Beverly Hills City Council
December 5, 2023

9 And, while the Project is exempt from CEQA and was not required to conduct a formal noise and vibration analysis, we note that the City’s Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rosewood Residences studied roughly the same neighborhood as the Project is located in, since the Rosewood Residences are directly across the street from the Building on the opposite corner November 21, 2023

10 of South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. This noise analysis included The Peninsula Hotel as a noise sensitive receptor.2It found that current ambient noise levels near the Rosewood Residences project site ranged from 63 to 70 dBA.3,4 The existing ambient noise levels near the Building are therefore expected to be roughly the same as those described in the Rosewood Residences Final Environmental Impact Report. And, because the noise impact from construction of the Rosewood Residences was less than significant,5and that project involves excavation for a subterranean parking lot and other activities far more intensive than the Project’s rehabilitation of the interior of an existing building and construction of a 1,404 square foot rooftop addition, it can be expected that the Project’s noise impacts would be less than significant.

2. The Project Will Not Result in Adverse Traffic Impacts and Removal of Existing Parking Spaces is Permitted Under AB 2097
The Project Will Not Result in Significant Adverse Traffic Impacts Appellant next argues that the Project’s increase in “size and intensity” of the Building, and reduction of on-site parking from seven to three spaces, would result in new adverse traffic and pedestrian safety impacts, so the required Development Plan Review findings under BHMC section 10-3-3104(D)6cannot be made. (Appeal, ¶ 2.) This is incorrect.

The Project will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards during construction. The property includes an existing surface parking lot that would be used for construction-related parking and staging, the Applicant would be required to submit a construction management plan during building plan check, and, due to the small size of the project, the Project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled and Local Transportation Assessment thresholds. (PC Reso. No. 2029, No. 6.4) The Project would also not result in such impacts once construction is complete and the Building is in use by The Angeleno Group. Applicant anticipates that the Building would be used by the Angeleno Group’s current 9 employees. Appellant speculates that reducing the parking spaces in the existing surface parking lot from seven to three would cause there to be inadequate parking for visitors, building maintenance, and any attendees for rooftop events. First, this is an office building. While there may be activities on the penthouse terrace, they will be limited in scope because the maximum occupancy of this space would be only 18 people, and parking 2 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-2. 3 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-4. 4 Common outdoor activities with typical noise levels at 70 dBA include a noisy urban area in the daytime, a gas lawn mower at 100 feet, a commercial area, and heavy traffic at 300 feet. Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills Draft Environmental Impact Report, September 2021, p. 4.8-2.
5 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-12. 6 “The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.” (BHMC § 10-3-3104(D).) November 21, 2023

11 would be provided consistent with City rules. Second, a survey of available parking in nearby off-street parking lots indicates more than enough parking is available for the limited employees, who number far less than the building’s prior occupants, which included retail and service commercial uses on the ground floor, and medical uses on the second floor. In contrast to the former retail clients, The Angeleno Group’s clients are mostly national/international institutional clients who are not local and would not be regularly visiting the Building, The Angeleno Group would also provide incentives for ride-sharing, biking, public transportation and EV charging to encourage lowest carbon impact for its 9 employees, and identify nearby off-street parking opportunities.

Appellant also argues that parking demand will further increase when the three parking spaces in the redesigned surface parking lot are blocked for loading. As set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution’s Project-Specific Condition No. 7, the loading area would be operated by building management in order to minimize congestion and traffic conflicts. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s Development Plan Review findings support the conclusion that the Project would not create “significant adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.” Removal of Four Existing Parking Spaces is Permitted Under AB 2097 Appellant argues that the City erred in approving the reduction of existing parking spaces in the Building’s surface parking lot from seven to three, because Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2097 (Gov. Code, § 65863.2) does not permit reduction of existing parking spaces for the existing building, but instead only prohibits the City from imposing parking requirements for the new penthouse addition to the Building. (Appeal, ¶ 2.) Appellant apparently believes AB 2097 only applies to “new development” rather than rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings.

Appellant is incorrect.

AB 2097 prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing “any minimum parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within a half mile of a major transit stop.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2(a).) This broad language in the statute means that AB 2097 applies to new ground-up development as well as changes to the use of existing buildings such as the Project. This is consistent with the purpose of the statute, which was to counteract the effect of local mandatory parking minimums which cause an oversupply of parking spaces and higher housing costs, encourage car ownership, impede public transit use, and increase traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.
7 Without citing to any authority for its
contrary interpretation, Appellant argues that if AB 2097 applied to existing buildings, “a building owner could simply paint a building, upgrade the plumbing, and in the process argue that all the parking in the building could be eliminated” or “any restaurant, grocery store, or office building in the City performing a minor renovation [could] . . . get rid of all of its parking.” (Appeal, ¶ 2.) This is a ridiculous argument – in order for AB 2097 to apply, there must be a “project” before a public agency for discretionary entitlements. Moreover, AB 2097 includes a clause that allows public agencies to impose or enforce minimum parking 7 AB 2097, Legislative Counsel’s Digest,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097.

November 21, 2023

12 requirements on projects that otherwise qualify under the statute if the agency makes written findings that the development “would have a substantially negative impact” on ability to meet certain regional housing needs, or on exiting residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project. (Gov. Code § 65863.2.) As discussed in the staff report, because the Project is a commercial project within a half mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station at Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard, and two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods (Local Bus Line 20, Rapid Bus Line 720, Local Bus Line 4), AB 2097 applies to the Project and the City cannot impose any minimum parking space requirements.8
Appellant argues that the Project is not a “project” under AB 2097 because it is exempt from Development Plan Review under BHMC section 10-3-3101, which exempts from Development Plan Review “[f]acade remodeling of existing buildings or structures not increasing the square footage by two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more, or the height of the building or structure.” (emphasis added.) This argument makes no sense. The Project includes the addition of a third story penthouse that would increase the building’s height.

It is therefore not exempt from Development Plan Review. Appellant’s attempt to break the Project into two separate projects – the renovation and rehabilitation of the existing building, and the construction of the third floor addition – is meritless.

Appellant also argues that “regardless of the applicability of AB 2097 to the Project, AB 2097 does not allow the City to circumvent its Code requirements for maintenance of existing parking” and that the seven parking spaces are already less than what is required by the code.9 Again, AB 2097 applies to changes to existing buildings, like the Project. The City is therefore prohibited from enforcing its minimum parking requirements by state law.

3. The Project’s Proposed Loading Area Will Not Generate Significantly Adverse Traffic, Safety, or Noise Impacts
Appellant argues that the Project’s proposed new off-street loading area would result in new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards, so the required Development Plan Review findings under BHMC section 10-3- 3104(D)10 cannot be made. (Appeal, ¶ 3.) This is incorrect.

The Building is a small commercial office building which would be used by The Angeleno Group’s current 9 employees. Unlike the Peninsula Hotel that receives regular deliveries from food trucks and other vendors, office deliveries will be nominal and it is anticipated that there will be roughly 10 deliveries per week, and most deliveries are limited to 8 Staff Report, p. 2-9.
9 Since the existing commercial building was constructed in 1946, the Project site is legally nonconforming as to the number of parking spaces, and dimensions and configuration of parking spaces, otherwise required by BHMC. 10 “The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.” (BHMC § 10-3-3104(D).) November 21, 2023

13 office supplies from non-couriered deliveries (e.g., FedEx, UPS, Amazon Prime) vans and small trucks.
11 The reconfigured existing surface parking lot would be utilized for loading and noncouriered deliveries, and couriered deliveries would still occur as they normally do for all commercial properties, along the curbside.12 No “off hours” for delivery time are being requested and Applicant will apply the same loading limitations as Appellant is permitted. Applicant has also offered to discuss with Appellant limiting the use of off-street loading spaces to certain hours, to accommodate Appellant’s particular concerns about traffic, safety, or noise.

Applicant has also made certain commitments to ensure that the reconfiguration of the existing surface parking lot for the proposed new loading area would not result in new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

Included as Attachment G to the Staff Report, and memorialized in the Planning Commission’s Resolution as Condition No. 7, is a description of the Project’s proposed plan for managing loading and deliveries at the Building using the new loading area. This explains that the loading and unloading at the loading area will be accomplished without impacting access to the three onsite parking spaces, or adding to congestion and traffic. This includes limiting deliveries to 10 minutes to load or unload, prior approval of longer deliveries by building management, requiring delivery vehicles to exit northbound on Charleville Boulevard, recommended delivery hours in early mornings or evenings and coordination with building management if deliveries are during peak hours, and limiting the size of delivery vehicles to small vans or trucks with a maximum wheelbase of 18 feet. The Project will comply with the requirements set forth in Condition No. 7.

Appellant also suggests that the loading activities could result in “chaos” if someone tries to enter the parking lot when loading is taking place, and claims this could result in queuing issues if they back out onto a busy street, and pedestrian safety issues on City sidewalks. As set forth above, the loading activities at the Building will be coordinated to avoid such conflict. And, notably, the Building’s existing surface parking lot is accessible by an existing fifteen foot wide alley accessed from Charleville Boulevard. There is no access from the busier South Santa Monica Boulevard.

4. The Planning Commission’s Findings for Noise and Privacy Impacts to Surrounding Properties are Supported by Extensive Evidence Appellant next argues that the Project includes no measures to ensure the proposed third floor penthouse would not have adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including noise and privacy issues, and therefore the Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit findings cannot be made. (Appeal, ¶ 4.) This is incorrect.

Noise
The Project would not have an adverse impact on Appellant, or any other neighboring properties, due to noise. As discussed in the Planning Commission’s findings, the Project would 11 Staff Report, Attachment G, p. 2-212.
12 April 20, 2023, Letter from Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, to Brock DeSmit, Belzberg Architects, LLP re: 9884 S.

Santa Monica Blvd. Development Plan Review (DPR) and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP).

November 21, 2023

14 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare because it is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable standards, including the City’s noise ordinance. The Project is located in a C-3 Commercial Zone, and there is no evidence that any noise from use of the new outdoor terrace by employees will exceed existing ambient conditions. Located along South Santa Monica Boulevard, the outdoor spaces are already subject to high noise levels from traffic and surrounding commercial uses at roughly 63 to 70 dBA as studied in the City’s Rosewood Residences Final Environmental Impact Report, discussed above. And, according to the noise analysis of the rooftop pool at the Rosewood Residences studied in that Final Environmental Impact Report, common rooftop pool activities produce noise levels at approximately 55 dBA.13Applicant’s outdoor terrace, which will be used primarily as a work space for employees, is not anticipated to produce noise levels any greater than a rooftop pool and likely would be below 55 dBA; but, even if noise levels were roughly 55 dBA this would be below existing ambient noise. Further, Applicant and Appellant’s properties are separated by solid walls and Appellant has proposed to enclose the closest outdoor space to Applicant’s property on the east side, which will further insulate Appellant’s property from any potential noise.

In discussions with Appellant, Applicant has also agreed to mitigate any noise concerns by applying the same limitations on noise/amplified sound as the Appellant is permitted, and as provided for under the Municipal Code. No “after hours” of time for noise/amplified sound is being requested. If any concerns arise during the space’s operation, Applicant would cooperate with Appellant to address them further.

Despite this evidence that the Project would not have any impact on existing noise conditions at Appellant’s property, Appellant compares the Project to the rooftop deck at 9800 Wilshire Blvd that has been the subject of noise complaints in the past, speculating that Applicant would use the outdoor terrace for loud parties and events. As Appellant knows, once construction is complete, the Building will be used as office space for The Angeleno Group’s current 9 employees, and the primary use of the rooftop office space and terrace would be as a working space. Further, the maximum occupancy of the third floor addition is only 18 people. As discussed above, Applicant has discussed with Appellant measures it will take to ensure it is a good and responsible neighbor, and to comply with the City’s noise ordinance, just as Appellant is required to do on their rooftop deck on their hotel property.

Privacy
Appellant claims that the Historic Incentive Permit findings for privacy cannot be made due to the increased height of the Building from the added penthouse, ignoring the fact that the Historic Incentive Permit for the Project is not necessary for the addition of the penthouse, but instead is being requested in order to accommodate a loading area and rubbish facility that deviates from the City’s required dimensions for loading areas and rubbish facilities. Therefore the City was not required to analyze the Project’s increased height in making its findings regarding impacts to neighboring properties’ privacy from the loading area and rubbish facility. 13 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-13.

November 21, 2023

15 In any event, the Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on neighbors’ privacy because it is well within the permitted maximum height in the City’s C-3 district and is designed to ensure that privacy on neighboring properties is maintained. As discussed above, the Project would extend the solid wall abutting the Peninsula’s three-story building to the east to shield any view to that property from the penthouse and outdoor terrace. While the Project faces Peninsula’s two-story bungalow building and four-story main hotel building and rooftop deck to the south, the building programming along the south elevation facing those two buildings primarily consists of stairs, a stairwell and a closet, and the stairwell and closet are designed with solid walls. The Building's penthouse and outdoor terrace also would not have a direct line of sight to the Peninsula’s fourth floor deck and pool because the floor level would be 21’-0” lower in elevation than the 45’-0” floor level of the Peninsula’s deck and pool. In addition, Applicant has discussed with Appellant additional landscaping on the third floor addition to further obscure views onto Appellant’s property to the east and south. While not required as part of the City’s Historic Incentive Permit findings for privacy, the Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on privacy at Appellant’s neighboring property.

5. The Project Site’s Potential City Landmark Eligibility is Adequately Justified Appellant next argues that the City’s findings for eligibility for local landmark status are not adequately justified. (Appeal, ¶ 5.) This is incorrect. The City’s findings for eligibility are supported by extensive evidence in the record including a Historic Resource Evaluation and Impact Analysis commissioned by the Applicant.14
As detailed in the March 2022 Historic Resource Evaluation,15 the Building was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, considered one of Southern California’s most significant architects of the 20th century and a notable architect listed on the City’s list of master architects.

The Building is a rare example of a commercial building designed by Lautner, who only designed commercial buildings in the early part of his career prior to the late 1950s. This Building includes character-defining features of horizontal massing, bold geometric volumes and sculptural design, and a large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the side elevation. A major character-defining feature of the Building is its sustainable design including a bank of louvers along the side and rear elevations that allow natural light and ventilation into the Building while also allowing the outside to be seen through the spacing of the louvers.16 The Building is eligible for designation as a local historic landmark and inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places17 and the California Register of Historic Resources.18 The Historic 14 Staff Report, Attachments D, E.
15 The original Historic Resource Evaluation included as Attachment D to the Planning Commission Report for the July 13, 2023, included a typographical error describing the Darrow Office Building as an example of “Late Modern” architecture, when it is in fact an example of “mid-century modern” architecture. A corrected Historic Resource Evaluation, and a letter explaining this change, are attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 16 Staff Report, Attachment E, pp. 2-182 – 2-183.
17 Notably, 64 of the structures designed by Lautner in Southern California are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. (Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-199.) 18 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-183.

November 21, 2023

16 Resource Evaluation concluded, thorough evaluation of the City’s criteria, that the Building was eligible for local landmark status. And, in April 2023, the Cultural Heritage Commission determined the Building is eligible for listing as a local historic landmark.

Nevertheless, Appellant argues that Applicant should wait until the Building is deemed a local historic landmark before proceeding with the Project, but this ignores the express, unambiguous provision in BHMC section 10-3-3261(B) that allows the City to issue a Historic Incentive Permit to a property that the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined is eligible for local landmark status, so long as the Historic Incentive Permit is conditioned on future approval of local historic landmark status. Project-specific Condition No. 4 ensures that Project approvals (the Historic Incentive Permit and Development Plan Review) are not effective unless and until the City Council designates the Building as a local historic landmark.19 Appellant also argues that it is arbitrary and capricious for the Planning Commission to make findings about compatibility with the SOI Standards before the Cultural Heritage Commission has completed the landmark designation process. But the Cultural Heritage Commission determined in April 2023 that the Building is eligible for local landmark status, which included findings regarding eligibility with local historic landmark criteria, and this was before the Planning Commission’s approval and findings of compatibility with the SOI Standards in July 2023. Thus the Planning Commission’s reliance on the Cultural Heritage Commission’s findings was proper.

Appellant next argues that the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for the Project incorrectly states that the Building is an example of late modern architecture because it was built in 1946, and the Late Modern period did not begin until 1966. As discussed in the November 21, 2023, letter from Kaplan Chen Kaplan attached as Exhibit 5, the Historic Resource Evaluation used the term “late modern” architecture to represent the Postwar Modern period in contrast to the Pre-War Modernist styles that were referred to as Early Modernism. While this more generic late modern nomenclature was used in the report to distinguish it from the early period, the generic “Mid-Century Modern” nomenclature could also have been used. As further explained in the letter, Lautner’s architectural style defies simple categorization which is part of why he is one of the most important contemporary American architects of the twentieth century, and listed on the City’s list of master architects. Appellant’s quibble with the technical nomenclature of the historic report is meritless.

Appellant next argues that the Building lacks integrity under City Landmark Criterion A.3 because there are no original interior spaces remaining. The City’s Landmark Criteria do not require a building to include its original interior elements, and the Historic Resource Evaluation thoroughly analyzes Criterion A.3 for whether a property “retains substantial integrity from its period of significance,” finding that the Building retains a high level of historic architectural integrity because “the exterior of the building has had very few alterations and all are reversible” so the “building’s exterior retains a high level of integrity” and the fact that the interior spaces of the Building have undergone alterations to accommodate the needs of the Building’s office and 19 Planning Commission Reso. No. 2029.

November 21, 2023

17 medical tenants does not impact the conclusion that the Building retains a high level of integrity.20
Appellant also argues that there is insufficient evidence that the Building satisfies City Landmark Section B criteria to demonstrate it is an Exceptional Work or Iconic Property. As clearly set forth in the City’s historic landmark criteria, a landmark must only satisfy one of the “Section B” criteria and the Building does so by having “a landmark designation procedure initiated or expressly agreed to by the property owner.” It is not necessary for the Building to be “an exceptional work by a Master Architect” or “an iconic property.”

6. The Project Conforms to the Secretary of Interior Standards and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Under the Class 31 Exemption
Appellant argues the Project does not conform with the SOI Standards, which is a requirement for a project to qualify for a CEQA Class 31 categorical exemption, as well as a Historic Incentive Permit. (Appeal, ¶ 6.) This is incorrect – as set forth in the Historic Impact Analysis prepared by the same consultant that prepared the Historic Resource Evaluation, the Project complies with the SOI Standards and therefore qualifies for the CEQA Class 31 categorical exemption and Historic Incentive Permit.

The Historic Impact Analysis includes an analysis of the Project’s compliance with the SOI Standards. These were reviewed by the City’s Urban Designer, historic preservation staff, and the City’s historic consultant, as part of initiating the landmark process with the Cultural Heritage Commission. All of these reviewers confirmed the changes to the Building comply with SOI Standards since the Project will retain the Building’s character-defining features.21 Appellant argues that the penthouse does not conform with the SOI Standard No. 9 which prohibits new construction from destroying character-defining features of a building,22 citing to an Interpreting the Standards bulletin from 2007 titled “Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings.” This bulletin, which is attached to the appeal as exhibit 6, explains that because the roofline “is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building . . . rooftop additions proposed as part of a rehabilitation project must be carefully designed in order to preserve the building’s historic character” and that “a successful rooftop addition does not significantly impact the character of the historic building.” The bulletin includes examples of rooftop additions that are compatible with the SOI Standards because they are subordinate to the historic building in size and design, compatible with its massing, scale, materials, and features, and set far enough back from the primary elevation of the building so it is not highly visible from the public right-of-way.
20 Staff Report, Attachment D, p. 2-87.
21 Staff Report, p. 2-14.
22 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-188 (“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.”)
November 21, 2023

18 As discussed in the Historic Impact Analysis, the penthouse complies with SOI Standard No. 9. The penthouse is less than the full area of the footprint of the existing building, would be recessed from two of the building’s edges viewed from public rights-of-way, 23 and materials
would include glazed windows and sliding doors to further “lighten” the new elevations helping them recede visually. The plan diagram attached as Exhibit 2 shows the dimensions of the new penthouse in relation to the existing building lines, and dimensions of glazing which uses a zigzag design to create a deeper offset from the existing building to avoid having a hard line of glazing running parallel to the line of the existing building below.

Appellant also points to a statement in the bulletin that rooftop additions “generally . . . are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less” to argue that the Project does not conform to the SOI Standards. This is not dispositive. As discussed in the Historic Impact Analysis, the third floor addition for the Project was selected precisely because it ensures compliance with the SOI Standards, since it is the only way to accomplish an addition to the existing building without impacting the building’s character-defining features. 24 The penthouse
design allows for construction of additional space without necessitating addition or extensions of the existing first and second floors that would cause the removal and destruction of existing architecturally significant building elements.25
The Planning Commission’s finding that the Project conforms with the SOI Standards is supported by extensive evidence in the Historic Impact Analysis, so the Project is eligible for the Class 31 categorical exemption and Historic Incentive Permit.

7. The Project Qualifies for at Least Three Categorical Exemptions No Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Apply
Appellant argues that the Project does not qualify for the Class 1, Class 3, and Class 31 categorical exemptions because the “cumulative impacts” and “unusual circumstances” exceptions to CEQA’s categorical exemptions apply, due to alleged noise that will result from the penthouse and outdoor terrace, so the City must conduct further environmental review in the form of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. (Appeal, ¶ 7.) Appellant cites to no case law or evidence as to why alleged noise from the penthouse and outdoor terrace – which as discussed above are not anticipated to result in an increase in noise above existing ambient conditions in the area – would rise to the level of unusual circumstances 23 The penthouse would be set back 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.
24 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-194.
25 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-194.

November 21, 2023

19 or cumulative impacts to prohibit the City from relying on categorical exemptions for the Project.

No unusual circumstances are present. To demonstrate that the unusual circumstances exception applies to prevent use of a categorical exemption, there must be “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) Under that guideline, a two-step process is followed to determine whether an exception applies, considering whether the circumstances of a particular project (1) differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (2) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt project.” A challenger has the burden to produce evidence that supports the exception.26 Whether an unusual circumstance exists is an inquiry determined under the substantial evidence standard.27 Whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result due to those unusual circumstances is an inquiry determined under the fair argument standard.28 Appellant has produced no evidence that there would be noise impacts from the Project that would have a “significant effect on the environment.” There is none. As discussed in detail above, the third floor addition would be used for indoor and outdoor working space for the 9 employees of The Angeleno Group. There would be no increase in the existing ambient noise conditions. This argument is meritless.

Appellant also presents no evidence, and there is none, to show that the cumulative impacts exception under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(b) applies. This exception prohibits use of a categorical exemption when “the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.”29 The Project would not result in any environmental impacts under CEQA, so there is no argument that it could result in cumulative impacts.30
The Project Qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption Appellant also argues that the City cannot rely on a Class 1 categorical exemption for existing facilities because the third floor addition is a “completely new use.” (Appeal, ¶ 7.) Not so. The third floor addition proposes additional office space for the existing commercial office building. Just because it includes outdoor working space, this does not make this a “completely new use” and it is common for commercial official buildings to include such outdoor amenities for employees.
26 Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943, 955-56. 27 Id. at 953.
28 Ibid.; CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
29 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b).
30 Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 799 (“Just as zero added to any other sum results in no change to the final amount, so, too, when no environmental impacts cognizable under CEQA are added to the alleged environmental impacts of past projects, there is no cumulative increased impact.”).

November 21, 2023

20 And, the Project otherwise qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption which consists in relevant part of “minor alteration of existing . . . structures . . . involving negligible or no expansion of existing of former use.”31 Projects that qualify for a Class 1 categorical exemption include additions to existing structures that either do not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet (whichever is less), or 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and is not environmentally sensitive.32 The Building is 6,288 square feet, and the Project proposes to add a new 1,404 square foot third story to the building. It therefore qualifies for a Class 31 categorical exemption because it proposes an addition to an existing building that would not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the existing floor area before the addition, or 2,500 square feet.

The Project Qualifies for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption Appellant also argues that the Class 31 categorical exemption is inapplicable because this categorical exemption cannot be used for a project “which may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource” under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f). (Appeal, ¶ 7.)
As discussed above, the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined that the Building is eligible for local historic landmark status, and the Historic Resource Assessment concluded that the property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources. As detailed extensively in the staff report, based on evidence from the Historic Resource Assessment and Historic Impact Analysis, the Project is designed in order to preserve and rehabilitate the Building, so it would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. And the Project otherwise is eligible for a Class 31 categorical exemption since, as discussed above, it conforms to the SOI Standards.

8. The City Provided Adequate Public Notice of the Planning Commission Hearing Appellant argues that the City failed to provide adequate public notice because one of the three categorical exemptions relied upon by the City in finding the Project exempt from CEQA was not listed on the notice of the Planning Commission hearing. (Appeal, ¶ 8.) Appellant claims this was a violation of the Brown Act, so that categorical exemption cannot be relied upon by the City. Not so – the notice stated that the Planning Commission would consider the Project’s qualification for CEQA categorical exemptions. No more specificity is required by CEQA or applicable law.

Public notice of the hearing was provided as required by Article 2.5 of the BHMC, including through posting at the Project site, publication, and by mail to property owners within a 500’ radius. The notice, which is attached as exhibit 4 to the appeal, states that the Project appears to qualify for a Class 3 categorical exemption (New Construction) and a Class 31 31 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15301. 32 CEQA Guidelines, § 15301(e).)
November 21, 2023

21 categorical exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) and that the Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to find the project exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA. The notice did not include the Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities) in this list, though the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029 does find that the Project also qualifies for that exemption, in addition to the Class 1 and Class 31 categorical exemptions.
33 A public agency is not prohibited from relying on a categorical exemption simply because it is not listed on the notice of public hearing for a Project. In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, the Court of Appeal held that the City violated the Brown Act by adopting a CEQA exemption without having listed the MND as an item on the agenda for at least 72 hours.34 There, the City had failed to list the adoption of an MND pursuant to CEQA at all on its agenda, and merely listed the project in general.35 Here, the City listed two of three categorical exemptions for the Project in its notice so the notice made clear that the City was considering categorical exemptions for the Project. And, regardless, the California Supreme Court in February 2023 ordered the opinion in G.I. Industries depublished, so it cannot be relied upon as authority.36
Further, when a statutory exemption applies, it may be raised for the first time in litigation.37 This negates Appellant’s argument that the City is somehow barred from ever relying on a categorical exemption just because it was not listed along with other categorical exemptions in the notice of public hearing.

And, Appellant has no argument that the omission of the Class 1 categorical exemption from the notice prejudiced them. As adjacent property owners, they received notice of the hearing, and reviewed the Planning Commission’s Resolution in preparing their appeal which made clear that the City relied on all three categorical exemptions. They have had the opportunity to fully participate in the process and are not prejudiced.

CONCLUSION
On behalf of Impact Real Estate Group, LLC, we appreciate this opportunity to respond to the legal and CEQA issues in the Appeal and respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Commission’s Project approvals. We appreciate the City staff’s thorough Project analysis and look forward to responding to any questions at the City Council hearing.
33 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029, Section 3.
34 G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022), 300 Cal.Rptr.3d 695, 701. 35 Ibid.
36 G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, Ordered Not Published at 84 Cal.App.5th 814. 37 See generally, Santa Barbara County Flower & Nursery Growers Assn. v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 864.

EXHIBIT 1

FIFTH FLOOR AREA TABULATION
FAR AREATOTAL FLOOR AREA 29,006 S.F.
< 1,393
27,613 S.F.

INTERIOR AREA 29,006 S.F.AREA OF EXPANSION 0 S.F.NUMBER OF GUESTROOMS 31 AREA EXEMPTED FROM F.A.R.
(ELEVATOR SHAFT & LOBBY ANDSTAIRS)
S.F. >
J
(E) POOL
1,038 S.F.
128 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY153 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR
11 SQ. FT.SHAFT
125 SQ. FT.STAIR
152 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY170 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR
190 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR41 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY
120 SQ. FT.STAIR
45 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY
170 SQ. FT.SHAFT
61 SQ. FT.STAIR
69'-9" 163'-10" 22'-11"
23'-0"
70'-10 1/2"
16'-2 1/2" 203'-11 1/2" 23'-1"
28'-11 1/2" 59'-4" 14'-1 1/2" 61'-2 1/2" 23'-3"
15'-0" 39'-0" 15'-0"
45'-5" 7'-7"
13'-11"
24'-1 1/2" 19'-8 1/2" 25'-3 1/2"
14'-2" 14'-2" 4'-10 1/2"
31'-8 1/4" 13'-8 1/2" 9'-11 1/4"
6'-4 1/2"
2'-0 1/2"
13'-3 1/2"
1'-10 1/2" 12'-7 1/2"
1'-10 1/2"
12'-9 1/2"
1'-10 1/2"
31'-4 1/2"
2'-5 1/2"
14'-0 1/2" 14'-11 1/2"
68'-10 1/2"
6'-10 1/2" 73'-5" 7'-7 1/2"
15'-0" 59'-11 1/2"
7'-5"
16'-8"
38'-6"
3'-5"
2'-10 1/2"
15'-1" 14'-11"
20'-9 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" 7'-8"
4'-3 1/2"
15'-1"
3'-6 1/2"
6'-5"
5'-9 1/2"
17'-3"
2'-4"
5'-5 1/2" 17'-6"
8'-1 1/2"
15'-5"
11'-3 1/2" 9'-9"
12'-11 1/2"
6'-4 1/2"
6'-7"
3'-11 1/2"
547- 549- 564- 560- 562- 552- 545 556- 566- 540- 568 - - 567 - - 551- 553- 555- 557- 559- 561- 563- 565- 5431/A2.17 541- 539- 535 533
532- 538- 558- 554- 534- 536
(E) POOL DECK
4,608 S.F.
(E) SPA (E) OUTDOOR
CAFE
2,061 S.F.

DNUP
UP
DN
UPDN
ELEV.
#1
ELEV.
#2
ELEV.
#4
ELEV.
#3
ELEV.
#6
ELEV.
#5
(E) ACCESSIBLE

GUESTROOM
(E) SPA

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - PH2 -- -- -- - PH11 1/A2.50 - - - - Date Drawn By Scale CK 1 Sheet No.Job NumberSheet Name
of
Seal
FILE
2467.01
STYLE
2467.pj\design-v127-sd-01.db

REVISIONS
23 MAY 2022
9882 SOUTH SANTA MONICA BOULEVARDBEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

THE PENINSULA
VILLAS 126,
127 & 129
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 18 NOV. 2022PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 8 MAR. 2023 T
IS
EG R
ERED
T ECT

CH AR I

O F CA L I FOR

I A N S TAT E
C-11325
H. C INGER L L I E NAD
OCTOBER 2023
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 1 MAY 2023PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 21 JUNE 2023FAR DIAGRAMFIFTH FLOORPLAN A0.8
1/16" = 1'-0"
SS
DWC
21/ 6/2023
0 8 16 32
945 S.F. OutdoorTerrace @ Penthouse 934.63 sf
7,707 S.F. TotalRooftop Area for EHP
EXHIBIT 2
SD /
CMD
SD
DN
DN

ROOM NAME & NUMBER

DOOR NUMBER

PLAN SYMBOLS

WALL FRAMING TYPE

WINDOW WALL NUMBER / SKYLIGHT TYPE

MATERIAL TAG
1i
6 101
Bedroom
101
GYP-1

PLAN NOTES

1. EACH APPLIANCE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED MEETS ENERGY STAR IN AN ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION IS APPLICABLE FOR THAT APPLIANCE (4.210.1, 9.210.1)

2. THE FLOW RATES FOR ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM FLOW RATES IN TABLE 4.403.2 / TABLE 9.403.2 (4.303.1, 9.303.1). REFER TO GRN 16 ON G0.20.

3. BATHROOM FANS NOT FUNCTIONING AS A COMPONENT OF A WHOLE HOUSE

VENTILATION SYSTEM MUST BE CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDISTAT WHICH SHALL BE READILY ACCESSIBLE (4.506.1, 9.506.1).

4. DIMENSIONS TO PARTITIONS ON FLOOR PLANS ARE TO FACE OF STUD OR FACE OF CONCRETE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE A650 & A651 FOR

5. ALL ROOF RUNOFF TO DRAIN TO RAIN WATER STORAGE TANK. SEE PLUMBING AND CIVIL DRAWINGS.

EXHAUST FAN IN CEILING, ENERGY STAR
COMPLIANT. DUCTED TO TERMINATE

OUTSIDE THE BUILDING

COMBINATION SMOKE / CARBON MONOXIDE

DETECTOR

SMOKE DETECTOR
01 3
1 A400
1 2 3 4 5
A
B
C
2 A401

OPEN TO
BELOW

OPEN TO
BELOW
81 SF
CLOSET
305
102 SF
STAIR
SA3
179 SF
OFFICE
303
60 SF

ALL GENDER

RESTROOM
304
945 SF

OUTDOOR

TERRACE
306
PLANTER, TYP.

SKYLIGHT
1 A401
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
20'-0" 20'-0"
2 A400
SA3
304
305
X308
GRILL

OUTDOOR SINK &

CASEWORK
300
301
302
307
308
304
309
PLANTER, TYP.

ROOF ACCESS

HATCH ABOVE
1'-6"
A240
3 A250
3 318 SF

ELEVATOR
LOBBY/

CIRCULATION
300
ELEC. CHASE
146 SF
LOUNGE
301
305
306
303

MOP SINK
2'-0"
3'-1 1/4"
4'-2 1/4"
3'-1 3/8"

CONFERENCE
302

ELEVATOR
EV3
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects

APPLICANT

IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]

ARCHITECT

BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:13 A
M

DARROW OFFICE

BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004

THIRD FLOOR PLAN
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A203
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
2 NORTH
# DESCRIPTION DATE

LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING
@ CHARLEVILLE MONICA BLVD BUILDING @ S. SANTA LINE OF EXISTING

EXTERIOR OFFSET OF
GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE

INTERIOR OFFSET OF
GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE EXTERIOR OFFSET OF GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE INTERIOR OFFSET OF 15'-7" 9'-0" 16'-4"
26'-1"

ELEVATION & SECTION SYMBOLS
CON-1

MATERIAL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.00

ELEVATION & SECTION NOTES

1. SEE MATERIAL SCHEDULES ON A600.
1i

WINDOW WALL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.10
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"

SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
CBA

PAINT TO BE REMOVED USING

CHEMICAL TREATMENTS
FROM EXTG. BRICK WALLS.

BRICK TO BE NATURAL,
ORIGINAL INTENDED FINISH.
(E) PAINTED METAL LOUVERS

TO BE RESTORED OR
REPLACED WITH SIM.

WINDOW FRAMES TO BE
RESTORED. EXTG GLAZING TO
BE REPLACED, TBC.
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED

AND REPAINTED TO MATCH

EXISTING
MTL-7
STC-01

ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
2 A400
X114 XSA1
101 100
102
300
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"

PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
WD-2
BRK-01
BRK-01
37'-6"
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"

SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
12345
WINDOW FRAMES TO BE RESTORED. EXTG
GLAZING TO BE REPACED, TYP.

EXTG. PAINTED METAL LOUVERS

TO BE REPLACED OR RESTORED

TO MATCH EXISITING
EXT. STUCCO TO BE PATCHED

AND REPAINTED TO MATCH
EXISTING.

METAL FINS TO BE EXTENDED TO GROUND

FLOOR PER ORIGINAL INTENDED HISTORIC
DESIGN. FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING FINS
ABOVE
(E) STAINLESS STEEL STANDING SEAM TO

BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION
BRK-01 BRK
-01
MTL-7

ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"

MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
STC-01
STC-01

SOLAR PANELS
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
MECHANICAL EQUIP. SCREENING
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
X100B
104 WW-4 101
301
102
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"

PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
CON-2
CON-2
(E) PAINTED CONCRETE WALL. PAINT TO

BE REMOVED BY RESTORATION

CONTRACTOR USING GENTLE CHEMICAL
TREATMENT. FINISH TO BE EXPOSED,

NATURAL CONCRETE
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED AND

REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING
(N) PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL , FINISH

TO MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
BELOW
305 303
37'-6"
12'-3"
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects

APPLICANT

IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]

ARCHITECT

BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:22 AM

DARROW OFFICE

BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212

PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A300
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION
2 # DESCRIPTION DATE
EXHIBIT 3
'3rd floor addHion |
%n
■fm 11 II innmi

THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
□ARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD.. ePitW-Y HIUS. CA 90212
VIEW FROM SANTA MONICA BLVD.

PROJ.# 2851 .X
None of the fins are modeled correctly, and
no glazing is being shown. The peninsula is
shown with glass and materiality, while this
project is shown in all white, making it look
massive and very solid.

These walls do
not exist.

The roofline of the proposed penthouse
would be thinner than this. This is modeled
incorrectly and is deceptive.

These walls would all be glass. Rendering
them as fully opaque white walls is
misleading and makes the penthouse
addition appear more massive and solid.

EXHIBIT 4
51'-4"
EXHIBIT 5
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
Telephone 310.452.7505
Facsimile 310.452.1494
MEMO
Date: November 21, 2023
To: Ms. Devon Montmity
BA Collective
From: Pam O’Conner, Senior Historian
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Re: 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow - Lautner Building Historic Evaluation
Architect John Lautner is considered one of the most influential architects of the 20th Century. His body of work spans the Mid-Century period of the 20th Century; however, his expressionistic and organic designs defy being pigeon-holed into any specific architectural style.

SurveyLA developed a series of historic contexts related to architectural styles. These are guides to help categorize architectural styles. But as with many artistic movements, there are creative variations, cross-fertilization, and no hard stops in terms of dates and time of architectural styles.

The SurveyLA Historic Contest Statement for L.A. Modernism, 1919-1980, covers two major periods: Pre-War Modernism, 1919-1945 and Post-War Modernism, 1946-1975. Architectural styles of the pre-war period include Early Modernism (1919-1945) and International Style (1928-1966, note this date goes beyond the 1945 “cut-off” for Pre-War Modernism). The Postwar Modernism period covers the period 1946 -1975. (https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/4f67bd39-631a-4f26- 9a52-cd5809a66655/LA_Modernism_1919-1980.pdf)
The initial Historic Resource Evaluation Report prepared for the Darrow Building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard used the term “late modern” architecture to represent the Postwar Modern period in contrast to the Pre-War Modernist styles which were referred to as Early Modernism. While the use of the more generic late modern nomenclature was used in the report to distinguish it from the early period, the generic Mid-Century Modern nomenclature could also have been used.

Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Historic Evaluation
November 21, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
The challenge is how to characterize the unique architectural style of John Lautner – to fit it into a category. As evidenced by evaluation of Lautner’s architecture from many sources, it is evident that his expressionistic, organic style, unique to the artist that he was, defies simple categorization. Examples of the characterization of his unique architectural style is provided below.

John Lautner “was one of last century’s most important contemporary American architects.

His work was concerned with the relationship of the human being to space and of space to nature. Lautner’s designs share a sense of drama, powerful geometry and warmth, and a profound respect for the site. His buildings stand as functional sculpture. They are unique entities unlike those of any other architect.” (https://www.thelautner.com/john-lautner) “His designs have often been discussed in architectural publications, with Arts & Architecture magazine rating him a ‘lyrical technologist.’” (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-10-27-mn-55244-story.html) John Lautner’s architecture is rooted in a personal design philosophy that is the imaginative extension of the organic architectural theories of Frank Lloyd Wright, his exuberant designs and broad spectrum of approaches epitomize the landscape of southern California.” (https://www.formidablemag.com/john-lauter/)
John Lautner was one of the 20th century's most important contemporary American architects. His work was concerned “… with the relationship of the human being to space and of space to nature.” (https://modernsandiego.com/people/john-lautner) “Without question, John Lautner is one of the most influential architects of the 20th century.

His architecture is bold, dynamic, and daring.”
(https://www.rostarchitects.com/articles/2019/1/20/eight-things-you-should-know-aboutthe-architect-john-lautner) “While the American architect John Lautner may not have considered himself a modernist, he nevertheless made a significant contribution to the branch of modernist architecture that emerged in Southern California during the mid-twentieth century, pioneered by architects such as Rudolph Schindler, Richard Neutra, and Frank Lloyd Wright. Though he was wary of being seen as an imitator of Wright, under whom he had worked as an apprentice for six years, Lautner’s work does reflect several of his mentor’s architectural principles, such as flowing space, harmony with nature, and site-specific designs. Lautner’s visually arresting buildings, however, took these ideas further than ever before. His ambitious projects, as well Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Historic Evaluation
November 21, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
as being architecturally innovative, were feats of modern engineering. These daring structures stood in stark contrast to the minimal, machine-influenced International Style buildings that had dominated modernist architecture since the 1930s.” (https://www.rem.routledge.com/articles/lautner-john-edward-1911-1994) “Although he did not consider himself a Modernist, Lautner’s interests aligned with the midcentury spirit of architectural experimentation; these factors led Lautner toward bold explorations of hilltop houses, soaring concrete roofs, cantilevers, and expressive double curves. His work was structurally and technologically innovative, while also reflecting Wright’s Organic principles of responding to the site and the specific needs of the client.

Lautner had a fertile architectural practice for over 60 years, producing some of the most iconic works in post-World War II Southern California and influencing a new generation of architects.” p. E-4 Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) “Lautner’s fascination with new shapes and structures came from his determination to humanize spaces and create what he referred to as “real” architecture: “architecture that was authentic, creative, new – yet tied to ancient and timeless ways of building; based on the needs – including emotional needs – of his clients, and the demands of the site.” He brought to architecture an expressive and adventurous use of structure, form, and materials.” p. E-3 Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) The 1940s were a period of experimentation for Lautner. Some projects expressed a strong design concept, while others focused on technological innovations and construction methods. Lautner's use of materials evolved from wood (specifically redwood) in the early years to concrete and steel in his works later in the decade; he also employed various structural systems during this period. p. E-9 Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1994 (https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a4010-a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940- 1994.pdf)

ATTACHMENT 5
Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s
Appeal Petition Supplement
(November 29, 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 29, 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 Supplement of Planning Commission Approvals for 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd.

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

We write to respond to The Belvedere Hotel Partnership’s “Appeal Supplement” dated November 20, 2023.

Appellant’s arguments remain without merit. Appellant’s complaints regarding parking, noise, and shadow impacts are particularly hollow as it operates a four-story, 195-room hotel with over 7,700 square feet of rooftop outdoor space. By comparison, the penthouse is about 1,400 square feet of enclosed space that blocks the entirety of the 945 square feet of proposed outdoor terrace from Appellant’s property.

1. The Project Has No View Impacts to Appellant’s Property Appellant repeats its argument that it believes the penthouse addition is just too tall. (Appeal Supplement, p. 3.) In fact, the Project increases the Building’s height by less than 15 feet (from 23 feet 9 inches to 38 feet) and sits a full seven feet below the City's 45-foot height limit.

There is no elevator overrun above the roofline. (See Exhibit 1.) The solar panels sit parallel with the roof and only two to three feet above it. A small mechanical enclosure at the rear of the building is 6 feet above the roofline and still below the City’s 45-foot height limit.

Both of these are shown in the figure below. Neither the solar panels nor the mechanical enclosure are visible from the street.

November 29, 2023

2. The Project Has No Shade-Shadow Impacts
Appellant also now argues, without evidence, that the Project will result in shade-shadow impacts that “will significantly darken rooms and suites in the west wing of the hotel.” (Appeal Supplement, p. 3.)
The Project’s architect, Belzberg Architects, prepared a shade-shadow study to compare existing conditions without the penthouse, versus conditions with the penthouse. These graphics are attached as Exhibit 2. The shade-shadow study shows almost no change from existing conditions to shading on Appellant’s property, including the guestrooms to the south of the penthouse, with only a minor change during the summer equinox at sunset and 6 pm. As shown in the shade-shadow study, there are shadows on both buildings under existing conditions because these are in a dense urban area with other commercial and residential buildings, including the new four-story Rosewood Residences across the street from the Building on Charleville Boulevard, as well as the Beverly Hilton and Waldorf Astoria hotels to the north. All of these buildings, including Appellant’s own four-story building, are taller than the Building with the penthouse addition.

Appellant’s unsubstantiated concerns regarding potential shading impacts to its guestrooms are meritless.

3. Adequate Off-Site Parking Exists For The Angeleno Group’s Employees Appellant repeats its argument that there is insufficient off-site parking to accommodate the small office uses. First, no parking is required under the law. Further, Applicant evaluated available parking spaces in the area by surveying over ten active offsite parking lot owners within one tenth of a mile of the Building and confirmed that there is more than sufficient November 29, 2023

parking on the market (roughly 95 spaces) available to accommodate roughly six of The Angeleno Group’s anticipated nine employees that would need off-site parking.

4. Appellant Misrepresents the Proposed Loading Area
Appellant speculates that the off-street loading area for a van would cause traffic chaos. (Appeal Supplement, p. 6.) Wrong.

Consistent with BHMC section 10-3-2741, the proposed loading area in the surface parking lot would be 25 feet by 10 feet. This accommodates a van, which is all the City’s Code requires. Further, our November 21 letter explains that the Planning Commission’s ProjectSpecific Condition No. 7 requires that building management comply with the plan set forth in its description of how it would manage the proposed new loading area to avoid any new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards, which was included as Attachment G to the Planning Commission staff report. Appellant continues to ignore this.

5. Appellant Has a 7,700 Square Foot Rooftop Deck; Its Concerns Regarding Noise from a Small Terrace Are Absurd
Appellant speculates the limited outdoor terrace space would result in noise and privacy impacts equivalent to noise impacts from a rooftop deck at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard.

These issues are thoroughly discussed in our November 21 letter. It is worth repeating, however, that the Peninsula operates a 7,700 square foot rooftop deck, restaurant and pool.

The proposed terrace will be 945 square feet. (See Exhibit 3.) The penthouse and outdoor terrace have a maximum occupancy of 18 people, and would primarily be used as a working space for The Angeleno Group’s employees.

There is no evidence that any noise from use of the outdoor terrace by The Angeleno Group’s employees would exceed existing ambient conditions. Evidence set forth in our November 21 letter demonstrates that noise would be well below the existing ambient noise conditions along South Santa Monica Boulevard. There are no noise impacts.

6. The Project Complies with Applicable Requirements for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties
As explained in our companion letter – Response to Appellant’s Historic Letter – the City’s process was correct and the Project conforms with the SOI Standards. Appellant’s rigid analysis of the Project’s conformance is inconsistent with the SOI Standards, which are intended as general guidance for work on historic properties to ensure historic character-defining features are maintained.

For all these reasons we respectfully ask that the City Council deny the appeal in full.

The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval was correct.

November 29, 2023

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.
(;+,%,7
(;7(5,25*5$'(


*5281')/225


6(&21')/225


6(&21')/225&/*

(;,67,1*



*5281')/225&/*



$'',7,21522)


7+,5')/225
352326('




6(&21')/225&/*

352326('



726758&785(


0,1&/57281'(56,'(2)+2,67%($0


727$/75$9(/',67$1&(




 

(/(9$725
/2%%<
&,5&8/$7,21

23(12)),&(
5(&(37,21

23(12)),&(

58%%,6+50

$//*(1'(5
5(675220

&/26(7

+2,67%($072%(&225',1$7('%<*&+2,67%($072%(5(029('%<*&$)7(5(/(9$725,167$//$7,21 


 


 3,7'(37+



 


%

$
'225:,'7+


6&+,1'/(5/%*851(<
&203/,$17(/(9$725
02'(/$

520
&86720&$%

 0 1,  &/5

   




 




   
&,5&8,7%5($.(5/,*+76:,7&+68%0(56,%/(32:(581,7$1'0,&52352&(6625&21752/ 
$
352-(&7180%(5

0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$

ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20$5&+,7(&7%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20
    
 
 30
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<

(1/$5*('3/$16
(/(9$725

66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$

''352*5(666(7
$
 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
6&$/(
 

(/(9$7256(&7,21

6&$/(
 

(1/$5*('3/$1 (/(9$725

6&$/(
 

(1/$5*('3/$1 (/(90$&+,1(50

(;+,%,7
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
-XQH

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
-XQH

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
-XQH

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
-XQH

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5

0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$

ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20$5&+,7(&7%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20


$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<

6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
6800(5(48,12;

66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$

''352*5(666(7
*
6&$/(
 

6800(5(48,12; 6815,6( $'',7,21  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12;
$0 $'',7,21  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21 
6&$/(
 

6800(5(48,12; 6815,6( (;,67,1*  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12;
$0 (;,67,1*  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1* 
 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
-XQH

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5

0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$

ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17
,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20
$5&+,7(&7
%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20


$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<

6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
6800(5(48,12;

66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$

''352*5(666(7
*
6&$/(
 

6800(5(48,12; 6816(7 $'',7,21  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21 
6&$/(
 

6800(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1*  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12; 30(;,67,1*  6&$/(
 
 6800(5(48,12; 6816(7 (;,67,1* 
 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

$0

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

$0

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5

0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$

ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17
,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20
$5&+,7(&7
%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20


$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<

6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
:,17(5(48,12;

66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$

''352*5(666(7
*
6&$/(
 

:,17(5(48,12;
$0 $'',7,21  6&$/(
 
 :,17(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21  6&$/(
 
 :,17(5(48,12; 6815,6( $'',7,21 
6&$/(
 

:,17(5(48,12; 6815,6( (;,67,1*  6&$/(
 
 :,17(5(48,12;
$0 (;,67,1*  6&$/(
 
 :,17(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1* 
 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 : 
30

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :

30

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

30

30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 : 
30

$0

30
'HFHPEHU

30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5

0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$

ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRP
EHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17
,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20
$5&+,7(&7
%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20


$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<

6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
:,17(5(48,12;

66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$

''352*5(666(7
:,17(5(48,12; 6816(7 $'',7,21
6&$/(
 
  :,17(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21 6&$/(
 
  *
6&$/(
 

:,17(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1*  6&$/(
 
 :,17(5(48,12; 6816(7 (;,67,1* 
 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
(;+,%,7
),)7+)/225$5($7$%8/$7,21
)$5$5($727$/)/225$5($ 
 6)


 6)
,17(5,25$5($ 
 6)$5($2)(;3$16,21  6)180%(52)*8(6752206  $5($(;(037(')520)$5

(/(9$7256+$)7 /2%%<$1'67$,56

6)!
-

(
322/
6)
64)7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725
64)76+$)7
64)767$,5
64)7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725

64)7(/(9$72564)7(/(9$725/2%%<
64)767$,5
64)7(/(9$725/2%%<
64)76+$)7
64)767$,5



 
 






 
 


 

 
 
 


 

 


 




 

 


 
 


 








 
 
 



 






 




 
 


 













 



 
 

















 







































 

 


















$



















(
322/'(&.
6)

(
63$
(
287'225
&$)(
6)
83 '1
83 '1
'1 83
(/(9

(/(9

(/(9

(/(9

(/(9

(/(9


(
$&&(66,%/(
*8(675220

(
63$
$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/
$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/ 






 

3+




3+ $



'DWH
'UDZQ%\
6FDOH&.6KHHW1R-RE1XPEHU6KHHW1DPH
RI
6HDO
),/(

67</(
SM?GHVLJQYVGGE
5(9,6,216
0$<

6287+6$17$021,&$%28/(9$5'%(9(5/<+,//6&$

7+(3(1,168/$
9,//$6
 

3/$11,1*68%0,77$/ 1293/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$5 7 ,6
(* 5
(5('
7 (&7
&+ $5 ,
2 ) &$ / , )25
, $ 1 6 7$7 (
&
+ & ,1*(5 / / , ( 1$'
2&72%(5
3/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$<3/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ -81()$5',$*5$0),)7+)/2253/$1 $
 

66 ':&

   
-
 64)7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725
64)7(/(9$72564 )7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725/2%%< 67$,5



 
 
 

 



 


 
 









 
 

 
 

   
 




 




 

 


 








 
  

 




  


 









(
63$
83 '1 83
(/(9

(/(9

(/(9

(/(9


(
63$
$&&(66,%/(3$7+2 ( & 
3+ $ 3

&.6KHHW1R-RE1XPEHU6KHHW1DPH
RI
),/(

67</(
SM?GHVLJQYVGG
5(9,6,216

6287+ 6$17$021,&$%28/(9$5'%(9(5/<+,//6&$

7+( 3(1,168/$
9,//$6 
 

3/$11,1*68%0,77$/ 1293/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$53/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$<3/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ -81( )$5',$*5$0),)7+)/2253/$1 $
':

   
7,707 S.F. TotalRooftop Area for EHP
934.63 sf
945 S.F. OutdoorTerrace @ Penthouse

(
322/
6)

 




(
322/'(&.
6)

(

287'225
&$)(
 6)
'1
ATTACHMENT 6
Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s
Letter to City Council
(November 29, 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 29, 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 Appellant’s Historic Letter Supplementing Appeal of Planning Commission Approvals for 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd.

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

We write in response to The Belvedere Hotel Partnership’s letter regarding “The Darrow Building’s Proposed Third-Floor Addition and its Failure to Comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination for Case No. PL2200237)” dated November 20, 2023 (the “Historic Letter”). Also attached is a technical memorandum from the architecture historian firm Kaplan Chen Kaplan that responds the two historic reports attached to the Historic Letter as Exhibits B and C.

Appellant’s arguments are, as they were before, without merit. The City followed its Code and the Project conforms with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (“SOI Standards”). Appellant’s analysis of the Project’s conformance is inconsistent with the SOI Standards, which are intended as general guidance for work on historic properties to ensure historic character-defining features are maintained.

1. The City’s Processes for Landmark Designation and Historic Incentive Permit Approval Were Correct
Appellant argues that the City did not follow proper procedures to consider designation of the property as a landmark, and to approve the Historic Incentive Permit. Appellant argues that the Cultural Heritage Commission was required to consider the building for landmark designation with the proposed rooftop addition included before the Planning Commission could approve the Historic Incentive Permit. (Historic Letter, p. 2.) This is wrong.

On April 13, 2023, the Cultural Heritage Commission found the Building eligible for landmark status. Then, on July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission made the required findings for a Historic Incentive Permit based in part on the evidence from the Cultural Heritage 2 November 29, 2023

Commission as well as on Applicant’s evidence in the record, including two reports from Kaplan Chen Kaplan. The City’s required process was followed precisely and Appellant’s argument is meritless.

The Cultural Heritage Commission is tasked with considering a property’s eligibility, as it exists, for local historic landmark status under BHMC section 10-3-3215. The Cultural Heritage Commission considered the Building’s eligibility for local landmark status at a preliminary hearing in April 2023, voted to initiate landmark proceedings, and determined during the preliminary hearing that the Building merits formal consideration as a local landmark.

Contrary to Appellant’s erroneous claim, the Cultural Heritage Commission was not required to consider the penthouse addition, or the Project’s conformance with the SOI Standards, as part of the landmark eligibility proceedings.

Instead, the Planning Commission is specifically tasked with considering the Project’s conformance with SOI Standards as part of the findings for the Historic Incentive Permit. Under BHMC section 10-3-3251, a Historic Incentive Permit is available to (A) properties designated as a local historic landmark by the City, or, (B) “[a]ny property that the cultural heritage commission or the city council has determined, at a preliminary hearing . . . formal consideration by the cultural heritage commission for nomination as a landmark; provided, however, that any historic incentive permit issued by the planning commission pursuant to this subsection shall be expressly conditioned on the property's designation as a landmark by the city council and inclusion on the city of Beverly Hills’ local register of historic places.” The Cultural Heritage Commission found the Building merits formal consideration as a landmark, so the Building meets the BHMC section 10-3-3251 (B) criteria.

Under BHMC section 10-3-3254, the “planning commission shall be the reviewing authority for all historic incentive permit applications” and, as part of its review of the Historic Incentive Permit application, the Planning Commission makes certain findings including whether the Project complies with the SOI Standards. (BHMC, § 10-3-3256(A).) Appellant makes the confusing claim that the Planning Commission “never – not once, discussed or evaluated the third-floor rooftop addition’s consistency with the SOI Standards.” (Historic Letter, p. 2.) But the Resolution approving the Project includes findings of consistency with the SOI Standards. No more was required for the Planning Commission to find the Project is consistent with the SOI Standards.

The City’s process for evaluating the Building’s consistency with the SOI Standards complied with the BHMC.

2. Project Complies with Applicable Requirements for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties
Appellant argues the rooftop addition to the Building cannot comply with the SOI Standards, so the Project is ineligible for a Historic Incentive Permit and CEQA Class 31 Categorical Exemption. As discussed in detail in the memorandum prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan as a supplement to the Historic Impacts Analysis (the “Memorandum”), the Project conforms with the SOI Standards. Appellant’s experts’ rigid analysis of the Project’s 3 November 29, 2023

conformance is inconsistent with the purpose of the SOI Standards which are intended as general guidance for work on all historic properties in order to maintain historic character-defining features.

Appellant and its two historic reports point to certain Interpreting the Standards (“ITS”) bulletins published by the National Park Service and claim that this guidance means that a twostory building can never include a third-story addition and be in compliance with the SOI Standards. This is not how the SOI Standards or NPS guidance are intended to be applied.

As explained in the Memorandum, the SOI Standards explicitly state that they are “guidance” and recognize there can be “exceptions” and that “technical feasibility” should be taken into consideration in applying the SOI Standards in a “reasonable manner.” In short, the guidance for applying the SOI Standards recognizes that each historic building has unique circumstances, and the SOI Standards and ITS bulletins should “assist in applying the Standards to rehabilitation projects in general” but “they are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or rare instances.” (See Memorandum, p. 4). Further, a recent California Court of Appeal case addressed compliance with the SOI Standards in the context of approval of a CEQA Class 31 Exemption for an addition to a historic house and found that the City’s determination that the project complied with the SOI Standards was supported by substantial evidence. (Historic Architecture Alliance v. City of Laguna Beach, 2023 S.O.S. 3701 (Oct. 6, 2023, Cal. Ct. App).) The Court deferred to the City’s finding of consistency with the SOI Standards under the substantial evidence standard.

As discussed in the Memorandum, the third-story addition is the only technically feasible option for an addition to the Building that is consistent with the SOI Standards – a detail Appellant’s two reports fail to address. The Building’s corner-lot configuration and the placement of the character-defining louver banks on the building’s sides make it impossible to add an addition to the rear or any other side of the Building. These constraints led to the proposed solution to construct a partial third story penthouse that would be set back from the front and side elevations of the building and use predominantly glazed materials to impart a lightweight, receding impression. The design would not alter the existing roofline or roof, and is removable without damage to the building’s character-defining features.

The Planning Commission’s finding that the Project complies with the SOI Standards, and is therefore eligible for a Historic Incentive Permit and the CEQA Class 31 categorical exemption, is correct and is supported by substantial evidence.

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
November 29, 2023

4 cc: Mr. Yaniv Tepper, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
Mr. Daniel Weiss, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
George Mihlsten, Esq.

Kate Johnstone, Esq.
(;+,%,7

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
Telephone 310.452.7505
Facsimile 310.452.1494

MEMO
Date: November 28, 2023
To: Ms. Devon Montmity
BA Collective
From: Pam O’Conner, Senior Historian
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Re: 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow - Lautner Building Impacts Memo
Introduction

This memorandum was prepared as a supplement to the Historic Impacts Analysis prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan regarding the proposed addition to the commercial building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard. That report analyzed the proposed addition for its consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. This supplement was prepared in response to the Belvedere Hotel’s Partnership’s appeal of 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 the existing two-story commercia building.

Background
The subject property is a commercial building located at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard. At the April 13, 2022, meeting of the City of Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission, the subject property was approved “to initiate nomination proceedings for inclusion on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties,” by a unanimous vote of the Commission. The proposed project is the rehabilitation of the historic building and its adaptive reuse as contemporary office space.

The building is located on the southeast corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The building was designed by Master Architect John Lautner and is a rare example of a commercial building designed by Lautner. In addition to Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
its Mid-20th Century provenance and Expressionist design, the building is an early example of sustainable elements integrated in a commercial building.

Current view (Google Earth) 1950 Sanborn Map excerpt
An addition is proposed to the two-story building to accommodate the programmatic requirements of the re-use of the building. The challenge is that three sides of the building contain significant character-defining features; the fourth side of the building is at the east property line and abuts the adjacent property. (Note, the subject building pre-dates the building located to its east.)
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, front and side elevation
Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
Charleville Blvd. side elevation Rear elevation (note: building to the east was constructed to the property line and
abutted the existing historic building

The challenge facing adding onto this historic building is where to place an addition as there are no non-significant visible elevations. The typical option of siting an addition at the rear of a building would require that the building’s rear elevation, with its highly articulated louver bank, be demolished. The louver bank is a significant design and sustainability element of the building and its demolition to accommodate an addition would have a major, irreversible, adverse impact to the historic significance of the building.

The constraints of the site and the significance of the rear elevation led to the proposed solution to construct a partial third story onto the building. A partial third story addition would use the roof as its platform and would not alter the form or materials of the roof.

Also, the roof addition is reversible; it can be removed in the future.

Drawing with roof addition
As the elevation of the partial third story shows, it will be set back from the front and side elevations of the building. The partial third story will be predominantly glazed including windows and sliding doors to impart a lightweight, receding impression. The area in front of the partial third story’s exterior on the front and side will function as a terrace and be enclosed by a transparent wall. The flat roof of the partial third story project out slightly Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
over the terrace area to provide shade. The proposed design will not cause alteration of the existing roofline or roof.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The federal Secretary of The Interior's Standards for the Treatment Of Historic Properties and the Standards For Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (SOI, National Park Service) are used by local and state governments.1 The purpose of The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017) is to provide guidance to historic building owners and building managers, preservation consultants, architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to beginning work.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties address four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The following is from the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm).

As stated in the regulations (36 CFR Part 68) “one set of standards …will apply to a property undergoing treatment, depending upon the property’s significance, existing physical condition, the extent of documentation available, and interpretive goals, when applicable.

The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.” “The Guidelines are intended as an aid to assist in applying the Standards to all types of historic buildings. They are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or unusual conditions.”
Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials, and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for Preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form.

Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the 1 The federal Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation as well as the National Register criteria for designation of historic properties are used by local governments as guidance. Cities, such as the City of Beverly Hills, adapt these criteria and standards to suit the City’s unique circumstances. The City of Beverly Hills designation criteria for historic buildings includes criteria unique to the City as does its Historic Incentive Program.

Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The Restoration Standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from other periods.

Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. The Reconstruction Standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes 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. In particular the Standards for Rehabilitation, are intended as general guidance for work on all historic properties.

The purpose of rehabilitation of historic buildings is not to freeze the building in time or make the building a historic museum. Rather, the intent of rehabilitation is to encourage retention and long-term preservation of the building for contemporary use while maintaining its significant historic character-defining features. According to the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Brief (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretarystandards-treatment-historic-properties.htm), the Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation are to be applied in “a reasonable manner,” “taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.” The Standards and Guidelines as well as technical briefs such as the Interpreting the Standards (ITS) series “assist in applying the Standards to rehabilitation projects in general” but “they are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or rare instances.” 2
Two reports were submitted by the appellant regarding the proposed projects stating that the project does not conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation based on a rooftop addition being proposed. Neither report recognized that the proposed project is for an addition to a building -- which is allowed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Neither of the reports analyzed where else a building addition could be constructed onto the historic 2 https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/secretarys-standards-rehabilitation.htm Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
building nor discusses the impacts that such an addition would have on the distinctive and historic character-defining features of the building.

The unique nature of the building and site must be considered when analyzing a rehabilitation project that includes an addition which is why the Standards are explicit in that they provide guidance and recognize that there can be “exceptions and rare instances” and that “technical feasibility” should be taken into consideration in applying the SOI Standards.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:

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 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.

Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners

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 Rooftop Addition is Consistent With the Secretary’s Standards for 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.

SOI Standard 4 (alterations that have achieved historic significance), SOI Standard 7 (chemical and physical treatments that cause damage) and Standard 8 (regarding archeological resources) do not apply to the proposed rehabilitation project.

SOI Standard 1 states that a property should 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.” The building was designed as a commercial building and in recent decades had been adapted into medical offices. The proposed use will retain the commercial use of the building. The proposed project conforms with SOI Standard 1.

Two standards deal with the retention of historic character-defining features of a building, SOI Standards 2 and 5. SOI Standard 2 states that “the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.” SOI 5 states that “distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be retained and preserved.” Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
The National Park Service provides guidance in applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Interpreting the Standards (“ITS”) No. 3 Preservation Brief, New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings, states that a new addition should “not obscure character-defining features of the historic building.” ITS No. 36 Preservation Brief, Rooftop Additions states that rooftop additions should be designed to “not damage characterdefining features of the historic building.” The proposed project retains all the character-defining features of the building including the louver bank. The louver bank wraps around the building from a streamlined section along Charleville Boulevard to an articulated geometric form along the rear elevation. Both elevations are visible from the public right-of-way. To retain this configuration and the rear louver bank, an addition cannot be built onto the rear of the building. By adding a penthouse roof addition, the distinctive historic louver bank, which also is an example of an early sustainability feature on a commercial building, will be retained and preserved.

While in most situations, additions can be located at the rear, or on another secondary and inconspicuous elevation of the building, the configuration of the subject building on a corner lot limits the location of an addition as there are no secondary or inconspicuous elevations on the subject building. The location of the addition as a roof penthouse will not obscure any character-defining features of the building.

Placing an addition at the rear of the building would result in a major alteration of the design of the historic building and removal of significant character-defining features of the building. A rooftop addition does not require demolition of the distinctive louver bank on the rear elevation, which would otherwise alter the significant historic design of the building.

The significant historic and sustainable design of the building’s major visible elevations and its distinctive features will be retained and preserved with the proposed rooftop addition.

The proposed project’s penthouse addition conforms with SOI Standards 2 and 5.

SOI Standard 3 does not allow any changes that create a false sense of historic development such as adding conjectural features or architectural features from other buildings. The design of the penthouse roof addition is of contemporary styling, representative of the period in which it is designed. It is not a conjectural design from any historic building style.

The proposed project conforms with SOI Standard 3.

SOI Standard 6 states that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
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. The treatment proposed for rehabilitation of the building is to retain and repair the characterdefining features of the historic building.

The proposed rehabilitation project conforms with SOI Standard 6.

SOI Standard 9 states the “new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials the 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.” SOI Standard 10 states that “new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that is removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” ITS No. 3 Preservation Brief, New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings states that a new addition to a building is allowed if it is compatible with the historic building and its historic character. A new addition meets 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 characterdefining features of the historic building; and (4) the new addition is designed in such a way that clearly differentiates the new from the old.

The uniqueness of the historic design of the subject building is that three elevations contain character-defining features and are visible from the public right-of-way. There is no secondary rear elevation or any inconspicuous elevation of the building where a new addition could be attached. Thus, a rooftop penthouse is proposed.

The footprint of the rooftop penthouse is less than the surface area of the roof. The penthouse is set back from the edges of the building. The walls of the penthouse are primarily glass and designed to visually lighten and reduce the volume and massing of the addition. The size and scale of the rooftop addition are limited. The penthouse addition is appropriate for the building which has no other area to construct an addition without having an adverse impact on a major elevation of the building.

An addition to the rear of the building, a typical place for an addition, in this unique case would result in the loss of a major and distinctive character-defining feature of the building, the articulated bank of louvers on the rear elevation. The design of a penthouse addition will not obscure any historic character-defining features of the building. All the character- Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
defining features of the building from minor to the most distinctive and significant features of the building will be retained.

The new addition is designed in such a way that clearly differentiates the new from the old.

The design uses modern glass material and employs a contemporary design. The proposed rooftop penthouse addition is subordinate to the historic building as the rooftop addition is set back along the long Charleville Boulevard elevation and matches the plane of the rear elevation. The addition uses transparent materials in contrast to the opaque and solid materials that define the existing building.

Also, the original roofline of the building remains. The proposed rooftop addition is reversible and can be removed in the future. The proposed rooftop addition will not destroy any historic materials that characterize the building.

The proposed rooftop addition preserves the historic character of the building by retaining the building’s design and significant historic materials, features and the form of the building. The addition is compatible but differentiated from the historic building in terms of both its design and materials.

The proposed penthouse roof addition conforms with SOI Standards 9 and 10.

The proposed rehabilitation with addition that is proposed for the historic building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

The City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) was established “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.” The HIP can be applied to projects that have been designated as City of Beverly Hills Landmark or to any property that has been determined to merit formal consideration by the Cultural Heritage Commission for nomination as a landmark.

The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is pursuing a HIP for the proposed project to rehabilitate the building that includes an addition to the building. To receive the HIP, the proposed rehabilitation project must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as defined by the City of Beverly Hills in that it:

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
Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023

Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners

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.

The proposed rehabilitation project is approved for a CEQA Category 31 exemption if it conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.

The proposed addition to the building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings and the HIP requirements of consistency with the SOI. As guidance regarding application of the SOI notes, each historic site/building has unique circumstances. The configuration of the subject building on a corner parcel with three visible elevations, each of which contain significant expressionist design and bold features, results in an atypical situation. Typically, there is a subordinate rear building addition and space to build an at grade addition onto the building or the potential of using an adjacent, “infill” site. This is not the case with the subject building. The historic building has three major, prominent elevations, two of which (including its rear elevation) contain a major character-defining historic and sustainable feature of the building. The only place to add onto the building is at the rooftop.

The rooftop addition is the only addition that would not have a permanent adverse effect on the physical historic integrity of the building. It is the only addition option that would not physically remove significant design and character-defining features of the building. The rooftop addition is reversible and can be removed in the future – without having an adverse impact on any historic character-defining feature of the building. The historic integrity of the historic building is retained as the rooftop addition preserves the bold expressionist volumes of the historic building by not demolishing major historic and sustainable character-defining features. The proposed addition to the historic building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the City of Beverly Hills HIP standards, and a CEQA Category 31 exemption.