AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:
Item Number:
To:
From:
Subject:
December 5, 2023
Honorable Mayor & City Council
Michael Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development Masa Alkire, AICP, City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JULY 13, 2023
DECISION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REVIEW AND HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT TO ALLOW
FOR THE REHABILITATION OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY
COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
THIRD STORY, ALONG WITH WAIVERS AND DEVIATIONS
OF CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AT 9884 SOUTH
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD, AND FINDING THE PROJECT
EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition (July 26, 2023)
2. Appeal Petition Supplement (November 20, 2023)
3. Appellant’s Letter to City Council (November 20, 2023)
4. Applicant’s Appeal Response Letter (November 21, 2023)
5. Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Appeal Petition Supplement (November 29, 2023)
6. Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Letter to City Council (November 29, 2023)
7. July 13, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report
8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029
9. Updated Historic Evaluation Report dated November 22, 2023
10. Updated Historic Impact Analysis dated November 22, 2023
11. Notice of Public Hearing
12. Project Plans
RECOMMENDATION
On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution conditionally approving the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition at the Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “project site”), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Subsequently, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed on July 26, 2023, by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Belvedere Hotel Partnership (“Peninsula Beverly Hills”) (Attachment 1). On September 12, 2023, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for the project for December 5, 2023, at the request of the appellant, to allow for additional time to work with the applicant team for the project at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard to reconcile the issues in the appeal. At the September 12th meeting, the Council expressed the desire that both parties work together to come to a mutual resolution of the appeal, as the appellant also had a pending project that includes expansion of one of the villas at the Peninsula hotel that is directly adjacent to the project site, about which the 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard project applicant expressed concerns at recent Planning Commission hearings.
Based on information provided by the project applicant and the appellant, several meetings have been held between both parties to seek resolution of the issues raised in the appeal.
However, as of the writing of this report, there has not yet been an agreed upon resolution between both parties to cause withdrawal of this appeal. As such, the appellant has asked the City to continue the appeal to a future date to allow for additional talks to occur between both parties. The applicant team, however, has expressed their desire for the Council to move forward on the consideration of the appeal for the project as approved by the Planning Commission on July 13, 2023, without further delay.
On November 20, 2023, the appellant submitted: 1) a 12-page appeal petition supplement (Attachment 2) with exhibits consisting of sheets from the set of project plans, isometric 3D models of the proposed project and its relation to the appellant’s Peninsula hotel site, photos showing the view of existing guestrooms, a Beverly Hills Courier article regarding the Planning Commission’s review of the Spring Place project (9800 Wilshire Boulevard), and a copy of the City’s mailed public notice for the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, and; 2) a 15- page letter to the City Council (Attachment 3) discussing the project’s alleged failure to comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) with exhibits consisting of a transcription of the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission meeting for the project at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, memoranda from historic preservation consultants Jenna Snow and Page & Turnbull challenging the project’s compliance with SOI Standards, a copy of the historic conformance report prepared for the Gibraltar Square/Kate Mantilini Building (9111 Wilshire Boulevard), copies of National Park Service historic preservation bulletins, and a transcription of the April 13, 2022 Cultural Heritage Commission meeting regarding landmark initiation proceedings for 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard.
On November 21, 2023, Latham and Watkins, the applicant’s legal representative, submitted a 21-page appeal response letter (Attachment 4) that includes exhibits consisting of a rooftop plan of the appellant’s Peninsula hotel, a copy of the third-floor plan of the project showing the line of the proposed addition in comparison to the existing building, comments regarding the appellant’s isometric 3D models of the project, aerial images of the project site and the appellant’s property (9882 South Santa Monica Boulevard), and a memorandum from Kaplan Chen Kaplan (the applicant’s historic preservation consultant) providing additional information regard John Lautner’s qualifications (the original architect of the existing commercial building) and addressing the architectural style of the structure. Additionally, the applicant submitted an updated Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment 9) and Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment 10) dated November 22, 2023 that clarify that the architectural style of the existing building is Mid-Century Modern.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Lastly, on November 29, 2023, Latham and Watkins, on behalf of the applicant, submitted two letters in response to correspondence submitted by the appellant, which consists of: 1) a 13- page letter in response to the appellant’s appeal supplement letter (Attachment 5) that includes section details of the building’s proposed elevator, the project’s shade and shadow study, and a fifth floor plan of the appellant’s Peninsula hotel property showing the existing rooftop area, and; 2) a 16-page letter in response to the appellant’s letter to the City Council (Attachment 6) that includes a memorandum from Kaplan Chen Kaplan providing additional supporting discussion regarding the project’s adherence to SOI Standards and eligibility for a Class 31 exemption.
If the Council elects to move forward with consideration of the appeal and not grant the appellant’s requested continuance, it is recommended that the City Council hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the project and denying the appeal, which would allow the project to move forward through the City’s architectural review and building permit processes. Alternatively, the City Council may direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the project and granting the appeal, or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Council, as part of its de novo review, will consider not only the appeal and points raised therein, but also will conduct an independent review of whether or not the required findings can be made to approve the project.
Alternatively, the Council may elect to continue the item to a date certain to allow for continued resolution talks between the appellant and the applicant in hopes of a resolution.
INTRODUCTION
Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is a 6,000 SF rectangular lot located on the southeast corner of South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard (Fig. 1), within the City’s C-3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The project site is currently developed with an existing 6,288 SF, two-story commercial building, built in 1946, with a height of approximately 24’ and surface parking lot with seven parking spaces. The existing building and site improvements were designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects listed on the City’s List of Master Architects. While the original building permit lists Douglas Honnold as the architect of the building, the design of the building is primarily attributed to John Lautner, the firm’s design associate. The existing building is currently vacant and was previously used for retail and service commercial uses on the ground floor and medical uses on the second floor. Vehicular access to the site is currently provided through a 15’-0” wide alley located at the rear of the property accessed from Charleville Boulevard.
The areas surrounding the project site are characterized by existing commercial and residential uses. The areas located to the north of the project site along South Santa Monica Boulevard are developed with one- and two-story commercial buildings that consist of retail, restaurant, and general and medical office uses within the City’s C-3 Zone and the MU Overlay Zone. To the south of the site are two-story apartments and condominium buildings located within the R-4, Multiple Residential Zone. To the east of the site is the Peninsula Hotel, an existing four-story hotel with rooftop uses. Lastly, to the west of the project site across from Charleville Boulevard is the future site of the Rosewood Residences, a new four-story mixed use building currently under construction at the former location of the Friars Club.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery
Project Description
The proposed project consists of the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building and the construction of a new third story at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard. As detailed on the Historic Resources Evaluation commissioned by the applicant and prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (Attachment D of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)), a qualified historic consultant, John Lautner is considered one of Southern California’s most significant architects of the 20th century, having designed 113 structures that were constructed throughout the region. Of these 113 structures, 64 of these buildings are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1944, Lautner joined the architectural firm of Douglas Honnold as a design associate, later establishing his own practice in the 1950s. The existing Darrow Office Building (Fig. 2) and associated site improvements at the project site were designed by Lautner during his time at Honnold’s firm and represent an excellent example of Late Modern/MidCentury Modern architectural style. As detailed in the original Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment E of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)) and updated Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment 10) that was also prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, the building’s original character-defining design features are mostly intact and include:
• Sculptural and geometric massing of building’s three visible elevations • Brick and stucco on exterior elevations
• Fins on front elevation
• Vertical windows on front upper elevation
• Ground level storefront/entry assemblies on front elevation • Band of windows under canopy on ground level of front and side elevations • Bank of louvers on upper level of side and rear elevations • Stairway on side elevation
• Brick wall along the side elevation
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
• Canted sliding doors with wood frame and glazing under louvers • Light court on party wall side of building
The applicant seeks to rehabilitate the existing building and original architectural features that were designed by Lautner, in adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI Standards). Additionally, the applicant seeks to construct a new 1,404 SF third story addition over the existing building to provide additional office space on the property and a 745 SF outdoor terrace that would face South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The new third floor addition would increase the existing height of the building by approximately 15’-3”, from a height of 23’-9” to a proposed height of 38’-0”. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2726, the maximum allowable height for properties within the C-3 Zone is 45’-0”, with a maximum of three stories allowed. The proposed project is designed in compliance with these standards. Interior improvements include the addition of required elevators and stair shafts to provide access to all existing and proposed floors of the building, as required by building code; these elements are exempt from counting against the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site. While the proposed third story addition would be 1,404 SF in area, the overall project results in a 765 SF net increase in floor area as a result of floor area reductions on the existing first and second floor to provide the aforementioned building-code required elevators and access stairs on each level. This results in a total floor area of 7,053 SF and a proposed FAR of
1.17. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2745, the maximum allowable FAR on C-3 zoned properties is
2.0, which results in a maximum allowable floor area of 12,000 SF (6,000 SF site area x 2.0 = 12,000 SF). The project is designed in compliance with the applicable floor area requirements.
Fig. 2: Existing Building at Corner of South Santa Monica and Charleville Source: Google StreetView
The development standards for properties in the C-3 zone allow for construction of a building to the property line, with no applicable front, side, or rear setback. Along South Santa Monica Boulevard frontage (north), the proposed project plans (Attachment 12) show that the existing first and second floors of the building are set back approximately 5’-0” from the front property line. Along Charleville Boulevard (west), the existing building is designed with a 4’-9” setback from the street side property line, with the building’s distinctive architectural fins projecting over an existing planter bed on the ground floor along this elevation. A roof overhang projects over Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
the existing setback areas along both the north and west elevations. To the east side, the building is built along the side property on both the first and second floors. Lastly, the existing building maintains a setback of approximately 38’-6” from the rear property line to the south.
The new third story addition is proposed within the footprint of the second floor and would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing building. The new third floor addition would have a north side setback of approximately 16’-6” along South Santa Monica Boulevard, an 8’-9” setback to the west along Charleville Boulevard, a zero setback along the east side property line abutting the Peninsula hotel structure, and a rear setback of 44’-6”. Along the east side property line, the existing solid building wall abutting the neighboring building at the Peninsula Hotel would be extended where the new third story and terrace is proposed screen this building programing from neighboring review (Fig. 3). As viewed from South Santa Monica Boulevard, the project site abuts an existing three-story building on the Peninsula Hotel property with an approximate height of 32’-0”. This neighboring building is also built to the property line on the Peninsula’s side with a solid wall that has no openings toward the project site. To the south, the project site faces a two-story bungalow building on the Peninsula’s property and the main hotel building, which is built at height of approximately 45’-0” and four stories that includes a rooftop pool and deck for use by hotel guests. The floor level of the proposed third-story addition would be built on top of the existing building roof line, at a height of 23’-9”. The building programing along the south elevation of the third-story addition primarily consists of stairs, a stair well, and a closet. The stairwell and closet are designed with solid walls and are closest to the east side property line abutting the Peninsula Hotel property. The project would not have a direct view of the hotel rooftop areas on the Peninsula Hotel, as the floor level of the hotel rooftop pool area begins at a height of approximately 45’-0”, which is about 21’-0” taller than the floor level of the proposed third-story addition at the project site.
Fig. 3: Rendering of Building from South Santa Monica Blvd.
Source: Belzberg Architects
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
The design of the third story addition is differentiated from the design of the existing building through the use of building materials that clearly distinguish the historical portion of the structure from the proposed new construction, as recommended by the SOI Standards, with exposed wood elements and full height storefront glazing on the front, street-side, and rear of the addition (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4: Rendering of Building at Corner of South Santa Monica and Charleville Boulevards Source: Belzberg Architects
As part of this project, the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the existing surface parking lot located at the rear of the property to provide a new transformer for improved electrical service to the property (Fig. 5). The existing surface parking lot currently provides a total of seven (7) parking spaces for the existing building accessed from Charleville Boulevard by an existing 15’- 0” wide alley. As the existing development was built in 1946, the project site is legally nonconforming as to the number of parking spaces that are otherwise required by the BHMC or the dimensions and configuration of the parking spaces. The proposal would reduce the number of parking spaces on the project site, from seven to three parking spaces, in order to accommodate the required van-accessible handicap stall, as well as the required transformer for the project.
Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, which became effective on January 1, 2023, prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on certain residential, commercial, or other development projects that are located within ½ mile of a major transit stop.
The project site is located within ½-mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station, which is currently under construction in Century City on the northerly corner of Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard.1 Additionally, the project site is located within ½ mile of an intersection of two or more major bus routes that have a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North Santa Monica Metro Local Bus Line 20 and Rapid Bus Line 720 run along Wilshire 1 The project site is located approximately 2,055 feet (0.39 miles) from the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station at Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Boulevard, while Local Bus Line 4 runs along North Santa Monica Boulevard, each with stops at this intersection.2
Fig. 5: Site Plan
Source: Belzberg Architects
The applicant is requesting approval of a Development Plan Review (DPR) to allow for construction of the new third story and a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) to allow for deviations of the applicable BHMC development standards related to the required dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and the siting of on-site loading spaces for the project. The City’s HIP process 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. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3251, the following types of properties are eligible for consideration of a HIP by the Planning Commission:
A. Those properties that are designated as a local historic landmark in the City of Beverly Hills; or,
B. Any property that the Cultural Heritage Commission or the City Council has determined, at a preliminary hearing, merits formal consideration by the Cultural Heritage Commission for nomination as a landmark; provided, however, that any Historic Incentive Permit issued by the Planning Commission 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.
While the subject property was designed by a master architect, the property has not yet been designated as a local historic landmark. On April 13, 2023, the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC), consistent with the established process available to applicants seeking a HIP for a project, previewed the proposed project and held landmark initiation proceedings and a preliminary hearing to determine the property’s eligibility as a local landmark for placement onto the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties. At this meeting, the CHC voted to initiate landmark proceedings and determined during the preliminary hearing that the existing building at the project site merits formal consideration as a local landmark. The CHC directed staff to 2 The project site is located approximately 304 feet (0.06 miles) from a Metro Local Bus Line 4 stop and 480 feet (0.09 miles) from Metro Local Bus Line 20 and Rapid Bus Line 720 stops, which intersect at the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevard.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
bring the property forward for formal consideration by the CHC at a future date and to provide a recommendation to the City Council for designation of the property as a local landmark. Copies of these CHC reports are provided as Attachment F of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7).
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3252, the Planning Commission may grant waivers or deviations from any development standards through the issuance of a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP). To facilitate the proposed improvements to the project site and rehabilitation of the existing Lautner-designer commercial building, that applicant is seeking review and approval of a HIP to allow for the project to deviate from the minimum dimensions required for rubbish storage facilities and the applicable on-site loading space requirements.
The existing project site currently does not have a rubbish/trash storage room or on-site loading areas. The improvements to the site include providing a new rubbish room within the ground floor of the building, accessed directly from the parking lot to the rear, to store refuse bins inside the building and way from view of the street and sidewalk. Pursuant to BHMC §9-3-1.F, the minimum dimensions for a rubbish room are 8’ x 5’ (40 SF). The applicant is proposing to provide a 53 SF rubbish room with interior dimensions of 7’-2” x 7’-2”. The rubbish room proposed would not comply with the 8’ dimension required and seeks a deviation of this standard through the requested HIP. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to provide an area for loading within the redesigned parking lot that would be accessible to a van providing scheduled deliveries to the project site. The loading area would be located immediately behind the existing parking spaces and would measure 10’ wide by 25’ in length. Generally, a project’s loading area could not be provided in an area that would block access to on-site parking areas; however, the applicant has provided a narrative detailing how the loading area would be used to prevent from impacting access to available on-site parking (Attachment G of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)).
To minimize congestion and traffic conflicts, the applicant is proposing to have deliveries coordinated so that they occur primarily during early morning or evening hours, during non-peak office hours (before 8:00 A.M. and after 5:00 P.M.). Any deliveries occurring during peak office hours (between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.) would need to be coordinated and approved by building management in order to better manage access to the proposed parking areas. Delivery vehicles would be allowed to utilize the loading area for a maximum of 10 minutes unless additional time for a specific delivery is needed and has been authorized and coordinated by building management. The requested deviation would allow for this managed loading area to be provided within the existing parking aisle, rather than as a standalone space, due to the infeasibility of provided a standalone loading space without further eliminating available on-site parking. The joint use of a parking area and loading area for this project allows for a more efficient use of space on the property.
Project History and Planning Commission Discussion
On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project (Attachment 7). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment made by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Peninsula Beverly Hills expressing concerns on behalf of the Peninsula hotel regarding the project’s eligibility as a historic resource, the character of the proposed addition, proposed reductions in parking, concerns with deliveries to the project site, and the gating of the parking lot. After discussion and deliberation of the project materials and the topics raised by the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2029 (Attachment 8) approving the Project entitlements subject to 24 conditions of approval.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Planning Commission’s Environmental Assessment
As part of the Planning Commission’s approval of the project and adoption of Resolution No. 2029 on July 13, 2023, the Commission reviewed and assessed the project in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. At the meeting, the Commission determined that the project qualified for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15301 and 15331 of the state CEQA Guidelines, and found the project except from further environmental review.
The Class 1 exemption applies to additions to existing structures that do not exceed 10,000 SF.
Additionally, the Class 31 Categorical Exemption applies to the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI Standards). The application of a Class 31 exemption was further bolstered by the analysis conducted as part of the Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment E of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)). The Commission’s determination is memorialized in Section 3 of Resolution No. 2029.
Staff notes that the environmental section in Section 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029 does contain a typographical error that accidentally notes a Class 3 exemption. Specially, the resolution notes that “The Class 3 exemption is applicable to additions to existing structures that do not exceed 10,000 SF.” However, this should read that a Class 1 exemption is applicable instead of a Class 3. As such, staff will amend the resolution accordingly to reflect the record in the staff report and, if directed by the City Council, will note the correct applicable environmental exemptions in a resolution memorizing the City Council’s approval of the project.
Appeal Filed
On July 26, 2023, Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Belvedere Hotel Partnership (“Peninsula Beverly Hills”), filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision (Attachment 1). On September 12, 2023, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for the project for December 5, 2023. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, on November 20, 2023, the appellant submitted an appeal petition supplement (Attachment 5) containing material that appellant claims clarifies and expands on points made in the original appeal petition. Additionally, on November 21, 2023, Latham and Watkins, the applicant’s legal representative, submitted an appeal response letter challenging the claims made in the appeal petition. Updated Historic Impact Evaluation (Attachment 9) and Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment 10) reports dated November 22, 2023 were also submitted by the applicant. Discussion and analysis of the appeal and additional correspondence is provided in the appeal analysis of this report below.
ANALYSIS OF APPEAL
The following is an analysis of the issues raised in the appeal petition filed on July 26, 2023 by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Peninsula Beverly Hills, and the appeal petition supplement submitted by their legal representative, Manatt, on November 20, 2023. Copies of the appeal petition and the appeal petition supplement are provided as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
1) Project materials submitted to the City do not accurately convey the full realistic impact the Project will have on Appellant's property, which will result in near-term and long-term impacts to Appellant.
• July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant asserts that the project material submitted for City review included renderings of the proposed project that “use strategic views and cropping to obscure the extent of new building height being created and prevent viewers from being able to see the actual proposed rooftop addition's impact on surrounding properties.” The appellant submitted renderings for the City Council to consider in the appeal petition that the appellant allege show that the project “will create significant height that will be highly visible from Appellant's property and will block views from guestrooms.” Lastly, the appellant asserts that the project did not include an analysis of construction-related noise or vibration impacts.
In the appeal petition, the appellant includes a photo that the appellant notes was taken from a guestroom that shows potential views that allegedly would be blocked as a result of the project (Fig. 6).
• November 20, 2023 Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 2): The appellant raises similar points made in the original appeal petition. Specifically, Items A.1 and G of the supplemental appeal letter include additional information on the appellant’s view and construction noise and vibration concerns (Pages 3 and 11 of Attachment 2) for the Council to consider as part of the de novo review.
• November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): The project applicant submitted a letter in response to the issues raised in the appeal petition for the Council’s consideration. Concerns related to view impacts, as well as construction noise and vibrations are addressed in Item 1 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 7 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition. • November 29, 2023 Applicant Response to Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 5): The project applicant submitted a letter in response to the issues raised appellant’s appeal petition supplement for the Council’s consideration. Concerns related to view and shade-shadow impacts are further addressed in Items 1 and 2 of the applicant’s response letter (Pages 1 and 2 of Attachment 5), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition supplement.
Analysis
In response to the appellant’s assertions, staff’s assessment is that the plans and renderings provided by the applicant do show the project’s height and massing in relation to the adjacent hotel building. Specifically, Detail 3 on Sheet A302 (Fig. 3) of the project plans (Attachment 12) shows both the existing and proposed addition in relation to the adjacent hotel building at 9882 South Santa Monica Boulevard, which is built as a three-story building that is currently taller than the existing vacant building on the applicant’s project site at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed project is designed in compliance with the applicable height and floor area requirements, which allow for a maximum height of 45’ and up to three stories in height. The proposed third story addition would increase the height of the structure by 15’-3”, resulting in a total proposed building height of 38’-0”, which is compliant with the applicable height requirements applicable to commercial development in BHMC §10-3-2726. The applicant also included a shade and shadow study assessing potential shadows that would be cast from the new third story addition onto neighboring Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
properties in the set of plans for the project (Sheets G170 though G173 of Attachment 12).
During the summer equinox, the project is projected to cast shadows toward the west in the afternoons, primarily along the South Santa Monica and Charleville Boulevards. No shadows would be cast to the east where the hotel or hotel villas are located on the appellant’s Peninsula hotel property. During the winter equinox, the project is projected to cast shadows toward the north in the afternoon, with the study showing that shadows would be cast over a potion the roof of the existing hotel villas on the appellant’s property. The shadows cast as a result of the proposed addition are minimal and are cast on the roof the villas at the Peninsula hotel, which does not contain rooftop uses. The shade and shadow study provided does not appear to indicate that shadows would be cast over windows of existing guestrooms at the hotel property, and as such, there does not appear to be significant project-related shadow impacts resulting from the proposed third story addition of the project.
In review of the photo submitted by the appellant (Fig. 6), it appears that the views that exist from the guestroom that the submitted photo was taken from are of the existing building rooftop on the project site and of neighboring commercial buildings and street trees, including views of the Beverly Hilton Hotel along North Santa Monica Boulevard.
Additionally, it also appears that the view of existing guestrooms is partially blocked by the existing hotel villas on the appellant’s property that are built directly abutting the existing commercial building at the project site. While the proposed development would potentially screen views of some hotel rooms of existing commercial development in the vicinity of the appellant’s property, the City’s current development standards do not have provisions for the protection of views of neighboring commercial properties.3 The development standards for commercially zoned properties in the City allow for and envision commercial development that is able to be built to the property line and with heights of up to 45’ in height, similar to development which currently exists at the appellant’s Peninsula hotel property. Based on the applicable development standards, which allow for the proposed development at the height and floor area noted, staff’s assessment is that there are no protected views that would be impaired as part of the project.
In regard to construction-related noise impacts, the City’s restrictions on construction activity in BHMC §5-1-205 establish the allowable hours where construction, maintenance or repair work which requires a City permit can occur. Pursuant to this section, construction activity on a project site is allowed to occur from 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Monday through Friday, unless otherwise authorized by the City through the issuance of an after-hours permit.
Construction noise would be significant if construction activities occurring on the project site resulted in a noise increase of five dBA or more outside the hours permitted by the City’s noise ordinance at the project site (i.e., between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, or at any time on Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday). The proposed Project is not currently proposing any construction outside the City’s allowable construction hours. The project site and the Peninsula Hotel are all located in busy urban environments that generally have a high daytime ambient noise level with road traffic and adjacent construction of the Rosewood project to the west of the project site. As such, the Project is not anticipated to exceed the City’s thresholds for construction-noise that the City typically uses in a CEQA analysis.
3 In the City of Beverly Hills, view preservation regulations are limited to only the Trousdale and Hillside residential areas of the City.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Fig. 6: Appellant’s Photo Showing View Blockage (July 2023) Source: Michael Tenner, Probity International
As it relates to construction-related vibration impacts, the project does not propose any earthwork or land grading activities that would product vibration to neighboring properties, include the Peninsula’s hotel property to the east. The project does not require the use of drilling or pile driving machinery as the scope only involves construction of a third story and site improvements consisting of a parking lot reconfiguration, new transformer, and new landscaping. Additionally, the proposed project would not result in over 10,000 SF of development and is designed in substantial conformance with SOI standards, making the project eligible for Class 1 and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions from CEQA.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
2) The Project increases the size and intensity of an office building while unlawfully reducing on-site parking to be severely inadequate. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards.
Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104). • July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant raises concerns regarding project’s proposed reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces, from seven existing spaces to three spaces. The appellant alleges that the proposed reduction in parking would not support employees, visitors, building maintenance, and use of the third floor terrace (noted as “rooftop event space” in the appeal petition), and that these users would have to make use of available on-street parking, leading to adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Furthermore, the appellant alleges that the provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 20974 do not apply to the project, as they allege that AB 2097 only applies to new buildings and not improvements to existing buildings, and that “AB 2097 does not allow the City to circumvent its code requirement for maintenance of existing parking.”
• November 20, 2023 Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 2): The appellant raises similar points made in the original appeal petition. Specifically, Item B.1 of the appeal supplement includes additional information on the appellant’s parking related concerns (Page 4 of Attachment 2) for the Council to consider as part of the de novo review.
• November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): Concerns related to parking and traffic impacts, as well as the applicability of AB 2097, are addressed in Item 2 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 10 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition.
• November 29, 2023 Applicant Response to Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 5): The project applicant submitted a letter in response to the issues raised appellant’s appeal petition supplement for the Council’s consideration. Concerns related to parking are further addressed in Item 3 of the applicant’s response letter (Page 2 of Attachment 5), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition supplement.
Analysis
The proposal seeks to reduce the number of parking spaces on the project site, from seven to three parking spaces, in order to accommodate the required van-accessible handicap stall, as well as the required transformer for the project. These are key elements that are proposed by the applicant to meet required van-accessible parking under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and to provide the needed electrical infrastructure to support the existing building and proposed addition. AB 2097 adds §65863.2.(a) to the Government Code, which provides the following:
4 The full text of AB 2097 can be viewed online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097 Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Government Code §65863.2.(a)
A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.
AB 2097, which became effective on January 1, 2023, prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on certain residential, commercial, or other development projects that are located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The project site is located within ½-mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station, which is currently under construction in Century City on the northerly corner of Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard. Additionally, the project site is also located within ½ mile of an intersection of two or more major bus routes that have a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods at the corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North Santa Monica Boulevard. Metro Local Bus Line 20 and Rapid Bus Line 720 run along Wilshire Boulevard, while Local Bus Line 4 runs along North Santa Monica Boulevard, each with stops at this intersection. Each of these stations and intersecting bus lines qualify the project site for the provisions of AB 2097 and limits the City’s ability to impose a minimum parking requirement on the project, including limiting the proposed reduction in parking to accommodate needed accessible parking and electrical transformer.
AB 2097 does not specifically limit its applicability between new and existing projects.
Rather the definition of a “Project” in Government Code §65863.2.(e)(6) only provides an exclusion to qualifying residential, commercial, or other development projects, as follows:
Government Code §65863.2.(e)(6)
“Project” does not include a project where any portion is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging, except where a portion of a housing development project is designated for use as a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
AB 2097 does allow cities to enforce existing contractual agreements between a public agency and a property owner that requires commercial parking that is shared with the public (Government Code §65863.2.(h)), however, the project site is not currently subject to any parking agreement with the City that requires existing parking to be retained for public use.
As to the appellant’s concerns that the reduction in parking would lead to adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards, AB 2097 does not allow public agencies to evaluate parking impacts of a qualifying commercial project. As it pertains to the project, the City cannot prohibit the applicant from reducing available parking on-site parking or require that the applicant retain a minimum number of existing parking spaces on the project site. The applicant has the ability to remove all on-site parking, however, the applicant is electing to retain three on-site parking spaces. As such, it is staff’s assessment that the project site qualifies for provisions AB 2097 based the site’s proximity to public transit and that the applicable DPR finding can be made in the affirmative for the project.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
3) The Project's loading area is inadequate and blocks all on-site parking spaces. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).
• July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant asserts that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how loading and parking activities will be managed in order to ensure effective operations and avoid traffic and pedestrian conflicts and hazards. Furthermore, at the July 13th Planning Commission meeting, Michael Tenner, the appellant’s representative, noted in verbal comments5 at the hearing that the project should be subject to the same loading conditions and restrictions that are currently applicable to the Peninsula hotel. • November 20, 2023 Appeal Supplement (Attachment 2): The appeal supplement raises similar points made in the original appeal petition. Specifically, Item B.2 of the supplemental appeal letter includes additional information on the appellant’s concerns regarding traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety concerns (Page 6 of Attachment 2) for the Council to consider as part of the de novo review.
• November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): Concerns related to parking and loading impacts are addressed in Item 3 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 12 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition.
• November 29, 2023 Applicant Response to Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 5): The project applicant submitted a letter in response to the issues raised appellant’s appeal petition supplement for the Council’s consideration. Concerns related to the proposed loading area are further addressed in Item 4 of the applicant’s response letter (Page 3 of Attachment 5), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition supplement.
Analysis
As part of the project, the applicant is proposing to provide an area for loading within the redesigned parking lot that would be accessible to a van providing scheduled deliveries to the project site, in connection with the proposed new third-story addition. The loading area would be located immediately behind the existing parking spaces and would measure 10’ wide by 25’ in length. Currently, the project site does not have existing loading areas established on-site; deliveries to the site typically occur curbside along Charleville Boulevard. Generally, a project’s loading area could not be provided in an area that would block access to on-site parking areas; however, the applicant is proposing a loading area located in the parking lot aisle that would be coordinated and managed by building management to manage access to the proposed parking areas. Delivery vehicles would be allowed to utilize the loading area for a maximum of 10 minutes unless additional time for a specific delivery is needed and has been authorized and coordinated by building management, as detailed in the applicant’s loading and deliveries narrative (Attachment G to July 13th Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 7)). 5 Video recording of the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission meeting can be viewed online at:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/player/clip/9278?view_id=57&redirect=true&h=f8dd511a0416bcb84b39a7df520f8e0c Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
In review the proposed loading area, the Planning Commission at its July 13th meeting requested staff to provide information as to the Penisula’s current loading requirements after statements made by the appellant’s representative at the meeting. Prior to the Planning Commission’s recent renewal of entitlements for the Peninsula hotel on October 26, 2023, Condition No. 18 in Section 9 of Resolution No. 1773 regulated hotel deliveries for the Peninsula. Staff provided the text of this condition to the Planning Commission, which reads:
Condition No. 18 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1773 Service vehicle delivery or loading shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. though 7:00 a.m.
In consideration of the appellant’s request at the July 13, 2023 hearing, the Planning Commission amended Condition No. 7 in Section 9 of the Project’s approval resolution (Attachment 8) to include the same operational requirements as currently imposed on the Peninsula hotel.
Furthermore, in response to the appellant’s assertions that the loading area would generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards, staff’s assessment is that locating temporary loading space in the parking lot that is managed by building management would not cause adverse impacts. In providing a managed on-site loading area, the applicant helps improve the project site by providing a delivery area that currently does not exist on the project site. This space would be large enough to allow for delivery vans and small trucks to provide scheduled deliveries on-site. Delivery by large trucks is not proposed or anticipated for the proposed future office use that could otherwise cause maneuverability issues from accessing or exiting the project site. Currently, vehicles parking at the existing parking lot at the rear of the project site are required to back up into an existing alley and exit the site facing forward from the alley and onto Charleville Boulevard. This allows for vehicles to view vehicular and pedestrian traffic along Charleville Boulevard to prevent impacts to passing vehicles or conflicts with pedestrians along the sidewalk. This same maneuvering currently used by vehicles parking in the existing parking lot would be employed by future delivery vehicles. Vehicle maneuvering will remain unchanged from what currently exists, and such existing conditions have not previously caused adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. The only programmatic change to this parking area is to introduce a loading parking area which would be accessed in the same manner that other vehicles currently access the site. Therefore, it is staff’s assessment the proposed loading area as designed and conditioned by the Planning Commission does meet the applicable DPR and HIP findings, as memorialized by the Commission’s adoption of Resolution No. 2029 and that the project would not generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, pedestrian safety hazards, or noise impacts.
4) The Project creates a sizable roof deck pushed up against the Appellant's villas without any measures in place to ensure this feature will not adversely affect surrounding properties and create noise and privacy issues. Therefore, the required DPR and HIP findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104,10-3-3256).
• July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant states that they are concerned with potential impacts that the project’s third story and third story deck (noted as “new roof deck” in the appeal petition) will have on its abutting hotel and guests, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. The appellant cites recent Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
examples from the Commission’s review of Spring Place and the noise issues related to that project as a basis for their concern of the proposed new third floor deck area.
The appellant asserts the “Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the roof deck is operated in a responsible manner by current and future operators and that no acoustical study has been conducted to evaluate potential noise impacts of the Project.” As such, the appellant claims that the findings for approval of the DRP and HIP cannot be met based on the above noted concerns.
• November 20, 2023 Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 2): The appeal supplement raises similar points made in the original appeal petition. Specifically, Item C of the supplemental appeal letter includes additional information on the appellant’s noise and privacy concerns (Page 7 of Attachment 2) for the Council to consider as part of the de novo review. The supplement also alleges aesthetic impact issues, but does not include a specific discussion of that issue in the text of the letter.
Aesthetic impacts were not referenced in the initial appeal petition. • November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): Concerns related to noise and privacy impacts addressed in Item 4 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 13 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition.
• November 29, 2023 Applicant Response to Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 5): The project applicant submitted a letter in response to the issues raised appellant’s appeal petition supplement for the Council’s consideration. Concerns related to the proposed third-story terrace are further addressed in Item 5 of the applicant’s response letter (Page 3 of Attachment 5), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition supplement and details the appellant’s Peninsula hotel property’s existing rooftop operations.
Analysis
The proposed improvements to the building include the addition of an approximately 1,400 SF third story addition with a 945 SF third floor terrace (Fig. 7). The outdoor terrace adjacent to the new third floor is oriented to face South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The addition includes the extension of an existing solid building wall that abuts the neighboring three-story hotel building on the Peninsula property to the east. This building wall extension is designed to also screen the proposed outdoor terrace on the third floor from view of the Peninsula property, as viewed on the project rendering facing South Santa Monica Boulevard (Fig. 3 on Page 6).
In regard to privacy concerns expressed by the appellant, staff’s assessment is that the proposed third floor terrace would not infringe on the privacy of the Peninsula’s hotel guests.
As noted, the project is designed with the extension of a solid building wall on the east side that completely screens the terrace from view from the appellant’s property. Similarly, the wall provides privacy so that no person occupying the terrace can have a direct view of the Peninsula’s property.
In regard to noise concerns expressed by the appellant, it is important to note that both the project site and appellant’s property are located along South Santa Monica Boulevard, a major arterial street in the city. The most common source of noise in the vicinity is from traffic on surrounding roads from motor vehicle operation, which often creates increased Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
ambient noise levels. The most recent example of noise measurements in the area is from the Rosewood mixed use development currently under construction at 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard, immediately to the west of the project site. The noise study in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for that project noted that sound levels along South Santa Monica Boulevard measured 70 dBA during afternoon hours. Typically, the sound level of a normal conversation is about 60 dBA, which would be typical sound levels generated from the terrace through normal use of the area.
Fig. 7: Third Floor Plan
Source: Belzberg Architects
The appellant expresses concerns that the project’s outdoor terrace would be used for parties and claims that the entire project is taking place for the sole purpose of providing a “roof deck”. These assertions are speculative and staff notes that the motivation behind any project is not a basis for establishing any criteria to make findings in support of the requested DPR and HIP. Outdoor terraces and rooftop uses are a common feature of both existing and proposed commercial buildings. The City’s noise regulations in Title 5, Chapter 1 of the BHMC provide protection from noise generated from any property in the city. These same noise regulations are also applicable to the Peninsula hotel, which currently operates rooftop uses on their property, with a pool, cabanas, and an outdoor dining terrace occupying over 8,000 SF of the rooftop of the main hotel building. The Peninsula currently operates these uses with amplified sound through an Extended Hours Permit (EHP) that allows operation of rooftop areas until 12:00 A.M. (midnight) Sunday through Thursday and until 2:00 A.M. on Fridays, Saturdays, or days preceding a holiday.
The third floor terrace is further shielded from the Peninsula’s adjacent bungalows to the east by the extension of an existing building wall which would further reduce sound levels from projecting on to the appellant’s property. Coupled with the City’s current noise regulations, staff’s assessment is that the project would not have a noise impact to adjacent Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
properties. However, the Council may elect to impose additional conditions on the project at its discretion regarding the operation of the third floor terrace. 5) The Project site's potential City Landmark eligibility is not adequately justified, and findings in the Planning Commission approval are based on inaccurate historic analysis in the Project Applicant's reports.
• July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant disputes the assessment that the materials and reports assessing the historic significance of the existing Lautner-designed building adequately justify the property’s eligibility for historic designation. Specifically, the appellant asserts that the building does not meet the criteria for consideration as a Late Modern architectural style, as identified in the applicant-prepared historic resource evaluation, due to the period of time the building was built. The appellant contends that the Late Modern architectural style is not applicable to the existing building at the project site, noted that the aforementioned architectural style applies to building constructed between 1966 through 1990, while the Darrow building was built in 1946. Additionally, the appellant takes issue with the City’s adopted HIP process and has expressed concerns regarding the Planning Commission’s code-established role as the reviewing authority for HIP applications, instead of the Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC).
• November 20, 2023 Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 2): The appeal petition supplement clarifies the appellants objections to the project from what was previously detailed in the July 26, 2023 appeal petition (Attachment 1). The supplement notes that the appellant is not against the preservation of the existing building, but rather, objects to the proposed third floor addition, which the appellant asserts would destroy the building’s architectural integrity. Specifically, Item D of the appeal petition supplement (Page 8 of Attachment 2) clarifies the appellant’s objections, which are now focused on the proposed compatibility of the addition to the existing building.
Based on this supplement, it appears that appellant has dropped the original objection that the City Landmark eligibility is not adequately justified. • November 20, 2023 Appellant letter to City Council (Attachment 3): The appellant submitted a separate public correspondence letter that included memorandums from two appellant-hired historic preservation consultants expressing concerns regarding the project’s consistency with SOI Standards.
• November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): Concerns related to the project site’s eligibility as a potential City landmark and the architectural style of the existing building are addressed in Item 5 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 15 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition. • November 22, 2023 Applicant submitted updated Historic Evaluation Report (Attachment 9) and updated Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment 10): These documents clarify that the architectural style of the building is Mid-Century Modern.
November 29, 2023 Applicant Response to Appellant’s City Council Letter (Attachment 6):
The project applicant submitted a letter in response to the issues raised appellant’s November 20th letter to the City Council for the Council’s consideration. Concerns related to the existing building’s eligibility and the accuracy of the historic analysis, are addressed in Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Item 1 of the applicant’s response letter (Page 1 of Attachment 6), which rebuts the points expressed in the appellant’s November 20th City Council letter.
Analysis
The existing building was built in 1946 and was design by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects listed on the City’s List of Master Architects. As noted in April 13, 2022 CHC staff reports, the existing building at the project site represents an example Late Modern/Mid-Century Modern architecture (Attachment F of June 13th PC Report (Attachment 7)). As detailed on the Historic Resources Evaluation prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (Attachment D of June 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)), John Lautner is considered one of Southern California’s most significant architects of the 20th century, having designed 113 structures that were constructed throughout the region. Of these 113 structures, 64 of these buildings are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Additionally, as detailed in the John Lautner Foundation letter included in the Historic Resources Evaluation, the building at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard is one of only a few extant commercial buildings designed by John Lautner, as he primarily focused on single-family residential projects, making it a rare example of an existing commercial property designed by him in the City.
On April 13, 2022, the CHC held landmark initiation proceedings and a preliminary hearing to determine the property’s eligibility as a local landmark for placement onto the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties. At this meeting, the CHC voted to initiate landmark proceedings and determined during the preliminary hearing that the existing building at the project site merits formal consideration as a local landmark as Lautner-designed building with Late Modern/Mid-Century Modern architecture. The CHC directed staff to bring the property forward for formal consideration by the CHC at a future date and to provide a recommendation to the City Council for designation of the property as a local landmark, in accordance with the City’s historic preservation and landmarking process in BHMC §10-3- 32156
.
Based on the new material provided in the appeal petition supplement (Attachment 2), Item D on Page 8 of the supplement details that the appellant is not against the preservation of the Darrow Building. Further, the appellant no longer challenges the CHC’s determination that the building maintains its historic integrity and nomination proceedings for inclusion of the building on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties should be initiated and that the “Peninsula Beverly Hills does not object to the CHC’s April 13, 2022 findings for the existing building.” Rather, the appeal petition supplement clarifies the appellant’s concerns are now with the addition of a third story to the existing building, which the appellant contends is an incompatible and historically inappropriate addition “would so blatantly destroy the building’s architectural integrity and compromise its eligibility for landmark designation.”
Prior to the Project’s review by the Planning Commission, the historic resource evaluation and the historic impact analysis were reviewed by the City’s Urban Designer, historic preservation staff, and the City's historic consultant, Jan Ostashay of Ostashay & Associates Consulting. Based on the findings in the report, the City’s consultant and staff found that the existing building remains eligible for local historic designation and the changes are in 6 BHMC §10-3-3215 – Landmark or Historic Designation Proceedings:
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-18292 Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
keeping with the requirements set forth in the SOI Standards, as the project will be retaining character-defining features of the existing building.
On November 22, 2023, the project applicant submitted an updated Historic Evaluation Report (Attachment 9) and Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment 10) that was provided by Kaplan Chen Kaplan to clarify the existing building’s architectural style as Mid-Century Modern so that analysis better reflects the post-war modernism period of architectural design applicable to the project. No changes were made to each report’s previously reviewed landmark eligibility criteria or discussion of the project’s consistency with SOI Standards. The changes in applicable architectural style were made to better align the reports to the noted Mid-Century Modern style details in the April 13, 2022 CHC reports (Attachment F of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)).
In review of the appellant’s concerns regarding the Historic Incentive Permit process, staff notes that the project was reviewed and processed in compliance to the adopted standards in Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32.5 of the BHMC. The HIP process was established in 2015 as a way to incentivize owners of historically significant properties, like the Lautner-designed Darrow Building, to voluntarily designate their properties as local landmarks. Landmarked properties are typically subject to the same development standards as non-landmarked properties and must also comply with applicable SOI Standards, in addition to applicable zoning development standards. As a result, property owners often face difficulties when attempting to develop historic properties to meet their needs in full compliance with all applicable development standards, while doing so in a manner that preserves or enhances their historic value. As such, the Council adopted standards to allow for the issuance of a historic incentive permit to incentivize and offer relief for owners of historic properties while encouraging the preservation of a greater number of historic resources. BHMC §10-3-3254 sets the Planning Commission as the reviewing authority for all HIP requests and establishes applicable findings in BHMC §10-3-3256 that the Commission must make in approval of a HIP request. For properties that are not currently designated, an applicant is first required to have a hearing before the CHC to determine if the property merits designation as a local landmark. As noted, the CHC held this hearing and evaluated the historic significance of the Darrow Building at the project site at their April 13, 2022 hearing, in compliance with applicable HIP requirements, finding the property eligible for local landmark designation. In compliance with BHMC §10-3-3251.B., the applicant submitted a HIP application on June 6, 2022 for the proposed improvements to the project site for consideration by the Planning Commission, the established reviewing authority. The Planning Commission, in its review of all supporting materials and the CHC’s determination that the property merits designation as a local landmark, was able to make the required finding for approval of the HIP on July 13, 2023, adopting Resolution No. 2029 (Attachment 8). The appellant contends that the CHC, as the commission typically responsible for the review of historic properties, is the more appropriate body for the review of HIP applications.
However, the proper code-established process, with the Planning Commission as the reviewing authority for HIP application, was followed in the review of this project. 6) The Project does not conform with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation, and thus the Project is ineligible for a CEQA Class 31 CE.
• July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant asserts that the proposed rooftop addition does not conform with the SOI Standards. Specifically, the appellant notes the proposed 1,400 SF third-story addition and adjacent outdoor terrace are not appropriate based Interpreting the Standards (ITS) bulletins published by the National Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Park Service (NPS). Specifically, the appellant asserts that the proposed rooftop addition does not meet ITS Bulletin #47, which discusses the rooftop additions on mid-size historic properties.
• November 20, 2023 Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 2): The appeal petition supplement provides additional information asserting that the proposed third story addition is inconsistent with SOI Standards (Page 9 of Attachment 2) and provides supporting material in the form of National Park Service bulletins to substantiate the claim for the Council to consider as part of the de novo review. • November 20, 2023 Appellant letter to City Council (Attachment 3): The appellant submitted a separate public correspondence letter that included memorandums from two appellant-hired historic preservation consultants expressing concerns regarding the project’s consistency with SOI Standards.
• November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): Concerns related to the project’s conformance to SOI standards and eligibility for a categorical exemption under Class 31 are addressed in Item 6 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 17 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition. • November 29, 2023 Applicant Response to Appellant’s City Council Letter (Attachment 6): The project applicant submitted a letter in response to the issues raised appellant’s November 20th letter to the City Council for the Council’s consideration. Concerns related to the project’s consistency with SOI Standards, are addressed in Item 2 of the applicant’s response letter (Page 2 of Attachment 6), which rebuts the points expressed in the appellant’s November 20th City Council letter.
Additionally, the applicant’s response letter includes a memorandum from Kaplan Chen Kaplan (Exhibit 1 of Attachment 6) that provided additional discussion in support of the project’s consistency with SOI Standards (Page 7 of Exhibit 1 of Attachment 6).
Analysis
In review of ITS Bulletin #47, the bulletin states that “rooftop additions proposed as part of a rehabilitation project must be carefully designed in order to preserve the building’s historic character.” Rooftop additions should not impact the character of the building and additions should be subordinate to the historic building in size and design, while being set back from the primary elevation. The new 1,400 SF third-story addition would occupy a portion of the existing building’s rooftop. In comparison to the existing 3,199 SF area of the second floor, the new third floor area is approximately 44% of the floor area below it, making the footprint of the partial 3rd story addition substantially smaller in area than the footprint of the existing building.
The proposed rooftop addition is appropriate in this case as any addition to the sides of the building would have the direct effect of damaging the character of the original Lautnerdesigned building and would cause the removal of original architectural elements. The rooftop addition preserves the existing building’s character and is less than half of the floor area of the floor below it. While the project would increase the existing height of the building by 15’-3” through a single-story addition, the proposed addition is set back farther than the existing building line along primary street frontages along South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The addition is set back 16’-6” from South Santa Monica Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
Boulevard, where the existing structure maintains the existing 5’-0” setback. Along Charleville Boulevard, the addition is set back 8’-9” from the side property line, where the existing building maintains an existing setback of 4’-9” along this street frontage. The proposed setbacks for the new addition orient the scale and massing of the building toward the center of the existing building and away from view of street. Based on the design of the project and the historic impact analysis prepared for the project (Attachment F of June 13th PC Report (Attachment 7), it appears that the project would substantially meet the guidelines in ITS Bulletin #47, as well as conform to the applicable the SOI Standards. As noted on the NPS website, these “bulletins are case-specific and are provided as information only; they are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each case.”7 Furthermore, the Historic Impact Analysis prepared for the project provides findings in support of the project’s compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Attachment E of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)), while the Planning Commission’s resolution approving the project (Attachment 8) provides further support of the applicable DPR and HIP finding to approve the project. This report, along with a historic resource evaluation (Attachment D of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)), were reviewed by the City’s Urban Designer, historic preservation staff, and the City's historic consultant, Jan Ostashay of Ostashay & Associates Consulting, as part of review of the City’s landmarking process, and each of them determined the existing building’s eligibility as a local historic landmark, as well as found the proposed improvements consistent with applicable SOI standards. Furthermore, the additional correspondence and historic memoranda provided by both the applicant and appellant, along with the updated historic resource evaluation (Attachment 8) and historic impact report (Attachment 9) were evaluated by the City’s Urban Designer, who determined that the project appears to conform with the SOI Standards for rehabilitation and notes that overall, the proposed project does not ultimately diminish the historic significance of the resource or impact the character-defining features associated with the master architect’s work.
NPS defines “Rehabilitation” in the SOI Standards8 “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.
Accordingly, in order for a project to qualify for a Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) categorical exemption, the project shall be limited to maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Based on the supporting documentation provided in the June 13th Planning Commission staff report and findings in support of the project, this project meets SOI Standards and qualifies for a Class 31 categorical exemption, even with contrary evidence in the record. Further, if the City Council finds the project to be consistent with the SOI standards and eligible for the Class 31 categorical exemption, the exception to categorical exemptions in cases where a project 7 National Park Service – Interpreting the Standards Bulletins: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/itsbulletins.htm#:~:text=Interpreting%20the%20Standards%20Bulletins%20explain,bulletin%20references%20the%20relevant%20st andards. 8
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are accessible online at:
https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
would have a significant impact on a historical resource would be in applicable, because fundamentally, compliance with SOI standards means there is no impact. 7) The project does not qualify for categorical exemptions. • July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant asserts that given the unusual circumstances arising from the proposed project, especially noise on sensitive receptors from the proposed rooftop deck, categorical exemptions cannot be relied upon here and further environmental review in the form of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report must be prepared. Additionally, the appellant asserts that a Class 31 categorical exemption should not be applied to the project, as the exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change of the significance of a historical resource. As such, the appellant claims that the project does not qualify for categoric exemptions provided under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
• November 20, 2023 Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 2): The appeal petition supplement further develops the appellant’s argument that the project is not eligible for a Class 31 categorical exemption as the project is not consistent with SOI Standards, as detailed in Item F (Page 10 of Attachment 2). This is based upon the appellant no longer objecting to the conclusion that the existing Lautner-design building is not a historic resource and ineligible for consideration as a local landmark.
Furthermore, the appellant asserts that a Class 1 and a Class 31 exemption cannot apply to any project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, which is the primary objection with the proposed third-story addition and presented for the Council to consider as part of the de novo review.
• November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): Concerns related to the project’s eligibility for categorical exemption under Class 1 and Class 31 are addressed in Item 7 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 18 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition.
Analysis
As previously noted, the project would not have noise impacts that would affect the Peninsula hotel property associated with the proposed 945 SF third-floor outdoor terrace.
The proposed outdoor terrace area is screened from view through the extension of an existing building wall, providing an additional layer of noise attenuation from conversations occurring on the terrace. As noted in this staff report, the project appears to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15301 and 15331 of the state CEQA Guidelines. The Planning Commission found the proposed third floor addition consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards and therefore eligible for both the Class 1 and Class 31 exemptions. The Class 1 exemption is applicable to additions to existing structures that do not exceed 10,000 SF, while the Class 31 Categorical Exemption is applicable to the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI Standards).
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
8) The July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing was not property noticed. • July 26, 2023 Appeal Petition (Attachment 1): The appellant alleges that the public hearing notice that was mailed 20 days in advance of the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission public hearing (Attachment 11) was deficient because the categorical exemptions listed in the notice (Attachment C of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7) did not match those listed the Planning Commission’s resolution approving the project (Attachment 8). Specifically, the appellant notes that the Planning Commission resolution approving the project provided that three categorical exemptions applied to the Project, which consisted of Class 1 (Existing Facilities), Class 3 (New Construction), and Class 31 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) exemptions, while the public hearing notice only listed that the project qualified for Class 3 and Class 31 categorical exemptions. Therefore, as the exemptions in the resolution did not match the public hearing notice, the notice was deficient.
• November 20, 2023 Appeal Petition Supplement (Attachment 2): The appeal petition supplement raises similar points made in the original appeal petition. Specifically, Item H of the supplemental appeal letter includes additional information on the appellant’s challenge to the City’s public hearing notice (Page 11 of Attachment 2) for the Council to consider as part of the de novo review.
• November 21, 2023 Applicant Appeal Response (Attachment 4): Concerns related to the City’s noticing of the project are addressed in Item 8 of the applicant’s appeal response letter (Page 20 of Attachment 4), which rebuts the points expressed in the appeal petition.
Analysis
In response to this complaint, staff notes that state law does not require a public agency to provide specific environmental exemption information as part of a public notice. Specifically, the state’s public noticing requirements in Government Code §65094 provide that a notice shall contain the following required information:
Government Code §65094
As used in this title, “notice of a public hearing” means a notice that includes the date, time, and place of a public hearing, the identity of the hearing body or officer, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a general description, in text or by diagram, of the location of the real property, if any, that is the subject of the hearing.
The Planning Commission public hearing notice regarding the review of the project (Attachment C of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)) was mailed out 20-days in advance of the July 13, 2023 Commission meeting, in compliance with the City public noticing requirements9 and included the date, time, and location of the public hearing, identified the Planning Commission as the reviewing authority, provided a general description of the project and the project site, as well as included information for interested members of the public to participate in the hearing either in person, by phone, or virtually via Zoom. The categorical exemptions listed on the public hearing notice does not include all 9 The City’s public noticing requirements are established in Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 2.5 of the BHMC and are available online at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-14042.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
the exemptions cited in the resolution eventually adopted by the Planning Commission.
However, this does not result in a deficient public notice, as the City is only providing preliminary information in the notice as to the potential CEQA action the Commission could take at the hearing. Further, the notice served its purpose to inform interested members of the public of the recommendation to that the project be found exempt from CEQA, such that anyone interested in that issue could participate in the proceedings. It should also be noted that the agenda for the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 meeting described the project and specifically stated that “Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.” Based on the above, staff’s assessment is that the project was properly noticed in accordance with applicable state and City public noticing requirements. The Planning Commission has the discretion at a noticed public hearing that is open to the public to adopt or amend any staff recommended findings, including the applicable categorical exemptions.
Staff believes the notices was adequate and met all legal requirements, and that no persons were prejudiced or injured in any way as a result of the notice provided.
Staff notes that upon review, the environmental section in Section 3 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029 (Attachment 8) does contain a typographical error that accidentally notes a Class 3 exemption. Specially, the resolution notes that “The Class 3 exemption is applicable to additions to existing structures that do not exceed 10,000 SF.” However, this should read that a Class 1 exemption is applicable instead of a Class 3. As such, staff will amend the resolution accordingly to reflect the record in the staff report and, if directed by the City Council, will note the correct applicable environmental exemptions in a resolution memorizing the City Council’s approval of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15301 and 15331 of the state CEQA Guidelines. The Class 1 exemption is applicable to additions to existing structures that do not exceed 10,000 SF. Additionally, the Class 31 Categorical Exemption is applicable to the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI Standards). Per an analysis conducted as part of the Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment E of July 13th PC Staff Report (Attachment 7)) and updated Historic Impact Analysis report (Attachment 10) the additional discussion regarding the project and CEQA issues above,, the project complies with applicable SOI Standards. As part of its review, the City Council may consider finding that, based on evidence in the record, the SOI standards have been met, and if so that the project is exempt from CEQA, and that the exceptions to the categorical exemptions related to impacts on historical resources, or impacts as a result of unusual circumstances, do not apply.
Meeting Date: December 5, 2023
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Wednesday, November 15, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site for the December 5, 2023 City Council meeting (Attachment 11). On-site posting was also posted on the subject property on Wednesday, November 15, 2023. Additionally, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the hearing dates.
Public Comment
The Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearing on July 13, 2023, where members of the pubic provided oral and written comments on the proposed project. Oral public comment was provided by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Peninsula hotel, expressing concerns regarding the project’s impact to the adjacent hotel property. As of the writing of this report, no additional correspondence was received by other members of the public.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellant at the time the appeal was filed.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Appeal Petition
(July 26, 2023)
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION
APPEAL TO COMMISSION OJ^ITY COUNCil^ COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK July 26. 2023 Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on July 13 , 2023 ; which decision consisted of:
The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State allsrounds for appeal Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper if necessary.) Please see attached.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
Masa Alkire, City Planner on July^£>2023
(Department Head(s) Involved/ Date
It is requested that written notice of the time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:
Michael Tenner, General Counsel, Probity International, 421 N. Beverly Drive #350, Beverly Hills, OA 90210 Name Address
Signature igna\ure of appealing appealing party
421 N. Beverly Drive #350, Beverly Hills, OA 90210
Address
Phone: 310-888-1882 Fax: 310-888-8838
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid 0 0 (Por City Clerk's use) DATE RECEIVEDBEM HILLS CITV CLERK ^ 2023JUL26pm1:18
LOG NO. 2.\ ^ C y Written Notice mailed to appellant: ^ Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, i(\ Involved Department
Introduction
The Belvedere Hotel Partnership, doing business as The Peninsula Beverly Hills ("Appellant"), owner of the hotel property at 9882 S. Santa Monica Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills ("City"), is filing this Appeal of the Planning Commission's July 13, 2023 determination for Case No. PL2200237 for the property at 9884 5. Santa Monica Boulevard ("Project Site"), which abuts the Appellant's property to the west and south.
This Planning Commission determination approved a Historic Incentive Permit ("HIP") and Development Plan Review ("DPR"), subject to the approval of a City Landmark nomination, to allow for the rehabilitation and construction of a new third story at an existing two-story commercial building ("Project"), along with waivers and deviations of development standards relating to minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading space requirements. The Planning Commission also found the Project to qualify for Class 1, Class 3, and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions ("CE") under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
Over the past three decades, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has solidified its status as an integral part of Beverly Hills' iconic identity. As the only AAA Five Diamond and Forbes Five Star-rated hotel in Southern California every year since 1993, The Peninsula Beverly Hills sets the highest standards for luxury accommodations in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and is the preferred hotel for global travelers visiting the region.^ The Peninsula Beverly Hills' restaurants, event spaces, spa, and wellness facilities are treasured by the local Beverly Hills community, and it is one of the most significant contributors to the City's tax base and its economy. The Peninsula Beverly Hills has a proven track record of being a respectful neighbor, while implementing operational procedures and providing ample on-site vehicular parking to ensure that it does not generate impacts for the surrounding neighborhood, which includes residential and commercial uses.
Appellant's priority is to maintain the highest standards for its guests and preserve the high quality of life that characterizes the surrounding neighborhood, in the near-term and the long-term. Appellant is very seriously concerned the abutting Project (which includes new office space and an outdoor roof deck pushed up against its villas, as shown in Exhibit 1) will jeopardize its ability to maintain these standards and that this Project will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood and Appellant's property and reputation, as further described in the Appeal Findings below.
Appeal Findings
The approval of Case No. PL2200237 is inconsistent with law, for the following reasons:
1. Project materials submitted to the City do not accurately convey the full realistic impact the Project will have on Appellant's property, which will result in near-term and long-term impacts to Appellant.
The Project Applicant's design materials presented to the City, including renderings on Sheet A302 of their architectural plans (see Exhibit 2) use strategic views and cropping to obscure the extent of new building height being created and prevent viewers from being able to see the actual proposed rooftop addition's impact on surrounding properties. As shown in massing studies prepared by Appellant's ^ Appellant was also voted as the #1 City Hotel in Los Angeles in 2021 by the readers of Travel + Leisure. For more information on Appellant and its awards, visit: https://www.peninsula.com/en/beverlv-hills/5-star-luxurv-hotel-beverlv-hllls architect CSA Architects (Exhibit 1), which realistically show the proposed new construction in context, and photos of existing conditions (Exhibit 3), the Project will create significant height that will be highly visible from Appellant's property and will block views from guestrooms.
Appellant is also aggrieved that Project materials do not include any acknowledgement or analysis of construction-related noise and vibration impacts, which will be detrimental to Appellant's operations and its guests during the construction period and will make the villas that literally touch the Project Site uninhabitable. The Proiect will have near-term and long-term impacts that make Appellant's property less attractive to euests. which will have a negative impact on the Appellant and its contributions to the City's tax base.
2. The Project increases the size and intensity of an office building while unlawfully reducing on-site parking to be severely inadequate. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).
The Project Site currently contains seven parking spaces. The Project will reduce this parking allocation to a total of just three spaces, including only two standard spaces and one handicap accessible space.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the Project Applicant claimed that up to 15 staff are anticipated to work at the Project Site once the Project is finished. This number does not account for visitors, building maintenance, and the fact that the building's rooftop event space and conference center would be made available to the Project Applicant's affiliates for events. Since it is fantasy that the building's employees and numerous visitors will be arriving via public transportation, it is inevitable that most of these staff and visitors will have to park on adjacent residential and commercial streets, which already lack sufficient parking to accommodate existing uses in the area. Parking demand and associated traffic will further rise when loading is taking place in the parking area, restricting access to the paltry three parking spaces. The increase in drivers circulating the neighborhood to find parking will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards.
The Project Applicant referenced the Project's proximity to a bus stop at Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, and the future Metro D Line Century City subway station (assuming it remains on schedule to open in 2025p as reasons why the Project cannot be subject to minimum vehicular parking requirements, pursuant to AB 2097, which became effective this year. In fact, AS 2097 was the sole justification for why the Planning Commission was falsely led to believe that the Applicant could reduce existing parking from seven to three spaces. However, neither AB 2097 nor the Beverly Hills Municipal Code permit the reduction of existing, required nonconforming parking provided for existing buildings.
AB 2097 prevents the City from imposing parking requirements for the new addition to the building. It does not apply retroactively to permit the removal of existing, required parking spaces from an existing building. Specifically, California Government Code Section 6S863.2(a), which codified the parking provisions of AB 2097, states that "[a] public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is 2 More information on the Metro D Line extension can be viewed at httDs://www.beverlvhil[s.org/departments/publicworks/DurplelineDrolect/ located within one-haif mile of public transit." {Cal. Gov. Code 65863.2(a)) Under AB 2097, the "project" only includes new development - in this case, the addition to the building - and cannot reasonabiy be interpreted to include existing square footage that already has parking allocated to it. Otherwise, a building owner could simply paint a building, upgrade the plumbing, and in the process argue that all parking in the building could be eliminated. That is a very dangerous precedent for the City to set and is contrary to the legislative intent of AB 2097.
In further support of this position, the Project Applicant is pursuing a DPR, which is only required for the increase in square footage for the rooftop addition. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3- 3101 provides specific exemptions from DPR, including "[fjacade 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." The renovation of the existing building falls squarely within this exemption and is therefore hardly considered a "project" under the City's Code and could not reasonably be interpreted as a development project for purposes of applying AB 2097.
Moreover, 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. Specih'cally, Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-2736 states the following: "In the event off street parking facilities required to be provided under this code, or any prior provision thereof, in connection with any structure or use are at any time not maintained for automobile parking purposes to the extent required, the city building official shall revoke and cancel the certificate of occupancy. . . ." This provision expresses the City Code's clear intent to prohibit the reduction of existing, required parking.
And there can be no question that all seven spaces are required. Today's Code actually requires 18 parking spaces for the building, making the existing 7 spaces a legal nonconforming requirement.
Accordingly, the Project Applicant cannot reduce the number of parking spaces already required for the existing building. A contrary position would allow any restaurant, grocery store, or office building in the City performing a minor renovation to get rid of all its parking. That is an absurd result that the City would not condone, and it cannot provide preferential treatment to the Applicant here.
In addition to basic compliance with the iaw, Appeilant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to enforce implementation of adequate transportation demand measures to mitigate impacts.
Recognizing that office building owners and tenants often change over time, Appellant is particularly concerned about the long-term risk of future building owners and operators having even higher staffing leveis with increased parking needs, and the associated traffic and pedestrian safety impacts.
The Planning Commission decision gives no consideration to the long-term implications of the recent Proiect approval.
3. The Project's loading area is inadequate and blocks all on-site parking spaces. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).
The Project's loading area (a requirement triggered by the proposed new construction) completely blocks access to the three available on-site parking spaces. While the Project approval references a very brief Project Applicant-prepared Loading and Deliveries Narrative, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how loading and parking activities will be managed in order to ensure effective operations and avoid traffic and pedestrian conflicts and hazards. Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone tries to enter the parking lot when a dump truck is present or loading is taking place and then realizes there is no way to get to a parking space. That vehicle will have to back out onto a busy street, and there is no analysis of any potential queuing issues from any other vehicles attempting to enter the parking lot. All of this will create significant pedestrian hazards not only within the parking lot, but on City sidewalks.
Furthermore, Appellant continues to be concerned about potential noise impacts associated with future loading activities.
4. The Project creates a sizable roof deck pushed up against the Appellant's villas without any measures in place to ensure this feature will not adversely affect surrounding properties and create noise and privacy issues. Therefore, the required DPR and HIP findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104,10-3-3256).
Appellant is very concerned about the impacts that the Project's third story and new roof deck will have on its abutting hotel and guests, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. As recently as last year, the disruptive nature of office building roof decks was at the forefront of City discussions, when the Planning Commission held a hearing to review an abundance of ongoing noise complaints and violations associated with the roof deck of the nearby Spring Place office building at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard, which emerged as a nuisance in the neighborhood.^ Given that this entire project is taking place for the construction of a roof deck (i.e., there must be significant financial motivations behind building a conference center and event space on a roof deck), it is shocking that the true, likely impacts of this deck have not been analyzed. And there is significant evidence that the City has been unable to contain the noise from parties and events at the nearby 9800 Wilshire Boulevard roof deck. As reported by the Beverly Hills Courier, one Commissioner made it abundantly clear that violators can operate with impunity for very long times:
"You've had your last chances; you've had it many times again, and again, and again, and again," said Planning Commissioner Myra Demeter, who presided as chair over the hearing. "We have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people contacting you, letting you know what is allowed and what is not allowed. And you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this, and you would do that, and we haven't seen it.
Appellant is extremely concerned about the Project Applicant and any future operator of the Project using the roof deck in a disruptive manner that generates noise and privacy issues for the abutting hotel and its guests (including Appellant's villas that are immediately next to the proposed roof deck (shown in Exhibits 1 and 3) and surrounding neighborhood. Simply put, a roof deck for parties and events is not appropriate immediately adjacent to one of Beverly Hills' most Iconic hotels, renowned throughout the world for creating perfect experiences for its guests. We do not believe the Commission understood, or gave proper consideration to, the fact that just a few noise violations that prevent guests from sleeping could irreversibly tarnish Appellant's reputation. Furthermore, this is not just about the Appellant and the City's tax revenue from its property, the Commission also failed to consider the impacts from roof deck noise on all the residential neighbors to the south. 3 For more information on the Planning Commission's rebuke of Spring Place and its roof deck, see httDs://beverlvhillscourier.com/2022/05/20/Dlanning-commission-rebukes-spring-place/ Appellant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the roof deck is operated in a responsible manner by current and future operators and that no acoustical study has been conducted to evaluate potential noise impacts of the Project. Overall, however, the City Council must consider whether this is a proper location for any roof deck, and we believe that a review of the facts here militates strongly against any roof deck, period.
5. The Project Site's potential City Landmark ellglblilty Is not adequately justified, and findings in the Planning Commission approval are based on inaccurate historic analysis in the Project Applicant's reports.
Established under BHMC Section 10-3-3212, the City of Beverly Hills' local Landmark designation criteria have a much higher bar for eligibility than criteria for other historic registries, including the California Register of Historical Resources and National Register of Historic Places. The Project Applicant's eligibility findings do not adequately justify the property's eligibility for historic designation, as described further below.
Let's be clear: the Applicant would not be seeking historic designation for the Project Site if it did not want to add the roof deck and deviate from Code requirements through a Historic Incentive Permit.
If the Applicant truly believes that the building should be deemed a Beverly Hills Landmark, then the Applicant should allow the landmark designation process to be completed first, and then allow the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the Project based on the findings of the Cultural Heritage Commission. The current process has put the cart before the horse - it has resulted in the Planning Commission making findings about compatibility with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation without the Cultural Heritage Commission first making the requisite findings about what. If anything, is a character defining feature or historic. That is arbitrary and capricious.
The Planning Commission staff report and the Project Applicant's historic resource evaluation based the property's eligibility for historic designation on a finding that the property is "an excellent example of Late Modern architectural style.'"^ The Project Applicant's historic resource evaluation uses the Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture from SurveyLA (the City of Los Angeles' historic resource survey) as the main resource for evaluating the property's significance.^ However, examination of the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement and eligibility standards (included as Exhibit 5) reveals that the oropertv is not an example of Late Modern architecture.^ As described in the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement, Late Modern buildings were designed and constructed between 1966 and 1990, representing the tail end of the broader Mid Century Modern design movement, and for Late Modern buildings to be eligible for historic designation, they must be constructed during this 1966-1990 period of significance.' The Project Site's building was constructed in 1946, decades before the emergence of the Late Modern aesthetic. As described in the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement, Late Modern buildings fall within three sub-categories, including buildings that are completely clad in glass skin (exemplified by the Century City Medical Plaza at 2080 Century Park East, Los Angeles and the Pacific Design Center at 8687 Melrose Avenue, West Hollywood), ^ Planning Commission staff report, page 5.
5 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on March 2, 2022, page 34. ® For the full SurveyLA Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture, visit:
https://plannine.lacitv.Org/odocument/de23aa2c-7d44-4f2d-a071-67354bbf9255/6.13 LateModern 1966-1990.pdf ' SurveyLA Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture, pages 36, 38, 40 Brutalist buildings that feature concrete as the dominant building material {exemplified by the Liberty Savings Building, now Chase, at 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Los Angeles), and "High Tech" buildings with exposed structural features (exemplified by the Helmut Schulitz residence at 9356 Lloydcrest Drive, Beverly Hills). The Project Site building does not represent any of these Late Modern styles.
In addition, the property lacks integrity (City Landmark Criterion A.3), as "there are no original interior spaces extant."^ Furthermore, as described in a peer review analysis completed by the City's historic consultant Ostashay & Associates, sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the property satisfies the City Landmark Section B criteria to demonstrate that it is an Exceptional Work® or Iconic Property.
6. The Project does not conform with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation, and thus the Project is ineligible for a CEQA Class 31CE.
Rooftop additions are a controversial preservation topic because they have the potential to dramatically alter a building's appearance and original design intent. The Project Includes a sizable rooftop addition that is highly visible on every building elevation.
Codified in 36 CFR Part 67, the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation are the basis for determining whether or not a project qualifies for a CEQA Class 31 CE, as well as an HIP. Within the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service has published Interpreting the Standards ("ITS") bulletins to advise on application of the Secretary's Standards to development projects. ITS #47 specifically focuses on rooftop additions.
As described in ITS #47, rooftop additions are generally "not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less." In the rare cases where a rooftop addition might be compatible, "it must be set far enough back from the primary elevation(s) of the building - usually at least one bay, so that it is not highly visible from the public riaht-of-wav."
As shown in the Project renderings on page A302 of the Applicant's architectural plans (Exhibit 2), the Project's proposed rooftop addition is extremely visible when viewed from ^ surrounding public rights-of-way and dramatically changes the appearance of the existing building. In fact, the proposed rooftop addition closely resembles the example in ITS #47 of an incompatible addition that does n^ meet the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation (see Exhibit 6). In addition, the rooftop addition's. ® 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on March 2, 2022, page 35. 9 Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3202, an Exceptional Work is defined as follows: A remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community. At a minimum, the work's exceptional quality shall have been documented by at least one of the following; a) it was the subject of a major architectural award; b) it was substantively discussed (i.e., not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in a monograph on a master architect's career; or c) it was substantively discussed or photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g., a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. A monograph or publication made available to the public solely in electronic form and without any reasonable expectation of compensation to the author, or substantially authored by the architect of the work, shall not count toward this minimum.
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3202, an Iconic Property is defined as follows: A property that has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Beverly Hills in the popular culture and forms part of the city's identity to the world at large. ^^For ITS #47, see https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-47-rooftop-additions-mid-size-buildings.pdf 12 ITS #47, page 1
" ITS #47, page 1
including its overall style, materials, placement, and expansive size, feels incongruent with the originai design intent. Therefore, there is insufficient documentation to support the Proiecfs elieibilitv for a Class 31CE.
7. The Project Does Not Qualify For Categorical Exemptions.
Given the unusual circumstances arising from the proposed Project, especialiy noise on sensitive receptors from the proposed rooftop deck, categorical exemptions cannot be relied upon here and further environmental review in the form of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report must be prepared. As a threshold matter, the Class 1 exemption can apply where the project proposes only a "minor alteration" to the existing building, and there is "negligibie" or "no expansion" of the existing or former use. (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, sect. 15000 et seq.), sect. 15301.)(Emphasis added.) Here, the project proposes a completely new use in the form of an outdoor terrace and rooftop use. Regardless, the Class 1 exemption is subject to severai exceptions precluding its application. The exceptions that apply here include the cumulative impacts exception (State CEQA Guideiines, sect. 15300.2(b)) and the unusual circumstances exception (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(c)). Further, whiie we disagree that the project site should be considered a historic resource under Pubiic Resources Code, section 21084.1, the Class 31 categorical exemption "shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(f).) if, for sake of argument, the City's finding that the site qualifies as a historic resource for purposes of CEQA were supportable, then the Class 31 exemption cannot apply. The Class 31 categorical exemption also cannot apply, due to the applicability of the cumuiative impacts exception and the unusuai circumstances exception. (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(a), (b); see also Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4*'' 1086,1104-1105.)
8. The July 13,2023 Planning Commission hearing was not properly noticed.
The Planning Commission's resolution approving the Project entitlements finds the Project to quaiify for the following CEQA CEs: Class 1 CE for Existing Facilities, Class 3 CE for New Construction or Conversion of Smaii Structures, and Class 31 CE for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation in conformance with the Secretary of the interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ("Secretary's Standards").
However, as shown in Exhibit 4, the pubiic notice for the Planning Commission hearing inadvertently described the Project as appearing to qualify for Class 3 and Class 31 CEs only. Therefore the Project approval included a CEQA determination that was not included on the Project's public hearing notice and any such CEQA clearance violated the Brown Act and cannot be considered part of the Project's CEQA clearance. At any rate, this clearance would violate CEQA for all the reasons stated above.
Appellant appreciates the City's consideration of these findings and reserves the right to provide additional information prior to any future public hearings on this matter.
EXHIBIT 1
STUDIES SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ROOFTOP ADDITION TO ABUTTING PENINSULA HOTEL PREPARED BY CSA ARCHITEaS (APPELLANTS ARCHITECT)
Z Jiii "" ""
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9894 S. SAWA MONICA BIVD.. BtVEftY HUS. CA 90212
im inr
HI! HI!
2rG noar addition
AERIAL VIEW
PROJ.# 2551.00
'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
3rd floor addition
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
<JB84 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HEiS, CA 90212
llil nil
! ii i!ll iiil
l!il ill!
.ik.
0 E3S
■ ■■
III
VIEW FROM CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
P(}OJ,#2551.00
V.
|3rd floor addition ^
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9584 S. S4NTA MONCA BIVD.. BMHV KUS, CA 90212
VIEW FROM HOTEL ROOF DECK
PROJ.#2551.00 18jaY2023
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT APPLICANTS RENDERINGS
i
O
ro '1' f'i
icr
EXHIBITS
APPELLANTS JULY 2023 PHOTO SHOWING VIEW THAT WILL BE BLOCKED BY PROJECT
GUESTROOM VIEW THAT WILL BE BLOCKED BY PROJECT
Site where third floor
roof deck are proposed
EXHIBIT 4
PUBLIC NOTICE FOR JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTE: NOTICE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CLASS 1 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION THAT WAS APPROVED
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: Thursday, July 13,2023
TIME: 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard
LOCATION: Meeting will be held in person at:
Conmiission Meeting Room 280A
Beverly Hills City Hall
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Members of the pubhc may also
participate via teleconference; details
provided below:
WIISHIRE BlVD WIISKKEBIVD
PROIECrSITE
9S84 SOUTH SANTA
MONICA BOULEVARD
OWttEWllE^
\ sL
PROJECT ADDRESS: 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
(Cross Street Charleville Boulevard)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, at its REGULAR meeting on Thursday, July 13,2023, will hold a public hearing beginning at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider the following:
A request to construct a third-story addition and rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed 814 square-foot (SF) third-story addition would increase the height of the building by approximately 15'-3", from 23'-9" to 39'-0". Parking for the project would be provided at the rear of the property within a surface parking lot for three vehicles. The project site is within the Cit/s C-3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The following entitlements have been requested in association with the project:
Development Plan Review. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-3100.A., Development Plan Review is required to construct an addition that would increase the height of the building.
2-48
City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141 f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org Historic Incentive Permit Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3252, waivers or deviations from any development standards may be permitted through the issuance of a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP). Such permits are available to properties that the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined merits formal consideration for nomination as a landmark at a preliminary hearing. The existing commercial building, generally referred to as the "Darrow Office Building", was designed by John Lautner, an architect on the City's List of Master Architects. Specifically, the proposed project requests waivers or deviations from the following development standards through the issuance of a HIP:
• BHMC §9-3-1: Minimum Dimensions for Rubbish Storage Facifities • BHMC § I0-3-274I: On-Site Loading Space Requirements
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New Construction) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15303 and 15331 of the state CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to find the project exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA.
How to Participate
In the interest of maintaining appropriate social distancing, members of the public can participate in, watch or listen to the conunission meetings through the following methods:
• In Person: Submit a speaker card to the Recording Secretary at the meeting. • Oral Comment: Call (310) 288-2288, select Option I when prompted. You will be placed on a brief hold, and called upon to make a comment at the appropriate time. • Video Comment: https://beverlyhills-org.zoom.us/my/bevpublic. enter passcode: 90210 when prompted. • Written Comment: Email [email protected]
• Audio Only: Call (310) 288-2288, select Option 2 when prompted. • Watch LIVE: BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable or www.beverlyhills.org/watchlive It is recommended that written public comments be submitted to the Planning Commission Recording Secretary by 11:30 AM on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item number or topic in the subject line of the email. In order to be read at the meeting, written comments will be allowed with a maximum of350 words, which corresponds to approximately three (3) minutes of speaking time.
If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Any written conunents received by end of the day on Wednesday, July 5,2023, will be attached to the agenda report regarding this item.
Any comments received after Wednesday, July 5, 2023, but prior the public hearing, will be distributed to the Commission under separate cover. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the City's 2-49
action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.
Please note that any comments received prior to or during the public hearing will be considered as part of the public record.
If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner in the Planning Division at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected]. Copies of the project plans and associated application materials are on file in the Community Development Department, and can be reviewed by contacting the project planner listed above.
Sincerely/ ^
nior Planner Mailed: June 23,2023
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-1126 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired. 2-50
EXHIBIT 5
SURVEYLA ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITECTURE FROM SURVEYLA HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITEaURE, 1966-1990 FOR FULL HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT, VISIT:
HTTPS://PLANNING.LACITY.ORG/ODOCUMENT/DE23AA2C-7D44'4F2D-A071- 67354BBF9255/6.13 LATEMODERN 1966-1990.PDF
SurvevLA
Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey
LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Context: Architecture and Engineering, 1850-1980
Subcontext: L.A. Modernism, 1919-1980
Theme: Late Modern, 1966-1990
Preparedfor:
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
Office of Historic Resources
July 2020
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990
ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITECTURE
Eliglbnity Standards for Glass Skin
Summary Statement of
SigniUcance:
Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Applying the qualities of exaggeration, mutation, and paradox to Modernist architectural language, LateModernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late
Modernism expresses the conditions and new developments of Western society between 1965 and 1990, including the advent of late capitalist and post-industrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.
In the 1960s, Los Angeles' open and benevolent physical and social climate encouraged experimentation well suited to Late Modern architecture and its reactions against Modernism.
The region's dominant high-technology industry and notable art scene further encouraged this local experimentation.
Resultant designs included the all-over reflecting glass skin, a regionally developed motif that became ubiquitous In
corporate and office architecture across the Western World.
Period of Significance:
Period of Significance
Justification:
Geographic Location:
1966-1990
The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed In 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.
Citywide with concentrations of commercial examples may be found in Downtown Los Angeles, Wilshire Corridor,
Century City, the western San Fernando Valley;
concentrations of industrial examples may be found near LAX or Van Nuys Airport.
Area(s) of Significance: Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
Page ( 35
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Industrial
Property Type Description: The Late Modern glass skin was typically applied to largescale commercial and industrial buildings that frequently used sculpturally handled chamfers, cuts, punch-outs,
sloping, sharp angles, and curves to break apart the
rectangular form.
Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.
Eligibility Standards:
• Was constructed during the period of significance
• Is an excellent example of Late Modern glass skin architecture • Exhibits quality of design through distinctive features, including designs that are sculptural in character Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Typically displays bold, sculptural forms, often with chamfers or cut-outs • May have sharply articulated angles and distinctive geometric forms • Smooth, continuous surfaces over the primary massing or entirety of the building • Usually rendered in a single monochromatic palette or material • Glass skin encloses building in an all-over manner, or in certain instances set upon a base or plinth of a different material
• Glass skins are typically of reflecting or mirrored glass paired to smooth grids mullions and muntins
• Later glass skins may exhibit seamless neoprene glazing with no aluminum mullions or muntins visible.
• Window or door articulation may be subsumed into distinctive cladding or distinctive shape • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age
Integrity Considerations:
• Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship • Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
• Removal of exterior light fixtures or original signage acceptable • Original landscaping may have been altered or removed • Original use may have changed
• Skins replaced with incompatibly colored glass, transparent glass in place of reflecting glass, or of glazing having variegated color and transparency may compromise historic integrity. • Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 36
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Eligibility Standards for Brutalism
Summary Statement of
Significance:
Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Late Modernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late Modernism expresses the conditions and
new developments of Western society between 1965 and
1990, including the advent of late capitalist and postindustrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.
One expression of Late Modern is the Brutalist style.
Brutalist Late Modern designs liberated architecture from Orthodox Modernism. Brutalist buildings were typically
rendered in a single monochromatic material, usually exposed concrete, and read as sculptural, heavy, and solid. Bold oversized angular shapes break apart the typical rectangular form. Exteriors reveal the construction process, such as keeping welds or the imprint of wood used in the setting of the concrete. This style was frequently used in institutional architecture, such as civic and educational buildings, through the 1980s.
Period of Significance: 1966-1990 (Brutalist examples may predate 1966 though examples in Los Angeles are not common)
Period of Significance
Justification:
The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed in 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.
Geographic Location:
Area(s) of Significance:
Citywide
Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Institutional
Property Type Description: The Brutalist architectural style was typically applied to civic and educational buildings that used bold oversized angular shapes to break apart the rectangular form.
Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.
Eligibility Standards:
• Was constructed during the period of significance
• Is an excellent example of Brutalist architecture
• Exhibits quality of design through distinctive features Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Typically displays bold oversized angular shapes with sculptural and distinctive geometric forms to break apart the rectangular form
• Unpainted exposed concrete, raked or smooth, dominating visible elevations • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age.
Integrity Considerations:
• Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship • Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
• Original landscaping may have been altered or removed • Original use may have changed
• Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 38
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Eligibility Standards for High Tech
Summary Statement of
Significance:
Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Applying the qualities of exaggeration, mutation, and paradox to Modernist architectural language, LateModernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late
Modernism expresses the conditions and new developments of Western society between 1965 and 1990, including the advent of late capitalist and post-industrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.
One expression of Late Modernism is the High Tech style, which exaggerates Modernism's emphasis on function and
transparency by openly revealing structural and
infrastructural components such as escalators, elevators, air ducts, and structural systems, which would normally be
enclosed or hidden. Lightweight in character, designs typically employ metal and glass with an exterior color palette of white, black or grey, often with exposed components painted in bright colors.
Period of Significance: 1966-1990
Period of Significance
Justification:
The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed in 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.
Geographic Location:
Area(s) of Significance:
Citywide
Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
Page I 39
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Institutional
Industrial
Residential: Single Family and Multi-Family
Property Type Description: The High Tech architectural style was typically applied to commercial buildings, but can also be found in industrial, institutional, and particularly for Los Angeles- residential buildings. High Tech exaggerates Modernism's emphasis on function and transparency by openly revealing structural and infrastructural components.
Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.
Eligibility Standards:
• Constructed during period of significance
• Is an excellent example of the Late Modern High Tech subtype • Exhibits quality of design through distinctive feature Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Metal and glass exterior with a limited color palette of white, black, or grey • Artistically treated, deliberately exposed structural and infrastructural components (escalators, elevators, air ducts, structural systems) which may be painted in bright colors • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age.
Integrity Considerations:
Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
Original landscaping may have been altered or removed
Original use may have changed
Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 40
EXHIBIT 6
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERPRETING THE STANDARDS BULLETIN #47
ROOFTOP ADDITIONS ON MID-SIZE HISTORIC BUILDINGS
SEE PAGE 2 FOR EXAMPLE OF AN INCOMPATIBLE ROOFTOP ADDITION
THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SECRETARY'S STANDARDS, LARGELY DUE TO ITS VISIBILITY National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
ITS
Number 47
Interpreting
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character
5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes, and Craftsmanship
9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations
Issue: The roofline is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building. A large cornice, tall tower, or a projecting dormer can identify a building in the skyline. Even a simple roofline defines a building's character. Accordingly, rooftop additions proposed as part of a rehabilitation project must be carefully designed in order to preserve the building's historic character. Although a rooftop addition is not appropriate for all historic buildings, under certain circumstances a compatible rooftop addition may be constructed that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
A successful rooftop addition does not significantly impact the character of the historic building. It is subordinate to the historic building in size and design, and compatible with its massing, scale, materials and features. It must be set far enough back from the primary elevation(s) of the building — usually at least one bay, so that it is not highly visible from the public right-of-way. In most cases, rooftop additions should not be more than one story and, generally, they are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.
Application i {Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this mid-i9th century commercial building included a rooftop addition as part of ^e project. Though the building is only four stories in height, this rooftop addition is compatible with its historic character. It is set back substantially— almost halfway
from the
front fa(;ade
and, thus, it
is minimally
visible from
the public
street and
from within
the district.
High party
walls on either
side also help
to reduce the impact of the addition and allow it to blend in with the adjacent rooflines. This rooftop addition does not detract from the historic character of the building and, therefore, meets the Standards.
Application 2 (/7ico;«par/W(? irea?we«t):Thisthree-storycommercialbuilding, originally constructed ini847butgreatly altered ini907,underwentrehabilitation for mixed commercial, office, and residential use. The rehabilitation included a substantial new rooftop addition.
m
Mid-i^th century commercial building with
1 rooftop addition as it
appeared after rehabilitation (center).
Three-story commercial buildingprior to reha
bilitation.
NEW ADDITIONS
Contrary to National Park Service guidance
which states that rooftop additions should be
limited to one story and are rarely acceptable
for low-rise buildings, this addition rises a full
story and a half above the roof. The prominent
cornice, an important character-defining feature
of the primary elevation of the historic building,
is overwhelmed and greatly diminished by the
new rooftop addition. Not only is the addition
barely set back from the front of the building, its
asymmetric, modernist design further detracts
from the character of the building's classicallystyled fagade. The rooftop addition competes for attention with the historic building and it is also
out of character with the surrounding district.
This rooftop addition is not compatible with the
historic character of the building and, therefore,
does not meet the Standards.
[■ijHH
-
PI
Drawing of front elevation with proposed rooftop
addition.
r
Three -story commercial building showing rooftop addition under construction.
Liz Crevelinq, Technical Preservation Services. National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case.
July 2007, ITS Number 47
ATTACHMENT 2
Appeal Petition Supplement
(November 20, 2023)
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 November 20, 2023 Client-Matter: 70815-030
Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Appeal Supplement re 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd., Beverly Hills (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination for Case No. PL2200237) Dear Honorable Mayor Julian Gold and Beverly Hills Councilmembers:
This law firm represents The Belvedere Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills, in its appeal of the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 determination for Case No. PL2200237, in relation to the property at 9884 S. Santa Monica Boulevard (“the Darrow Building”), which is immediately adjacent to The Peninsula Beverly Hills.
On July 26, 2023, Michael Tenner, on behalf of The Peninsula Beverly Hills, submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 action, which approved both a Development Plan Review (“DPR”) and Historic Incentive Permit (“HIP”) for the Darrow Building. Together, the DPR and the HIP allow for the construction of a third story addition to the Darrow Building, as well as deviations from Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) requirements related to the minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading requirements (the “Project”).
Mr. Tenner’s July 26, 2023 submission identified several grounds for the appeal and The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 actions. These grounds include the Project’s impacts on traffic and parking, design hazards, pedestrian safety concerns, blocked views, reputational and revenue impacts, incompatibility issues, and lack of conditions to control noise and other intrusiveness from events held on the proposed rooftop event spaces, among others.
This Appeal Supplement clarifies and expands on the points made in the July 26, 2023 submission, and for that reason, is intended to supersede the prior appeal submission.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Peninsula Beverly Hills (“Appellant”) is the property immediately adjacent to the Darrow Building, and is located at 9882 S. Santa Monica Boulevard, in the City of Beverly Hills.
November 20, 2023
Over the past three decades, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has solidified its status as an integral part of Beverly Hills’ iconic identity. As the only AAA Five-Star and Forbes Five Diamond hotel in Southern California for every year since 1993, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has set the highest standards of product quality and service amongst its peers, worldwide.
The Peninsula Beverly Hills has an outsized following of loyal fans and repeat guests who have come to consistently expect superior luxury accommodations and outstanding services and guest experiences at the hotel. The Peninsula’s restaurants, bars, rooftop pool, spa and event facilities are frequented by the Beverly Hills local community, as well as by the most discerning world travelers who call the hotel their second home. The Peninsula Beverly Hills has become part of the fabric of its community and is one of the most significant contributors to the City’s tax base and its economy.
And importantly, for the past 33 years, The Peninsula has demonstrated a proven track record of being a good and respectful neighbor, having implemented many operational procedures to accommodate the surrounding community. For one, by having built adequate vehicular parking on site, The Peninsula has also made every effort to ensure that the scarce street parking in its surrounding neighborhood, whether in the residential or commercial zones, are not further negatively impacted by the hotel.
Appellant’s priority is to maintain the highest standards for its guests and preserve the high quality of life that characterizes the surrounding neighborhood, in the near-term and the long-term. For all the reasons discussed herein, Appellant is very seriously concerned that the proposed alterations and new construction at the Darrow Building, which notably increase the size of the building by approximately 22 percent and increase the height of the building by at least 40 percent, will jeopardize Appellant’s ability to maintain these standards at The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Further, Appellant is concerned about impacts to the neighborhood at large, as further detailed below.
II. THERE ARE SEVERAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE DPR AND HIP—AND EACH AND EVERY ONE PROVIDES AN
INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL.
The Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. PL2200237, including both the DPR and the HIP, is inconsistent with the law, and should be overturned on any one of the following several grounds:
November 20, 2023
A. The DPR and HIP will have significant direct impacts on the attractiveness and viability of The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ guest experience—impacts that the Applicant hid and the Planning Commission ignored.
1. The proposed height increase of more than 40 percent will block guest room views from The Peninsula Beverly Hills and create shade-shadow impacts.
The design materials presented to the City by the Darrow Building applicant, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC (“Impact Group”), including the project renderings on Sheet A302 of the Darrow Building’s architectural plans (Exhibit 1), use strategic views and cropping to obscure the extent of the height increase actually proposed at the Darrow Building. The deceptive materials obscure the extent of the new building height, and misrepresent the true impacts of the proposed height increase on The Peninsula Beverly Hills.
To place the proposed building size and height increase in context, the Darrow Building, as it currently stands, is a low-profile, two-story office building. The proposed third story addition approved by the Planning Commission via the DPR would add approximately 1,404 square feet of new office space over the existing building, which is currently 6,288 square feet.
Thus, the proposed addition would increase the size of the building by approximately 22 percent. Further, the third story addition would increase the building’s height from 23 feet, 9 inches, to 38 feet – not even including the additional height associated with the elevator tower, solar panels, and mechanical equipment enclosures, which are also proposed atop the new rooftop. This increases the height of the low-profile Darrow Building by more than 40 percent. This is not an insignificant change, even as depicted by Impact Group’s misleading renderings, which leave the impression that the Darrow Building stands alone in space, when, in truth, it directly abuts The Peninsula Beverly Hills and blocks the views of a significant number of guest rooms and suites, diminishing the hotel’s ability to compete in a very competitive market, particularly in the post-Covid era.
Massing studies prepared by Appellant’s architect, CSA Architects (Exhibit 2), and photos of existing conditions (Exhibit 3), realistically show the proposed new construction in context. From these it is clear that the Project’s height increase is significant, highly visible from Appellant’s property, and will block views from luxury guestrooms at The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Having a third floor addition immediately adjacent to the Peninsula will also result in shading that will significantly darken rooms and suites in the west wing of the hotel. When the Peninsula Beverly Hills is associated with dark luxury guest rooms with windows that look directly out at a wall, this will hurt the Peninsula’s ability to retain its loyal, returning guests who count on the hotel’s reputation for delivering the perfect guest experience.
November 20, 2023
B. The HIP will result in significant impacts associated with vehicular circulation, access and design hazards.
1. The DPR and HIP increase the size and intensity of the building, while simultaneously reducing the already inadequate number of onsite parking spaces.
The Darrow Building site currently contains seven parking spaces. The DPR and HIP permit Impact Group to increase the size of the building and expand its use, while simultaneously reducing this already inadequate number to just three spaces – two standard spaces, and one ADA accessible space. In other words, while the Darrow Building’s size increases by 22 percent, the number of parking spaces provided decreases by nearly 60 percent.
At the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, Impact Group claimed that up to 15 staff persons will work out of the Darrow Building once the Project is completed. In addition to the 15 staff persons, the Darrow Building will have visitors, building maintenance workers, and guests attending special events, business conferences, or other meetings in the new rooftop conference and event space. Making a bad situation even worse is the fact that the only place for loading to occur will block the mere three available spaces, making them inaccessible altogether.
It is pure fantasy that any of the building’s employees, visitors, or special event attendees will be arriving at the Darrow Building via public transportation at all times. Thus, it is absolutely inevitable that these persons will have to park on adjacent residential and commercial streets which already lack sufficient parking to accommodate existing uses, let alone new ones.
The increase in parking demand, drivers circling the neighborhood, cars double parking because they have no other place to stop for quick loading or unloading, all leads to further traffic congestion and, more importantly, increases the likelihood of vehicle-vehicle and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. This is not conjecture, but a certainty; the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard has multiple shops, such as hair and nail salons, many of which have absolutely no parking yet do a brisk business. Management of the Peninsula Beverly Hills is well aware of how incredibly parking-impacted this area is already. Accordingly, the complete lack of parking is a design hazard that will result in safety impacts for cars and pedestrians.
Impact Group points to the building’s proximity to a bus stop at Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as the future Metro D Line Century City subway station (assuming it remains on schedule to open in 2025) to excuse any need to provide adequate, onsite parking under AB 2097. But AB 2097 only prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking requirements on any new project. Neither AB 2097 nor the BHMC permit the reduction of existing, required and nonconforming parking that is provided for an existing building.
November 20, 2023
Specifically, Government Code, section 65863.2(a), reads: “A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.”1
But nothing in section 65863.2 applies retroactively to permit the removal of existing, required parking spaces from an existing building. It is wholly unreasonable to define “project” as that term is used in section 65863.2 as including existing development. Otherwise, a building owner could simply paint a building or upgrade plumbing for the purpose of declaring its “project” falls under AB 2097, and pursuant to section 65863.2, all existing parking could be removed. If the Legislature intended for such a sweeping rule—wherein any property owner could remove any amount of parking currently serving its use—it would have so stated. Instead, the clear purpose underlying AB 2097 was to reduce the cost of developing new housing: “The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.” (Govt. Code, § 65863.2(i).) Not a single purpose would be furthered by an interpretation that any property owner can, at any time, declare its property a “project” and on that ground eliminate all of its existing parking. In specific regard to the Darrow Building, not a single of these public policy purposes is relevant to, or furthered by, the proposed reduction of Darrow Building parking from seven to three parking spaces. In fact, as described above, reducing the onsite parking and increasing the square footage of the building, will result in an undersupply of parking here, push vehicles further into the residential areas, and actually increase greenhouse gas emissions while cars circle looking for available parking, or leave their cars idle and double parked after giving up hope of finding the same.
Here, Impact Group has required, and the Planning Commission has approved, a DPR, which is only required for the increase in square footage for the rooftop addition. BHMC, section 10-3-3101, provides specific exemptions from DPR, including “[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.” The renovation of the existing building falls squarely within this exemption and is therefore hardly considered a “project” under the City’s Code and could not reasonably be interpreted as a development project for purposes of applying AB 2097.
Moreover, nothing in AB 2097 allows an agency to circumvent its own code requirements for maintenance of existing parking. Here, BHMC, section 10-3-2736, reads, “In the event off street parking facilities required to be provided under this code, or any prior provision thereof, in connection with any structure or use are at any time not maintained for automobile parking purposes to the extent required, the city building official shall revoke and 1 Notably, Government Code, section 65863.2(d) nonetheless excludes from the minimum parking requirement prohibition event centers: “Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an event center shall provide parking, as required by local ordinance, for employees and other workers.”
November 20, 2023
cancel the certificate of occupancy. . . .” This provision expresses the City’s clear intent to prohibit the reduction of existing, required parking.
Here, there can be no question that all seven existing spaces are required. In fact, were the Darrow Building proposed in its original configuration today, the BHMC would require no less than 18 parking spaces for the building. Hence, the existing seven spaces are a legal, nonconforming requirement. Accordingly, Impact Group cannot reduce the number of parking spaces already required for the existing building. A contrary position would allow any restaurant, grocery store, or office building in the City performing any minor renovation to eliminate all its existing parking. That is an absurd result that the City would not condone, and it cannot provide preferential treatment to Impact Group here.
Finally, even if there was support for an interpretation of AB 2097 that would permit the elimination of more than half of the existing parking on the site—and there is not—the Planning Commission did not condition the DPR and HIP with any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the applicant actually encourages Darrow Building staff, visitors, and event attendees to take alternative transportation and public transit. Further, no condition capping the number of staff or event attendees was considered. Even if the Darrow Building applicant reasonably believes that only 15 staff persons will be working out of the building upon its opening, what if the applicant decides in the near, or even long-term future, to significantly increase this number? Or sells the building to a new operator or new use that results in even greater unmet parking demand? The Planning Commission should have considered these impacts and conditioned the DPR and HIP to address these eventualities.
2. The proposed loading area is inadequate and blocks all proposed onsite parking spaces.
The DPR and HIP propose a new loading area that, when used for loading, completely blocks all access to the mere three available on-site parking spaces. The applicant did not provide any evidence of how parking and loading activities and times would be managed. This results in a clear design hazard on the highly congested block of Charleville Boulevard between South Santa Monica Boulevard and Durant Drive.
For example, while a large truck is in the loading area, an employee, visitor, or event attendee, looking to park in one of the mere three onsite parking spaces, enters the parking lot, only to realize, too late, that the parking space is blocked by a truck. The employee, visitor, or event attendee would then have to reverse back out of the lot and onto a busy street avoiding conflicts with vehicles that may have queued up behind, also looking for onsite parking (causing traffic chaos next to The Peninsula Beverly Hills and across from the new Rosewood condominium entrance), as well as pedestrians or bicyclists using the City sidewalks and street.
November 20, 2023
It is also unclear what types of loading activities Impact Group anticipates will occur here. As a result, it is impossible to understand the full scope of noise and vibration impacts that would occur on The Peninsula Beverly Hills.
C. The proposed third story addition immediately abuts The Peninsula Beverly Hills, yet not a single condition or mitigation measure to address reasonably foreseeable noise, privacy, and aesthetics impacts has been considered.
Appellant is very concerned about the impacts that the Project’s third story and new roof deck will have on The Peninsula Beverly Hills, as well as the surrounding neighborhood.
As recently as last year, the disruptive nature of office building roof decks was at the forefront of City discussions, when the Planning Commission held a hearing to review an abundance of ongoing noise complaints and violations associated with the roof deck of the nearby Spring Place office building at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard, which emerged as a nuisance in the neighborhood. Appellant finds it highly strange that after all the issues with the Spring Place office building, the Planning Commission immediately turns around to permit construction of yet another roof deck in the very same neighborhood (and from the same architect no less). It appears the entire purpose of renovating the Darrow Building seems to be solely to provide the third story addition and roof deck to be used for holding events and conferences, which could disturb hotel guests and hurt the Peninsula’s reputation. Yet, not a single impact from the introduction of Impact Group’s new outdoor event space have been considered, let alone mitigated.
As reported by the Beverly Hills Courier, one Planning Commissioner made it abundantly clear that rooftop deck events can seemingly operate with impunity for very long times. When addressing the Spring Place rooftop deck nuisance, she said:
You’ve had your last chances; you’ve had it many times again, and again, and again, and again,” said Planning Commissioner Myra Demeter, who presided as chair over the hearing. “We have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people contacting you, letting you know what is allowed and what is not allowed. And you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this, and you would do that, and we haven’t seen it. (See Exhibit 4.)
Appellant is extremely concerned about Impact Group and any future operator of the Project using the rooftop deck in a disruptive manner that generates noise and privacy issues for the abutting Peninsula Beverly Hills, its guests (including, notably, guests of The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ villas, which are immediately next to the proposed roof deck) and surrounding neighborhood. (See Exhibits 2 and 3.) Simply put, a roof deck for parties and events is not November 20, 2023
appropriate immediately adjacent to one of Beverly Hills’ most iconic hotels, renowned among discerning travelers throughout the world for creating perfect experiences for its guests. We do not believe the Planning Commission understood, or gave proper consideration to, the fact that just a few noise violations that prevent guests from sleeping could irreversibly tarnish the reputation of The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Furthermore, this is not just about the Appellant and the City’s tax revenue from the hotel, the Commission also failed to consider the impacts from roof deck noise on the community’s residential neighbors to the south.
Appellant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the roof deck is operated in a responsible manner by current and future operators and that no acoustical study has been conducted to evaluate potential noise impacts of the Project. Included with this appeal are various materials from the 9800 Wilshire Boulevard project that make it abundantly clear that there is a fair argument under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) that the Project’s proposed roof deck will have significant noise and vibration impacts, if not create a complete nuisance. (See Exhibit 4.) Overall, however, the City Council must consider whether this is a proper location for any roof deck, and we believe that a review of the facts here militates strongly against any roof deck, period.
D. The Darrow Building’s nomination for landmark designation must be denied if such designation will serve to enable the highly inappropriate third floor addition.
As explained in our companion letter, 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), The Peninsula Beverly Hills is not against the preservation of the Darrow Building.
Instead, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has been placed in the uncomfortable position of having to object to the Darrow Building’s landmark designation because once the Darrow Building is so designated, its owner will ironically have the ability to construct the third story addition that will result in the destruction of the very characteristics upon which the designation would be based.2 The landmark designation for the Darrow Building was first considered on April 13, 2022 by the CHC. At that meeting, the CHC determined that, as the building currently stands today, 2 When it filed its appeal, the Peninsula Beverly Hills believed it was necessary to challenge landmark designation in order to challenge the HIP. Having retained land use counsel, Appellant now understands that the HIP can be challenged on the grounds that the proposed rooftop addition would damage the historic integrity of the Darrow Building.
November 20, 2023
the building maintains its historic integrity and nomination proceedings for inclusion of the building on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties should be initiated.
The Peninsula Beverly Hills does not object to the CHC’s April 13, 2022 findings for the existing building in principle. However, Impact Group never again returned to the CHC despite it having urged Impact Group to do so to allow the CHC to weigh in on the rooftop addition and other components of the proposed Project. Indeed, the CHC acknowledged that it had not been asked to review or opine on the proposed addition, and had not seen any plans for the addition.
We believe that if the CHC had the benefit of those plans, it would have certainly given pause to its preliminary decision to initiate landmark designation proceedings. It is inconceivable that the CHC would want to have the Darrow Building designated a landmark if the end result of such designation would involve a third floor addition that would so blatantly destroy the building’s architectural integrity and compromise its eligibility for landmark designation.
At the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing on the Darrow Building’s proposed DPR and HIP, Commissioner Ostroff questioned why, to date, the Darrow Building application never returned to the CHC to pursue the landmark designation. (“I’m looking at these as two different tracks, two separate tracks, and I’m asking why they didn’t proceed with the Historical Landmark designation track at the same time [as pursuing the DPR and HIP approvals]”.) If Impact Group truly cared about the landmark designation status of its historic resource, the building would already be designated. Instead, Impact Group is well aware of the fact that if the Darrow Building were designated prior to the Planning Commission’s approval of the DPR and HIP, those entitlements most likely would have never been issued. This is because, had the building already been designated, the CHC would have clear jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed third story addition was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (“SOI Standards”). Impact Group also very well knows that the CHC, the members of which are experts in these matters, would likely flatly reject the HIP and its incompatible and historically inappropriate third story addition.
It is for these reasons that The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ appeal of the Darrow Building DPR and HIP initially included objecting to the Darrow Building’s landmark designation, and the grounds upon which the City Council should overturn the Planning Commission approvals on appeal.
E. The proposed third story addition is flatly inconsistent with the SOI Standards.
As explained in our companion letter, 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), it is not possible for a third story addition to a two-story historic building of the sort November 20, 2023
proposed by Impact Group to conform with the SOI Standards. In her technical review memorandum, attached to our companion letter as Exhibit B, historic preservationist Jenna Snow applies National Park Service (“NPS”) guidance documents, including specific technical guidance bulletins addressing rooftop additions specifically, and concludes that the Darrow Building’s “rooftop addition will, without a doubt, negatively impact the character of the building . . . . The proposed project would overwhelm the historic building and would shift the horizontal massing to a more vertical massing. As noted above, the change in massing would result in a change in character, not at all in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. . . . The proposed rooftop addition certainly does not preserve the most important character-defining features of the Darrow Office Building—the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes.” Please see our companion letter and its multiple attachments for more detail.
F. Given the incompatibility with the SOI Standards, the proposed changes to the Darrow Building cannot qualify for any exemption from environmental review under CEQA.
In approving the DPR and HIP on July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission also determined that no environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) was required. The Planning Commission instead determined that its approval of the DPR and HIP was exempt from review under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation Exemption). State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), section 15331, exempts from environmental review the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the SOI Standards. But, as discussed above, this Project is not consistent with the SOI Standards. Worse yet, the proposed third story addition significantly adversely impacts the historic character and integrity of the Darrow Building, as discussed in the Snow and Turnbull memoranda. (Ex. A, B.) Given that the exemption cannot possibly apply, and given that a significant adverse impact would occur as a result of the DPR and HIP, the City is required to undertake environmental review, in the form of an environmental impact report, prior to approving the proposed Project.
The Planning Commission also determined that approval of the DPR and HIP was exempt under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15301. This section exempts from environmental review the “minor alteration” of existing structures, and limits additions to existing structures to no more than 10,000 sf in urban settings. However, this exemption, and all other categorical exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15301 through 15333, cannot apply to any project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(f).)
A building does not need to be designated a historic landmark in order to be considered a “historical resource” for purposes of State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2(f). (See Pub.
November 20, 2023
Resources Code, § 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5.) A “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a resource occurs when a project materially alters in an adverse manner a resource’s character-defining features and render an eligible historic resource ineligible. (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Here, “construction of the rooftop addition would render this historical resource ineligible for listing in either the National or California Registers.
Therefore, the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and would result in a significant impact.” (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Again, given that no categorical exemption can possibly apply as a result of the proposed third story addition’s significant impact on a historic resource, the City must complete an environmental impact report before approving the Project.
G. Construction noise and vibration impacts will significantly impact The Peninsula Beverly Hills to the extent that several guest villas immediately adjacent to the Darrow Building will be uninhabitable.
Impact Group has completely failed to acknowledge, let alone address, the significant construction-related impacts on The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Of specific concern are the construction-related noise and vibration impacts that will make several guest rooms at the hotel uninhabitable. As a result, the hotel will become less attractive to guests and the local community, and this will result in a direct impact to The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ contributions to the City’s tax revenue.
As addressed in detail above, the DPR and HIP are not exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Thus a full analysis of noise and vibration impacts is required and mitigation measures must be identified and adopted prior to the issuance of any permit. The Planning Commission failed to evaluate construction and vibration noise altogether.
H. The July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing was not properly noticed.
The Planning Commission’s resolution approving the Project entitlements finds the Project to qualify for the following categorical exemptions under CEQA: State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15301 (Existing Facilities); 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation in Conformance with the SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties).
However, as shown in Exhibit 5, the public notice for the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission hearing notified the public only that the City was considering the Class 3 and Class 31 categorical exemptions (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15303, 15331). Therefore the Project approval included taking action on a CEQA determination that was not included in the public hearing notice. This constitutes a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which requires that agendas and notices for public meetings identify each and every separate item of business to be transacted at the meeting.
November 20, 2023
***********
For all the reasons set forth herein, as well as those detailed in our companion letter, 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), we respectfully request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023, approval of the Darrow Building DPR and HIP in Case No. PL2200237.
Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
EXHIBIT 1
Rev Date Issue DATE: SCALE: DRWN BY: CHKD BY: BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP 2740 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 313.477.9477 T ARCHITECT 12818 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90066 T: (310) 310-8438 11/07/22 PLANNING SUBMITTAL E: [email protected] Stephen Billings Landscape Architecture DARROW OFFICE BUILDING 9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 01/06/23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02/14/23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03/10/23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 2023 03 10 AS NOTED SFSB L3.7 ELEVATION
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"
EXIST NI G BU LI DING 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
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"
ABC
BRK-01
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
2 A400
108
105
307
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
PAINT TO BE REMOVED (USING
CHEMICAL TREATMENT) FROM
EXT. BRICK WALLS. BRICK TO
BE NATURAL, ORIGINAL FINISH,
TYP.
EXTG.PAINTED METAL
LOUVERS TO BE RESTORED
OR REPLACED WITH SIM.
WINDOW FRAMES TO BE
RESTORED. EXTG GLAZING TO
BE REPACED, TBC.
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED
AND REPAINTED TO MATCH
EXISTING.
(E) STAINLESS STEEL
STANDING SEAM TO REMAIN,
RESTORED TO ORIGINAL
FINISH
209
MTL-1
MTL-1
EXIST NI G BU LI DING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
STC-01
HIGHEST POINT
OF GRADE
37'-6"
306 305
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"
54321
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL.
SOLAR PANELS
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
MECHANICAL EQUIP. SCREENING
NEW CONCRETE WALL
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
37'-6"
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 9:44:29 AM
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A301
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
2 # DESCRIPTION DATE
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 9:44:29 A
M
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
RENDERINGS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A302
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
EXTERIOR RENDERING - SW ELEV
2 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
EXTERIOR RENDERING - WEST ELEV. 3 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR RENDERING - SOUTH ELEV. 1 NTS NTS
NTS
# DESCRIPTION DATE
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"
1 2 3 4 5
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
CLG. HT. @ SHARED SPACES, TYP.
11'-6"
OFFICE
203
EMPLOYEE
LOUNGE/
KITCHEN
211
EMPLOYEE
LOUNGE /
INFORMAL
CONFERENCE
110
OPEN OFFICE
101
LOBBY
100
OFFICE
106
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
OPEN OFFICE/
RECEPTION
200
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
212
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306 305
204
SA3
9'-0" 12'-3" 2'-7" 3'-7" 7'-11" 1'-6" 8'-2" 1'-6"
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
7'-8"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ENCLOSURE
PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL
ARRAY
9'-6"
ELEVATOR
LOBBY/
CIRCULATION
300
LOUNGE
301
CONFERENCE
302
1'-9 1/4"
9'-7 1/4"
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"
5 4 3 2 1
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
OFFICE
204
EXTERIOR
COURTYARD
112
OFFICE
207
OFFICE
303
STAIR
SA1
STAIR
SA3
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306
STAIR
SA2
HATCHED AREA
REPRESENTS EXTERIOR
SPACES
SA2
SA3
204
WOMENS
RESTROOM
209
1'-0" 8'-2" 1'-6" 7'-11" 3'-7" 2'-7" 12'-3" 9'-0"
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
8'-2"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
9'-6"
10'-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 9:44:32 A
M
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
BUILDING SECTIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A400
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LONGITUDINAL SECTION A
1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LONGITUDINAL SECTION B
2 # DESCRIPTION DATE
EXTERIOR GRADE
-1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
1 A400
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
C B A
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
225 SF
EXTERIOR
COURTYARD
112
53 SF
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
205
713 SF
OPEN OFFICE/
RECEPTION
200
162 SF
OFFICE
201
59 SF
MENS RESTROOM
108
699 SF
OPEN OFFICE
101
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
HATCHED AREA
REPRESENTS EXTERIOR
SPACES
SOLAR PANELS
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
205
7'-6" 1'-6" 12'-3" 2'-7" 3'-7" 7'-11" 1'-6" 8'-2" 1'-6" 2 A400
202 203
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
7'-8"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
EXTERIOR GRADE
-1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
1 A400
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
A B C
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
PROPOSED MECH. SCREEN
SOLAR PANELS
7'-6" 1'-6" 12'-3" 2'-7" 3'-7" 7'-11" 1'-6" 8'-2" 1'-6" OFFICE
106
OFFICE
102
OFFICE
207
OFFICE
206
OPEN OFFICE/
RECEPTION
200
OFFICE
303
LOUNGE
301
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306
OPEN OFFICE
101
2 A400
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
7'-8"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
6'-0"
11'-6"
9'-6"
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
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 9:44:33 A
M
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
BUILDING SECTIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
CROSS SECTION B
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
2 CROSS SECTION A
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
1 A401
# DESCRIPTION DATE
EXHIBIT 2
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
AERIAL VIEW
SANTA MONICA BLVD.
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
3rd floor addition
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
VIEW FROM SANTA MONICA BLVD.
3rd floor addition
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
VIEW FROM CHARLEVILLE BLVD. 3rd floor addition
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
VIEW FROM HOTEL ROOF DECK
3rd floor addition
EXHIBIT 3
Project Site where third floor
and deck are proposed
Appellant’s
Property
EXHIBIT 4
Planning Commission Rebukes Spring Place - Beverly Hills Courier https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/05/20/planning-commission-rebukes-spring-place/[11/20/2023 11:44:30 AM] n a contentious hearing on May 12, the Planning Commission issued a stern rebuke of the private club and co-working space Spring Place and crafted stringent limits on its 6,000 sq.-ft. rooftop space. “You’ve had your last chances; you’ve had it many times again, and again, and again, and again,” said Planning Commissioner Myra Demeter, who presided as chair over the hearing. “We have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people contacting you, letting you know what is allowed and what is not allowed. And you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this, and you would do that, and we haven’t seen it.” Planning Commission Chair Andy Licht recused himself from the hearing given his home’s proximity to the club and the fact that he is a member. Commissioner Thomas Hudnut also recused himself given the proximity of his home and office to the club.
Three members of the Commission ultimately agreed on strict limits to the rooftop uses of the club. Under the new provisions, which the Commission will vote on at its May 26 meeting, no more than 30 members can use the rooftop at a time, nor can the club offer food and beverage services on the roof. Additionally, the Commission limited rooftop hours to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Located at the vertex of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards in the Gores Group building, Spring Place offers members access to shared workspaces and amenities such as a bar, lounges, a restaurant, and programming and events. The exclusive club has one other I
Planning Commission Rebukes Spring Place
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, NEWS
BY SAMUEL BRASLOW b MAY 20, 2022
SIGN IN REGISTER
Planning Commission Rebukes Spring Place - Beverly Hills Courier https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/05/20/planning-commission-rebukes-spring-place/[11/20/2023 11:44:30 AM] location in New York’s Tribeca neighborhood.
The hearing focused on the decked-out rooftop space open to the club’s 630 members, who are each permitted to bring three guests. The Planning Commission previously granted Spring Place the right to hold “occasional” rooftop events that go no later than 10 p.m. and with 72-hour notice to the city. Furthermore, events could not have live or amplified music and could not be open to members of the public
The club has elicited complaints from neighbors alleging excessive noise from events and other violations since it opened in 2018. More recently, the city received documentation showing that the club advertised itself for use as a private event rental space, which would violate the club’s agreement with the city. The city also received documents showing Spring Place advertising events to members of the public and hosting social events including engagement parties and a bar mitzvah.
City staff warned Spring Place in January 2022 that the events violated its conditions of operation and to cease similar activity. But according to a report compiled by staff, the club persisted in holding events that appeared to violate city code, including a wedding celebration, a party with a DJ, a beauty event for a dermatologist and a Grammy’s party.
After the alleged violations, City Prosecutor Steven Rosenblit sent a letter to the club’s representatives in March warning them that their actions were “incurring criminal and civil liability.” If the club continued with the alleged wrongdoing, Rosenblit threatened possible “criminal prosecution against you for misdemeanor offenses” or a civil case. Failure to comply could also result in a loss of the club’s entitlements and legal consequences to the property owner, billionaire Alec Gores.
Given the legal issues at play, the hearing at times took on the air of a trial, with a legal representative for the club advising new CEO Christian Toraldo not to answer a question by Commissioner Peter Ostroff.
Toraldo, who became CEO in late December 2021, told the Commission that financial pressures related to COVID-19 led Spring Place to host events that “negatively impacted our neighbors.” He said that he had attended a meeting with Rosenblit and members of the city’s code enforcement personnel to address concerns regarding two upcoming events. Furthermore, he reported asking the City Council “to develop a program to ensure that Spring Place remains in compliance with the conditions governing our operations.” Commissioners expressed skepticism at the efforts to signal a change in direction. “I’m very disappointed in what I’ve seen over the last two years. I’m extremely disappointed of what has been alleged over the last three or four months since the new team has been in place,” said Commissioner Gary Ross.
The years of issues and assurances had clearly taxed the faith of the Commission. Ostroff quoted from a letter to city staff by a lawyer for Spring Place in 2019 saying that prior leadership “did not fully understand how to be in compliance with the conditions of approval” and that “missteps were made as with any new business.” But the letter promised that “under new leadership, Spring Place is now well versed in its conditions of approval.”
“We have heard this before,” Ostroff said. “We thought this was going to be a great place and it turned out to be a disaster for the neighborhood [and] for the city.”
EXHIBIT 5
2-48
- 2 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2-49
- 3 -
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-1126 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired. 2-50
ATTACHMENT 3
Appellant’s Letter to City Council
(November 20, 2023)
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 November 20, 2023 Client-Matter: 70815-030
Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 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)
Dear Mayor Gold and Honorable Councilmembers:
This law firm has been retained by The Belvedere Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”), in its appeal of the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 determination for Case No. PL2200237, which approved a Development Plan Review (“DPR”) and Historic Incentive Permit (“HIP”) for the property at 9884 S. Santa Monica Boulevard (“the Darrow Building”). This letter, and the two technical reports attached hereto, supplement our appeal, and address in detail those objections to the proposed project that are centered around historic resource issues. Please be advised that we have also sent you another letter clarifying and expanding upon the points in the Peninsula’s appeal; however, the seriousness and complexity of the Peninsula’s objections related to the proposed project’s adverse impact on the historic and architectural integrity of the Darrow Building merit their own letter.
As detailed herein, the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 determination has the perverse effect of destroying the Darrow Building’s historic and architectural integrity. The Planning Commission approved the proposed project’s DPR and HIP under the false impression that the Cultural Heritage Commission, which would separately be making a recommendation on landmark designation, would also be reviewing the proposed project’s third-story addition for historic compatibility and conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the “SOI Standards”) as required by the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”).
1 In reality, however, because the Darrow Building has not yet been designated a historic landmark, the Cultural Heritage Commission never had, and never 1 The SOI Standards are federal guidelines issued by the National Park Service (“NPS”) aimed at protecting the true identity and significance of historic resources. The SOI Standards are complex, technical, and interpreted through numerous NPS guidance, and a series of bulletins and preservation briefs that analyze a wide range of developments to historic properties, including, specifically, rooftop additions.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
will, have an opportunity to weigh in on the project’s third-story addition’s impact on the historic integrity of the Darrow Building.
The confusion stemming from the applicant’s unusual bifurcated approach (putting landmark designation on hold until its DPR and HIP are final) has resulted in the following:
• Despite being required to make findings about the proposed project’s consistency with the SOI Standards, the Planning Commission never–not once–discussed or evaluated the third-floor rooftop addition’s consistency with the SOI Standards. In fact, the Planning Commission may not have known that this was even within its purview. That is because it is standard practice for the Cultural Heritage Commission—not the Planning Commission—to issue Certificates of Appropriateness for significant modifications to historic landmarks. Because of the deviation from standard procedures and confusion stemming from the bifurcated landmarking process at play here, not one city commission will have evaluated the proposed project’s third floor addition for historic compatibility.
Attached is a complete transcript of the Planning Commission hearing’s deliberations, which make it evident that the third-story addition (or, for that matter, any component of the project) was never evaluated from a historic resources standpoint. (See Exhibit A.) • The result of the Planning Commission’s inadvertent omission is egregious. The proposed project’s rooftop addition is a textbook example of what not to do to a historic building. Attached to this letter are technical reports from two highly reputable historic preservation consultants who are on the City’s approved historic preservation consultant list (Jenna Snow and Page & Turnbull) explaining why the project’s third-story addition fails to comply with the SOI Standards. (See Exhibits B and C.) • Although the applicant’s historic consultant submitted a report purporting to analyze the project’s conformance with the SOI Standards, shockingly that report completely failed to disclose, never mind analyze, any of the guidance in the SOI Standards related to rooftop additions. The applicant’s report appears to be silent on the rooftop addition’s compliance with the SOI Standards and the Planning Commission’s staff report sidesteps SOI Standards compliance for the addition altogether.
2 2
The Planning Commission’s July 12, 2023 Staff report states: “The applicant seeks to rehabilitate the existing building and original architectural features that were designed by Lautner, in adherence to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (SOI Standards). Additionally, the applicant seeks to construct a new 1,404 SF third story addition over the existing building to provide additional office space on the property and an outdoor terrace that would face South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard.” (Staff Report, p. 6)(Emphasis added.) It is simply insufficient for only one portion of the proposed project to comply with the SOI Standards. Of what use is it to comply with the SOI Standards for one part, when the addition would overwhelm the historic resource and result in its losing all of its architectural and historic integrity? Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
• Of note, the SOI Standards state that rooftop additions are not appropriate on one- to three-story buildings as further elaborated upon in this letter. A picture is worth a thousand words, however. Below is a photographic excerpt from the SOI Standards, with the Secretary’s description of why even the modest, relatively inconspicuous and set-back rooftop addition to that building fails to comply with the SOI Standards:
And below is the proposed project’s rooftop addition:
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
It stands to reason that if the barely obtrusive fourth-floor addition in the first photograph above is the primary example of what not to do in the SOI Standards, then the highly visible and extremely obtrusive third-floor addition to the Darrow Building is definitely not consistent with the SOI Standards. The proposed project’s third-floor addition is not just visible from the street, it transforms the building’s massing from horizontal to vertical, in the process completely transforming master architect John Lautner’s design intent for the building.
• This is not the City’s first experience with rooftop additions to a historic landmark. In connection with the Kate Mantilini/Gibraltar Savings hotel adaptive reuse project at 9101 Wilshire Boulevard, painstaking efforts have been taken at the City’s request to ensure that the rooftop additions being proposed atop 2-story portions of the existing building are not visible from the public right of way so that the project can be consistent with the SOI Standards. (See Exhibit D.) As such, it is highly suspect that somehow this issue has slipped through the cracks for the proposed Darrow Building project. • For a John Lautner-designed building, one would expect a so-called “preservation project” to have engaged an architect who specializes in the preservation of historic buildings. Southern California has some of the nation’s preeminent architects in this field (e.g., Brenda Levin, Kelly Sutherlin McLeod, Stephanie Kingsnorth, Page & Turnbull, etc.), yet a review of the project architect’s website (BA Collective) indicates that, despite clearly being an extremely accomplished firm, it does not specialize in historic preservation projects. In fact, based on their website (https://bacollective.com), this may be their first “preservation” project ever. It is imperative that the applicant engage a historic consultant to assist any future project in achieving compliance with the SOI Standards; this should be done as the project is being designed, rather than as a post hoc attempt to legitimize something that is clearly not SOI Standards-compliant.
Clearly, there has been—at best—a major oversight here. By delaying its landmark designation hearings, Impact Group has structured its entitlements in a manner that avoids Cultural Heritage Commission scrutiny and meaningful review for compliance with the SOI Standards. Even though it is the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission that will be making a recommendation on whether the Darrow Building should be designated a historic landmark, it is the Planning Commission that approved the DPR and HIP that significantly alter the building and impact its historic character. The Planning Commission has made its approval of at least the HIP conditional upon the Darrow Building obtaining a landmark designation but it is now procedurally too late for the Cultural Heritage Commission to consider the third-floor addition and its compatibility with the existing building unless the City Council grants this appeal.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
We should note two additional things: (1) the Cultural Heritage Commission, when it initiated the landmark proceedings for the Darrow Building, invited the applicant to share its proposal with it, so that it could comment and provide guidance on the proposed project, yet the applicant chose not to do so (i.e., this problem is entirely of the applicant’s own making); (2) while City staff may have included a finding in the Planning Commission’s approval resolution for the DPR and HIP stating that the proposed project was consistent with the SOI Standards, which it is not, the record makes it very clear that the Planning Commission did not review the proposed project’s third floor addition for consistency with the SOI Standards, and in fact, may have had no idea they were supposed to given that it is usually the Cultural Heritage Commission that is charged with conducting this review.
Accordingly, because the third floor rooftop addition fails to comply with the SOI Standards and neither the Cultural Heritage Commission nor the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project for historic compatibility, we urge the City Council to overturn approval of the DPR and HIP before the Darrow Building’s historic significance is forever compromised. If this appeal is granted, the applicant would be required to design an SOI Standards-compliant project, would hopefully do the right thing and solicit input from the Cultural Heritage Commission, and the Planning Commission too will be on notice, and fully aware, that they are charged with reviewing any future project for conformance with the SOI Standards.
I. THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE DPR AND HIP MUST
BE OVERTURNED IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE HISTORIC INTEGRITY OF THE DARROW BUILDING.
On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission approved the DPR and HIP allowing the alteration of the Darrow Building and the construction of a third story addition. The approvals also allow for deviations from BHMC requirements related to the minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading requirements.
The Historic Resources Evaluation provided to the Planning Commission by the Darrow Building applicant describes the Darrow Building as a low-profile, two-story commercial building. Since its construction in 1946, no building permits for additions to the building have ever been issued. (Historic Resources Evaluation, Kaplan Chen Kaplan [“KCK”], p. 16.) Thus, the proposed third story addition would be the first major alteration of the building.
And what an alteration it would be:
• The third story addition would add approximately 1,404 square feet of new office space over the existing building, which is currently 6,288 square feet. Thus, the proposed addition would increase the size of the building by 22 percent.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
• The third story addition would increase the building’s height from 23’-9” to 38’-0”.
Thus, the proposed addition would increase the height of the building by 40 percent.
This does not include yet even more additional height associated with an elevator tower, solar panels, and mechanical equipment enclosures, proposed atop the third story addition.
Despite these transformational changes, a review of the Planning Commission hearing transcript indicates that not once did the Planning Commission pause to consider whether such a substantial addition to a historic building would be consistent with the SOI Standards or otherwise compromise the building’s historic integrity. While the proposed addition might be deemed innocuous in connection with an ordinary building, it is most certainly not appropriate for a historic resource. Under the BHMC, a HIP may only be issued where a project is consistent with the SOI Standards.
When a building that is already designated a landmark applies for a Certificate of Appropriateness in connection with work that involves a change of design, material, appearance, or visibility of the character defining features of such building, it is the Cultural Heritage Commission that considers whether the Certificate of Appropriateness is consistent with the SOI Standards before issuing such approval. (See BHMC Section 10-3-3219-D.) On the other hand, where a project seeks approval of a HIP, it is able to sidestep historic preservation procedures and obtain approval directly from the Planning Commission. (See BHMC Section 10-3-3253.) Where the Planning Commission has issued a HIP, the Cultural Heritage Commission does not get an opportunity to evaluate consistency with the SOI Standards. But here, even though this project would without question require Cultural Heritage Commission review and approval if a Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
Certificate of Appropriateness were sought based on the extent of the proposed alterations, such review is not triggered in the context of a HIP. Thus, while the proposed alterations’ consistency with the SOI Standards is a key factor, the commission with the expertise to evaluate it is not appropriately at the table.
The Darrow Building applicant submitted an “Impacts Analysis” by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (“KCK Impacts Analysis”), which purportedly analyzes the potential impact of the proposed alterations and third story addition on the historical value of the Darrow Building. However, the KCK Impacts Analysis did not actually address whether the third story addition complied with the SOI Standards. This is a fatal flaw and is alone sufficient grounds for the Council to grant this appeal.
While the report acknowledged that “[n]ew additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction . . . shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property,” the report nonetheless failed to acknowledge or consider the significant amount of NPS guidance available that relates specifically to rooftop additions, and blatantly ignored the fact that the third story addition proposed for the Darrow Building completely alters the building’s massing—one of the most important and defining aspects of its historic character and integrity. In fact, the only discussion in the KCK Impacts Analysis about the third story addition—which, again, increases the building size by 22 percent and the building height by 40 percent—is that: (1) the addition will not require the removal of any of the distinctive louvers along the sides of the building; (2) the third story will be recessed from two of the building’s edges (in the process neglecting to mention that the rooftop addition’s highly visible roof overhangs actually extend all the way to the edge of the building); and (3) the third story addition’s building materials include glazed windows and sliding doors which will “lighten” the new elevations to help them “recede visually.” (KCK Impacts Analysis, p. 13.) As shown below, this is not nearly enough when NPS guidance on the topic of rooftop additions is considered. Any proposed project must comply with the SOI Standards and the proposed project does not. Accordingly, the HIP, which can only be issued when a project complies with the SOI Standards, must be overturned. So too must the DPR, which is the permit that allows for the third story addition.
A. The Planning Commission approved a DPR and HIP that ironically and perversely destroy the historic integrity of the Darrow Building.
1. The third story addition approved by the Planning Commission is not consistent with the SOI Standards.
As detailed in the attached Memorandum prepared by Ms. Jenna Snow (“Snow Memorandum”), it is practically impossible for a third story addition to a two-story historic Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
building to conform with the SOI Standards. (See Exhibit B.) Unlike the KCK Impacts Analysis, the Snow Memorandum considers relevant NPS guidance, including the on-point “Interpreting the Standards Bulletin No. 47: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings” and the Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (the “Guidelines”). As noted by Ms. Snow:
The National Park Service, throughout its guidance, consistently and unequivocally recommends against rooftop additions on two-story buildings as they will detract from the historic character of the building and will not meet the Secretary’s Standards. The Guidelines specifically do not recommend “construction of a rooftop addition that is highly visible, which negatively impacts the character of the historic building.” In addition, the Guidelines state a “rooftop addition on low-rise, one- to three- story historic buildings that is highly visible, overwhelms the building.”
The Interpreting the Standards Bulletin No. 47: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings begins by stating, “the roofline is often an important characterdefining feature of a historic building . . . Even a simple roofline defines a building’s character.” The bulletin goes on to state, “In most cases . . . they [rooftop additions] are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.”
The Snow Memorandum concludes, “The rooftop addition will, without a doubt, negatively impact the character of the building . . . . The proposed project would overwhelm the historic building and would shift the horizontal massing to a more vertical massing. As noted above, the change in massing would result in a change in character, not at all in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards . . . . The proposed rooftop addition certainly does not preserve the most important character-defining features of the Darrow Office Building—the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes.”
A second technical review, completed by Page & Turnbull (“Turnbull Memorandum”) came to a similar conclusion, concluding that “not only does the proposed addition adversely impact this character defining feature [the building’s sculptural and geometric massing] and the architectural qualities of the Darrow Building, it fails to conform with the SOI Standards.” Of note, the Turnbull Memorandum also concludes that the rooftop addition would be inappropriate even if the Darrow Building were greater than three stories:
. . . even if the Darrow Building were greater than three stories, such that a rooftop addition could possibly be appropriate, rooftop additions should nonetheless be no more than one-story in height. While the proposed rooftop addition is technically one-story, its height is actually akin to one and one half stories since it is approximately 15 feet tall to the top of the addition’s roof, not Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
including additional features, such as the elevator shaft, solar panels, and other mechanical equipment. This is significantly taller than the floor heights of the Darrow Building, which are approximately 10 feet each. The height of the proposed rooftop addition further adds to the visibility of its projecting roof and its impact on the Darrow Building’s character-defining sculptural and geometric massing that is contrary to the provided guidance.
In other words, the proposed project’s third floor addition is not even a close call. It is definitely not permitted under the SOI Standards for a two-story building, but it would also not be appropriate for a significantly taller building.
2. Third story additions are rarely ever acceptable for low-rise historic buildings, such as the Darrow Building.
The NPS guidance on the issue of rooftop additions—correctly taken into consideration in the Snow and Turnbull memoranda, and wholly ignored in the KCK Impacts Analysis— makes clear that the character and form of a historic building must be maintained when rooftop additions are to be considered. These guidance documents include ITS No. 3 – New Additions to Mid-Size Historic Buildings, ITS No. 36 – Rooftop Additions, ITS No. 47 – Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings, and Preservation Brief No. 14 – Preservation Concerns for Exterior Additions, all attached hereto. (See Exhibit E.) These NPS guidance documents reiterate, numerous times, that rooftop additions are not recommended or appropriate for “mid-size” historic buildings that are three stories or less. A one-story addition to a “mid-size” historic building disproportionately alters the scale, massing and cultural significance of the historic resource. If a rooftop addition is to be considered, the addition must be subordinate in scale and massing, inconspicuous from the public right-of-way, set back from the primary elevation, and must not damage character-defining features of the historic building.
To illustrate these points, several NPS guidance documents include illustrative examples of appropriate and compatible rooftop additions, as well as incompatible additions. Comparing these illustrative examples to the proposed third story addition at the Darrow Building makes clear that the Darrow Building proposal is not consistent with the SOI Standards. For example, ITS No. 47 – Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings explains that “[t]he roofline is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building” and notes that “[a] successful rooftop addition does not significantly impact the character of the historic building.” (See Exhibit E.) It also states that rooftop additions “are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.” (See Exhibit E.) To illustrate an incompatible rooftop addition on a mid-size historic building, the guidance document provides an example three-story commercial building with a one-story rooftop addition. The guidance notes: “Contrary to National Park Service guidance which states that rooftop additions should be limited to one story and are rarely Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
acceptable for low-rise buildings, this addition rises a full story and a half above the roof. The prominent cornice [of the original historic building] is overwhelmed and greatly diminished by the new rooftop addition. Not only is the addition barely set back from the front of the building, its asymmetric, modernist design further detracts from the character of the building’s classicallystyled façade. The rooftop addition competes for attention with the historic building and it is also out of character with the surrounding district. This rooftop addition is not compatible with the historic character of the building and, therefore, does not meet the [SOI] Standards.” With respect to the Darrow Building’s proposed rooftop addition, its addition would be 15 feet in height, and therefore also the equivalent of the full story and a half that the NPS expressly provides as an example of what not to do.
ITS Number 36 – Rooftop Additions, provides another example of a proposed rooftop addition that the National Park Service found incompatible with the SOI Standards. There, rooftop dormers were proposed on a historic school building less than three stories. The proposed dormers were visible from the front and side elevations of the building, and were “very large and out-of-scale with the historic building, featuring an arched profile and contemporary windows that contrasted strongly with the relatively traditional and subdued materials and design Left, the NPS (ITS No. 47) example of an incompatible rooftop addition, on grounds the “rises a full story and a half” above the roof and “detracts from the character of the building.
Above, the proposed rooftop addition to the Darrow Building, which increases the building height by a much greater
proportion than the NPS example, and which clearly
overwhelms and detracts from the building’s horizontal
massing and character from all public right of way
viewpoints.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
of the [building’s existing] Colonial Revival structure . . . For these reasons, the proposal did not meet the [SOI] Standards.”
II. THE CITY’S “TWO TRACK” APPROVAL PROCESS HAS BIFURCATED THE
DPR AND HIP FROM THE LANDMARK DESIGNATION, RESULTING IN AN IMPERMISSIBLE LOOPHOLE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MUST REMEDY.
A. Neither the Planning Commission nor the Cultural Heritage Commission has adequately considered the third story addition’s consistency with the SOI Standards.
As stated previously, the Cultural Heritage Commission has not evaluated the third floor addition’s compliance with the SOI Standards, despite being the City’s expert commission on the topic, and will not be able to do so when it makes a final determination on the Darrow Building’s landmark designation unless this appeal is granted.
The Cultural Heritage Commission first considered the Darrow Building at its April 13, 2022 meeting. At this meeting, the Cultural Heritage Commission considered whether or not sufficient criteria exists to move the Darrow Building forward for consideration as a landmark.
But, the Darrow Building before the Cultural Heritage Commission was the Darrow Building as it stands today, without any proposed alterations. At that meeting, the Commission ultimately moved to “initiate nomination proceedings for inclusion on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties for the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard.” (Transcript of 4/13/22 CHC Meeting, 15:22-16:3.)(See Exhibit F.) In great part, this vote was based on the Cultural Heritage Commission’s determination that the building “may meet qualifications for Left, the rooftop dormers the NPS found to be incompatible on grounds the original building was less than three stories, the dormers were visible from the front and side elevations, and the dormers contrast with the style and design of the original building. Right, the proposed rooftop addition on the Darrow Building, where, similarly, the original building is less than three stories, the addition is visible from the front and side elevations, and the addition contrasts with the style and design of the original building.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
either state or national landmark status” and because the building “certainly maintains its integrity” and qualifies as a landmark in its current state. (Exhibit F, 11:5-18.) The Cultural Heritage Commission did not have any of the proposed plans before it to consider whether the proposed alterations, including the third story addition, were appropriate to a landmarked building or consistent with the SOI Standards, as was made clear when Commissioner Teren stated, “[W]e’re not being asked today to evaluate the additions, et cetera, to the property.” In fact, when City staff offered to deliver comments on the additions from the CHC to the Planning Commission, Commissioner Teren explained they did not have any recommendations because “we haven’t seen anything” regarding the plans “so obviously I can’t [give any recommendations on the proposal].” (Exhibit F, 7:6-8:1.) After City staff and the Commission discussed the bifurcated process at issue, wherein the Cultural Heritage Commission reviews only the landmark designation, and the Planning Commission reviews and issues the DPR and HIP, they noted that it is the Planning Commission, and not the CHC, that “basically reviews the appropriateness of the third-floor addition” and “act[s] on behalf of the Cultural Heritage Commission.” (Exhibit F, 9:2-4, 11-19.)
Yet, while the Cultural Heritage Commission was under the impression that the Planning Commission would review the appropriateness of the third story addition and its consistency with the SOI Standards, the Planning Commission was similarly under the impression that it is the Cultural Heritage Commission that will undertake this task! For example, at the October 26, 2023 Planning Commission meeting—after it had already approved the SPR and HIP—when this appeal came up in the context of a separate project, Vice Chair Kaplan expressed disbelief that the Cultural Heritage Commission would not be considering the third story addition’s consistency with the SOI Standards, saying:
Our [DPR and HIP] approval was in fact conditioned upon a finding by another commission [the CHC] that the building qualifies for the designation and the HIP would have no meaning unless the building actually gets designated as historic.
But I thought I heard someone on the applicant team say that the other commissions in this City will not be ruling on the consistency question as to what the Darrow Building proposes for their rooftop or third floor and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as to historically designated structures. That—I mean, my knee jerk reaction to that is that it can’t possibly be accurate. That any—to take a building and designate it historic, and then separately approve something that is not consistent with that designation just doesn’t make sense.
When Vice Chair Kaplan asked staff to clarify whether it was true that the Cultural Heritage Commission would not be considering the consistency of the third story addition, a City staff member reiterated the bifurcated process, stating:
Consistency with the SOI Standards is something that the Planning Commission considers as part of the HIP. And one of those numerous findings that are related Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
to the HIP is it either is consistent with those SOI Standards or its not, but it nevertheless maintains the integrity and character of that resource. So for [the Darrow Building], there was a historic impact report that was prepared by the Applicant’s consultant, that was peer-reviewed by City staff as well as the City’s consultant, and it was found that the addition to that structure would be consistent with the SOI Standards.
Yet, as explained above, the KCK Impacts Analysis did not properly consider whether the third story addition was consistent with the SOI Standards and did not find, on the basis of substantial evidence, that the rooftop addition would be consistent with the SOI Standards. The Cultural Heritage Commission is also not going to make that determination, despite the “knee jerk reaction” from the Planning Commission Vice Chair that this “can’t possibly be accurate.” In short, no commission at the City has taken a hard look at the third floor addition’s consistency with the SOI Standards. The Planning Commission is seemingly unaware that it made such a finding and was counting on the Cultural Heritage Commission to conduct that analysis in the future. But absent this appeal being granted, the Cultural Heritage Commission will not have a chance to evaluate the proposed project. As a result, a DPR and HIP have been approved that have the perverse result of significantly and adversely impacting the historic character and integrity of the building.
III. GIVEN THE THIRD STORY ADDITION’S INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE
SOI STANDARDS, NO CEQA EXEMPTION CAN APPLY, AND THE CITY
MUST UNDERTAKE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW BEFORE APPROVING
THE DPR AND HIP.
In approving the DPR and HIP on July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission also determined that no environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) was required. The Planning Commission instead determined that its approval of the DPR and HIP was exempt from review under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation Exemption). State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), section 15331, exempts from environmental review the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the SOI Standards. But, as discussed above, this project is not consistent with the SOI Standards. Worse yet, the proposed third story addition significantly adversely impacts the historic character and integrity of the Darrow Building, as discussed in the Snow and Turnbull memoranda. (Exhibits B and C.) Given that the exemption cannot possibly apply, and given that a significant adverse impact would occur as a result of the DPR and HIP, the City is required to undertake environmental review in the form of an environmental impact report prior to approving the proposed project.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
The Planning Commission also determined that approval of the DPR and HIP was exempt under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15301. This section exempts from environmental review the “minor alteration” of existing structures, and limits additions to existing structures to no more than 10,000 sf in urban settings. However, this exemption, and all other categorical exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15301 through 15333, cannot apply to any project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(f).) Consequently, there are no types of categorical exemptions that can be approved for a project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
A building does not need to be designated a historic landmark in order to be considered a “historical resource” for purposes of State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2(f). (See Pub.
Resources Code, § 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5.) A “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a resource occurs when a project materially alters in an adverse manner a resource’s character-defining features and renders an eligible historic resource ineligible. (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Here, “construction of the rooftop addition would render this historical resource ineligible for listing in either the National or California Registers.
Therefore, the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and would result in a significant impact.” (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Again, given that no categorical exemption can possibly apply as a result of the proposed third story addition’s significant impact on a historic resource, the City must complete an environmental impact report before approving the project.
IV. CONCLUSION.
For all the reasons set forth above, we urge the City Council to grant the subject appeal so that the Cultural Heritage Commission may have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed project’s consistency with the SOI Standards. We expect that, through that process, the proposed project would be redesigned to become SOI Standards-compliant, ensuring that the Darrow Building’s architectural integrity would not be forever compromised.
Alternatively, if the applicant is determined to continue with a project that does not conform with the SOI Standards, then it must work with the City to prepare an environmental impact report and the City will have to issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations under CEQA in order to approve the project.
Until either of the above are done, the City cannot legally approve the proposed project and therefore we respectfully urge the City Council to grant the subject appeal.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
November 20, 2023
I hope the above has been helpful in clarifying the important historic issues that are at play here. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or would like to discuss this matter further.
Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
EXHIBIT A
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPTION OF JULY 13, 2023 PC MEETING
· · · · · · · · · · · · AGENDA ITEM NO. 2
· · · · · · · · ·(9884 SANTA MONICA - CUP AND HIP)
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· · ·TRANSCRIBED BY:
· · ·KRISHA ALATORRE
· · ·CSR NO. 13255
·1· · · · · · · · · · ·A P P E A R A N C E S
·2
·3· ·COMMISSIONERS:
·4· ·Terri Kaplan - Vice Chair
· · ·Peter Ostroff - Commissioner
·5· ·Myra Demeter - Commissioner
· · ·Jeff Wolfe - Commissioner
·6
·7· ·STAFF:
· · ·Masa Alkire
·8· ·Cindy Gordon
· · ·Edgar Arroyo
·9· ·David Snow
10 11· ·SPEAKERS:
· · ·Jason Somers
12· ·Hagy Belzberg
· · ·Yaniv Tepper
13· ·Michael Tenner
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·July 13, 2023
·2
·3· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· And we will move to
·4· ·Commissioner questions of Staff and the Applicant. ·5· ·Commissioner Wolfe, do you have anything?
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Sure.· Thank you.· I only ·7· ·just -- I only have a few questions.· First couple are ·8· ·for the Applicant, so might as well step back up to ·9· ·the --
10· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· (Inaudible), okay.
11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· So I understand the
12· ·limitations, with respect to the parking, but I do have a 13· ·question, and that is that -- so my first question:
14· ·Roughly, how many people do you expect to be working out 15· ·of -- out of the office there?
16· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Twelve to 15 people, some of which 17· ·now are working remotely.
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.
19· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· So not all of those are full-time. 20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· And where is your 21· ·expect -- and -- and by the way, I -- I'm -- I'm really 22· ·interested in the response, especially now that I hear 23· ·that your company is very focused on sustainability, 24· ·environmental issues.· So how -- how are those people 25· ·intending to come to the office, if it's clear that
·1· ·they're not going to be provided parking?
·2· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· We encourage everybody at the firm ·3· ·to either use public transportation, ride bikes and ·4· ·rideshare as much as possible.· I think over the next 10, ·5· ·20, 50 years, which will be the time of our ownership of ·6· ·this building, I think all of us are going to be thinking ·7· ·about sustainable transportation and how we get people to ·8· ·work.
·9· · · · · · We've gone through studies where we, you know -- 10· ·most of the people in my -- at our firm drive electric 11· ·vehicles.· And so, we're going to put charging stations 12· ·in there.· Well, probably rotating those.· And so, people 13· ·expect, for the privilege of working in such a terrific 14· ·urban core, to use all the transportation methods and 15· ·sustainable transportation to get there.
16· · · · · · In fact, one of the things that -- that Hagy 17· ·nicely designed, into our lobby, as part of sort of the 18· ·branding of the firm -- so when you come in there, you 19· ·will see bike racks inside our lobby.· So -- 'cause we 20· ·just think it's an important feature to -- to think 21· ·about.
22· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.
23· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· We're also looking at the electric 24· ·efficiency of -- I mean, a lot of sustainability
25· ·elements.· This is just one.
·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· So -- so your ·2· ·expectation and -- at the moment, I -- I appreciate your ·3· ·comments about the next 20, 30, 40 years, but we also ·4· ·have to think about, you know, the next six months to two ·5· ·years as well.· But your expectation, in the short-term, ·6· ·is that the pri -- most of the people who -- the 12 to 15 ·7· ·people that are coming to the office will be using some ·8· ·form of transportation, other than cars, and won't be ·9· ·requiring parking somewhere in the neighborhood.
10· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah, some -- some will and, you 11· ·know, some might use -- use parking that's -- you know, 12· ·that's nearby or --
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· (Unintelligible).
14· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- Century City or -- but -- but 15· ·that's kind of what we've been encouraging people to -- 16· ·to do.
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· The next question I 18· ·had was related to the topic that was brought up or was 19· ·with respect to delivery.· So Mr. Somers, did I just hear 20· ·you say that you would accept a condition that said that 21· ·deliveries, you know, before -- early morning and late 22· ·after -- evening -- and we'll talk about the times in a 23· ·minute -- you'd be okay with exempting those delivery 24· ·times?
25· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· I think -- I think early morning
·1· ·would be the preference.· I think you see delivery trucks ·2· ·still moving around in the, you know, 5:00 to 6:30 hours, ·3· ·so we think that's reasonable to still allow those. ·4· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· And when they do ·5· ·come -- you had mentioned something about coordinating ·6· ·those deliveries, but I was a little bit confused about ·7· ·the comment, because I mean, you're not going to be able ·8· ·to coordinate with the Amazon, UPS's and FedEx's of this ·9· ·world.· They're just going to show up when they show up; 10· ·right?
11· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· Coordination, meaning, with the 12· ·people who are parking in the spaces.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.
14· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· So the issue with the loading zone 15· ·is when the truck is in the loading zone, someone could 16· ·not back out.
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Correct.
18· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· So there will be a notification to 19· ·that person that there's a truck there and -- or coming 20· ·in to the lot so they can be on notice.· And anyone that 21· ·parks there is going to be aware that when deliveries are 22· ·occurring, they won't be able to move out.
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Right.· Which sort of leads 24· ·back to my next question, which goes back to the parking. 25· ·The three spaces that are back there, who -- who do you
·1· ·expect will actually be using those three spaces?
·2· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I'm assuming it will just get ·3· ·rotated, depending on who's in the office that day. ·4· ·Maybe we keep one for visitors.· I just would -- would ·5· ·share and remind the Commission that we are not a retail ·6· ·business.· We don't have visitors.· We're not like a ·7· ·Merrill Lynch, Paine Webber.
·8· · · · · · We're institutional investors, with investors ·9· ·from around the world.· We don't host people on a regular 10· ·basis.· We don't get lots of deliveries.· It's like 11· ·Staples might show up once every three weeks.· So I 12· ·don't -- don't expect that to be an issue.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· So the people using the 14· ·spaces are -- the few spaces that are -- are -- are most 15· ·likely people who are there, working from morning til the 16· ·afternoon and the fact that --
17· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· All day, yeah.
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· -- a delivery truck happens 19· ·to come in, in the middle of the day, for 10 minutes, 20· ·they're not -- they're probably not even going to notice? 21· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· No one's going to care.
22· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· The on -- the only 23· ·thing I'll mention, and -- and you'll have to forgive me, 24· ·because one of my previous terms in the City happened to 25· ·be at Public Works, so I have a little bit more
·1· ·familiarity with the whole solid waste thing than -- than ·2· ·most.
·3· · · · · · All I will mention is just to be aware that ·4· ·because of the fact that your room is going to be a ·5· ·little bit shorter than the eight feet, it's possible ·6· ·that when Athens comes by and pulls the bin out of that ·7· ·trash room, because it is a little bit narrower, there ·8· ·may be more dings on the door frames or the doors than ·9· ·you might expect.
10· · · · · · It's possible, at some point, because of that, 11· ·they may come and request a custom size bin, which may 12· ·increase the cost.· But those are some of the things that 13· ·you may or may not encounter as a result of having a -- a 14· ·bin that is 10 inches shorter than the -- the standard 15· ·for -- for a six-foot bin.
16· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah.· I think we'd be happy to 17· ·deal with that, but I suspect that with our recycling 18· ·practices and -- that bin is going to be -- not going to 19· ·have very much stuff in it.· It'll be fairly easy to move 20· ·and handle.· We'll be happy to accommodate that.
21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Good.· Then I guess the 22· ·only other question I have, which was prompted by
23· ·something that Commissioner Ostroff mentioned -- and I'll 24· ·probably leave the rest of it, 'cause I'm sure he'll 25· ·raise that as well -- and this is maybe for Staff -- it
·1· ·just -- again, from a process standpoint, 'cause I ·2· ·haven't thought about this before:· Is there anything in ·3· ·this development plan review that we're reviewing today ·4· ·that would be different, in terms of the criteria or ·5· ·findings or anything like that, if it were brought to us ·6· ·after the site had already been deemed a historical ·7· ·landmark by the City Council?
·8· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· The findings, both for the DPR and ·9· ·the Historic Incentive Permit would be the same.
10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.
11· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· Yeah, that wouldn't change.
12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· So there's no change in the 13· ·fact that we're evaluate -- and I understand obviously 14· ·the Historical Incentive Permit.· That's based on an 15· ·assumption that, that permit's going to be -- that, that 16· ·designation's going to be granted.
17· · · · · · But there's nothing in the DPR, no extra
18· ·constraints or requirements in the DPR that would take 19· ·place if we were, let's say, reviewing this a year from 20· ·now, after the City Council had made it a landmark? 21· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· No.· The process is the same. 22· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· The process and the 23· ·requirements, findings, everything is (Unintelligible) -- 24· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· Yes.
25· · · · · · COMMISSIONER WOLFE:· Okay.· Okay, then.· Thank
·1· ·you very much.· Those are -- those are my questions. ·2· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you, Commissioner ·3· ·Wolfe.· Commissioner Ostroff.
·4· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Thank you.· I want to ·5· ·start with Mr. Tenner, 'cause I have a couple questions ·6· ·for you, sir, if you would come up.· Don't go too far ·7· ·away, guys.
·8· · · · · · Mr. Tenner, you raised a number of issues.· Some ·9· ·were -- the -- the first one you -- you raised was 10· ·whether this should -- whether this historical
11· ·designation should be granted.· We have nothing to do 12· ·with that.· We're not dealing with that.· But you did 13· ·raise certain operational issues.· And you know, it's 14· ·obviously better practice to get those worked out, 15· ·together, between you, before coming here, but I'm not 16· ·going to -- that's all spilled milk.· Tell me what the 17· ·operational issues are that provoke you to object to 18· ·whatever it is you're objecting to.
19· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· Thank you, Commissioner.· I think I 20· ·addressed it mostly in my comments.
21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· I just want to make a 22· ·note of them, 'cause we're going to -- I'm going to talk 23· ·to them about them, so just give me the list.
24· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· So there's the parking issue -- 25· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.
·1· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· -- that's obvious.· The delivery ·2· ·issue, which I wasn't quite sure if that got addressed. ·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Don't -- don't worry ·4· ·about that.
·5· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· Okay.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· What do you want?
·7· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· I -- I want the same restrictions ·8· ·that the hotel has or tougher, because that property -- ·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· What are they?
10· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· -- literally abuts our property -- 11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Right.
12· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· -- and it's adjacent to some of the 13· ·big villas, and if there's noise, due to delivery, it 14· ·would be very bad for the hotel.
15· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Just what are those 16· ·restrictions that you want, that you say are applicable 17· ·to you, and you want them to be applicable to --
18· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· I apologize, Commissioner -- 19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· -- the Applicant?
20· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· -- off the top of my head, I -- I 21· ·don't -- can't quote chapter and verse on them, but I can 22· ·certainly provide them to the Applicant.
23· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Well, no, this is the 24· ·time, 'cause we're going to -- we can -- if -- if
25· ·everybody agrees, we can make them conditions of whatever
·1· ·it is we do.· And I thought you listed some of them. ·2· ·The --
·3· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· Well, they -- they are requesting ·4· ·for deliveries to occur prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 5:00 ·5· ·p.m.· We would object to that.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.· Anything else? ·7· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· The -- the gate on the parking ·8· ·area, the hotel gates its parking area, and that seems ·9· ·like an easy and obvious request.· And then, the -- to 10· ·sit down with them and incorporate into the restrictions, 11· ·the same type of restrictions that the Rosewood folks 12· ·agreed to, with regard to noise and when they do it. 13· · · · · · I'll give you one example.· We meet -- the 14· ·Rosewood folks send us, on a weekly basis, a update on 15· ·their construction and what we can anticipate, in terms 16· ·of noise and duration and things of that nature.· And 17· ·we're working hand in hand with them to try and mitigate 18· ·any damage to the hotel.
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.· That -- that -- 20· ·that's fine, but that -- I'm not going to get into that. 21· ·These other ones we might get into.· And -- and if you 22· ·guys can work out the construction issues, I'm -- I'm 23· ·sure you can -- if you work in good faith, you'll get 24· ·those working.
25· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· If I might ask Staff, I assume the
·1· ·project would be subject to all the standard restrictions ·2· ·for any project in the city?· Or does the historic ·3· ·designation exempt them from any of those?
·4· · · · · · MS. GORDON:· No.· They would be subject to any ·5· ·sort of operational standards or construction standards ·6· ·that would apply to other projects.· The HIP does not ·7· ·exempt them from that.
·8· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· Thank you.
·9· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Being there are no conditions
10· ·already; correct?
11· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· Correct.· They are.
12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Thank you, Mr. Tenner. I 13· ·don't have any other questions for you.
14· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· Thank you.
15· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Don't go too far away, 16· ·because maybe we'll --
17· · · · · · MR. TENNER:· Right here.
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· -- maybe some other ones 19· ·will -- okay.· Come -- let's go back to the Applicant. 20· ·And I'm not -- I'm not sure that this is a question for 21· ·the Applicant or Staff, but there's been mention of the 22· ·fact that there are certain advantages to having this 23· ·historical designation.· They talked about tax advantages 24· ·and, also, the ability to get certain incentives.
25· ·What -- what -- tell me what those -- maybe -- maybe this
·1· ·is for Staff:· What are the advantages and what are the ·2· ·disadvantages?
·3· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· So the HIP process is in our code ·4· ·to provide an incentive to landmark property, because for ·5· ·the most part, the City is reliant on owners of buildings ·6· ·coming to the city and want to participate in the
·7· ·landmarking process.· So the -- the way that the criteria ·8· ·are set up is there's certain set criteria that you meet, ·9· ·and -- and this building does.
10· · · · · · And then, there's a second subset of criteria. 11· ·And the one that gets most often chosen is the owner 12· ·voluntarily participating in getting a HIP.· And that's 13· ·what's happening in this case.· And as part of that, the 14· ·Historic Incentive Permit allows relief from certain 15· ·zoning standards.· So there's certain standards that 16· ·they're asking for relief of.
17· · · · · · In this case, they're very minor.· It's a -- it 18· ·is a reduction in the size of the trash enclosure and the 19· ·provision of loading on the property.· This building did 20· ·not even have loading, and in some ways, AB 2097 has 21· ·taken away the parking requirement for the site as well. 22· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Uh-huh.
23· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· So they're asking for those two 24· ·tweaks, to our zoning standards, through the Historic 25· ·Incentive Permit.
·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.· And the -- so one ·2· ·advantage of getting this designation would be that they ·3· ·have the opportunity to get certain incentives, which you ·4· ·just described?
·5· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Yes.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Someone else mentioned ·7· ·tax incentives.· Is there any -- been any tax benefit to ·8· ·having this designation?
·9· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· That might come from the actual 10· ·landmarking of the building.· And maybe the Applicant 11· ·could speak to what potential tax implications there 12· ·would be after the building's landmarked.
13· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· And -- and maybe just before the 14· ·Applicant speaks, the -- the City does have a Mills Act 15· ·program, which can result in some property tax savings. 16· ·It is not automatic.· Once a property is designated, 17· ·there's a separate application process.· There are 18· ·criteria that need to be met.· I have no idea whether 19· ·this would qualify under those criteria, but it is not an 20· ·automatic Mills Act participation just because it gets 21· ·designated as historic.· They would be eligible to seek 22· ·that, but it wouldn't be guaranteed.· Other than that, 23· ·defer to the property owner on tax matters.
24· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· And -- and -- and I'll -- I'll have 25· ·my architect comment, but I could tell you, I'm not even
·1· ·exactly aware of what they are, just to kind of give you ·2· ·a sense of the extent to which those particular things ·3· ·mattered to me.
·4· · · · · · And certainly, we're not seeking the HIP as a ·5· ·way to be any lesser of a terrific neighbor.· So happy to ·6· ·have a conversation about noise and et cetera.· It's ·7· ·entirely because of the distinguished history and
·8· ·providence of this building and the architect.
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.· And that's
10· ·sufficient on that.· I -- certainly, if you can add 11· ·something.
12· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· I just wanted to make a comment, 13· ·Commissioner Ostroff.· I -- I also grew up here.· I went 14· ·to Beverly Hills High School and saw all the amazing 15· ·buildings of my childhood disappear, it -- and it breaks 16· ·my heart.
17· · · · · · We are here, because we want to participate in 18· ·the preservation of the rich heritage.· It is not -- I 19· ·know we keep using the word "advantage," it is a
20· ·disadvantage, that's why the county, the state and the 21· ·city creates incentives, because it is a disadvantage to 22· ·try to protect these buildings.· It is very costly.· It 23· ·is very cumbersome.· It is -- it is almost a complete 24· ·overhaul.· And to have one -- one client just par -- just 25· ·agree to participate in this very tedious approach, and
·1· ·expensive, is a win for the City, as well as it is for ·2· ·the community at large.· So it is --
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· And I -- I -- I
·4· ·appreciate that and I -- I think you mentioned it before. ·5· ·I get it.· The -- are there any other disadvantages?· In ·6· ·other words, if you get this designation, what
·7· ·limitations does that result in, in addition to
·8· ·whatever -- you know, just how would that change things? ·9· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· It's extraordinarily expensive. 10· ·The cost is -- to build a brand new building is -- is far 11· ·less expensive than it is to -- to do this -- the project 12· ·that we are doing.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.
14· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Well, we can't -- we can't remove 15· ·the building and build to full height and full size, 16· ·where preserve it, that's an obvious one.
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· If -- if you -- and if -- 18· ·if you didn't have this incentive, you didn't have the 19· ·designation, you would be more free to do that.
20· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· You could make the application. 21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Right.
22· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· It -- whether it's proved or not, 23· ·that's all.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· That (Unintelligible) -- 25· ·okay.· I thought I'd made this clear before, but
·1· ·obviously I didn't.· Here's what bothers me a little bit. ·2· ·And I don't know if it bothers me a lot, but I want to ·3· ·understand it.
·4· · · · · · And I guess -- I guess the -- the -- the real ·5· ·question for Mr. Tepper is:· Let's say, hypothetically, ·6· ·that this Historical Incentive Permit, that is now before ·7· ·us, is not granted.· Will you, nonetheless, proceed to ·8· ·get this designation?
·9· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yes.· You're -- I'm --
10· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· I mean, it's a pretty
11· ·hypothetical --
12· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Maybe I'm misunderstanding the 13· ·question.
14· · · · · · MR. SOMERS:· -- hypothetical question, based on 15· ·the process we're in.· I don't think -- I think it would 16· ·be analyzed at that time.· But as I've said prior, the 17· ·property already has historical designation to meet 18· ·Secretary of Interior Standards and different Beverly 19· ·Hills criteria.· So I -- I don't know what the answer 20· ·would be if it was denied.
21· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· And I'm not asking you. 22· ·I'm asking the owner.
23· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah, can you just clarify for me, 24· ·'cause maybe I misunderstood, Commissioner?· You're 25· ·saying if it is denied would I still proceed with what?
·1· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· With getting the
·2· ·historical designation that is a condition for taking ·3· ·advantage of the Historical Incentive Permit.· You ·4· ·don't -- you don't have the --
·5· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I'm not so sure I understand. ·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· You -- you -- here's what ·7· ·I understand the --
·8· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· I don't -- I just don't -- I ·9· ·don't think we'll -- we don't really understand, because 10· ·if that means, then, he won't be able to do the third 11· ·floor or get the parking, that's a -- I don't understand, 12· ·as an architectural perspective.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· I'll try it again.· Let 14· ·me try it again.· There's -- there's two possibilities 15· ·for -- for us.· We -- we could either -- we could grant a 16· ·Historical Incentive Permit if the property had been 17· ·designated as a Local Historic Landmark in the City of 18· ·Beverly Hills.· That's one condition that we could 19· ·satisfy, before we granted the Historical Incentive 20· ·Permit.· It hasn't been; right?· This has not been 21· ·designated yet.
22· · · · · · So the -- the way you're proceeding now is under 23· ·a rule that says that if -- that our -- whatever we 24· ·grant, and it was part of the amended finding that we 25· ·saw -- if we can -- could we put that back?· The -- I
·1· ·think it was in the -- Mr. Snow suggested that we amend ·2· ·it to include the entirety of what we're being asked to ·3· ·do.· That's it.· Okay.· So --
·4· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· I -- I just want to --
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· -- let me know when the ·6· ·subcommittee meeting is over here and we'll --
·7· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· Well, it's a very -- it's a very ·8· ·difficult question, because I'm going to -- we -- let ·9· ·me -- let me put it a different way.· Because we've 10· ·followed, hopefully to the letter, what the City has 11· ·requested us to follow.· We've done our due diligence, 12· ·years ago, and followed the requirements set forth by the 13· ·City.
14· · · · · · You're now asking me if -- and the question, I 15· ·believe, goes to me -- you're asking me now, well, if we 16· ·didn't have you do it this way, which is an unfair 17· ·question, because when we started this process and met 18· ·with the City and said, "How would you like us to
19· ·proceed?" and we· -- we have -- we -- we -- we feel we 20· ·have a -- a client that wants to participate, we followed 21· ·the directions of that the City provides to development, 22· ·to the letter.
23· · · · · · And now you're asking me, but if I wouldn't have 24· ·done this, and that's a very difficult question to ask 25· ·somebody who's, for two years, been following, to the
·1· ·letter, the City requirements.
·2· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Let me just try to make, ·3· ·as simple as I can, for Mr. Tepper, 'cause he's the only ·4· ·one that's making this decision --
·5· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· No.
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· -- not Mr. Somers. ·7· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· I was in -- I was -- I was in ·8· ·charge -- as the project architect, the client -- and ·9· ·I'll -- and I'll give it over to the client, of course, 10· ·but the client asks the architect to do his due
11· ·diligence, with the City, to find out exactly what is 12· ·necessary.
13· · · · · · That is what we have for two years and you're 14· ·now asking me something different.· I would ask the City 15· ·what we have done wrong, but I don't think your question 16· ·of, would you not do -- if we deny it, would you move 17· ·forward?· We're here so that you wouldn't -- we did the 18· ·work for you to approve it, working with the City. 19· · · · · · So you're asking me now not to and that -- that 20· ·goes against two years of working closely with the City, 21· ·in -- in unison, not -- not on our own, in unison.· And 22· ·that's a very complicated question.· I don't even think 23· ·we can answer that.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Okay.· And I'm not asking 25· ·you the question.· And I -- I think this -- you know,
·1· ·when you say you've worked with the City, the City ·2· ·includes our planning staff.· And then, I'm sure, because ·3· ·this is not your first rodeo, you understand you have to ·4· ·come to the Planning Commission and sometimes the City ·5· ·Council before you get a definitive answer.
·6· · · · · · And it's kind of disturbing to us when people ·7· ·come in and say, "How can you turn us down, because we've ·8· ·done everything that the City has required?"· I -- I ·9· ·really don't want to belabor this with you, sir. I 10· ·just -- all -- this -- what -- what we're -- what we're 11· ·being asked to do is to approve the Historical Incentive 12· ·Permit, with the understanding that it won't become 13· ·effective, "unless and until the City Council designates 14· ·the subject property as a Local Historic Landmark." 15· · · · · · And that's something you have to -- you have to 16· ·apply for and try to get.· And it seems to me that 17· ·there's been a 15-month period when that could've
18· ·happened.· And what bothers me is that if we grant this, 19· ·fine, and you're happy and so on, and if we -- if you 20· ·don't, you'll say, well, I'm -- I'm not -- I'm going to 21· ·abandon my effort to get a Local Historic Landmark.· And 22· ·I -- that's all I'm trying to ask.
23· · · · · · To me, it seems a very simple question.· If this 24· ·is -- this is -- the Incentive Permit is denied, will you 25· ·still proceed to try to get the property designated as a
·1· ·Local Historic Landmark?· That's a yes or no question. ·2· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah, I would expect to do that. ·3· ·As I'm hearing what my -- my architect and my colleagues ·4· ·here are saying, I think there's things I might need to ·5· ·understand that I might -- might not be.
·6· · · · · · But if your question is my intent is to have ·7· ·this building, have the kind of providence that it ·8· ·deserves, and landmarking is the way to do that.· I don't ·9· ·really know the difference between the local piece, state 10· ·piece and national piece, but I'd like this building to 11· ·sit in the historical sort of trophy that -- that it is. 12· · · · · · And I -- so therefore, it feels like I would 13· ·proceed with that, even if that didn't happen under HIP. 14· ·But honestly, I couldn't tell you, definitively today, 15· ·'cause these things are complicated, 'cause it affects 16· ·various things.· So I hope that's -- that's as responsive 17· ·as I could be and direct.
18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Well, that -- that's -- 19· ·if that's as good as you can do, that's as good as you 20· ·can do.· Why have you not proceeded, in the 15 months, to 21· ·get this Local Historic Landmark designation?
22· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· And I guess I could have them 23· ·answer.· My understanding is 'cause it's such a shoo-in 24· ·for it, because it's such an important building, we 25· ·needed to spend our time to develop the actual design for
·1· ·our -- our purpose.
·2· · · · · · So we spent our time with, you know,
·3· ·sustainability, electrical.· We had a historical
·4· ·preservationist on site.· I even hired John Lautner's ·5· ·only living partner as a senior advisor to the team, ·6· ·Helena.
·7· · · · · · So I -- I think the reason is 'cause it's a ·8· ·shoo-in and so you gotta -- this is the stuff that costs ·9· ·money and takes time, which is developing the plans that 10· ·you see in front of you.· So that -- that's my layman 11· ·sense of why that is.· I never even thought -- thought 12· ·about that until you asked it.· Am I missing something 13· ·there, fellas?
14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· I don't have any other 15· ·questions.
16· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Okay.
17· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Thank -- thank you very 18· ·much.
19· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Thank you, Commissioner.
20· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Does Staff have anything to 21· ·say?
22· · · · · · MS. GORDON:· I think I can just maybe clarify 23· ·some of the concerns about the 15-month period and why 24· ·it's, you know, in some perspective taken so long. I 25· ·think the initial landmark proceedings started in April
·1· ·of last year.· The Applicant, then, submitted for this ·2· ·application not even two months later, in June.
·3· · · · · · It took almost a year for us to have a complete ·4· ·application, which is a longer period, but not uncommon, ·5· ·as many projects go through multiple rounds of review, ·6· ·especially additions to existing buildings.· I think as ·7· ·Mr. Belzberg said, often, additions to buildings are far ·8· ·more complicated than, you know, straightforward new ·9· ·builds.
10· · · · · · So a lot of that period, from the initial 11· ·landmark proceedings, to now, was the internal staff 12· ·review that we had the Applicant.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· No, I get that and I -- I 14· ·don't -- I'm not faulting anything, in terms of the 15· ·review of the Historical Permit application.· I'm looking 16· ·at these as two different tracks, two separate tracks, 17· ·and I'm asking why they didn't proceed with the
18· ·Historical Landmark designation track at the same time. 19· ·But I -- I've -- I've exhausted the subject and -- except 20· ·that Mr. Snow, who always helps me out, can -- has 21· ·something to say.
22· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Yeah, Commissioner Ostroff, I just -- 23· ·when the Historic Incentive Permit process came forward, 24· ·there was a significant amount of discussion about what 25· ·the thresholds would be in order to allow an Applicant
·1· ·access to that.· So the fact that there are two tracks is ·2· ·because the -- there was interest in providing this ·3· ·program, as an incentive, to encourage property owners to ·4· ·go ahead and designate.
·5· · · · · · But it was structured so that -- and I'm not ·6· ·saying this is the approach this team is taking -- but ·7· ·that a team, a property owner, could say, all right, I ·8· ·have this resource.· If I go historic preservation, I can ·9· ·get these accommodations.· That makes sense for me.· But 10· ·I'm only going to designate if I get these incentives. 11· ·If I don't, it doesn't make sense for me to designate it 12· ·and take on the restrictions, the procedural hurdles that 13· ·would come -- come -- follow on after designation is 14· ·done.
15· · · · · · So again, I'm not saying that's what this team 16· ·did, but the -- the -- the program is structured to allow 17· ·someone in that condition -- in that circumstance to go 18· ·far enough to determine that they would be eligible for 19· ·designation.· There's interest in that, which has been 20· ·accomplished here.
21· · · · · · And then, go through the Historic Incentive 22· ·Permit process.· Understand what incentives they might 23· ·get or not, factor that information in for when they go 24· ·forward with the ultimate decision for designation, and 25· ·whether they want to agree to that or not, 'cause these
·1· ·generally are property-owner initiated designation. ·2· · · · · · So it fits in that incentive bucket and it's ·3· ·structured to allow the process that -- that this
·4· ·Applicant team -- or the path this Applicant team is on, ·5· ·regardless of what their motivations may have been in ·6· ·that.· So just thought I would share that -- that
·7· ·background.
·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Well, and I appreciate ·9· ·it.· And I -- and I find that very persuasive and
10· ·helpful, as usual, from Mr. Snow, so thank you.
11· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· Thank you.
12· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you.· Commissioner 13· ·Demeter.
14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Thank you.· Thank you for 15· ·coming and answering our questions.· I have a couple some 16· ·of my colleagues have already gone through.· My first 17· ·question was not answered, though.· Who was the previous 18· ·tenant and what was the purpose of the building in its 19· ·previous incarnation?
20· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· The previous tenant was a -- a 21· ·doctor, named Dr. Iashi, and it had been operating as a 22· ·plastic surgery center downstairs, and medical office 23· ·upstairs for -- for many years.· I want to say maybe 24· ·since the '70s, potentially.
25· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· And you intend to
·1· ·use it as your corporate headquarters?
·2· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· That's right.· That's right, ·3· ·just --
·4· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· For --
·5· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- office investment --
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- Angelino Group? ·7· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· That's right.· A hundred percent ·8· ·occupied by us.
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· And as I
10· ·understand, you're targeting between 12 and 15 people to 11· ·be there?
12· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Correct.· Exactly.
13· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· Now, I am very 14· ·aware of Bill 2097, which talks about the location within 15· ·a half a mile of a major transit hub.· What -- I believe 16· ·you're thinking of Century City as the major hub for 17· ·your -- your workers to exit and then walk to your 18· ·property; is that correct?
19· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yes, in part, and -- and others. 20· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· And what is the time 21· ·frame of the opening of the Century City Metro?
22· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I'm -- I'm not a hundred percent 23· ·sure.· Maybe two, three years, I imagine.
24· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· (Inaudible).
25· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I don't know.· I mean, it's under
·1· ·construction today.· When I look outside my office today, ·2· ·it's been under construction for some time.
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I understand --
·4· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· They're well under way.
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- but I think, you know, ·6· ·realistically, we have to plan -- it's going to be many ·7· ·years til it opens up and you still -- again, I'm aware ·8· ·of AB 2097.· You do not have to provide parking in your ·9· ·building.· You are providing an ADA spot and two parking, 10· ·which for all the years til the Metro comes, where are 11· ·the other 13 people going to park?· There's no street 12· ·parking.· Parking you said at Century City is costly. 13· ·Are you going to cover the cost of parking at Century 14· ·City?
15· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· I --
16· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· There's nothing in the 17· ·streets of southwest --
18· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· No, no one's --
19· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- Beverly Hills.
20· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· No, no one's going to -- no, no 21· ·one's going to use street parking.· I pay for that 22· ·parking today and we all see how we do with kind of more 23· ·sustainable forms of transportation, and whatever is 24· ·left over, we'll pay for parking where -- you know, 25· ·where -- whether it's in Century City, some of the other
·1· ·lots that are -- that are there.
·2· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I think that needs to be ·3· ·clarified in, perhaps, in the condition that the
·4· ·Applicant is -- doesn't have to -- will be providing ·5· ·financial payment for employees to park and that you will ·6· ·not -- or -- and if I can't do that, then I can put in a ·7· ·condition that you will agree that no one will park on ·8· ·the local surface streets and that you will monitor it in ·9· ·some way.· Because one of our biggest issues is
10· ·non-resident --
11· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Visitors.
12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- parking on the surface 13· ·street in that area.· It's a big, big problem, so I would 14· ·like to be assured that until that Metro station opens in 15· ·whatever number of years that you are going to guarantee 16· ·that your employees will not park.· We do not allow the 17· ·scooters, so they couldn't take that type of
18· ·transportation here.
19· · · · · · And I do appreciate that you're putting in 20· ·bicycle racks in the front corridor, but I do have a 21· ·concern about surface parking and residents' rights, and 22· ·I think that, that's an important guarantee that -- that 23· ·we need to be aware of and make you guarantee that for 24· ·us.· So what am I allowed --
25· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Commissioner Demeter, just as far
·1· ·as when that station opens, it's the end of 2025.· And ·2· ·there actually is a additional major transit stop.· It's ·3· ·the intersection of the Wilshire and Santa Monica lines ·4· ·that's just a few hundred feet.
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Bus?
·6· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· Yeah.· And so that's that -- that ·7· ·rapid bus system and then the -- also, the Santa
·8· ·Monica --
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.
10· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· -- corridor system.
11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· You know what?· I'm from 12· ·New York and I am very, very familiar with rapid
13· ·transportation with buses and subways, and I'm here 27 14· ·years and I can count on my hand how many people I'm 15· ·familiar with who work in this area who would be part of 16· ·your corporate office who would probably take a bus. I 17· ·think that it is more likely that people will rely upon 18· ·their cars.· And until that Metro station, two plus years 19· ·away is active.· I think that we need some sort of 20· ·guarantee.
21· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Construction's two years.· Look 22· ·at --
23· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· I just wanted to add that we -- 24· ·we can't occupy the building for another two years, 25· ·because we still have to go under construction.· So the
·1· ·timing of the Metro is lining up with the timing of ·2· ·completion of construction, which is 24 months from when ·3· ·we start.
·4· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· And -- and I ·5· ·appreciate that, but I also do know residents are very ·6· ·concerned about the impact of parking.· We have some ·7· ·permits.· We have some areas that are time zoned and it ·8· ·is, perhaps, one of the number one problems in our ·9· ·southwest area.· So I wanted to bring that to your 10· ·attention.· And if you wish to address it or if anybody 11· ·here wishes to address it in the condition, I'm happy, 12· ·but I do want to bring that up.
13· · · · · · The other thing I wanted to think about was what 14· ·activities do you foresee on your deck?· The -- you're 15· ·building a deck with a -- whatever.· And what do you plan 16· ·to do up there?
17· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Right -- right now, the usage of 18· ·that deck is a -- is a conference room, mostly, a waiting 19· ·room and so it's where meetings would take place,
20· ·internal meetings, mostly.· Maybe board meetings, when 21· ·portfolio companies of ours, we host board meetings. 22· ·Frankly, more and more of that stuff is happening
23· ·remotely.
24· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· And where are they 25· ·parking?
·1· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· But -- but yeah, more and more of ·2· ·that stuff is happening remotely, yeah.
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· Is -- is that ·4· ·active right now?· Use -- nothing is useable.· You've -- ·5· ·you've cleaned out the entire building --
·6· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· That's -- that's right.
·7· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- so there -- so you're ·8· ·talking about future use --
·9· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· That's right.
10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- for that --
11· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· That's the third floor, what -- 12· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- third floor --
13· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- you asked about.
14· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- area?
15· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Right, right.· And just to comment, 16· ·Commissioner Demeter, on your -- on your pre -- I -- I -- 17· ·I -- I hear your comments and appreciate them about 18· ·employees not parking in street.· I think it's --
19· ·obviously, there's businesses there and they -- they get 20· ·used for that as well.
21· · · · · · When people visit us, we plan to have parking 22· ·available in the back, at least one spot.· And -- and 23· ·we'll go as dense as we need -- need to, if people are 24· ·visiting us and they -- they need to -- need to be there. 25· · · · · · And we, today, pay for our employees' parking
·1· ·and try to incentivize people to drive cleaner vehicles, ·2· ·electric vehicles, charge them, take public
·3· ·transportation.· I understand your comment on this. ·4· ·We're not quite New York, but we're tuned with what ·5· ·you're -- what -- what you're saying --
·6· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· I -- I love --
·7· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· -- completely.
·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· -- rapid transportation ·9· ·and all of that.· And I grew up on it, from the age of 10· ·10, doing it alone.· They were different times, but I 11· ·don't see that happening here.· And also, knowing the 12· ·population, I know that people are not that free with 13· ·letting their children get on public transportation to go 14· ·places.
15· · · · · · But you also mentioned rotating -- rotating EV. 16· ·I didn't understand what you were referring to.· Perhaps 17· ·it was your architect.· You talked about rotating EV 18· ·chargers.· You only have --
19· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· No.· I think -- I think it was me. 20· ·I was just saying that -- that we -- we would love to 21· ·enable charging stations, so to the extent that the 22· ·employees of ours are using electric vehicles that we'd 23· ·be able to charge them there, obviously, and we'd rotate 24· ·them as needed.· If they're parking somewhere else or 25· ·maybe on certain days certain employees come.
·1· · · · · · I mean, work habits are changing pretty
·2· ·dramatically, in terms of usage and intensity and
·3· ·transportation, so I'm sure you're all aware of that. ·4· ·That's something we're trying to manage in our firm, ·5· ·especially giving our sustainability, you know, branding ·6· ·and efforts.
·7· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· Thank you.
·8· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah.
·9· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· And -- and I just have a 10· ·question, and maybe it's for Staff, because I do
11· ·understand that there are two pathways -- and it's in our 12· ·packet on 210 -- two pathways for a Local Historic 13· ·Landmark and that they -- that we are looking at B, which 14· ·is that the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined, 15· ·at a preliminary hearing, that they -- that merits more 16· ·formal consideration.· And that this permit, if granted, 17· ·the HIP by us, would only -- would be conditioned on the 18· ·property's designation as a landmark.
19· · · · · · So even if we do approve it, it is still
20· ·conditional.· And I believe, Attorney Snow, you put in 21· ·development plan and HIP conditional, so we are going 22· ·with the second process.
23· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· And -- and that's correct.· It -- 24· ·it is Subsection B of that code.· The specific code 25· ·provision even has a requirement that conditions it
·1· ·already, but we have incorporated that condition,
·2· ·formally, into the draft resolution as well.
·3· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· Let me just take a ·4· ·quick look.· I -- I do appreciate Mr. Tepper's concerns ·5· ·and I -- I think I agree with most of my -- the previous ·6· ·comments where it would be wonderful if there could be ·7· ·communication and things worked out before any shovel ·8· ·hits the ground.· I would like to see that communication ·9· ·between the Peninsula.
10· · · · · · I know you said you met with the general
11· ·manager, but obviously there are issues.· And it's so 12· ·much better than if we act as the judges and make
13· ·determinations.· So if the two parties could meet and 14· ·work out those things.· They have some very, very valid 15· ·concerns.· I -- I would hope that you would agree and 16· ·initiate that.
17· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Absolutely do.· Thank you for that. 18· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Okay.· I think that's the 19· ·extent of my questions.· Thank you.
20· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you, Commissioner 21· ·Demeter.· My turn.· I have one question for Staff, but I 22· ·have a couple for you folks, so please stay where you 23· ·are.· My question goes to parking and current state law. 24· ·I understand that on new projects we cannot require 25· ·parking, if the project is within a half mile of a major
·1· ·transit stop.· But what are our rights, as to an existing ·2· ·building, existing property, that is proposed to be ·3· ·renovated, which currently it has, I don't know, six ·4· ·parking spaces --
·5· · · · · · COMMISSIONER DEMETER:· Seven.
·6· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN: --· seven parking spaces, and ·7· ·as part of the proposal, will be reducing that number? ·8· ·What -- it's not a new project.
·9· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· It's the same applicability. 10· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· I'm sorry?
11· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· It's a development project and -- 12· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· So we cannot take any action 13· ·to preserve the current parking --
14· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· No.
15· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· -- the current number of 16· ·spaces?· Okay.· Thank you for that clarification.· My 17· ·next few questions are for the Applicant.· First, thank 18· ·you for chiming in about the construction timeline.· That 19· ·was one of my questions was:· How does the construction 20· ·timeline for your project overlay the Metro timeline?· My 21· ·understanding, the building is currently vacant; is that 22· ·correct?· How long has it been vacant, approximately? 23· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Approximately two years, I would 24· ·estimate.
25· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.
·1· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· A year and a half.
·2· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· And if you could, briefly, ·3· ·and with as much specificity as you can, describe for us ·4· ·how will the future operation, when you become the ·5· ·tenant, differ from what the previous operation was? ·6· ·I -- I don't mean it in terms of the -- the type of ·7· ·tenants that -- I mean in terms of the coming and going ·8· ·and the parking and the trash removal and the deliveries. ·9· · · · · · Because presumably, since the Peninsula Hotel 10· ·came into existence, the building was occupied for a 11· ·portion of that time, and the hotel would've experienced 12· ·and as with the other neighbors, the coming and going, 13· ·the parking, the deliveries, trash removal, all of that. 14· ·So how would you say your use would be different or the 15· ·same?
16· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yeah, they -- they might be able to 17· ·say more -- more eloquently or exactly, but it was a -- 18· ·it was a surgery center with multiple, fairly short 19· ·operations per day.· These were plastic surgeries, so it 20· ·included linens, you know, needles, you know, hazardous 21· ·waste, a lot of visitors coming and going.· They ran a 22· ·clinic upstairs.
23· · · · · · So certainly you're -- I mean, you're going from 24· ·a high turnover and, you know, very high material use. 25· ·Things that have to be dropped off and picked up with
·1· ·professionals, regularly.· And this is going to be a low ·2· ·intensity office use.· We're an investment firm.· We ·3· ·mostly -- you know, we work remotely.· If we work on ·4· ·computers, we don't manufacture anything.· We don't in -- ·5· ·we don't have visitors, we don't have retail clients. ·6· · · · · · So from that standpoint, which also touches on ·7· ·parking and frequency.· It also touches on the loading ·8· ·questions.· I mean, much, much lower usage.· And it's ·9· ·built into the design of the building.· It's not just us 10· ·as occupants there, with our fairly, you know, small 11· ·staff.· It -- it's -- it's going to be an office
12· ·building.· Won't be able to have the kind of usage. 13· · · · · · MR. BELZBERG:· In terms of occupancy, medical 14· ·has different than office, but the way we're -- we're -- 15· ·we're looking at it as, in terms of code, there's a 16· ·one-on-one.· You have to be present for surgical, not 17· ·only the doctor and patient, but their support staff and 18· ·as -- and as Yaniv had mentioned, the support of the -- 19· ·of the surgical, so there is quite a bit of coming and 20· ·going.
21· · · · · · The way we designed this building is the way 22· ·these offices, specifically customized to their practice, 23· ·which is more remote work.· So whereas -- which leads to 24· ·parking and everything.· There is a very, very strong 25· ·movement to remote work.· It's an environmental move.
·1· ·It's also post COVID, but that's what we're designing ·2· ·towards, a very, very strong remote work incentive. ·3· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you.· I do have one ·4· ·other question.· This is for either Staff or you,
·5· ·Mr. Belzberg, if you know.· I have several friends who ·6· ·own historically designated properties and it is a burden ·7· ·on the property.· But my understanding is that what you ·8· ·propose, with respect to your addition to the building, ·9· ·has to, at some point, be assessed for its compatibility 10· ·with a historic status of the building.· Am I correct in 11· ·that?
12· · · · · · MR. TEPPER:· Yes.· Yes, you are.
13· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.· At what point in 14· ·the -- in our process does that occur?· 'Cause the 15· ·building is not currently designated.· It's just ruled 16· ·upon as eligible.
17· · · · · · MR. ARROYO:· Correct.· So the -- the next step 18· ·in the process would be the Cultural Heritage Commission 19· ·would actually hold a hearing to formally consider 20· ·designation -- a recommendation to designate the property 21· ·to the Planning Commission, but the same time -- sorry, 22· ·City Council, but at the same time, would also review the 23· ·proposed improvements that are proposed with this project 24· ·as the -- it was included in the packet, there is a 25· ·Historic Impact Analysis.
·1· · · · · · It does assess the project and the addition, in ·2· ·compliance with the City's -- not the City, sorry, with ·3· ·the Federal Secretary of Interior Standards, and some of ·4· ·the assessment there was that the project does
·5· ·substantially meet those standards for consideration. ·6· ·Those are items that would be weighed by the Cultural ·7· ·Heritage Commission, at a future meeting, where they ·8· ·would discuss this project.
·9· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Thank you.
10· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· So the reports are attached to -- 11· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Right.
12· · · · · · MR. ALKIRE:· -- the -- the packet and the 13· ·finding is made in the resolution.
14· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.· Thank you.· My next 15· ·question is a little bit of a hypothetical, and I always 16· ·used to tell people I can't respond to hypothetical 17· ·questions.· In an instance where, for some reason, a 18· ·local jurisdiction, such as ours, declines to designate 19· ·something as a Local Historic Landmark, would the state 20· ·and/or the federal level processes still be open to 21· ·anyone, whether it's a land -- the property owner or some 22· ·interested citizen, to try and apply for something, other 23· ·than a local designation?
24· · · · · · MS. GORDON:· Yes.· We -- we -- the -- every -- 25· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· I thought so.
·1· · · · · · MS. GORDON:· -- sort of level has I think ·2· ·different criteria for what is considered a landmark or ·3· ·not.· From what I understand, our criteria is very high. ·4· ·It's a high threshold to meet.· So if someone did not ·5· ·meet local criteria, they could still be considered ·6· ·historic, under state or federal guidelines.
·7· · · · · · VICE CHAIR KAPLAN:· Okay.· Thank you.· That ·8· ·concludes my questions.· Before I close the public ·9· ·hearing, I want to check with the rest of the Commission 10· ·whether anybody has follow-up questions.
11· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· I just have a question 12· ·for Staff.· Are -- are -- Commissioner Demeter, who is 13· ·very sensitive to the parking in that area, raised the 14· ·possibility that we impose certain strictures like 15· ·they -- they -- you know, the employees can't park within 16· ·17 miles of the building or various things like that. 17· ·Can we do that?· Is that something that -- that we can 18· ·properly do, consistent with the state law that says that 19· ·we can't condition approvals on parking?
20· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· So I guess I'll take a crack at that. 21· ·I think that -- that the Commission would not be able to 22· ·require alternate parking configurations, like paying for 23· ·parking, those types of things.· I think that would be 24· ·construed as -- as just another way of requiring parking. 25· · · · · · If the Applicant was willing to accept a
·1· ·condition to monitor and try and help ensure that folks ·2· ·aren't parking illegally on streets and in violation of, ·3· ·you know, parking districts, those types of things, I ·4· ·think if the -- if the Applicant was willing to accept ·5· ·some sort of operational condition like that, I think ·6· ·the -- the Commission could -- could explore that, but I ·7· ·would -- I would look to the Applicant team as well. ·8· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· What -- what about -- ·9· · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER:· What about legally? 10· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· What about incentivizing 11· ·employees to take public transportation or not drive to 12· ·work?· Could -- could -- could they do that?· Could 13· ·one -- could we condition approval on something like 14· ·that, that they would incentivize their employees to -- 15· · · · · · MR. SNOW:· I'm a little hesitant.· I think maybe 16· ·it depends on what incentives we're talking about because 17· ·of, it's just -- it depends.· So again, I would think -- 18· ·if that's something that the -- sounds like it's
19· ·something the Applicant is already somewhat doing, and if 20· ·they agreed to that condition, then I would be
21· ·comfortable with adding that.
22· · · · · · COMMISSIONER OSTROFF:· Then let's turn that -- 23· ·what -- what -- what would you think would be the
24· ·responsible thing to do so that -- given that you're 25· ·eliminating some of the few parking spaces that you have