'-612" 4'-912" 18'-034" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 28'-134" 28'-134" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 18'-034" 18'-034" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 8'-4" 8'-4"
10'-0" 10'-0" 82'-6" 7'-6"
10'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 36'-6"
26'-2"
6'-0"
1'-2" 4"
18'-6"
10'-0" 10'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 36'-6" 7'-2"
4"
26'-2"
5'-0" 340'-0" 4'-8"
4"
5'-0" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 12'-11" 6'-11" 2'-0"
17'-1014" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 4'-8" 
 



REC ROOM
ROOF DECK @ 2ND
FLOOR STAIR #1 STAIR #2
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S

OCCUPANCY LIMITED
TO 49 PERSON
10'-0"

REAR SETBACK
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15

AFFORDABLE
UNIT

AFFORDABLE

UNIT AFFORDABLE UNIT
A7
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2ND FLOOR PLAN
N 2ND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

LEVELS AFFORDABLE
2ND FL 5 UNITS 202,203,214,215,227
3RD FL 5 UNITS 321,235,327,330,333
4TH FL 1 UNIT 425
TOTAL 11

AFFORDABLE UNITS
ELEV.

ELEV.

 


 



 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 



 



 


 



 


 



 


 



 



 


 


 



 



 


 



 


 



 



 



 


 


 



 



SMOKE GUARD

DN UP DN UP
TRASH
ROOM
SHAFT
Ø5'-0" SHAFT

LA CIENEGA BLVD

 


 


FOS
AA
FOS

B CB D F
G

H J L N P R U Y AA CC EE GG HH KK LL MM

I K M O Q S W X Z BB DD FF JJ KK LL MM
E
T V
1245987
10 6
3 3
1245987
10 6
FOS
FOS
FOS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS
FOS
COS
COS
COS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS FOS 5'-0" 340'-0" 4'-8" 4"
GBB
FOW
GBB
17'-1014" 18'-034" 3'-612" 4'-912" 18'-034" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 28'-134" 28'-134" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 18'-034" 18'-034" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 8'-4" 8'-4"
10'-0" 10'-0" 82'-6" 7'-6"
10'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 36'-6"
26'-2"
6'-0"
1'-2" 4"
18'-6"
10'-0" 10'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 36'-6" 7'-2"
4"
26'-2"
5'-0" 340'-0" 4'-8"
4"
5'-0" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 12'-11" 6'-11" 2'-0"
17'-1014" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 4'-8" STAIR #2 STAIR #1
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S
4'-0"
4'-0"

AFFORDABLE UNIT

AFFORDABLE UNIT AFFORDABLE UNIT AFFORDABLE UNIT AFFORDABLE UNIT 20'-0"

REAR SETBACK
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15
A8
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 3RD FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
3RD FLOOR PLAN
N

LEVELS AFFORDABLE
2ND FL 5 UNITS 202,203,214,215,227
3RD FL 5 UNITS 321,235,327,330,333
4TH FL 1 UNIT 425
TOTAL 11

AFFORDABLE UNITS
ELEV.

ELEV.

SMOKE GUARD

DN UP DN UP
TRASH
ROOM
SHAFT
Ø5'-0" SHAFT

LA CIENEGA BLVD

 


 



 



 


 


 



 



 



 



 


 


 



 


 



 



 



 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 



 


 



 


 



 


FOS
AA
FOS

B CB D F
G

H J L N P R U Y AA CC EE GG HH KK LL MM

I K M O Q S W X Z BB DD FF JJ KK LL MM
E
T V
1245987
10 6
3 3
1245987
10 6
FOS
FOS
FOS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS
FOS
COS
COS
COS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
COS
FOS
FOS
COS
FOS
FOS FOS 5'-0" 340'-0" 4'-8" 4"
GBB
FOW
GBB
17'-1014" 18'-034" 3'-612" 4'-912" 18'-034" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 28'-134" 28'-134" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 18'-034" 18'-034" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 8'-4" 8'-4"
10'-0" 10'-0" 82'-6" 7'-6"
10'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 36'-6"
26'-2"
6'-0"
1'-2" 4"
18'-6"
10'-0" 10'-0" 40'-0" 6'-0" 36'-6" 7'-2"
4"
26'-2"
5'-0" 340'-0" 4'-8"
4"
5'-0" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 12'-11" 6'-11" 2'-0"
17'-1014" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-1014" 17'-712" 4'-8" COURTYARD @ 4TH
FLOOR
COURTYARD @ 4TH
FLOOR
STAIR #2 STAIR #1
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S
4'-0"
4'-0"
20'-0"

REAR SETBACK
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15

AFFORDABLE UNIT
A9
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 4TH FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
4TH FLOOR PLAN
N

LEVELS AFFORDABLE
2ND FL 5 UNITS 202,203,214,215,227
3RD FL 5 UNITS 321,235,327,330,333
4TH FL 1 UNIT 425
TOTAL 11

AFFORDABLE UNITS
ELEV.

ELEV.

SMOKE GUARD
STAIR #2 STAIR #1

DN UP DN UP
TRASH
ROOM
SHAFT
Ø5'-0" SHAFT

 



 



 


 



 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 



 


 



 


 



 



LA CIENEGA BLVD
FOS
AA
FOS

B CB D F
G

H J L N P R U Y AA CC EE GG HH KK LL MM

MEZZANINE LEVEL
ROOF DECK @

MEZZANINE LEVEL
N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S
20'-0"

REAR SETBACK
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15
A10
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL MEZZANINE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

MEZZANINE

FLOOR PLAN
N
5'-0"
20'-0"

SETBACK
340'-0"

LA CIENEGA BLVD
STAIR #2
2'-8"
POOL

ADA RAMP
SPA

LOUNGE AREA

OUTDOOR LIVING OUTDOOR LIVING

OUTDOOR LIVING AREA
PATIO

RESTROOMRESTROOM
ELEV.ELEV.
11'-7
12 "
15'-412"
15'-538"
13'-0"

TRELLIS
10'-5"

TRELLIS TRELLIS

STEPS UP

CONDESNIING UNITS FOR THE RESDIENTIAL UNITS CONDESNIING UNITS FOR THE RESDIENTIAL UNITS N A13
A12
E
A13
W
A13 S
FOS
AA
FOS

B CB D F
G

H J L N P R U Y AA CC EE GG HH KK LL MM

ROOF PEDESTAL DECK SYSTEM @ 197.31 FF
13'-7"
201.29 FF
197.31 FF
8'-8"
10'-8"
197.31 FF
197.31 FF

RESTROOM

OUTDOOR LIVING AREA

BBQ BBQ BBQ

CABANAS CABANAS CABANAS CABANAS

OPEN TO BELOW

TRELLIS COVERED W/ SOLAR PANELS
10'-5"
16'-3"
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
C-C
A15
B-B
A15

OUTDOOR LIVING AREATRELLIS

OUTDOOR LIVING AREA

ADA RAMP

OUTDOOR LIVING AREA

OUTDOOR LIVING AREA OUTDOOR LIVING AREA OUTDOOR LIVING AREA

PARAPET
E-E
A16
F-F
A16
STAIR #2
156 SQ.FT
1,379 SQ.FT
TOTAL ROOF AREA : 23,213.30 SQ.FT 80 SQ.FT 178 SQ.FT 359 SQ.FT 688 SQ.FT688 SQ.FT
A11
September 26, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3 32":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

ROOF PLAN
N
ROOF DIAGRAM SCALE: 132":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
PROVIDED:

COVERED ROOF CALC.

ROOF AREA

TOTAL ROOF

COVERED ROOF
23,213.30 SF
4,426 SF
4,426 / 23,213.30 = 19%
DATUM 1
140.29 (BACK OF SIDEWALK TO BE FIELD

VERIFIED) HIGHEST (E) GRADE

ELEVATION ALONG PROPERTY LINE AND

SIDEWALK
57'-0"

BUILDING HEIGHT FROM DATUM
138.35 140.29 DATUM 1
155.44
9'-0"
165.60
9'-0"
175.77
9'-0"
185.94
9'-0"
197.31
11'-10
12 " 1'-2" 1'-2"
206.812ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR

MEZZANINE
T.O ROOF

PEDESTALDECK

CEILING
15'-9
38 "
CEILINGCEILINGCEILINGCEILING 1'-2"
155.44165.60175.77185.94197.31
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR
4TH FLOOR

MEZZANINE
T.O. ROOF

PEDESTALDECK

CEILINGCEILINGCEILINGCEILINGCEILING
T.O. PARAPET
206.81
T.O. PARAPET/TRELLIS
200.81
T.O.

GUARDRAIL
200.81
T.O.

GUARDRAIL
66'-6"

BUILDING
C-C
A15
B-B
A15
FRONT ELEVATION - LA CIENEGA BLVD.

SCALE: 3/32":1'
A12
FRONT

ELEVATION
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N. LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS CA90211. THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE

BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE AND

USE AS A APARTMENT PROJECT MEETING MINIMUM
BUILDING CODE STANDARDS ONLY. THIS PROJECT

HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR FUTURE
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION. THESE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1342 CLADDING: 2'x6', 2'x4' AND 2'X2' PANELS -2' HORIZONTAL STAGGERING. COLOR: BONE SMOOTH STUCCO MFR: OMEGA - COLOR: MILKY QUARTZ WHITE
BREAK METAL. COLOR: LIGHT CHAMPAIGN
CLADDING: STACK BOND LAYOUT WITH 2'x6' PANELS WITH 2MM VERTICAL JOINTS. COLOR: BONE,
4B ACM PANELS: COLOR: LIGHT CHAMPAIGN
59 POURED-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

ADJACENT BUILDING ADJACENT BUILDING
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
DATUM 1
LA CIENEGA BLVD.

ADJACENT BUILDING
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
(N) 6' HIGH MASONRY WALL AT

PROPERTY LINE
DATUM 1
140.29 (BACK OF SIDEWALK TO BE FIELD

VERIFIED) HIGHEST (E) GRADE
LA CIENEGA BLVD.

ADJACENT

BUILDING
206.81
T.O. PARAPET/TRELLIS
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"X36" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT
WEST ELEVATION - REAR SCALE: 3/32":1'
SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32":1' NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 3/32":1' A13

ELEVATIONS
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N. LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS CA90211. THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE

BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE AND

USE AS A APARTMENT PROJECT MEETING MINIMUM
BUILDING CODE STANDARDS ONLY. THIS PROJECT

HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR FUTURE
CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION. THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 13452 CLADDING: 2'x6', 2'x4' AND 2'X2' PANELS -2' HORIZONTAL STAGGERING. COLOR: BONE SMOOTH STUCCO MFR: OMEGA - COLOR: MILKY QUARTZ WHITE
9 POURED-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
BREAK METAL. COLOR: LIGHT CHAMPAIGN
CLADDING: STACK BOND LAYOUT WITH 2'x6' PANELS WITH 2MM VERTICAL JOINTS. COLOR: BONE,

STOREFRONT SYSTEM - LIGHT CHAMPAIGN
6 42"H. FRAME-LESS GLASS GUARDRAIL7 42"H. GLASS GUARDRAIL WITH A FLAT METAL BAR FRAME8 FRAME-LESS GLASS 10 METAL GRILL - COLOR: LIGHT CHAMPAIGN11 ROLL UP DOOR. COLOR: LIGHT CHAMPAIGN12 METAL TRELLIS. COLOR: LIGHT CHAMPAIGN 4B ACM PANELS: COLOR: LIGHT CHAMPAIGN
13 CMU BLOCK WITH CLEAR WATERPROOFING SEALER14 SOLAR PANELS MOUNTED TO TRELLIS ROOF UNIT 201
TYPE D-1
UNIT 202
TYPE A-1
STAIR #2
UNIT 203
TYPE B-1
UNIT 204
TYPE B
UNIT 205
TYPE B
UNIT 206
TYPE B
UNIT 207
TYPE B
UNIT 208
TYPE A
UNIT 209
TYPE E-1
UNIT 211
TYPE A
UNIT 212
TYPE B
UNIT 213
TYPE B
UNIT 214
TYPE B
UNIT 215
TYPE B
UNIT 301
TYPE D
UNIT 302
TYPE A
UNIT 303
TYPE B-2
UNIT 304
TYPE B
UNIT 305
TYPE B
UNIT 306
TYPE B
UNIT 307
TYPE B
UNIT 308
TYPE A
UNIT 309
TYPE E
UNIT 311
TYPE A
UNIT 312
TYPE B
UNIT 313
TYPE B
UNIT 314
TYPE B
UNIT 315
UNIT 310 TYPE B
TYPE E
UNIT 401
TYPE J
UNIT 402
TYPE I
UNIT 403
TYPE H-1
UNIT 404
TYPE H
UNIT 405
TYPE H
UNIT 406
TYPE H
UNIT 407
TYPE H COURTYARD UNIT 409 TYPE E COURTYARD UNIT 410 TYPE H UNIT 411 TYPE H UNIT 412 TYPE H UNIT 413 TYPE H UNIT 410 TYPE E STAIR #1

SCE COSTUMERSERVICE STATION EATERY CAFE RESIDENTIAL LOBBY & COMMON AREA AUTO DROP OFF RETAIL GARAGE ENTRANCE RESIDENTIAL TRASH / RECYCLE RESTAURANT MECH. ROOM PARKING PARKING DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY

RESIDENTIAL LOBBY
& COMMON AREA

PARKING PARKING DRIVEWAY PARKING DRIVEWAY

PARKING

REC ROOM
UNIT 216
TYPE B-2
UNIT 316
TYPE B-2
UNIT 217
TYPE D-3
UNIT 317
TYPE D-3

ADJACENT

BUILDING

ADJACENT

BUILDING
C-C
A15
B-B
A15
(N) 8" MASONRY
WALL 6' HIGHALONG REAR PL
PL
UNIT 216
TYPE B-2
UNIT 217
TYPE D-3
UNIT 316
TYPE B-2
UNIT 317
TYPE D-2
UNIT 414
TYPE H-1
UNIT 415
TYPE K
PL
LONGITUDINAL SECTION A-A SCALE: 3/32":1'
A14

SECTION A-A
June 8, 2023 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS. PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL UNIT 233
TYPE C-1
UNIT 333
TYPE C
UNIT 431
TYPE G
CORRIDOR UNIT 204 TYPE B
UNIT 304
TYPE B
UNIT 404
TYPE H
UNIT 404
TYPE H

KITCHEN

CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR

EATERYENTERY EATERY

PARKINGPARKINGPARKING

KITCHEN
LA CIENEGA BLVD.

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
UNIT 233
TYPE C-1
UNIT 333
TYPE C
UNIT 431
TYPE G
CORRIDOR UNIT 204 TYPE B
UNIT 304
TYPE B
UNIT 404
TYPE H
UNIT 404
TYPE H

KITCHEN

CORRIDORCORRIDORCORRIDOR

EATERYENTERY EATERY

PARKINGPARKINGPARKING

KITCHEN
LA CIENEGA BLVD.

ADJACENT

PROPERTY
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
(N)8" MASONRY
WALL 6' HIGHALONG PL

DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY

RAMPRAMPRAMP

RETAIL RESIDENTIAL LOBBY & COMMON AREA ELEVATORS BEHIND RECEIVING REC ROOM UNIT 226 - TYPE C1 CORRIDOR
UNIT 310 - TYPE E CORRIDOR UNIT 326 - TYPE C1UNIT 409 - TYPE E CORRIDOR UNIT 424 - TYPE G

ROOF DECK CORRIDOR MEZZANINE

ROOF DECK

ELEVATOR SHAFT
POOL
PATIO

LA CIENEGA SIDEWALK
D-D
A16
A-A
A14

DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY

RAMPRAMPRAMP

RETAIL RESIDENTIAL LOBBY & COMMON AREA ELEVATORS BEHIND RECEIVING REC ROOM UNIT 226 - TYPE C1 CORRIDOR
UNIT 310 - TYPE E CORRIDOR UNIT 326 - TYPE C1UNIT 409 - TYPE E CORRIDOR UNIT 424 - TYPE G

ROOF DECK CORRIDOR MEZZANINE

ROOF DECK

ELEVATOR SHAFT
POOL
PATIO

LA CIENEGA SIDEWALK
D-D
A16
A-A
A14
3'-3"
1'-0"
6'-0" MAX. (TYP)(N) 8" MASONRY WALL 6' HIGH ALIGN PROPERTY LINE 2'-0"
MIN.

REAR

PROPERTY LINE
CROSS SECTION B-B SCALE: 3/32":1'
A15

SECTIONS

B-B & C-C
August 25, 2022 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS. PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL CROSS SECTION C-C SCALE: 3/32":1'

REAR WALL DETAIL ALIGN PL

MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOF SHALL BE SCREENED FROM AHORIZONTAL VIEW ON ALL SIDES. THE PERIMETER ROOF PARAPETS ARE SET AT AN ELEVATION THAT IS HIGHER THAN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

THE PARAPETS WILL ACT AS THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREEN.

STAIR #1
GARAGE

ENTRANCE

BUILDING

MAINTENANCE

STORAGE

DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY PARKING PARKINGDRIVEWAY PARKING PARKING DRIVEWAY

DRIVEWAY PARKING PARKING DRIVEWAY

ADJACENT

BUILDING ADJACENT BUILDING

ELECTRICAL
ROOM

RECEIVING EATERY

MEZZANINE PROJECTION
UNIT 218
TYPE C-1
UNIT 219
TYPE C-1
UNIT 220
TYPE C-1
UNIT 221
TYPE C-1
UNIT 222
TYPE C-1
UNIT 223
TYPE C-1
UNIT 224
TYPE C-1
UNIT 225
TYPE C-1
UNIT 226
TYPE C-1
UNIT 227
TYPE F-1
UNIT 228
TYPE C-1
UNIT 229
TYPE C-1
UNIT 230
TYPE C-1
UNIT 231
TYPE C-1
UNIT 232
TYPE C-1
UNIT 233
TYPE C-1
UNIT 234
TYPE C-1
UNIT 235
TYPE C-1
UNIT 236
TYPE C-1
UNIT 318
TYPE C-1
UNIT 319
TYPE C-1
UNIT 320
TYPE C-1
UNIT 321
TYPE C-1
UNIT 322
TYPE C-1
UNIT 323
TYPE C-1
UNIT 324
TYPE C-1
UNIT 325
TYPE C-1
UNIT 326
TYPE C-1
UNIT 327
TYPE F
UNIT 328
TYPE C-1
UNIT 329
TYPE C-1
UNIT 330
TYPE C-1
UNIT 331
TYPE C-1
UNIT 332
TYPE C-1
UNIT 333
TYPE C-1
UNIT 334
TYPE C-1
UNIT 335
TYPE C-1
UNIT 336
TYPE C-1
UNIT 416 TYPE G UNIT 417 TYPE G UNIT 418 TYPE G UNIT 419 TYPE G UNIT 420 TYPE G UNIT 421 TYPE G UNIT 422 TYPE G UNIT 423 TYPE G UNIT 424 TYPE G UNIT 426 TYPE G UNIT 427 TYPE G UNIT 428 TYPE G UNIT 429 TYPE G UNIT 430 TYPE G UNIT 431 TYPE G UNIT 432 TYPE G UNIT 433 TYPE G UNIT 434 TYPE G UNIT 425
TYPE F

RAMPRAMP
RAMP

MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE MEZZANINE PATIO

ELEVATOR
SHAFT
B-B
A15
C-C
A15
(N)8" MASONRY
WALL 6' HIGHALONG REAR PL

RESTROOM RESTROOM
UNIT 416 TYPE G UNIT 417 TYPE G

CORRIDORCORRIDOR
STAIR #2
LONGITUDINAL SECTION D-D SCALE: 3/32":1'
A16

SECTION D-D

E-E & F-F
August 25, 2022 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS. PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL SECTION F-F SCALE: 3/32":1' SECTION E-E SCALE: 3/32":1' DN
UP
40' RADIUS
EATERY
ENTRY
10' REAR YARD

RAMP DOWN

ELECTRICAL
SCE

CUSTOMER

SERVICE

STATION RETAIL
737 SF
2,008 SF

RESIDENTIALLOBBY & COMMON AREA

RECEIVING

RESIDENTIAL

TRASH/RECYCLE
COMMERCIALLOADING SPACE 1
COMMERCIALLOADING SPACE 2

RESIDENTIALENTRY
13'x35'
13'x35'
40' RADIUS 1,456 SF
923SF
CAFE920 SF

OUTDOOR EATERY SEATING
EATERY12,045 SF
ROOM

SEATINGOUTDOOR

EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY

EXIT CORRIDOR

EMERGENCY EGRESS ONLY
9' x 19' PARKING
9' x 19' PARKING

AUTO DROP OFF
40' RADIUS

BUILDING MAINTENANCE

STORAGE

COMMERCIAL
TRASH200 SF

RESTAURANT
RETAIL
713 SF

COMMERCIAL

LOADING BACKUP AREA
715 SF
544 SF
9,714 SF
ENTRY

RESTAURANT
880 SF
TOTAL = 2,888 SF TOTAL = 1,344 SF
424 SF
687 SF
TOTAL = 13,732 SF.
374 SF

OPEN TO SKY
TOTAL = 1,830
15 MIN. PARKING15 MIN. PARKING

GARAGE SF
440 SF

MEZZANINE ABOVE
1,000 SF
UP

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE
DN
UP
STAIR #1
STAIR #2

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

ELECTROOM
233 SF
27'-11"
25'-3
12 "
6'-0"
6'-9" 6'-9"

PRIVATE BALCONY
TOTAL 1,002 SF PRIVATE

OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
10'-0"
19'-11" 17'-712"
11'-0"
17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 18'-2" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 17'-712" 19'-11" 6'-2"
8'-9"
24'-412"
10'-8"
7'-2"
6'-0"
6'-9"
6'-514" 6'-514"
6'-514" 6'-514"
6'-0"
6'-714"
7'-6"
6'-812" 35'-218"
6'-0"
21'-138"
REC ROOM 706 SF

COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
594 SF (WITH 318 SF LANDSCAPE)

PRIVATE BALCONY
TOTAL 3,647 SF PRIVATE OUTDOOR

LIVING SPACE
6'-312 6'-3 " 12" 6'-514" 6'-514" 17'-914"
17'-10"
STAIR #2

COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
12,788 SF (WITH 1,789 SF LANDSCAPE)
123'-3"
25'-6" 34'-4"
0"
48'-3"
0"
130'-414"
43'-11"
21'-3"
77'-6"
22'-10"
32'-0"
1'-5" 24'-6"
27'-11"
34'-712"

COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
891 SF (WITH 227 SF LANDSCAPE)
25'-9"

COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
TOTAL1,372 SF
17'-712"
39'-7"
17'-712"
A17
N
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 1ST FLOOR PLAN

OUTDOOR LIVING

SPACE CALCULATION

OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CALCULATION
2ND FLOOR PLAN
3RD FLOOR PLAN
4TH FLOOR PLAN

MEZZANINE PLAN

ROOF PLAN

LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION
PROVIDED:
2ND FLOOR :
318 LANDSCAPED AREA
594 TOTAL AREA
= 54%
ROOF TERRACE:
1,789 LANDSCAPE AREA
12,788 TOTAL AREA

PRIVATE, COMPUTABLE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
6' MIN IN ANY DIRECTION
COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE 15' MIN. IN ANY DIRECTION
400 SF MIN IN AREA

GYM / REC ROOM

AREA OF PLANTER REQUIRED AT

COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACES
LEGEND
= 14%
4TH FLOOR :
434 LANDSCAPED AREA
1,372 TOTAL AREA
= 32%
MEZZANINE FLOOR :
227 LANDSCAPED AREA
891 TOTAL AREA
= 25.5%
REQUIRED:

STUDIO - UNITS (<3 HABITABLE ROOMS): 3 X 200 SF
1 BR- UNITS (<3 HABITABLE ROOMS): 102 X 200 SF

TOTAL REQUIRED
600 SF
20,400 SF
PROVIDED:

OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CALC.

COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE (15' W. MIN OPEN TO SKY)
2ND FLOOR
4TH FLOOR

MEZZANINE FLOOR

ROOF TERRACE
594 SF
(686 SFX2) = 1,372 SF
891 SF
12,788 SF
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE (6' W. MIN)
BALCONIES @ 2ND FLOOR
TOTAL PROVIDED 21,000 SF

LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION
21,000 SF
(3,647+1,002) = 4,649 SF

GYM/REC
2ND FLOOR
706 SF

BEVERLY HILLS
10-3-2803: OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
DN
UP
10' REAR YARD
UP
DN
UP
STAIR #1
STAIR #2

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

GARAGE
(GROUP S)
7,322 SF

RESIDENTIAL
(GROUP R2)
1,460 SF

RESIDENTIAL
136 SF

RESIDENTIAL
(GROUP R2)
126 SF

COMMERCIAL
(GROUP A)
2,961 SF

COMMERCIAL
(GROUP M)
1,468 SF

BUILDING

STORAGE
1,468 SF

TRASHES
405 SF

COMMERCIAL
(GROUP A)
14,335 SF

UTILITIES
1,233 SF

MEZZANINE ABOVE
EATERY

ELECTRICAL

SCECUSTOMERSERVICESTATION OUTDOOR SEATING
CAFE

OUTDOOR

SEATING

RESIDENTIAL

LOBBY &

COMMON AREA

OPEN TO SKY RETAIL RETAIL

RESIDENTIAL
ENTRY
EATERY
ENTRY
GARAGE

RESTAURANTRESTAURANTENTRY

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
27,886 SF

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
27,808 SF
STAIR #2

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
514.55 SF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (MEZZANINE) 11,008 SF

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
26,484 SF
RAMP UP TO P2
1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11
131415161718
41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 535455565758
48 47 46 45 44 43
62 63 64
STAIR #2 STAIR #1
60 61
RAMP DN. TO P3
ELEV.ELEV.
25 51

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.
49 42
50 12
52 59
GARAGE
32,290 SF
MECH.
355 SF
MECH.
434 SF
RAMP UP. TO L1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89
121314151617
51 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 525354555657
49 48 47 46 45 44 43
59 60
STAIR #2 STAIR #1
62 63
10 RAMP DN. TO P2
ELEV.

ELEV.

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
CLEAN
AIR
11 18
42 50
58 61
64 GARAGE
33,045 SF
MECH.
355 SF
MECH.
378 SF

UNEXCAVATED YARD

UNEXCAVATED SPACE
RAMP UP. TO P2
1 16171819
43 42 41 40 39 38 37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 57585960
52 51 50 49 48 47
61 62 63
STAIR #2 STAIR #1
64 65 66
RAMP DN. TO P3
ELEV.ELEV.

ELEV.
9 53
10 11
12 COMMERCIAL
ELEV.

COMMERCIAL
ELEV.
1 23 4 5 6 78
21 20
141513
46 45 44
545556
GARAGE
32,359 SF
MECH.
355 SF
MECH.
434 SF
A18
N
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL

BUILDING AREA

BUILDING AREA
2ND FLOOR PLAN4TH FLOOR PLAN

ROOF PLAN MEZZANINE PLAN
3RD FLOOR PLAN
1ST FLOOR PLAN
P2 PARKING PLANP1 PARKING PLAN
P3 PARKING PLAN
(NOT A STORY)
FLOOR COMMERCIAL (GROUP A) COMMERCIAL (GROUP M) RESIDENTIAL (GROUP R2) PARKING (GROUP S) UTILITIES / TRASH BUILDING STORAGE P3 -- 32,359 SF --
P2 - - 32,290 SF --
P1 -- 33,045 SF --
1ST LEVEL 1,468 SF 17,296 SF 1,722 SF 7,322 SF 1,638 SF 1,468 SF 2ND LEVEL - 27,886 SF - --
3RD LEVEL - 27,808 SF - --
4TH LEVEL - 26,484 SF - --
MEZZANINE - 11,008 SF - --
ROOF/5TH - 515 SF - --
TOTAL 1,468 SF 17,296 SF 95,423 SF 105,016 SF 1,638 SF 1,468 SF TOTAL 18,764
SCALE: 132":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"
UNIT A

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 678
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
10'-4" 25'-5"
36'-6" 6'-0"
40'-0"
18'-1"
7'-212"
11'-4"

BATHROOM

KITCHEN

BEDROOM
3 12
"
11'-0" 15'-2" CLOSET2'-0"
LIVING
6'-9"
512" 7'-712" 512" 2'-0" 312"
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

BALCONY
7'-2"
9'-512"
UNIT A-1

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT A
BALCONY @ 2ND FLOOR
UNIT B

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 706
LIVING

KITCHEN

BATHROOM

BALCONY
18'-1"
36'-6"
10'-4"
6'-514"
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
11'-4"
CLOSET

BEDROOM
512" 7'-712" 512" 2'-0" 312"
25'-5"
11'-0" 2'-0"
3 12
"
17'-8"
42'-6"
UNIT B-1

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT B
BALCONY @ 2ND FLOOR

BALCONY
4 1LIVING
" / 1'
SLOPE
9'-012"
6'-2"
6'-512"
8'-8"
11'-4"
UNIT B-2

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 706

BATHROOM

BALCONY
18'-1"
36'-6"
10'-4"
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
11'-4"
512" 312" 7'-712" 512" 2'-0"

BEDROOM
CLOSET
LIVING

KITCHEN
17'-8"
3 12
"
2'-0" 11'-0"
42'-6"
6'-9"
A22
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL UNIT PLANS SCALE: 14":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

UNIT PLANS
UNIT C

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 688

BATHROOM

BALCONY
11'-0"
6'-0"14" / 1'
SLOPE
7'-712" 2'-0"
40'-0"
6'-812"
4'-0"
13'-6"

BEDROOM
CLOSET
LIVING

KITCHEN
2'-0"
3 12
"
15'-2"
10'-512"
38'-0"
512" 512"
18'-1"
UNIT D

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 693

BATHROOM
18'-1"
39'-5
12 "
7'-9" 5'-5" 6'-0"
15'-612"

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
13'-212"
42'-11
12 "
8'-2
12 "
CLOSET

BEDROOM
LIVING

KITCHEN
11'-0" 2'-0"
3 12
"
15'-3
12 "
11'-412 6'-8 " 12"

PRIVATE ROOF DECK ON
2ND FLOOR
10'-0"

LIVING /

SLEEPING
17'-912"
UNIT C-1

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT C
BALCONY @ 2ND FLOOR

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
10'-8"
18'-1" UNIT D-1

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT D
BALCONY @ 2ND FLOOR
7'-0"
18'-1"
39'-5
12 "
7'-9" 5'-5"
10'-8"
UNIT D-3

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 693
13'-212"
17'-512"
5'-6
12 "
42'-11
12 "
8'-2
12 "

BATHROOM

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

KITCHEN
LIVING
CLOSET

BEDROOM
11'-0" 2'-0"
3 12
" 15'-3
12 "

LIVING /

SLEEPING
6'-0"
6'-812"

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
2'-11
12 "
UNIT D-2

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT D
BALCONY @ 2ND FLOOR
A23
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL UNIT PLANS SCALE: 14":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

UNIT PLANS
UNIT E

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 737
LIVING

BEDROOM

KITCHEN / BATHROOM
DINING
28'-10"
26'-2"
9'-11"
16'-11" 11'-11"
16'-3"

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

KITCHEN /
DINING
LIVING
POWDER
ROOM
22'-9"
38'-0"
15'-3"
21'-3
12 "
12'-0
12 " 9'-512"
8'-6"
17'-6"
UNIT F

EFFICIENCY UNIT
GROSS SF = 571
11'-7"

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
6'-0"
21'-112"
28'-6"
UNIT E-1

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT E
BALCONY @ 2ND FLOOR

LIVING BEDROOM

PRIVATE ROOF DECK ON
2ND FLOOR
10'-0"
18'-4"

KITCHEN /
DINING
LIVING
UNIT F-1

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT F
BALCONY @ 2ND FLOOR
A24
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL UNIT PLANS SCALE: 14":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

UNIT PLANS

LOFT - UNIT G

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 688

KITCHEN /
DINING
LIVING
POWDER
ROOM
W/D
18'-1"
38'-0" 6'-0"
10'-4" 7'-4"
4'-0" BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
40'-0"
13'-6"

LOFT - UNIT H

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 706

MEZZANINE - UNIT H
GROSS SF = 244

OPEN TO
BELOW

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER
ROOM

BATHROOM

BEDROOM
LIVING
W/D

BALCONY
7'-0" 6'-1012"
18'-1"
8'-9" 18'-1"
42'-6"
36'-6"
13'-9"
7'-5" 11'-0"
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
3'-5"
6'-514"
6'-0" 13'-1
12 " 5'-812" W/D
LIVING

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
6'-0"
6'-5"
LOFT - UNIT H-1

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT H
BALCONY @ 4TH FLOOR
MEZZANINE - UNIT H-2

PARTIAL PLAN UNIT H
WINDOW @ MEZZANINE

KITCHEN /
DINING

LIVING BEDROOM

OPEN TO
BELOW
POWDER
ROOM

BATHROOM
W/D

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

OPEN TO
BELOW

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER
ROOM

BATHROOM

BEDROOM
LIVING
W/D

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
W/D

MEZZANINE - UNIT G
GROSS SF = 295

BEDROOM

OPEN TO
BELOW

BATHROOM
18'-1"
7'-1" 3'-0"
40'-0"
10'-7
12 "
A25
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL UNIT PLANS SCALE: 14":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

UNIT PLANS
PER 2019 CBC SECTION 505.2.1
AREA LIMITATION - EXCEPTION 3

LOFT - UNIT G
FIRST FLOOR = 588 SF
MEZZANINE = 281 SF
281 / 588 = 0.48 (48%) = 50% ALLOWABLE
588 SF
281 SF

FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE
PER 2019 CBC SECTION 505.2.1
AREA LIMITATION - EXCEPTION 3

LOFT - UNIT H
FIRST FLOOR = 563 SF
MEZZANINE = 231 SF
231 / 563 =

0.41 (41%) = 50% ALLOWABLE

FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE
563 SF
231 SF

LOFT - UNIT I

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 678

MEZZANINE - UNIT I
GROSS SF = 274

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER

ROOM W/D

BALCONY
6'-5
12 " 4'-014"
18'-1"
8'-812"
36'-6"
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
3'-5"
6'-0"
7'-212"
40'-0"

OPEN TO
BELOW

BATHROOM

BEDROOM
36'-6"
13'-9"
10'-1
12 " 5'-6"
18'-1"

LOFT - UNIT J

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 699

MEZZANINE - UNIT J
GROSS SF = 313
39'-5
12 "
18'-1"
6'-0"
8'-812"
6'-11"
6'-11"
4'-0"
4'-6"
42'-11
12 "

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER

ROOM W/D

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

OPEN TO
BELOW

BATHROOM

BEDROOM
39'-5
12 "
15'-5"
9'-7
12 " 9'-0"
18'-1"
6'-0"
36'-6"
42'-11
12 "
15'-612"
6'-812"

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
15'-612"
6'-812"

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER

ROOM W/D
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

OPEN TO
BELOW

BATHROOM

BEDROOM

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER

ROOM W/D

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

OPEN TO
BELOW

BATHROOM

BEDROOM

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE
A26
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL UNIT PLANS SCALE: 14":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

UNIT PLANS
PER 2019 CBC SECTION 505.2.1
AREA LIMITATION - EXCEPTION 3

LOFT - UNIT I
FIRST FLOOR = 577 SF
MEZZANINE = 260 SF
260 / 577 = 0.45 (45%) = 50% ALLOWABLE
577 SF
260 SF

FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE
PER 2019 CBC SECTION 505.2.1
AREA LIMITATION - EXCEPTION 3

LOFT - UNIT J
FIRST FLOOR = 587 SF
MEZZANINE = 293 SF
293 / 587 = 0.50 (50%) = 50% ALLOWABLE
587 SF 293 SF

FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE

LOFT - UNIT K

ONE BEDROOM
GROSS SF = 699

MEZZANINE - UNIT K
GROSS SF = 313

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER

ROOM W/D
39'-5
12 " 6'-0"
6'-11" 4'-0"
18'-1"
8'-812"
6'-11"
4'-6"
42'-11
12 "
6'-812"

OPEN TO
BELOW

BATHROOM

BEDROOM
39'-5
12 "
15'-5"
9'-7
12 " 9'-0"
18'-1"
6'-0"
36'-6"
42'-11
12 "
6'-812"

BALCONY
1 4" / 1'
SLOPE

KITCHEN /
DINING
POWDER

ROOM W/D

OPEN TO
BELOW

BATHROOM

BEDROOM
A27
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION
(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL UNIT PLANS SCALE: 14":1' IF PRINTED 24"x36"

UNIT PLANS
PER 2019 CBC SECTION 505.2.1
AREA LIMITATION - EXCEPTION 3

LOFT - UNIT K
FIRST FLOOR = 587 SF
MEZZANINE = 293 SF
293 / 587 = 0.50 (50%) = 50% ALLOWABLE
587 SF
293 SF

FIRST FLOOR MEZZANINE
A 28
August 25, 2022
IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 24"x36". IT IS A REDUCED PRINT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL

SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD
55 N LA CIENEGA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211

MIXED USE PROJECT
55 N. LA CIENEGA / #2105

DATE ISSUE/REVISION
657 ROSE AVE. VENICE, CA 90291
Phone: 310 393 9128
Fax: 310 393 2539
www.reedarchgroup.com
REED

ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP, INC

THE COPYRIGHT IN THIS DRAWINGS IS OWNED BY

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND ISREGISTERED WITH THE UNITED STATES COPYRIGHT OFFICE. ANY REPRODUCTION(INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION), MODIFICATION, OR

PUBLICATION OF THESE PLANS WITHOUT THEEXPRESS PERMISSION OF REED ARCHITECTURAL

GROUP WOULD CONSITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP'S COPYRIGHT
INTEREST. WITHOUT WAIVING ANY COPYRIGHTINTEREST, REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND

JOHN REED ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY USE

OF THESE PLANS FOR ANY PURPOSE, INCLUDING

ANY DAMAGES ARISING FROM SUCH USE,

INCLUDING CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE

EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF REED
ARCHITECTURAL GROUP AND JOHN REED.

ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION OR BUILDING PERMIT

APPLICATION TO CONVERT SAID PROJECT TO
CONDOMINIUMS WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENTOF THE ARCHITECT.

REED ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. DOES NOT

ASSUME ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY INJURY, LOSS OR

DAMAGE ARISING OUT OF ARCHITECTURAL

SERVICES PROVIDED AND/OR THESE PLANS ANDSPECIFICATIONS TO CONVERT SAID APARTMENT PROJECT TO CONDOMINIUMS.
1/8" IF PRINTED 36"X24" TYP. U.N.O.1/16" IF PRINTED 19"X13" TYP. U.N.O

PLOT DATE
1-28-20223-1-20226-13-2022

CONCEPT REVIEWPRELIMINARY REVIEW

PLANNING SUBMITTAL
6-27-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL08-25-2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL

LA CIENEGA ELEVATION
1 2 3
4 5 6
G:\P\GML93068\93068AL_UPDATE_11-2018.Dwg, ALTA, 1:1

!
"#
!
$

%

%
&

%

%

!%
&

''

()*
)+,-.*)*

,+/0()11

"/(1-2
,+/0()11
(/3)
454

6 45

"
7+((
1+2%

(-8
-,)((*
9*(/7-,2/9*
*9/7/9
"*6
:,0()

5;
<

6 =5<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
,@+0+1
+2)?-

-A.*90*

8*,7
0,*8@),,:
,))
B5=

6 45B

1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
*20-(/2*
9>*A*)9:.*,/11+1
,*:
*3)2?),
-00-2
5

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
)2)9/-
A*2?,*(/19*)
()/2/*
5;

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
()*
)+,-.*)*

-20,*

/00()
((/)
B5=<

6 54<
"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
>*A*),-.1
>+A/(/1)?/0),,*2)*2
*2
*(A
=5

6
54

"
1+2#1>*?)%
(-8

*3*2?+(*
10-)9>*1

00-
C+*10

.*2/1>
*3)2?),5

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8
/10+1
6 .+(3),+()20+1

+21)0
*D)20*
-9E,-1)5;

6 B5=

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8

*(3/*

D,)DD//

(@*
">/0)
+0+A2
*D)
5;

6 "
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
")10,/2D/*
F":2:*@@/)
)A<
":2*@@/)
-*10
-1)A*,:

B5=

6 5B

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
-A*2?,*

/A)
+77

8*,7
*0
+1>
5;

6 "
1+2#1>*?)
(-8
-23-(3+(+1
1*@*0/+1
,-+2?
-,2/2D
(-,:
<

6 5;<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
)?/(*20>+1
@,*90)*0+1
(/..),
(*20

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8

*,?)2@),D/*
3/-(*9)*

+,.()

/2)
/(*9
3/2)
0-
4

1+2#1>*?)
%
(-8
!),@),/1
*G+/7-(/+A
3*,&
,).)21
,))./2D
*>-2/*5;

6 5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/@)1
3/@+,2/7-(/+A3),D,))2
+,,*205;

6 B5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/../*
2-?/7(-,*+,*./*D,-+2?9-3),1+2#1>*?)%

(-8

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

"
"*

)
'(
'( '(

(
)

%

!

!

!

!
!
"

!

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

;

1/0)

&

=#H#

>))0
-&
#
I
J

K
"

44 &
*
/)2)D*
!(3?&
!)3),(:

/((1%

H

")10(*2?
)3)(-.A)20
,-+.
;
&
!*,,/2D0-2
3)&%

-1
2D)()1%

H

BB

!

*0)

9*()

,*82
@:

*,A-2:
*,?)21%
29&
-2*(?
"&
/9)%

BB4

+,/)00*
3)&

*2
+:1%

H

4 ==54
45H=;
?-2

*,A-2:D*,?)21&2)0
#;#

=#H#

()*
)+,-.*)*

,+/0()11

"/(1-2
,+/0()11
(/3)
454

6 45

"
7+((
1+2%

(-8
-,)((*
9*(/7-,2/9*
*9/7/9
"*6
:,0()

5;
<

6 =5<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
,@+0+1
+2)?-

-A.*90*

8*,7
0,*8@),,:
,))
B5=

6 45B

1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
*20-(/2*
9>*A*)9:.*,/11+1
,*:
*3)2?),
-00-2
5

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
)2)9/-
A*2?,*(/19*)
()/2/*
5;

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
()*
)+,-.*)*

-20,*

/00()
((/)
B5=<

6 54<
"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
>*A*),-.1
>+A/(/1)?/0),,*2)*2
*2
*(A
=5

6
54

"
1+2#1>*?)%
(-8

*3*2?+(*
10-)9>*1

00-
C+*10

.*2/1>
*3)2?),5

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8
/10+1
6 .+(3),+()20+1

+21)0
*D)20*
-9E,-1)5;

6 B5=

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8

*(3/*

D,)DD//

(@*
">/0)
+0+A2
*D)
5;

6 "
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
")10,/2D/*
F":2:*@@/)
)A<
":2*@@/)
-*10
-1)A*,:

B5=

6 5B

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
-A*2?,*

/A)
+77

8*,7
*0
+1>
5;

6 "
1+2#1>*?)
(-8
-23-(3+(+1
1*@*0/+1
,-+2?
-,2/2D
(-,:
<

6 5;<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
)?/(*20>+1
@,*90)*0+1
(/..),
(*20

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8

*,?)2@),D/*
3/-(*9)*

+,.()

/2)
/(*9
3/2)
0-
4

1+2#1>*?)
%
(-8
!),@),/1
*G+/7-(/+A
3*,&
,).)21
,))./2D
*>-2/*5;

6 5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/@)1
3/@+,2/7-(/+A3),D,))2
+,,*205;

6 B5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/../*
2-?/7(-,*+,*./*D,-+2?9-3),1+2#1>*?)%

(-8

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

"
"*

)
'(
'( '(

(
)

%

!

!

!

!
!
"

!

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

;

10
7(

&

=#H#

>))0
-&
#
I
J

K
"

44 &
*
/)2)D*
!(3?&
!)3),(:

/((1%

H

")10(*2?
)3)(-.A)20
,-+.
;
&
!*,,/2D0-2
3)&%

-1
2D)()1%

H

BB

!

*0)

9*()

,*82
@:

*,A-2:
*,?)21%
29&
-2*(?
"&
/9)%

BB4

+,/)00*
3)&

*2
+:1%

H

4 ==54
45H=;
?-2

*,A-2:D*,?)21&2)0
#;#

=#H#

()*
)+,-.*)*

,+/0()11

"/(1-2
,+/0()11
(/3)
454

6 45

"
7+((
1+2%

(-8
-,)((*
9*(/7-,2/9*
*9/7/9
"*6
:,0()

5;
<

6 =5<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
,@+0+1
+2)?-

-A.*90*

8*,7
0,*8@),,:
,))
B5=

6 45B

1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
*20-(/2*
9>*A*)9:.*,/11+1
,*:
*3)2?),
-00-2
5

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
)2)9/-
A*2?,*(/19*)
()/2/*
5;

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
()*
)+,-.*)*

-20,*

/00()
((/)
B5=<

6 54<
"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
>*A*),-.1
>+A/(/1)?/0),,*2)*2
*2
*(A
=5

6
54

"
1+2#1>*?)%
(-8

*3*2?+(*
10-)9>*1

00-
C+*10

.*2/1>
*3)2?),5

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8
/10+1
6 .+(3),+()20+1

+21)0
*D)20*
-9E,-1)5;

6 B5=

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8

*(3/*

D,)DD//

(@*
">/0)
+0+A2
*D)
5;

6 "
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
")10,/2D/*
F":2:*@@/)
)A<
":2*@@/)
-*10
-1)A*,:

B5=

6 5B

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
-A*2?,*

/A)
+77

8*,7
*0
+1>
5;

6 "
1+2#1>*?)
(-8
-23-(3+(+1
1*@*0/+1
,-+2?
-,2/2D
(-,:
<

6 5;<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
)?/(*20>+1
@,*90)*0+1
(/..),
(*20

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8

*,?)2@),D/*
3/-(*9)*

+,.()

/2)
/(*9
3/2)
0-
4

1+2#1>*?)
%
(-8
!),@),/1
*G+/7-(/+A
3*,&
,).)21
,))./2D
*>-2/*5;

6 5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/@)1
3/@+,2/7-(/+A3),D,))2
+,,*205;

6 B5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/../*
2-?/7(-,*+,*./*D,-+2?9-3),1+2#1>*?)%

(-8

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

"
"*

)
'(
'( '(

(
)

%

!

!

!

!
!
"

!

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

;

2?
7(

&

=#H#

>))0
-&
#
I
J

K
"

44 &
*
/)2)D*
!(3?&
!)3),(:

/((1%

H

")10(*2?
)3)(-.A)20
,-+.
;
&
!*,,/2D0-2
3)&%

-1
2D)()1%

H

BB

!

*0)

9*()

,*82
@:

*,A-2:
*,?)21%
29&
-2*(?
"&
/9)%

BB4

+,/)00*
3)&

*2
+:1%

H

4 ==54
45H=;
?-2

*,A-2:D*,?)21&2)0
#;#

=#H#

!
"#
!
$

%

%
&

%

%

!%
&

''

()*
)+,-.*)*

,+/0()11

"/(1-2
,+/0()11
(/3)
454

6 45

"
7+((
1+2%

(-8
-,)((*
9*(/7-,2/9*
*9/7/9
"*6
:,0()

5;
<

6 =5<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
,@+0+1
+2)?-

-A.*90*

8*,7
0,*8@),,:
,))
B5=

6 45B

1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
*20-(/2*
9>*A*)9:.*,/11+1
,*:
*3)2?),
-00-2
5

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
)2)9/-
A*2?,*(/19*)
()/2/*
5;

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
()*
)+,-.*)*

-20,*

/00()
((/)
B5=<

6 54<
"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
>*A*),-.1
>+A/(/1)?/0),,*2)*2
*2
*(A
=5

6
54

"
1+2#1>*?)%
(-8

*3*2?+(*
10-)9>*1

00-
C+*10

.*2/1>
*3)2?),5

6 5;

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8
/10+1
6 .+(3),+()20+1

+21)0
*D)20*
-9E,-1)5;

6 B5=

"
7+((
1+2%
(-8

*(3/*

D,)DD//

(@*
">/0)
+0+A2
*D)
5;

6 "
7+((
1+2
%
(-8
")10,/2D/*
F":2:*@@/)
)A<
":2*@@/)
-*10
-1)A*,:

B5=

6 5B

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
-A*2?,*

/A)
+77

8*,7
*0
+1>
5;

6 "
1+2#1>*?)
(-8
-23-(3+(+1
1*@*0/+1
,-+2?
-,2/2D
(-,:
<

6 5;<
"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
)?/(*20>+1
@,*90)*0+1
(/..),
(*20

6 ;5

"
7+((
1+2
%
(-8

*,?)2@),D/*
3/-(*9)*

+,.()

/2)
/(*9
3/2)
0-
4

1+2#1>*?)
%
(-8
!),@),/1
*G+/7-(/+A
3*,&
,).)21
,))./2D
*>-2/*5;

6 5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/@)1
3/@+,2/7-(/+A3),D,))2
+,,*205;

6 B5

"
1+2#1>*?)%

(-8
/../*
2-?/7(-,*+,*./*D,-+2?9-3),1+2#1>*?)%

(-8

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

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

&
"
!
!

!

!
%

(
)

'( '(
'(
)
"
"*

"##$!

"
"*

)
'(
'( '(

(
)

%

!

!

!

!
!
"

!

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

;

AL
M
,--7

&

=#H#

>))0
-&
#
I
J

K
"

44 &
*
/)2)D*
!(3?&
!)3),(:

/((1%

H

")10(*2?
)3)(-.A)20
,-+.
;
&
!*,,/2D0-2
3)&%

-1
2D)()1%

H

BB

!

*0)

9*()

,*82
@:

*,A-2:
*,?)21%
29&
-2*(?
"&
/9)%

BB4

+,/)00*
3)&

*2
+:1%

H

4 ==54
45H=;
?-2

*,A-2:D*,?)21&2)0
#;#

=#H#

Appendix B
CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and Local Transportation Assessment 1 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470, Culver City, CA 90230 T: (310) 473-6508 | www.koacorp.com

MONTEREY PARK ORANGE ONTARIO SAN DIEGO LA QUINTA CULVER CITY

DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Date: September 30, 2022
To: Kevin Riley, T.E., Senior Transportation Engineer – City of Beverly Hills From: Ryan Kelly, T.E., Senior Engineer – KOA Corporation Subject: 55 N. La Cienega Mixed-Use Project – CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis and Local Transportation Assessment
This CEQA Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) and Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) has been prepared to provide an in-depth review of the transportation considerations associated with the construction and operation of the residential mixed-use project (the “Project”) proposed at 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills (the “City”). The Project site is situated on the west side of La Cienega Boulevard, approximately 250 feet north of Wilshire Boulevard. The site is located on the block bounded by La Cienega Boulevard to the east, Le Doux Road to the west, Clifton Way to the north, and Wilshire Boulevard to the south.

Following the passage of Senate Bill 743 (SB 743), the State of California’s Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) was tasked with developing new guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These guidelines were intended to shift the performance metric from automobile delay and level of service (LOS) to one that would promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of multimodal and diverse transportation networks. As a result, the OPR determined that under the proposed update to the CEQA guidelines, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would be established as the primary metric for evaluating environmental and transportation impacts.

In response to the updates to the CEQA guidelines, the City Planning Commission adopted Resolution 1901 on October 19, 2019. This resolution adopted the CEQA thresholds of significance for determining transportation impacts within the City. Additionally, under the updated CEQA guidelines, local jurisdictions may continue to use LOS to evaluate transportation impacts as part of the local project review process, but the evaluation would not be required under CEQA. Therefore, the resolution adopted by the Planning Commission also adopted the Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines, which continue to use LOS to identify project-related transportation impacts, outside of the scope of analysis required under CEQA.

This CEQA TIA and LTA follows the City Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines and presents the results of the analysis of transportation impacts both under and outside of CEQA. The CEQA TIA portion evaluates the potential VMT-related impacts associated with the proposed Project. The LTA evaluates potential Project-related impacts at three study intersections in the vicinity of the Project site. The study locations were determined in consultation with the City Senior Transportation Engineer (the “City STE”). The Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology was used to calculate vehicular delays and LOS of signalized study 2 intersections. A scoping document outlining the analysis methodology and assumptions for the Project was prepared and agreed up on with the City STE and is provided in Attachment A.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is an approximately 38,500 square-foot rectangular lot located on the west side of La Cienega Boulevard, immediately north of Wilshire Boulevard. Commercial retail and office uses are located along both sides of La Cienega Boulevard in the vicinity of the site. Cedars-Sinai medical offices border the Project site to the north and the south, while a mixed-use medical office building is located immediately to the east, across La Cienega Boulevard. Low-density residential uses are situated just west of these uses behind the commercial uses lining La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard. The Project site and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1.

The residential mixed-use building under consideration would contain 105 multifamily dwelling units (11 reserved for Very Low Income [VLI] households), a 10,045 square-foot grocery market, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a 3,000 square-foot eatery/restaurant (with 1,687 square feet of open-air dining), a 920 squarefoot café (with 242 square feet of open-air dining), and a 2,008 square-foot high-turnover restaurant (with 880 square feet of open-air dining). All automobile parking would be provided on-site with access/egress via driveways along La Cienega Boulevard. The Project site plan is presented in Figure 2.

CEQA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Per the City’s CEQA Transportation Thresholds of Significance, adopted by the Planning Commission on October 10, 2019, the first step in performing a VMT analysis for a development project is to perform a VMT screening analysis. The screening analysis is based on the development project’s size, location, and accessibility to public transportation. The OPR offered guidance on the VMT screening of small development projects, retail land uses with floor areas under 50,000 square feet, and projects located in high-quality transit areas, and this guidance was adopted by the City.

The City has adopted VMT screening categories based on 1) project type and 2) location within a low VMTgenerating area that do not apply to the Project. However, the third screening category is related to development projects located within Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) or High-Quality Transit Areas (HQTAs) as described in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Given its proximity (less than one block) to multiple Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) Rapid bus stops and a future D (Purple) Line subway station, the City considers the Project site and surrounding area to be a TPA. Therefore, the presumption of a less-than-significant VMT impact is valid if the Project has the following characteristics:
 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) greater than or equal to 0.75
 No more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees than required by the City (unless added parking is being provided for design feasibility, such as completing the floor of a subterranean parking facility, or if additional parking located on-site will serve adjacent uses)  Consistent with applicable SCAG RTP/SCS
Per the Project description and plans, the Project would have the following characteristics:
 The Project would have an FAR just over 3.00, and therefore would exceed 0.75  For the Project, it would be necessary to construct three levels of subterranean parking to meet City parking requirements. Across the ground floor and three subterranean levels, the Project will 3 provide 196 total automobile parking spaces. The Project is not proposing a fourth subterranean parking level. Additionally, strict application of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), without parking adjustments based on Density Bonus eligibility, the Project’s mixed-use nature, etc., would require a total of 329 automobile parking spaces. Therefore, no more automobile parking than necessary will be provided
 Per the current 2020 RTP/SCS, also known as Connect SoCal, the core vison is to build upon and expand land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. In order to do this, SCAG includes the following among its land use and transportation strategies:
o Plan for growth near transit investments and support implementation of first/last mile strategies
o Promote the redevelopment of underperforming retail developments and other outmoded nonresidential uses
o Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized land to accommodate new growth, increase amenities and connectivity to existing neighborhoods o Encourage design and transportation options that reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips (this could include mixed uses or locating and orienting close to existing destinations)
o Identify funding opportunities for new workforce and affordable housing development The Project site is located within a TPA, with the intersection of La Cienega Boulevard & Wilshire Boulevard designated as a Major Transit Stop. In addition, both Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard corridors are classified as HQTAs. Thus, the Project site is one of the locations “where vibrant TOD [Transit-Oriented Development] can be realized and are a cornerstone of land use planning best practice in the SCAG region.” Thus, as a mixed-use project promoting denser development around a Major Transit Stop and future Metro D (Purple) Line station (Wilshire/La Cienega), the Project is consistent with the current SCAG RTP/SCS.

Therefore, based on the TPA screening category, the Project is presumed to have a less-than-significant VMT impact and no further VMT analysis is required.

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT
Per the City’s Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines, adopted by the City Planning Commission on October 10, 2019, an LTA is required of development projects forecast to generate 50 or more peak-hour trips on a typical weekday. The purpose of an LTA is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a development project’s effects on vehicular traffic operations and active transportation at facilities in the vicinity of the development project’s site.

To determine the effects of the Project on the operation of vehicular travel within the immediate Project vicinity, an evaluation was conducted to determine the Project’s contribution to delay at intersections adjacent to the Project under existing and future conditions. A Project completion year of 2025 has been assumed. In consultation with the City STE, the following nearby study intersections were selected for the analysis of potentially adverse Project traffic effects:

1. La Cienega Boulevard & San Vicente Boulevard

2. La Cienega Boulevard & Wilshire Boulevard

3. La Cienega Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard
4 This section outlines the results of the delay analysis for Existing (2022) and Future (2025) conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the methodology outlined in the Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines.

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
An analysis of existing and future weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic conditions at the study intersections, listed above, was performed through the use of established traffic engineering techniques.

The analysis was undertaken using Trafficware’s Synchro Studio, which includes both Synchro and SimTraffic software, to model traffic operations at the study intersections.

The methodology used to analyze and evaluate traffic operations at the study intersections is based on procedures outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis (HCM). The HCM methodology determines intersection LOS based on operational vehicle delay. The term LOS describes the quality of traffic flow. LOS values of A through C indicate excellent-to-decent traffic flow conditions. LOS D corresponds with fair conditions that may experience substantial delay during portions of the peak hours, but without excessive backups. LOS E represents poor conditions, with volumes at or near the capacity of the intersection and long lines of vehicles that may have to wait through several signal cycles. LOS F is characteristic of failure (i.e., the intersection is overloaded, vehicular movements may be restricted or prevented, and delays and vehicle queues become increasingly longer). The LOS ranges for the HCM methodology are shown in Table 1 for signalized intersections.

Table 1: HCM LOS & Delay for Signalized Intersections
LOS
A<= 10.0
B > 10.0 <= 20.0
C > 20.0 <= 35.0
D > 35.0 <= 55.0
E > 55.0 <= 80.0
F > 80.0
Delay (seconds/vehicle)
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Sixth Edition: A Guide for Multimodal Mobility Analysis, Exhibit 19-8 for signalized intersections.

ADVERSE CONDITION EVALUATION CRITERIA
The significance of the potential impacts of Project traffic at each study intersection was identified according to the criteria outlined in the City’s Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines. These thresholds define a significant project traffic impact relative to LOS and average control delay (seconds per vehicle). The significant impact criteria, which affect LOS D, E, and F operations, are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Beverly Hills Significant Impact Criteria for Signalized Intersections

With Project LOS
With Project
Delay (Sec/Vehicle)
Project-Related Increase
in Delay (Sec/Vehicle)
D >35.0 to 55.0 Equal to or greater than 10.0 seconds
E or F >55.0 Equal to or greater than 5.0 seconds
5 The City requires improvements to be implemented at locations where development project traffic causes additional vehicle delay by an amount equal to or greater than the values shown above.

EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Traffic volumes for existing conditions at the study intersections were obtained from manual traffic counts conducted in August 2022 when local schools were in session. In accordance with the City’s Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines, the traffic counts conducted for this study cover the weekday morning and afternoon peak commute periods. Peak-hour volumes were determined individually for each intersection based on the combined four (4) highest consecutive 15-minute volumes for all vehicular movements at the intersection.

At the intersection of La Cienega Boulevard & San Vicente Boulevard, illegal left-turn movements were observed along the eastbound and westbound approaches of the intersection during the AM and PM peak hours. In addition, illegal northbound right-turn movements were observed along the northbound approach during the AM peak hour. These illegal turning movement volumes were added to the adjacent through movement volumes for the corresponding intersection approaches as part of this analysis.

During the traffic count data collection period, ongoing construction at the intersection of La Cienega Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard resulted in the closure of one southbound travel lane from around 9:00 AM until after the end of the afternoon peak period at 6:00 PM. Thus, in order to account for the reduction in traffic volumes at this intersection, the turning movement volumes were reviewed and compared with historical traffic counts. The counts used for comparison were collected in October 2017, a period when schools were in session and prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on a review of the counts, all turning movement volumes at the study intersection were deemed to be comparable to the historical counts during the AM peak hour, which occurred between 7:30 AM and 8:30 AM prior to the southbound lane reduction. During the PM peak hour, all turning movement volumes, aside from the southbound through movements, were determined to be comparable to the historical traffic volumes. Given that the August 2022 southbound through volumes were markedly lower than those observed in October 2017, the October 2017 southbound through volumes were used to estimate volumes absent roadway construction.

To be conservative, a one percent per year growth factor was applied to the southbound through movement volumes from the August 2017 historical counts to determine the existing year (2022) traffic volumes for the southbound through movement.

Weekday AM and PM peak-hour volumes at the study intersections are illustrated in Figures 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. The manual intersection traffic volume count data sheets for the traffic counts collected in both 2017 and 2022 are provided in Attachment B.

Information pertaining to intersection characteristics, such as geometrics, traffic signal operations, and onstreet parking restrictions were obtained from field checks and City engineering plans. The existing lane configuration and traffic control conditions for the three study intersections are illustrated in Attachment C.

Per signal timing plans provided by the City of Los Angeles, transit priority is provided for buses running along La Cienega Boulevard. In accordance with the signal timing plans, phase durations have been adjusted to provide longer green times for movements that run concurrent with the transit phases at La Cienega Boulevard & San Vicente Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard.

As mentioned previously, during the traffic count data collection period, construction along La Cienega Boulevard resulted in atypical lane configurations along the southbound approach of the La Cienega Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard study intersection during the PM peak period. The lane configuration 6 assumptions for Existing (2022) conditions reflect the typical lane configurations present at this intersection without the construction-related lane closures.

PROJECT TRAFFIC
The following section describes the methodology used to determine the Project’s vehicle trip generation, distribution, and assignment through the local roadway system.

Trip Generation
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) was used to develop the traffic characteristics of the Project’s proposed uses. Information was obtained from the Trip Generation Manual for ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 221 – Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise), LUC 822 – Strip Retail Plaza (<40k), LUC 850 – Supermarket, LUC 932 – High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant, and LUC 936 – Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window. These LUC rates were applied to develop the Project’s trip generation. Table 3 presents the trip generation rates used to generate the weekday daily and peakhour traffic volumes for the Project.

As these vehicle trip generation rates in Table 3 do not account for such trip-reducing factors as internally captured trips, significant transit usage and/or walk trip potential, or pass-by trips, the baseline vehicle trip estimates reflect a conservative condition. These trip-reducing factors are important considerations in determining the actual traffic-generating characteristics of a development project and, therefore, adjustments were made to the Project’s baseline trip generation estimates.

Table 3: Project Weekday Trip Generation Rates
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise), ITE LUC 221 - General Urban/Suburban setting Daily: T = 4.54 trips per dwelling unit
AM Peak Hour: T = 0.37 trips per dwelling unit; IB = 23%, OB = 77% PM Peak Hour: T = 0.39 trips per dwelling unit; IB = 61%, OB = 39% Strip Retail Plaza (<40k), ITE LUC 822 - General Urban/Suburban setting Daily: T = 54.45 trips per 1,000 square feet
AM Peak Hour: T = 2.36 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 60%, OB = 40% PM Peak Hour: T = 6.59 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 50%, OB = 50% Supermarket, ITE LUC 850 - General Urban/Suburban setting Daily: T = 93.84 trips per 1,000 square feet
AM Peak Hour: T = 2.86 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 59%, OB = 41% PM Peak Hour: T = 8.95 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 50%, OB = 50% High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant, ITE LUC 932 - General Urban/Suburban setting Daily: T = 107.20 trips per 1,000 square feet
AM Peak Hour: T = 9.57 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 55%, OB = 45% PM Peak Hour: T = 9.05 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 61%, OB = 39% Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window, ITE LUC 936 - General Urban/Suburban setting Daily: T = 535.71 trips per 1,000 square feet
AM Peak Hour: T = 93.08 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 51%, OB = 49% PM Peak Hour: T = 32.29 trips per 1,000 square feet; IB = 50%, OB = 50% Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021). 7 Given the mix of proposed uses on the Project site, it is expected that there would be trip interactions between individual uses that would not require the use of a vehicle. It is generally recognized that residents, visitors, employees, and patrons of a site will utilize other on-site uses if they are conveniently located and/or provide useful services or amenities, with the level of interaction dependent upon the number of residents, visitors, employees, and patrons; service providers; accessibility; and other factors. For the Project, some of the residents and visitors would be expected to patronize the on-site commercial restaurant, grocery, and retail uses. Thus, a reduction in trips between the residential and commercial retail and restaurant uses would be expected. As recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition, 2017), the methodology outlined in the NCHRP Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments was used to estimate internal trip capture between Project land use components.

The internal capture methodology and calculations are included as Attachment D of this report, and were approved by the City STE as part of the scoping document included in Attachment A.

The use of public transportation is an important consideration in the evaluation of a development project’s trip-generating potential. The Project is well served by bus lines of multiple transit operators. These transit operators provide both local and regional routes that are readily accessible to Project residents, patrons, employees, and visitors. Significant transit use is not accounted for in the ITE Trip Generation Manual General Urban/Suburban setting trip rates and equations. Because the trip rates for the General Urban/Suburban setting do not consider significant transit connectivity, adjustments were made to the Project trip generation to account for transit usage associated with the proposed land uses. The NCHRP Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments was also used to estimate the transit and non-motorized trip generation for each of the proposed Project land uses. The transit and non-motorized mode split assumptions were obtained from SCAG’s Regional Travel Demand Model for the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) containing the Project site.

Trip reduction factors for the Project also account for the presence of “pass-by” trips. As some motorists pass by the Project, the specific convenient facilities provided by the Project (or other factors) produce a stop at the site. Such activity is considered to be an interim stop along a trip which existed irrespective of the development of the Project and, therefore, vehicles making these stops are not considered to be newly generated Project-related traffic. Pass-by trip data for various land use types have been collected and are provided in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. In line with these guidelines, pass-by trip reductions were applied to the Project’s proposed commercial retail, supermarket, restaurant, and café uses. Average passby rates were applied to the restaurant and retail components based on the lowest pass-by trip percentages presented by ITE for the corresponding land use types. Further adjustments were applied to the pass-by trip percentages for land uses with limited data to ensure a conservative analysis.

Based on the trip generation rates and aforementioned trip reduction factors, projections of the amount of vehicle, transit, and walk/bicycle traffic to be generated by the Project were derived. Table 4 summarizes the weekday trip generation for the Project. As shown in Table 4, once completed and occupied, the Project is anticipated to generate a total of 1,040 net vehicle trips per weekday, with 113 net vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 65 net vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. These peak-hour trips were distributed through the three study intersections to analyze the Project’s effects. 8 Table 4: Project Weekday Trip Generation Summary
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Generation Rates
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise)/Vehicle 221 1 du 4.54 23% 77% 0.37 61% 39% 0.39 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k)/Vehicle 822 1 ksf 54.45 60% 40% 2.36 50% 50% 6.59 Supermarket/Vehicle 850 1 ksf 93.84 59% 41% 2.86 50% 50% 8.95 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant/Vehicle 932 1 ksf 107.20 55% 45% 9.57 61% 39% 9.05 Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window/Vehicle3 936 1 ksf 535.71 51% 49% 93.08 50% 50% 32.29 Trip Generation Summary
In Out Total In Out Total

PROPOSED USES
Residential
Multifamily Housing (Mid-Rise) Baseline Vehicle Trips 105 du 477 9 30 39 25 16 41 Residential Person Trips4 757 14 48 62 40 25 65
Residential Internal Person Trips5 286 1 10 11 24 13 37 Residential External Person Trips5 471 13 38 51 16 12 28 Residential External Trips by Vehicle (includes pass-by trips)5 215 6 17 23 7 6 13 Residential External Trips by Transit5 48 1 4 5 2 1 3
Residential External Trips by Walk/Bicycle5 83 2 7 9 3 2 5 Residential External Trips by Vehicle (with pass-by trip adjustment)6 215 6 17 23 7 6 13 Restaurant
High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Baseline Vehicle Trips 2.888 ksf 310 15 13 28 16 10 26 Café Baseline Vehicle Trips 1.344 ksf 720 64 61 125 22 21 43 Eatery/High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Rest. Baseline Vehicle Trips 3.687 ksf 395 19 16 35 20 13 33 Restaurant Total Baseline Vehicle Trips 7.919 ksf 1,425 98 90 188 58 44 102 Restaurant Total Person Trips4 2,265 156 143 299 92 70 162 Restaurant Total Internal Person Trips5 388 13 3 16 28 35 63 Restaurant Total External Person Trips5 1,877 143 140 283 64 35 99 Restaurant External Trips by Vehicle (includes pass-by trips)5 840 64 63 127 28 16 44 Restaurant External Trips by Transit5 206 16 15 31 7 4 11 Restaurant External Trips by Walk/Bicycle5 339 26 25 51 12 6 18 Restaurant External Trips by Vehicle (with pass-by trip adjustment)7 477 36 36 72 16 9 25 Retail
Retail Baseline Vehicle Trips 1.450 ksf 79 21355 10
Grocery Market Baseline Vehicle Trips 10.045 ksf 943 17 12 29 45 45 90 Retail Total Baseline Vehicle Trips 11.495 ksf 1,022 19 13 32 50 50 100 Retail Total Person Trips4 1,618 30 21 51 79 79 158
Retail Total Internal Person Trips5 643 2 3 5 37 41 78
Retail Total External Person Trips5 976 28 18 46 42 38 80 Retail External Trips by Vehicle (includes pass-by trips)5 434 13 8 21 18 17 35 Retail External Trips by Transit5 108 3 2 5 5 4 9
Retail External Trips by Walk/Bicycle5 178 5 3 8 8 7 15 Retail External Trips by Vehicle (with pass-by trip adjustment)8 348 11 7 18 14 13 27 Proposed Project Total External Trips by Vehicle (incl. Pass-By Trips) 1,489 83 88 171 53 39 92 Proposed Project Total External Project Trips by Vehicle 1,040 53 60 113 37 28 65 Notes:
1) ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021) trip generation rates and directional distributions applied for Land Use Codes 221 (Multifamily [Mid-Rise]), 822 (Strip Retail Plaza [40k]), 850 (Supermarket), 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-Down] Restaurant), and 936 (Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window) to develop baseline vehicle trips for each proposed and existing land use. The "General Urban/Suburban" setting and, for Land Use Code 221, the "Not Close to Rail Transit" land use subcategory were used given that the majority of these land use codes have a limited number of studies in the daily and peak-hour period datasets for the "Dense Multi-Use Urban" setting and "Close to Rail Transit" land use subcategory. Transit and walk/bicycle adjustments were, therefore, applied to the baseline vehicle trip calculations, as the availability of these modes is not accounted for in the "General Urban/Suburban" setting and "Not Close to Rail Transit" land use subcategory rates.

ITE Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition, 2017) recommended methodology for estimating the trip generation of a mixed-use development utilized for the Project. The ITE methodology follows the recommended procedures from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 684: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments (Transportation Research Board, 2011). The NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation tool spreadsheet provided on the ITE website was used, with worksheets attached on the following pages for the Project. 2) du = Dwelling Units; ksf = Thousands of Square Feet of Gross Leasable Floor Area or Gross Floor Area. 3) Daily trip generation rate not provided for Land Use Code 936 (Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window). Daily trip rate estimated by developing a Daily-to-(AM+PM) peak hour) factor based on Land Use Code 937 (Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window) and applying this factor to the café's combined (AM+PM) peak-hour trip rate. 4) See Table 7-A: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends and Table 7-P: Conversion of Vehicle-Trip Ends to Person-Trip Ends from the NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool for the Project.
5) See Table 9-A (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips), Table 9-A (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips), Table 9-P (D): Internal and External Trips Summary (Entering Trips), and Table 9-P (O): Internal and External Trips Summary (Exiting Trips) from the NCHRP 684 Internal Trip Capture Estimation Tool for the Project. 6) No pass-by trips assumed for proposed residential land use component. 7) Per the 2021 Pass-By Tables from the ITE Trip Generation Manual (11th Edition, 2021), Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover [Sit-Down] Restaurant) had an average pass-by trip percentage of 43 percent during the weekday PM peak period. Per the 2021 Pass-By Tables, Land Use Code 938 (Coffee/Donut Shop with Drive-Through Window and No Indoor Seating) had an average pass-by trip percentage of 94 percent during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. No pass-by trip percentage data is provided specifically for Land Use Code 936, so Land Use Code 938 serves as the most similar proxy. As the majority of restaurant PM peak-hour trips are generated by the proposed high-turnover restaurant uses, a pass-by trip percentage of 43 percent was conservatively assumed for the total restaurant external trips by vehicle during the PM peak hour. Although the majority of restaurant AM peak-hour trips are generated by the café use, the same pass-by trip percentage of 43 percent was assumed for the total restaurant external trips by vehicle during the AM peak hour to provide a more conservative analysis framework. 8) Per the 2021 Pass-By Tables, Land Use Code 821 (Shopping Plaza [40- 150k]) had an average pass-by trip percentage of 40 percent during the weekday PM peak period. No pass-by trip percentage data is provided specifically for Land Use Code 822, so Land Use Code 821 serves as the most similar proxy. Per the 2021 Pass-By Tables, Land Use Code 850 (Supermarket) had an average pass-by trip percentage of 24 percent during the weekday PM peak period. Given that the proposed grocery market generates the majority of PM peak-hour trips, a pass-by trip percentage of 24 percent was conservatively estimated for the total retail external trips by vehicle during the PM peak hour. Half of this pass-by trip percentage (12 percent) was assumed for the total retail external trips by vehicle during the AM peak hour to provide a more conservative analysis framework. 9) The ITE Trip Generation Handbook provides no guidance for estimating daily trips for mixed-use developments. Therefore, daily trips for each land use's subcategory (person trips, internal person trips, external person trips, external trips by mode) were estimated by developing a Daily-to-(AM+PM peak hour) factor based on the land use's baseline vehicle trips and applying this factor to each subcategory's combined (AM+PM) peak-hour trips.

Land Use/Trip Type
ITE
Code Intensity2
Average
Weekday
AM Peak Hour
Description Size
Average
Weekday9
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
9 Trip Distribution and Assignment
Estimation of the directional distribution of Project trips was the next step in the analytical process. The primary factors affecting the trip distribution patterns are the nature of the Project uses, existing traffic patterns, characteristics of the surrounding roadway system, geographic location of the Project site and its proximity to freeways and major travel routes, employment centers to which residents would likely be drawn, residential areas from which employees would likely be drawn, and the various regions generating visitors and patrons. Based on these factors, the overall Project directional trip distributions were determined and are summarized in Table 5 for the Project’s residential and commercial components.

Table 5: Project Directional Trip Distribution Percentages Residential Commercial
Direction Percentage Percentage
North 18% 23%
South 41% 37%
East 14% 13%
West 27% 27%
The general distribution percentages shown in Table 5 were then disaggregated and assigned to specific routes and intersections within the study area that are expected to be used for Project access/egress. The estimated Project trip assignment percentages for the proposed Project uses at the study intersections were reviewed and approved by the City STE as part of the scoping document prepared for the CEQA TIA and LTA (see Attachment A). The Project’s trip distribution percentages at the study intersections are presented in Figures 4(a) and 4(b) for the residential and commercial components, respectively.

Applying these inbound and outbound percentages to the Project trip generation estimates previously shown in Table 4, the net Project traffic volumes at the three study intersections were determined for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The net Project weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes were calculated and are depicted in Figures 5(a) and 5(b), respectively.

EXISTING (2022) AND EXISTING (2022) PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS The analysis of traffic conditions at the study intersections for existing year (2022) was performed using the methodology described previously. The Existing (2022) intersection traffic volumes for the weekday AM and PM peak hours were shown previously in Figures 3(a) and 3(b), respectively. These estimates are the "benchmark" volumes used in determining Project contributions to delay conditions on the existing street system.

The Existing (2022) Plus Project traffic volumes were determined by superimposing the net Project traffic volumes onto the Existing (2022) traffic volumes. The Existing (2022) Plus Project traffic volumes at the study intersections are shown in Figures 6(a) and 6(b) for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

These volumes were used to create a Synchro traffic model for the “Existing Plus Project” scenario to determine changes to vehicle delay and LOS conditions directly attributable to the Project using the previously described methodology. The Synchro delay and LOS calculation worksheets are included in Attachment E.

Table 6 presents the results of the delay-based quantitative analysis of Existing (2022) and Existing (2022) Plus Project conditions. As shown, under Existing (2022) conditions, the study intersections of La Cienega 10 Boulevard & San Vicente Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard & Wilshire Boulevard currently operate at LOS C or during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. The intersection of La Cienega Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard operates at LOS D during both weekday peak hours. Following the addition of net Project traffic volumes, there would be slight degradation in traffic operations at the study intersections. However, all intersections would continue to operate at the same LOS as under existing conditions. Increases in average motorist delays would be minor, ranging from 0.0 to 0.7 seconds depending on the intersection and peak hour. The increases in delay fall below the thresholds established by the City for intersections operating at LOS D. Therefore, the Project is not expected to substantially increase delays at the study intersections and the intersections would not require improvements under existing (2022) conditions.

Table 6: Existing (2022) Traffic Conditions
Intersection Delay Summary
FUTURE (2025) WITHOUT AND WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
There are several other projects either under construction or planned for development in the surrounding area that may contribute future traffic volumes to the study intersections. For this reason, the analysis of future traffic conditions was expanded to include potential traffic volume increases expected to be generated by these other projects. In order to evaluate future traffic conditions in the Project area, an analysis of Existing (2022) traffic volumes was first conducted, as described previously. For the analysis of future conditions, an ambient traffic growth factor of 1.0 percent per year, compounded annually, was applied to these existing volumes at the three study intersections to develop future year (2025) baseline traffic volumes.

The inclusion of the annual growth factor generally accounts for area-wide traffic volume increases. To ensure a conservative estimate of cumulative traffic conditions, the traffic volumes generated by “related projects” in the study area were also added to the future baseline traffic volumes. The total future volumes, including those due to related projects, formed the basis for the Future (2025) Without Project condition.

Finally, the traffic expected to be generated by the Project was analyzed as an incremental addition to the Future (2025) Without Project condition, resulting in the Future (2025) With Project condition.

Ambient Traffic Growth
Based on an analysis of traffic growth projections in the City of Beverly Hills, an ambient traffic growth factor of 1.0 percent per year was selected in coordination with the City STE for the development of future traffic growth. This growth factor was used to account for increases in traffic volumes due to potential development projects not yet proposed or outside the study area. Compounded annually, the ambient Peak
No. Intersection Hour Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2 Change3
1 La Cienega Boulevard & AM 32.3 C 32.4 C 0.1
San Vicente Boulevard PM 32.2 C 32.2 C 0.0
2 La Cienega Boulevard & AM 27.2 C 27.9 C 0.7
Wilshire Boulevard PM 27.1 C 27.3 C 0.2
3 La Cienega Boulevard & AM 36.1 D 36.5 D 0.4
Olympic Boulevard PM 48.5 D 48.6 D 0.1
Note:
1 Delay in seconds; 2 LOS = Level of Service; 3 Change in delay reported in seconds.

Existing Plus Project
11 traffic growth factor was applied to the Existing (2022) traffic volumes to develop the estimated baseline volumes for the future study year of 2025.

Related Projects
In addition to the use of the ambient growth rate, listings of potential projects located in the surrounding area (“related projects”) that might be developed or under construction within the study time frame were obtained from the City of Beverly Hills, the City of West Hollywood, and the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Recently published transportation impact studies/transportation assessments and environmental reports for development projects in the area were also reviewed. Per guidance from the City STE, the related projects were included from these sources that are within an approximate 1.0-mile radius of the Project site. Refinement of the information resulted in a total of 35 related projects in the surrounding area that could add traffic to the study intersections.

The locations of the related projects are shown in Figure 7, Related Project Location Map. The related project locations, descriptions, and trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 7. The number of trips expected to be generated by the related projects were obtained from information provided by public agencies and environmental reports, to the extent available. For related projects with incomplete trip generation and/or peak-hour directional (inbound/outbound) distribution information, estimates were determined by applying the appropriate trip generation rates and/or directional splits from the ITE Trip Generation Manual.

For the analysis of Future (2025) Without Project traffic conditions, each related project’s generated trips were distributed and assigned to the study area circulation system, using methodologies similar to those previously described for the Project trip distribution and assignment. Summing the individual related project traffic volume assignments, the total related project traffic volumes at the study intersections were calculated and are shown in Figures 8(a) and 8(b) for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Highway System Improvements
In order to analyze properly future traffic conditions, an investigation was conducted regarding relevant future transportation improvements to the roadway system infrastructure in the Project study area. No traffic improvements were identified as scheduled for implementation that would affect use of the existing street system.

Analysis of Future (2025) Traffic Conditions, Without and With Project The analysis of future traffic conditions at the study intersections was performed using the analysis procedures described previously in this report. Future (2025) baseline traffic volumes for the Without Project condition were determined by superimposing area-wide ambient traffic growth and the total related projects traffic volumes onto Existing (2022) traffic volumes. The Future (2025) Without Project traffic volumes are illustrated in Figures 9(a) and 9(b) for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, respectively.

Net Project traffic volumes [Figures 5(a) and 5(b)], determined earlier, were then added to the Future (2025) Without Project traffic volumes to develop the Future (2025) With Project traffic volumes. The Future (2025) With Project weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic volumes are shown in Figures 10(a) and 10(b), respectively. The Future (2025) Without and With Project traffic volumes were incorporated into the Synchro model to determine the future delay and LOS conditions at the study intersections during the Project buildout year, and the Synchro worksheets are included in Attachment E. 12 Table 7: Related Project Locations, Descriptions, and Trip Generation Estimates

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

1. 1050 S La Cienega Boulevard1 1050 La Cienega Boulevard Project 2,110 53 71 124 78 59 137 du Residential (High-Rise) 262 du Affordable Housing 29 sf Restaurant 7,500

2. 6527 W Wilshire Boulevard1 du Apartments 77 430 (1) 20 19 25 0 25 sf Restaurant 4,000 sf Commercial 4,000

3. 6132 W Pico Boulevard2 du Apartment 125 500 12 28 40 26 20 46 sf Retail 6,907

4. 8052 W Beverly Boulevard1 Unified Elder Care Facility/Mixed-Use 725 19 26 45 21 49 70 5,000 sf Synagogue
102 du Apartment
15,000 sf Medical Office
1,000 sf Retail

5. 333 La Cienega Boulevard1 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project 2,020 21 36 57 35 71 114 du Apartment 145 sf Supermarket 27,685 sf Restaurant 3,370 sf Retail to be Removed (47,676)

6. 8000 W Beverly Boulevard1 8000 Beverly Mixed-Use Project 774 21 36 57 42 17 59 du Apartment 48 sf Retail 7,400

7. 488 S San Vicente Boulevard1 53 du Apartment 281 1 20 21 18 9 27 6,585 sf Retail

8. 8001 W Beverly Boulevard1 Edin Park 3,248 142 118 260 157 106 263 sf High-Turnover Restaurant 24,725 sf Office 11,260

9. 8000 W 3rd Street1 Third Street Mixed-Use 428 9 17 26 23 13 36 du Affordable Housing 50 sf Commercial 7,252

10. 333 S San Vicente Boulevard1 Mt Lebanon Mixed-Use 650 11 32 43 32 21 53 du Apartments 153 sf Church 31,342

11. 431 N La Cienega Boulevard1 du Apartment 72 (409) (9) 10 1 (12) (22) (34)

12. 6055 W Pico Boulevard1 125 du Apartments 313 (2) 24 22 16 4 20 4140 sf Retail

13. 316 N La Cienega Boulevard1 du Apartment 56 331 5 7 22 16 12 28 du Affordable Housing 5 sf Retail 4,096

14. 800 S Fairfax Avenue1 du Apartment 209 775 27 46 73 48 31 79 sf Restaurant 2,653

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
NO. ADDRESS/LOCATION SIZE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
13 Table 7: Related Project Locations, Descriptions, and Trip Generation Estimates (continued)

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

15. 6052 W Olympic Boulevard1 Olympic + Fairfax Mixed-Use (55) (14) 12 (2) 3 3 6 du Apartment 108 du Affordable Housing 12 sf Retail 3,152

16. 656 S San Vicente Avenue1 sf Medical Office 140,305 3,552 234 70 304 113 269 382 sf Retail 5,000

17. 1434 S Robertson Boulevard3 Pico-Robertson Hotel 1,087 35 28 63 41 39 80 rm Hotel 136

18. 6075 W Pico Boulevard1 rm Hotel 110 1,367 15 27 42 43 27 70 du Apartment 45 sf Restaurant 3,800 sf Retail 2,500

19. 7951 W Beverly Boulevard4 du Apartment 51 292 7 15 22 14 13 27 du Affordable Housing 6 sf Retail 6,479

20. 300 S Fairfax Avenue5 3rd & Fairfax Mixed-Use 1,609 49 93 142 66 21 87 du Apartments 331 sf Retail 83,994

21. 6435 W Wilshire Boulevard1 The Stanley Residential Project 150 (9) 12 3 5 2 7 du Residential 68

22. 6000 San Vicente Boulevard6 Docs Surgical Hospital 264 14 8 22 8 16 24 sf Hospital 48,282

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

1. 154-168 N. La Peer Drive7 16 du Condominiums 93 5 2 7 6 2 8

2. 9212 Olympic Boulevard7 Etco Homes 1,068 68 47 115 45 51 96 13,344 sf Office
1,000 sf Fast-Food Restaurant
sf Specialty Retail Cente 4,700 r

3. 8633 Wilshire Boulevard7 25,565 sf General Office 380 32 6 38 8 32 40

4. 9000 Wilshire Boulevard7 31,702 sf Office 105 13 2 15 3 12 155. 9111 Wilshire Boulevard7 Gibraltar Square 193 (101) 19 (82) 26 (91) (65) 154 rm Hotel
(112,400) sf General Office to be Removed

6. 9145 Wilshire Boulevard7 8,269 sf Church 58 3 3 6 5 3 8

7. 9200 Wilshire Boulevard7 53 du Multi-Family Residential 2,172 28 36 64 106 86 192 8,400 sf Shopping Center
5,600 sf Quality Restaurant

8. 149-159 S. Maple Dr. & 9225 Charleville Blvd.7 29 du Multi-Family Residential 158 3 7 10 7 5 12 (13) du Multi-Family Residential

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
NO. ADDRESS/LOCATION SIZE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO. ADDRESS/LOCATION SIZE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
14 Table 7: Related Project Locations, Descriptions, and Trip Generation Estimates (continued)

IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

1. 8713 Beverly Boulevard8 8713 Beverly Boulevard Mixed-Use Project 303 9 15 24 22 20 42 30 du Apartment
3,416 sf Office5,475 sf Retail
500 sf Gallery
(3,272) sf Nightclub to be Removed

2. 8816 Beverly Boulevard9 128 rm Hotel 2,228 48 43 91 118 78 196 7 du Condominium
5,535 sf Retail7,070 sf Restaurant/Bar
1,819 sf Outdoor Dining
28 du Apartment

3. 511 N Flores Street10 10 du Condominium 45 1 3 4 2 2 4

4. 8763 Rosewood Avenue11 4,920 sf Retail 268 7 5 12 16 16 32

5. 8804 Rosewood Avenue12 3,740 sf Medical Office 135 9 3 12 5 10 15 Notes:
du = Dwelling Units; sf = Square Feet.
1 Net trip generation and peak-hour directional distribution provided by the LADOT related projects database.2 Transportation Assessment Memorandum of Understanding for the 6116 Pico Blvd Mixed Use Project (KOA Corporation, August 2022).3 Trip generation and peak-hour trip directional distribution of trips based on ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel).4 Trip generation and peak-hour trip directional distribution of trips based on ITE Land Use Codes 221 (Multifamily Housing [Mid-Rise]) and 822 (Strip Retail Plaza [<40k]) and LADOT Affordable Housing trip generation rates, with conservative internal capture, transit, and pass-by adjustments. 5 Traffic Impact Study for the 6300 W. 3rd Street Mixed-Use Project (Linscott, Law & Greenspan, July 2019).6 Transportation Study for 6000 West San Vicente Boulevard Hospital Project (Gibson Transportation Consulting, November 2020).7 Net trip generation and peak-hour directional distribution provided by the City of Beverly Hills.8 Transportation Study for the 8713 Beverly Boulevard Mixed-Use Project (Fehr & Peers, January 2016).9 Trip generation and peak-hour directional distribution of trips based on ITE Land Use Codes 221 (Multifamily Housing [Mid-Rise]), 310 (Hotel), 822 (Strip Retail Plaza [<40k]), and 931 (Quality Restaurant).

AM peak-hour directional distribution for ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover Restaurant) used for restaurant components. 10 Trip generation and peak-hour trip directional distribution of trips based on ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing [Mid-Rise]).11 Trip generation and peak-hour trip directional distribution of trips based on ITE Land Use Code 822 (Strip Retail Plaza [<40k]).12 Trip generation and peak-hour trip directional distribution of trips based on ITE Land Use Code 720 (Medical Office).

AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR

CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD
NO. ADDRESS/LOCATION SIZE PROJECT DESCRIPTION DAILY
15 The results of the delay-based quantitative analysis of future traffic conditions at the study intersections are summarized in Table 8. Under Future (2025) traffic conditions, overall intersection operations are expected to deteriorate slightly due to the addition of ambient and related project traffic volume growth. Under Future (2025) Without Project conditions, all intersections are expected to operate at the same LOS as under existing conditions, except for the intersection of La Cienega Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard which is expected to degrade to LOS E during the weekday PM peak hour. Following the addition of Project traffic, all intersections would experience slight increases in delay, but would continue to operate at the same LOS as under the Future (2025) Without Project conditions. As increases in average motorist delays at the study intersections would be relatively small (0.0 to 1.1 seconds), the Project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. The 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. Thus, no improvements are required at the study intersection under future (2025) conditions.

Table 8: Future (2025) Traffic Conditions
Intersection Delay Summary

COMPLIANCE WITH ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND POLICIES In April 2021, the City adopted a City-wide Complete Streets Plan. This document outlines the upgrades and improvements proposed for the pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular facilities within the City. As such, a review of this document was conducted to ensure that the Project would not interfere with the City’s goals for improving active transportation. As part of the Complete Streets Plan, La Cienega Boulevard has been identified as a proposed pedestrian corridor. Pedestrian enhancements may include upgraded sidewalks/curb ramps, curb extensions, and streetscape improvements along this roadway. La Cienega Boulevard has also been designated for transit enhancements. These improvements may include the installation of transit islands, the implementation of flexible curb zones, and striping changes to limit bus/bicycle conflicts. While specific improvements to these roadways have not yet been planned, the Project will not preclude the installation of any of these measures and will work with the City to ensure attainment of its active transportation goals.

MITIGATION MEASURES AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
As indicated in the preceding CEQA TIA, the Project is expected to have a less-than-significant VMT impact based on its proximity to high-quality transit. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required to reduce the VMT impact of the Project. In addition, based on the results of the LTA, the Project is not expected to adversely impact any study intersections under existing (2022) or future (2025) traffic conditions. Thus, the Peak
No. Intersection Hour Delay1 LOS2 Delay1 LOS2 Change3
1 La Cienega Boulevard & AM 33.4 C 33.6 C 0.2
San Vicente Boulevard PM 33.5 C 33.5 C 0.0
2 La Cienega Boulevard & AM 28.4 C 29.2 C 0.8
Wilshire Boulevard PM 30.2 C 30.5 C 0.3
3 La Cienega Boulevard & AM 45.3 D 46.4 D 1.1
Olympic Boulevard PM 58.5 E 58.9 E 0.4
Note:
1 Delay in seconds; 2 LOS = Level of Service; 3 Change in delay reported in seconds.

Without Project With Project
16 roadways and intersections surrounding the Project site are expected to operate at acceptable LOS following Project construction, and no corrective actions are required by the Project.

FIGURES
1 2
3 SITE

PROJECT
ST

SAN VICENTE
BLVD.
3RD LA CIENEGA BLVD.

WILSHIRE
BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD. ROBERTSON BLVD.

BURTON WAY
FIGURE 1 9/26/2022 FN:LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills/STUDY-INTS NORTH

STUDY INTERSECTIONS
PROJECT SITE VICINITY AND Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com NORTH
FIGURE 2 9/26/2022 FN:LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills/SITE-PLAN NORTH
CONCEPTUAL PROJECT SITE PLAN Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com 64237 705 169 773 44 1029
517

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 242 139
158
861
145
1103
81 1040
32 123
427
139 1086 117280
71 1597
72 77
654
76 73 1351 164
FIGURE 3(a)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\AM2022
NORTH

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com 99256 692 102 1218 125 1013
1571

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 186 86
199 1277
232
641
118
587
57 116
846
254 89 1072 164
115
910
42 133
1677
132 110 1094 146
FIGURE 3(b)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PM2022
NORTH

WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR
EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com 3% 10%
14%41% (14%)
(41%)
(27%)
27%
3% 32% (6%) (32%) (3%)
6%
(2%)
(22%)
(3%) 3%
22%
6%
(8%)
(6%) 14%
4% ROBERTSON

PROJECT
SITE BLVD.

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.
3RD
BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD.

ST.
8% 2% (4%) (14%) (1%) (10%) (3%)
1%
FIGURE 4(a)
9/26/2022 FN: LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PROJ-DIST-RES-LODGE NORTH

TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
PROJECT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com - INBOUND PERCENTAGES
(XX%) - OUTBOUND PERCENTAGES
XX%
6% 10%
13%37% (13%)
(37%)
(27%)
27%
4% 25% (8%) (25%) (4%)
8%
(2%)
(20%)
(5%) 5%
20%
5%
(8%)
(5%) 18%
5% ROBERTSON

PROJECT
SITE BLVD.

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.
3RD
BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD.

ST.
8% 2% (5%) (18%) (2%) (10%) (6%)
2%
FIGURE 4(b)
9/26/2022 FN: LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PROJ-DIST-COM NORTH

TRIP DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGES
PROJECT COMMERCIAL COMPONENT Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com - INBOUND PERCENTAGES
(XX%) - OUTBOUND PERCENTAGES
XX%
816 23
4162
9 0

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD.
3 0
3 10
0 0
0 0
7 0
0 14 20
0 0 0
0 2
0 0
4 0140
FIGURE 5(a)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\AM-PROJ
NORTH

WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR
NET PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com 4 811
271
6 0

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD.
1 0
2 5
0 0
0 0
5 0
0 10 14
0 0 0
0 1
0 0
3 0100
FIGURE 5(b) 9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PM-PROJ
NORTH
NET PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR www.koacorp.com 72253 728 173 789 46 1038
517

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 245 139
161
871
145
1103
81 1040
39 123
427
153 1106 117280
71 1597
74 77
654
80 73 1365 164
FIGURE 6(a)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\AM2022WP
NORTH

PLUS PROJECT
EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Culver City, California 90230
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 103264 703 104 1225 126 1019
1571

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 187 86
201 1282
232
641
118
587
62 116
846
264 89 1086 164
115
910
43 133
1677
135 110 1104 146
FIGURE 6(b)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PM2022WP
NORTH

PLUS PROJECT
EXISTING (2022) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Culver City, California 90230
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 13 14
19 12
9 1
2 5
6 17
4 LA CIENEGA

OLYMPIC
PICO

WILSHIRE
BURTON

SAN VICENTE

PACKARD
3RD

BEVERLY
BLVD.

BLVD.

BLVD. BLVD.

ST.

BLVD.

ROBERTSON

FAIRFAX

CRESCENT HEIGHTS
HAUSER BLVD. BLVD. DOHENY DR. BEVERWIL AVE.

ST.
1 4
2 1
6 2
7 11

WHITWORTH
DR.

WAY
3 4
5 16
3 WAY
3 5
20 10
8 15
18 21
22 7
8 PROJECT
SITE
FIGURE 7 9/26/2022 FN: LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\RELPROJS RELATED PROJECT LOCATION MAP Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com NORTH
XX
XX

XX LOS ANGELES PROJECT

BEVERLY HILLS PROJECT

WEST HOLLYWOOD PROJECT
12 541 2555
1 58
28 PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 10 25
10 41
7 22
33 56
13 7
53 9 8232-2
1 25
0 0
21 63
1499
FIGURE 8(a)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\AM-REL-PROJ
NORTH
TOTAL RELATED PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR www.koacorp.com 1423 43 7371
0 78
31 PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 29 42
15 42
21 55
97 85
17 4
69 10 4717 57
2 19
0 8
23 37
1834
FIGURE 8(b)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PM-REL-PROJ
NORTH
TOTAL RELATED PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES Culver City, California 90230 300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR www.koacorp.com 78249 767 199 851 46 1118
561

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 259 168
173
928 156
1158
116
1128
46 134
493
152 1151 203286
74 1670
74 79
695
141 76 1441 178
FIGURE 9(a)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\AM2025WO
NORTH

WITHOUT PROJECT
FUTURE (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Culver City, California 90230
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 116287 756 178 1326 129 1122
1650

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 221 131
220 1358
260
715
219
690
76 124
941
272 1161 139186
120
957
43 145
1751
173 114 1210 154
FIGURE 9(b)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PM2025WO
NORTH

WITHOUT PROJECT
FUTURE (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Culver City, California 90230
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR 86265 790 203 867 48 1127
561

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 262 168
176
938 156
1158
116
1128
53 134
493
166 1171 203286
74 1670
76 79
695
145 76 1455 178
FIGURE 10(a)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\AM2025WP
NORTH

WITH PROJECT
FUTURE (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Culver City, California 90230
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR 120295 767 180 1333 130 1128
1650

PROJECT
SITE

WILSHIRE
BLVD. LA CIENEGA BLVD.

OLYMPIC
BLVD.

BURTON WY.

SAN VICENTE
BLVD. 222 131
222 1363
260
715
219
690
81 124
941
282 1175 139186
120
957
44 145
1751
176 114 1220 154
FIGURE 10(b)
9/28/2022
LaCienega(55 N)BeverlyHills\PM2025WP
NORTH

WITH PROJECT
FUTURE (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Culver City, California 90230
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470 PH (310) 473 6508 F (310) 444 9771 www.koacorp.com WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR

ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CEQA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS AND LOCAL

TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT

SCOPE OF WORK
300 Corporate Pointe, Suite 470, Culver City, CA 90230
T: (310) 473-6508 | www.koacorp.com

MONTEREY PARK ORANGE ONTARIO SAN DIEGO LA QUINTA CULVER CITY 55 N. LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CEQA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS AND

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION ASSESSMENT

PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK
55 N. LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE PROJECT DESCRIPTION 55 Del Norte, LLC is developing a new residential mixed-use project proposed to be located at 55 N. LA Cienega Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills (the “City”). The project site is an approximately 38,500 squarefoot rectangular area located on the west side of La Cienega Boulevard, immediately north of Wilshire Boulevard. The residential mixed-use building under consideration would contain 105 multifamily dwelling units (11 reserved for Very Low Income [VLI] households), a 10,045 square-foot grocery market, 1,450 square-feet of retail space, a 3,000 square-foot eatery/restaurant (with 1,687 square feet of open-air dining), a 920 square-foot café (with 242 square feet of open-air dining), and a 2,008 square-foot high-turnover restaurant (with 880 square feet of open-air dining) (the “Project”). All automobile parking would be provided on-site with access/egress via driveways along La Cienega Boulevard.

CEQA TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Per the City’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Thresholds of Significance, adopted by the City Planning Commission on October 10, 2019, the first step in performing a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis for a development project is to perform a VMT screening analysis. The screening analysis is based on the development project’s size, location, and accessibility to public transportation. The State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) offered guidance on the VMT screening of small development projects, retail land uses with floor areas under 50,000 square feet, and projects located in high-quality transit areas, and this guidance was adopted by the City.

Page 2 of 5 ends

Beverly Hills City CouncilNovember 7, 2023

Beverly Hills City Council
November 7, 2023