Beverly Hills City Council
December 5, 2023

·1· ·and fully understanding that a lot of your employees will ·2· ·work remotely and you're not going to have -- generally ·3· ·have 12 people working there every day?· But what -- what ·4· ·would you think is a reasonable policy for you to impose, ·5· ·if you will?
·6· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Sure.· I mean, I'm -- I'm
·7· ·completely open-minded at the idea of working
·8· ·cooperatively to address the issues that I'm hearing. ·9· ·But -- but I would point out that you're -- you're 10· ·sitting across from someone who's -- who's been -- whose 11· ·process has moved extremely slowly, 'cause there's a lot 12· ·of things going on in the city.
13· · · · · · These are operational things I already do.· I'm 14· ·not so sure it's entirely necessarily fair or appropriate 15· ·to -- to -- to complicate that any further.· I -- I would 16· ·absolutely be open to having conversation if -- if -- if 17· ·you could approve what -- what Staff has recommended, to 18· ·have a conversation on what's approp -- you know, what's 19· ·appropriate and doable, consider -- what we currently do, 20· ·of course I'd be happy to do that.· But you know, I'm 21· ·just a little -- I think it's something that you continue 22· ·to have to think about.
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Fair -- fair enough. 24· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I'm sure, but --
25· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Fair enough.

·1· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- I mean, I'm volun --
·2· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· What -- what about the -- ·3· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· This is --
·4· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· What about having the ·5· ·deliveries -- the hours of delivery be consistent with ·6· ·what is -- and what the Peninsula has to live with? ·7· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Sure.
·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Are you okay with that ·9· ·condition?
10· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Of course.· My neighbors are 11· ·subject to it, why wouldn't it be the same?· I would 12· ·point out that we run very different businesses, so their 13· ·requirements are probably --
14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Yeah, but that -- yeah. 15· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- different, but mine are going to 16· ·be a lot less requiring.· I don't --
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Sure.
18· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I don't -- I don't have deliveries 19· ·between those times.
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· And what about the -- 21· ·what about the idea of putting a gate to make sure that 22· ·you don't have transients that sleep in your driveways at 23· ·night and things like that?
24· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· We are working on that with the 25· ·Public Works Department.

·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.
·2· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Yeah, and I think one thing to be ·3· ·aware of is there is a sort of residual stub of public ·4· ·right-of-way that's directly adjacent to this property, ·5· ·so it looks like it's part of the property, because it ·6· ·doesn't lead anywhere, but I think there's some concern ·7· ·about gating a public right-of-way.
·8· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I guess one thing I want --
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· I -- I -- I view that as 10· ·your -- as your -- your operational issue that -- that's 11· ·not -- it doesn't fall -- it's not the same as the hours 12· ·for deliveries and -- and whatnot.· If that's sauce for 13· ·that goose is sauce for this gander, but I -- I wouldn't 14· ·impose a -- a requirement that you put a gate up.· If you 15· ·think that's a good thing, so be it, and if you don't, 16· ·you don't.
17· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· And if I may just add, the -- the 18· ·parking that's being taken away, that's not by choice, 19· ·that's by requirement of the transformer.· That's by 20· ·requirement of the handicap space being larger than what 21· ·is currently there.· You know, that's -- we wish we had 22· ·all those spaces.
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Fair -- fair enough.· No, 24· ·that's a good point.· Thank you.
25· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Anybody else?

·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Can you just clarify what ·2· ·you have on the third floor?· Is it open?· Is it enclosed ·3· ·area?· I know the structure it looks like this.
·4· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· And I will just -- sorry, just go ·5· ·back -- would implore the City to start talking with ·6· ·Public -- Edison about being able to put transformers ·7· ·underground.· It's a big problem throughout the city, ·8· ·residential and commercial.· Because we can't put them ·9· ·underground, it creates these big restrictions, but it's 10· ·something that we have not been able to work though with 11· ·Edison of putting them underground.
12· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· Thank you for the question. 13· ·Upstairs is a means of egress, fire egress, an elevator, 14· ·conference room and --
15· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Enclosed conference room? 16· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· Yes, ma'am.
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· It says, "Office," so you 18· ·have another --
19· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· Yes.· Correct.· But what I wanted 20· ·to point out is, from earlier, we set it -- we didn't 21· ·maximize the square footage on purpose.· We set it 22· ·back --
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Uh-huh.
24· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· -- so a pedestrian and -- and 25· ·driving perspective doesn't see glass on the wall.

·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Yes.
·2· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· We set it back so you get that ·3· ·three dimensionality, so the existing building is
·4· ·celebrated and all enclosed spaces has been pushed back ·5· ·so you get that floating sensation that it's -- that it's ·6· ·empty.
·7· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· So everything is
·8· ·enclosed?· The lounge is enclosed?· The conference room ·9· ·is enclosed?· The office is enclosed?
10· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· Yes.· And it has foldable glass 11· ·walls, so it could be an indoor/outdoor space, which was 12· ·important.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Thank you for clarifying. 14· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.· Thank you, everybody. 15· ·I'm going to close the public hearing.· But before we 16· ·move to Commission deliberations, I would like to ask for 17· ·a re -- actually, I'm declaring a recess.
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Five --
19· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Five minutes.
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Uh-huh.
21· ·(Recess)
22· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.· We'll move to
23· ·Commission deliberations.· Commissioner Wolfe, do you 24· ·want to go first?
25· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Thank you very much.· So

·1· ·first of all, just over all, I want to thank the
·2· ·Applicants for the presentation.· Look, I'm not an ·3· ·architect.· I -- I don't know, you know, but I -- I ·4· ·really appreciate what you're trying to do with the ·5· ·design.
·6· · · · · · From -- from the pictures that I've seen, I -- I ·7· ·like the way it looks and just really pleased to see ·8· ·that, that is what's being done with that building and ·9· ·restoring that brick and -- and -- and -- and -- and the 10· ·louvers all the way down to the floor and all that. 11· · · · · · I mean, I did go through this very carefully and 12· ·reviewed it and I want to tell you that I really
13· ·appreciate that.· And I -- I -- I think that, that's just 14· ·a great -- a great project from that respect.
15· · · · · · With respect to some of the concerns that have 16· ·been raised, I would like there to be a condition related 17· ·to the delivery times.· I -- I don't know -- I'll let the 18· ·other Commissioners chime in.· I -- I -- I'm just going 19· ·to throw out that, you know, since we were talking -- 20· ·here it was talking about peak hours of 8:00 a.m. and 21· ·5:00 p.m.
22· · · · · · So maybe one thought is that deliveries can only 23· ·be between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., but that's not hard 24· ·and fast.· I will be open to hearing what my fellow 25· ·Commissioners say, with respect to that, but I would

·1· ·support a condition related to restricting the hours of ·2· ·delivery.
·3· · · · · · With respect to the -- the -- the -- the
·4· ·deviations that were being asked for, with respect to the ·5· ·Historic Incentive Permit, I'm fine with the -- with the ·6· ·change in the -- in the -- in the trash room.
·7· · · · · · With respect to the parking -- so this is a ·8· ·complicated one and I'm going to share some thoughts that ·9· ·might be a little bit different than -- than maybe some 10· ·of my fellow Commissioners, not that I don't share the 11· ·same concern.· I'm just concerned about what the right 12· ·process and approach is for dealing with it is.
13· · · · · · So these are just my personal thoughts, 'cause 14· ·it sort of relates -- relates to this project and that is 15· ·that it's the states that -- the state has already put 16· ·these conditions that say we can't mandate parking on 17· ·these types of buildings that are within a half a mile. 18· · · · · · And so, the way I look at this project is if -- 19· ·if you weren't looking for the incentive -- Historic 20· ·Incentive Permit, and you weren't looking to maintain 21· ·this property as-is, you -- you could put up a by-right, 22· ·three-story, 45-foot medical office building and we 23· ·wouldn't be able to require a single parking space for 24· ·that building.· And that would have a hundred times the 25· ·parking impact that this particular building would have.

·1· ·So -- so I -- I'm sensitive to that.
·2· · · · · · At the same time, I'm also very sensitive to the ·3· ·impact of parking for residents.· I personally live in an ·4· ·area where that is an issue.· I think it's an issue the ·5· ·City needs to deal with.· I personally think -- and maybe ·6· ·I'm getting a little bit off track here -- but it
·7· ·explains why I'm not going to throw out, at least myself, ·8· ·a condition relating to the parking is -- I think it's ·9· ·upon the City to solve that problem.
10· · · · · · We -- we have -- we -- we -- we've -- we've 11· ·got -- we're moving with Parking Enforcement that has 12· ·license plate readers.· There's technology exists, 13· ·whereby, the City has the capability to not just require 14· ·let's say -- so one of the issues, right, is that someone 15· ·may abuse a meter; right?· It's a two-hour meter and they 16· ·just start feeding the meter all day and suddenly they're 17· ·using a spot, because they're working in the building, 18· ·and that's some of the things that we're trying to 19· ·consider.
20· · · · · · Well, through license plate reading, you know, 21· ·we -- we can not just look at a meter, we can say that a 22· ·certain license plate can't be in a radius for more than 23· ·two hours a day.· And I just think that's something we, 24· ·as a city, have to do, because it's going to help solve 25· ·these types of problems, where you do have this issue

·1· ·what -- what you're trying do is alleviate office users ·2· ·from having all-day parking, but utilizing what's meant ·3· ·to be retail and short-term parking or restricted parking ·4· ·or permit parking in front of a -- a -- a -- of -- of ·5· ·businesses and residences.
·6· · · · · · So I'm not, not sensitive to that.· I'm actually ·7· ·very sensitive to that.· I'm just struggling with the ·8· ·solution being a condition that's probably not
·9· ·enforceable.· But again, I'm -- I'm very much open to 10· ·hearing what my fellow Commissioners say on that.· It's 11· ·just, I'm giving you the reason why I'm not the one who's 12· ·going to be throwing that as a potential condition. 13· · · · · · So really, the only condition I'm looking to 14· ·include, in addition to what's already in the -- already 15· ·been defined has to do with deliveries.· Other than that, 16· ·I'm able to make the findings.· And with that condition, 17· ·as it's eventually defined upon, willing to support the 18· ·project.
19· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Oh, Commissioner Wolfe, just as a 20· ·bit of information regarding delivery times at the 21· ·Peninsula, service vehicle deliveries or loading are 22· ·prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 23· ·on their property.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· So that's even more 25· ·liberal than what we were potentially suggesting here.

·1· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Yes.· And that's just a follow-up ·2· ·on some of the earlier comments in the -- the discussion. ·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· So again, I -- ·4· ·I'm -- I -- I know other Commissioners have thoughts on ·5· ·that and I'm certainly open to hearing what that is and ·6· ·maybe even have a dialogue on what the appropriate thing ·7· ·is, as opposed to -- because I'm going first, being the ·8· ·one to throw out a specific set of numbers.· But
·9· ·certainly, I'd like to see a condition on there related 10· ·to restriction of -- of delivery time.
11· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you, Commissioner 12· ·Wolfe.· Commissioner Ostroff.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· I agree a hundred percent 14· ·with Commissioner Wolfe and I will vote in favor of this. 15· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you.· Commissioner 16· ·Demeter.
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· Well, I -- I 18· ·certainly can make the findings.· I do agree that we need 19· ·delivery times.· I'm -- I am amenable to the consistency 20· ·with the Peninsula.· Whatever they have, the neighbors, 21· ·10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. is fine with me.· I don't know if 22· ·anybody else has other feelings.
23· · · · · · I -- I do want to encourage, although, we can't 24· ·put it into conditions, you to -- for the Applicant to 25· ·work with the Peninsula to deal with the weekly

·1· ·communication on noise, et cetera.· I think that it makes ·2· ·for good neighbors and good relations, so we're not going ·3· ·to put a condition on that.
·4· · · · · · It's really a problem with the parking.· I do ·5· ·understand we don't have to deal with that for two years ·6· ·and -- and the state has restricted us from imposing ·7· ·parking restrictions or requirement on you.· I'm still ·8· ·troubled by that.
·9· · · · · · I still believe that you will have a
10· ·considerable number of employees.· If you have up to -- 11· ·13 to 15, I'd -- I'd say at least 10 of them are going to 12· ·come by car.· And I am always very sensitive.· I, too, 13· ·live in a parking impacted area, next to a commercial 14· ·street, which is heavily impacted by people who are using 15· ·that to do their chores or other things one block away, 16· ·because we're in that community.
17· · · · · · So I don't have a solution, since I'm now 18· ·precluded from putting a condition that -- I don't want 19· ·to make them pay for parking.· I don't think that was my 20· ·intent when I suggested it.· But we have asked other 21· ·facilities to monitor or, you know, to give instructions 22· ·to their employees when they sign on or a list of things 23· ·that moving into this new building will be expected of 24· ·them.
25· · · · · · So some sort of recognition by Mr. Tepper and

·1· ·his firm that he knows there is limited parking.· In ·2· ·fact, none in the restricted areas and to sort of
·3· ·communicate to that your employees.· But I can make the ·4· ·findings.· I will support this.· I would like you to ·5· ·think about the things that I just talked about.· Thank ·6· ·you.
·7· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you, Commissioner ·8· ·Demeter.· I, too, would like to applaud the Applicant ·9· ·team.· This is a beautiful project.· What you're
10· ·proposing is, their own words, for what an improvement it 11· ·is over the way the building looks today.· So thank you 12· ·for being willing to restore a landmark and hopefully 13· ·preserve it that way.
14· · · · · · My fellow Commissioners have really said it all. 15· ·I, too, can make the findings and will vote in support of 16· ·the project as conditioned, as suggested to be
17· ·conditioned.· So I'm looking for a motion.
18· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Just as a point of clarification, 19· ·the delivery hours that are -- are --
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Same ones.
21· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· -- on the floor, is it the -- 22· ·the -- the 8:00 to 5:00 or is it to match the Peninsula? 23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Match the Peninsula. 24· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· I think it's to match the 25· ·Peninsula, consistent with the Peninsula's request.

·1· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· All right.· So I'll just read into ·2· ·the record:· Vehicle is deliveries shall be prohibited ·3· ·between the hours of 10:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m., and ·4· ·that will exactly match -- match the Peninsula's
·5· ·condition.
·6· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· But we're keeping the rest of this? ·7· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· No.· And -- and this is to replace ·8· ·Condition 7.
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· What -- hold on one second. 10· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Okay.
11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Let -- let -- can you read 12· ·what -- sorry, I didn't -- what is -- what's the current 13· ·condition?
14· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· So it's, "The proposed loading area 15· ·shall be operated, as detailed on the Applicant's loading 16· ·and deliveries narrative.· To minimize congestion and 17· ·traffic conflicts, delivery shall be coordinated so they 18· ·occur primarily during the early morning or evening 19· ·hours, during non-peak office hours, before 8:00 a.m. or 20· ·after 5:00 p.m.· Any deliveries occurring during peak 21· ·office hours, between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. shall be 22· ·coordinated and approved by building management, in order 23· ·to better manage access to the proposed parking areas. 24· ·Delivery shall be allowed to utilize the loading area for 25· ·a maximum of 10 minutes, unless additional time for a

·1· ·specific delivery is needed and has been authorized and ·2· ·coordinated by building management."
·3· · · · · · And then, "The director of Community Development ·4· ·shall have the authority to provide additional
·5· ·operational conditions on the use of the loading area, if ·6· ·impacts resulting from the proposed operation -- if -- if ·7· ·impacts result from the proposed operation and may refer ·8· ·any loading operation issue to the Planning Commission ·9· ·for review, if necessary."
10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· So -- so what I 11· ·would, then, simply suggest, instead of replacing that -- 12· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Uh-huh.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· -- simply adding a
14· ·provision that in addition to that, at no -- you know, 15· ·under no circumstances shall deliveries take place 16· ·between -- and if -- and -- and again, I'm trusting you 17· ·on what -- what you're telling me it is for the
18· ·Peninsula.· If that's what it is --
19· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Yes.
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· -- then in addition to the 21· ·conditions -- 'cause what I don't want to do is make it 22· ·less restricted than what you were already proposing. 23· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Okay.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· But in addition to the 25· ·conditions that were in the packet, and at no time should

·1· ·any delivery -- 'cause -- 'cause what I think I
·2· ·understood was that it would be discouraged -- deliveries ·3· ·before 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 p.m. would simply be ·4· ·discouraged and -- and it would be encouraged that they ·5· ·would take place during those times; right?
·6· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· The condition reads so they're ·7· ·"encouraged" --
·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Right.
·9· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· -- to incur before --
10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Right.
11· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· -- and after.· I think it was to 12· ·avoid conflicts with the parking.· So it is in contrary 13· ·to what your goal is now.
14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· I see.· Okay.· Any other 15· ·thoughts on then how it should -- should -- should it 16· ·just be replaced or what -- what do you think?
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· I didn't understand 18· ·the -- the comment that this is contrary to --
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· So -- so -- you're right. 20· ·Now I'm remembering it.· The -- the -- the -- the
21· ·conditions, as they were currently written, were actually 22· ·trying to avoid conflicts with the parking.· So they were 23· ·actually saying the deliveries were to be encouraged to 24· ·take place during non-peak hours --
25· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Coordinated on --

·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· -- so before 8:00 -- 8:00 ·2· ·a.m. and --
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· -- the (Inaudible) ·4· ·primarily.
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· -- after 5:00 p.m.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Right.
·7· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· But that if they were to ·8· ·take place between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., they would ·9· ·have to be coordinated and managed so that they wouldn't 10· ·be sitting there for an hour, because it might impact. 11· · · · · · So -- so I -- I -- I think given what we've 12· ·heard, and given the fact that at least we've heard from 13· ·the Applicant that the delivery probably isn't going to 14· ·be an issue, that maybe it should, if not replace it, but 15· ·maybe remove the part about the encouragement between 16· ·before 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., but then add the
17· ·restriction that at no time can the deliveries take place 18· ·before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m., if again, if that 19· ·is what the same restrictions are for the Peninsula. 20· ·And -- I don't know, you -- you said you might've had a 21· ·proposed condition that you were considering.
22· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Just, I under -- could you, 23· ·Masa, read -- tell us again what the restriction is on 24· ·the hotel?
25· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· "Vehicle delivery or loading shall

·1· ·be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. through ·2· ·7:00 a.m."
·3· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you.· Okay.· So ·4· ·Commissioner Wolfe, would -- for my benefit, would you ·5· ·say again what you're suggesting.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· I -- I'm going to let ·7· ·Mr. Snow take a crack at --
·8· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· -- what I think he wanted 10· ·to suggest, given what we were hearing and --
11· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· I --
12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· -- then -- then we can make 13· ·comments on it.
14· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Yeah.· I -- I think, kind of working 15· ·from the -- and this is Condition Number 7 -- working 16· ·from the way it was written, if we look at the second 17· ·sentence, it says, "To minimize congestion and traffic 18· ·conflicts, deliveries shall be coordinated so that they 19· ·occur primarily during early morning or evening hours." 20· · · · · · There, I think we would strike, "early."· So it 21· ·would say, "During morning or evening hours, during 22· ·non-peak office hours, before 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.," 23· ·and add, to the end of that sentence, ", however,
24· ·delivery shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 25· ·p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day."

·1· · · · · · And then, so we've got when it's prohibited. ·2· ·Within that time frame, there's further encouragement ·3· ·towards when you would do it in the morning or in the ·4· ·evening to avoid the parking conflicts.· And then, we've ·5· ·got the balance of the condition remains with
·6· ·coordination, et cetera.· I -- I --
·7· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Why don't you read all ·8· ·three sentences, then.
·9· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Okay.
10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· 'Cause we -- we have -- 11· ·there's two sentences here that pertain to this, and I 12· ·think you're going to add a third, but just -- let's hear 13· ·how they go.
14· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Okay.· I think the -- the way, with 15· ·the edits I just talked about, the first sentence remains 16· ·unchanged, "The proposed loading area shall be operated 17· ·as detailed on the Applicant's loading and deliveries 18· ·narrative."
19· · · · · · The second sentence, "To minimize congestion and 20· ·traffic conflicts, deliveries shall be coordinated so 21· ·that they occur primarily during morning or evening 22· ·hours, during non-peak office hours (before 8:00 a.m. and 23· ·after 5:00 p.m.), however, deliveries shall be prohibited 24· ·between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the
25· ·following day."· And then, the rest would stay the same,

·1· ·if you'd like me to read the rest of it.
·2· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· No.· But including the ·3· ·"any deliveries occurring during," that stays in, too? ·4· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Yes.
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· So my -- my only question ·7· ·to the rest of the Commission is that, the -- the idea ·8· ·that -- now that I'm reading it again, the idea that ·9· ·these deliveries were being encouraged to take place 10· ·during these morning and afternoon hours were really to 11· ·alleviate constraints with the people parking there, 12· ·which is really only about two or three spaces.
13· · · · · · So I'm wondering if that's something we would 14· ·want to remove, because our concern might be the impact 15· ·to others around it and if it is, it's going to be 16· ·shorter term deliveries, let the impact be a little bit 17· ·greater on those who are actually parking at the building 18· ·itself.· Just a question.
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I want to just point out 20· ·that -- that perhaps we just clarify this a little bit 21· ·better.· According to my calculations, parking would 22· ·occur primarily -- not parking -- the deliveries would 23· ·occur primarily between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 and 24· ·10:00 p.m., rather than blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. 25· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Right.

·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· That's according to what ·2· ·we just said.
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· No, I understand.· And I'm ·4· ·just asking whether that is -- given everything we heard ·5· ·today -- let's just say this:· I would be okay with there ·6· ·being a little bit more impact on the property owner, ·7· ·with respect to deliveries during those peak hours, since ·8· ·we are concerned about the parking and -- and, you know, ·9· ·if -- if a couple people who are parking there, if -- if 10· ·that's a way to alleviate some of the early morning hours 11· ·and late afternoon or, you know, evening deliveries, I 12· ·would be okay with it and that's all I'm suggesting. 13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Well, to keep it
14· ·consistent with the Peninsula, then we are giving them a 15· ·six-hour window.· Although, it's separated, one in the 16· ·morning and five in the late afternoon.· And that would 17· ·leave the other hours open for manipulating the two cars 18· ·that are going to be there.· They would not be -- I 19· ·mean --
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· I'm --
21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- it's just a lot of 22· ·words.
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· I said what I said.· I'm 24· ·okay with it.
25· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Yeah, I -- I'm fine with

·1· ·where we are right now.
·2· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I don't understand. ·3· ·Where are we now?
·4· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Mr. Snow just read.
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I know, but it's very ·6· ·complicated.· I don't need before 8:00 a.m. and after ·7· ·5:00 p.m.· I need between 7:00 and 8:00 and 5:00 and ·8· ·10:00.· That delineates the hours that we are telling -- ·9· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Well, except -- no, we're 10· ·also --
11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· But why we -- why -- well, 12· ·why do we -- why are we restricting deliveries between 13· ·8:00 and 5:00?
14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· To -- to ease up access 15· ·of the parking there.
16· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Right, but those cars are 17· ·going to be there all day, because it's an office
18· ·building.
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· So then, take out all the 20· ·park -- all the delivery restrictions.· I don't
21· ·understand the conflict.
22· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Where we started was that 23· ·they would be encouraged to deliver before 8:00 a.m. and 24· ·after 5:00.· As a practical matter, if we're trying to 25· ·match the restriction that the hotel is living with,

·1· ·you're right, the result is 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 to ·2· ·10:00 p.m.; however, we've done nothing to restrict the ·3· ·deliveries between 8:00 and 5:00, only saying that any ·4· ·deliveries occurring during that period are on the ·5· ·property management owner to deal with any coordination ·6· ·efforts.· If we're concerned as to a lag in being able to ·7· ·move a vehicle, if it needs to be moved, that's -- that's ·8· ·kind of a horse of a different color it seems to me. ·9· ·Right?
10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· So what are you
11· ·suggesting, Commissioner?
12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· All right.· I'll -- I'll -- 13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I don't understand. 14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· I'll -- I'll -- I'll -- 15· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I don't understand. 16· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· I'll take away my concern. 17· ·I was simply trying to balance the concerns of the 18· ·surrounding area, versus the concerns of the property 19· ·owner.· And I was trying to move the balance a little 20· ·bit -- a little bit more of the onus on the property 21· ·owner and a little of the onus away from the impact to 22· ·the neighbors.· But if you're okay with that, then I'm 23· ·okay with what Commissioner Snow had suggested.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Can you read it again, 25· ·Mr. Snow?

·1· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· And -- and I'll be the attorney ·2· ·still.· Sorry, I'm not a Commissioner.
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· That's all right.· That's ·4· ·all right.
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Let's -- let's hear what ·6· ·you --
·7· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· See how much you're
·8· ·confusing me.
·9· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· And if I can, if I'll -- I'll just 10· ·read the second sentence, 'cause that's the one with the 11· ·edit.
12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Uh-huh.
13· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· So the second sentence of Condition 14· ·Number 7.· "To minimize congestion and traffic conflicts, 15· ·delivery shall be coordinated so that they occur
16· ·primarily during morning or evening hours, during
17· ·non-peak office hours, before 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 18· ·p.m., however, deliveries shall be prohibited between the 19· ·hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day." 20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· So how is that different 21· ·from 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 to 10:00 p.m.?· I don't 22· ·understand.
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· It allows deliveries 24· ·between 8:00 and 5:00 by saying 7:00 and 8:00 and 5:00 25· ·p.m., you're saying they aren't allowed between 8:00 and

·1· ·5:00.
·2· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Right.
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· This is allowing deliveries ·4· ·between 8:00 and 5:00.· What you were suggesting -- at ·5· ·least my understanding of what you were suggesting, was ·6· ·restricting deliveries and saying they could not take ·7· ·place between 8:00 and 5:00.
·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· (Unintelligible) -- ·9· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· And -- and so I think -- so I think 10· ·the gist of it or the -- the takeaway is parking is still 11· ·encouraged.· So it says, "To minimize conflicts, the 12· ·delivery shall be coordinated so that they occur
13· ·primarily during," so we're encouraging, the condition 14· ·encourages the deliveries primarily between 7:00 and 8:00 15· ·a.m. and between 5:00 and 10:00.· But then, prohibiting 16· ·anything before 7:00 -- between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 17· ·the following day, so --
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· That's fine.
19· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· And that's -- so that's what this -- 20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· That's fine.· And the 21· ·second says --
22· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· -- that's what this says.· It
23· ·maintains --
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- if deliveries come 25· ·between 8:00 and 5:00, it's coordinated with the

·1· ·building --
·2· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Correct.
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- management?
·4· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Correct.· And so, that's -- so I ·5· ·think what -- what the condition is drafted does, is it ·6· ·maintains that encouragement to try and do it before or ·7· ·after office hours, but it allows it -- it allows it ·8· ·during the day and it prohibits it between 10:00 and ·9· ·7:00.· Before, they could have done early hour at 5:00 10· ·a.m. or 6:00 -- 6:00 a.m. or -- or whatever, in the early 11· ·morning hours, now they can't.· They can on -- they can 12· ·only do that between --
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Right.· And I -- I -- I 14· ·actually think that what I suggested was exactly that, to 15· ·limit them to one hour in the morning, five hours in the 16· ·afternoon, however -- and I said consistent with the 17· ·Peninsula 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. prohibited delivery. 18· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· And -- and I think this condition 19· ·achieves that, as -- as drafted.
20· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· I do, too.· I do, too.· I do 21· ·have one other minor question.· The first sentence of 22· ·this condition says that, "The loading area shall be 23· ·operated as detailed on the Applicant's loading and 24· ·deliveries narrative."
25· · · · · · Are we comfortable that they're, particularly in

·1· ·light of what we're now suggesting, that we've not ·2· ·created any conflict between this condition and the ·3· ·narrative?
·4· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· I -- I would ask Staff to maybe take ·5· ·a look at that and -- and weigh in, but I would also say ·6· ·this is the more specific, the condition, so it's going ·7· ·to control, if there were some conflict --
·8· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.
·9· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· -- this is going to -- the
10· ·specificity of this condition would control.
11· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.· I'm still looking for 12· ·a motion.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· I've done too much talking 14· ·already.· You make a --
15· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Don't make me call on 16· ·somebody.
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· You -- you want to -- you 18· ·want a motion?
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· (Inaudible) they have to 20· ·initiate a motion.
21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Madam Chair, do you want 22· ·a motion?
23· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Yes, please.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· All right.· This is 25· ·resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of

·1· ·Beverly Hills, conditionally approving a development ·2· ·plan, review and Historic Incentive Permit to allow for ·3· ·the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial ·4· ·building and the construction of a new third story, along ·5· ·with waivers, deviations of certain development standards ·6· ·at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, as amended by the ·7· ·parking condition that we've just added.
·8· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· And I think the -- the recommendation ·9· ·Staff included as well, as far as the -- the condition on 10· ·Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit. 11· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Yes.
12· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· The -- the text changed the -- Edgar 13· ·presented in his Staff report.
14· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· And is it not more
15· ·accurately --
16· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.
17· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· -- a delivery condition, not 18· ·a parking condition?· Okay.· We have a motion.· Do I have 19· ·a second?
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Second.
21· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Could we have a roll call 22· ·vote, please.
23· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Commissioner Wolfe.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Yes.
25· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Commissioner Demeter.

·1· ·COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Yes.
·2· ·CITY CLERK:· Commissioner Ostroff.
·3· ·COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Yes.
·4· ·CITY CLERK:· Vice Chair Kaplan.
·5· ·VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Yes.
·6· · · · · · ·(End of recording.)
·7
·8
·9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E
·2
·3
·4· · · · · · I, KRISHA ALATORRE, Certified Shorthand
·5· ·Reporter/Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was ·6· ·authorized to transcribe the foregoing recorded
·7· ·proceeding, and that the transcript is a true and
·8· ·accurate transcription of my shorthand notes, to the best ·9· ·of my ability, taken while listening to the provided 10· ·recording.
11 12· · · · · · I further certify that I am not of counsel or 13· ·attorney for either or any of the parties to said
14· ·proceedings, nor in any way interested in the events of 15· ·this cause, and that I am not related to any of the 16· ·parties thereto.
17 18· ·Dated this 23rd day of October, 2023.
19 20
21· · · · · · · · · · · · · _______________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · KRISHA ALATORRE, CSR. NO. 13255 22 23
24 25

EXHIBIT B
Jenna Snow ● Historic Preservation Consulting ● 323/317-3297 ● [email protected] Memorandum
DATE: October 12, 2023
TO: Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
FROM: Jenna Snow
RE: 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Darrow Office Building, Beverly Hills, CA
Introduction
A development project is proposed for the commercial building located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, historically known as the Darrow Office Building, in Beverly Hills, California (Assessor Parcel 4425-017-013, “subject property” or “property”). Designed in 1946 by noted architect John Lautner, the Darrow Office Building is one of his few commercial buildings. A Historic Resource Evaluation of the subject property was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK) in March 2022 that concluded the property is eligible as a local City of Beverly Hills Landmark, as well as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).

The development project includes rehabilitation of the exterior of the building; construction of new interior circulation, demising walls, and finishes, and construction of a one-story, 1,404 square foot, rooftop addition surrounded by a covered roof deck that encompasses the majority of the roof. To allow for the project to deviate from the minimum dimensions required for trash storage and on-site loading space requirements, the property owner has applied for a City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentives Permit (HIP). In addition, the project requires Development Plan Review (DPR). The HIP and DPR are both discretionary actions that require an environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The proposed project was considered at the July 13, 2023 City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission approved a motion that the proposed project “complies with the Standards of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation.”1 This motion also included conditional approval of the HIP, DPR, and Class 1, Class 3, and Class 31 CEQA Categorical Exemptions. However, as described in this memo, based on guidance provided by the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services, it is not possible for a rooftop addition to a two-story building to conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards).

Furthermore, as the subject property is eligible for listing in the California Register, it is considered a historical resource for purposes of the CEQA. As described below, because the proposed project 1 See Section 8.1. of “Draft Resolution.”
Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 2 does not conform with the Secretary’s Standards, it would constitute a significant impact to the historical resource.

Qualifications
With over 20 years of experience on both the east and west coasts of the United States, as well as internationally, I have a strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state, and local regulations. In February 2015, I launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice, after over a dozen years with Chattel, Inc. Over the course of my career, I have worked on over 100 historic preservation projects. I am included on the City of Beverly Hills Qualified Consultant list and have worked on quite a few projects in Beverly Hills.

Among the projects I have worked on in Beverly Hills include a historic resources survey of the former industrial area east of the “Golden Triangle;” rehabilitation of the Unocal 76 gas station at 427 N. Crescent Drive; and a successful National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Beverly Hills Women’s Club at 1700 Chevy Chase Drive.

Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit (HIP)
The City of Beverly Hills established a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) in 2015 “to incentivize the protection of significant historic resources by providing a process by which owners of locally designated historic landmarks may request waivers or deviations from certain development standards.”2 A HIP is available to properties that are local Beverly Hills Landmarks, as well as “any property that the cultural heritage commission or the city council has determined, at a preliminary hearing,… merits formal consideration by the cultural heritage commission for nomination as a landmark.”3 In order to receive a HIP, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed project either:4

1. Complies with the “Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings”; or

2. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the “Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings”, but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property
2 Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3250 3 Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3251 4 Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3256.A Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 3 Subject Property Significance
KCK, in their 2022 Historic Resource Evaluation, write, “The commercial building, the Darrow Office Building, at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is a rare extant commercial building designed by master architect John Lautner…[it] is an excellent example of the Late Modern Architectural style, and an early example of sustainable design applied to a commercial building.”5 The Darrow Office Building is also “a rare extant commercial building designed by Lautner.”6 Character-defining features are those visual and tangible aspects of a historic building that identify a particular architectural style, property type, and/or period of construction. Based on significance of the subject property, the KCK 2002 Historic Resource Evaluation defines character-defining features of the Darrow Office Building as: 7
• horizontal massing
• bold geometric volumes
• sculptural design
• large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the west elevation • ribbon windows
KCK also prepared an Impacts Analysis Report in March 2022 that identified additional character defining features.8 They are:
• Sculptural and geometric massing of building’s three visible elevations • Brick and stucco on exterior elevations
• Fins on front elevation
• Vertical windows on front upper elevation
5 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation,” March 2, 2022, 34 6 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation,” March 2, 2022, 36. 7 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation,” March 2, 2022, 35. 8 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Darrow Office Building, Beverly Hills, California, Impacts Analysis,” March 15, 2022, 5-6.

Figure 1: Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Blvd., north (left) and west (right) elevations, view southeast (Snow, 2023)
Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 4 • Ground level storefront/entry assemblies on front elevation • Band of windows under canopy on ground level of front and side elevations • Bank of louvers on upper level of side and rear elevations • Stairway on side elevation
• Brick wall along the side elevation
• Canted sliding doors with wood frame and glazing under louvers • Light court on party wall side of building
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes exterior rehabilitation of the existing 6,288 square foot office building and construction of a rooftop addition. The 15-foot high addition would increase the overall height of the building from 23-feet 9-inches to 38-feet, not including the additional height of the elevator tower, angled solar panels, or mechanical equipment enclosure, as shown on project drawings.

Additional work proposed includes complete reconfiguration of all interior spaces, demising walls, finishes, circulation elements, and entrances along the north and south elevations.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) were developed by the National Park Service initially in 1978 and revised in 1995. The Secretary’s Standards were initially developed to provide guidelines for review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and federal historic preservation tax credit applications but have been incorporated into CEQA regulations, as well as, in Beverly Hills, the HIP process. The Secretary’s Standards are the principal philosophical structure throughout the United States that provides a consistent framework and vocabulary for the field. The goals of the Secretary’s Standards are twofold: preservation of historic materials and preservation of a property’s “distinguishing character.” In the absence of guidance on conformance with the Secretary’s Standards specific to the City of Beverly Hills, it is typical to rely on guidance prepared by the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Service. The introduction to the Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Guidelines) state, “the Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources.” In addition to the Guidelines, the National Park Service has Figure 2: Proposed project plans, Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Blvd., west elevation, view east (Belzberg Architects and Stephen Billings, Landscape Architecture 2023) Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 5 published considerable information and interpretation on the Secretary’s Standards, including 50 Preservation Briefs, 50 Tech Notes, and 56 Interpreting the Standards Bulletins, as well as an on-line guide to the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program entitled “Incentives!” that has detailed, illustrated sections on meeting the Secretary’s Standards.

The Secretary’s Standards define four treatments for historic buildings: Preservation, Restoration, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation. The treatment proposed for the Darrow Office Building is Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is “defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” The Rehabilitation Standards are:

1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.

2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.

3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.

4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.

Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.

8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

The National Park Service, throughout its guidance, consistently and unequivocally recommends against rooftop additions on two-story buildings as they will detract from the historic character of the building and will not meet the Secretary’s Standards. The Guidelines specifically do not recommend “constructing a rooftop addition that is highly visible, which negatively impacts the character of the Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 6 historic building.”9 In addition, the Guidelines state a “rooftop addition on low-rise, one- to threestory historic buildings that is highly visible, overwhelms the building.” The Interpreting the Standards Bulletin No. 47: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings begins by stating, “the roofline is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building…Even a simple roofline defines a building’s character.” The bulletin goes on to state, “In most cases…they [rooftop additions] are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.”
Finally, guidance from 1997 in a Technical Preservation Service “Rehabilitation Project Review,” states that “adding one or more floors to a two-or three-story building generally will change the massing of the building and result in a change of character.” If a rooftop addition is to be constructed, it needs to be “inconspicuous from the public-right-of-way and…not damage or obscure character defining features.”
Evaluation for conformance with the Secretary’s Standards Kaplan Chen Kaplan prepared an Impacts Analysis Report in March 2022 that concluded that the proposed project conforms with the Secretary’s Standards. However, in discussing the rooftop addition, which is the largest and most visually prominent feature of the proposed project, the Impacts Analysis Report does not conclude that it conforms with the Secretary’s Standards. Rather, the Impacts Analysis Report states, “The partial third story will alter the massing of the building but its design and materials work to minimize the visual effect or impact of the added partial story.” (emphasis added)10 Perhaps minimized, the massing will nevertheless be fundamentally altered by the rooftop addition.

A prominent third-floor addition on a two-story building cannot conform with the Secretary’s Standards, as is made abundantly clear in the guidance from the National Park Service quoted above.

The proposed rooftop addition would be highly visible from all elevations and surrounding areas along Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as Charleville Boulevard. In fact, the rooftop addition will likely be highly visible from Durant Drive, a block to the south.

The rooftop addition will, without a doubt, negatively impact the character of the building.

Specifically, as noted above, the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes are two of the most important character-defining features of the building’s design. The canopy between first and second floors, with horizontal ribbon windows pressing up against it, provides a strong horizontal axis.

Horizontality is reinforced by metal louvers along west and south elevations. Even the simple cornice and parapet contribute to the overall horizontal massing and help to define the building’s character. The proposed project would overwhelm the historic building and would shift the horizontal massing to a more vertical massing. Specifically, the primary Santa Monica Boulevard facing façade would transform from a horizontal orientation to a vertical. As noted above, the change in massing would result in a change in character, not at all in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards.

While the HIP does not require “strict compliance” with the Secretary’s Standards, it does require that a project “preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features.” The 9 Ann E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Building, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 159-160. 10 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Darrow Office Building, Beverly Hills, California, Impacts Analysis,” March 15, 2022, 13.

Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 7 proposed rooftop addition certainly does not preserve the most important character-defining features of the Darrow Office Building – the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA defines a historical resource as:
a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant (California Public Resources Code, PRC §21084.1).

According to the CEQA Guidelines, a project would result in a significant impact to historical resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. A substantial adverse change is defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(4)(b)(1), as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired, according to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(4)(b)(2), when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to §5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of §5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.11
A substantial adverse change occurs when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner a resource’s character-defining features. In other words, if a project would render an eligible historic resource ineligible, then there would be a significant adverse effect under CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines specify that a project “shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource” if it follows the Secretary’s Standards (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(3)). Compliance with the Secretary’s Standards indicates that a project may have a less than significant impact on an historical resource.

As the Darrow Office Building is eligible for listing in the National and California Registers, it is a historical resource as defined by CEQA. As described previously, the proposed project will significantly alter character defining features of the building, specifically the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes and does not conform with the Secretary’s Standards. As a result, construction 11 CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(4)(b)(2). Emphasis added.

Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 8 of the rooftop addition would render this historical resource ineligible for listing in either the National or California Registers. Therefore, the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and would result in a significant impact.

Conclusion
I commend the City of Beverly Hills for encouraging rehabilitation of historic buildings through a historic incentive permit. However, this is not the right project to employ the incentive as the proposed project does not conform with the Secretary’s Standards. The Darrow Office Building has a truly unique architectural design. It retains a remarkably high degree of integrity and the exterior looks nearly identical to how it appeared when it was constructed in 1946. By adding a rooftop addition, the horizontal massing of the building would change to a more vertical orientation and the low height of the building would increase over 60%. The rooftop addition would overwhelm the building. Not only does the proposed project not meet the requirements of a HIP, but it would also materially alter character-defining features such that the proposed project would result in a significant impact under CEQA.

EXHIBIT C
523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Imagining change in historic environments through
design, research, and technology

MEMORANDUM
DATE November 20, 2023 PROJECT
NUMBER
23292
TO Victor De la Cruz
Partner
PROJECT 9884 South Santa Monica
Boulevard, Beverly Hills
OF Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
FROM Flora Chou, Project Manager
Stephanie Hodal, Cultural
Resources Planner
CC John Lesak, Principal, Page &
Turnbull
VIA Email
REGARDING Professional opinion on SOI Standards compliance of proposed project at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building), Beverly Hills

INTRODUCTION
At the request of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Page & Turnbull (P&T) reviewed the project proposed by Impact Real Estate Group at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, in Beverly Hills, California (Assessor Parcel Number 4328-003-001). The project is applying for the Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit Program, which requires findings be made that the project complies with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” (SOI Standards and SOI Guidelines), or if it does not strictly comply, that the project “protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property” (Beverly Hills City Code, 10-3-3256).

The project proposes to rehabilitate the exterior of the existing two-story, 1946 commercial office building, also known as the Darrow Office Building, reconfigure the interior, and construct a new third story addition. P&T generally concurs with the Attachment E: Impacts Analysis report prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan in March 2022 for the project applicant that the exterior rehabilitation substantially complies with the SOI Standards and SOI Guidelines (see Methodology for report reference). However, in our professional opinion, the proposed 15-foot high rooftop addition with its projecting roof does not comply with the SOI Guidelines and other guidance for applying and interpreting the SOI Standards for rooftop additions.
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]

PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Background
The 6,000-square-foot rectangular parcel at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard is located on the south side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Charleville Boulevard to the west and Lasky Drive to the east. On the parcel is a 6,288-square-foot two-story commercial office building, also known as the Darrow Building, with a rear surface parking lot. According to a Historic Resource Evaluation report by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, on behalf of the proposed project applicant, the building was designed in a Late Modern/Mid-Century Modern style for owner John Darrow by Modernist architect John Lautner. The original building permit from 1946 lists Douglas Honnold as the architect, though the design is attributed to Lautner who was part of the design team in Honnold’s office at the time.

Both architects are on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects.

The City of Beverly Hills 2004 Historic Resources Survey found the property to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) under Criterion C as “an important and extremely rare example of a commercial building designed by renowned Modernist architect John Lautner.” A subsequent 2022 Historic Resource Evaluation report by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, on behalf of the proposed project applicant, found the property is also eligible for the Beverly Hills Local Register of Historic Properties. The property owner has initiated a Beverly Hills Historic Landmark nomination based on the property’s significance as a Late Modern/Mid-Century Modern design by Modernist architect John Lautner. The Cultural Heritage Commission held a preliminary hearing on April 13, 2022 and determined the nomination merits formal consideration as a landmark, though City Council approval of the designation is pending. However, the Cultural Heritage Commission considered only the Darrow Building in its existing form for landmark nomination. It did not consider the proposed project, including the proposed third story addition.

The City of Beverly Hills offers a Historic Incentive Permit Program for properties designated as a local landmark. To be eligible for the program the following findings must be made:

1. The proposed project either:
a. Complies with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” or
b. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” but nonetheless 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]

PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property.

A description of the proposed rooftop addition and the Darrow Building’s character-defining features are provided at the end of this memorandum after the Methodology.

Basis of Review
The SOI Standards are federally recognized standards for treating historic resources. In applying and interpreting the SOI Standards, practitioners rely on guidance from the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Service, including Guidelines to Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, as well as National Park Service Preservation Briefs and Bulletins.

Some of these address rooftop additions, specifically:
• Guidelines to Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, specifically do not recommend highly visible rooftop additions, and additions that negatively impact the character of the historic building. The Guidelines also state that “rooftop addition[s] on low-rise, one- to three-story historic buildings” are not recommended, nor are additions that visually overwhelm the building.
• National Park Service Preservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:

Preservation Concerns, addresses additions generally by stating that any new addition to a historic building “should preserve its historic character,” that additions should “be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building,” and cautions that “a new addition to a historic building has the potential to change its historic character as well as to damage and destroy significant historic materials and features.” It goes on to state that “[a] new addition should always be subordinate to the historic building; it should not compete in size, scale or design with the historic building." Finally, it warns that additions that overpower the historic form and change the scale will usually compromise the historic character of the building. In regard to rooftop additions specifically, Preservation Brief 14 states: “It is difficult, if not impossible, to minimize the impact of adding an entire new floor to relatively low buildings, such as small-scale residential or commercial structures, even if the new addition is set back from the plane of the façade. Constructing another floor on top of a small one, two or three-story building is seldom appropriate for buildings of this size as it would measurably alter the building’s proportions and profile, and negatively impact its historic character.”
• National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 36, Rooftop Additions, states that rooftop additions are almost never appropriate for buildings that are less than four stories high, should not be more than one story in height, and are more compatible on buildings that are adjacent to taller buildings or in dense urban environments. According to ITS Number 36, rooftop additions that do not meet these principles generally will not meet the SOI Standards.
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]

PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 • National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 47, Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings, states that in most cases, rooftop additions are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less, and reiterate that the roofline is an important, character-defining feature of a historic building.

SOI Standards Compliance Discussion
The proposed project adds a 1,404-square-foot addition to the roof of the two-story Darrow Building. In its current state, the character defining features that have been identified for the Darrow Building include its sculptural and geometric massing (see Character-Defining Features section). As more fully discussed below, not only does the proposed addition adversely impact this character defining feature and the architectural qualities of the Darrow Building, it fails to conform with the SOI Standards.

According to the above referenced guidance documents, rooftop additions on buildings under three stories are not appropriate. They can measurably alter the building’s proportions and profile, as stated in Preservation Brief 14, which is the case with the proposed rooftop addition. With its prominent projecting roof that extends almost to the edge of the existing roof on all three visible sides (north, west, and south), the proposed rooftop addition not only alters the building’s proportions and profile, but it also changes the historic building’s sculptural and geometric massing that is a character-defining feature. It creates a new sculptural massing that competes with the historic building, rather than be subordinate or secondary, as is recommended by the SOI Guidelines. The projecting roof is highly visible from the public rights-of-way on South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, which is not in line with the SOI Guidelines, Preservation Brief 14, and ITS Number 36 guidance, and is visually overwhelming in its size, shape, and use of wood finish on the underside of the canopy.

Further, even if the Darrow Building were greater than three stories, such that a rooftop addition could possibly be appropriate, rooftop additions should nonetheless be no more than one-story in height. While the proposed rooftop addition is technically one-story, its height is actually akin to one and one half stories since it is approximately 15 feet tall to the top of the addition’s roof, not including additional features, such as the elevator shaft, solar panels, and other mechanical equipment. This is significantly taller than the floor heights of the Darrow Building, which are approximately 10 feet each. The height of the proposed rooftop addition further adds to the visibility of its projecting roof and its impact on the Darrow Building’s character-defining sculptural and geometric massing that is contrary to the provided guidance. 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]

PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Because the proposed rooftop addition does not follow the guidance for applying the SOI Standards, the proposed project does not comply with Standard 9 of the Rehabilitation Standards that addresses additions and exterior alterations. The projecting roof of the proposed rooftop addition is not compatible with the Darrow Building in size, scale, or proportion. It would be highly visible and would alter the Darrow Building’s spatial relationships and its overall historic character.

As designed and shown in the proposed elevations and renderings in Attachment H: Project Plans, the proposed rooftop addition with its projecting roof would not comply with Rehabilitation Standard 9, the SOI Guidelines, or other guidance on applying and interpreting the SOI Standards.

Compliance with the Historic Incentive Permit Program Requirement As the proposed project does not comply with the SOI Standards, it could still be possibly eligible for the Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit Program if it “nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property.”
However, here, the proposed rooftop addition with its projecting roof does not preserve the building’s architectural qualities that would make it eligible for landmark designation. The proposed addition alters the proportions, profile, and sculptural composition of John Lautner’s design. In its prominence and high visibility, the proposed rooftop addition with its projecting roof reshapes the building form in a way that detracts from John Lautner’s design, as well as from its sculptural and geometric massing that is a defining characteristic.

Methodology
Page & Turnbull prepared this memorandum using information from the City of Beverly Hills Planning Division, Planning Commission Report for 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, issued on July 13, 2023 (Planning Commission Report), including the documents attached to the report, particularly:
• Attachment B: City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission, Draft Resolution for Conditional Approval of a Historic Incentive Permit for the Rehabilitation at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, July 13, 2023 (Attachment B: Draft Resolution); • Attachment D: Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation, March 2, 2022 (Attachment D: Historic Resource Evaluation); 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]

PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 • Attachment E: Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Darrow Office Building Beverly Hills, California, Impacts Analysis, March 15, 2022 (Attachment E: Impacts Analysis); • Attachment F: City of Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission Staff Reports, April 13, 2022 (collectively Attachment F: CHC Staff Reports)
o Landmark Initiation, April 13, 2022 (Attachment F: Landmark Initiation) o Preliminary Hearing, April 13, 2022 (Attachment F: Preliminary Hearing) o Attachment A of the April 13, 2022 CHC Staff Report: Preliminary Evaluation completed by the Director of Community Development/Landmark Designation Proceedings Preliminary Evaluation, April 13, 2022 (Attachment F: Preliminary Evaluation)
• Attachment H: Project plans for the proposed project by Belzberg Architects dated April 27, 2023 (Attachment H: Project Plans).

In addition, the memorandum relies on guidance from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, for additions to buildings and additions to rooftops, including:
• Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.: 2017), https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines2017.pdf. • Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, “Preservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns,” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services, last modified August 2010, www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-14-exterior-additions.pdf • “Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, ITS Number 36:

Rooftop Additions,” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services, last modified June 2006, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its36-rooftop-additions.pdf Page & Turnbull staff conducted a site visit to 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard on October 29, 2023.

Proposed Rooftop Addition Description
Based on Attachment H: Project Plans, supplemented by information from Attachment B: Draft Resolution, and Attachment E: Impacts Analysis (see Methdology), the project proposes construction of a new 1,404-square-foot partial third floor, rooftop addition. This would increase the existing height of the building by approximately 15’-3”, from a height of 23’-9” to a proposed height of 38’-0”. 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]

PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 The proposed addition has an irregular floor plan that is set back from the north (front) and west (side) roof edges.1 It aligns with the roof edge at the southeast corner, though it is set back from the south (rear) angled projecting section of wall and is also set back from the east party wall for the north half of the roof.

The addition, housing a conference room, office, and elevator lobby and lounge, would comprise a large predominantly glazed room, including fixed windows and sliding doors. The southeast corner, with a stair, elevator, restroom, and closet, appears to be clad with a solid material that is not described at the south façade. The rooftop surrounding the new addition is to be resurfaced and partially landscaped as an outdoor terrace surrounded by a safety railing (shown as horizontal rails or cables on the elevations and as glass in the renderings) at the roof’s north (front), west (side), and south (rear) perimeter.

The roof of the addition projects beyond the wall enclosures to shade the full roof terrace and extends close to (north), at (west) or beyond (south) the existing roof edge. It is positioned flush to the east party wall. The solid roof plane becomes open slats at its northeast and southwest corners, and an open void above the reconfigured east side interior light court/courtyard. The underside of the projecting roof appears to be finished in wood.

The elevations in Attachment H: Project Plans show an additional 1 foot, 6 inch vertical plane or soffit above the edge of the projecting roof, noted as the top of structure. At the west, Charleville Boulevard side of the building, solar panels are to be mounted vertically on the projecting roof.

Character-Defining Features | Darrow Building
For a property to be eligible for national, state, or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity.

Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials.
1 The memorandum uses the directions (north, west, etc.) from the Planning Commission Report, which are consistent with Attachment E: Impacts Analysis. Because the property is at an angle from due north, the directions for the building’s elevations used in Attachment H: Project Plans are different. The north (front) façade is labeled as the west elevation, the west (side) façade is labeled as the south elevation, and the south (rear) façade is labeled as the east elevation. 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]

PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Because the landmark designation process has not concluded, no definitive character-defining features list is available. Attachment E: Impacts Analysis provides a list of character-defining features for the Darrow Building that was used for this review:
• Sculptural and geometric massing of building’s three visible elevations • Brick and stucco on exterior elevations
• Fins on front elevation
• Vertical windows on front upper elevation
• Ground level storefront/entry assemblies on front elevation2 • Band of windows under canopy on ground level of front and side elevations • Bank of louvers on upper level of side and rear elevations • Stairway on side elevation
• Brick wall along the side elevation
• Canted sliding doors with wood frame and glazing under louvers • Light court on party wall side of building
2 An historic photograph in the Attachment D: Historic Resource Evaluation shows that this part of the ground floor façade was originally stepped back and that the second-floor fins continued to the ground in this area. The extant storefront/entry assembly is a non-original alteration.

EXHIBIT D

GIBRALTAR SQUARE / KATE MANTILINI BUILDING

CONFORMANCE REVIEW REPORT
Prepared for:

City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Prepared by:

Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
13417 Ventura Blvd
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
October 31, 2019
2 Page intentionally left blank
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................5 II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................6 Historical Background................................................................................................................6 Physical Description ..................................................................................................................7 Significance ...............................................................................................................................9 Period of Significance..............................................................................................................10 Character-Defining Features ...................................................................................................10 III. REGULATORY SETTING ..................................................................................................................13 City of Beverly Hills – Landmark .............................................................................................13 City of Beverly Hills – Certificate of Appropriateness..............................................................14 City of Beverly Hills – Historic Incentive Permit ......................................................................14 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT .....................................................................................................................15 Project Description ..................................................................................................................15 V. REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT ...................................................................................................20 Secretary’s Standards .............................................................................................................20 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).........................................................................21 Impacts Analysis......................................................................................................................23 VI. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................43 VII. ATTACHMENTS...............................................................................................................................44 4 Page intentionally left blank
5 I. INTRODUCTION
This report evaluates proposed rehabilitation and improvements to individually designated City of Beverly Hills (City) Landmark No. 30 (Landmark) Gibraltar Square / Kate Mantilini Building for historical resource impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Landmark contains three contributing components on one parcel (subject property; Assessor’s Parcel Number 4335-028-081) at 9107 Wilshire Boulevard:

1. Banking Hall and Tower Base (1958; Pereira and Luckman),

2. Tower (Tower) (1959; Pereira and Luckman), and

3. Kate Mantilini restaurant (Kate Mantilini) (1986; Morphosis).

The exterior of Gibraltar Square was designated for its Miesian, a derivative of Late Modern, International Style, architecture, while the exterior and interior of Kate Mantilini was designated for its Postmodern architecture. The Garage designed by Maxwell Starkman and Associates, and the bank vault added to the south elevation of the Tower in 1974, were each excluded from the Landmark designation and are thus non-contributing features of the property. Refer to Attachment A for historic images, Attachment B for contemporary photographs, and Attachment C for Landmark Resolution.

The proposed project would rehabilitate the Banking Hall and Tower for hotel adaptive use and would retain Kate Mantilini for continued restaurant use (proposed project). The proposed scope of rehabilitation includes:
• structural retrofit of the Banking Hall and Tower,
• reconstruction of the glazing system on the Banking Hall, • partial replacement of existing glazing systems on the Tower, • new pool on the Banking Hall roof,
• relocation of trash and loading to within the Banking Hall, accessible by the alley. • landscape improvements throughout, and
• port cochere improvements
Chattel, Inc. (Chattel) has collaborated with project architect R&A and the development team on the proposed project to ensure conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards). This review is based on a set of drawings prepared by R&A dated October 30, 2019, including renderings, landscape and lighting (Attachment D), which is to be submitted as part of an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) for the hotel, “Structural Feasibility Study of Conversion of an Existing Office Building to Hotel Occupancy at 9107 Wilshire Boulevard” prepared by Jeff Guh Engineering, Civil & Structural Engineers dated October 23, 2018 (Structural Report, Attachment E), “9107 Wilshire Boulevard Building Enclosure and Façade Study” prepared by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. dated April 25, 2019 (Attachment F), and sketch of proposed Tower glazing system prepared by Excel Property Management (Attachment G).

The following report finds the proposed project to be in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards.

Projects in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards are generally mitigated to a less than significant level or exempt under CEQA; therefore, this report finds historical resource impacts of the proposed project less than significant. We recommend that (1) a qualified professional historic architect provide on-going design collaboration and review and construction monitoring and (2) a qualified professional photographer provide HABS Level II documentation, in order to ensure that the proposed project remains in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards through final design and construction.
6 II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Historical Background
Developed in 1958 as the headquarters of Gibraltar Savings and Loan. A one-story Banking Hall and Tower Base was built in 1958 and designed by the firm Pereira and Luckman. In 1959, the sevenstory Tower, also designed by Pereira and Luckman, was completed. A one-story Bank Building for Beverly Hills National Bank and a multi-story Garage was built in 1968 (1968 Bank Building) and designed by Maxwell Starkman and Associates. In 1986, Morphosis redesigned the 1968 Bank Building into Kate Mantilini.

Gibraltar Square / Kate Mantilini Building was designated a City Landmark on May 17, 2016 (Resolution No. 16-R-13076). The following colored graphic shows the contributing and noncontributing elements.

Figure 1. Landmark, construction dates denoted.
7 Physical Description
The following physical description was excerpted from the Landmark Resolution:

Located along the north side of Wilshire Boulevard amongst the larger commercial chainbanking institutions along this busy thoroughfare, the Gibraltar Savings and Loan building was constructed in 1958 as their main branch with a seven-story office tower erected one year later in 1959. With its large surface parking lot located on the east half of the parcel fronted by an extended canopy, the entire complex was known as Gibraltar Square. The overall composition of the original Miesian style building consists of various projecting and recessed horizontal and vertical rectilinear volumes elegantly arranged so that each element is distinct in color and prominence.

Rectangular in plan, the original one-story Gibraltar Savings branch office and the sevenstory tower occupies the west half of the parcel. Both are of steel-frame construction with non-load bearing glass curtain walls. The one-story Gibraltar Savings branch building at the west end of the parcel is capped by a flat roof with aluminum framed plate glass windows on the south (front, primary), west, and north elevations. Grey-colored metal enamel spandrels are above the windows on all three sides. The six bays of this building fronting Wilshire Boulevard are glazed while the bays facing North Oakhurst Drive are interrupted by a large section of polished black granite stone cladding. The same granite cladding covers the exterior wall surfaces of the raised portion below the cantilever tower and the recessed main entrance area near the center of the property facing Wilshire Boulevard.

A flat cantilevered canopy with metal fascia shelters the south-facing former savings and loan office’s main entrance and extends the length of the building east to the recessed entrance area for the tower. Historic photographs document that this canopy continued east to North Doheny Drive sheltering the length of the sidewalk. At one time the institution’s name, “GIBRALTAR SAVINGS,” fronted the canopy’s edge above the glazed double door entrance in large channel letters but has since been removed. North of the canopy, behind a terrazzo wall enclosing the east half of the property, was initially a surface parking lot. This entire area was later replaced with the bank building and parking structure erected in 1968.

White terrazzo planters filled with lush landscaping run the length of the primary elevation with an opening for the glazed, metal-framed Gibraltar Savings branch office entrance (the original main entry into the bank). The planters round the building’s southwest and southeast corners.

Unlike the branch office portion that extends to the sidewalk, the seven-story office tower’s black granite base is set back from the property line such that the tower dramatically cantilevers over all four sides of the one-story bank building. The rectangular tower itself, erected in 1959, is also Miesian in style consisting of a distinctive repetitive curtain wall grid of tinted grey vision glazing and aluminum brake metal framed mullions and rails with dark grey enamel spandrels between each floor. On the flat roof a recessed black porcelain enamel screen conceals the office tower’s mechanical equipment. The name “GIBRALTAR” once appeared on the screen’s east and west sides but has since been removed. The ‘ghost’ of the original signage is still visually evident from the street.

The one-story International Style Beverly Hills National Bank building constructed in 1968 at the southeast corner of the parcel was designed to complement the one-story Gibraltar Savings branch office erected ten years earlier at the opposite corner fronting Wilshire Boulevard. Situated at the property line abutting the sidewalk, both utilize a similar arrangement of bays with enamel panels at the roofline. Rectangular in plan with a flat roof, historic photographs reveal that the bank’s south and east elevations featured metal-framed 8 floor-to-ceiling plate glass windows prior to the bank’s remodel in 1985. Unlike the Gibraltar Savings branch office, the Beverly Hills National Bank building’s windows were set back beneath the roof, which was supported by slender metal posts set upon a full-width concrete plinth. A large Beverly Hills National Bank sign once rose from the roof near the bank’s southeast corner.

Directly north of and behind the bank wing is a large parking structure also erected in 1968 to serve the entire complex. Rectangular in plan and utilitarian in design, it is constructed of reinforced concrete and textured concrete block. A metal screen on north and east elevations conceal openings on several floors. The office tower lobby opens into the west end of the parking structure with the latter’s main vehicular egress on the north elevation facing a rear alley.

The Beverly Hills National Bank building was redesigned and converted to the Kate Mantilini restaurant following the bank’s closure in 1985. This reuse change resulted in the replacement of the plate glass windows with a complex arrangement of rectangular openings; cladding of glazed tiles, textured stucco, and metal panels; and projecting metal framework supported by triangular steel rods along the exterior of the façade. Glass blocks provided a light source on the east (side) elevation. Planters with shrubs and clinging vines on metal screens front the concrete plinth on the Wilshire Boulevard-facing elevation. In contrast with the south (front) and east elevations, the restaurant’s west-facing primary entrance — angled slightly inward toward the street — is entirely glazed with thin metal mullions. A prominent recessed parapet was added to the flat roof that conceals air-handling equipment; a round opening with its own parapet and projecting fin detail serves as a skylight and large stylized sundial (this distinct roof top element is connected to a conceptual mechanical orrery sculpture (solar clock) located within the building). The interior of the bank was gutted and replaced by a warren of dining booths within a projecting proscenium-like wall (or poché wall) of stacked rectangular openings (niches) that give the space a postmodern design flair. An open kitchen fronted by a wide counter with attached post-modern decorative metal stools is opposite the booths. Above the counter is a full-width color mural of a boxing match titled Knockout painted by noted American artist John Wehrle and dated 1986. In addition to the mural, a thin floor to ceiling sculptural orrery that is topped by the rooftop fin-like sundial is situated at the east end of the interior restaurant space. The orrery also features a small “excerpt” or extension of Wehrle’s Knockout mural as well as a metal inlaid floor plate that illustrates an etching of the restaurant and is dated and signed by Morphosis.

Other interior elements and spaces of distinct design by Morphosis specific for the Kate Mantilini restaurant include the transitional vestibule entry space with its steel beam and concrete structural framing system at the west entry foyer, metal telephone booth within the west entry foyer, the ribbon of post-modernist style coat rack hooks with African paduk wood dowels attached onto the proscenium-like (poche) wall planes set between the recessed open booths, the custom-made booth seating and tables of paduk wood, the engaged mezzanine level gang plank (lookout perch) and railing attached to the sculptural orrery, the offset grid of light and dark color granite floor tiles in the dining area, a ceiling with recessed lighting in the dining area that evokes the night sky, and large volume dining haIl space layered with three dimensional collages. Throughout the restaurant space there are unifying design elements that tie the design, workmanship, artistry and features together. 9 Significance
The following Significance Statement was excerpted from the Landmark Resolution:

A.1. The property is identified with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history, or directly exemplifies or manifests significant contributions to the broad social, political, cultural, economic, recreational, or architectural history of the Nation, State, City, or community.

Gibraltar Square meets this criterion through its association with the financial institution Gibraltar Savings and Loan, and as a “Miesian style high-rise” designed by architectural firm William Pereria and Charles Luckman. Kate Mantilini met this criterion as a successful adaptive reuse and restaurant by Thom Mayne and Michael Rotundi.

A.3. The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction.

Gibraltar Square meets this criterion as an example of a building associated with the Miesian architectural style. According to the Landmark Resolution, the “original building incorporates the style’s signature design elements including a steel skeleton; asymmetrical, repetitive, modular pattern of bays established by the structural frame; a high-rise office tower cantilevered over a black granite pedestal; and exterior sheathing of tinted grey glazing and enameled grey spandrels framed by aluminum brake metal mullions, rails, and corner members. From a distance, the effect is of continuous grid-like skin, or curtain wall, floating above a recessed base, a design consistent with Miesian design precepts.

Kate Mantilini meets this criterion as an example of postmodern work completed by Thom Mayne and Michael Rotundi of Morphosis, featuring “a projecting wall of stacked rectangular openings that might be considered indicative of the postmodern style.” A.4. The property represents a notable work of a person included on the City’s List of Master Architects or possesses high artistic or aesthetic value.

Designed by William Pereria and Charles Luckman, Gibraltar Square meets this criterion.

Designed by Thom Mayne and Michael Rotundi of Morphosis, Kate Mantilini meets this criterion.

B. The property retains integrity from its period of significance.

The Landmark has two periods of significance, 1957-1959 (Gibraltar Square) and 1985-1986 (Kate Mantilini). Both Gibraltar Square and Kate Mantilini retain integrity from their respective periods of significance thus meet this criterion.

C. The property has historic value.

According to the Landmark Resolution, as “the property’s historical and architectural merit, aesthetic values, and association with master architects William Pereira, Charles Luckman, Thom Mayne and Michael Rotundi the site is considered to have significant historic value to the local community. Therefore, the property satisfies this criterion.” 10 Period of Significance
The Landmark has two periods of significance:
1) The period from 1957-1959, when the Banking Hall, Tower Base, and Tower (Gibraltar Square) were completed,
2) The period of 1985-1986 when the 1968 Bank Building was converted to Kate Mantilini restaurant.

Character-Defining Features
Character-defining features are the physical features of a building that convey its significance. A three-step approach, as described in Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character, is utilized to identify materials, features, and spaces that contribute to the visual character of the Subject Property.1 The purpose of this approach is to identify features or elements that give a building its visual character and that should be preserved to the maximum extent possible. This approach involves first describing a building from afar in order to present the characteristics that comprise its overall setting and architectural context; then, describing the exterior up-close to define materials, surface finishes, and the manner in which it was constructed; and, finally, describing the spaces, rooms, and details that comprise its interior visual character.

The Landmark Resolution identifies the following Overall Visual Aspects and Close Range Visual Aspects character-defining features2 with 1958-1959 as the period of significance.3 Gibraltar Square (Banking Hall, Tower Base and Tower)
Overall Visual Aspects:
• Prominent location along Wilshire Boulevard on northeast corner of Oakhurst Drive; • Three components characterized by repetition of architectural patterns grouped collectively and composed as a single building;
• Three primary elevations (Banking Hall: north, west and south; Tower: east, south and west); • Cantilever of tower over Banking Hall and Tower Base; • High-volume, single-story with appearance of two stories Banking Hall and Tower Base, and seven-story Tower;
• Flat roofs with no parapet;
• Original portion of solid metal canopy along Wilshire Boulevard on south elevation; • Porcelain enamel mechanical screen wall on roof (east, west, south, north); and • Curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in repetitive grid pattern. 1 National Park Service, Department of the Interior. Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character:

Identifying the visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character. Washington D.C.: The National Park Service, undated.
2 “Overall Visual Aspects” and “Close Range Visual Aspects” are terms included in Preservation Brief 17 Architectural Character – Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as and Aid to Preserving their Character. 3 Landmark Resolution also identifies 1986 as an additional period of significance associated specifically with Morphosis-designed conversion of Bank Building into Kate Mantilini. 11 Close Range Visual Aspects:
• Aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details; • Natural dark stone cladding in stack bond (west elevation of Banking Hall and overall Tower Base);
• Raised terrazzo planters on south and west elevations with break in middle and at glazed access point (whether functional or non-functional);
• Spandrel and vision glass in two distinct shades of grey; • Aluminum fascia on original portion of ground-floor canopy.

Kate Mantilini
Overall Visual Aspects:
• Prominent location at the northwest corner of Wilshire Boulevard and Doheny Drive; • Three primary elevations (east, south and west);
• High-volume, single-story with appearance of two stories; • Flat roof with projecting orrery and associated orrery features; • Retained elements of original bank (posts and upper wall, both assumed to be remnants of curtain wall glazing) screening layered composition behind.

Close Range Visual Aspects:
• Open metal canopy with diagonal steel supports on south and east elevations; • Angled and floor to ceiling glazed entry wall with steel framing supports and details on west elevation;
• Asymmetrical fenestration composition on west, south, and east elevations; • Sculptural metal door handles on west and south elevations; • Composition and configuration of ceramic tile, natural color stucco, glass on south and east elevations, and glass block set in steel cross set on east elevation; • Raised concrete podium on south and east elevations;
• Hanging metal I-beams with metal support strut cables and integrated lighting fixtures along south elevation outdoor patio dining area;
• Hanging metal I-beam with laser cut address signage at southwest corner of outside patio dining area.

Interior Visual Aspects:
• Painted mural by John Wehrle entitled Knockout on curved cement plastered wall (partially floating) above dining counter area;
• Conceptual sculptural orrey with round skylight, structural framing, stylus, and stainless-steel etched floor panel, including engaged mezzanine level gang plank (lookout perch) and railing;
• Volume and special relationship (height, width) of dining hall and west entry foyer area. 12 Alterations
The subject property has experienced substantial alterations and additions. Some of these alterations detract from the integrity of the buildings that comprise the subject property.

In 1968, the subject property was modified with the addition of the Bank Building and Garage. This addition also impacted the length of the original metal canopy along Wilshire Boulevard. The original canopy had been extended eastward with construction of the Tower in 1959. As a result of 1968 Bank Building and Garage, the canopy was again altered to its truncated length.4 The Tower entrance was originally open to the surface parking lot located to the east. Construction of the Garage adjacent to the building entrance resulted in a semi-enclosed space, losing the original openness. In 1974, a vault was added to the ground floor at the southeast corner of the Tower base, which is located immediately adjacent to Wilshire.5 The vault addition further obscures the original open building entrance from Wilshire.

In 1975, Wells Fargo Bank moved into the 1968 Bank Building and remodeled the lobby and mezzanine. In 1984, the Gibraltar Square entrance concourse was updated. In 1986, the 1968 Bank Building underwent another major alteration, and was converted into the Kate Mantilini restaurant.

This alteration only retained the core of the 1968 Bank Building, effectively transforming the building into something entirely new as designed by Thom Mayne and Michael Rotundi of Morphosis. The restaurant operated for 28 years as a popular Beverly Hills dining institution before closing in 2014.6 Between 1991-2001 several alterations occurred on the exterior and interior of the Gibraltar Square.

These alterations included another lobby update.7 Although permits exist that describe the scope of these alterations, the corresponding lack of drawings make it difficult to illustrate their exact location. 4 Department of Building, Beverly Hills, CA. Permit No. 680097. February 2, 1968. 5 This addition was part of an interior remodel of the lobby and mezzanine by A.T. Heinsbergen & Company, a Los Angeles firm that specialized in interior design and decorative painting. James P. Cramer, Jennifer Evans Yankopolus. Almanac of Architecture and Design. Greenway, 2005: 660. 6 The other Kate Mantellini restaurant in the Woodland Hills area of Los Angeles closed in December 2014. 7 Department of Building, Beverly Hills, CA. Permit No. C9901174. October 7, 1999 and Permit No.

BS0010477. October 23, 2000. The permit describes enclosing the “patio,” which we believe to be the concourse described here and extending the canopy, which we believe to be in the same area. 13 III. REGULATORY SETTING
City of Beverly Hills – Landmark
Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, entitled “Preservation of Landmarks,” adopted April 10, 1975, defines a landmark as:
any site (including significant trees or other plant life located thereon), building, or structure of particular historic or cultural significance to the city, such as historic structures or sites in which the broad cultural, political, economic, or social history of the nation, state, or community is reflected or exemplified, or which are identified with historic personages or with important events in the main currents of national, state, or local history, or which embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period style or method of construction, or a notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect whose individual genius influences his age.

The City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code (Code), Title 10 Chapter 3, Article 32. Historic Preservation, permits the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission to nominate and designate a property as a City Landmark to the Local Register of Historic Properties (Local Register) if it meets all the following criteria:8
A1) It is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance; A2) It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period; A3) It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; A4) It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article.

In addition to meeting all the above requirements, a Landmark must satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

B1) It is listed on the National Register of Historic Places; B2) It is an exceptional work by a master architect;
B3) It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person’s endeavors or the history of the nation. Personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous; B4) It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
B5) It is an iconic property;
B6) The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.
8 Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3212.
14 City of Beverly Hills – Certificate of Appropriateness The City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code (Code), Title 10 Chapter 3, Article 32. Historic Preservation, 10-3-3219: Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) requires:

No person, owner, or other entity shall alter, restore, reconstruct, relocate, rehabilitate, stabilize, demolish, or change the exterior appearance of a designated landmark or contributing property without first having applied for and been granted a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship, unless the work proposed qualifies as "ordinary maintenance and repair" as defined in this article. Furthermore, a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of economic hardship may be required for alterations, demolition, new construction, and exterior changes in appearance of noncontributing properties in a designated historic district, as provided below.

Upon submittal of a complete COA application to the City, a COA may be reviewed and issued by the Community Development Director (director) or the Cultural Heritage Commission (commission), depending on the scope and nature of the work.

According to the Code,
If the director determines that the proposed work would result in a significant change of design, material, appearance or visibility of character defining features, or: a) with respect to landmarks or contributing properties, would not comply with the secretary of the interior's standards; or b) with respect to noncontributing properties, would not comply with the standards set forth in subsection C of this section, then the director may deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness or refer the application to the commission for review.

The commission will generally issue a COA if proposed work complies with the Secretary’s Standards or “[d]oes not demonstrate strict compliance with the secretary of the interior's standards, but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features of a landmark or contributing property.” City of Beverly Hills – Historic Incentive Permit
Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32.5 (Historic Incentive Permit) provides:

A Historic Incentive Permit [HIP] is intended to incentivize the protection of significant historic resources by [providing] a process that allows waivers or deviations from certain development standards in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code for locally designated historic landmarks. A Historic Incentive Permit requires review by the Planning Commission.

In order to grant a HIP, the reviewing authority must find, without limitation, that the project either complies with the Secretary’s Standards or that it “[d]oes not demonstrate strict compliance with the [Secretary’s Standards] but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark . . . .” 15 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT
Project Description
The proposed project would rehabilitate the Banking Hall and Tower for hotel adaptive use and retain Kate Mantilini for continued restaurant use. The proposed project would also involve improvements to the port cochere area (port cochere) between Gibraltar Square and Kate Mantilini.

The Banking Hall and Tower are currently in use as a commercial office space. The Banking Hall roof has no functional space and is accessed through mechanical spaces at the Mezzanine. The Tower roof is currently occupied by mechanical equipment within porcelain enamel mechanical screen. Kate Mantilini is currently vacant but was most recently used as a restaurant.

Banking Hall
Structural
Proposed work would consist of two new interior shear walls parallel to north elevation of curtain wall at bays flanking new roll up door for new mechanical, loading, and trash room.

The existing vision glass would be replaced with spandrel glass to visually conceal the new shear walls. The new spandrel glass would be colored to match new vision glass as best as possible. New concrete shear walls would also be added at elevator shafts, and a new moment frame would be added near north wall of existing banking vault. The new shear walls around elevator shaft and the new moment frame would not be visible from exterior.

See Structural Report (Attachment E).

Glazing
Proposed work would reconstruct existing curtain wall and construct a new pool deck. Based on on-site inspections, existing curtain wall, including brake metal and glazing, is in fair condition. The existing west elevation black granite-clad shear wall is in good condition and would be retained, shored in place during construction, and integrated into reconstructed curtain wall. The existing bulkhead and terrazzo-clad concrete planters would be retained and rehabilitated. The curtain wall would be constructed in-kind to accurately match historic dimensions and materials. In order to ensure that the glazing reconstruction remains accurate, and thus consistent with Secretary’s Standards measures for HABS documentation and design development and construction monitoring are proposed.

Rooftop amenities
Proposed work would include a new roof deck with pool, cabanas and other associated amenities. The roof would be removed, and a new roof would be constructed at a lower height. The parapet would serve as the guardrail for the new pool deck. Cabanas would align with the north elevation along the alley to provide a buffer and to not be generally visible from Wilshire or Oakhurst. Mechanical equipment would be located to north of cabanas within low wall and would not be visible from Wilshire or Oakhurst. A fireplace and seat wall would be set back 5 feet from west parapet wall and would not be visible from Wilshire or Oakhurst.

See Landscape scope of work described below.

Trash Enclosure
Proposed work would relocate trash and loading to within the Banking Hall, accessible by the alley. A new opening to access trash, loading, and mechanical would replace the vision and spandrel glass within two bays and align with vertical mullions to reduce impact of visible alteration. The existing concrete wall that visually buffers existing trash cans and is in poor condition would be removed. See Structural scope of work described above. 16 Landscape
Proposed work would re-landscape Banking Hall perimeter and new roof deck. The existing, nonoriginal riverstone in concrete paving at west elevation would be removed and a low 6- inch tall concrete planter would be constructed. Existing concrete, terrazzo-clad planters at north, west, and south elevations would be assessed and rehabilitated, as necessary. Where inadequate drainage is contributing to planter damage, waterproofing and drainage improvements, such as installation of weep holes, would be implemented. Shrubs would fill planters.

The new roof deck perimeter would be landscaped with shrubs and succulents within low planters. Citrus would be planted in pots at west side of roof deck near Tower Base.

No landscaping would be visible from Wilshire or Oakhurst.

Lighting
Proposed work would install 5 LED well lights in rehabilitated concrete, terrazzo-clad planters at east portion of south elevation. Proposed work would install 1 narrow LED uplight on new multi-trunk palm. At the new roof deck, the pool and fireplace would have internal lighting, linear lighting would be installed at base of perimeter planters, trees would have string lighting, and cabanas would have LED pedants.

Tower Base and Tower
Structural
New concrete shear walls would be added at elevator shafts. Such work would not impact exterior of the building. See Structural Report (Attachment E).

Glazing
Vision glass has been replaced and tints have been applied over time, resulting in a nonuniform appearance confirmed by the “9107 Wilshire Boulevard Building Enclosure and Façade Study” prepared by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. dated April 25, 2019 (2019 WJE Report). The brake metal is in relatively good condition. Proposed work would rehabilitate the visual uniformity of the building envelope, while improving acoustic and energy performance.

Proposed work would retain existing horizontal and vertical mullions, retain existing ¼-inch opaque spandrel glass, remove existing ¼-inch gray-tinted monolithic vision glass, replace limited ¼-inch opaque spandrel glass where previously altered, and install new 1 ⅜-inch gray-tinted insulated glazing units (IGU) to visually match historic appearance as closely as possible. From exterior to interior, the IGU would be comprised of 5-mm gray-tinted semitempered glass, 1.52-mm clear acoustic PVB film, an aluminum spacer, 1.52-mm clear acoustic PVB film with 5-mm gray-tinted semi-tempered glass (Attachment G).

The existing brake metal channel for the existing window is approximately ⅝-inch wide. The proposed IGU would be 1 ⅜-inch deep. As such, the proposed IGU would not fit in the existing channel. To ensure the IGU minimally impacts the visual appearance of glass from exterior, exterior facing glass would be installed at same plane as original glass. The IGU would be secured to existing vertical mullion with a 1-inch by ½-inch aluminum angle at the sill on the interior. All gaskets would be removed, and silicone wet seals would be installed at apex or corner of IGU and existing vertical and horizontal mullions. It should be noted that windows are not now, were not historically and would not be operable in the future.

An interior quiet window would be set 6 inches from exterior glazing system and would be comprised of ⅜-inch tempered laminated glass, 1.52-mm clear acoustic PVB film, and ¼- 17 inch tempered glass (glass unit). Each glass unit would be silicone vertically butt jointed and would generally not be visible from the exterior. The butt joint would align with exterior glazing system vertical mullions.

According to the WJE 2019 Report (study),
The purpose of our study was to assess and describe the condition of the exterior building enclosure, including the vision and spandrel glass of the building curtain wall. Our scope also included evaluation and study of proposed repairs and restoration approaches of the existing curtain wall that conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and to the City of Beverly Hills’ Historic Preservation Ordinance.

The study focused on the Tower glazing system and did not include a substantial review of the Banking Hall glazing system. The study observed the Tower includes rows of ¼-inch gray-tinted vision glass interspersed with rows of ¼-inch spandrel glass coated with an interior-coated opaque finish. The study observed “visible conditions of localized distress, such as cracked glass, loose interior gaskets, and sealant deterioration” and “deglazing of two vision glass units on the seventh floor of the north facades.” Further, “areas of vision glass were observed where clear fully-tempered safety glass has been previously installed as replacement units. In numerous locations at each exterior elevation, the replacement glass was noticeably different in appearance from the original vision glass, including visible roller wave distortion. It was noted that the original ¼-inch thick tinted gray vision glass was also slightly darker than its original appearance due to the retrofit installation of solar control film treatments. Various film (e.g., reflective silver films) have been applied to the interior of the original vision glass at locations… Film has not been applied to the replacement glass units, further exaggerating the visual contrast between original and newer glass.

Gaskets were also observed to be in fair to poor condition, as some were displaced most likely due to shrinkage. Sealants were also deteriorated, evident by loss of adhesion and crazing. Failing gaskets and sealant can provide areas of air and water infiltration.

Given these conditions and an understanding of the proposed project scope, the study states “the development of an appropriate repair approach must include solutions that are sensitive to original appearance that meet performance requirements, and that are in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation.” The study further states “it is recommended that gray tinted glass that matches the original plate glass should be considered. As discussed above, the project proposes to replace all vision glass with new glass; replace existing gaskets with new gaskets and new wet seals; and clean aluminum prior to installation of new sealant. The existing brake metal system would be used. It should be noted that windows would not be operable. The proposed replacement of vision glass as discussed above is minimally in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards.

One alternative for addressing the Tower glazing system was to retain existing horizontal and vertical mullions, retain existing ¼-inch opaque spandrel glass, remove existing ¼-inch gray-tinted monolithic vision glass, and install new ¼-inch gray-tinted monolithic vision glass to match historic as closely as possible. All gaskets would be removed, and silicone wet seals would be installed at apex of new vision glass and existing vertical and horizontal mullions. However, this alternative would not provide sufficient acoustic performance and would be less energy efficient than the proposed glazing replacement discussed above and therefore is not proposed.
18 Mezzanine
Proposed work would convert mezzanine within Tower Base to spa and fitness areas. The existing windows on the east elevation would be changed to floor to ceiling glass, to match the original design and glazing. The spa lounge abutting the new glazing would overlook the port cochere below. The historic aluminum and granite clad columns would be retained.

Guestrooms
Proposed work would include convert Tower levels four to ten to guestrooms. Guestroom layouts would be specifically designed to align with existing window mullions so as to not interrupt the clean expression of the glazing system, including gray-tinted vision glass and opaque glass spandrel curtain wall.

Landscape
Proposed work would re-landscape the Tower Base perimeter. The nonoriginal vault at southeast corner of Tower Base would be removed and new planters would be constructed to match historic. As explained within Entrance Canopy scope below, a new canopy with a rectangular oculus would be constructed. A multi-trunk palm would be planted to go through oculus. The existing concrete, terrazzo-clad planters at the north elevation would be assessed and rehabilitated, as necessary. A new 18-inch metal planter would be constructed across valet entrance to the east of rehabilitated terrazzo-clad planter. Where inadequate drainage is contributing to planter damage, waterproofing and drainage improvements, such as installation of weep holes, would be implemented. Shrubs would fill planters.

Lighting
Proposed work would install 4 narrow LED uplight for new multi-trunk palm.

Porte Cochere, Lobby, and Concourse
Porte cochere and Lobby entrance
The existing lobby has been substantially altered since the period of significance (1958- 1959), including the 1968 Garage, 1974 bank vault addition and alterations to original entrance canopy. Proposed work would demolish bank vault and utilize space as a portion of lobby and reconfigure vehicular and pedestrian circulation and parking in the noncontributing Garage. Proposed work to accommodate lobby entrance includes demolition of east elevation non-historic glazing and removal of non-historic double-doors. The new east elevation wall would have three evenly spaced double glass doors. The west elevation wall of the non-contributing Garage would be opened up.

Entrance canopy
Proposed work would construct of a new entrance canopy with a precast concrete, fiber reinforced polymer or metal screen addition. A portion of the historic metal canopy had previously been altered with addition of the 1968 Bank Building. The new entrance canopy would draw inspiration from the remaining canopy at the south elevation of the Banking Hall on Wilshire and historic photographs showing the canopy before construction of the 1968 Bank Building. As proposed, the rehabilitated canopy would have a rectangular oculus in the roof, inspired by a detail shown in historic photographs. The screen addition would be contemporary yet inspired by documented modulation and scale.

Concourse
The concourse has been substantially altered since the period of significance (1958-1959), including the 1974 bank vault addition and alterations to original entrance canopy. Proposed 19 work would demolish the bank vault and utilize the space as a portion of the lobby and reconfigure vehicular and pedestrian circulation and parking in the non-contributing Garage.

Bank Vault
In 1974 a non-contributing bank vault was added to the south elevation of the Tower.

Proposed work includes demolition of bank vault.

Garage
Structural
The structural engineer has not completed a review of the Garage structure and the detailing necessary to accommodate greater openness and visibility at the Porte Cochere. However, as the Garage is a non-contributing element, the work necessary would not affect historic features.

Garage screen
The existing metal screen on the Garage would be replaced with a new screen visually drawing on the new entrance canopy screen along Wilshire.

Landscape
Proposed work would install 4 new 8-foot wide planters with screen shrubs on west elevation of Garage.

Lighting
Proposed work would install 6 wide spread LED uplights in new 8-foot wide planters with screen shrubs on west elevation of Garage.

Kate Mantilini
Restaurant
Kate Mantilini would be retained for future continued restaurant use. While some rehabilitation may be required, no plans have been prepared for work. The existing building would be included in the proposed HABS documentation and design development and construction monitoring, and any future rehabilitation work would be reviewed as necessary. 20 V. REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT
Under Code, Title 10 Chapter 3, Article 32. Historic Preservation, 10-3-3219, a Certificate of Appropriateness is required when an owner proposes to “alter, restore, reconstruct, relocate, rehabilitate, stabilize, demolish, or change the exterior appearance of a designated landmark.” For projects reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Commission, a COA shall be issued if the work complies with the Secretary’s Standards, or if the work “[d]oes not demonstrate strict compliance with the [Secretary’s Standards] but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features of a landmark . . . .” The proposed project would alter, rehabilitate, reconstruct and change the exterior appearance of a landmark. The project also seeks a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP), which allows for waivers or deviations from development standards. In order to grant a HIP, the project must either comply with the Secretary’s Standards or, that it “[d]oes not demonstrate strict compliance with the [Secretary’s Standards] but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark . . . .” Thus, the proposed project must meet the same standards to receive a COA or HIP.

Secretary’s Standards
The Secretary’s Standards are not intended to be prescriptive and are intended to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions to balance continuity and change while retaining historic building fabric to the maximum extent feasible. Their interpretation requires exercise of professional judgment and balance of the various opportunities and constraints of any given project based on use, materials retention and treatment, and compatibility of new construction. Not every standard necessarily applies to every aspect of a project, nor is it necessary to comply with every standard to achieve conformance.

The Secretary’s Standards encompass four approaches to treatments for historic properties:
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The proposed project is a combination of rehabilitation and reconstruction. Thus, the appropriate treatment for the proposed project is rehabilitation, defined as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Rehabilitation Standards).

The Rehabilitation Standards are as follows:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 21 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

The Reconstruction Standards are as follows:

1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property.

2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts that are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features and spatial relationships.

4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color and texture.

5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation.

6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
A project that may cause a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment under CEQA. Public Resources Code Section 21084.1. Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 further provides:
an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant.

As a Landmark, the subject property is included in a local register of historical resources, and therefore is presumed to be historically or culturally significant unless rebutted pursuant to Public Resources Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” CEQA Guidelines 22 §15064.5(b)(1) (emphasis added). The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:

A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register… or B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(2).

However, “[g]enerally, a project that follows the [Secretary’s Standards] shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.” CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(3). The Secretary’s Standards is published by the National Park Service (NPS), was recently updated and reissued in July 2017, and includes Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes,
9 published in 1996. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 provides that a project limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards may be categorically exempt10 under Categorical Exemption Class 31. Conformance with the Secretary’s Standards is a high level of review and is higher than the threshold for not causing material impairment.
9 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996. 10 CEQA Guidelines §15300.
23 Impacts Analysis
As the proposed project is a combination of rehabilitation and reconstruction, the project was evaluated against the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Standards. The Impacts Analysis Table, set forth below, analyzes the impacts of the proposed project to each character-defining feature of the Landmark. The character-defining features listed within the table are taken directly from Landmark Resolution No. 16-R-13076, dated May 17, 2016 (Landmark Resolution), which is included as Attachment C of this report. The table also describes how the proposed project would be in conformance with the Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Standards by each character-defining feature.

As shown in detail in the Impacts Analysis narrative and Impacts Analysis Table, the proposed project is found to conform with the Rehabilitation Standards as described below:
• In conformance with Standard 1, the proposed project would require minimal change to the distinctive materials and features of the historic building and retains the commercial use of the building.
• In conformance with Standard 2, the proposed project would retain historic character by preserving historic materials that characterize the subject property as listed within report. • In conformance with Standard 3, the proposed project would not create a false sense of historical development, as the proposed new elements introduce compatible new materials such as fiber cement, metal, and solid surface composites, which would be clearly differentiated from historic material.
• In conformance with Standard 4, changes and alterations that have occurred over time and have acquired historic significance in their own right be retained and preserved. • In conformance with Standard 5, the proposed project would not alter distinctive materials, features, finishes, or construction techniques that characterize the property. Historic materials will be retained.
• In conformance with Standard 6, deteriorated historic features would be repaired to the greatest extent feasible. Where features deteriorated beyond repaired, they would be replaced to exactly match original.
• In conformance with Standard 7, physical treatments would use the gentlest means possible and will not damage historic materials.
• In conformance with Standard 9, the proposed project would not destroy materials that characterize the property, and where historic material would minimally be removed it would be replaced in-kind.
• In conformance with Standard 10, the proposed project would not include new additions, and new construction would be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

As shown in detail in the Impacts Analysis Table, the proposed work to the Banking Hall is found to conform with the Reconstruction Standards as described below:
• In conformance with Standard 1, reconstruction would accurately depict original materiality and physical dimensions of curtain wall system, including brake metal and glazing based on documentary and physical evidence, thus minimal conjecture would occur. • In conformance with Standard 2, reconstruction would not impact archeological features or resources.
• In conformance with Standard 3, reconstruction would accurately replicate original material and dimensions of curtain wall system, including brake metal and glazing, and therefore retain spatial relationships.
24 • In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction would be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence. • In conformance with Standard 5, reconstruction would be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation.
• In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were never executed historically would not be constructed.

Included below is a detailed narrative of how treatments to the Banking Hall, Tower, and Kate Mantilini are in conformance with the ten Rehabilitation Standards. The Impacts Analysis Tables that follow the narrative further describe how the proposed project is in conformance with the Rehabilitation Standards and well as how elements of the Banking Hall proposed work is in conformance with the six Reconstruction Standards.

Banking Hall

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

In conformance with Standard 1, the new use of the Banking Hall as the hotel lobby, lobby lounge, and hotel bar would require minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Character-defining features including its prominent location along Wilshire Boulevard on the northeast corner of Oakhurst Drive, its high-volume singlestory appearance, flat roof with no parapet, and curtain wall glazing, would be retained. Its new use as a hotel lobby would be a public use, similar to its use as a banking hall, which would allow for the retention of this high-volume space. It’s spatial relationships with the Tower, Kate Mantilini, and surviving portions of the solid metal canopy along Wilshire would be unaffected. Repair and replacement of the exterior grid of vision glass, spandrel glass, and brake metal would enhance the Banking Hall’s physical resemblance to the other Landmark components, enhancing this spatial relationship and reinforcing the characterdefining repetitive architectural patterns that define the exterior. Removal of the adjacent bank vault, which is a non-significant addition, and conversion of the space to a bar area will not alter a distinctive spatial relationship. Necessary seismic upgrades will either be screened or not visible from the exterior. Other new elements, including the trash access to be constructed on the rear (north) elevation and the use of the roof for a pool deck, would require minimal loss of historic fabric, be installed in non-character-defining locations, and will be minimally visible on the exterior. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 1.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

In conformance with Standard 2, the historic character of the high-volume single-story Banking Hall which has the appearance of two stories would be retained and preserved.

Character-defining features, including its prominent location along Wilshire Boulevard on the northeast corner of Oakhurst Drive, its physical resemblance to and relationship with the other two components of the Landmark (the Tower and Kate Mantilini), its high-volume single-story appearance, flat roof, and curtain wall glazing would be retained and preserved and proposed alterations have been designed to be minimally visible. Preservation of distinctive materials of the Banking Hall would be achieved through retention or replacement in-kind where damaged of existing brake metal, restoration of the original grid pattern where it had been damaged or altered, and replacement-in kind of glazing to accurately match the historic dimension and materials. Existing black granite-clad shear wall at west elevation 25 would be retained and reused. New concrete shear walls would be added at elevator shafts and a new moment frame would be added near the north wall of existing banking vault, neither of which would be visible from the exterior of the building, and thus would not detract from the historic character of the property. Conversion of three bays on the alley (north) elevation to trash access will be accomplished within the existing grid and will not be visible from the public right-of-way. Existing bulkhead and terrazzo-clad concrete planters would be retained and rehabilitated. A non-significant bank vault constructed in 1974 would be removed and replaced with parking.

Existing roof is proposed to be removed to construct a new roof deck and pool at a lower height than existing roof with low parapet, making roof amenities minimally visible, and thus would not detract from the historic character of the property. The materials of the roof were not found to be significant; therefore, the proposed roof deck and pool would not remove any distinctive materials of the Banking Hall. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 2.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

In conformance with Standard 3, proposed project does not include any changes which would create a false sense of historical development. Proposed work would retain the west elevation granite-clad shear wall and therefore preserve historic materials. Reconstructed curtain wall including vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details would preserve the original, character-defining grid-patterned exterior and would replace non-original glass with more appropriate choices. Reconstruction is based on existing physical appearance and evidence from historic photographs. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 3.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

In conformance with Standard 4, the only alteration to the Banking Hall that has acquired significance in its own right is the truncation of the exterior metal canopy along Wilshire Boulevard. This alteration will be preserved. None of the other alterations to the subject property have acquired historic significance in their own right, including installation of nonoriginal vision and spandrel glass and the adjacent non-significant bank vault constructed in 1974. The non-significant bank vault would be removed and replaced with parking.

Therefore, change to any previous alteration need not be retained or preserved. Therefore, the proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 4.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

In conformance with Standard 5, the distinctive materials and finishes of the Banking Hall, including the high-volume space and brake metal and curtain wall glazing will be retained.

New curtain glass would be installed to disguise new concrete shear walls from the exterior of the building and would accurately match the historic dimensions, materials, and color of the glass. Installation of the rear trash access into three bays will retain the original dimensions and will cause minimal disruption of the original design. The materials, finishes, and construction techniques of the roof were not found to be significant, therefore, the proposed roof deck and pool would not remove any distinctive materials, finishes, features, 26 or construction techniques of the Banking Hall. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 5.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were never previously executed would not be constructed. Any deteriorated brake metal would be retained and repaired. The visual appearance of historic curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in repetitive grid pattern would be retained through reconstruction based on physical and documentary evidence. Glazing would be replaced in-kind to accurately match the historic dimension and materials of original glazing. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 6.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

In conformance with Standard 7, no chemical or physical treatments will be used; therefore, no treatments will cause damage to historic materials. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 7.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

The project site soil has already been previously disturbed. Additionally, the original footprint of the Banking Hall will not be expanded and will not require additional excavation. In conformance with Standard 8, if any archaeological resources are disturbed, appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 8.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

In conformance with Standard 9, exterior alteration in the form of the proposed roof deck and pool would not destroy any historic materials which characterize the property. The roof is not a significant feature of the Banking Hall, and the proposed roof deck and pool would be constructed at a lower height at new roof with low parapet, making it minimally visible from the exterior. Repair and reconstruction of the exterior walls will preserve the original design and as much original materials as is feasible. The new roof deck and pool are therefore compatible with the historic size, scale and proportion, and massing of the Banking Hall, which protects its integrity. A new screen to be added to the exterior metal corridor will echo the original design but will be identifiable as new materials. Additionally, no other related new construction or additions will occur. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 9.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired.
27 In conformance with Standard 10, no new additions or adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken. Other than repair and reconstruction of the exterior curtain walls, the only exterior alterations, installation of trash access in the rear and removal of original roof for construction of a new rooftop deck and pool, are reversible alterations that preserve the original building mass and exterior appearance. Should either be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Banking Hall and its environment would be unimpaired.

Therefore, proposed treatment to the Banking Hall is in conformance with Standard 10.

Tower

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

In conformance with Standard 1, the proposed new use of the Tower, which historically contained offices, to hotel guestrooms requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Character-defining features of the Tower include curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in repetitive grid pattern, Tower Base of natural dark stone cladding in stacked bond, cantilever over Banking Hall and Tower Base, aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details, and raised terrazzo planters on south and west elevations. Any change to materials, including replacement of some vision glass, would be done to match the historic glazing as closely as possible. Other historic materials, including the brake metal and spandrel glass, would be retained in full. New concrete shear walls constructed inside the Tower would not impact the appearance of the Tower from the exterior. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 1.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

In conformance with Standard 2, historic character of the Tower would be retained and preserved through retention of the building mass and height, the cantilever over the Banking Hall and Tower Base, and preservation of the Miesian-inspired, gridded, curtain wall design.

The Tower curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass would be retained, and new vision glass would be replaced in-kind to match historic as closely as possible to preserve the historic character of the Tower. The new vision glass is being installed in locations where the glass has previously been replaced with incompatible glazing that is not original. The historic character of the roof would be retained and preserved through retention of flat roof with low parapet and porcelain enamel mechanical equipment screen. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 2.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

In conformance with Standard 3, proposed project does not include any changes which would create a false sense of historical development. All rehabilitation work would be based on physical evidence and new materials would be replaced in-kind to match historic as closely as possible. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 3.
28 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

In conformance with Standard 4, none of the alterations to the Tower have acquired historic significance in their own right. Therefore, change to any previous alteration need not be retained or preserved. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 4.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of Tower curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass, and new vision glass matched to historic as closely as possible, would preserve the distinctive materials, features, and finishes that characterize the subject property. New vision glass would not disrupt the visual appearance of aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details which characterize the subject property.

Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 5.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

In conformance with Standard 6, Tower curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass would be retained, and rehabilitated, and new vision glass would be installed. Some original vision glass at the Tower has been replaced with incompatible glass. All incompatible glass would be replaced with new vision glass to match as closely as possible to existing historic vision glass. New vision glass would not disrupt the visual appearance of aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details. Replacement vision glass appearance will be substantiated by existing physical evidence to the extent possible. The brake metal and spandrel glass would be retained and rehabilitated rather than replaced.

Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 6.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

In conformance with Standard 7, no chemical or physical treatments will be used; therefore, no treatments will cause damage to historic materials. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 7.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

The project site soil has already been previously disturbed. Additionally, the original footprint of the Tower will not be expanded and will not require additional excavation. In conformance with Standard 8, if any archaeological resources are disturbed, appropriate mitigation measures would be implemented. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 8.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, 29 size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

In conformance to Standard 9, no additions or related new construction are proposed, and exterior alterations would not destroy historic materials, features, or spatial relationships that characterize the property, as explained in the responses to Standards 1, 2, 5, and 6.

Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 9.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired.

In conformance with Standard 10, no new additions or related new construction are proposed. Therefore, proposed treatment to the Tower is in conformance with Standard 10.

Kate Mantilini

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. As such, Kate Mantilini would be retained in place for future use as a restaurant as it was historically.

Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 1.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. As such, the historic character of Kate Mantilini would be retained and preserved in place. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 2.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 3.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 4.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 30 The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 5.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 6.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 7.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 8.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 9.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired.

The project proposes retention of the Kate Mantilini building for continued restaurant use, and only proposes to remove non-contributing exterior landscape trellises. Therefore, treatment to Kate Mantilini is in conformance with Standard 10. 31 Impacts Analysis Table
Banking Hall, Tower Base and Tower Character-Defining Features Overall Visual Aspects Impacts Analysis
Prominent location along Wilshire Boulevard
on northeast corner of Oakhurst Drive
Banking Hall, Tower Base and Tower:

Proposed project would not impact prominent location
of Banking Hall, Tower Base and Tower along Wilshire
Boulevard on northeast corner of Oakhurst Drive as
there is no relocation or obscuring of features
proposed.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 1, 2, 3, and 5.

In conformance with Standard 1, retention of Banking
Hall, Tower Base and Tower on prominent location
along Wilshire Boulevard on northeast corner of
Oakhurst Drive would continue to support commercial
use of subject property.

In conformance with Standard 2, historic character of
subject property would be retained and preserved
through retention of Banking Hall, Tower Base and
Tower on prominent location along Wilshire Boulevard
on northeast corner of Oakhurst Drive.

In conformance with Standard 3, retention of Banking
Hall, Tower Base and Tower on prominent location
along Wilshire Boulevard on northeast corner of
Oakhurst Drive would not create a false sense of
history.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of Banking
Hall, Tower Base and Tower on prominent location
along Wilshire Boulevard on northeast corner of
Oakhurst Drive would preserve distinctive features,
including the prominent location along Wilshire
Boulevard on northeast corner of Oakhurst Drive.

Three components characterized by
repetition of architectural patterns grouped
collectively and composed as a single
building
Banking Hall, Tower Base and Tower:

The relationship of the massing, scale, and proportion, and physical construction of Banking Hall, Tower Base
and Tower contribute to the composition of a single
building made up of these three distinct components.

Proposed project would retain the three components
characterized by repetition of architectural patterns
grouped collectively and composed as a single building.

While alterations are proposed, proposed project would
not detract from the composition of a single building
made up of three distinct components. Further, the
elements of the proposed project such as demolition of
32 non-historic, non-contributing 1974 bank vault addition would enhance delineation and visual appearance of
three distinct components characterized by repetition of architectural patterns grouped collectively and
composed as a single building.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards 2, 3, and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, historic character of
subject property would be retained and preserved
through retention of three components characterized by
repetition of architectural patterns grouped collectively and composed as a single building.

In conformance with Standard 3, retention of three
components does not create a false sense of history.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of three
components would preserve distinctive features,
including the three components characterized by
repetition of architectural patterns grouped collectively and composed as a single building.

Three primary elevations (Banking Hall:
north, west and south; Tower: east, south
and west)
Banking Hall:

Proposed project would reconstruct north, south and
west elevation curtain walls and retain west elevation
granite clad shear wall of Banking Hall.

As documented in Attachment A of historic report, the
existing Banking Hall curtain wall is in poor condition.

The existing brake metal has evidence of past quick
and visually distracting repairs, metal warping, and
scratches. In addition, glass replacements and glazing
no longer retains its uniform original appearance as
various tints have been applied. Further, where
spandrel glass has been replaced in the past, it was
completed in an inconsistent manner and thus detracts
from the character-defining feature.

The north elevation (alley facing) would have spandrel
glass on two of four bays and a roll-up service door
between the remaining two bays to accommodate trash
room, mechanical area, and loading storage. All doors
and spandrel glass would fit within original curtain wall mullion pattern.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Reconstruction
Standards (Standards) 1, 3, 4, and 6.

In conformance with Standard 1, reconstruction would
be based on primary documentation including original
33 drawings and historic photography, and thus depict
vanished or non-surviving portions of Banking Hall with minimal conjecture.

In conformance with Standard 3, proposed work would
retain west elevation granite clad shear wall and
therefore preserve historic materials. In addition,
reconstructed curtain wall would retain spatial
relationships of north, south, and west elevations.

In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction would
be based on accurate duplication of historic features
and elements substantiated by documentary or physical
evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different features from other historic
properties.

In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were
never previously executed would not be constructed.

Reference
Tower:

Proposed project would retain Tower curtain wall brake
metal and spandrel glass, and new vision glass would
match historic as closely as possible. Tower vision
glass would be replaced with an insulated glazing unit
(IGU) to achieve higher energy and acoustic
performance. IGU would match visual characteristics of
original glazing as closely as possible. Therefore, visual appearance of north, east, south, and west elevations
of Tower would not be impacted.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2 and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, retention of Tower
curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass, and new
vision glass matched to historic as closely as possible, would preserve historic character of subject property.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of Tower
curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass, and new
vision glass matched to historic as closely as possible, would preserve the distinctive materials, features, and finishes that characterize subject property.

Cantilever of Tower over Banking Hall and
Tower Base
Banking Hall, Tower Base and Tower:

Proposed project would not impact cantilever of Tower
over Banking Hall and Tower Base.

As described in this Conformance Review
Report, structural improvements would include new
34 shear walls, none of which would impact cantilever of Tower over Banking Hall and Tower Base.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2, 3, and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, historic character of
subject property would be retained and preserved
through retention of the cantilever of Tower over
Banking Hall and Tower Base.

In conformance with Standard 3, retention of the
cantilever of Tower over Banking Hall and Tower Base
would not create a false sense of history.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of the
cantilever of Tower over Banking Hall and Tower Base
would preserve the distinctive features.

High-volume, single-story with appearance
of two stories Banking Hall and Tower Base,
and seven-story Tower
Banking Hall, Tower Base and Tower:

Proposed project would retain the high-volume, singlestory with appearance of two stories Banking Hall and Tower Base, and seven-story Tower.

The proposed Banking Hall terrace amenities would
generally not be visible from street, and no work is
proposed on roof of Tower. Therefore, proposed work
does not impact the high-volume, single-story with
appearance of two stories Banking Hall and Tower
Base, and seven-story Tower.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2 and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, historic character of
subject property would be retained and preserved
through retention of the high-volume, single-story with appearance of two stories Banking Hall and Tower
Base and seven-story Tower.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of the highvolume, single-story with appearance of two stories Banking Hall and Tower Base and seven-story Tower
would preserve the distinctive features.
35 Flat roofs with no parapet Banking Hall:

The Landmark Resolution states “no parapet,” however
Banking Hall does have a low parapet undiscernible
from street. Proposed project would retain flat roof and appearance of no parapet.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Reconstruction
Standards (Standards) 1 and 4.

In conformance with Standard 1, reconstruction while
would be based on primary documentation including
original drawings and historic photography, and thus
depict vanished or non-surviving portions of the
Banking Hall with minimal conjecture. This would not
impact flat roof with low parapet.

In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction would
be based on accurate duplication of historic features
and elements substantiated by documentary or physical
evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the
availability of different features from other historic
properties. This would not impact flat roof with low
parapet.

Tower:

The Landmark Resolution states “no parapet,” however
Tower does have low parapet undiscernible from street.

Proposed project would not include work to Tower roof,
therefore proposed project retains flat roof and
appearance of no parapet.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Reconstruction
Rehabilitation Standards (Standard) 2, 3, and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, historic character of
subject property would be retained and preserved
through retention of flat roof with low parapet.

In conformance with Standard 3, retention of flat roof
with low parapet does not create a false sense of
history.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of flat roof
with low parapet would preserve the distinctive
features.

Original portion of solid metal canopy along
Wilshire Boulevard on south elevation
Banking Hall and Tower Base:

Proposed project would retain and rehabilitate original portion of solid metal canopy along Wilshire Boulevard
on south elevation. As part of this work, non-historic
and non-contributing 1974 bank vault would be
demolished. In addition, a contemporary screen would
36 be constructed in location of original screen that was removed when non-historic and non-contributing bank
vault was constructed. This new screen would be
influenced by the historic screen, as shown in historic photographs, and would be clearly differentiated as
contemporary.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standard (Standard) 2.

In conformance with Standard 2, the proposed project
would rehabilitate the solid metal canopy.

Porcelain enamel mechanical screen wall
on roof (east, west, south, north)
Tower:

Proposed project would not include work to Tower roof,
and thus porcelain enamel mechanical screen would
not be impacted.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2, 3, and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, historic character of
subject property would be retained and preserved
through retention of porcelain enamel mechanical
screen wall on roof.

In conformance with Standard 3, retention of porcelain
enamel mechanical screen wall on roof does not create
a false sense of history.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of porcelain
enamel mechanical screen wall on roof would preserve
the distinctive features.

Curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel
glass in repetitive grid pattern
Banking Hall and Tower Base:

Proposed project would reconstruct north, south and
west elevation curtain walls and reconstruct curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in repetitive grid pattern.

As documented in Attachment B of this Conformance
Review Report, the existing Banking Hall curtain wall is in poor condition. The existing brake metal has
evidence of past quick and visually distracting repairs, metal warping, and scratches. In addition, glass
replacements and glazing no longer retains its uniform
original appearance as various tints have been applied.

Further, where spandrel glass has been replaced in the
past, it was completed in an inconsistent manner and
thus detracts from the character-defining feature.

The north elevation (alley facing) would have spandrel
glass on two of four bays and a roll-up service door
37 between the remaining two to accommodate trash
room, mechanical area, and loading storage. All doors
and spandrel glass would fit within original curtain wall mullion pattern.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Reconstruction
Standards (Standards) 1, 3, 4, and 6.

In conformance with Standard 1, reconstruction of
curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in
repetitive grid pattern would be based on primary
documentation including original drawings and historic
photography, and thus depict vanished or non-surviving
portions of the Banking Hall with minimal conjecture.

In conformance with Standard 3, reconstruction of
curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in
repetitive grid pattern would retain west elevation
granite clad shear wall of the Banking Hall and
therefore preserve the historic materials.

In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction of
curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in
repetitive grid pattern would be based on accurate
duplication of historic features and elements
substantiated by documentary or physical evidence
rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties.

In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were
never previously executed would not be constructed. In
summary, the visual appearance of curtain wall glazing
with vision and spandrel glass in repetitive grid pattern would be retained through reconstruction.

Tower:

Proposed project would retain and rehabilitate Tower
curtain wall glazing with vision and spandrel glass in
repetitive grid pattern. Curtain wall brake metal and
spandrel glass, and new vision glass would be matched
to historic as closely as possible.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2 and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, retention and
rehabilitation of the Tower curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass, and new vision glass matched to
historic as closely as possible would not disrupt the
visual appearance of a repetitive grid pattern, would
preserve the historic character of subject property.
38 In conformance with Standard 5, retention and
rehabilitation of the Tower curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass, and new vision glass matched to
historic as closely as possible, would not disrupt the
visual appearance of a repetitive grid pattern and would preserve the distinctive materials, features, and finishes that characterize subject property.

Close Range Visual Aspects Impact Analysis
Aluminum brake metal with vertical
(mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner
details
Banking Hall:

Proposed project would accurately reconstruct
aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details to the greatest extent possible.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Reconstruction
Standards (Standards) 1, 3, 4, and 6.

In conformance with Standard 1, reconstruction of
aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details would be based on primary
documentation including original drawings and historic
photography, and thus depict vanished or non-surviving
portions of the Banking Hall with minimal conjecture.

In conformance with Standard 3, reconstruction of
aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details would retain the west elevation granite clad shear wall of the Banking Hall and
therefore preserve historic materials.

In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction of
aluminum brake metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner details would be based on accurate
duplication of historic features and elements
substantiated by documentary or physical evidence
rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties.

In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were
never previously executed would not be constructed.

Tower:

Proposed project would retain and rehabilitate curtain
wall brake metal and spandrel glass and install new
vision glass matched to historic as closely as possible.

Therefore, visual appearance of aluminum brake metal
with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and corner
details would not be impacted.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2 and 5.
39 In conformance with Standard 2, retention of Tower
curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass, and new
vision glass matched to historic as closely as possible would not disrupt visual appearance of aluminum brake
metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and
corner details and thus would preserve the historic
character of subject property.

In conformance with Standard 5, retention of the Tower
curtain wall brake metal and spandrel glass, and new
vision glass matched to historic as closely as possible, would not disrupt visual appearance of aluminum brake
metal with vertical (mullion), horizontal (rails) and
corner details and thus preserve the distinctive
materials, features, and finishes that characterize
subject property.

Natural dark stone cladding in stack bond
(west elevation of Banking Hall and overall
Tower Base)
Banking Hall and Tower Base:

Proposed project would retain natural dark stone
cladding in stack bond at west elevation of Banking Hall and throughout Tower Base.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Standards 2
and 3.

In conformance with Standard 2, natural dark stone
cladding in stack bond (west elevation of Banking Hall
and overall Tower Base) would be retained, and
therefore, historic character of subject property would be preserved.

In conformance with Standard 3, natural dark stone
cladding in stack bond (west elevation of Banking Hall
and overall Tower Base) would be retained, and
therefore the distinctive features that characterize
subject property would be preserved.

Raised terrazzo planters on south and west
elevations with break in middle and at
glazed access point (whether functional or
non-functional)
Banking Hall and Tower Base:

Proposed work would retain and rehabilitate raised
terrazzo planters on south and west elevations with
break in middle and at glazed access point (whether
functional or non-functional).

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2 and 3.

In conformance with Standard 2, the raised terrazzo
planters on south and west elevations with break in
middle and at glazed access point (whether functional
or non-functional) would be retained and rehabilitated, and therefore, historic character of subject property
would be preserved.
40 In conformance with Standard 3, the raised terrazzo
planters on south and west elevations with break in
middle and at glazed access point (whether functional
or non-functional) would be retained and rehabilitated, and therefore distinctive features that characterize
subject property would be preserved.

Spandrel and vision glass in two distinct
shades of grey
Banking Hall:

Proposed project would replace all spandrel and vision
glass to match historic spandrel and vision glass in
distinct shades of grey.

Conformance
The proposed project is in conformance with
Reconstruction Standards (Standards) 2 and 3.

In conformance with Standard 2, the presence of
spandrel and vision glass in two distinct shades of grey would be retained, and therefore, historic character of subject property would be preserved.

In conformance with Standard 3, the presence of
spandrel and vision glass in two distinct shades of grey would be retained, and therefore the distinctive features that characterize subject property would be preserved.

Tower:

Proposed project would rehabilitate all spandrel and
vision glass to match historic spandrel and vision glass in distinct shades of grey.

All spandrel glass, except for a limited amount that
have previously been altered, would be retained in its
original grey shade, and the new vision glass would be
a different shade of grey that aims to match the historic shade as closely as possible. As such, the existing
distinct shade of grey would be retained.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Rehabilitation
Standards (Standards) 2 and 3.

In conformance with Standard 2, the presence of
spandrel and vision glass in two distinct shades of grey on the Tower would be retained, and therefore, the
historic character of subject property would be
preserved.

In conformance with Standard 3, the presence of
spandrel and vision glass in two distinct shades of grey on the Tower would be retained, and therefore the
distinctive features that characterize subject property would be preserved.
41 Recommendations
As the proposed project has been found by a qualified professional historic architect to be in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards, and as currently proposed the project would not result in a significant impact to an historic resource (presuming the property to be historically or culturally significant pursuant to Public Resources Section 21084.1). In order to ensure that the proposed project remains in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards through final design and construction, on-going design collaboration and review and construction monitoring by a qualified professional historic architect are recommended, as set forth below. In addition, Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation with respect to the Landmark is also recommended to provide contemporary photographs to document existing appearance. It is industry practice when a portion of a potential historical resource is removed to prepare HABS documentation to provide a high-quality record of the subject property before proposed work. There are some historic photographs that document historic conditions, and HABS photographs would supplement them.

Proposed Condition for On-Going Design Collaboration and Review, and Construction Monitoring
The Applicant shall continue to retain a qualified professional historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61) to review and comment on design and construction drawings and provide recommendations, and monitor construction to ensure conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The role of the historic architect shall include collaboration on a range of items relating to materials selection, construction methods, design of exterior and interior alterations, and monitoring of construction activities. The historic architect shall submit a report documenting continued conformance with the Secretary’s Standards to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed project. The historic architect shall participate in a pre-construction meeting with the general contractor Aluminum fascia on original portion of
ground-floor canopy
Banking Hall and Tower Base:

Proposed project would rehabilitate aluminum fascia on
original portion of ground-floor canopy. In addition,
rehabilitation would include demolition of non-historic, non-contributing 1974 bank vault and subsequent
canopy reconstruction in limited areas where canopy
would be affected by vault demolition.

Conformance
Proposed project is in conformance with Reconstruction
Standards (Standards) 2, 3, and 5.

In conformance with Standard 2, the aluminum fascia
on original portion of ground-floor canopy would be
rehabilitated, and therefore, the historic character of subject property would be preserved.

In conformance with Standard 3, the aluminum fascia
on original portion of ground-floor canopy would not
create a false sense of history.

In conformance with Standard 5, rehabilitation of the
aluminum fascia on original portion of ground-floor
canopy would preserve distinctive features.
42 and subcontractors and periodically monitor construction to completion of construction. The historic architect shall notify the Applicant if any unforeseen circumstance arises during construction that could potentially result in nonconformance with the Secretary’s Standards.

The historic architect and Applicant shall resolve any unforeseen circumstance in a manner that conforms with the Secretary’s Standards.

The qualified professional historic architect shall work with Applicant team to ensure:
• Historic material would be repaired to the greatest extent feasible. Where material is deteriorated beyond repair, they would be replaced to match historic as closely as possible.
• All character-defining features are retained.
• Physical treatments to historic material would use the gentlest means possible and would not damage material.

Proposed Condition for Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II Documentation The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional photographer to prepare HABS Level II documentation. This documentation shall record the entire property. All documentation components shall be completed in accordance with the Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (HABS standards). The photographs shall consist primarily of large format, 4-inch by 5-inch, black and white negatives (one set), contact prints (one set) and 8-inch by 10-inch prints (two sets), archivally processed and printed on fiber-based paper. The set of original negatives shall be made at the time the photographs are taken.

The original, archivally-sound negatives and contact prints shall be and distributed as follows: (1) the Library of Congress in Washington, DC through the National Park Service (one set of negatives and contact prints), (2) Beverly Hills Public Library (one set of 8-inch by 10-inch prints), and (3) City of Beverly Hills Community Development Department (one set of 8-inch by 10-inch prints). The draft documentation shall be assembled and submitted to the qualified professional historic architect and the Applicant for review and approval prior to submittal to the repository. The HABS Level II documentation shall be completed prior to the start of proposed work.
43 VI. CONCLUSION
The proposed project would convert the Banking Hall and Tower of Gibraltar Square / Kate Mantilini from an office building into a hotel, while retaining the Kate Mantilini restaurant use. The proposed work is found to be in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards, therefore, this report finds historical resource impacts of the project as proposed to be less than significant. In order to ensure that the proposed project remains in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards through final design and construction, a measure for on-going design collaboration and review and construction monitoring by a qualified professional historic architect is recommended, as set forth above.

EXHIBIT E
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
National Center for Cultural Resources

NEW ADDITIONS
ITS Interpreting
NUMBER 3 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings
Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character

9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations

10. Reversibility of New Additions/Alterations
Issue: Sometimes it may be necessary to add extra space to a historic building when it is being rehabilitated to satisfy new use requirements. The best adaptive use is always one that requires the least amount of change to the historic building, which includes being able to fit the new use into the existing structure.

But even comparatively large historic buildings may need more space to house certain practical functions that were not part of the historic use, such as mechanical equipment, an elevator shaft, or a stair tower, or just to provide more rentable or occupiable space to make the project economically viable.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation permit new additions to historic buildings if the new addition is compatible with the historic building and its historic character.

A new addition will usually meet the Standards if: (1) it is located at the rear, or on another secondary and inconspicuous elevation of the building; (2) its size and scale are limited and appropriate for the historic building; (3) the new addition does not obscure character-defining features of the historic building; and (4) the new addition is designed in such a way that clearly differentiates the new from the old.

Application 1 (Compatible addition): Rehabilitated into apartments, this two and one-half story brick structure was originally constructed in 1887 as an orphanage, but most recently had been used for offices. This
building, L-shaped in
plan, extends along-a major street for most of a city
block, and it is anchored
by a three-story doubletowered entrance at one
end and a smaller simpler
tower at the other end. The
developer determined that
more room was needed to
ensure the financial success
of the conversion of this
building into residential
apartments. Accordingly,
a new two-story addition was planned at the rear and side of the former orphanage. Constructed of brick, and painted to help blend with the historic building that is also painted, the addition is simply designed, and features flat-arched windows with two-over-two sash that contrast with the rounded arches of the historic windows. This new addition meets the Standards. It is clearly differentiated from the historic building, and it is compatible in materials, design, size, and scale.

A row of townhouses in front of the new addition further minimizes its visibility from the street.

The side wing that extends behind the main entrance to the building prior to rehabilitation, and construction of the new addition.

The main front entrance of the
orphange after its conversion to
residential apartments.

The new addition at the rear of the side wing is unobtrusive, and compatible with the building’s historic character. Townhouses (on the right) in front of the addition further limit its visibility.

Application 2 (Compatible addition): A historic three-story, 1879 brick school building, long abandoned, was rehabilitated for use as a women’s and children’s center. The school is a square, Italianate building with decorative towers at each corner, now flat-roofed since the loss many years ago of their Romanesque-arched open bell towers. Although the existing building was not small, it lacked sufficient space to fulfill the center’s needs for private and communal living and dining areas for the residents, as well as for administration and staff offices. To provide additional space, two small non-significant additions were removed and a three-story brick addition was constructed at the rear of the school. The new brick is harmonious with the historic brick and the design of the addition is very simple. To further differentiate the addition from the historic building, the windows in the new addition have flat arches and are very plain and unadorned in contrast to the more decorative window openings and stone sills on the original schoolhouse. The new addition is compatible in size, scale, materials and location with the historic building and, thus, meets the Standards.

The rear elevation of the school building before
the removal of the two later, non-significant
additions.

The simple design of the new addition at the rear of the building is completely compatible with the historic character.

Proposed Addition
ExistingBuilding
The school, which is prominently situated on a corner, is shown after rehabilitation. The new addition at the back (right) cannot be seen from the corner.

Anne Grimmer, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case.

July 1999, ITS Number 3
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services

ROOFTOP ADDITIONS
ITS Interpreting
NUMBER The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation 36 Issue: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation allow the construction of new additions if they do not destroy significant fabric, and if their design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property and the historic district if applicable. However, not all historic buildings can be enlarged in a manner that is consistent with the Standards, whether for reasons of size, siting, or location within a district. With regard to rooftop additions, the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings recommend that new rooftop additions be designed so that they are inconspicuous from the public right-of-way, are set back from the primary elevation of the building, and do not damage character-defining features of the historic building. Rooftop additions are almost never appropriate for buildings that are less than four stories high. Generally, rooftop additions should not be more than one story in height, and are more compatible on buildings that are adjacent to taller buildings or dense urban environments.

Rooftop additions that do not meet these principles generally will not meet the Standards.

Application 1 (Incompatible treatment): A school built in 1923, and expanded in later years, was proposed to be rehabilitated for continued educational use as a community resource center, a housing complex for senior citizens, a day school, and a boarding school. The building was less than three stories, sat prominently on the street and was visible on all elevations. Under the initial proposal, boarding students would live in the historically unoccupied attic of the original, 1923, portion of the school.

Because the attic lacked adequate headroom, dormers were proposed for the visible front and side elevations. The StanThe school prior to rehabilitation.

Proposed rooftop additions to school building.

A drawing of the proposed dormers shows the impact this construction would have had on the physical fabric and the historic character of the building.

Subject: Rooftop Additions
Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character

5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes, and Craftsmanship

9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations
These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case.

Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service
June 2006, ITS Number 36
dards call for additions to be differentiated as new elements.

The proposed dormers were very large and out-of-scale with the historic building, featuring an arched profile and contemporary windows that contrasted strongly with the relatively traditional and subdued materials and design of the Colonial Revival structure. In addition, the dormers would not only impose a new form upon the roof, but would also require substantial alteration of the physical fabric of the roof itself.

For these reasons, the proposal did not meet the Standards.

Application 2 (Compatible treatment): A rooftop addition was proposed for a four-story apartment building that was being rehabilitated for continued residential use. The building was constructed in 1914 in a simply articulated, Classical Revival style with a slightly-raised limestone base, a brick facade, beltcourses, and some decoratively-carved keystones on the first floor. It is capped by a simple but prominent dentilled cornice. This building is one of several large apartment buildings located in a primarily small scale, single-family residential neighborhood. It is surrounded on both sides and across the street by two to two-and-one-half story rowhouses, and therefore is highly visible within the district. For this reason alone, it might appear that the addition of any more height to this building would not meet the Standards.

However, a new floor was added that is only minimally visible on the non-significant side elevations and is imperceptible from directly across the street. Setting the new floor into the flat roof plane lowered the profile of the addition to the height of a half story. The slanted front edge further minimized the appearance of the addition and concealed integral skylights. The mass blended with the solid, unadorned side walls of the historic building. This rooftop addition does not impact the historic character of the building and is in conformance with the Standards.

This early twentieth century apartment building was actually constructed as two buildings of harmonious but slightly different design.

New rooftop addition and stairtower visible on the south elevation.

New rooftop addition and stairtower visible on the secondary north elevation, meets the Standards, and is compatible with the historic building.

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
Subject: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character

5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes, and Craftsmanship

9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations

NEW ADDITIONS
ITS Interpreting
UMBER The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Re ha bil i ta tion N 47 Issue: The roofl ine is often an important character-defi ning feature of a historic building. A large cornice, tall tower, or a projecting dormer can identify a building in the skyline. Even a simple roofl ine defi nes a building’s character. Accordingly, rooftop additions proposed as part of a rehabilitation project must be carefully designed in order to preserve the building’s historic character. Although a rooftop addition is not appropriate for all historic buildings, under certain circumstances a compatible rooftop addition may be constructed that meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

A successful rooftop addition does not signifi cantly impact the character of the historic building. It is subordinate to the historic building in size and design, and compatible with its massing, scale, materials and features. It must be set far enough back from the primary elevation(s) of the building — usually at least one bay, so that it is not highly visible from the public right-of-way. In most cases, rooftop additions should not be more than one story and, generally, they are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.

Application 1 (Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this mid-19th century commercial building included a rooftop addition as part of the project. Though the building is only four stories in height, this rooftop addition is compatible with its historic character. It is set back substantially— almost halfway
from the
front façade
and, thus, it
is minimally
visible from
the public
street and
from within
the district.

High party
walls on either
side also help
to reduce the impact of the addition and allow it to blend in with the adjacent roofl ines. This rooftop addition does not detract from the historic character of the building and, therefore, meets the Standards.

Mid-19th century commercial building with rooftop addition as it appeared after rehabilitation (center).

Application 2 (Incompatible treatment): This three-story commercial building, originally constructed in 1847 but greatly altered in 1907, underwent rehabilitation for mixed commercial, offi ce, and residential use. The rehabilitation included a substantial new rooftop addition.

Three-story commercial building prior to rehabilitation.

These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting de ter mi na tions, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, are not nec es sar i ly ap pli ca ble beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case.

Liz Creveling, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service July 2007, ITS Number 47
Drawing of front elevation with proposed rooftop
addition.

Contrary to National Park Service guidance
which states that rooftop additions should be
limited to one story and are rarely acceptable
for low-rise buildings, this addition rises a full
story and a half above the roof. The prominent
cornice, an important character-defi ning feature
of the primary elevation of the historic building,
is overwhelmed and greatly diminished by the
new rooftop addition. Not only is the addition
barely set back from the front of the building, its
asymmetric, modernist design further detracts
from the character of the building’s classicallystyled façade. The rooftop addition competes for attention with the historic building and it is also
out of character with the surrounding district.

This rooftop addition is not compatible with the
historic character of the building and, therefore,
does not meet the Standards.

Three -story commercial building showing rooftop addition under construction.

PRESERVATION
BRIEFS
New Exterior Additions to Historic
Buildings: Preservation Concerns
Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
A new exterior addition to a historic building should
be considered in a rehabilitation project only after
determining that requirements for the new or adaptiv e
use cannot be successfully met by altering nonsignificant interior spaces . If the new use cannot be accommodated in this way, then an exterior addition
may be an acceptable alternative. Rehabilitation as a
treatment "is defined as the act or process of making
possible a compatible use for a property through repair , alterations, and additions while preserving those portion s or features which convey its historical , cultural , or architectural values."
The topic of new additions, including rooftop additions , to historic buildings comes up frequentl y, especially as it relates to rehabilitation projects. It is often discussed and it is the subject of concern, consternation, considerable disagreement and confusion. Can, in certain instances,
a historic building be enlarged for a new use without
destroying its historic character? And, just what is
significant about each particular historic building
that should be preserved? Finally, what kind of new
construction is appropriate to the historic building?
The vast amount of literature on the subject of additions to historic buildings reflects widespread interest as well as divergence of opinion. New additions have been
discussed by historians within a social and political
framework; by architects and architectural historians
in terms of construction technology and style; and
by urban planners as successful or
unsuccessful contextual design. However,
within the historic preservation and
rehabilitation programs of the National
Park Service, the focus on new additions
is to ensure that they preserve the
character of historic buildings .

Most historic districts or neighborhoods
are listed in the National Register of
Historic Places for their significance within
a particular time frame. This period of
significance of historic districts as well
as individually-listed properties may
sometimes lead to a misunderstanding
that inclusion in the National Register may
prohibit any physical change outside of a
certain historical period-particularly in
the form of exterior additions . National
Register listing does not mean that a
building or district is frozen in time and
that no change can be made without
compromising the historical significance .

It does mean, however, that a new
addition to a historic building should
preserve its historic character.

Figure 1. The addition to the right with its connecting hyphen is compatible with the Collegiate Gothic-style library. The addition is set back from the front of the library and uses the same materials and a simplified design that references, but does not copy, the historic building. Photo: David Wakely Photography.
1 2
Figure 2. The new section on the right is appropriately scaled and reflects the design of the historic Art Deco-style hotel. The apparent separation created by the recessed connector also enables the addition to be viewed as an individual building.

Guidance on New Additions
To meet Standard 1 of the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation, which states that "a
property shall be used for its historic purpose or be
placed in a new use that requires minimal change to
the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment," it must be determined whether a
historic building can accommodate a new addition.

Before expanding the building's footprint, consideration should first be given to incorporating changes-such as
code upgrades or spatial needs for a new use-within
secondary areas of the historic building. However, this is not always possible and, after such an evaluation,
the conclusion may be that an addition is required,
particularly if it is needed to avoid modifications to
character-defining interior spaces. An addition should
be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building and, thus, meet the Standards for
Rehabilitation. Standards 9 and 10 apply specifically to new additions:
(9) "New additions, exterior alterations, or related
new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new
work shall be differentiated from the old and
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment."
(10) "New additions and adjacent or related new
construction shall be undertaken in such a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form
and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired."
The subject of new additions is important because a
new addition to a historic building has the potential to change its historic character as well as to damage and
destroy significant historic materials and features. A new addition also has the potential to confuse the public and to make it difficult or impossible to differentiate the old from the new or to recognize what part of the historic
building is genuinely historic.

The intent of this Preservation Brief is to provide
guidance to owners, architects and developers on
how to design a compatible new addition, including a
rooftop addition, to a historic building. A new addition to a historic building should preserve the building's
historic character. To accomplish this and meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, a new addition should:
• Preserve significant historic materials,
features and form;
• Be compatible; and
• Be differentiated from the historic building.

Every historic building is different and each
rehabilitation project is unique. Therefore, the guidance offered here is not specific, but general, so that it can be applied to a wide variety of building types and
situations. To assist in interpreting this guidance,
illustrations of a variety of new additions are provided.

Good examples, as well as some that do not meet the
Standards, are included to further help explain and
clarify what is a compatible new addition that preserves the character of the historic building.

Figure 3. The red and buff-colored parking addition with a rooftop playground is compatible with the early-20th century school as well as with the neighborhood in which it also serves as infill in the urban setting.

Preserve Significant Historic
Materials, Features and Form
Attaching a new exterior addition usually
involves some degree of material loss to
an external wall of a historic building,
but it should be minimized. Damaging
or destroying significant materials and
craftsmanship should be avoided, as
much as possible.

Generally speaking, preservation of
historic buildings inherently implies
minimal change to primary or "public"
elevations and, of course, interior
features as well. Exterior features that
distinguish one historic building or
a row of buildings and which can be
seen from a public right of way, such
as a street or sidewalk , are most likely
to be the most significant. These can
include many different elements, such
as: window patterns, window hoods
or shutters; porticoes, entrances and
doorways; roof shapes, cornices and
decor ative moldings; or commercial
storefronts with their special detailing ,
signs and glazing patterns . Beyond a
single building, entire blocks of urban
or residential structures are often closely
related architecturally by their materials,
detailing, form and alignment. Because
significant materials and features should
be preserved, not damaged or hidden ,
the first place to consider placing a
new addition is in a location where
the least amount of historic material
and character-defining features will
be lost. In most cases, this will be on a
secondary side or rear elevation .

One way to reduce overall material
loss when constructing a new addition
is simply to keep the addition smaller
in proportion to the size of the historic
building. Limiting the size and number of openings
between old and new by utilizing existing doors or
enlarging windows also helps to minimize loss. An
often successful way to accomplish this is to link the
addition to the historic building by means of a hyphen
or connector. A connector provides a physical link
while visually separating the old and new, and the
connecting passageway penetrates and removes only a
small portion of the historic wall. A new addition that will abut the historic building along an entire elevation or wrap around a side and rear elevation, will likely
integrate the historic and the new interiors , and thus result in a high degree of loss of form and exterior walls, as well as significant alteration of interior spaces and features, and will not meet the Standards.

Figure 4. This glass and brick structure is a harmonious addition set back and connected to the rear of the Colonial Revival-styl e brick house. Cunnin gham/Quill Ar chitects.

Photos:© Ma xwe ll Ma cKenzie.

Compatible but Differentiated Design
In accordance with the Standards, a new addition must
preserve the building's historic character and, in order to do that, it must be differentiated, but compatible,
with the historic building. A new addition must retain
the essential form and integrity of the historic property.

Keeping the addition smaller, limiting the removal
of historic materials by linking the addition with a
hyphen , and locating the new addition at the rear or on an inconspicuous side elevation of a historic building
are techniques discussed previously that can help to
accomplish this.

Rather than differentiating between old and new, it
might seem more in keeping with the historic character
3 4
simply to repeat the historic form, material, features and detailing in a new addition. However, when the new
work is highly replicative and indistinguishable from
the old in appearance, it may no longer be possible to
identify the "real" historic building. Conversely, the
treatment of the addition should not be so different that it becomes the primary focus. The difference may be
subtle, but it must be clear. A new addition to a historic building should protect those visual qualities that make the building eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The National Park Service policy concerning new
additions to historic buildings, which was adopted in
1967, is not unique. It is an outgrowth and continuation of a general philosophical approach to change first
expressed by John Ruskin in England in the 1850s,
formalized by William Morris in the founding of the
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings in
1877, expanded by the Society in 1924 and, finally,
reiterated in the 1964 Venice Charter-a document that
continues to be followed by the national committees
of the International Council on Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS). The 1967 Administrative Policies for
Historical Areas of the National Park System direct that " ... a modern addition should be readily distinguishable from the older work; however, the new work should be
harmonious with the old in scale, proportion, materials, and color. Such additions should be as inconspicuous as possible from the public view." As a logical evolution
from these Policies specifically for National Park
Service-owned historic structures, the 1977 Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, which may be applied to all historic buildings listed in, or eligible for listing in the National Register, also state that "the new work shall be differentiated from the old and
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment."
Figure 5. This addition (a) is constructed of matching brick and attached by a recessed connector (b) to the 1914 apartment building (c). The design is compatible and the addition is smaller and subordinate to the historic building (d).

Preserve Historic Character
The goal, of course, is a new addition that preserves the building's historic character. The historic character of each building may be different, but the methodology of
establishing it remains the same. Knowing the uses and
functions a building has served over time will assist in making what is essentially a physical evaluation. But,
while written and pictorial documentation can provide
a framework for establishing the building's history,
to a large extent the historic character is embodied in the physical aspects of the historic building itselfshape, materials, features, craftsmanship, window arrangements, colors, setting and interiors. Thus, it
is important to identify the historic character before
making decisions about the extent-or limitations-of
change that can be made.

Figure 6. A new addition (left) is connected to the garage which separates it from the main block of the c. 1910 former florist shop (right). The addition is traditional in style, yet sufficiently restrained in design to distinguish it from the historic building.

Figure 7. A vacant side lot was the only place a new stair tower could be built when this 1903 theater was rehabilitated as a performing arts center. Constructed with matching materials, the stair tower is set back with a recessed connector and, despite its prominent location, it is clearly subordinate and differentiated from the historic theater.

A new addition should always be subordinate to the
historic building; it should not compete in size, scale or design with the historic building. An addition that
bears no relationship to the proportions and massing
of the historic building-in other words, one that
overpowers the historic form and changes the scalewill usually compromise the historic character as well. The appropriate size for a new addition varies
from building to building; it could never be stated
in a square or cubic footage ratio, but the historic
building's existing proportions, site and setting can
help set some general parameters for enlargement.

Although even a small addition that is poorly
designed can have an adverse impact, to some extent,
there is a predictable relationship between the size of the historic resource and what is an appropriate size
for a compatible new addition.

Generally, constructing the new
addition on a secondary side or rear
elevation-in addition to material
preservation-will also preserve the
historic character. Not only will the
addition be less visible, but because
a secondary elevation is usually
simpler and less distinctive, the
addition will have less of a physical
and visual impact on the historic
building. Such placement will help to
preserve the building's historic form
and relationship to its site and setting.

Historic landscape features, including
distinctive grade variations, also
need to be respected. Any new
landscape features, including plants
and trees, should be kept at a scale
and density that will not interfere with
understanding of the historic resource
itself. A traditionally landscaped
property should not be covered with large paved
areas for parking which would drastically change the
character of the site.

Despite the fact that in most cases it is recommended
that the new addition be attached to a secondary
elevation, sometimes this is not possible. There simply may not be a secondary elevation-some important
freestanding buildings have significant materials and
features on all sides. A structure or group of structures together with its setting (for example, a college campus) may be of such significance that any new addition
would not only damage materials, but alter the
buildings' relationship to each other and the setting.

An addition attached to a highly-visible elevation of a historic building can radically alter the historic form or obscure features such as a decorative cornice or
window ornamentation. Similarly, an addition that fills 5 6
Figure 8. The rehabilitation of this large, early-20th century warehouse (left) into affordable artists' lofts included the addition of a compatible glass and brick elevator/stair tower at the back (right).

Figure 9. A simple, brick stair tower replaced two non-historic additions at the rear of this 1879 school building when it was rehabilitated as a women's and children's shelter. The addition is set back and it is not visible from the front of the school.

Figure 10. The small size and the use of matching materials ensures that the new addition on the left is compatible with the historic Romanesque Revival-style building.

In other instances, particularly in urban areas,
there may be no other place but adjacent to the
primary fac;ade to locate an addition needed for
the new use. It may be possible to design a lateral
addition attached on the side that is compatible
with the historic building, even though it is a
highly-visible new element. Certain types of
historic structures, such as government buildings,
metropolitan museums, churches or libraries,
may be so massive in size that a relatively largescale addition may not compromise the historic character, provided, of course, the addition is
smaller than the historic building. Occasionally,
the visible size of an addition can be reduced by
placing some of the spaces or support systems in
a part of the structure that is underground. Large
new additions may sometimes be successful if
they read as a separate volume, rather than as an
extension of the historic structure, although the
scale, massing and proportions of the addition
still need to be compatible with the historic
building. However, similar expansion of smaller
buildings would be dramatically out of scale. In
summary, where any new addition is proposed,
correctly assessing the relationship between
actual size and relative scale will be a key to
preserving the character of the historic building.
in a planned void on a highly-visible elevation
(such as a U-shaped plan or a feature such as a
porch) will also alter the historic form and, as a
result, change the historic character. Under these
circumstances, an addition would have too much
of a negative impact on the historic building and
it would not meet the Standards. Such situations
may best be handled by constructing a separate
building in a location where it will not adversely
affect the historic structure and its setting.

There is no formula or prescription for
designing a new addition that meets the
Standards. A new addition to a historic
building that meets the Standards can be any
architectural style-traditional, contemporary
or a simplified version of the historic
building. However, there must be a balance
between differentiation and compatibility in
order to maintain the historic character and
the identity of the building being enlarged.

New additions that too closely resemble the
historic building or are in extreme contrast to
it fall short of this balance. Inherent in all of the
guidance is the concept that an addition needs to
be subordinate to the historic building.

A new addition must preserve significant
historic materials, features and form, and it
must be compatible but differentiated from
the historic building. To achieve this, it is
necessary to carefully consider the placement
or location of the new addition, and its size,
scale and massing when planning a new
addition. To preserve a property's historic
character, a new addition must be visually
distinguishable from the historic building.

This does not mean that the addition and the
historic building should be glaringly different
in terms of design, materials and other visual
qualities. Instead, the new addition should
take its design cues from, but not copy, the
historic building.

Figure 11. The addition to this early-20th
century Gothic Revival-style church provides
space for offices, a great hall for gatherings
and an accessible entrance (left). The stucco
finish, metal roof, narrow gables and the
Gothic-arched entrance complement the
architecture of the historic church. Placing the
addition in back where the ground slopes away
ensures that it is subordinate and minimizes
its impact on the church (below).

A variety of design techniques can be effective ways to differentiate the new construction from the old, while
respecting the architectural qualities and vocabulary of the historic building, including the following:
• Incorporate a simple, recessed, small-scale hyphen
to physically separate the old and the new volumes
or set the addition back from the wall plane(s) of the
historic building.
• Avoid designs that unify the two volumes into
a single architectural whole. The new addition
may include simplified architectural features that
reflect, but do not duplicate, similar features on the
historic building. This approach will not impair
the existing building's historic character as long
as the new structure is subordinate in size and
clearly differentiated and distinguishable so that the
identity of the historic structure is not lost in a new and larger composition. The historic building must
be clearly identifiable and its physical integrity must not be compromised by the new addition.
7 Design Guidance for Compatible
New Additions to Historic Buildings
8 • Use building materials in the same color range
or value as those of the historic building.

The materials need not be the same as those
on the historic building, but they should be
harmonious; they should not be so different
that they stand out or distract from the
historic building. (Even clear glass can be
as prominent as a less transparent material.

Generally, glass may be most appropriate for
small-scale additions, such as an entrance on a
secondary elevation or a connector between an
addition and the historic building.)
• Base the size, rhythm and alignment of the
new addition's window and door openings on
those of the historic building.
• Respect the architectural expression of the
historic building type. For example, an
addition to an institutional building should
maintain the architectural character associated
with this building type rather than using
details and elements typical of residential or
other building types.

These techniques are merely examples of ways to
differentiate a new addition from the historic building while ensuring that the addition is compatible with
it. Other ways of differentiating a new addition from
the historic building may be used as long as they
maintain the primacy of the historic building. Working
within these basic principles still allows for a broad
range of architectural expression that can range from
stylistic similarity to contemporary distinction. The
recommended design approach for an addition is one
that neither copies the historic building exactly nor
stands in stark contrast to it.

Figure 12. This 1954 synagogue (left) is accessed through a monumental entrance to the right. The new education wing (Jar right) added to it features the same vertical elements and color and, even though it is quite large, its smaller scale and height ensure that it is secondary to the historic resource.

Figure 13. A glass and metal structure was constructed in the courtyard as a restaurant when this 1839 building was converted to a hotel. Although such an addition might not be appropriate in a more public location, it is compatible here in the courtyard of this historic building.

Figure 14. This glass addition was erected at the back of an 1895 former brewery during rehabilitation to provide another entrance.

The addition is compatible with the plain character of this secondary elevation.

Revising an Incompatible Design for a New Addition to Meet the Standards ·il-1---~--l- il--l-i---E ~--=== 1-~.:=11·- ■--■-
Figure 15. The rehabilitation of a c. 1930 high school auditorium for a clinic and offices proposed two additions: a one-story entrance and reception area on this elevation (a); and a four-story elevator and stair tower on another side (b). The gabled entrance (c) first proposed was not compatible with the flat-roofed auditorium and the design of the proposed stair tower (d) was also incompatible and overwhelmed the historic building. The designs were revised (e-f) resulting in new additions that meet the Standards (g-h). 9 10
Incompatible New Additions to Historic Buildings
New Addition
Figure 16. The proposal to add three row houses to the rear ell of this early-19th century residential property doubles its size a11d does not meet the Standards ..

Figure 17. The small addition on the left is
starkly different and it is not compatible with
the eclectic, late-19th century house.

Figure 18. The expansion
of a one-and one-half story
historic bungalow (left)
with a large two-story rear
addition (right) has greatly
altered and obscured its
distinctive shape and form.

Figure 19. The upper two floors of this early-20th century office building were part of the original design, but were not built. During rehabilitation, the two stories were finally constructed. This treatment does not meet the Standards because the addition has given the building an appearance it never had historically.

Figure 20. The height, as
well as the design, of these
two-story rooftop additions
overwhelms the two-story
and the one-story, low-rise
historic buildings.

New Addition
New Additions in Densely-Built
Environments
In built-up urban areas, locating a new
addition on a less visible side or rear
elevation may not be possible simply
because there is no available space. In this
instance, there may be alternative ways to
help preserve the historic character. One
approach when connecting a new addition
to a historic building on a primary elevation
is to use a hyphen to separate them. A
subtle variation in material, detailing
and color may also provide the degree of
differentiation necessary to avoid changing
the essential proportions and character of
the historic building.

A densely-built neighborhood such as
a downtown commercial core offers a
particular opportunity to design an addition
that will have a minimal impact on the
historic building. Often the site for such
an addition is a vacant lot where another
building formerly stood. Treating the
addition as a separate or infill building
may be the best approach when designing
an addition that will have the least impact
on the historic building and the district. In
these instances there may be no need for a
direct visual link to the historic building.

Height and setback from the street should
generally be consistent with those of the
historic building and other surrounding
buildings in the district. Thus, in most
urban commercial areas the addition
should not be set back from the far;ade of
the historic building. A tight urban setting
may sometimes even accommodate a larger
addition if the primary elevation is designed
to give the appearance of being several
buildings by breaking up the facade into
elements that are consistent with the scale of
the historic building and adjacent buildings.

Figure 21. Both wings of this historic L-shaped building (top), which fronts on two city streets, adjoined vacant lots. A two-story addition was constructed on one lot (above, left) and a six-story addition was built on the other (above, right). Like the historic building, which has two different facades, the compatible new additions are also different and appear to be separate structures rather than part of the historic building.

Figure 22. The proposed new addition is compatible with the historic buildings that remain on the block.

Its design with multiple storefronts helps break up the mass. 11 12
Rooftop Additions
The guidance provided on designing a compatible new
addition to a historic building applies equally to new
rooftop additions. A rooftop addition should preserve
the character of a historic building by preserving historic materials, features and form; and it should be compatible but differentiated from the historic building.

However, there are several other design principles that apply specifically to rooftop additions. Generally, a
rooftop addition should not be more than one story in
height to minimize its visibility and its impact on the proportion and profile of the historic building. A rooftop addition should almost always be set back at least one full bay from the primary elevation of the building, as well as from the other elevations if the building is free-standing or highly visible.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to minimize the impact of adding an entire new floor to relatively low buildings, such as small-scale residential or commercial structures, even if the new addition is set back from the plane of
the fac;ade. Constructing another floor on top of a small, one, two or three-story building is seldom appropriate
for buildings of this size as it would measurably alter the building's proportions and profile, and negatively
impact its historic character. On the other hand, a rooftop addition on an eight-story building, for example, in a
historic district consisting primarily of tall buildings might not affect the historic character because the new construction may blend in with the surrounding buildings and be only minimally visible within the district. A
rooftop addition in a densely-built urban area is more
likely to be compatible on a building that is adjacent to similarly-sized or taller buildings.

A number of methods may be used to help evaluate the
effect of a proposed rooftop addition on a historic building and district, including pedestrian sight lines, threedimensional schematics and computer-generated design.

However, drawings generally do not provide a true
"picture" of the appearance and visibility of a proposed rooftop addition. For this reason, it is often necessary to construct a rough, temporary, full-size or skeletal mock up of a portion of the proposed addition, which can then be photographed and evaluated from critical vantage points on surrounding streets.

Figure 23. Colored flags marking the location of a proposed penthouse addition (a) were placed on the roof to help evaluate the impact and visibility of an addition planned for this historic furniture store (b).

Based on this evaluation, the addition was constructed as proposed.

It is minimally visible and compatible with the 1912 structure (c).

The tall parapet wall conceals the addition from the street below (d).

Figure 24. How to Evaluate a Proposed Rooftop Addition.

A sight-line study (above) only factors in views from directly across the street, which can be very restrictive and does not illustrate the full effect of an addition from other public rights of way. A mock up (above, right) or a mock up enhanced by a computer-generated rendering (below, right) is essential to evaluate the impact of a proposed rooftop addition on the historic building.

Figure 25. It was possible to add a compatible, three-story, penthouse addition to the roof of this five-story, historic bank building because the addition is set far back, it is surrounded by taller buildings and a deep parapet conceals almost all of the addition from below.

Figure 26. A rooftop addition
would have negatively
impacted the character of the
primary facade (right) of this
mid-19th century,four-story
structure and the low-rise
historic district. However, a
third floor was successfully
added on the two-story rear
portion (below) of the same
building with little impact to
the building or the district
because it blends in with the
height of the adjacent building.
13 14
Figure 27. Although the new brick stair/elevator tower (left) is not visible from the front (right), it is on a prominent side elevation of this 1890 stone bank. The compatible addition is set back and does not compete with the historic building. Photos: Chadd Gossmann, Aurora Photography, LLC.

Designing a New Exterior Addition to a Historic Building This guidance should be applied to help in designing
a compatible new addition that that will meet the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation:
• A new addition should be simple and
unobtrusive in design, and should be
distinguished from the historic building- a
recessed connector can help to differentiate the
new from the old.
• A new addition should not be highly visible from
the public right of way; a rear or other secondary
elevation is usually the best location for a new
addition.
• The construction materials and the color of the
new addition should be harmonious with the
historic building materials.
• The new addition should be smaller than the
historic building-it should be subordinate in
both size and design to the historic building.

The same guidance should be applied when
designing a compatible rooftop addition, plus
the following:
• A rooftop addition is generally not appropriate
for a one, two or three-story building-and
often is not appropriate for taller buildings.
• A rooftop addition should be minimally visible.
• Generally, a rooftop addition must be set back
at least one full bay from the primary elevation
of the building, as well as from the other
elevations if the building is freestanding or
highly visible.
• Generally, a rooftop addition should not be
more than one story in height.
• Generally, a rooftop addition is more likely to
be compatible on a building that is adjacent to
similarly-sized or taller buildings.

Figure 28. A small addition
(left) was constructed when
this 1880s train station was
converted for office use. The
paired doors with transoms
and arched windows on the
compatible addition reflect, but
do not replicate, the historic
building (right).

Figure 29. This simple
glass and brick entrance
(left) added to a secondary
elevation of a 1920s
school building (right)
is compatible with the
original structure.

Summary
Because a new exterior addition to a historic building can damage or destroy significant materials and can change the building's character, an addition should be considered only after it has been determined that the new use cannot be met by altering non-significant, or secondary, interior spaces. If the new use cannot be met in this way, then an attached addition may be an acceptable alternative if carefully planned and designed. A new addition to a historic building should be constructed in a manner that preserves significant materials, features and form, and preserves the building's historic character. Finally, an addition should be differentiated from the historic building so that the new work is compatible with-and does not detract from -the historic building, and cannot itself be confused as historic.

Additional Reading
Byard, Paul Spencer. The Architecture of New Additions: Design and Regulation. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998.

Day, Steven, AIA. "Modernism Meets History: New
Additions to Historic Structures." Preservation Seattle [Historic Seattle's online monthly preservation magazine.] May 2003. www.historicseattle.org/preserva ti on sea ttle/pub licpolicy/ defaultmay2.htm.
lllcentives! A Guide to the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program for Income-Producing Properties. "Avoiding Incompatible Treatments: New Additions & Rooftop
Additions." Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/.

Interpreting the Standards Bulletins (ITS). Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service. Online at
www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/.

New Additions to Historic Buildings. Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service . Online at www.nps. gov/history/hps/tps/.

O'Connell, Kim A. "Making Connections." Traditional Building.

March/April 2004. (Vol. 17, No. 2), pp. 12-15.

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, rev. 1990.

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. (Authors: W. Brown Morton, III, Gary L. Hume, Kay D. Weeks, and H. Ward Jandl. Project Directors: Anne E. Grimmer
and Kay D. Weeks.) Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Preservation Assistance Division, 1992. Online at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps/.

Semes, Steven W. "Dilierentiated and Compatible: The
Secretary's Standards revisited." Traditional Building. February 2009. (Vol. 22, No. 1), pp . 20-23.

Semes, Steven W. The Future of the Past: A Conservation Ethic for Architecture, Urbanism, and Historic Preservation. (In association with The Institute of Classical Architecture and Classical America.) New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009.

Figure 30. The small addition on the right of this late-19th century commercial structure is clearly secondary and compatible in size, materials and design with the historic building.
15 16
Figure 31. An elevator/stair tower
was added at the back of this
Richardsonian Romanesque-style
theater when it was rehabilitated.

Rough-cut stone and simple
cut-out openings ensure that
the addition is compatible and
subordinate to the historic building.

Photo: Chuck Liddy, AJA.

Acknowledgements
Anne E. Grimmer, Senior Architectural Historian, Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service, revised Preservation Brief 14, written by Kay D. Weeks and first published in 1986. The revised Brief features all new illustrations and contains expanded and updated design guidance on the subject of new additions that has been developed by the Technical Preservation Services Branch since the original publication of the Brief. Several individuals generously contributed their time and expertise to review the revision of this Preservation Brief, including: Sharon C. Park, FAIA, Chief, Architectural History and Historic Preservation, Smithsonian Institution; Elizabeth Tune and Karen Brandt, Department of Historic Resources, Commonwealth of Virginia; and Phillip Wisley and David Ferro, Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State. The Technical Preservation Services professional staff, in particular Michael J. Auer, Jo Ellen Hensley, Gary Sachau and Rebecca Shiffer, also provided important guidance in the development of this publication. All illustrations are from National Park Service files unless otherwise credited. Front cover image: Detail of new addition shown in Figure 4. Photo: © Maxwell MacKenzie.

This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. The Technical Preservation Services Branch, National Park Service, prepares standards, guidelines and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public audience. Additional information about the programs of Technical Preservation Services is available on the website at www.nps.gov/history/hps/tps.

Comments about this publication should be addressed to: Charles E. Fisher, Technical Preservation Publications Program Manager, Technical Preservation Services-2255, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. This publication is not copyrighted and can be reproduced without penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the author and the National Park Service are appreciated.

ISBN: 978-0-16-085869-7
U.S. Government Printing Office Stock Number: 024-005-01280-0 August2010

EXHIBIT F
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· · · · · · TRANSCRIPTION OF APRIL 13, 2022 CHC MEETING · · · · · · · · · · · · AGENDA ITEM NO. 4
· · · · · · ·(9884 SANTA MONICA - LANDMARK INITIATION)
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· · ·TRANSCRIBED BY:
· · ·KRISHA ALATORRE
· · ·CSR NO. 13255

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
·2
·3· ·COMMISSIONERS:
·4· ·Craig Corman - Chair
· · ·Kimberly Vinokur Reiss - Vice Chair
·5· ·Marc Teren - Commissioner
· · ·Jill Tavelman Collins - Commissioner
·6· ·Josh Flagg - Commissioner
·7
·8· ·STAFF:
·9· ·Mark Odell
· · ·David Snow
10 11· ·SPEAKERS:
12· ·Yaniv Tepper
· · ·Unidentified Female
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25

·1· · · · · · · · · · · · April 13, 2022
·2
·3· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Go ahead, Kimberly.
·4· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Thank you.· Thank you so much ·5· ·for coming in and bringing this to our attention, and for ·6· ·being the type of business owner that we love.· I wanted ·7· ·to know, first and foremost, if you've reached out to the ·8· ·John Lautner Foundation.· I have a friend who's a
·9· ·founding board member and I would be happy to connect you 10· ·with her, if you're at all interested.
11· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Not only are we at all interested, 12· ·we'd be delighted.
13· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· Right, and --
14· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· And we'd hope you could do that for 15· ·us.
16· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· And as part of the 17· ·landmark application, we have a -- a letter from Judith 18· ·Lautner --
19· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Oh, great.
20· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· -- so I've -- I've 21· ·contact -- we've contacted her and Ms. Lautner confirmed 22· ·that her father was the architect --
23· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Right.
24· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· -- working under Honnold 25· ·and that she supports this landmark designation and the

·1· ·project.
·2· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Fantastic.
·3· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· So thank you for
·4· ·mentioning that --
·5· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Yes.
·6· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· -- but we -- we -- we ·7· ·did --
·8· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· That's great.
·9· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· -- we brought -- sought 10· ·her out --
11· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Okay.
12· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· Yeah.
13· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· -- and -- and the
14· ·foundation.
15· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· If you could maybe leave me 16· ·your card or something like that --
17· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I would appreciate that.
18· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· -- I -- I will put you in 19· ·touch with you.· Her name is Eleanor Schrader.
20· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Eleanor Schrader --
21· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Yeah.
22· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- that sounds great.
23· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Yeah.
24· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah, one of the other things that 25· ·we did is we -- we -- we found a -- the woman who's still

·1· ·running Lautner & Associates, at least by name, and -- ·2· ·and -- and a woman to whom when Lautner wrote his -- ·3· ·wrote an autobiography about his work, dedicated to her, ·4· ·her name is Helena, is an advisor that we took to the ·5· ·project, so --
·6· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· That's great.
·7· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- so we've spent time with her. ·8· ·We've talked the site and -- and so we're excited to kind ·9· ·of bring those elements in.· We've talked about -- we'd 10· ·love to meet the Lautner Foundation.· I -- I -- I think 11· ·it might be a -- a natural place for them to even make 12· ·a -- you know, maybe do something in the lobby, maybe 13· ·make a home.· I mean, I think people should learn
14· ·about -- about this history and is a natural place to do 15· ·it.
16· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· And then, of course I just 17· ·want to say that I can probably speak for my fellow 18· ·Commissioners that we would love a tour and like to see 19· ·the property, so any time that's convenient for you, I'm 20· ·sure we'd all be (Unintelligible) --
21· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah, there's not much on the 22· ·inside, but just seeing the -- the perimeter, the
23· ·courtyard --
24· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· That's good.
25· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- and just the experience of

·1· ·walking from the sidewalk and the way Lautner sort of ·2· ·brought you into a building is completely fantastic, ·3· ·yeah.· So we'll be --
·4· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· I think -- well, I think we'd ·5· ·appreciate seeing your vision for it and -- and would ·6· ·benefit from it.
·7· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah.· We'll schedule something. ·8· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· Yeah.
·9· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Questions and -- for the Staff, 10· ·(Unintelligible), Josh, do you have any questions? 11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER FLAGG:· No questions.
12· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Jill?
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER COLLINS:· No questions.· Comments, 14· ·but no questions.
15· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Marc, any questions?
16· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· So today -- this is to you, 17· ·Mark.· Today we're being asked whether or not sufficient 18· ·criteria exists for us to move the property forward for 19· ·consideration as a landmark.
20· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· That's correct.
21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Which is --
22· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· We're going to do it in two phases, 23· ·pursuant to the ordinance.· First, initiation, what we're 24· ·reviewing now, and then we'll move on to preliminary 25· ·hearing.

·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Yes.
·2· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Next step would be nomination.· And ·3· ·finally, designation by City Council.
·4· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Because it's voluntary it's back ·5· ·to back.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Right, right.· So I
·7· ·understand that, so I've got that.· So my next question, ·8· ·then, is, we're not being asked today to evaluate the ·9· ·additions, et cetera, to the property.· So will that be 10· ·part 2 of the process that will take care of the landmark 11· ·status now and then --
12· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· The Commissioners can add comments 13· ·at any time.· This would go before the Planning
14· ·Commission for a Historic Incentive Permit.· If you 15· ·deliver comments to me today or in the future, I will 16· ·hand them to the planner who handles the case, before the 17· ·Planning Commission, for them to deliver to the
18· ·Commission, your comments or your concerns.
19· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Yeah, I -- I -- I would -- I 20· ·would suggest that we -- we make those comments during 21· ·the actual -- during the -- during the -- the more 22· ·complete hearing than the -- today.
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Right.· Oh, no, I -- we 24· ·haven't seen anything --
25· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Right.

·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· -- so obviously I can't, ·2· ·so --
·3· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Yeah.
·4· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· -- let me continue my ·5· ·question, just to make sure.· If the property had
·6· ·landmark status today, and the Applicant was proposing ·7· ·additions to the building, those additions would then ·8· ·come to us --
·9· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· That's correct.
10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· -- for this Commission for 11· ·evaluation?
12· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Minor -- minor changes would be 13· ·approved by Staff for a Certificate of Appropriateness. 14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Right.
15· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Major changes would come before the 16· ·Cultural Heritage Commission for, also, the approval of a 17· ·Certificate of --
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Right.
19· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· -- Appropriateness for a designated 20· ·resource.
21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Got it.· Which will likely 22· ·include a third-floor addition.· And none of this is 23· ·saying that I'm not supportive of -- of any of this, but 24· ·I want to make sure the process.· So you --
25· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· But in conjunction with an Historic

·1· ·Incentive Permit, a Certificate of Appropriateness is not ·2· ·required.· The Planning Commission would act on behalf of ·3· ·the Cultural Heritage Commission, but I'm following ·4· ·through with your questioning.
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Okay.· But I want to make ·6· ·sure that I understand --
·7· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Understand the --
·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· -- the answer, 'cause ·9· ·you're moving quicker than I (Unintelligible).
10· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Okay.· Okay.· Sorry.
11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Just give me -- just give 12· ·me a second.· So by virtue of the way this is being 13· ·approached in the voluntary perspective, whatever, the 14· ·Planning Commission acts in a role that in a different 15· ·situation we would act in and basically reviews the 16· ·appropriateness of the third-floor addition?
17· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Basically.· In conjunction with your 18· ·comments that are delivered to the Planning Commission, 19· ·yes.
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Which -- so in the -- in 21· ·the next meeting, when we're having a more formal review, 22· ·will we also get a presentation on the additions that are 23· ·being proposed for the building, so that we have an 24· ·opportunity to comment on that for the Planning
25· ·Commission?

·1· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· We certainly could, yes.· Or we ·2· ·could bring it forward at a future date, but I think ·3· ·we're trying to fast track this project forward and ·4· ·that's why they waive the timeline, so that they could go ·5· ·before the Planning Commission, get approved, and then ·6· ·return back to the Cultural Heritage Commission for final ·7· ·nomination.· So we could do it that way, certainly, if ·8· ·the Applicant is ready.
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Yeah.· I -- I -- I would 10· ·just say to the Applicant that I'd love to see your 11· ·plans.· Look spectacular at first pass and wouldn't 12· ·surprise anyone on this Commission that, you know, I'd be 13· ·interested in having an opportunity to, you know, comment 14· ·if I had any comments and share.· And if the Applicant is 15· ·supportive of bringing a presentation forward, as part of 16· ·our evaluation, our next valuation or meeting, I would be 17· ·very supportive of that.
18· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Absolutely.
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Thank you.
20· · · · · · MR. ODELL:· Thank you.
21· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Okay.· Thank you.· Other
22· ·questions of Staff or the Applicant?· Okay.· Thank you. 23· ·Seeing -- I'm going to close the public hearing.· Could 24· ·you take a seat and we're just going to have some
25· ·discussions.

·1· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Good.· Thank you.
·2· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Thank you.· Okay.· So who would ·3· ·like to -- let's go to deliberations.· Who would like to ·4· ·talk about the -- the project first?· Marc?
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Oh, I -- I don't think ·6· ·there's any question that this qualifies for
·7· ·consideration as a landmark.· I agree with the
·8· ·perspective.· I think, Jan and Mark, that this may meet ·9· ·qualifications for either state or national landmark 10· ·status.
11· · · · · · It certainly maintains its integrity.· It 12· ·certainly is a significant representation of its style. 13· ·It's a significant quality representation of John
14· ·Lautner's work.· It is not often that we have owners that 15· ·have this kind of respect and embrace of the properties 16· ·that they own.· So I think that -- I'm very supportive 17· ·and I just don't think there's any question as to whether 18· ·or not it qualifies.
19· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Kimberly.
20· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· So I've already said most of 21· ·what I wanted to say, but the only other thing I can add 22· ·to this is that in terms of the long view for
23· ·preservation, I think this is an area of our city that 24· ·greatly needs catalyzing.· It needs reinvention and I 25· ·think a project like this could be that -- that catalyst.

·1· · · · · · And so, it's exciting and I'm enthusiastic about ·2· ·seeing a building that really doesn't have much
·3· ·appreciation, I think, in that area become something ·4· ·special and spectacular, so thank you.
·5· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Josh, any -- any -- no comments? ·6· ·Jill?
·7· · · · · · COMMISSIONER COLLINS:· I'd just like to say what ·8· ·a great opportunity to actually marry up a building with ·9· ·a person that actually respects it.· We think we have a 10· ·house for you.· We won't get into that.· You know, we 11· ·won't go into that further, but actually --
12· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· We were -- we were at a council 13· ·meeting til two o'clock in the morning on another -- 14· ·another house -- another house, so that -- that's -- 15· · · · · · COMMISSIONER COLLINS:· Yeah, yeah, yeah, that 16· ·the owner does not respect and has no intention of 17· ·keeping.
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER FLAGG:· Can't say anything.
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER COLLINS:· No, I won't say anything. 20· ·But no, honestly, to be able to, you know, buy a building 21· ·that you admire, for your business to move there, even 22· ·though it's not even the size you want, because you -- 23· ·you want it, to restore it, and to actually, you know, 24· ·make our community a better community is -- is one 25· ·hundred percent, you know, on board with what we -- we

·1· ·all are in agreement about.· And it's exciting that, ·2· ·that's what you want to do and we encourage more people ·3· ·like you to come and buy properties.
·4· · · · · · I think it's -- it's really exciting.· I think ·5· ·we all do want to see it, you know, from your
·6· ·perspective, and how -- how encouraging you are of ·7· ·embracing the Lautner -- you know, the whole fact that it ·8· ·was a John Lautner or is still.· And do you think -- just ·9· ·one quick question:· Do you think you would go for a 10· ·state certification or historic -- okay.· Which is even 11· ·more amazing.· Just wanted to say thank you and we look 12· ·forward to seeing what -- what is to come next.· Thank 13· ·you.
14· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Thank you.· So you know, I think 15· ·this is a very exciting development.· I'm a big fan of 16· ·mid-century modern architecture.· This is sort of in my 17· ·wheelhouse.· I have been a long-time admirer of this 18· ·building.· I -- I -- you know, it's obviously been a 19· ·little run down in the last few years, but it's a great 20· ·building and you know, I think it's -- it's just exciting 21· ·to see that someone's going to take this building and 22· ·restore it.
23· · · · · · I think -- I -- just preliminary, what -- what 24· ·it looks like you want to do on the roof looks, you know, 25· ·very appropriate.· It's obviously not -- it's for the

·1· ·Planning Commission to decide, but we can certainly, ·2· ·if -- once we take a closer look at it, we can certainly ·3· ·go to the Planning Commission, give them our thoughts at ·4· ·whatever meeting you're going to -- to -- to have. ·5· · · · · · You mentioned that -- it's -- it's interesting ·6· ·corridor.· You mentioned corridor.· You obviously have ·7· ·the Gores building around the corner, which the -- the ·8· ·Belzberg firm did.· You have the -- the I.M. Pei creative ·9· ·artist building next door.· Then you have -- we actually 10· ·have a landmark on the other bookend of that -- of that 11· ·block of that -- that street --
12· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· Right.
13· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· -- down over at -- at Little 14· ·Santa Monica and Moreno, the old Hilton corporate
15· ·headquarters.· What you may not know is the Friar's Club 16· ·was torn down in anticipation of -- of -- of another 17· ·small office building like yours, was going to be
18· ·designed by Frank Gehry.
19· · · · · · Jerry Perenchio was going to build it and he was 20· ·all set to -- to -- to do it and then I think he decided 21· ·he didn't want to spend the time, because it was going to 22· ·take many years.· And I remember going down to Gehry's 23· ·office just to see a preview of the -- of the -- a 24· ·structure was going to be an incredible structure.· It 25· ·was going to be something like the Disney Hall, only

·1· ·instead of made out of steel, it was going to be -- it ·2· ·was going to be limestone and each panel was going to be ·3· ·separately honed in a CN -- CNC machine to match up at, ·4· ·like, three and a half stories tall.· It was spectacular, ·5· ·but unfortunately never got built, which is why we have a ·6· ·vacant lot there.
·7· · · · · · Hopefully someone else will take your lead and ·8· ·the lead of other neighbors and put on there special ·9· ·office, small office building there to head -- to -- to 10· ·be their headquarters, too, but we won't know until 11· ·obviously be -- right now, it's supposed to be a
12· ·condominium development.· It's supposed to have been a 13· ·condominium development for many years.· Maybe they're 14· ·going to break ground, maybe they won't.· Who knows? 15· · · · · · But -- but it's certainly a corridor that's -- 16· ·that's -- that's -- it's an exciting corridor.· There's a 17· ·lot happening and I think what you're talk -- it would be 18· ·a great addition to the area.· So you know, I -- I'm all 19· ·in favor of -- of moving this forward.· So -- so with 20· ·that in mind, let me go ahead and -- and ask for a motion 21· ·on this matter.· Yes, go ahead.
22· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· I move to find that
23· ·sufficient evidence exists to preliminary conclude that 24· ·the property at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
25· ·satisfies the applicable landmark designation criteria

·1· ·and the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, and direct Staff to ·2· ·bring the property forward for formal consideration by ·3· ·the Commission.
·4· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· So do --
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER COLLINS:· Did we take it out of ·6· ·sequence?
·7· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Oh --
·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· I'm sorry.
·9· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· -- yeah.· No, sorry.· We want to 10· ·go with the -- the -- the -- the first part, number 4. 11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER COLLINS:· Sorry.· I'm -- yeah. 12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· I move to initiate
13· ·nomination proceedings for inclusion on the Beverly Hills 14· ·Register of Historic Properties for the property located 15· ·at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard.
16· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· I second.
17· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Okay.· Karen, can you call the 18· ·roll, please.
19· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Commissioner Flagg.
20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER FLAGG:· Yes.
21· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Commissioner Teren.
22· · · · · · COMMISSIONER TEREN:· Yes.
23· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Commissioner Collins.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER COLLINS:· Yes.
25· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Vice Chair Reiss.

·1· · · · · · VICE CHAIR REISS:· Yes.
·2· · · · · · CITY CLERK:· Chair Corman.
·3· · · · · · CHAIR CORMAN:· Yes.· Okay.· Dave, do we need any ·4· ·kind of a notice?
·5· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· No, not at this point.· Just move on ·6· ·to the next -- next item.
·7· · · · · · · · · · · (End of recording.)
·8
·9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25

·1· · · · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E
·2
·3
·4· · · · · · I, KRISHA ALATORRE, Certified Shorthand
·5· ·Reporter/Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was ·6· ·authorized to transcribe the foregoing recorded
·7· ·proceeding, and that the transcript is a true and
·8· ·accurate transcription of my shorthand notes, to the best ·9· ·of my ability, taken while listening to the provided 10· ·recording.
11 12· · · · · · I further certify that I am not of counsel or 13· ·attorney for either or any of the parties to said
14· ·proceedings, nor in any way interested in the events of 15· ·this cause, and that I am not related to any of the 16· ·parties thereto.
17 18· ·Dated this 23rd day of October, 2023.
19 20
21· · · · · · · · · · · · · _______________________________ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · KRISHA ALATORRE, CSR. NO. 13255 22 23
24 25

ATTACHMENT 4
Applicant’s Appeal Response Letter
(November 21, 2023)
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com

FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Silicon Valley
Hong Kong Singapore
Houston Tel Aviv
London Tokyo
Los Angeles Washington, D.C.

Madrid
November 21, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor Gold and City Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Impact Real Estate Group’s Response to Appeal of Planning Commission Approvals for 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd.

Honorable Mayor Gold, Vice Mayor Friedman, and City Councilmembers:

On behalf of Impact Real Estate Group, LLC (“Applicant”), we appreciated the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit to allow for rehabilitation of and construction of a new penthouse atop an existing twostory commercial building (the “Building”) at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Project”).

We respectfully request that the Council deny The Belvedere Hotel Partnership’s appeal.

The appeal is baseless and merely a continuation of the group’s multiple prior objections to other nearby development over the years. The Angeleno Group, one of the country’s longest standing, dedicated clean energy and sustainability investment firms, will be headquartered at this Building, which currently sits vacant. The Angeleno Group looks forward to rehabilitating and improving this existing commercial office building for their headquarters and enhancing South Santa Monica Boulevard’s built environment.

The Planning Commission’s approvals make possible the rehabilitation and improvements designed by renowned architect Hagy Belzberg, the lead architect for the current $45 million expansion project of the Los Angeles Holocaust Museum, to this existing commercial office building that was originally designed in 1946 by one of Southern California’s most significant twentieth-century architects, John Lautner. The approvals are consistent with the staff’s recommendations, and are appropriate and consistent with the law.

As discussed in more detail in the attached, Appellant’s arguments are without merit.

Each stated concern is especially egregious in light of the fact that Appellant operates a 195- room hotel that is four stories in height, covers nearly the entire block, and contains over 7,700 square feet of rooftop outdoor space as compared to the 945 square feet of outdoor terrace proposed for the Building. See Exhibit 1 comparing relative size of the outdoor spaces.

November 21, 2023

2 Appellant quibbles with the impact of the Project on views from its property, failing to identify any actual views that would be impacted, and ignoring the Project’s conformance with City developments standards for building height in the C-3 district. In fact, the height of the new penthouse would be less than the maximum height permitted in the C-3 district, and less than the height of Appellant’s own four-story building. Further, the Project has been thoughtfully designed by Applicant to preserve the character-defining features of the Building and ensure that the new penthouse does not significantly adversely affect the streetscape or surrounding properties. This includes design features such as landscaping and orientation of the penthouse and outdoor terrace to enhance Appellant’s privacy.

Appellant speculates that the Project would have noise impacts during construction and once occupied by Applicant, despite evidence that the Project would comply with the City’s noise ordinance and General Plan Noise Element, is located in a busy commercial area with high noise levels from traffic and surrounding commercial uses, and when occupied would be primarily an office space for The Angeleno Group’s current 9 employees, far fewer the number of people who previously occupied the building.

Appellant claims the Project’s reconfiguration of the surface parking lot to remove four parking spaces and add a new loading area to comply with City code would result in traffic and pedestrian safety impacts, but the Project approvals include conditions to ensure orderly traffic management during construction as well as management of the new loading zone once the Building is occupied to minimize any traffic impacts. Applicant has also ensured that its employees would have adequate parking in nearby off-street parking lots. Appellant also claims Assembly Bill (AB) 2097’s prohibition on minimum parking requirements is inapplicable to the Project because that law only applies to construction of new buildings. That is plainly incorrect since AB 2097 applies broadly to any development project within a half mile of a transit stop (including the Project).

Appellant questions the findings of the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission that the Building is eligible for local historic landmark status, despite the extensive, peer-reviewed evidence supporting its eligibility. Since the Building was designed by John Lautner, listed on the City’s list of master architects, and is a rare extant example of a commercial building designed by him, with unique character-defining features including sustainable-design features, the Cultural Heritage Commission’s April 2023 findings that the Building meets the City’s landmark criteria are justified. These findings are well beyond challenge.

Appellant claims the Project does not conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (“SOI Standards”), which are required for the Historic Incentive Permit included in the Planning Commission’s Project approvals and for a Class 31 categorical exemption from CEQA. But, extensive, peer-reviewed technical historic resource and impact reports in the record support the Project’s conformance with the SOI Standards. The Project’s design ensures the character-defining features of the building are preserved and rehabilitated and the penthouse and outdoor terrace are designed to ensure they do not detract from the historic character of the building.

November 21, 2023

3 Appellant argues the Project is ineligible for categorical exemptions from CEQA, but all three categorical exemptions unquestionably apply to the Project. No environmental review is required for this small-scale project.

Appellant also quibbles with the notice for the Planning Commission hearing that included two of the three specific categorical exemptions for the Project, but no authority supports the position that omission of such specific information from a notice, when the notice adequately informs the public that the agency will consider whether a project is categorically exempt from CEQA, justifies forfeiture of that categorical exemption. The City can rely on all three categorical exemptions for the Project.

For all these reasons we respectfully ask the City Council deny the appeal in full. The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval was correct.

Very truly yours,
Benjamin J. Hanelin
of Latham & Watkins LLP
cc: Mr. Yaniv Tepper, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
Mr. Daniel Weiss, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
George Mihlsten, Esq.

Kate Johnstone, Esq.

November 21, 2023

4 Attachment A
Building Background
The existing commercial building (the “Building”) sits on the southeast corner of South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard within the City’s C-3 Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone. Located on an approximately 6,000 square-foot lot, the existing 6,288 square-foot, two-story Building is approximately 24 feet tall. An asphalt surface parking lot sits next to the Building on Charleville. Known historically as the “Darrow Office Building,” it was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects on the City’s list of master architects. The Building is vacant and was previously used for retail and commercial uses on the first floor, and medical offices on the second floor. Once restored, the Building will be The Angeleno Group’s headquarters, one of the country’s longest standing, dedicated clean energy and sustainability investment firms.

The areas surrounding the Building are developed with commercial and multi-family residential uses. The area to the north along South Santa Monica Boulevard is developed with one- and two-story commercial buildings, to the south there are two-story apartments and condominium buildings, and to the west is the construction site of the future four-story Rosewood Residences, a multi-family residential building. Appellant’s Peninsula Hotel, which includes in relevant part a four-story main hotel building with a rooftop deck and pool, a twostory bungalow building, and a three-story hotel building, sits immediately to the east.

Proposed Rehabilitation and New Penthouse Space
For this Project, the Angeleno Group would add a new third story with a 1,404 square foot penthouse with additional office space and a small outdoor terrace facing South Santa Monica and Charleville Boulevards.

The new penthouse would sit setback further than the existing building line along the primary street frontages to the north on South Santa Monica Boulevard, and to the west on Charleville Boulevard, to orient the scale and massing of the Building toward the center of the existing Building, and away from view of the street.
1 A single floor and approximately 15 feet in
height, the tallest portion of the building would now be 38’-0,” far below the permissible 45’-0” maximum height permitted in the C-3 district, and much shorter than the adjacent Peninsula Hotel’s fourth story rooftop pool, outdoor deck, and restaurant space and under construction Rosewood Residences across the street. (BHMC, § 10-3-2726.) There will be no views of the Peninsula Hotel’s rooftop pool and outdoor deck from the Building’s new penthouse and terrace. 1 The penthouse would be setback 16’-6” from South Santa Monica Boulevard, where the existing structure maintains the existing 5’-0” setback. The penthouse would be setback 8’-9” from the side property line along Charleville Boulevard, where the existing building maintains an existing setback of 4’-9.” The penthouse would be built along the existing building line on the south and east sides of the building that do not face the street. (Staff Report, p. 17.) A plan diagram showing the setback of the penthouse from the existing building line is attached as Exhibit 2.

November 21, 2023

5 Similarly, the penthouse’s southern edge is designed to avoid views of the hotel’s closest windows and will be screened by additional landscaping, as shown here.

The existing surface parking lot located at the rear of the Building with an entrance through an alley along Charleville Boulevard will be reconfigured with parking spaces that meet accessibility standards, and to provide a space for onsite loading and unloading from small delivery vans and trucks, to comply with City code.

The Planning Commission’s Unanimous Approval and Findings The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Project’s Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit on July 13, 2023.

Development Plan Review Findings
The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Project’s request for Development Plan Review and in doing so made the required findings. The Project meets several policies of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, including preservation of existing buildings and revitalizing distressed, vacant buildings; it would not adversely affect existing or anticipated development in the area because it involves rehabilitation of an existing building, is directly adjacent to an active construction site, and is small-scale; it would not significantly adversely interfere with use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity because it would be constructed in compliance with all applicable development standards in the City’s C-3 Zone, and would provide new services the existing building does not have; it would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or November 21, 2023

6 pedestrian safety hazards because the existing surface parking lot would be used for construction staging and it is a small-scale project screened out of the City’s vehicle miles traveled and local transportation assessment thresholds; and it would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare since it is located in a commercial area and complies with all applicable standards.

Historic Incentive Permit Findings
The City’s Historic Incentive Permit process incentivizes protection of historic resources by providing a process for owners of local historic landmarks to request waivers or deviations from certain development standards. Under BHMC section 10-3-3251, any property that has been designated as a local historic landmark by the City, or that the Cultural Heritage Commission or City Council has determined, at a preliminary hearing, merits formal consideration by the Cultural Heritage Commission for nomination as a local historic landmark, is eligible for consideration of a Historic Incentive Permit by the Planning Commission, provided that any Historic Incentive Permit issued is expressly conditioned on the property’s eventual designation as a local historic landmark by the City Council and inclusion in the City’s Local Register of Historic Places.

In April 2023, the Cultural Heritage Commission determined that the Building merits formal consideration as a local historic landmark. (See Staff Report, Attachment F.) The Project is therefore eligible for a Historic Incentive Permit. (PC Reso. No. 2029, 9.4.) The Planning Commission approved the Project’s Historic Incentive Permit and in doing so made the required findings. The Project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (“SOI Standards”) by preserving character-defining features of the existing building, and is thoughtfully designed in order to not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape, the scale and massing of the property as viewed from neighboring properties, on neighboring properties’ access to light and air and privacy, on the garden quality of the City, and on public health, safety, and general welfare.

This Appeal
Appellant’s stated concerns were considered by the Planning Commission and City staff.

At the request of the Planning Commission, representatives for Applicant and Appellant have been engaged in discussions regarding the Project and Appellant’s own pending City approvals for improvements to its property at the Peninsula Hotel. Throughout these discussions, Applicant has reiterated to Appellant that the Project would comply with all applicable development standards, including height, and has made certain modifications to the Project to accommodate Appellant’s concerns, including proposed additional landscaping on the third floor terrace facing the Peninsula Hotel in order to further block any views of Appellant’s property.

Applicant has also offered to coordinate construction activities with Appellant to minimize any disturbance for hotel guests, among other efforts to address Appellant’s stated concerns.

Extensive evidence demonstrates that the Project approvals are consistent with staff’s recommendations and with the law. That evidence includes a technical historic resource November 21, 2023

7 evaluation and impact analysis by an independent expert, which the City staff and City consultants separately reviewed, testimony before the Planning Commission, and other evidence in the administrative record. Appellant presents nothing but its disagreement with this evidence.

That is far from enough. None of the arguments in the appeal justify setting aside the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.

1. Project Materials Accurately Convey the Penthouse’s Relationship to Appellant’s Property
Appellant argues that the application materials do not accurately convey the alleged “full realistic impact” of the Project on the Peninsula Hotel, including alleged view impacts to guestrooms, and short term construction-related noise and vibration impacts. (Appeal, ¶ 1.) This is incorrect.

The Third Floor Addition Would Not Block Any “Views”
It is unclear what “views” from guestrooms on its property Appellant claims the penthouse would interfere with. Included as exhibit 3 to the appeal is a photo that appears to be taken from a guestroom in the two-story bungalow building on Appellant’s property that is to the south of the Building. This “view” is of existing two- and three-story buildings on Appellant’s property, the second-story rooftop of the Building, and of the Beverly Hilton and Waldorf Astoria to the north. The Building’s new proposed penthouse would not obstruct any views, let alone any meaningful views since the windows are already obstructed by landscaping and the under construction four-story Rosewood Residences will further obstruct any longer distance views from these windows.

On Appellant’s property, there is also a three-story building to the east, and four-story building to the south. Appellant’s three-story building to the east abuts the Building and an existing solid building wall divides the two buildings. Appellant’s three-story building has no windows on the wall facing the Building. In fact, Appellant proposes enclosing the outdoor terrace on Santa Monica Boulevard, which will further shield the Peninsula from the terrace and penthouse.

The penthouse’s design includes solid walls with no windows on the eastern façade facing Appellant’s four-story building. The southern façade is a combination of solid wall and, closer to Charleville Boulevard, glass. Applicant has also proposed additional landscaping on the south elevation of the Building to block views of the Peninsula’s guest rooms. A rendering of this landscaping is included above. Appellant’s four-story building to the south includes a rooftop pool and deck, the floor level of which is 21 feet higher than the proposed floor level of the penthouse and outdoor terrace, so the outdoor terrace would not interfere with views from the rooftop pool and deck. This combination of solid walls and landscaping would fully obscure views of Appellant’s building, as shown in the rendering above, so it would not be possible to view hotel guests from the new penthouse.

More generally, the Planning Commission considered materials that accurately convey how the Building’s new penthouse and outdoor terrace will relate to surrounding properties, November 21, 2023

8 including through providing renderings of the penthouse from the sidewalk, and how that compares to the existing development surrounding the Project site, which includes Appellant’s four-story building. The Applicant prepared Project renderings that the Planning Commission considered, some of which Appellant attaches to the appeal as exhibit 2. These were created using photos taken from the sidewalk. These do not use any “cropping” or strategic views, as Appellant claims.

In contrast, the “massing studies” included as exhibit 1 to the Appeal, prepared by Appellant’s architect, inaccurately portray the Building and penthouse addition. Applicant’s architect reviewed these massing studies, concluding that by using solid all white for the Project’s walls rather than glass and plantings as shown in Applicant’s renderings, but also using glass and more refined details for Appellant’s own buildings, these studies are deceptive and make the penthouse addition appear larger. Further, they are modeled incorrectly. The property line should be farther to the west along the abutting buildings. BA Collective’s mark up of Appellant’s massing study is attached as Exhibit 3.

Lastly, the closest hotel window facing the penthouse is approximately 51’-4” feet away.

Given this distance, and the buildings’ respective orientations, there will be no obstruction of light or air to the west-facing hotel rooms. A diagram showing this distance is included as Exhibit 4.

Project Construction Noise Would Adhere to All City Standards and Policies Appellant argues that the Project materials do not analyze short-term construction-related noise and vibration impacts and these would be detrimental to Appellant’s operations during construction. (Appeal, ¶ 1.)
As previously communicated to Appellant, the construction activities for the Project will adhere to all City noise standards set forth in the BHMC sections 5-1-101 through 5-1-210, and the City’s General Plan Noise Element related to construction, including limiting hours of construction, and to the construction-related conditions set forth in the Planning Commission Resolutions for the Project, which require a construction traffic management plan. (See PC Reso.

No. 2029, 8.a – 8.c.) Applicant has also communicated to Appellant that it is happy to coordinate construction activities with Appellant to minimize disturbance to hotel guests.

Moreover, and as described in the Planning Commission’s Resolution, there is already an active construction site directly to the east of the Building where the Rosewood Residences, a four-story, 27-unit luxury condominium building with a subterranean parking garage, has been under construction for roughly 15 months and according to the City’s Final Environmental Impact Report for the project a total of 21 months of construction are anticipated. A recent photo of this active construction site from the Building’s rooftop, to show its proximity, is below. The penthouse’s construction, by comparison, is estimated to take only four to six months.

November 21, 2023