Beverly Hills City Council
November 7, 2023

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: November 7, 2023
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Masa Alkire, AICP, City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Subject: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JUNE 22, 2023

DECISION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

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

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

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

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

FIFTH STORIES, AND ROOFTOP RESTROOMS ON THE SIXTH STORY AT 55 NORTH LA CIENEGA BOULEVARD, FINDING THE PROJECT

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,

AND DENYING A RELATED APPEAL
Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition

2. Appellant Letter Dated September 12, 2023

3. Draft City Council Resolution

4. June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report

5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2028

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

7. Rincon Consultants, Inc. Response to Appeal – Formaldehyde

8. Rincon Consultants, Inc. Response to Appeal – Noise and Vibration

9. Updated Class 32 Exemption Report

10. No Net Loss Findings

11. Notice of Public Hearing

12. Public Correspondence

13. Project Plans
Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

RECOMMENDATION
On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution approving the construction of a new six-story, mixed use development with ground floor commercial uses and 105 residential dwelling units at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard. Subsequently, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed on July 5, 2023, by Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) (Attachment 1). On August 1, 2023, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for the project for September 12, 2023. At the September 12th meeting, the Council continued the appeal hearing to November 7, 2023 at the request of the applicant to allow time for materials to be prepared to respond to the additional comments contained in correspondence submitted on the day of the September 12, 2023 hearing by Lozeau Drury LLP regarding project noise and vibration (Attachment 2).

It is recommended that the City Council hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and adopt a resolution approving the project (Attachment 3) and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision (i.e., denying the appeal), which would allow the project to move forward through the City’s architectural review and building permit processes. The City Council, as part of its de novo review, will consider not only the appeal and points raised therein, but also will conduct an independent review of whether or not the required findings can be made to approve the project.

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

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

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

Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

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

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

Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

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

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

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

Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

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

Project History and Planning Commission Discussion
On June 22, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the proposed mixed use development at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard and associated Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit applications (Attachment 4). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment regarding the project and considered whether the required findings for project approval could be made. Public comment included concerns regarding the proposed height of the building, the scale of the project given its proximity to single-family residential development, and the potential for shadow to be cast on neighboring properties. After discussion and deliberation of the project materials and the topics raised by the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2028 (Attachment 5) approving the Project subject to 41 conditions of approval.

Appeal Filed
On July 5, 2023, Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision, seeking that the City Council require additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review for the project (Attachment 1). Specifically, the appellant states that the project would have a significant impact on indoor air quality as they assert that the project would expose the future residents to the cancer-causing chemical formaldehyde from emissions from the modern building materials used in the project. Subsequent to the appeal, on September 12, 2023, Lozeau Drury LLP, submitted additional correspondence pertaining to concerns regarding project noise and vibration (Attachment 2). Discussion and analysis of the appeal and additional correspondence is provided in the Discussion and Analysis section of this report below.

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

The appellant alleges that the City incorrectly applied a Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the project due to the City not taking into account the potential impacts to indoor air quality as a result of the off-gassing of formaldehyde from Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

construction materials. Specifically, the appellant’s consultant, Mr. Francis J. Offerman, notes “that many composite wood products routinely used in indoor building materials and furnishings commonly found in offices, residences, and hotels contain formaldehyde-based glues which off-gas formaldehyde over long periods of time”, with some of these building materials consisting of “flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims.” The appeal concludes by alleging that future residents of the proposed project will be exposed to emission of the cancercausing chemical formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and therefore additional environmental review is required.

In response to the appeal, Rincon Consultants, the City’s environmental consultant for this project, has prepared a memorandum addressing the concerns raised in the appeal (Appendix C of Attachment 9). As Rincon notes in their response letter, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state agency that has authority over emissions caused by the off-gassing of formaldehyde in composite wood products. CARB describes formaldehyde as a colorless gas that is released to the environment from a variety of sources including the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and propane, tobacco smoke, fireplaces, and wood burning stoves. It is also found at low levels in natural wood and is commonly used to make a variety of products including resins that are used as adhesives in composite wood products. It is also found in many other products, including some furniture coatings, permanent press clothing and linens, wallpaper, carpet products, and personal care products such as nail hardeners.

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

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

Offerman that studies indoor air quality in California homes. However, as noted by Rincon, the study uses data collected from 70 single-family detached homes built between 2011 and 2017. In contrast, the project does not propose single-family detached structures and the project would be built to the most current 2022 California Building Standards Code and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), not the 2013 to 2016 standards of the homes included in the referenced study. The 2022 Title 24 standards include ventilation requirements that improve indoor air quality, protecting residents from air pollution originating from outdoor and indoor sources, including improving air quality over homes built to meet previous standards. Additionally, all wood products and finished goods used during construction of buildings in California 1 CARB Frequently Asked Questions for Consumers - https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/consumerfaq#:~:text=The%20CWP%20Regulation%20includes%20provisions,resins%20in%20composite%20wood%20products.

Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

would be required to be compliant with federal and state emission standards.

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

Based on the appeal that was filed, Rincon’s response letter, and current federal and state regulations that regulate formaldehyde emissions in composite wood products used in common building materials, staff’s assessment is that no additional environmental review is required and that the project qualifies for a CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption. The Class 32 report prepared by Rincon Associates (Attachment 9) provides substantial evidence that the project meets the conditions required to qualify for the Class 32 Categorical Exemption.

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

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

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

Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

Noise and Vibration
The following is an analysis of the points the appellant raised in additional correspondence submitted on September 12, 2023 by Lozeau Drury LLP, on behalf of SAFER. A copy of this additional correspondence is provided as Attachment 2.
1) The City incorrectly applied a Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the project and thus a full analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required on the basis that the project would have significant operational and constructionrelated noise impacts and construction-related vibration impacts.

The appellant alleges that the City incorrectly applied a Class 32 In-Fill Development Categorical Exemption to the project based on the appellant’s consultant’s analysis that the project would have significant operational and construction-related noise impacts and construction-related vibration impacts to neighboring properties. Specifically, the appellant’s consultant, Wilson Ihrig, details the following issues with respect to noise and vibration concerns expressed in the September 12, 2023 letter:
a) Baseline Noise Levels are Not Properly Established
The appellant’s consultant, Jack Meighan of Wilson Ihrig alleges that the noise analysis relies on short-term measurements without any discussion of how typical this data was for daytime conditions or how they would apply to evening or nighttime conditions. Specifically, Mr. Meighan refers to the short term 15-minute noise measurements that were conducted by Rincon as part of the categorical exemption report and notes that “there's no evidence provided that the time selected for noise measurements is representative of rest of the day.”
In response to this concern, Rincon conducted a 24-hour noise measurement on October 12 and October 13, 2023 at the western boundary of the project site and adjacent to the nearest noise-sensitive receivers (i.e., single-family residences to the west). Additionally, Rincon performed the short term 15-minute noise measurement again to provide a comparison between both measurements. Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum prepared for the project (Appendix C to Attachment 9) details the results of both the 15-minute and 24-hour noise measurements. The results of the 24-hour measurement were subsequently used to redefine the lowest ambient noise level at the project site. While the 24-hour measurement results provided additional information on the site, the integration of this data did not alter the significance findings that the project would not have operational noise impacts. This analysis provided in the Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum was incorporated into the updated categorical exemption report and is provided on Page 19 of Appendix C to Attachment 9.
b) Significance Criteria are Improperly Established
The appellant’s consultant alleges that there are no thresholds of significance established for daytime construction noise in the categorical exemption report and that applicable standards exist, which should be used to evaluate construction-related impacts of the project. Specifically, Mr. Meighan notes that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides applicable construction noise thresholds that should be to evaluate the project, which sets a daytime construction noise threshold of 80 dBA, and should be used as the standard in-lieu of relying on the City’s established restrictions on construction activity in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §5-1-205.

Additionally, Mr. Meighan notes that the project is projected to result in construction Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

noise levels of 86 dBA adjacent to single-family residences to the west of the project site.

The City’s restrictions on construction activity in BHMC §5-1-205 establish the allowable hours where construction, maintenance or repair work which requires a City permit can occur. Pursuant to this section, construction activity on a project site within 500’ of a residential zone is only allowed to occur from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday. Consistent with the approach of previous environmental documentation certified by the City, construction noise would be significant if: 1) construction activities occurring on the project site resulted in 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) would increase noise by five dBA or more during daytime hours at uses identified in BHMC §5-1-206, which include schools, hospitals, churches, or institutes of learning. The five dBA criteria during daytime hours has been used for schools, hospitals, churches, or institutes of learning as the BHMC specifically identifies that noise that substantially and unreasonably interferes with the operation of those uses is not allowed.

The project does not involve or propose any construction activities that are atypical of a developed and dense urban environment. Specifically, the project site is adjacent to three-story commercial buildings to the north and south that were developed with subterranean parking garages in 2001 and 1984, respectively. The project would employ the use of typical construction techniques used to construct adjacent commercial buildings and similar type of developments in the City and the region. The project would utilize tractors, bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, graders, and stationary equipment, such as compressors and generators. Construction equipment would not all operate at the same time or the same location and would not be in constant use during the allowable construction hours. Furthermore, the use of the aforementioned equipment is typical of most new construction in the City, including single-family residential development with basement construction and that have significant earthwork grading. These single-family residential projects often employ the same construction techniques as commercial construction and are built with temporary shoring to support the construction of one or more subterrean basement levels, while being statutorily exempt from environmental review under Section 15268 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The application of the City’s restrictions on construction activity, as applied to all types of development within the City (e.g., single-family residential, multi-family residential, and commercial and institutional uses) would continue to limit construction to daytime periods where construction activity occurs throughout the City. There are unusual circumstances in which applicants may request an After Hours Permit to work outside of the established construction hours, but under most circumstances, particularly for projects within 500’ of a residential zone where as a practice the City has taken extra precautions in the issuance of after-hours permits, construction can be anticipated to occur during the allowable hours identified in BHMC §5-1-205. As such, the projected negligible increase in noise during typical construction hours would not cause a significant noise impact to neighboring uses.

The project site is not located in close proximity to any school, hospital, church, or institute of learning, with the nearest school (Horace Mann Elementary School) at 8701 Charleville Boulevard located 0.25 miles away, the nearest hospital (Cedars- Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

Sinai Medical Center) at 8700 Beverly Boulevard, in the City of Los Angeles, located

0.48 miles away, and the nearest church (Our Lady of Mt. Lebanon Catholic Church) at 333 S. San Vicente Boulevard, in the City of Los Angeles, located 0.37 miles away.

The attached updated technical memo concludes that construction noise generated at the project site will not be audible at the Horace Mann school which is located a quarter mile from the project site. The Horace Mann school as well as the closest hospital and church are all located in busy urban environments with a high daytime ambient noise level. As discussed in more detail in the attached technical memorandum based on the long distances and existing ambient conditions of the closest schools, hospitals or churches to the project site, it can be concluded that the City's 5 dBA construction noise threshold for these uses will not be exceeded. c) Noise Analysis Misinterprets Cited Threshold Documents The appellant’s consultant alleges that an incorrect threshold for measuring vibrationrelated project impacts was used to evaluate potential impacts to adjacent residential and commercial buildings. Specifically, Mr. Meighan notes that a lower vibration threshold of 0.3 inch seconds (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) should be used instead of the 0.5 in/sec PPV threshold that used in the categorical exemption report.

Based on this assertion, Mr. Meighan adds that based on the lower 0.3 in/sec PPV threshold, the proposed construction equipment would exceed the construction vibration limit. These thresholds are derived from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (2020)2
.

In response to this comment, Rincon notes that the Caltrans guidance manual provides different possible vibration thresholds for building damage and doesn’t clearly recommend use of one over the other. Specifically, the analysis provided by Rincon in the categorical exemption report utilizes the vibration thresholds recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which are also provided in the Caltrans guidance manual (Table 15) and provides a vibration threshold of 0.4 – 0.5 in/sec PPV for residential buildings in good repair and 1.0 – 1.5 in/sec PPV for engineered structures. Additional tables included in the Caltrans guidance manual provide for a 0.5 in/sec threshold for residential structures (Table 14).

The rear of the project site abuts a total of seven single-family residential properties along Le Doux Road. The closest primary residential building is located approximately 28’ away from the rear property line abutting the project site (126 N. Le Doux Road).

Additionally, based on permit records, the nearest habitable residential accessory structure (guest house) is located approximately 8’-0” from the rear property abutting the project site (120 N. Le Doux Road). Permit records for this property show that the guest house was built in 1990. To the north and south, the project site is adjacent to two separate three-story commercial buildings that were developed with subterranean parking garages in 2001 and 1984, respectively. Permit records show these buildings were constructed of reinforced concrete and steel, which appear to qualify them as engineered structures for assessment in the vibration guidance manual. Based in the aforementioned vibration guidance criteria, existing conditions of adjacent commercial and residential properties, and the proposed 10’ buffer between neighboring 2 The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual is available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

residential properties to the west and the area of building construction on the project site, the recommended vibration thresholds of 0.4 – 0.5 in/sec PPV for residential structures and 1.0 – 1.5 in/sec PPV for engineered commercial structures appears to be an adequate threshold to apply.

As detailed in Rincon’s technical memorandum (Appendix C to Attachment 9) and the updated categorical exemption and categorical exemption report (Attachment 9), the project would utilize tractors, bulldozers, hoe rams, excavators, drill rigs, front-end loaders, graders, and stationary equipment, such as compressors and generators.

Table 3 in the technical memorandum shows that the large bulldozer, hoe ram, and drill rig would produce the highest level of vibration on the project site, which is projected to produce vibration levels of 0.352 in/sec PPV adjacent to residential properties to the west along Le Doux. Adjacent to existing commercial properties to the north and south, the project is projected to produce vibration levels of 0.492 in/sec PPV due to the closer proximity of project construction to those commercial properties. In all, the projected vibration thresholds are lower than and are not projected to exceed vibration levels included in the vibration guidance manual. As such, projected project vibration data would not cause significant impacts to adjacent residential and commercial properties.
d) Class 32 Document Underestimates Operational Noise Impacts Lastly, the appellant’s consultant alleges that the operational impacts of the project are underestimated based on the analysis of projected rooftop mechanical equipment included in the categorical exemption report. Mr. Meighan asserts that the noise analysis’ use of one Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system with a sound power level of 76 dBA is a low estimate and adds that there are some HVAC units can have a sound power level as high as 100 dBA. The consultant states that using two rooftop units with a sound power level of 84 dBA exceeds the applied 50 dBA threshold for HVAC noise.

The operational noise section of the categorical exemption report related to HVAC units projected the use of a 2.5-ton Carrier 24ABA4030 air conditioning unit on the rooftop, which has a sound power level of 76 dBA and is a typical HVAC system for use in multi-family residential development. In consultation with the project applicant, the applicant provided information on the specific type of rooftop HVAC equipment they plan on utilizing for the project for Rincon to more accurately assess HVAC operational noise impacts. The applicant is proposing the use of a Goodman GPHH33641 3-ton 13.4 SEER2 air conditioner unit that has a sound power level of 78 dBA, based on manufacturer-supplied unit specifications. The use of this unit represents a projected 2 dBA increase in the level of noise generated by the previously evaluated unit.

As noted by Rincon in their technical memorandum (Appendix C of Attachment 9) and the updated categorical exemption report (Attachment 9), based on the distance of the residential property to the west and the project’s rooftop parapet wall, noise levels generated by the three rooftop HVAC units operating simultaneously would be approximately 50 dBA at 30 feet, which would not cause an exceedance of the quietest measured nighttime ambient noise level 53 dBA by more than 5 decibels. As discussed in Rincon’s appeal response letter (Attachment 8), the approach of modelling three HVAC units at the same location represents a reasonable worst-case scenario for the operational noise generated by roof-top mounted air conditioning Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

units. Therefore, it can be concluded that operational noise impacts will be less than significant.

PROJECT REVIEW
In review of the appeal petition and an additional letter submitted at the last minute prior to the September 12, 2023 appeal hearing filed by Lozeau Drury LLP, the appeal appears to be focused on challenging the adequacy of the environmental review conducted for the project as a result of perceived impacts to indoor air quality from the off-gassing of formaldehyde in common building materials as well as the last minute concerns regarding how construction noise and vibration and operational noise were analyzed. The appeal petition and subsequent letter do not appear to include challenges or objections to the project itself or the findings required to approve the project.

As part of the City’s appeal procedures, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review of the project upon appeal. The June 22, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report is provided in its entirety as Attachment 4 to this staff report and provides an in-depth analysis of the project, its vicinity, applicable state requirements, and the required findings for approval of the requested entitlements for the Council to consider in review of the project.

RHNA and No Net Loss Law
As part of Housing Element Law and the RHNA process, the state requires that all jurisdictions adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. To demonstrate the availability of land to accommodate future housing development, a Housing Element is required to include an inventory of housing sites with sufficient capacity to accommodate a jurisdiction’s RHNA by income category. The state adopted the No Net Loss Law (Government Code §65863) to ensure jurisdictions do not take actions to reduce the potential capacity for new development. Additional discussion regarding No Net Loss Law and its applicability to this project, and applicable findings is provided in Attachment 10.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines3 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. As part of this review, a categorical exemption report has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assess whether this project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA as an in-fill development project. The categorical exemption report, which was updated for the November 7, 2023 appeal hearing to provide additional information regarding project noise and vibration, is provided as Attachment 9 to this report.

Based on this assessment, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that this exemption is applicable when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
3 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Meeting Date: November 7, 2023

b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

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

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Wednesday, August 23, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site for the September 12, 2023 City Council meeting (Attachment 11). On-site posting was also posted on the subject property on Wednesday, August 23, 2023.

Additionally, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the hearing dates.

The project was subsequently continued to a date certain to November 7, 2023 at the request of the applicant to provide the opportunity to address additional concerns raised the day of the meeting by correspondence submitted by Lozeau Drury LLP. As a result of the project being continued to a date certain, no additional public noticing is required. However, courtesy updates via email were sent to all individuals who previously provided public comment or who asked to be included on the interested parties list.

Public Comment
The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearing on June 22, 2023, where members of the pubic provided oral and written comments on the proposed project. Additionally, comment letters were received for the Council’s consideration expressing concerns with the proposed project. All previously provided and new public correspondence is included as Attachment 12 to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Class 32 exemption provides:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Rebecca Davis
Lozeau | Drury LLP

EXHIBIT A

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Qn = (Equation 1)
where:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source mitigation for formaldehyde may include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A

INDOOR FORMALDEHYDE CONCENTRATIONS

AND THE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SERVICE INFORMATION

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

ALTERNATE

ADDRESS

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

DOCUMENTS

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
PLEASE SERVE ASAP WITH CLIENTS CHECK.

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

Person Served: Title:

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

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

ATTACHMENT 2
Appellant Letter Dated
September 12, 2023

September 12, 2023
Via Email
Mayor Julian A. Gold
Vice Mayor Lester Friedman
Councilmember John A. Mirisch
Councilmember Lili Bosse
Councilmember Sharona R. Nazarian
[email protected]
[email protected]
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
[email protected]
Re: Enclosed Expert Noise Comment in Support of SAFER’s Appeal of Planning Commission Approval for 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project (Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit No. PL2100326)
Dear Mayor Gold and Honorable Members of the City Council:

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

SAFER hereby appeals the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project which was issued on June 22, 2023, and asks you to overturn the Approvals issued pending further CEQA review.

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 impacts.

The City must prepare an Initial Study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review. 55 N. La Cienega Boulevard Project
City of Beverly Hills
September 12, 2023

The Class 32 exemption provides:

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

One of the key limitations of the Exemption is that it does not apply if the project will have any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. 14 CCR § 15332(d). Here, the Exemption cannot apply because the Project will have a significant impact on noise. See Exhibit 1. As previously stated in SAFER’s July 3, 2023 comments, attached at Exhibit 2, the Exemption also cannot apply because the Project will have a significant impact on air quality. See Exhibit 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILSON IHRIG
55 N La Cienega
Comments on the Noise Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILSON IHRIG
55 N La Cienega
Comments on the Noise Analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
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.

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

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

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

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",


-
-
.

b








 m"
,






,

%







\



 

"

 
"
)
\"
 





)
 "%%
 

"



 
)

%%
 

%



 


"

%


\"
 




 )
%"

 

-




\







 )






%


/
_
/
$%%

-
%

.-





-

 %


\,

%



,



 




k",
"

["\



n,
,


/

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

'
,
-
i


 

 
  
 /



\,
d


d
-

,/

ATTACHMENT 3
Draft City Council Resolution












  !"#$$"#$%" &'% # $(!% !))'* ! (')+)!',!((%& )+!,"!,-%+-( (')+,#*("$++$! ./01(!(,*# $(#*#""#.!(") +#-#%!11#! $*!&'!(."(*#)2$-+) "+#$!"!'+!3!% !$.!((%*!!(!))!  45$678$9:;<6=9>745$6789>&5?5@=8#6==A45@B8>6;CA.@5A9=?5AD;CC575@E6;5ADA >9==9FAG5<769;/  !B@D4DE!AA6=.9;B54D=>9>11(5=9@75.$.H<9==5<76?5=8745 IJKKLMNOPQRSTUOVTVWXYMQQZ[TOPTOKKLMNOQM\PT]\^TOT_Z`ZL\KYZPQTaLOPTbZ`MZcTOP[T_ZPVMQdTe\PWVT )5@E6779D==9F745<9;A7@:<769;9>D;5FA6fA79@8.E6f5C:A5B:6=C6;gF674g@9:;C>=99@ <9EE5@<6D=:A5A./01E:=76>DE6=8@5A6C5;76D=CF5==6;g:;67ADB9?5745g@9:;C>=99@.D;C@99>79h ^ZVQ^\\YVTcMQUTOPT\`Z^OLLTUZMiUQT\]TjjkjRlTOP[TOT_ZPVMQdTe\PWVTaZ^Y6779D==9F>9@D10mC5;A678 B9;:A6;DCC6769;79<5@7D6;6;<5;76?5An<9;<5AA69;A>@9EC5?5=9hE5;7A7D;CD@CA79h@9?6C5// O]]\^[OXLZTU\WVMPiTWPMQVToQUZTIa^\pZNQRSqTaW^VWOPQTQ\TeZ`Z^LdTrMLLVTsWPMNMKOLTt\[ZToerstSTuuvw

/00
!D;C/0
/1
x.D(5?5=9hE5;7)=D;5?65FD;C(5;A678&9;:A)5@E67D@5@5y:6@5C79 <9;A7@:<7745;5FE:=76>DE6=8@5A6C5;76D=B:6=C6;g  5<769;

 45)@9z5<7<9;A6A7A9>745<9;A7@:<769;9>D;5FA6fA79@8E6f5C:A5 B:6=C6;g.F674g@9:;C>=99@<9EE5@<6D=:A5AD;C/01@5A6C5;76D=CF5==6;g:;67A=9<D75CDB9?5745 g@9:;C>=99@=5?5= 45)@9z5<7F9:=C@5h=D<5D;5f6A76;g/
.100"?D<D;7<9EE5@<6D=B:6=C6;g >9@E5@=8:A5CDAD@5A7D:@D;7F674Dhh@9f6ED75=8/{.|{}"9>;5Fg@9:;C>=99@<9EE5@<6D=D@5D ~€‚ƒ„
†‡
ˆ‰Š‹‰†Œ~†~Ž‘’Ž“’”•Ž“‘”–“•—˜‡“™‡š›Ž—™œ‡–

 











!"
#
$


%%&
 
'()

!


&)
*+
 


 ,)-- 

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


2
,

34567
!-0-167
!)



%  8 !9:4-67'()

,2 
!&&
!2
2 
)
&&
%



;) <
=


>

.
!2 ,
!
!
&)
2 
!)


"!


!
!
2
# 2

# &)
"
)
2 
!,)



&.!!
&)
!


)
2 
! 

!
'?)
 !
)
&&
!



@
!"
#
$


% 
,
!2

 ABCDEBFFGHIJKBLMNOEPQR/SRETGHKELUMETGHVLEFGHFMGLOENJVMELHECGMBLMEBGMBWETHGEHFMVEBJGEXJVJVYE &&  
!&"
&
!

/

!
.
'?)
 )WJXMEHTELUMEAZJNXJVY[EBE\R/S]E !

2
#&.!
!'?)
)!
)
 !
)
2 
!,

2
2 
)
!
 FGHFMGLOENJVM[E^JLUEZFFMGEWLHGJMWEWMLABCDE\R/S]ETGHKELUMEWJXMEFGHFMGLOENJVM_E`LELUMEGMBG[EBEPSR/S]E GMBGEWMLABCDEJWEFGHaJXMXEHVELUMETJGWLEL^HETNHHGWEHTELUMEAZJNXJVY[E^JLUELUMEWMLABCDEJVCGMBWJVYELHEbSR/ S]ELHELUMEAZJNXJVYETBCMEHVELUMELUJGXELHETJTLUETNHHG_EcVELUMELUJGXEBVXETHZGLUETNHHGWEHTELUMEdGHeMCL[ELUME &&

&&2
NCHVJMWELUBLEdGHeMCLEfR/S]ETGHKELUMEGMBGETBCMEHTELUMEAZJNXJVYEBVXEWMLABCDE PgR/S]ETGHKELUMEGMBGEFGHFMGLOENJVM_EhHKKHVEHZLXHHGENJaJVYEWFBCMETHGELUMEGMWJXMVLJBNEZWMWE^HZNXEAME &.! !)
&)
2 
!

,)
"


&
&
& 
"

)
!
  

!

!
&


)

)2

/ 
"
%
!


 
)
,


;)<
i jk
!")
 !
.


' l!!

""
!&.

 !
.




&.!
!,)2





!)
 
!
)
*+
'()

,"j
!/ZWMEAZJNXJVYEJWEFGHFHWMXEBLEBEKBIJKZKEUMJYULEHTEggR/ g][E^UJCUEJVCNZXMWELUME. /%&)
2 
!) )
""



!
!


 ZWMWEBLEBEUMJYULEHTE\QR/S][EBNHVYE^JLUEBFFGHIJKBLMNOEf\SEmnEHTEGHHTLHFE ")
)
! WHZLUEWJXMWEHTELUMEAZJNXJVYE^JLUEBEUMJYULEHTEoR/g]'() &
"!

!
j)%
pqrstuvwxywz{|q}{x~pxp€‚‚ƒ„€
„†‡€
‚ƒ†ˆ
‡‰Šy
‹yŒ‚€‰‹Žy‚ˆ

 







 !!! "#$%"&!' "())"(!*"!!*+,+* -".!,!!"/*.*+""-"&!'"+(+",+*((#,,/ "!.,#*(*'0"1!' +*."2-".!!'((* 345-"&!' -($%"&!' "())"(!*-"! %"6(,+**('"+ *"2 ,***.*%3%7 +""-"&!''"'$%"&!' ""!!*-"!  %"6(!-".!*.*%8$9 345-"&!'-(-"-238:-(,!** **( "())"(!*-"! %"6(55-"&!'-(,!****( "!!*-"!$;%"6(!!8<2=::>?"('+*"**(,! 0" @ABCDEFEGABHIJKELAMNOBPDQRDFBQREBCDQSTUBC/82))"(!*V W2
!XW9."*# V$Y!("!"#.*-)-*".!,--".*!"Z+!" "("+(! , +!*!'2"Z+!#+-")!$ ;%"6(*!(*+ **,!'()-!-"!!#+ *,[ Y!# +[>!#+"**, "("!-"(' DF\MEAUEBDFBNEFUDQSOBPRD\RBDUB]AUENBIFBQREB^MI^IMQDIFBI_BJFDQUBI_BQREBUDQETUB]AUEBNEFUD#`!$$2 )X!)+)+)" +!**,+"a"*%* ."*#
!**
+!(!-* `

b!#",!+!(*+! ++!b"!'  "*+!'+!$c( %"6(2+)" +!)# ]EB]JDKQBJFNEMBQREBCDQSTUBdEFEMAKBeKAFBAFNBHfgCBDUBhiBJFDQUBAFNBQREBFJj]EMBI_BA__IMNA]KEB +!'+!-"-"33+!`."#*,!()b2"+*!'!."** "* +!-"(' 3=$kl$;!#+",."3=l")"  %"6(TUB]AUEBNEFUDQSBDUBNEUDGFAQENBAUBA__IMNA]KEBQIBLEMSBKIP/!()+*2 =:l!("!!#**-".!**!#(*(+*!""Z+!" mnopqrstuvtwxynzxu{m|um}~€}‚ƒ„}‚€ƒ
‚„†‡v‚ˆv‰Š}†ˆ‹v

 







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

%


#%%
)()*#.01 )(!'&
2-)&(34-(()(5,(%(%()* ( %
$ &
6-(
%
%(.17# %()(%%##%
&*

8 )-(
(%)
&
)-)&(3--(()(9%# #%(--(()(:$ )-(
)))#)%
%%-%
-(-)( &)#%##%
()/-((#(#%;<=>?@ABCDEFF=<GEHI?DJ=KCLMNDKMLACOD P%% *$%Q
)-%%*%
(R(
%)&(#&
(%%(%%& ##-#*()-%

*-
)/-(-)#%&
%())( %



)--(()()!4-(()(%
%)&(( /%
(( (-%R(

-%(%(-)#)-%&(
)-%
(%#*)%-$% )()-%
*$

 -%*%*(%#%

%
(!S%)&(- %(%--(()%)( )) #&
(%%
%)&(% %* R(/%&)%- 
-
&
%())( %



)--(()()!Q--)/
*$)-)&(3--(()(%
%)&(R( *Q
)-%%%(#


(5 4-(()(5 .!T +)
)/U)/5+UV4WW.08X8.YY0%.08X8ZY0[(%
)( \E]L\K\DEII=^EHI?DJ?LNJADF=<DG?_?I=;\?MAD;<=;=C?GDLMDAJ?D`LAaBCDbcDd_?<IEaDe=M?ODfJ?D ,6-())( -%)U)/')()-Q%( 6-%%
)%


%
)/#
ghijklmnopnqrshtrougvogwxyyz{w|{}~w|yz}|~€p|‚pƒ„yw€‚
py

 
 





 
!"#$!
%


&'
(
!!
( (

()**

(

% +,-. /012(" ( 
34
3$35$

*
%
% (2//./06 789 :;<=>?6@A6BC@?D>EF6GHIJ6KKLM.N.LOOM6PQR6LM.N.7OMS6>ECP=TDEU6CU>6 34 3$3$35"(2! ("
!

()*2("*&
(3 "((!*
 V
WE6IX6YZ>?TP[6 \@Q>86]U>6^?@_>`C6EDC>6DE6T@`PC>R6DQ6H>DaUC6bDEC?D`C6c6PQR6E;=_>`C6C@6P6<PdD<;<6@A6CU?>>6 eNf6EC@?D>E86]U>6cggTD`PQC6DE6?>h;>ECDQa6PQ6DQ`>QCDZ>i`@Q`>EED@Q6C@6PTT@j6PQ6PRRDCD@QPT6CU?>>6 EC@?D>Ek6DQ`T;EDZ>6@A6CU>6SlM6Bm6@A6?@@AC@g6?>EC?@@<Ek6jUD`U6P?>6`@QEDR>?>R6CU>6EDdCU6EC@?[6 C@6CU>6=;DTRDQa6g;?E;PQC6C@6CU>6U>DaUC6g?@ZDED@QE6@A6CU>6GHIJ86666 N89 n>P?6B>C=P`oEF6GHIJ6KLM.N.Lpl78G86>ECP=TDEU>E6CU>6?>h;D?>R6E>C=P`oE6A@?6 *& (3 (2"(q
!
(
 *
 V
W!V(33"


.n>EDR>QCDPT6]?PQEDCD@Q6c?>P86 r$"!$  ( 
!!

(s,t.t0""! 5
u
!"#$
"*2(" ("
((25$

*
%(&" )(! ("
!'vt.t0

% 

 
!"#$!
%


&'
(
!!
( (

() A@?6P6?>R;`CD@Q6DQ6CU>6?>h;D?>R6?>P?6E>C=P`o6@Q6CU>6CUD?R6PQR6A@;?CU6AT@@?E6@A6CU>6^?@_>`C6C@6 

()2(" 5

(
!"((!*2(" $
!( !2
(("! (
"(
.t0
(  ?>h;D?>R6E>C=P`o6P?>P86]U>6g?@g@EPT6j@;TR6?>R;`>6CU>6?>h;D?>R6E>C=P`o6@Q6CU>6CUD?R6PQR6 2($" 2 (("!2"(3,t.t0 (-/.t06 wPDZ>?EF66 :@Q>6 cTC>?QPCDZ>6^P?oDQa6BCPQRP?REF6cEE><=T[6GDTT6ecGf67Mpxk6jUD`U6=>`P<>6>AA>`CDZ>6 @Q6yPQ;P?[6Lk67M7Nk6g?@UD=DCE6g;=TD`6Pa>Q`D>E6A?@<6D<g@EDQa6@?6>QA@?`DQa6PQ[6<DQD<;<6 P;C@<@=DT>6gP?oDQa6?>h;D?><>QC6@Q6`>?CPDQ6?>EDR>QCDPTk6`@<<>?`DPTk6@?6@CU>?6R>Z>T@g<>QC6 g?@_>`CE6CUPC6P?>6T@`PC>R6jDCUDQ6z6<DT>6@A6P6<P_@?6C?PQEDC6EC@g86]U>6^?@_>`C6EDC>6DE6T@`PC>R6 jDCUDQ6z.<DT>6@A6CU>6A;C;?>6I>C?@6^;?gT>6eb6{DQ>f6BCPCD@Qk6jUD`U6DE6`;??>QCT[6;QR>?6 `@QEC?;`CD@Q6@Q6CU>6Q@?CU>PEC6`@?Q>?6@A6wDTEUD?>6G@;T>ZP?R6PQR6:@?CU6{P6JD>Q>aP6 |}~€‚ƒ„
ƒ†‡ˆ}‰‡„Š|‹„|ŒŽŽŒ‘’“Œ‘Ž’”‘“•–
‘—
˜™ŽŒ•—š
Ž”

 










!
" #$

#
!
%&


'"
%

(#
)


*



+,-
*.
#$
!*"!

/ $
*!#

/
01-2&
#
*.
#$
"
(
)

3


'"&

**
"#

!
**!
#$

*

+-4
*.
#$
!*"!
5 
**
"#
!
!
$#


'"

*

*.
#$
3

$#
3
"66"

!!
#
!

+
#

0 3

!(##
*.
#$
$$&
%



3
+,-
*.
#$
*

3
"66"

!!

.
#$
3

!
#

*
#
3


'"
%
(
*

7"!
8
#


9&
%

44 *.
#$
!*"!
*

#

!


%
(
#8
""!!
(

!
#!
3

(

#$
:#8
!
#!
3

(

#$
%


.8
"
""!!

#
#8
#
7

$
"
#


0 
""!!

!
#

*.
#$
#


9

5 
**
"#
#
"
*!

%
(
##!
3

(

#$

%
" !

#

#
6(



7
!
#$
#
3

(
*(
"
#!

/!
!" &

**
"#
**!!


!
#

*.
#$

(
#

3 !;"6
3 !;!
(!
!

##!
)!
#$

*.
#$
!*"
!
*
3


!
:#"

##
!
*.
#$
!
*
3


!&
#

!*"
3 "
*.
#$
!*"
%
(
!!
$#


#

%

#


9 *.
#$

5 
*.
#$
!*"!
%
(
6

(
#
)
6!


##!&
$!!
3

#"6
&
#
!('"


(

8
<"
#
9
:#
=#
00&
0109&


##
#$
>66
!!
#


8
#
"
*(
"

#$
3
%
"

*
?!
#
@
010-&
"#

#8
**
#$

A*6#

#
?
%
#
A#!
8 #!

6

**
"
#!

%
3

"#!"
#
3

#%
6 7

BCDEFDGDHIJKDLMNEOPDEQHRLLSLTEUIKKSCCSILVCEFDMDWKSLRMSILEXRCEYRCDFEILEZSLFSLTCEMPRMEMPDE '"
"6*
DFEXSMPEMPDEUSM[VCE\DLDWRHEQHRL]EXIBHFELIME^RBCDERL[ECSTLSZS^RLMEIWERFGDWCDESKJR^MCE  
!#
#$
!
#

**
!
!

!

6#!
#!

"#!
!#
%



66


"
#
8_


#

#

"66"

!_
%
#
!

#
#8
!
$#
3 "#8
!
33
"

`abcdefghigjklamkhn`oh`pqrrstputvwpursvxuwyziu{i|}rpy{~irx
 
 








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


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

&"
*
+,"%*&!
"! -
.
"
/&",0(1 -
&"21 3"456789:8;<;=:8>8?@AB678>CCB>68DE8?FB8G6>HH@HI8JDAA@KK@DHLK8MBN@K@DH8 ( %
!)
0&
,.,
00O&")
%
&
-,&
P%%"

&Q"$&"
"% RBKCDHK@S@6@?78TUVWXYRZ[:8@H8>NND\M>HNB8]@?F8^_`J8ab#2#cdc 
e1

f"g*
*&,"% 
$
(&

O%HH@HI8JDAA@KK@DHLK8>CC\Dh>68DE8?FB8G\DiBN?j -
&"k1 3"-

)
clldlm
*
*&,"%
%!!,%
"&
!
%
"g

%"gn&
&
O,)%o
"g&%%&

&("
"!
!
"%&," ]@?F@H8>89<<L8\>M@5K8TBp?BHMBM8?D8?
)%&f

q&

O&r

"!&"gn&
&
O,)% o
"gg"&"
O&

1P

e,
&

P%"

"g(&"",
!& n&$
)
sldlm:8@H86@IF?8DE8WCCB66>H?LK86>K?8A@H5?B8K5SA@??>68DE8>MM@?@DH>68@HED\A>?@DH8KFD\?67 )

&


!,%
!
"g1 -
&"t1 u"&"!
"g

e,

&&$%&
.
$
%&
"O%"v
$
("! .
"
/&",O
,,"&-
&"cd#m#mcd2&

/
$
%
o%%+,"%*&!
 w/o+*q
*
*&,"%&"!

!(

&,%!f


&%%&("g
"!"g",&&
 
O&r
x c1y z
&&
!%"&"
"(
g
"
%%""!"


%" !&
!
&

1 l1y z
&&
!%"(%%"&!$

%



{"g"!"
! !
$
%&
""
$"
"!(%%&&
&"&,!
$
%&
"&


1
|}~€‚ƒ„
ƒ†‡ˆ}‰‡„Š|‹„|ŒŽŽŒ‘’“Œ‘Ž’”‘“•–
‘—
˜™ŽŒ•—š
Ž”

 




 


 !"#

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

)%&
"&!'/
%& 1 )
) &%)$,"$$ +%
"($ )
+$"$
&!'
 #
$,$!
 2" 3 4!
 %
"#% * )
+$"
"#
5"'5
"$(% ! $$ ,"#!"%"#& ))
*6*$ )(7$8*",%6&"'9 
&7
("!
 7
-
%
-%))$+&%
) $'&"& !))$%"%)%
*", !*"% "%"

%5"'5
"$
+'(:&! $$ ,"#!"%"#&
#
%"#7
-; < 7
-
&

"/%+'26&"'9 
&2

(&$$ ))$"+$/ "#
=
"
(&%&+%
("% + &"&," ))$"+$
=
"
(&%#
"% !>
$7$!
("?%
&%*$ )( $ %,""@A
@"?%A&6*$ )(B*
$'C %50
5 ((
"$ DEFGHIJKKLMLEFNOOPQIMRGISTEUGVMWXIRGLYRMINFKIKGFXLMPINTGIZNXGKIEFIMRGINOOE[NZOGIRGLYRMXINFKI %&""& !> $7$
9*
$'\"$$&@
"")$5 %
%%*"" &&)
("%
%
26&"'9 
&2

!

7
-"& &"&,">
$ 7$]


(

7
-"& $ %,""'&)"!")$&% )%! 

^_`abcdefgehij_kifl^mf^noppqrnsrtunspqtvsuwxgsygz{pnwy|gpv
 



 


!"#$$%
& $


'()

*((
!)
%
+

,,
)-,#) .%, )'-
$
*)./012345678297:;785<2=>2:5?@@A5B/5=>75C6BD7;=582=7E5 F&&

))'-G
H
+
#)&I"# &
$#I, 

$#

,
*,
()
 &#
*I# )&
*()


J

$#(
(
$&+
J+
#)&I

&
&+ 

*

*

$#


%K
G#()LMN
O$





$



% P )$ Q
#)!&
&NR 
*Q
#)!&G
H
+
#)&

$ %'&!)
(,


G
H
$ 
& ,'$#)


*$! $ I)
$$
(,'((
#
%

+ S $
*

,,
)-&#
(
(
$&

$
 * 
&&#
&$I
J$T
+!-  $#
) J)'

 I %##&!)
(,

%
I' U6BU76=278E5V85/W=W67597X73BU17:=5<2=>2:5=>75Y2=4A8512Z795W875BX76304506705B;;W68[52=5285 ) J)'- ! ,-
+&!)
(,
$(
(
$&
, S&#$
!)'\

 +
#)&

)#&&$ *
$$ , )
$
)
&,$$
G
H
G
H
 $)$


S(
&
S I 
')

*.)$
* ,(
$

S $
*
I'&!)
(,
I
#$  $

$ $
+ (()
I)]
)G)
(
)
$
&$
&&$
&I
#$S $
* &!)
(,

$
#
%G
H
$  $)*
$
)
G
H
-+ 

. 
&
^^.$
'I# )&
*&!)
(&

(
( $)

&





%P )$  Q
#)!&
&NR 
*Q
#)!&_S $
*

,,
)&!)
(,
& 
)'&H




-$
#-
&+$
%G
H
$ 

$ $$
%.$
'

,,
)I# )&
*$ <2=>50:50UU6BZ210=7345>72`>=5B/5a?AEF$$#
-G
H
-$

&

&-+ ))

 &!$)'%%
S $
*
&

(&&!)
(,

!

'
&+ ))(
,
 ,

#$&!)
(,

% b G
H
(
! &$

,,
)#$$S
)#$ !)'

*
#
&%)

 #(($
 $
%G
H
+
#)&I

#( &I',#) .%, )'$ &
)#$$
&


cdefghijkljmnodpnkqcrkcstuuvwsxwyzsxuvy{xz|}lx~l€us|~lu{
 
 








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

* ""'
!!
&
#!  !)!+&") !"!!
"
  +) !
!"'*"'
"',#)
&"!  !
!&!!# ! %!"-!./01& 


&
'"&!*"!& !(&-!.2"'3+& 4&&!")5+"&&"'

(& #-!.2"'3+&5(!+

"! "+
*! &%"!
&"!  !
!!"!5
!5(
!
4

5! "!5"#'!"5!"5&"
!)5'!"&""# !"#! !"#!&+ "!   &(&"!
'"#"!)"&&+
)"!#(! !
"&"%)"!#
&"!  !
"!+"!)#!
*%!  !)
 6
7 4
 +&&"8!"9
6:$';6<"!2=>42

9?2!' =0 !"1 !5!$%!

"&!# +&"'!##")

 ! @ABCDEFGHIJBKHFLKMANOKFPAOKEFQRGSKOKHFTLPQUFBMRKEMIOHEFVKNGWEKFABFAE!&(!" "
!$!)4&!! 0!)!!X!$ :/."< !!""! "!
!"#Y
3+&"&.2"'3+&
4&&!")5("! Z&#2=>45.
"
!!"4



"!:.
4<(
  &#!$%! !+!+#
+:.[8< !
&"' \
!
'"]&"!
!"


"!
!"
+!&
 !#!

!&)(!&!^;<.2"'3+& "&8"_"!3+&`?<.2"'3+&"&Y 3+&`"&59<. 2"'3+&"&[) 3+& 
.
4&!"&!!! %! "

""!
!"&)
!!
!&)"!
!"
:a
a!;
;
"&
<#*(! !
&

!*
&*)!2!)#&"!#)"' !"!&+
"&!"
!!"
  !"'!.[8/(
5
""!
!" +"!
(&*Z&*)!
bcdefghijkilmncomjpbqjbrsttuvrwvxyrwtuxzwy{|kw}k~tr{}€ktz

 
 









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

&#'(
#' )#
 *

+
,#&"

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

&!#
#.
%
%
 /012345635728096/37:5;6<=5>6<?@45A16B:;/?54</3A/1A45<2568012B:563C1:445/3A5:C1:445<25<=:5  #$!D
"
 *-DE
#F(
#F
# G
+
#
%
%#&"'
H&



&"#. 
#$!

 
#$!%#&"
#
"
 G
+

..!(



"#
+ )#
 *

+
,#&"


#
%
D&! E
#+
!

+%#&"' 

#&!
%#&"

#&!

(!&
E

+
#&

!#
E#

!#F(
'"#
I &J&
 
F#
EF("F

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


%#'
&!#
# F
+
!
!!
 
#$!


- 
.#
E 
#$!%#&"
#!



 +
.!

"



..!F(
!E

..!
.
K

E(


I !"!#
."!E #
(



.
K

 LM - 
#$!"#!
% 

#FF
!
"IN

"-

#
 D

- 
.#
E 
#$!F&'!#

% 
+&"
#


H&
  F("F

#
#.!


+
.
&
E% ! 
!"&O
'
!P.
#F


" (
#(
E!#

&!#
#.%
""E



""
#
#."

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

 
$
!

+"I.

F"


"(
#(
# %-  (
#(#
##.#(


'
!P.
#F +#
 
##.

"

!
(#(
#&
" !


+##'!&
%.
#F 
##.#(
# 
$
!

+".

F"


"




F
FK(

!F(
!#
 


"(
#(
# %D#

""E
 !#
#
E 
#$!
!#
(#

F
&
#F
FK
#

#(

#

"F(
!
#!
% !#FF
!
"&"#!

(
#GF#


"&D&! E  
#$!%""
#'
F

"# (&'"! 
" E
.#
+


"%".


QRSTUVWXYZX[\]R^\Y_Q`YQabccdeafeghafcdgifhjkZflZmncajloZci
 








!"#$%&"'(' )*$*+""$"#$% ,)"-+!.% )-"/0*1)2
$
(3&4 $)
5678759:- ";</'&
)*
*.+= 5> ?04
*!"4)
*44$ )-$$
,,$
4$4$( +$)
**
4$).(
+!-$,.
)-,,$
 ))&
*, 7-
,( $)*
 ))) .%)4-)
*
$*)&$ )
*4$* $) :> '$
!"4
-$,$)
*
4,$
 !".$"*)&+",

!$
). --$).+,,$

*$)*
 @)) $"$)"
$, )*
4,"
$
 8> ?04
*!" )!4)-$*
$)),44
)" '( *!)$)&( !44&44 )"
+)".$
)7
*%

* 44
)"
+.--$,*
4,
$
 $.
$ A> B
!",,$

0.
)
*)$)
4"
$
$"
0)) "'(.( $
!!!".$"*7)$
!
*4*)$
7-$*(,,$
 )) C> '$
!+" )!
*
,)
$0)!
*
4
* $
)4$
*)
*)
) $
!" )-
$

,*)- $
)4$

,.$

 D> E+!4$%)"

$
44$4$
(*)!*
"
"*)$* !".$"*"
$
$&+"4$
*!*
4,)
*
$*),,@,4
)- ,,$
 ))
*%
$)*
@)&
* $
!)(,. )) F ;
)*"-$!!&"'(' "$.(-*)
**$,)
) -+)+"$)4".%
)-"/0*1)2
$
(3=
GHIJKLMNOPNQRSHTROUGVOGWXYYZ[W\[]^W\YZ]_\^`aP\bPcdYW`bePY_
 







 


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

%
(&
#*!$!
(%&0"(&) 
%(#%&!
%*%&
*1%/##%&/,*#
(0.%,(#-(!&
(%#&
%#*(&)

 


/*#!$"(!2132456.&/
,,
(%#*&
)*&!.#
%
/*#! "
$$!(!&
(%#*&
$$
-%&!$$
((&
"(
(&(
-.
 


(
7(!&
(%#$
(&.



/*#!$"(!%

%#.89&/!/##(&) *&(
1*&(
./(
/(##:"!.&
%#
"-#/0(&
,*#!;&%##1



$"(!%
,:(&%
(&.
,,
(%#%&!,*#
(0.%,(#-*%




(
 !()&!(&
,$#(%&
/(

%$$#(
%:#!"#$,&

%&!%!(&
<=>"#%- ?&%&!
%
!&(
-:&*#%/ @ 


(!()&!
$"(!.,(&
&("!"#$,&
&%& ABCDECFGHIJKKALICMNHIJLLCOJLHPFJQFHMDHERAHICESTDHUVADEMWLMFEHVJQXYHZRAH 

/*#! $#%
%&'(
(&)&0
-1[198856"%
%&

,,
(%#:*(#!(&).,#-*!%% 
%*%&
1/(
%,('.&():!"(
(&)
%(#1,% 
1%&!
%*%&
*&
 )*&!.#.%
(&)\
]%^(&)%_*#"%!7$$'(,%
#-12132456.&/
,,
(%#.#%%/*#!:$"(!!&
.(
.#1/(
89&/!/##(&)*&(
 $"(!!&

&!
*).(.
.#.






(!()&!/(
 "%-(&):*(#!(&)
:%
%

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

/
.



(
%&!
 


TDH`LJ`JDAOHIJKKALICMNHMFOHLADCOAFECMNHWDADYHHaEHERAHLAMLbHMHcdT0dXHLAMLHDAEeMIPHCDH `LJfCOAOHJFHERAHgCLDEHEQJHgNJJLDHJgHERAHeWCNOCFGbHQCERHERAHDAEeMIPHCFILAMDCFGHEJHhdT0dXHEJHERAH :*(#!(&).% &

(!
.(.
.#>&

(!%&!.*
.#.



1
 M``NCIMFEHCDH`LJ`JDCFGHeMNIJFCADHERMEH`LJiAIEHjT0dXHgLJKHERAHLAMLHgMIAHJgHERAHeWCNOCFGHMFOH klmnopqrstruvwlxvsykzsk{|}}~{€‚{€}~ƒ€‚„
t€†t‡ˆ}{„†‰t}ƒ

 









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



%,-
./+


,
&

-%
 01234567189:4:;<=1<:48>4?6@A:=6;1@B4C62<716?4;78;8:<A46245671<A4C6D1C9C43<1B32:4E<20<<@4 F  -G" %
.H+
-*
%
I%+
$

-$'
-J'-%&%
%-J 
',)%+
-
J+&-J
$
-%

%
$.K
$%,I
-
 !"#%
&'(
$
$ ;78;8:<A462423<47<6748>423<4L78M<=24:12<423624089?A4;7851A<46AA1218@6?4:=7<<@1@B4E<20<<@4 ;78;<721<:N4 ONP Q3<4L78M<=24;78C82<:423<4<D;6@:18@48>4389:1@B48;218@:4>874A15<7:<4 :8=18<=8@8C1=4;8;9?6218@:41@423<4=12R4ER4;7851A1@B4STU4@<04A0<??1@B49@12:V401234WX49@12:4 ;78;8:<A46:4C67Y<2!762<47<@26?4389:1@B46@A4SS4A0<??1@B49@12:47<:<75<A4>8747<@26?42845<7R4 ?80!1@=8C<4389:<38?A:N4Q3<4?8=6218@48>423<4L78M<=246@A412:4;78D1C12R4284;9E?1=4 276@:;8726218@4C6R4<@=8976B<423<49:<48>46?2<7@6215<4C8A<:48>4276@:;8726218@42846928C8E1?<4 2765<?N4XNP Q3<4L78M<=24089?A4;7851A<4SZVWZ[4\]48>4@<04=8CC<7=16?49:<:48@423<4 B789@A4>?887423624089?A4:<75<423<4;78;8:<A47<:1A<@216?49:<:48@423<4;78;<72R46@A4;78;<721<:4 1@423<451=1@12R48>423<4L78M<=24:12<N4Q3<4;78;8:<A4B789@A4>?8874=8CC<7=16?49:<:4=8@:1:21@B4 8>47<261?46@A47<:26976@249:<:4012348;<@46174A1@1@B467<6:48@4;71562<4;78;<72R4089?A4:<75<423<4 ;78;8:<A47<:1A<@216?49@12:48@423<4L78M<=24:12<46@A4823<747<:1A<@2:46@A4087Y<7:4?8=62<A41@423<4 51=1@12R48>423<4L78M<=2N4Q3<4L78M<=2 $J-)'** '
$
$
%
-%+
L78M<=24$%
$ =8@271E9218@42%+
^%, $'**
'
%
_&
$
./+
L78M<=2 $

$%
-
''
$$&
J- >?8874=8CC<7=16?46?:847<261@:423<4:27<<2:=6;<4=3676=2<748>4;<A<:2716@!871<@2<A46=21512R46?8@B4 `64a1<@<B64b89?<567AN4 UNP Q3<4L78M<=24089?A4;7851A<4STU4@<04A0<??1@B49@12:4?8=62<A41@4=?8:<4 ;78D1C12R4284<D1:21@B46@A4;78;8:<A4;9E?1=4276@:124:28;:N4Q3<4L78M<=24089?A4E<4:<75<A4ER4 cdefghijkljmnodpnkqcrkcstuuvwsxwyzsxuvy{xz|}lx~l€us|~lu{
 
 







 !!"!
# $

"!%!%&!'!$

"!% !%(

%!

"%
) *


+
,-.&/!
0
)
% 0

0

 
 !0

*# $

"!%!%&!'!$

"!%1 ( 0 
0!%!,,
2!)345*-56572/*
2 +
8069 
0!

*  +
80!%,
2)
,

0!,
!
2!)0

! 

*!!" 2
%
*!,


!

2 !"6 :6; 9 ,
,
%,
80(

%,
"%!2
*(,%!<" 0
220!
!%(2
<*!2)%!
 !!%
2 %% 0 !!0!%,
,

* =>"!)?

),
"%*
2%
%"
,2 
0

!"
!1(!@!




%10! !"!!
)
*

1!% ," "!)
*0
220!0
%
69 ,
80(

%
%
0( !12!@1!%!
!
 !(

%"!
)0
220!!%%!
 ! "0)
* +
801!( *

%!!
* ,
,
%35A %(
 %"
,269 +
80%%0
2,!0(   !,,0!
%"
,2!%!% =>"!)B
!%!%)


!(6 9 +
800
%!!%0!,%

%
!0@! !
*  !,
"%!

**
( 

%!,
,
 (!% ,
,
%

%6 C0
356 D"!
! +
80*
0
2,!0( !

,
"
1 ,

!
E
"2'
%F:AG:41 ')'

0 
)*%!%%2!*

(H 36; 9 ,
,
%(2%
%"
,2(

%,
"%!
!
*35A( %(
 0)1( %%0!33
*
!
")<
(0
2


%69 2!IJ
(

%
!"!!
*

!

"<2
%!0
2 KLMNOKLPQNRSTKOSUQLVWOQSXLMNYZ[S\PO]OZW^NS_ONYQOZWYUPS`YWONSaZbOZWLcdSUPPLeUWOQSfgSP (<
hijklmnopqorstiuspvhwphxyzz{|x}|~x}z{~€}‚q}ƒq„
zxƒ†qz€

 










 !"
#
$%%#$&'!()%! )
 *+,-./012031405*61,.07221/87-3.0+*59:0;/1<.69.805*09=.0:59.:05*>.*91/?@09=.0A/1<.69041+380 ;/1>58.021/0BC0,1/.084.335*D0+*59:09=7*01/5D5*733?073314.80-?09=.07;;3567-3.0E1*5*D08.*:59?0 9=/1+D=0708.*:59?0-1*+:0/.F+.:90;+/:+7*90910G979.0H.*:59?0I1*+:0J74K0L=.0M59?061*95*+.:0 91041/N01*0+;8795*D09=.06+//.*93?0781;9.80O9=0M?63.0P1+:5*D0Q3.,.*907*8041/N0459=09=.0 H.;7/9,.*90120P1+:5*D07*80M1,,+*59?0H.>.31;,.*901*0:979.06./952567R ST& P1+:5*D0Q3.,.*9K0U:0;7/901209=.:.0+;879.:09=.0M59?05:0/.25*5*D09=.0V.:58.*95730G59.:0 W*>.*91/?K0L=5:05*63+8.:0/.25*.,.*9:09109=.0V.:58.*95730G59.:0W*>.*91/?091058.*952?0 7885951*7303167951*:021/0314./05*61,.0+*59:08+/5*D09=.06+//.*90=1+:5*D06?63.K0L=.0 /.25*.,.*9:07/.07*9565;79.8091058.*952?07885951*730:59.:07*809=./.21/.0788/.::09=.0XYZ+*590 314./05*61,.0+*590:=1/9273309=79061+380/.:+3902/1,07;;/1>7301209=5:0A/1<.69K0U:0/.F+5/.80-?0 [1>./*,.*90M18.0\OC]OB^6_^X_@070<+/5:856951*05:0/.F+5/.80910,7N.07>7537-3.07885951*730 78.F+79.0:59.:09107661,,1879.09=.0/.F+5/.80:=7/.0120/.D51*730=1+:5*D0*..80-?05*61,.03.>.30 459=5*0`]a087?:012070;/1<.690-.5*D07;;/1>.8K0I7:.801*09=.041/N073/.78?061,;3.9.801*07*0 7885951*730/.>5:51*09109=.0O9=0M?63.0P1+:5*D0Q3.,.*9@09=.0M59?07*9565;79.:0781;951*01207*0 7,.*8.80V.:58.*95730G59.:0W*>.*91/?058.*952?5*D0>./?0314Z07*80314Z5*61,.0=1+:5*D0+*590 bR ST&c
de$##$R!
$f!
ghi)$T
e :+6=@09=.07;;/1>7301209=.0A/1<.6905:07;;/1;/579.07:059045330;/1>58.0`aC084.335*D0+*59:0120*.40 /.*9730=1+:5*D0:916N05*09=.0659?076/1::070/7*D.01205*61,.0679.D1/5.:K000 G.6951*0``K0 L=.0M59?0M1+*6530/.<.69:09=.07;;.730459=0/.:;.6909109=.0H.>.31;,.*90A37*0 V.>5.407*80H.*:59?0I1*+:0A./,5901*09=.02133145*D0D/1+*8:j0 `Kk L=.07;;.337*90733.D.:09=7909=.0M59?05*61//.693?07;;35.8070M37::0BX0W*Zl5330 H.>.31;,.*90M79.D1/56730Qm.,;951*09109=.0;/1<.6908+.09109=.0M59?0*19097N5*D05*9107661+*90 nopqrstuvwuxyzo{yv|n}vn~€€‚~ƒ‚„
~ƒ€„†ƒ
‡ˆwƒ‰wŠ‹€~‡‰Œw€†

 
 







  !"#
 
"$$$%&

&$$
# '()*+,)-./(0,/1)-+*2/3(124.5+673,1'1,24489+/:3+2773442-/;.+,)-.04/2-/9+<(5+=(2-,1.+>5+ ?''3(*2-9+-)/3.+@/:2/+*2-8+,)*7).1/3+A))B+7()B0,/.+()0/1-348+0.3B+1-+1-B))(+C014B1-D+  
$" 
&



#$"$$

E 


E

 $
#%F
&"
G
$$%D2.+')(*24B3:8B3+)H3(+4)-D+73(1)B.+)'+/1*3I9+A1/:+ .)*3+)'+/:3.3+C014B1-D+*2/3(124.+,)-.1./1-D+)'+@'4))(1-D9+,2C1-3/(89+C2.3C)2(B.9+A1-B)A+ .:2B3.9+1-/3(1)(+B))(.9+2-B+A1-B)A+2-B+B))(+/(1*.5I+J:3+277324+,)- "
F#&& $""  

$ 
 K
GFL



$

 %
"
&


$
#EMG

&E $ N 
 NG
 !" OP 

EQ
R
"4/2-/.9+/:3+S1/8;.+3-H1()-*3-/24+

"$ 
 K
E
  

 "
 

&

 
 
 OT
Q

  

 ER$ T Q
"

U  VRTQUW

&
#
" #N 




"
F#$$%&

&$ $
#


G "

ORTQU

F
$
#

 

 &

 
N 
$ 
N #$
"


"&

F"
 $$

$"

"

&
 EF



ME$ 

EGF" &
N
OP

$"GN
" G



#"

M N #$ "


"& 

 "


N



G "

O P

$"
#  "

E
"&

$" " 
&
E
 


&
EG E
  "

E

  "


"

  
OXT YZEY[[\ERTQU NR$ R

]^ "

 VR]^WQ&" "
$
#



$ 



G "

  
E
"E"
E 
"$
" $ 

O_ &"$
"


`abcdefghigjklamkhn`oh`pqrrstputvwpursvxuwyziu{i|}rpy{~irx
 
 







 !
"# 
$# "%

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

"%
,

 -.
/

"%01-23
$)01-23'-2'-

%
% 
!  4 %&&#   #
%%
"%
"#%

 $
%

 %
"
 %

'5

"

"23-.
 6"

/

%7"4
"# "
 8

9:;<=>:?@;ABC<D;EF9GH>F;:EHI9:EJ;K>=LJEHI9:M;HNEH;O>K>;PEM>F;9:;QEJIR9K:IESM; % "%'*#%

$
%

 $ "
$% 
""%
$

"T
%   U$
 
#

&  "%

 )$

"%"  U$
 
! !  % VWXQ<;WIHJ>;YZ;Q9[GJIE:H\;AWXQ<;IM;HN>;R>F>KEJ;W9]I?;XLPMHE:?>M;Q9:HK9J;<?HD;9K; VQEJIR9K:IE;^_`ab;Q9[GJIE:H;R9K;c9K[EJF>N@F>\;9K;VQEJIR9K:IE;CNEM>;a;Q9[GJIE:Hd\;;WN>;  &  !ef $g$ee8
"$ % %    !h'i&& #"

%
$
%
"
U$


"*
&"
# %'j 4 
%"
!+
""

 %
$ $% %

&#.3%
") k&#

 # %!$

!
 "23--"23-.'l" "
%


 T
 %"
% %
") k&#

 %
$
$ %"
 T
 $! !$



 #%
$ "
2322*
&"
m$

")/
"%* ",

 2n &
 *
&"
* &+ )$

"%o**+p
"

 23-1
23-q%
"%&
 # %
"$ 
"
  &  " %
$', 2322,

 2n%
"%
"$ 4 "



"  U$
 # "
%


#4 
"
U$




") %
 "
%&#
$

" 
)
"

")&#$
"
"%$ %

"$
")
#4
")
U$

4 # % !$


#
 4
$%%
"%'5

"
$
%"&
"
% )%$%  $
")"%
$

"&!$

")%
"*
&"
$!  U$
 
! #
"


 &  "%

 #
%%
"%
"%'(#  ) " "

"%
 
) %
 " "


" "$
% " 
"%$" "


"%)$  % 

 ) ',  &
#

)

"&
 % &$"
%
")#

%
%"
 U$
 '5%%$
"
rstuvwxyz{y|}~s}z€rzr‚ƒ„„
†‚‡†ˆ‰‚‡„
ˆŠ‡‰‹Œ{‡{Ž„‚‹{„Š

 










 

  
 
!"
 #

$
 

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


&
-
.

&/
# 0

"&"
"
+&" 
"  +0
"&
#/
 1,"
 #""& 23425647589:;<=5>9?@A?B75C;7DA?7;5:;22;C=54?<5@ECC;?258;<;C4:54?<57242;5C;FE:429A?7523425 +&"0
"&
#/
  




  -&
 + G42;C94:7=572488B75477;77G;?2597523425?A54<<929A?4:5;?H9CA?G;?24:5C;H9;65975C;IE9C;<54?<523425 # !."&00
"*JKL*&"MN*"+
"&J$ 1O#*&"MN

 
"

-/P  L"
%
-" "&%
 #"#
!# 
 
.

."&0/0
#*&"MN*"+
"&J$ 1Q
#
R#  0
"  &

 #""&
 ""
 -" "&%
  #
 +" "&0
#
!#"%" "
."&/" # %
  1O#  0
" 
%

-/#"&&" 
 ""

%
-" "&


-& %
 
#"
 #"#
"
+ 0"  %
  "&"0
# DCAS;@2B759?<AAC549C5IE4:92T5C;F4C<9?F58A
"&
#/

 "&&/#+#" 

U0
 

"
."&/
"

" "

 "&" "&/

.
+" 1O# 0
"  -"
 &" "
#""
"&
&
-

# #
"&"


 "&  0#
!@254C;5@A?72CE@2;<=54?<523;54DD;::4?2B75477EGD29A?75475 &"
#
!"
# -"
 0"""

##
!1O# &" 

-/#++ #"#*JKL" "&/" "&/V# "0$ + %   "&
 R &
 +WXN1'R #
!R
## @A?2C4CT52A523;5Y4:98AC?945ZEDC;G;5YAEC2B75<;@979A?59?5Y4:98AC?945[E9:<9?F5\?<E72CT5 ]77A@9429A?5H^5[4T5]C;45]9C5_E4:92T5`4?4F;G;?25a972C9@25bcdefg5hc5Y4:^i235jhk=5jll5bm\?5 :9F325A85Yn_]B752;o2=57242E2A /

R"


 &
#""+ -!
pqrstuvwxywz{|q}{x~pxp€‚‚ƒ„€
„†‡€
‚ƒ†ˆ
‡‰Šy
‹yŒ‚€‰‹Žy‚ˆ

 







 !"#


$%"&'(
)*"+","
&
 -./0121./34./45467.89-234:;2;794;39734.74793109/23<=>44?9-5;394.:42@94369-;A521B945/04:A5C904 ++" +
#
"#

)
&
#%
#(
("
"&'(+D%"+
+

E+"+)
 %

#
!#

","
"
"&'(
%FGHIJ"&'(IK%'
L(M"

(
&'

 M"%

!


+##+# !"&+
#
,"
"
#E!"
#"&"
+D )!%")
("%%"&'(+

#E
''

M
!
#

((!IF!+!
 N!"#
"+DO("
PJQRST)UTJUD+!E+"
,"#("(
!#+)(D+
E
 ++!&'"
'#"(#!'
)(D
*'
'""
+!''
#E
)(IO!E+"
,"#( "+
!&D+'(!
"
D!+!E+"#
'""

",D,"#(%"+(


 "((!


!+D
,"#(
)+
("

(

&"("&'(+%#

(
"E!
D

(!+#E
D'%
+"(
"&'(+
%,"
&TFVO("
HPQWQT#U# TUUI+%(
"&+#++"
+'+#E
''




+'(!
",# ;/3;X325/2152904533;Y621./3Z42@941/:.7Y521./40.934/.241Y65-242@94[12\]479A15/-94./42@94 [12\]34[A5334^_49`9Y621./<44a1/5AA\Z4:.742@947953./340.-;Y9/2904"% ++bH
"(
 *&'"
V'
'+bJ%
!%bWD%
*('"
+%M
!
#'(
!# 79A15/-94./42@94[A5334^_49`9Y621./Z45/04/.2@1/c41/4d669AA5/2]3456695A4-@5/c9342@524 ( (
!+"
I HIe K%''



+D"
(
&&++!E&"#+%


E)
#
 %#

)%"""

+(%#!
#''
%"D%%
"+

+"+
"+
+%
f& &+!&+M"%
!
#"+(!++"

)%
M
'"(
%"+#M+)
#
"&(
#""
+
%
M%
M
!
#''


,"
"%"&(
#""
+IO'(")"(

D%''

 )+
%+%
&PJf&"!
"+&+!&+%M(
#!(#E
V"(
+ 65724.:[email protected]`9Y621./4796.7245/04/.29342@524ghijkjlmnopnjqrsjotjnukpqrsjsnhivhn wxyz{|}~€~‚ƒx„‚
w†w‡ˆ‰‰Š‹‡Œ‹Ž‡Œ‰ŠŒŽ‘€Œ’€“”‰‡’•€‰

 







 !

"
 #




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`'*+abc)d'.)'ef+'gcebh,'+,eijac,f+k'*+,e*clec.),'.)'l.),e*mlec.)' =5/3L3/H1361_7L78PH1n3PP41W<6353J=P1o0;71M_nWoQ1pS@D@>FSN1R;;3/306=PPH91W8N1W73O2=61 60/741/2=/1/271J80K75/1341J80K75/7;1/01874<P/13615064/8<5/3061603471P7L7P410I1^q1;_R1=;K=576/1 /01436OP7@Iircab'*+,ck+)l+,'e.'ef+'s+,e'.`'ef+'-*.t+le',ce+%'uf+'gcebh,'*+,e*clec.),'.)' vwxyz{|}~}€‚wƒ~„v
~v†‡ˆˆ‰Š†‹ŠŒ†‹ˆ‰ŒŽ‹‹‘’“ˆ†‘”ˆŽ


 







!"#$%$&'#()*++(**,)*(+,+((- .(((/,0,++(1(! /(.23+ (4567849:;<7:=846>7:=?=:@6846>6A;8BC7:69=:C6D=:E=46FGGH68I6>6;C9=JC4:=>K6L84C6=9684K@6 **,(MN.OP''Q2 2RP''32 2 M +S+TM
2!(,+ +(//+N/(
(
.(*M.((N(M)
+(!
- (,*M)(SNNP%U (S+(/V(((*(M =46>648=9C6=47;C>9C68I6I=?C6JWX68;6Y8;C68<:9=JC6:EC6E8<;96AC;Y=::CJ6Z@6:EC6[=:@H9648=9C6 M(+(/V((\2(2-)(,((RP''/2.2MOP''2.2,((0M -
 .(]M
-]M
-/)*+*M
U&U,*M((()
N
(M
Q .(MSM
.(+(M(N(M
!"#$%$&'R-,++*M(+*- +/*-++(-(N*(S2^+(N (M
Q(MSM
.(+ +)(((MN+*-+/*-++(-(N*(S+( ! /(N**
M(N(+(+)**
M()*
(N((,++( /(N+((**,(M2^+(/V(M( *
(//(
 
(+(
/*NM(
(*/(MMM(()(
.(2 ]/(N**
-+(/V((MV(+(($
..(*)*MS+(+ M++,((M( (*/(M,+)((/0SSS(&''%M%_O`- (/( (*
2^+(/V(,*M(./*
+((N
/*(+1((M MV(..(*)*MSM.* /(NM(
(*/.(+(!
M +((S2^+(/V(,*M*a(-)**Ma(-(b -N$(M*M(- SM(-M
(1/.(-+./(MS((2! (1/.(,*M**/((+(.(.(+(.(*M,*M)( (MS+(**,)*(+2T+(.(-+((N+( cdefghijkljmnodpnkqcrkcstuuvwsxwyzsxuvy{xz|}lx~l€us|~lu{
 










!"#

 
$
" 
"

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

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

#!
%

" 
"
"%



""#
" 
"


+
#
$%
!
%(



%
" 
"





+
+ 
#*# '
$%#
+(

#!
0

*#
*$


1"
23456

%
1
&789
:;<=>?<@>ABCDE>CFGG?<HFI<J@CJKCIE>CL<IMNACO>AIO<HI<J@ACJ@CHJ@AIO;HI<J@CFHI<P<IMQCFACFGG?<>=CIJC ## !

*#
$%
%
&!
R-(-'
(#)#!
 #'

#)#!
 #'

""#

 
#

 S
$
#
"


#
" 
"

!

$%
" 
"
"*!
""

%
(%

%
&!-
.%




#
""
 "

$%"%
#"
!


 

9
T

U

$,

 

%
 +# %
" 
"
%
 '
+



 
""
 " '
"
##!

/"
V<IE<@CWXXNCJKCFCO>A<=>@I<F?CYJ@>CVE>O>CFACFCGOFHI<H>CIE>CL<IMCEFACIFZ>@C>[IOFCGO>HF;I<J@AC  %

"

)%

 '
" 
"
"
+
"

""


(
%
##$+#
%



\T]&
^3)2)4_3-

9 "%'
%
/"
(#(+#
" 

 

(
!"#
" 
"
%

$
#

"


("
 
"

(%+(

 -

.%
/"



#"

"# 
0!

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

 


#('
$%
%
 
"%#
RT"
]
7#!
1"%#S

6`_2
&%#*##
\
#*
#"
_-43
#
$!'
%
 
% #
R& )1
]"#
&S

6`__
\*#!
\
#*'

%
&!

a
9(# '
#"
_-b6
#
$!'

%
 
"%
"%
Rc

a!

]-
a+
&%#"
&%
"%S

ddd
1-
1
e"
\
#*'

%
&!

a
9(# '
#"
_-d`
#
$!-
.%
"%


"%"#

""#

%
" 
"
 
(

%
/"

$##

fghijklmnompqrgsqntfunfvwxxyzv{z|}v{xy|~{}€o{o‚ƒxv„ox~
 








 !"

#

"
 $%
&%
'(  ")*

 !"

"#

"

""
"'





  "+,%"#

-
+%%"
,
)."" ""% 



 
%%%"

-" "/"- % "&

"""

"0
"'
"

"
'( "0  


1+2"34. " "
"

&
"""#

 / )5)6 *
''



-"
  
"

&%"-,7 
'( %' "#"",
'
%' "( "
 %% 

-")8' & 

+0!)!-
"

#,
"

& 9):
" ";<" ='>'
,
 +;??@="

""&
9)3 <" ??@
"


"
 - 
/%'')4"
"""0 !)!-
"
"

#9):<" ??@
"

0
''" " $'%#
/ 
 " ,
%)*
"
"

" ,&%1
&A'%&*"';1
"=*"' 1" @B ! ;C9C9=)D"'"
" %%0E  "

1
"- %
',"&&'""
,
"

" FGHIJKLMNLOPINQRQPSIQONINGSTOUVIWMSQHMXIHSWGRRSONIKTSIGFIGOSIGYSHIVZSIG )8' & 

+0 

+""',+E 
 - 
/%''
["
, 
"

" %%+
.% ."" &8
-
#+ *"'\&& 
";..8
*\=0#


"',
1
"-  %
;*
]3=',",
"

&9)5^9)3<" ??@&"
 
-"-'])9^])3<" ??@&-" "). 
_`abcdefghfijk`ljgm_ng_opqqrsotsuvotqruwtvxyhtzh{|qoxz}hqw
 








 !

"
# $%
&$ '()*

$
&$  


+,-./(,
  $&
# $0
$$&%!1 &"2 
# $# $!34$
56$
(,
$# " 2 


! 789:;<=>?@9=AAB;C7D=>?:E9FGH9=I=E9JB;D9>K?9B?=B9# $# 2 !
# $0+-LM N(34$
56$
/(O

$2P
$# " $
P
 
 
 =<<?88;BE98>BQ<>QB?9RSQ?8>9K;Q8?T9789:;<=>?@9=AAB;C7D=>?:E9GH1UV9JB;D9>K?9B?=B9AB;A?B>E9  !
# $0+-L'N(34$
56$
/(W " $
&$ 
# $# 2
$X
 
!

$
X
-YY'(,$
$ 

$

P
# $0
0$X$ # 
1$ 2$"" 

!
X 
%$#
X

 # Z! ! !L''-
-Y[.P #%2(W " $

$X


!X  $

$& &$ 
$ 
PX

## $\
&2
"! 
 

&$ "
% $!

"
(]

&$ "$
 % $!

  P5!$
$$&
0$"" 
 
 AB;A?B>7?8^9=_@9>K?9AB;A;8?@9`UH9aQJJ?B9a?>I??_9_?7SKa;B7_S9B?87@?_>7=:9AB;A?B>7?89>;9>K?9 X 
 $&

!$
$$
# $0P
 $""

% $ 

$
$&'(.b'()*WWc&$  



-('b-()*WWc&$  ! 
$"" 

## $
\


$
$##2(O

 7_9d7_<;_H89>?<K_7<=:9D?D;B=_@QD9=_@9>K?9QA@=>?@9<=>?S;B7<=:9?C?DA>7;_9=_ !$  5"#$ #$ P
# $0X$


e $ P

$e P
$ "P5%$ P
 !P& $1
$
 P! 
 P
$ 2\
#"P

$"# $ 
 ! $ (,f

""$ 

"
$X

 !

$e P
$ "P 

 !X$

# $



!
%$&% $$
# $0PX

 # $0
$# $

% $%$&'(f)L*WWc
0$ 
# $# 
ghijklmnopnqrshtrougvogwxyyz{w|{}~w|yz}|~€p|‚pƒ„yw€‚
py

 

 






 !"#$% &&
%''(%&)()(&(# *)($%&)($%#)(#%+&,(&+-.!/01&2%334# %()( &'&5-)($%%(%&%''(%&)()(&!6* )($%#+&,(&(#((#()($%# %#+&,(& +&%##&+&,(& &#%'!"%*)($%#)($%+&,(&# #%& &-&%&')%#$%(&#&#%''(%&)()(&! 7!8 9")) )(&&')%-)($%( #(&'#,#5&-)($%#(-)'%&%:&)'&%## ;<=>?@=AB>@CDE;ABF=@G@HI>;D<=E@IDE>J=KEJ=K@;C?B<=BLL@E>L=>?B>=>?@=<D;L@=B<BFML;LN=OL@=DP=D<@= Q& *4&&*#"&(R#&&&
SQ4"RT5'&#)(+- UV#W"&&'###(('Q4"R&%+#)( +& X..#W"!9%&
(-)&&# )(+-Y/#W" %#))&#7.#W"(#-(Q4"R&!9 )(&&%&-% (&% ')&()((#Q4"R& )($%#-1!7ZR((&(1/"W"/.[.&(%#&&& &(-)* &%#)(+-UV#W"#&5)&%Q4"R5'-(&'&Z -'&5(&#&#+)'!6%&&)($%))&%*))&% )(+&##&-('&)%&-&%5)-(-)Q4"R:&)'5) &&\& -()($%-(]&%'(%%(5Q4"R)(&& &')%!9))&%&)()& -^#'^3QQ[[V/X[ZX[!/_``]1 &(%#&&(&#)(+-UY#W"*,#'-%((Z ))&#&)%&-&%&!9-&&()()($%#1#W"&%(& +-& (#,5)(+&5+#&!"#,5]&%&&( abcdefghijhklmbnlioapiaqrsstuqvuwxqvstwyvxz{jv|j}~sqz|jsy
 










!

" 



#$%


%
&
%
 '()*'+,-+(-+.*-/*0+-123-+.*-)'(4*5+60-'((7+()-)1'1)*+-/1889-2(:0*- ;%! 
$<


&
=>?@%

!%
%<A

$ 

"<BC
D?EC&#AA


%"

&F% %

!$
%;BE
D?$<

B
$%G?%
%%%
 H:25(260-1))*18-'*0)(20*-8*++*'9-+.*-1))'(15.-(7-I(3*88:2J-+.'**-KLMN-O2:+0-1+-+.*-01I*-  


%%
%
$A

%P%%

&





%!

$<

&P






!%GQ
&

#$





 
% %A$%%%!&G R
STG Q%U

V%$%%%%


A

<


 

@&

W;

X<?Y@WX?#U$Z%

%@

R
% TSCCC%FG[#R@WX?\
%Y@&

@


&Z!
%#QS]#R
% SBCCC%FG[#
;


!
%
&@<GQ@<@
%
;A
 @%%ETW" 




 

&

U

V#
$%

<%%



 &



;





%%!
&
%%$
$<? # &
%
F%%" &

@WX?
%
R
SBEET
&@WX?\
%G ?@%%ET@!

W" 
% $

%


&P&
;


V%G Q
&

#@<@

$<&
%U

V" &

&


;A

@WX?G R
SEG D%

;






%

 &
!%%&


#@<@

$<
V% #


;%
F%
 ^;
UZ;A
^%<D
%U
%%

A
%

A %"P%

<"
%
;
U

VA!


&



%%#SCB
A!%#
_`abcdefghfijk`ljgm_ng_opqqrsotsuvotqruwtvxyhtzh{|qoxz}hqw
 







 
!"#$$%&'($)*
'+$,
$((-#%,##
 )(./+$,01$,##,"##
 234 5
$"#6"',#(
$$6)$

$$7'$
$,,$

#
'#(#%
$#%
*'
$
#$
*$
$,8$7'#$
$
35
$(
$#%


(($9,$$ ::;0:<=>?@ABCD?EF>GH>IJF>KGGHIGL>KFDIKGGMDN>OJF>@CMPFK>GH>DIGK?FD>DJQBB>@GI>FRAFFS>D?R> #$
*#,('
#)$
$$


T$
#$#('#


(($(,$)$
$ H?HIJ>DIGKUN>OJF>KFQK>DFIPQAV>DJQBB>PF>WX;0X<>G@>QBB>HBGGKD>GH>IJF>PC?BS?@Y=>QD>MFQDCKFS>HKGM>  $$$6(#$
$,$
$'#(#%3Z-$)$*
$
$(,#$
(,$ 
$
#'

$$
$'#(#%

(($$
#$$,,
 MQR?MCM>GH>[;0X<>?@IG>IJF>KF\C?KFS>WX;0X<>DFIPQAVN>]@>@G>FEF@I>DJQBB>IJF>PQBAG@?FD>G@>IJF> IJ?KS>Q@S>HGCKIJ>HBGGK>MQ?@IQ?@>BFDD>IJQ@>Q>^:;0X<>KFQK>UQKS>DFIPQAV=>QD>MFQDCKFS>HKGM> $ $$6(#$
$$$
$%$
$(,63 _34 5
#
)(#


$(

'
#$
$"#6"',#(1$$
$ 2_*_`_a*,6-
#,


(($
##$#
$#($

$"#6/(#%b#)#
#3 /+$,$)$(
$

(($,
#
$-#

',
(
*$9,$

$-#
$
$,##$# 
$
$,##
)(3 a34 c#
$
$

$(


(($
'+$,)(6
$b#$, "

'#6b$)$(
$
$d
#
$
#%$$3e
#%##,,
%$
$)$ /+$,

(($
'+$,/(#%"

#

#$)#$-3 f34 /+$,/(
$
'+$,,
(#,$-#
(((#,($g#% $%'(#
*$9,$

6$$9$

(6
##$
$$#3/+$,(


(($
'+$, ,
($$"$"
(#,$$)#$--
$'#(#%(
$
'
#$(,
$,83
hijklmnopqorstiuspvhwphxyzz{|x}|~x}z{~€}‚q}ƒq„
zxƒ†qz€

 



 




!

"#
$
%
%
&
'#&
$
&&


%%#

(

!#$)

&*
+#&
&,

-&.

% 
/



&
&
'#%
%


%%#

(

$


&
%
%

(&


"#
$

$

%

$%
(
&0
!
(&

/
%#
$


&
% 
!

%%#
$*
1*2 -&&


%%#

(
!#$)

&%,

$
%),

&%,
$
(%
(

!#$)
$
$%)
% 
!

%#!.



&
0

$
&0
!/

3& 
#&
%%*
4*2 5$%)
% 
!


$
(&

(

(

-&.


%#!%




$%


#$
$


&0
$
%*
6 $%)

$)
%
&%
$


&
&
(

&
&/
% 
!

%
$


%#((


)

&

789:;<9=8>?8@AB8C;=9;D8>D:E/
&
(&

%%#

(


&(

(
F#/
(

!#$)*
3/
$(

$%)
% 
!

%#!.


&
0

$
&0
!/

#/
G
0 

G&
&
&
%H
&
$
%)

(&

%%
/
$

&



&)
&0*
I*2 6

-&.

% 
!


&
$
%

&

&
&/
$
% 


#
(


0 
JKKL

E!
$&
$

)
#%
$
%)
$
(&
#/
!/
0 &/

E

#%
$%*
6 /
(
M
0 &/
N%
&
%
$
%)

% 
!

&
%%!

(&
$%
&)

%

#%*
3((&$!/
(

%

#%
!/
%$
#%
$%
% 
!

)#&

$
(&

#
(
11 /
&%
$
%#!.



&
&$
$
((&$!/
&
%&
(&

#
(
11 /
&%

&$


*
O0*
$

P

41QK1
&
%
%#
%%&
%#
*
R*2 6

3
% 
&
&$
0
%
$H&
$

$
&
%&%
%
$

&
$
!/

/
3&
/


%#&



&

&

(

((&$!

#%)
#%
$
%


STUVWXYZ[\Z]^_T`^[aSb[Scdeefgchgijchefikhjlm\hn\opeclnq\ek
 










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


*!(+"
(*,

-../0(-
&*!


 12


 3'
4*

#1"!2
2
"
'2
'' 




4  
!&'
4'
'(5&"
'6

'



'
& 
!&'
4'&!! 
 
 
2

 
!''
&--#
'( 0(7 8
!'

#&'
44

$&
&
!'2
"
'
'

' 9:;<=>>?@AB<?C><;>DE@;>=>A?F<:9<?C><G@?HIF<@AJKEF@:AL;H<C:EF@AB<;>DE@;>=>A?F<FCLKK<M>< 22 "#
&

#4


#


#N

'
'



4
'

&2
2

#2




'' 

&
4

4

!
42


N$&
&"
'

'
( O.(7 5&2
' 
& 
!&'
4

'$

&

&P
Q
'&!!&"
&'''

&

'N
'N

'N
!
4 2
R
4N'
&2
' 
&
R
%

&'
4

'
& 
!&'
4

' '&!!

'!

'2

 !


'2

 !
(S

&
N
& 
! &'
4

'&!!&"
&'

#2 22!
''
&% 
! &'
4

'N$&
&'&!!
!N


NTOU


4


NTOU$'&
N TOU
#
( OO(7 5

4
2


!
'
2
'

4&

4
'

'N' 
&
  R
''&!!!




$
&&
' /V..((
0V..2((W#
&
4&5&
'#N/V..((
O.V..2((S

#N0V..((
O.V..2((,

#'N 0V..((
0V..2((,#(,
44



4'&
'



''&!!
'
!! 
&

2( OX(7 82!

'
"
''&!!2
&


&

2(
YZ[\]^_`ab`cdeZfdagYhaYijkklminmopinkloqnprsbntbuvkirtwbkq
 





 




!
"
#
$
"%&'

(
)
*
*#$
#*%%
"
+)%,
*
*%%
-./0123.-42-40250607892:.8812;<=.>.?@82ABC0D12701-7.>-.B=12B=28.E4-.=E2BF2?70/.101G H I%%

&'

%J
#)*"
#
(



!
"$
"%&'

#

)
J'
'


K*%"

#
*'


(
)
*
*#
#*%%

%,
K

+*'

*J*%*K%

(

&#

K,

!
"

#'
#
*'


&
##
L

"
++
"*%

""&)*

(


)
,
#*%%
&#



(
)
(*"%
#

K*%"
,
*
*#
*
*,
+

M I%%
)* N
#*%%#


#&K
*
*
)* N
%
J
%

#*%%
K

#
J
'
(

&#

(

)* N
(



#'
*%
)



(


!
"
O#
)* N
*
*
#*%%

%,
K

*""
##K%



#'
#

(


K&%'
*'


*&
P
'
&
##

Q O

!
"
#*%%

)
*

*
*%%
+
#

*
+*



'
 +
*%


#&
&'
)
)

#

#'
#
K,

*#


(
%$

#
$
*"J
#$
)* N$



*"
#

R O

!
"
#*%%

)
*

*
*%%
+
#

"
+)%*"

S
T&")*%
U
'

V&
+
#
(

L
#

W
&%*

X O

I))%"*
#*%%
#&K+
*
U
# &"

O *(("
T**
+

%*




U
++&,
Y
J
%
)+

Y
)* +

(

J
S
*'
#&"
U
# &"

O *(("
;@=@E0/0=-2Z8@=214@882[02@??7B60C2[92-402A.-9D12\7@FF.>2][email protected] 

##&*"

(
*
'
+
%




##&*"

(
*
K&%'
)
+
O

U
# &"

T**
+

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


(
%%
S^
* _ 

(
+*

*K
&


"
# &"

)* N
* *
+
#
*'
*&%
*"J
#
*
'((


#*
#

(
'
+
%

*'
"
# &"



K

J
S
'
*'
*))
J
'
K,


`


YJ#


(
&K%"
_
N#
*'


a&%'
b
c*(
,
Y
)* +


defghijklmknopeqolrdsldtuvvwxtyxz{tyvwz|y{}~mym€vt}‚mv|
 





 


 !


"


#
$
!
%

&'()

"
*#



$'

&

"
($#


(#"!%*(


"
!*


!
#(
%#


$
!)

"
 
(

!*
+
()
"%*

#

+

()

"
*
"




$

)
!(




#(
%#


(



!

"
$







 !

#(
%#


*
!


#
# ,"
$$(!
!*


#(
%#


(




"
(
-.#


!



"
%
)
$$$


%
(
!



!/

"+/
"%*


%#'


#
#((/

!*

)
!*
+
()

#)



"
(%.#

(


01 ,"
2$$*
#

("**




"
$$$


$

(


"
3%

/
4+*$

4$




"
$*#


#(
%#


#$
()
#()

#)


"
#(
%#



/

$+
(



"
$%*
#

"
55&/)
!

%(


"
$%*
#

"
55&/

(


!6
"%*

#


7%
$

!


*(
*
!



"
-.#

89 ,"
2$$*
#

("**
$(

"
(
!

*$"
%(


&
#(
%#


$(


+(


"
-.#

!

3 /
#
#


**
#(
%#


#
(
(

,"
$"
%(
("**

!


**

(
!%

#(
%#


"%(
80 ,"
2$$*
#

("**
$+
!
*#

#
+"
#*
#"

(


(


"
##
*
!
(
!

*
$'

()

#*%!

*#

#
+"
#*
#"

(


(

7%
!
"!
#$
##((
*
$'

($#()
(
7%
!
/
**
$$*
#*
3*


:
;%
*!

3!
7%

(

88

!!

)


/
*#

#
+"
#*
#"

(


(
7%
!


"
(
!

*
$'

$




"
-.#


*+*
-<)

"
$$*
#

("**
$+
!


=>?@ABCDEFDGHI>JHEK=LE=MNOOPQMRQSTMROPSURTVWFRXFYZOMVX[FOU

 








 !" #$!"%!&
! '()% %* 
%
"" *+
 ,)%
 $$
% %)
%!- .! *%(/.! 01-2 3   !!*%
4*$" 56""%43 #/%  7%!89! :* 4+ ;*%".!
4"- 0<-2 8
=""%!
 5) "%"*4%!&#!>%  3 >%!
   
%)! !*
3 >%%! *%6! 54+ 
.+?$ - 0-2 8
=""%!
 5) "%%* 4!$* !>%  3 >%!
   
%)! !*
3 >%%! *%6! 54+ 
.+?$ - 0@-2 8
=""%!
" %9!$!  !>%
!*4>% !* $%! *%

3 >%-?) +

 !
45 5* !   !-A!  !6%*$ !!  !!$
" 5 +"!6!
 4 5)B  %*!!& "" ) 5
3*4%C #!D" 5 
.+?$ E 
!B
!$F!
 !4- 0G-2 /5)B  "%5
+!  !!
%55%*!! *
=""%
!" )
.+&
5" )5!%* +!* 
 !4!
5
+ %  "%!  !-8
!%* +5*&4  54+
D % 
3*4%C #!E 
!B
!$F6!
4
 5 "" )4+
D % 
.55*+D)"5-
HIJKLMNOPQORSTIUSPVHWPHXYZZ[\X]\^_X]Z[^`]_abQ]cQdeZXacfQZ`
 





 

!"

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

#
+!-%.-/)'$+''(#
+
% "!#(
!
% %#!
% "#.%#$'( '# ) #$
!"
""(',)!0
!) 1 0% ' "!
% .#%$230 '#.#
+#!
% 4(
$ !"

'#
!%! "
!#)"/#5 %!
(#,'#
" 67 

!"

#%&
'!!

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


+#%( '/!#'
"
#+"$("!&#$
!89:;<=>.#%$!?+
%
@!# A(

!)0% !#%
B%#'0% 
!
% !%"!%#$'#
"

,

%$

"'
!$ # #%&',)!0
!)< +
# '!C%" +
"0%( !);#!$ !%.:(,

@%#D" 6E 

!"

#%&
'.%#

(!

!).

!
"5

('
+

!#

 !# ".%#$#"#4(
#'.%#"#&

!%!#%%"'"!#(
!(#8">5!%,
"!

'% !"(,F
! "
!9%"(

"!

!
% "/

,

%/'
 )0
!)#
+!-%.-/) 6 

!"

( '#+#%( '5
. 
""#)5!(!

!
"
'F
 ! "!#!"##4(
#$ !"%.!G!

!)0%$ ) '!0
!) 66 HIJKLMMNOPQRSKTIQNNKUQVJKPWRRJPSOWRKSWKSIJKXOSYZTKTQROSQ[YKTJ\J[KTYTSJUK !#%(+!* "!
+
% 
!
% "&

,
!%!"(,F
!"
!5(
""%!#/
"#%&' ,)!0
!)< +
#5 '"

)!

,
"/#
% 
!
% .
%"!"%. ) (+#'" 
""#)!%#%&
'!:#%F
!/
!(!

!)
% 
!
% ""

,! #"% "
,

!)%.!

! 6] 

!TIQNNKUQVJKPWRRJPSOWRKSWKSIJKXOSYZTK\QSJ[KTYTSJUKSI[W^_IKSIJK * "!
+/!#"#&


% 
!
% (
""%!#/
"#%&',)!0
!)< +
# "
`5!)5 '
%
!
% %.!/!#"#&

$!#
"!

!
% /


"%#4(
##%&

abcdefghijhklmbnlioapiaqrsstuqvuwxqvstwyvxz{jv|j}~sqz|jsy
 









 !"##$

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

"
##$,,-#&
#-,
$&&,"$
  ./ 0 1

###%%
'
)*"#$$'$$'$#$#%, )*"" #%"
#$,,-&$('$
'#'#"
,
  .2 0 1,,#%(

%
#3#,#3$
'%
'%
'%,#3$
'$

 4#
#&(
#$"'-
"
#%"
#$,,-5#$-,#' $""'

#$
'$'#3$
'#$,,-&$'-
$&&,"$
 6&($,
5+
' #%"%#&(
#$&'+
&%-,"55+$
+%$
 
"$"
&  7$
'$'
'
# .8 0 9
:9;1!<:6 !##,%
$&&(
#;(,&
),$
 9(+$
';
#
=
%#)#$,,
-""(%
,+
)*" #"'#$"(
$
3#$#$"

$
'"


1

3$""&
 "
'
#$&&($,#
##,%
!"(
$
#$,,
",%'$"&
 ##,%
$#$
4- !1&&,"$
#$,,',(4"%'"(
$
 ;&$
%

;(,&
+
>?@'$
#
%
",'"#
1 $1&&,"$
',(#"(
$

31&&,"$
#$,,$,# &('
+$,,#
"##$
"''"%
+%

9"'  <1&&,"$
$,#',(4"%'"(
$
+
A%'>?@'$
#3# #,%
$&&(
$;(,&
),$
9(+$
';
#
=
%#)#$,,-
%,, $
'('$
'
%" 6+#$
'

3;" %

;(,&
$
3%&
$+
A%#-
1&&,"$
3#%-'& 4&$
>?@5'$
&'3$
$+
+$(>?@5'$
,
BCDEFGHIJKILMNCOMJPBQJBRSTTUVRWVXYRWTUXZWY[\KW]K^_TR[]`KTZ
 

 






 !"#$






%&#
$

'(


#





)*#&*#

+(
,#
"+$#

+(++-


-&+ (


./(
01,+##



+##




#(
$)
#
++ *&+,

*##&


(


()
0 2 03 45.617869:0')+

.+1)-'#
";&#.

<8
 =(#,

#,
#&(
)+##
++*(

(-



>2?"#



)+

##+&
$#);@ABC!D2DE!F070$&+## 

-#=
0 2G03 H69I7869:9JB9:'6869:K<7)+
"

#(
# )+
"#&+
(

(
*"

B
"&
+#&(
)+
#*


 

+

,

#)L&#&

K(
!D2DEM 

;@AB$
# #&((##,&+
07++(#
#(&*"

B
"##&+
*


)+
 


"#
++*
*&#*"


"*(


##+&
0 N!03 7..19H7I1O:KP68@I7:'08
#(
##
++&-



+ #
++
&++(

&


+

./(
0 QQQ
QQQQQQQQQ
RSTUVWXYZ[Y\]^S_]Z`RaZRbcddefbgfhibgdehjgikl[gm[nodbkmp[dj
 








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

;
. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 
:08--:8;6  !"# =;-1> -??,5@;6-
5A5,8.  -??,5@;6-
553
;3
. 1-0,;3;
B2;3;,  -"   3-3C:03
D5AA;C  8%%E"     ,C-345:12:7-2? -$$$% 8%%E"   FGHIJKLMNOMPQRGSQNTFUNFVWXXYZV[Z\]V[XY\^[]_`O[aObcXV_adOX^

 


 

 !

"!#$%&'
#%(
" )*+*,-)* ),./0*
1*23*40,)35&&678+
35+

9-,*3 :'#:$(

;*35:
6!87< ),=0 0,1*>+5-(# )35+*,=-$ ?=353+*= =*3<30+*>+5-$ 3*3+-' 3@04 !,*6++. )*+135+. A31BCDA :'''E>+03<30A31CD)F
+++E
&&679G<==3 "=HI3-J
!%'$ ' 204K.=H43-7=5 >!=-- %7$
&7 %7  L

MNOP )*+*,-?=353+  Q Q$'$(& $ #>; I=3@04 204K.=H43-7=5 80+*30,)35 RP
ST
U RPV
N
U

+)2 -2K=25+2701 )0,=3*H81+3J!00,*!,*4*30+*3 C6E )35+*,=!*3=+230 D-35>!=--(7 $$7$($7$'$ )* Q Q$'$(& &

>; 9-* Q$Q$'$(#&%($!; W32 Q$Q$'$(  '!; )35 Q$Q$'$( #$!; S

L

MMRPV
XU
UV
Y 6*?<<=3+0,)35 9H+Z4304 =54304K.=H43-7=5 !--3-*+* 3*H;++5= )0,=3*H81+3J!00,*!,*4*30+*3 C6E )35+*,=!*3>=:-0*)*H D-35>!=-- %7$ &7 %7  )* Q$Q$'$( #$#!; W32 Q$Q$'$( ''#'!; )35 Q$Q$'$( ''#($!; S

L

MMRPV
XU
UV
Y 6*?<<=3+0,)35
3H?2- 02-K.=H43-7=5 >30HF;++51*!+H-* 3*H<"=HI3- )0,=3*H81+3J!00,*!,*4*30+*3 C6E )* Q$Q$'$( ''#((!; S

L

MMRPV
XU
UV
Y 6*?<<=3+0,)35 6+0HI,*:
<<H 4,*0<<HK.=H43-7=5 )0,=3*H81+3J!00,*!,*4*30+*3 C6E S

L

MMRPV
XU
UV
Y 6*?<<=3+0,)35 [,3+!7Z /5K.=H43-7=5 )0,=3*H81+3J!00,*!,*4*30+*3 C6E S

L

MMRPV
XU
UV
Y 6*?<<=3+0,)35









  



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


4

0/1

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








 3
14/
;



 < 4/
;



 9 3

;4/
;



 =
>
34/
;



 =
?1=1;



 
++@
A"+ &
A"+



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


4

0/1

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



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


4

0/1

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










 D1
;







 /1

;




)+
"E$+&  F)+%

E& GGFGFHIHJK(GK(LLMB :
; 





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

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

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

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

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

Architectural Plans Provided as Attachment 14 to
November 7, 2023 City Council Agenda Report

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

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

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

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

Prior City Council Action None

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

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

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

Protected Trees/Grove None

Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Medical and General Office, and Restaurant Uses) South C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Medical and General Office, and Restaurant Uses) East C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Medical and General Office, and Restaurant Uses) West R-1 – One-Family Residential Zone (Single Family
Residences)

Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) North La Cienega Boulevard
Adjacent Alleys None
Parkways & Sidewalks North La Cienega Boulevard Parkway – 15’ from curb face to property line
Parking Restrictions North La Cienega Boulevard – Two-hour metered parking from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. No Stopping/Anti-Gridlock Zone from 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. and 4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday (east and west sides of street).

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

Nearest Intersection Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard Circulation Element Wilshire Boulevard – Arterial Street North La Cienega Boulevard – Arterial Street

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

The project site is currently developed with an existing 13,500 SF commercial building and surface parking lot. The building is currently vacant, having previously been used as a restaurant, with the most recent tenant being The Stinking Rose Restaurant. Vehicular access to the site is currently provided through a driveway apron located along North La Cienega Boulevard. The project site is also located within ½-mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station which is currently under construction on the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard.2

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

The area surrounding the project site is characterized by existing commercial and residential uses. The areas located to the north and south of the site along La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard are improved with low- to high-rise commercial buildings consisting of retail, 2 The project site at 55 North La Cienega Boulevard is located approximately 130 feet (0.02 miles) from the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station at 8741 Wilshire Boulevard (northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS4
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:

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

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

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

Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces.

• Policy LU 2.8 – Pedestrian-Active Streets.

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

• Policy LU 2.10 – Development Transitions and Compatibility.

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

• Policy LU 3.2 – Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs.

Meet State requirements to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, contingent upon the ability to maintain the qualities that distinguish and contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City's fiscal resources.

4 Pursuant to Government Code §65905.5.(a) , the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete.
5 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/communitydevelopment/longrangeplanning/generalplan/

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

• Policy LU 10.1 – Local-Serving Business.

Promote appropriate development of businesses that serve, are located in proximity to, and are accessible to adjoining residential neighborhoods, such as grocery stores, dry cleaners, and personal care businesses.

• Policy LU 11.3 – Retail Street Frontages.

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

• Policy LU 16.10 – Affordable Housing.

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

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

Provide a variety of housing types and adequate affordable housing supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community.

• Policy H 2.1 – Affordable Housing Incentives.

Offer incentives, including density bonuses, where feasible, to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing. Proactively seek out new approaches in the provision of affordable housing.

• Policy H 2.2 – Inclusionary Housing.

Continue to implement an inclusionary housing program to integrate affordable units within market rate developments, and increase the availability of affordable housing throughout the community.

• Policy H 2.8 – Transit-Oriented Housing.

Promote access, where feasible, from residential neighborhoods and new residential development to existing transit stops and to the anticipated subway stations.

• Goal H4 – Reducing Constraints.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines6 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), 6 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/

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

and the environmental regulations of the City. As part of this review, a categorical exemption report has been prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assess whether this project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA as an in-fill development project (Attachment I). Based on this assessment, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that this exemption is applicable when:

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

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Table 2: Public Notification Table
Type of Notice Required
Period
Actual
Period
Required
Date
Actual
Date
Notice of Pending Application
(Owners & Occupants – 500' Radius +
block-face)
Within 45
Days
43 Days 8/14/2022 8/12/2022
Adjacent Neighbors Notice
(Owners & Occupants – 100’ Radius)

N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notice of Public Hearing
(Owners & Occupants – 500' Radius +
block-face)
20 Days 20 Days 6/2/2023 6/2/2023
Newspaper Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A
Property Posting 20 Days 20 Days 6/2/2023 6/2/2023
Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 6/19/2023 6/15/2023
Website (Agenda) 72 Hours 7 Days 6/19/2023 6/15/2023

Applicant Outreach Efforts
On Wednesday, June 14, 2023, the applicant hosted a voluntary virtual neighborhood meeting to inform the public of the proposed project. The applicant informed the City that the copy of the notice was mailed out to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500’ radius of the project site, extended to block-face. A copy of the notice is provided as Attachment D.

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