7 evaluation and impact analysis by an independent expert, which the City staff and City consultants separately reviewed, testimony before the Planning Commission, and other evidence in the administrative record. Appellant presents nothing but its disagreement with this evidence.
That is far from enough. None of the arguments in the appeal justify setting aside the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval.
1. Project Materials Accurately Convey the Penthouse’s Relationship to Appellant’s Property
Appellant argues that the application materials do not accurately convey the alleged “full realistic impact” of the Project on the Peninsula Hotel, including alleged view impacts to guestrooms, and short term construction-related noise and vibration impacts. (Appeal, ¶ 1.) This is incorrect.
The Third Floor Addition Would Not Block Any “Views”
It is unclear what “views” from guestrooms on its property Appellant claims the penthouse would interfere with. Included as exhibit 3 to the appeal is a photo that appears to be taken from a guestroom in the two-story bungalow building on Appellant’s property that is to the south of the Building. This “view” is of existing two- and three-story buildings on Appellant’s property, the second-story rooftop of the Building, and of the Beverly Hilton and Waldorf Astoria to the north. The Building’s new proposed penthouse would not obstruct any views, let alone any meaningful views since the windows are already obstructed by landscaping and the under construction four-story Rosewood Residences will further obstruct any longer distance views from these windows.
On Appellant’s property, there is also a three-story building to the east, and four-story building to the south. Appellant’s three-story building to the east abuts the Building and an existing solid building wall divides the two buildings. Appellant’s three-story building has no windows on the wall facing the Building. In fact, Appellant proposes enclosing the outdoor terrace on Santa Monica Boulevard, which will further shield the Peninsula from the terrace and penthouse.
The penthouse’s design includes solid walls with no windows on the eastern façade facing Appellant’s four-story building. The southern façade is a combination of solid wall and, closer to Charleville Boulevard, glass. Applicant has also proposed additional landscaping on the south elevation of the Building to block views of the Peninsula’s guest rooms. A rendering of this landscaping is included above. Appellant’s four-story building to the south includes a rooftop pool and deck, the floor level of which is 21 feet higher than the proposed floor level of the penthouse and outdoor terrace, so the outdoor terrace would not interfere with views from the rooftop pool and deck. This combination of solid walls and landscaping would fully obscure views of Appellant’s building, as shown in the rendering above, so it would not be possible to view hotel guests from the new penthouse.
More generally, the Planning Commission considered materials that accurately convey how the Building’s new penthouse and outdoor terrace will relate to surrounding properties, November 21, 2023
8 including through providing renderings of the penthouse from the sidewalk, and how that compares to the existing development surrounding the Project site, which includes Appellant’s four-story building. The Applicant prepared Project renderings that the Planning Commission considered, some of which Appellant attaches to the appeal as exhibit 2. These were created using photos taken from the sidewalk. These do not use any “cropping” or strategic views, as Appellant claims.
In contrast, the “massing studies” included as exhibit 1 to the Appeal, prepared by Appellant’s architect, inaccurately portray the Building and penthouse addition. Applicant’s architect reviewed these massing studies, concluding that by using solid all white for the Project’s walls rather than glass and plantings as shown in Applicant’s renderings, but also using glass and more refined details for Appellant’s own buildings, these studies are deceptive and make the penthouse addition appear larger. Further, they are modeled incorrectly. The property line should be farther to the west along the abutting buildings. BA Collective’s mark up of Appellant’s massing study is attached as Exhibit 3.
Lastly, the closest hotel window facing the penthouse is approximately 51’-4” feet away.
Given this distance, and the buildings’ respective orientations, there will be no obstruction of light or air to the west-facing hotel rooms. A diagram showing this distance is included as Exhibit 4.
Project Construction Noise Would Adhere to All City Standards and Policies Appellant argues that the Project materials do not analyze short-term construction-related noise and vibration impacts and these would be detrimental to Appellant’s operations during construction. (Appeal, ¶ 1.)
As previously communicated to Appellant, the construction activities for the Project will adhere to all City noise standards set forth in the BHMC sections 5-1-101 through 5-1-210, and the City’s General Plan Noise Element related to construction, including limiting hours of construction, and to the construction-related conditions set forth in the Planning Commission Resolutions for the Project, which require a construction traffic management plan. (See PC Reso.
No. 2029, 8.a – 8.c.) Applicant has also communicated to Appellant that it is happy to coordinate construction activities with Appellant to minimize disturbance to hotel guests.
Moreover, and as described in the Planning Commission’s Resolution, there is already an active construction site directly to the east of the Building where the Rosewood Residences, a four-story, 27-unit luxury condominium building with a subterranean parking garage, has been under construction for roughly 15 months and according to the City’s Final Environmental Impact Report for the project a total of 21 months of construction are anticipated. A recent photo of this active construction site from the Building’s rooftop, to show its proximity, is below. The penthouse’s construction, by comparison, is estimated to take only four to six months.
November 21, 2023
9 And, while the Project is exempt from CEQA and was not required to conduct a formal noise and vibration analysis, we note that the City’s Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rosewood Residences studied roughly the same neighborhood as the Project is located in, since the Rosewood Residences are directly across the street from the Building on the opposite corner November 21, 2023
10 of South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. This noise analysis included The Peninsula Hotel as a noise sensitive receptor.2It found that current ambient noise levels near the Rosewood Residences project site ranged from 63 to 70 dBA.3,4 The existing ambient noise levels near the Building are therefore expected to be roughly the same as those described in the Rosewood Residences Final Environmental Impact Report. And, because the noise impact from construction of the Rosewood Residences was less than significant,5and that project involves excavation for a subterranean parking lot and other activities far more intensive than the Project’s rehabilitation of the interior of an existing building and construction of a 1,404 square foot rooftop addition, it can be expected that the Project’s noise impacts would be less than significant.
2. The Project Will Not Result in Adverse Traffic Impacts and Removal of Existing Parking Spaces is Permitted Under AB 2097
The Project Will Not Result in Significant Adverse Traffic Impacts Appellant next argues that the Project’s increase in “size and intensity” of the Building, and reduction of on-site parking from seven to three spaces, would result in new adverse traffic and pedestrian safety impacts, so the required Development Plan Review findings under BHMC section 10-3-3104(D)6cannot be made. (Appeal, ¶ 2.) This is incorrect.
The Project will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards during construction. The property includes an existing surface parking lot that would be used for construction-related parking and staging, the Applicant would be required to submit a construction management plan during building plan check, and, due to the small size of the project, the Project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled and Local Transportation Assessment thresholds. (PC Reso. No. 2029, No. 6.4) The Project would also not result in such impacts once construction is complete and the Building is in use by The Angeleno Group. Applicant anticipates that the Building would be used by the Angeleno Group’s current 9 employees. Appellant speculates that reducing the parking spaces in the existing surface parking lot from seven to three would cause there to be inadequate parking for visitors, building maintenance, and any attendees for rooftop events. First, this is an office building. While there may be activities on the penthouse terrace, they will be limited in scope because the maximum occupancy of this space would be only 18 people, and parking 2 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-2. 3 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-4. 4 Common outdoor activities with typical noise levels at 70 dBA include a noisy urban area in the daytime, a gas lawn mower at 100 feet, a commercial area, and heavy traffic at 300 feet. Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills Draft Environmental Impact Report, September 2021, p. 4.8-2.
5 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-12. 6 “The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.” (BHMC § 10-3-3104(D).) November 21, 2023
11 would be provided consistent with City rules. Second, a survey of available parking in nearby off-street parking lots indicates more than enough parking is available for the limited employees, who number far less than the building’s prior occupants, which included retail and service commercial uses on the ground floor, and medical uses on the second floor. In contrast to the former retail clients, The Angeleno Group’s clients are mostly national/international institutional clients who are not local and would not be regularly visiting the Building, The Angeleno Group would also provide incentives for ride-sharing, biking, public transportation and EV charging to encourage lowest carbon impact for its 9 employees, and identify nearby off-street parking opportunities.
Appellant also argues that parking demand will further increase when the three parking spaces in the redesigned surface parking lot are blocked for loading. As set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution’s Project-Specific Condition No. 7, the loading area would be operated by building management in order to minimize congestion and traffic conflicts. Therefore, the Planning Commission’s Development Plan Review findings support the conclusion that the Project would not create “significant adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.” Removal of Four Existing Parking Spaces is Permitted Under AB 2097 Appellant argues that the City erred in approving the reduction of existing parking spaces in the Building’s surface parking lot from seven to three, because Assembly Bill (“AB”) 2097 (Gov. Code, § 65863.2) does not permit reduction of existing parking spaces for the existing building, but instead only prohibits the City from imposing parking requirements for the new penthouse addition to the Building. (Appeal, ¶ 2.) Appellant apparently believes AB 2097 only applies to “new development” rather than rehabilitation and renovation of existing buildings.
Appellant is incorrect.
AB 2097 prohibits public agencies from imposing or enforcing “any minimum parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within a half mile of a major transit stop.” (Gov. Code, § 65863.2(a).) This broad language in the statute means that AB 2097 applies to new ground-up development as well as changes to the use of existing buildings such as the Project. This is consistent with the purpose of the statute, which was to counteract the effect of local mandatory parking minimums which cause an oversupply of parking spaces and higher housing costs, encourage car ownership, impede public transit use, and increase traffic and greenhouse gas emissions.
7 Without citing to any authority for its
contrary interpretation, Appellant argues that if AB 2097 applied to existing buildings, “a building owner could simply paint a building, upgrade the plumbing, and in the process argue that all the parking in the building could be eliminated” or “any restaurant, grocery store, or office building in the City performing a minor renovation [could] . . . get rid of all of its parking.” (Appeal, ¶ 2.) This is a ridiculous argument – in order for AB 2097 to apply, there must be a “project” before a public agency for discretionary entitlements. Moreover, AB 2097 includes a clause that allows public agencies to impose or enforce minimum parking 7 AB 2097, Legislative Counsel’s Digest,
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097.
November 21, 2023
12 requirements on projects that otherwise qualify under the statute if the agency makes written findings that the development “would have a substantially negative impact” on ability to meet certain regional housing needs, or on exiting residential or commercial parking within one-half mile of the housing development project. (Gov. Code § 65863.2.) As discussed in the staff report, because the Project is a commercial project within a half mile of the future Metro Purple (D Line) Station at Avenue of the Stars and Constellation Boulevard, and two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during peak commute periods (Local Bus Line 20, Rapid Bus Line 720, Local Bus Line 4), AB 2097 applies to the Project and the City cannot impose any minimum parking space requirements.8
Appellant argues that the Project is not a “project” under AB 2097 because it is exempt from Development Plan Review under BHMC section 10-3-3101, which exempts from Development Plan Review “[f]acade remodeling of existing buildings or structures not increasing the square footage by two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more, or the height of the building or structure.” (emphasis added.) This argument makes no sense. The Project includes the addition of a third story penthouse that would increase the building’s height.
It is therefore not exempt from Development Plan Review. Appellant’s attempt to break the Project into two separate projects – the renovation and rehabilitation of the existing building, and the construction of the third floor addition – is meritless.
Appellant also argues that “regardless of the applicability of AB 2097 to the Project, AB 2097 does not allow the City to circumvent its Code requirements for maintenance of existing parking” and that the seven parking spaces are already less than what is required by the code.9 Again, AB 2097 applies to changes to existing buildings, like the Project. The City is therefore prohibited from enforcing its minimum parking requirements by state law.
3. The Project’s Proposed Loading Area Will Not Generate Significantly Adverse Traffic, Safety, or Noise Impacts
Appellant argues that the Project’s proposed new off-street loading area would result in new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards, so the required Development Plan Review findings under BHMC section 10-3- 3104(D)10 cannot be made. (Appeal, ¶ 3.) This is incorrect.
The Building is a small commercial office building which would be used by The Angeleno Group’s current 9 employees. Unlike the Peninsula Hotel that receives regular deliveries from food trucks and other vendors, office deliveries will be nominal and it is anticipated that there will be roughly 10 deliveries per week, and most deliveries are limited to 8 Staff Report, p. 2-9.
9 Since the existing commercial building was constructed in 1946, the Project site is legally nonconforming as to the number of parking spaces, and dimensions and configuration of parking spaces, otherwise required by BHMC. 10 “The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.” (BHMC § 10-3-3104(D).) November 21, 2023
13 office supplies from non-couriered deliveries (e.g., FedEx, UPS, Amazon Prime) vans and small trucks.
11 The reconfigured existing surface parking lot would be utilized for loading and noncouriered deliveries, and couriered deliveries would still occur as they normally do for all commercial properties, along the curbside.12 No “off hours” for delivery time are being requested and Applicant will apply the same loading limitations as Appellant is permitted. Applicant has also offered to discuss with Appellant limiting the use of off-street loading spaces to certain hours, to accommodate Appellant’s particular concerns about traffic, safety, or noise.
Applicant has also made certain commitments to ensure that the reconfiguration of the existing surface parking lot for the proposed new loading area would not result in new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
Included as Attachment G to the Staff Report, and memorialized in the Planning Commission’s Resolution as Condition No. 7, is a description of the Project’s proposed plan for managing loading and deliveries at the Building using the new loading area. This explains that the loading and unloading at the loading area will be accomplished without impacting access to the three onsite parking spaces, or adding to congestion and traffic. This includes limiting deliveries to 10 minutes to load or unload, prior approval of longer deliveries by building management, requiring delivery vehicles to exit northbound on Charleville Boulevard, recommended delivery hours in early mornings or evenings and coordination with building management if deliveries are during peak hours, and limiting the size of delivery vehicles to small vans or trucks with a maximum wheelbase of 18 feet. The Project will comply with the requirements set forth in Condition No. 7.
Appellant also suggests that the loading activities could result in “chaos” if someone tries to enter the parking lot when loading is taking place, and claims this could result in queuing issues if they back out onto a busy street, and pedestrian safety issues on City sidewalks. As set forth above, the loading activities at the Building will be coordinated to avoid such conflict. And, notably, the Building’s existing surface parking lot is accessible by an existing fifteen foot wide alley accessed from Charleville Boulevard. There is no access from the busier South Santa Monica Boulevard.
4. The Planning Commission’s Findings for Noise and Privacy Impacts to Surrounding Properties are Supported by Extensive Evidence Appellant next argues that the Project includes no measures to ensure the proposed third floor penthouse would not have adverse impacts on surrounding properties, including noise and privacy issues, and therefore the Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit findings cannot be made. (Appeal, ¶ 4.) This is incorrect.
Noise
The Project would not have an adverse impact on Appellant, or any other neighboring properties, due to noise. As discussed in the Planning Commission’s findings, the Project would 11 Staff Report, Attachment G, p. 2-212.
12 April 20, 2023, Letter from Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, to Brock DeSmit, Belzberg Architects, LLP re: 9884 S.
Santa Monica Blvd. Development Plan Review (DPR) and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP).
November 21, 2023
14 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare because it is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable standards, including the City’s noise ordinance. The Project is located in a C-3 Commercial Zone, and there is no evidence that any noise from use of the new outdoor terrace by employees will exceed existing ambient conditions. Located along South Santa Monica Boulevard, the outdoor spaces are already subject to high noise levels from traffic and surrounding commercial uses at roughly 63 to 70 dBA as studied in the City’s Rosewood Residences Final Environmental Impact Report, discussed above. And, according to the noise analysis of the rooftop pool at the Rosewood Residences studied in that Final Environmental Impact Report, common rooftop pool activities produce noise levels at approximately 55 dBA.13Applicant’s outdoor terrace, which will be used primarily as a work space for employees, is not anticipated to produce noise levels any greater than a rooftop pool and likely would be below 55 dBA; but, even if noise levels were roughly 55 dBA this would be below existing ambient noise. Further, Applicant and Appellant’s properties are separated by solid walls and Appellant has proposed to enclose the closest outdoor space to Applicant’s property on the east side, which will further insulate Appellant’s property from any potential noise.
In discussions with Appellant, Applicant has also agreed to mitigate any noise concerns by applying the same limitations on noise/amplified sound as the Appellant is permitted, and as provided for under the Municipal Code. No “after hours” of time for noise/amplified sound is being requested. If any concerns arise during the space’s operation, Applicant would cooperate with Appellant to address them further.
Despite this evidence that the Project would not have any impact on existing noise conditions at Appellant’s property, Appellant compares the Project to the rooftop deck at 9800 Wilshire Blvd that has been the subject of noise complaints in the past, speculating that Applicant would use the outdoor terrace for loud parties and events. As Appellant knows, once construction is complete, the Building will be used as office space for The Angeleno Group’s current 9 employees, and the primary use of the rooftop office space and terrace would be as a working space. Further, the maximum occupancy of the third floor addition is only 18 people. As discussed above, Applicant has discussed with Appellant measures it will take to ensure it is a good and responsible neighbor, and to comply with the City’s noise ordinance, just as Appellant is required to do on their rooftop deck on their hotel property.
Privacy
Appellant claims that the Historic Incentive Permit findings for privacy cannot be made due to the increased height of the Building from the added penthouse, ignoring the fact that the Historic Incentive Permit for the Project is not necessary for the addition of the penthouse, but instead is being requested in order to accommodate a loading area and rubbish facility that deviates from the City’s required dimensions for loading areas and rubbish facilities. Therefore the City was not required to analyze the Project’s increased height in making its findings regarding impacts to neighboring properties’ privacy from the loading area and rubbish facility. 13 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard Condominium Project EIR, City of Beverly Hills, p. 4.6-13.
November 21, 2023
15 In any event, the Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on neighbors’ privacy because it is well within the permitted maximum height in the City’s C-3 district and is designed to ensure that privacy on neighboring properties is maintained. As discussed above, the Project would extend the solid wall abutting the Peninsula’s three-story building to the east to shield any view to that property from the penthouse and outdoor terrace. While the Project faces Peninsula’s two-story bungalow building and four-story main hotel building and rooftop deck to the south, the building programming along the south elevation facing those two buildings primarily consists of stairs, a stairwell and a closet, and the stairwell and closet are designed with solid walls. The Building's penthouse and outdoor terrace also would not have a direct line of sight to the Peninsula’s fourth floor deck and pool because the floor level would be 21’-0” lower in elevation than the 45’-0” floor level of the Peninsula’s deck and pool. In addition, Applicant has discussed with Appellant additional landscaping on the third floor addition to further obscure views onto Appellant’s property to the east and south. While not required as part of the City’s Historic Incentive Permit findings for privacy, the Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on privacy at Appellant’s neighboring property.
5. The Project Site’s Potential City Landmark Eligibility is Adequately Justified Appellant next argues that the City’s findings for eligibility for local landmark status are not adequately justified. (Appeal, ¶ 5.) This is incorrect. The City’s findings for eligibility are supported by extensive evidence in the record including a Historic Resource Evaluation and Impact Analysis commissioned by the Applicant.14
As detailed in the March 2022 Historic Resource Evaluation,15 the Building was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, considered one of Southern California’s most significant architects of the 20th century and a notable architect listed on the City’s list of master architects.
The Building is a rare example of a commercial building designed by Lautner, who only designed commercial buildings in the early part of his career prior to the late 1950s. This Building includes character-defining features of horizontal massing, bold geometric volumes and sculptural design, and a large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the side elevation. A major character-defining feature of the Building is its sustainable design including a bank of louvers along the side and rear elevations that allow natural light and ventilation into the Building while also allowing the outside to be seen through the spacing of the louvers.16 The Building is eligible for designation as a local historic landmark and inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places17 and the California Register of Historic Resources.18 The Historic 14 Staff Report, Attachments D, E.
15 The original Historic Resource Evaluation included as Attachment D to the Planning Commission Report for the July 13, 2023, included a typographical error describing the Darrow Office Building as an example of “Late Modern” architecture, when it is in fact an example of “mid-century modern” architecture. A corrected Historic Resource Evaluation, and a letter explaining this change, are attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 16 Staff Report, Attachment E, pp. 2-182 – 2-183.
17 Notably, 64 of the structures designed by Lautner in Southern California are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. (Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-199.) 18 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-183.
November 21, 2023
16 Resource Evaluation concluded, thorough evaluation of the City’s criteria, that the Building was eligible for local landmark status. And, in April 2023, the Cultural Heritage Commission determined the Building is eligible for listing as a local historic landmark.
Nevertheless, Appellant argues that Applicant should wait until the Building is deemed a local historic landmark before proceeding with the Project, but this ignores the express, unambiguous provision in BHMC section 10-3-3261(B) that allows the City to issue a Historic Incentive Permit to a property that the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined is eligible for local landmark status, so long as the Historic Incentive Permit is conditioned on future approval of local historic landmark status. Project-specific Condition No. 4 ensures that Project approvals (the Historic Incentive Permit and Development Plan Review) are not effective unless and until the City Council designates the Building as a local historic landmark.19 Appellant also argues that it is arbitrary and capricious for the Planning Commission to make findings about compatibility with the SOI Standards before the Cultural Heritage Commission has completed the landmark designation process. But the Cultural Heritage Commission determined in April 2023 that the Building is eligible for local landmark status, which included findings regarding eligibility with local historic landmark criteria, and this was before the Planning Commission’s approval and findings of compatibility with the SOI Standards in July 2023. Thus the Planning Commission’s reliance on the Cultural Heritage Commission’s findings was proper.
Appellant next argues that the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for the Project incorrectly states that the Building is an example of late modern architecture because it was built in 1946, and the Late Modern period did not begin until 1966. As discussed in the November 21, 2023, letter from Kaplan Chen Kaplan attached as Exhibit 5, the Historic Resource Evaluation used the term “late modern” architecture to represent the Postwar Modern period in contrast to the Pre-War Modernist styles that were referred to as Early Modernism. While this more generic late modern nomenclature was used in the report to distinguish it from the early period, the generic “Mid-Century Modern” nomenclature could also have been used. As further explained in the letter, Lautner’s architectural style defies simple categorization which is part of why he is one of the most important contemporary American architects of the twentieth century, and listed on the City’s list of master architects. Appellant’s quibble with the technical nomenclature of the historic report is meritless.
Appellant next argues that the Building lacks integrity under City Landmark Criterion A.3 because there are no original interior spaces remaining. The City’s Landmark Criteria do not require a building to include its original interior elements, and the Historic Resource Evaluation thoroughly analyzes Criterion A.3 for whether a property “retains substantial integrity from its period of significance,” finding that the Building retains a high level of historic architectural integrity because “the exterior of the building has had very few alterations and all are reversible” so the “building’s exterior retains a high level of integrity” and the fact that the interior spaces of the Building have undergone alterations to accommodate the needs of the Building’s office and 19 Planning Commission Reso. No. 2029.
November 21, 2023
17 medical tenants does not impact the conclusion that the Building retains a high level of integrity.20
Appellant also argues that there is insufficient evidence that the Building satisfies City Landmark Section B criteria to demonstrate it is an Exceptional Work or Iconic Property. As clearly set forth in the City’s historic landmark criteria, a landmark must only satisfy one of the “Section B” criteria and the Building does so by having “a landmark designation procedure initiated or expressly agreed to by the property owner.” It is not necessary for the Building to be “an exceptional work by a Master Architect” or “an iconic property.”
6. The Project Conforms to the Secretary of Interior Standards and is Categorically Exempt from CEQA Under the Class 31 Exemption
Appellant argues the Project does not conform with the SOI Standards, which is a requirement for a project to qualify for a CEQA Class 31 categorical exemption, as well as a Historic Incentive Permit. (Appeal, ¶ 6.) This is incorrect – as set forth in the Historic Impact Analysis prepared by the same consultant that prepared the Historic Resource Evaluation, the Project complies with the SOI Standards and therefore qualifies for the CEQA Class 31 categorical exemption and Historic Incentive Permit.
The Historic Impact Analysis includes an analysis of the Project’s compliance with the SOI Standards. These were reviewed by the City’s Urban Designer, historic preservation staff, and the City’s historic consultant, as part of initiating the landmark process with the Cultural Heritage Commission. All of these reviewers confirmed the changes to the Building comply with SOI Standards since the Project will retain the Building’s character-defining features.21 Appellant argues that the penthouse does not conform with the SOI Standard No. 9 which prohibits new construction from destroying character-defining features of a building,22 citing to an Interpreting the Standards bulletin from 2007 titled “Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings.” This bulletin, which is attached to the appeal as exhibit 6, explains that because the roofline “is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building . . . rooftop additions proposed as part of a rehabilitation project must be carefully designed in order to preserve the building’s historic character” and that “a successful rooftop addition does not significantly impact the character of the historic building.” The bulletin includes examples of rooftop additions that are compatible with the SOI Standards because they are subordinate to the historic building in size and design, compatible with its massing, scale, materials, and features, and set far enough back from the primary elevation of the building so it is not highly visible from the public right-of-way.
20 Staff Report, Attachment D, p. 2-87.
21 Staff Report, p. 2-14.
22 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-188 (“New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.”)
November 21, 2023
18 As discussed in the Historic Impact Analysis, the penthouse complies with SOI Standard No. 9. The penthouse is less than the full area of the footprint of the existing building, would be recessed from two of the building’s edges viewed from public rights-of-way, 23 and materials
would include glazed windows and sliding doors to further “lighten” the new elevations helping them recede visually. The plan diagram attached as Exhibit 2 shows the dimensions of the new penthouse in relation to the existing building lines, and dimensions of glazing which uses a zigzag design to create a deeper offset from the existing building to avoid having a hard line of glazing running parallel to the line of the existing building below.
Appellant also points to a statement in the bulletin that rooftop additions “generally . . . are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less” to argue that the Project does not conform to the SOI Standards. This is not dispositive. As discussed in the Historic Impact Analysis, the third floor addition for the Project was selected precisely because it ensures compliance with the SOI Standards, since it is the only way to accomplish an addition to the existing building without impacting the building’s character-defining features. 24 The penthouse
design allows for construction of additional space without necessitating addition or extensions of the existing first and second floors that would cause the removal and destruction of existing architecturally significant building elements.25
The Planning Commission’s finding that the Project conforms with the SOI Standards is supported by extensive evidence in the Historic Impact Analysis, so the Project is eligible for the Class 31 categorical exemption and Historic Incentive Permit.
7. The Project Qualifies for at Least Three Categorical Exemptions No Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Apply
Appellant argues that the Project does not qualify for the Class 1, Class 3, and Class 31 categorical exemptions because the “cumulative impacts” and “unusual circumstances” exceptions to CEQA’s categorical exemptions apply, due to alleged noise that will result from the penthouse and outdoor terrace, so the City must conduct further environmental review in the form of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report. (Appeal, ¶ 7.) Appellant cites to no case law or evidence as to why alleged noise from the penthouse and outdoor terrace – which as discussed above are not anticipated to result in an increase in noise above existing ambient conditions in the area – would rise to the level of unusual circumstances 23 The penthouse would be set back 16’-6” from South Santa Monica Boulevard, where the existing structure maintains the existing 5’-0” setback. The penthouse would be setback 8’-9” from the side property line along Charleville Boulevard, where the existing building maintains an existing setback of 4’-9.” The penthouse would be built along the existing building line on the south and east sides of the building that do not face the street. (Staff Report, p. 17.) A plan diagram showing the setback of the penthouse from the existing building line is attached as Exhibit 2.
24 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-194.
25 Staff Report, Attachment E, p. 2-194.
November 21, 2023
19 or cumulative impacts to prohibit the City from relying on categorical exemptions for the Project.
No unusual circumstances are present. To demonstrate that the unusual circumstances exception applies to prevent use of a categorical exemption, there must be “a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(c).) Under that guideline, a two-step process is followed to determine whether an exception applies, considering whether the circumstances of a particular project (1) differ from the general circumstances of projects covered by a particular categorical exemption, and (2) those circumstances create an environmental risk that does not exist for the general class of exempt project.” A challenger has the burden to produce evidence that supports the exception.26 Whether an unusual circumstance exists is an inquiry determined under the substantial evidence standard.27 Whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result due to those unusual circumstances is an inquiry determined under the fair argument standard.28 Appellant has produced no evidence that there would be noise impacts from the Project that would have a “significant effect on the environment.” There is none. As discussed in detail above, the third floor addition would be used for indoor and outdoor working space for the 9 employees of The Angeleno Group. There would be no increase in the existing ambient noise conditions. This argument is meritless.
Appellant also presents no evidence, and there is none, to show that the cumulative impacts exception under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(b) applies. This exception prohibits use of a categorical exemption when “the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.”29 The Project would not result in any environmental impacts under CEQA, so there is no argument that it could result in cumulative impacts.30
The Project Qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption Appellant also argues that the City cannot rely on a Class 1 categorical exemption for existing facilities because the third floor addition is a “completely new use.” (Appeal, ¶ 7.) Not so. The third floor addition proposes additional office space for the existing commercial office building. Just because it includes outdoor working space, this does not make this a “completely new use” and it is common for commercial official buildings to include such outdoor amenities for employees.
26 Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 943, 955-56. 27 Id. at 953.
28 Ibid.; CEQA Guidelines § 15384.
29 CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(b).
30 Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce v. City of Santa Monica (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 786, 799 (“Just as zero added to any other sum results in no change to the final amount, so, too, when no environmental impacts cognizable under CEQA are added to the alleged environmental impacts of past projects, there is no cumulative increased impact.”).
November 21, 2023
20 And, the Project otherwise qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption which consists in relevant part of “minor alteration of existing . . . structures . . . involving negligible or no expansion of existing of former use.”31 Projects that qualify for a Class 1 categorical exemption include additions to existing structures that either do not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square feet (whichever is less), or 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan, and is not environmentally sensitive.32 The Building is 6,288 square feet, and the Project proposes to add a new 1,404 square foot third story to the building. It therefore qualifies for a Class 31 categorical exemption because it proposes an addition to an existing building that would not result in an increase of more than 50 percent of the existing floor area before the addition, or 2,500 square feet.
The Project Qualifies for a Class 31 Categorical Exemption Appellant also argues that the Class 31 categorical exemption is inapplicable because this categorical exemption cannot be used for a project “which may cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource” under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f). (Appeal, ¶ 7.)
As discussed above, the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined that the Building is eligible for local historic landmark status, and the Historic Resource Assessment concluded that the property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historic Resources. As detailed extensively in the staff report, based on evidence from the Historic Resource Assessment and Historic Impact Analysis, the Project is designed in order to preserve and rehabilitate the Building, so it would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. And the Project otherwise is eligible for a Class 31 categorical exemption since, as discussed above, it conforms to the SOI Standards.
8. The City Provided Adequate Public Notice of the Planning Commission Hearing Appellant argues that the City failed to provide adequate public notice because one of the three categorical exemptions relied upon by the City in finding the Project exempt from CEQA was not listed on the notice of the Planning Commission hearing. (Appeal, ¶ 8.) Appellant claims this was a violation of the Brown Act, so that categorical exemption cannot be relied upon by the City. Not so – the notice stated that the Planning Commission would consider the Project’s qualification for CEQA categorical exemptions. No more specificity is required by CEQA or applicable law.
Public notice of the hearing was provided as required by Article 2.5 of the BHMC, including through posting at the Project site, publication, and by mail to property owners within a 500’ radius. The notice, which is attached as exhibit 4 to the appeal, states that the Project appears to qualify for a Class 3 categorical exemption (New Construction) and a Class 31 31 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15301. 32 CEQA Guidelines, § 15301(e).)
November 21, 2023
21 categorical exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) and that the Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to find the project exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA. The notice did not include the Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities) in this list, though the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029 does find that the Project also qualifies for that exemption, in addition to the Class 1 and Class 31 categorical exemptions.
33 A public agency is not prohibited from relying on a categorical exemption simply because it is not listed on the notice of public hearing for a Project. In G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, the Court of Appeal held that the City violated the Brown Act by adopting a CEQA exemption without having listed the MND as an item on the agenda for at least 72 hours.34 There, the City had failed to list the adoption of an MND pursuant to CEQA at all on its agenda, and merely listed the project in general.35 Here, the City listed two of three categorical exemptions for the Project in its notice so the notice made clear that the City was considering categorical exemptions for the Project. And, regardless, the California Supreme Court in February 2023 ordered the opinion in G.I. Industries depublished, so it cannot be relied upon as authority.36
Further, when a statutory exemption applies, it may be raised for the first time in litigation.37 This negates Appellant’s argument that the City is somehow barred from ever relying on a categorical exemption just because it was not listed along with other categorical exemptions in the notice of public hearing.
And, Appellant has no argument that the omission of the Class 1 categorical exemption from the notice prejudiced them. As adjacent property owners, they received notice of the hearing, and reviewed the Planning Commission’s Resolution in preparing their appeal which made clear that the City relied on all three categorical exemptions. They have had the opportunity to fully participate in the process and are not prejudiced.
CONCLUSION
On behalf of Impact Real Estate Group, LLC, we appreciate this opportunity to respond to the legal and CEQA issues in the Appeal and respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Commission’s Project approvals. We appreciate the City staff’s thorough Project analysis and look forward to responding to any questions at the City Council hearing.
33 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029, Section 3.
34 G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks (2022), 300 Cal.Rptr.3d 695, 701. 35 Ibid.
36 G.I. Industries v. City of Thousand Oaks, Ordered Not Published at 84 Cal.App.5th 814. 37 See generally, Santa Barbara County Flower & Nursery Growers Assn. v. County of Santa Barbara (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 864.
EXHIBIT 1
FIFTH FLOOR AREA TABULATION
FAR AREATOTAL FLOOR AREA 29,006 S.F.
< 1,393
27,613 S.F.
INTERIOR AREA 29,006 S.F.AREA OF EXPANSION 0 S.F.NUMBER OF GUESTROOMS 31 AREA EXEMPTED FROM F.A.R.
(ELEVATOR SHAFT & LOBBY ANDSTAIRS)
S.F. >
J
(E) POOL
1,038 S.F.
128 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY153 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR
11 SQ. FT.SHAFT
125 SQ. FT.STAIR
152 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY170 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR
190 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR41 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY
120 SQ. FT.STAIR
45 SQ. FT.ELEVATOR LOBBY
170 SQ. FT.SHAFT
61 SQ. FT.STAIR
69'-9" 163'-10" 22'-11"
23'-0"
70'-10 1/2"
16'-2 1/2" 203'-11 1/2" 23'-1"
28'-11 1/2" 59'-4" 14'-1 1/2" 61'-2 1/2" 23'-3"
15'-0" 39'-0" 15'-0"
45'-5" 7'-7"
13'-11"
24'-1 1/2" 19'-8 1/2" 25'-3 1/2"
14'-2" 14'-2" 4'-10 1/2"
31'-8 1/4" 13'-8 1/2" 9'-11 1/4"
6'-4 1/2"
2'-0 1/2"
13'-3 1/2"
1'-10 1/2" 12'-7 1/2"
1'-10 1/2"
12'-9 1/2"
1'-10 1/2"
31'-4 1/2"
2'-5 1/2"
14'-0 1/2" 14'-11 1/2"
68'-10 1/2"
6'-10 1/2" 73'-5" 7'-7 1/2"
15'-0" 59'-11 1/2"
7'-5"
16'-8"
38'-6"
3'-5"
2'-10 1/2"
15'-1" 14'-11"
20'-9 1/2" 10'-7 1/2" 7'-8"
4'-3 1/2"
15'-1"
3'-6 1/2"
6'-5"
5'-9 1/2"
17'-3"
2'-4"
5'-5 1/2" 17'-6"
8'-1 1/2"
15'-5"
11'-3 1/2" 9'-9"
12'-11 1/2"
6'-4 1/2"
6'-7"
3'-11 1/2"
547- 549- 564- 560- 562- 552- 545 556- 566- 540- 568 - - 567 - - 551- 553- 555- 557- 559- 561- 563- 565- 5431/A2.17 541- 539- 535 533
532- 538- 558- 554- 534- 536
(E) POOL DECK
4,608 S.F.
(E) SPA (E) OUTDOOR
CAFE
2,061 S.F.
DNUP
UP
DN
UPDN
ELEV.
#1
ELEV.
#2
ELEV.
#4
ELEV.
#3
ELEV.
#6
ELEV.
#5
(E) ACCESSIBLE
GUESTROOM
(E) SPA
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL -- -- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - PH2 -- -- -- - PH11 1/A2.50 - - - - Date Drawn By Scale CK 1 Sheet No.Job NumberSheet Name
of
Seal
FILE
2467.01
STYLE
2467.pj\design-v127-sd-01.db
REVISIONS
23 MAY 2022
9882 SOUTH SANTA MONICA BOULEVARDBEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA
VILLAS 126,
127 & 129
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 18 NOV. 2022PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 8 MAR. 2023 T
IS
EG R
ERED
T ECT
CH AR I
O F CA L I FOR
I A N S TAT E
C-11325
H. C INGER L L I E NAD
OCTOBER 2023
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 1 MAY 2023PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 21 JUNE 2023FAR DIAGRAMFIFTH FLOORPLAN A0.8
1/16" = 1'-0"
SS
DWC
21/ 6/2023
0 8 16 32
945 S.F. OutdoorTerrace @ Penthouse 934.63 sf
7,707 S.F. TotalRooftop Area for EHP
EXHIBIT 2
SD /
CMD
SD
DN
DN
ROOM NAME & NUMBER
DOOR NUMBER
PLAN SYMBOLS
WALL FRAMING TYPE
WINDOW WALL NUMBER / SKYLIGHT TYPE
MATERIAL TAG
1i
6 101
Bedroom
101
GYP-1
PLAN NOTES
1. EACH APPLIANCE PROVIDED AND INSTALLED MEETS ENERGY STAR IN AN ENERGY STAR DESIGNATION IS APPLICABLE FOR THAT APPLIANCE (4.210.1, 9.210.1)
2. THE FLOW RATES FOR ALL PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM FLOW RATES IN TABLE 4.403.2 / TABLE 9.403.2 (4.303.1, 9.303.1). REFER TO GRN 16 ON G0.20.
3. BATHROOM FANS NOT FUNCTIONING AS A COMPONENT OF A WHOLE HOUSE
VENTILATION SYSTEM MUST BE CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDISTAT WHICH SHALL BE READILY ACCESSIBLE (4.506.1, 9.506.1).
4. DIMENSIONS TO PARTITIONS ON FLOOR PLANS ARE TO FACE OF STUD OR FACE OF CONCRETE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE A650 & A651 FOR
5. ALL ROOF RUNOFF TO DRAIN TO RAIN WATER STORAGE TANK. SEE PLUMBING AND CIVIL DRAWINGS.
EXHAUST FAN IN CEILING, ENERGY STAR
COMPLIANT. DUCTED TO TERMINATE
OUTSIDE THE BUILDING
COMBINATION SMOKE / CARBON MONOXIDE
DETECTOR
SMOKE DETECTOR
01 3
1 A400
1 2 3 4 5
A
B
C
2 A401
OPEN TO
BELOW
OPEN TO
BELOW
81 SF
CLOSET
305
102 SF
STAIR
SA3
179 SF
OFFICE
303
60 SF
ALL GENDER
RESTROOM
304
945 SF
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306
PLANTER, TYP.
SKYLIGHT
1 A401
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
20'-0" 20'-0"
2 A400
SA3
304
305
X308
GRILL
OUTDOOR SINK &
CASEWORK
300
301
302
307
308
304
309
PLANTER, TYP.
ROOF ACCESS
HATCH ABOVE
1'-6"
A240
3 A250
3 318 SF
ELEVATOR
LOBBY/
CIRCULATION
300
ELEC. CHASE
146 SF
LOUNGE
301
305
306
303
MOP SINK
2'-0"
3'-1 1/4"
4'-2 1/4"
3'-1 3/8"
CONFERENCE
302
ELEVATOR
EV3
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects
APPLICANT
IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:13 A
M
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A203
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
2 NORTH
# DESCRIPTION DATE
LINE OF EXISTING BUILDING
@ CHARLEVILLE MONICA BLVD BUILDING @ S. SANTA LINE OF EXISTING
EXTERIOR OFFSET OF
GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE
INTERIOR OFFSET OF
GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE EXTERIOR OFFSET OF GLAZING @ PENTHOUSE INTERIOR OFFSET OF 15'-7" 9'-0" 16'-4"
26'-1"
ELEVATION & SECTION SYMBOLS
CON-1
MATERIAL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.00
ELEVATION & SECTION NOTES
1. SEE MATERIAL SCHEDULES ON A600.
1i
WINDOW WALL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.10
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
CBA
PAINT TO BE REMOVED USING
CHEMICAL TREATMENTS
FROM EXTG. BRICK WALLS.
BRICK TO BE NATURAL,
ORIGINAL INTENDED FINISH.
(E) PAINTED METAL LOUVERS
TO BE RESTORED OR
REPLACED WITH SIM.
WINDOW FRAMES TO BE
RESTORED. EXTG GLAZING TO
BE REPLACED, TBC.
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED
AND REPAINTED TO MATCH
EXISTING
MTL-7
STC-01
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
2 A400
X114 XSA1
101 100
102
300
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
WD-2
BRK-01
BRK-01
37'-6"
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
12345
WINDOW FRAMES TO BE RESTORED. EXTG
GLAZING TO BE REPACED, TYP.
EXTG. PAINTED METAL LOUVERS
TO BE REPLACED OR RESTORED
TO MATCH EXISITING
EXT. STUCCO TO BE PATCHED
AND REPAINTED TO MATCH
EXISTING.
METAL FINS TO BE EXTENDED TO GROUND
FLOOR PER ORIGINAL INTENDED HISTORIC
DESIGN. FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING FINS
ABOVE
(E) STAINLESS STEEL STANDING SEAM TO
BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION
BRK-01 BRK
-01
MTL-7
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
STC-01
STC-01
SOLAR PANELS
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
MECHANICAL EQUIP. SCREENING
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
X100B
104 WW-4 101
301
102
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
CON-2
CON-2
(E) PAINTED CONCRETE WALL. PAINT TO
BE REMOVED BY RESTORATION
CONTRACTOR USING GENTLE CHEMICAL
TREATMENT. FINISH TO BE EXPOSED,
NATURAL CONCRETE
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED AND
REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING
(N) PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL , FINISH
TO MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
BELOW
305 303
37'-6"
12'-3"
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects
APPLICANT
IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:22 AM
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A300
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
2 # DESCRIPTION DATE
EXHIBIT 3
'3rd floor addHion |
%n
■fm 11 II innmi
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
□ARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD.. ePitW-Y HIUS. CA 90212
VIEW FROM SANTA MONICA BLVD.
PROJ.# 2851 .X
None of the fins are modeled correctly, and
no glazing is being shown. The peninsula is
shown with glass and materiality, while this
project is shown in all white, making it look
massive and very solid.
These walls do
not exist.
The roofline of the proposed penthouse
would be thinner than this. This is modeled
incorrectly and is deceptive.
These walls would all be glass. Rendering
them as fully opaque white walls is
misleading and makes the penthouse
addition appear more massive and solid.
EXHIBIT 4
51'-4"
EXHIBIT 5
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
Telephone 310.452.7505
Facsimile 310.452.1494
MEMO
Date: November 21, 2023
To: Ms. Devon Montmity
BA Collective
From: Pam O’Conner, Senior Historian
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Re: 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow - Lautner Building Historic Evaluation
Architect John Lautner is considered one of the most influential architects of the 20th Century. His body of work spans the Mid-Century period of the 20th Century; however, his expressionistic and organic designs defy being pigeon-holed into any specific architectural style.
SurveyLA developed a series of historic contexts related to architectural styles. These are guides to help categorize architectural styles. But as with many artistic movements, there are creative variations, cross-fertilization, and no hard stops in terms of dates and time of architectural styles.
The SurveyLA Historic Contest Statement for L.A. Modernism, 1919-1980, covers two major periods: Pre-War Modernism, 1919-1945 and Post-War Modernism, 1946-1975. Architectural styles of the pre-war period include Early Modernism (1919-1945) and International Style (1928-1966, note this date goes beyond the 1945 “cut-off” for Pre-War Modernism). The Postwar Modernism period covers the period 1946 -1975. (https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/4f67bd39-631a-4f26- 9a52-cd5809a66655/LA_Modernism_1919-1980.pdf)
The initial Historic Resource Evaluation Report prepared for the Darrow Building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard used the term “late modern” architecture to represent the Postwar Modern period in contrast to the Pre-War Modernist styles which were referred to as Early Modernism. While the use of the more generic late modern nomenclature was used in the report to distinguish it from the early period, the generic Mid-Century Modern nomenclature could also have been used.
Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Historic Evaluation
November 21, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
The challenge is how to characterize the unique architectural style of John Lautner – to fit it into a category. As evidenced by evaluation of Lautner’s architecture from many sources, it is evident that his expressionistic, organic style, unique to the artist that he was, defies simple categorization. Examples of the characterization of his unique architectural style is provided below.
John Lautner “was one of last century’s most important contemporary American architects.
His work was concerned with the relationship of the human being to space and of space to nature. Lautner’s designs share a sense of drama, powerful geometry and warmth, and a profound respect for the site. His buildings stand as functional sculpture. They are unique entities unlike those of any other architect.” (https://www.thelautner.com/john-lautner) “His designs have often been discussed in architectural publications, with Arts & Architecture magazine rating him a ‘lyrical technologist.’” (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-10-27-mn-55244-story.html) John Lautner’s architecture is rooted in a personal design philosophy that is the imaginative extension of the organic architectural theories of Frank Lloyd Wright, his exuberant designs and broad spectrum of approaches epitomize the landscape of southern California.” (https://www.formidablemag.com/john-lauter/)
John Lautner was one of the 20th century's most important contemporary American architects. His work was concerned “… with the relationship of the human being to space and of space to nature.” (https://modernsandiego.com/people/john-lautner) “Without question, John Lautner is one of the most influential architects of the 20th century.
His architecture is bold, dynamic, and daring.”
(https://www.rostarchitects.com/articles/2019/1/20/eight-things-you-should-know-aboutthe-architect-john-lautner) “While the American architect John Lautner may not have considered himself a modernist, he nevertheless made a significant contribution to the branch of modernist architecture that emerged in Southern California during the mid-twentieth century, pioneered by architects such as Rudolph Schindler, Richard Neutra, and Frank Lloyd Wright. Though he was wary of being seen as an imitator of Wright, under whom he had worked as an apprentice for six years, Lautner’s work does reflect several of his mentor’s architectural principles, such as flowing space, harmony with nature, and site-specific designs. Lautner’s visually arresting buildings, however, took these ideas further than ever before. His ambitious projects, as well Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Historic Evaluation
November 21, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
as being architecturally innovative, were feats of modern engineering. These daring structures stood in stark contrast to the minimal, machine-influenced International Style buildings that had dominated modernist architecture since the 1930s.” (https://www.rem.routledge.com/articles/lautner-john-edward-1911-1994) “Although he did not consider himself a Modernist, Lautner’s interests aligned with the midcentury spirit of architectural experimentation; these factors led Lautner toward bold explorations of hilltop houses, soaring concrete roofs, cantilevers, and expressive double curves. His work was structurally and technologically innovative, while also reflecting Wright’s Organic principles of responding to the site and the specific needs of the client.
Lautner had a fertile architectural practice for over 60 years, producing some of the most iconic works in post-World War II Southern California and influencing a new generation of architects.” p. E-4 Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) “Lautner’s fascination with new shapes and structures came from his determination to humanize spaces and create what he referred to as “real” architecture: “architecture that was authentic, creative, new – yet tied to ancient and timeless ways of building; based on the needs – including emotional needs – of his clients, and the demands of the site.” He brought to architecture an expressive and adventurous use of structure, form, and materials.” p. E-3 Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) The 1940s were a period of experimentation for Lautner. Some projects expressed a strong design concept, while others focused on technological innovations and construction methods. Lautner's use of materials evolved from wood (specifically redwood) in the early years to concrete and steel in his works later in the decade; he also employed various structural systems during this period. p. E-9 Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) Multiple Property Documentation Form (MPDF) Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1994 (https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a4010-a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940- 1994.pdf)
ATTACHMENT 5
Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s
Appeal Petition Supplement
(November 29, 2023)
OF DECEMBER 5, 2023 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Silicon Valley
Hong Kong Singapore
Houston Tel Aviv
London Tokyo
Los Angeles Washington, D.C.
Madrid
November 29, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor Gold and City Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Impact Real Estate Group’s Response to Appeal Supplement of Planning Commission Approvals for 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd.
Honorable Mayor Gold, Vice Mayor Friedman, and City Councilmembers:
We write to respond to The Belvedere Hotel Partnership’s “Appeal Supplement” dated November 20, 2023.
Appellant’s arguments remain without merit. Appellant’s complaints regarding parking, noise, and shadow impacts are particularly hollow as it operates a four-story, 195-room hotel with over 7,700 square feet of rooftop outdoor space. By comparison, the penthouse is about 1,400 square feet of enclosed space that blocks the entirety of the 945 square feet of proposed outdoor terrace from Appellant’s property.
1. The Project Has No View Impacts to Appellant’s Property Appellant repeats its argument that it believes the penthouse addition is just too tall. (Appeal Supplement, p. 3.) In fact, the Project increases the Building’s height by less than 15 feet (from 23 feet 9 inches to 38 feet) and sits a full seven feet below the City's 45-foot height limit.
There is no elevator overrun above the roofline. (See Exhibit 1.) The solar panels sit parallel with the roof and only two to three feet above it. A small mechanical enclosure at the rear of the building is 6 feet above the roofline and still below the City’s 45-foot height limit.
Both of these are shown in the figure below. Neither the solar panels nor the mechanical enclosure are visible from the street.
November 29, 2023
2. The Project Has No Shade-Shadow Impacts
Appellant also now argues, without evidence, that the Project will result in shade-shadow impacts that “will significantly darken rooms and suites in the west wing of the hotel.” (Appeal Supplement, p. 3.)
The Project’s architect, Belzberg Architects, prepared a shade-shadow study to compare existing conditions without the penthouse, versus conditions with the penthouse. These graphics are attached as Exhibit 2. The shade-shadow study shows almost no change from existing conditions to shading on Appellant’s property, including the guestrooms to the south of the penthouse, with only a minor change during the summer equinox at sunset and 6 pm. As shown in the shade-shadow study, there are shadows on both buildings under existing conditions because these are in a dense urban area with other commercial and residential buildings, including the new four-story Rosewood Residences across the street from the Building on Charleville Boulevard, as well as the Beverly Hilton and Waldorf Astoria hotels to the north. All of these buildings, including Appellant’s own four-story building, are taller than the Building with the penthouse addition.
Appellant’s unsubstantiated concerns regarding potential shading impacts to its guestrooms are meritless.
3. Adequate Off-Site Parking Exists For The Angeleno Group’s Employees Appellant repeats its argument that there is insufficient off-site parking to accommodate the small office uses. First, no parking is required under the law. Further, Applicant evaluated available parking spaces in the area by surveying over ten active offsite parking lot owners within one tenth of a mile of the Building and confirmed that there is more than sufficient November 29, 2023
parking on the market (roughly 95 spaces) available to accommodate roughly six of The Angeleno Group’s anticipated nine employees that would need off-site parking.
4. Appellant Misrepresents the Proposed Loading Area
Appellant speculates that the off-street loading area for a van would cause traffic chaos. (Appeal Supplement, p. 6.) Wrong.
Consistent with BHMC section 10-3-2741, the proposed loading area in the surface parking lot would be 25 feet by 10 feet. This accommodates a van, which is all the City’s Code requires. Further, our November 21 letter explains that the Planning Commission’s ProjectSpecific Condition No. 7 requires that building management comply with the plan set forth in its description of how it would manage the proposed new loading area to avoid any new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards, which was included as Attachment G to the Planning Commission staff report. Appellant continues to ignore this.
5. Appellant Has a 7,700 Square Foot Rooftop Deck; Its Concerns Regarding Noise from a Small Terrace Are Absurd
Appellant speculates the limited outdoor terrace space would result in noise and privacy impacts equivalent to noise impacts from a rooftop deck at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard.
These issues are thoroughly discussed in our November 21 letter. It is worth repeating, however, that the Peninsula operates a 7,700 square foot rooftop deck, restaurant and pool.
The proposed terrace will be 945 square feet. (See Exhibit 3.) The penthouse and outdoor terrace have a maximum occupancy of 18 people, and would primarily be used as a working space for The Angeleno Group’s employees.
There is no evidence that any noise from use of the outdoor terrace by The Angeleno Group’s employees would exceed existing ambient conditions. Evidence set forth in our November 21 letter demonstrates that noise would be well below the existing ambient noise conditions along South Santa Monica Boulevard. There are no noise impacts.
6. The Project Complies with Applicable Requirements for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties
As explained in our companion letter – Response to Appellant’s Historic Letter – the City’s process was correct and the Project conforms with the SOI Standards. Appellant’s rigid analysis of the Project’s conformance is inconsistent with the SOI Standards, which are intended as general guidance for work on historic properties to ensure historic character-defining features are maintained.
For all these reasons we respectfully ask that the City Council deny the appeal in full.
The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval was correct.
November 29, 2023
Very truly yours,
Benjamin J. Hanelin
of Latham & Watkins LLP
cc: Mr. Yaniv Tepper, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
Mr. Daniel Weiss, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
George Mihlsten, Esq.
Kate Johnstone, Esq.
(;+,%,7
(;7(5,25*5$'(
*5281')/225
6(&21')/225
6(&21')/225&/*
(;,67,1*
*5281')/225&/*
$'',7,21522)
7+,5')/225
352326('
6(&21')/225&/*
352326('
726758&785(
0,1&/57281'(56,'(2)+2,67%($0
727$/75$9(/',67$1&(
(/(9$725
/2%%<
&,5&8/$7,21
23(12)),&(
5(&(37,21
23(12)),&(
58%%,6+50
$//*(1'(5
5(675220
&/26(7
+2,67%($072%(&225',1$7('%<*&+2,67%($072%(5(029('%<*&$)7(5(/(9$725,167$//$7,21
3,7'(37+
%
$
'225:,'7+
6&+,1'/(5/%*851(<
&203/,$17(/(9$725
02'(/$
520
&86720&$%
0 1, &/5
&,5&8,7%5($.(5/,*+76:,7&+68%0(56,%/(32:(581,7$1'0,&52352&(6625&21752/
$
352-(&7180%(5
0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$
ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20$5&+,7(&7%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20
30
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<
(1/$5*('3/$16
(/(9$725
66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
''352*5(666(7
$
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(
6&$/(
(/(9$7256(&7,21
6&$/(
(1/$5*('3/$1 (/(9$725
6&$/(
(1/$5*('3/$1 (/(90$&+,1(50
(;+,%,7
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
-XQH
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
-XQH
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
-XQH
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
-XQH
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5
0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$
ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20$5&+,7(&7%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20
$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<
6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
6800(5(48,12;
66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
''352*5(666(7
*
6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 6815,6( $'',7,21 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12;
$0 $'',7,21 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21
6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 6815,6( (;,67,1* 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12;
$0 (;,67,1* 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1*
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
-XQH
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5
0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$
ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17
,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20
$5&+,7(&7
%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20
$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<
6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
6800(5(48,12;
66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
''352*5(666(7
*
6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 6816(7 $'',7,21 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21
6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1* 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 30(;,67,1* 6&$/(
6800(5(48,12; 6816(7 (;,67,1*
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
$0
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
$0
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5
0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$
ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRPEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17
,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20
$5&+,7(&7
%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20
$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<
6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
:,17(5(48,12;
66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
''352*5(666(7
*
6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12;
$0 $'',7,21 6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21 6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12; 6815,6( $'',7,21
6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12; 6815,6( (;,67,1* 6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12;
$0 (;,67,1* 6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1*
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
1 (
6 :
30
$0
30
'HFHPEHU
30
30
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
352-(&7180%(5
0$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$
ZZZEHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWVFRP
EHO]EHUJDUFKLWHFWV
$33/,&$17
,03$&75($/(67$7(*5283//&
&(1785<3$5.($6768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
,1)2#$1*(/(12*5283&20
$5&+,7(&7
%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76//30$,1675((76$17$021,&$&$ %52&.'(60,75$
%52&.#%(/=%(5*$5&+,7(&76&20
$0
'$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<
6+$'($1'
6+$'2:678'<
:,17(5(48,12;
66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
''352*5(666(7
:,17(5(48,12; 6816(7 $'',7,21
6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12; 30 $'',7,21 6&$/(
*
6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12; 30 (;,67,1* 6&$/(
:,17(5(48,12; 6816(7 (;,67,1*
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(
(;+,%,7
),)7+)/225$5($7$%8/$7,21
)$5$5($727$/)/225$5($
6)
6)
,17(5,25$5($
6)$5($2)(;3$16,21 6)180%(52)*8(6752206 $5($(;(037(')520)$5
(/(9$7256+$)7 /2%%<$1'67$,56
6)!
-
(
322/
6)
64)7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725
64)76+$)7
64)767$,5
64)7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725
64)7(/(9$72564)7(/(9$725/2%%<
64)767$,5
64)7(/(9$725/2%%<
64)76+$)7
64)767$,5
$
(
322/'(&.
6)
(
63$
(
287'225
&$)(
6)
83 '1
83 '1
'1 83
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
(
$&&(66,%/(
*8(675220
(
63$
$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/
$&&(66,%/(3$7+2)75$9(/
3+
3+ $
'DWH
'UDZQ%\
6FDOH&.6KHHW1R-RE1XPEHU6KHHW1DPH
RI
6HDO
),/(
67</(
SM?GHVLJQYVGGE
5(9,6,216
0$<
6287+6$17$021,&$%28/(9$5'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
7+(3(1,168/$
9,//$6
3/$11,1*68%0,77$/ 1293/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$5 7 ,6
(* 5
(5('
7 (&7
&+ $5 ,
2 ) &$ / , )25
, $ 1 6 7$7 (
&
+ & ,1*(5 / / , ( 1$'
2&72%(5
3/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$<3/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ -81()$5',$*5$0),)7+)/2253/$1 $
66 ':&
-
64)7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725
64)7(/(9$72564 )7(/(9$725/2%%<64)7(/(9$725/2%%< 67$,5
(
63$
83 '1 83
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
(/(9
(
63$
$&&(66,%/(3$7+2 ( &
3+ $ 3
&.6KHHW1R-RE1XPEHU6KHHW1DPH
RI
),/(
67</(
SM?GHVLJQYVGG
5(9,6,216
6287+ 6$17$021,&$%28/(9$5'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
7+( 3(1,168/$
9,//$6
3/$11,1*68%0,77$/ 1293/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$53/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ 0$<3/$11,1*5(68%0,77$/ -81( )$5',$*5$0),)7+)/2253/$1 $
':
7,707 S.F. TotalRooftop Area for EHP
934.63 sf
945 S.F. OutdoorTerrace @ Penthouse
(
322/
6)
(
322/'(&.
6)
(
287'225
&$)(
6)
'1
ATTACHMENT 6
Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s
Letter to City Council
(November 29, 2023)
OF DECEMBER 5, 2023 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Century City Paris
Chicago Riyadh
Dubai San Diego
Düsseldorf San Francisco
Frankfurt Seoul
Hamburg Silicon Valley
Hong Kong Singapore
Houston Tel Aviv
London Tokyo
Los Angeles Washington, D.C.
Madrid
November 29, 2023
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor Gold and City Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Impact Real Estate Group’s Response to Appellant’s Historic Letter Supplementing Appeal of Planning Commission Approvals for 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd.
Honorable Mayor Gold, Vice Mayor Friedman, and City Councilmembers:
We write in response to The Belvedere Hotel Partnership’s letter regarding “The Darrow Building’s Proposed Third-Floor Addition and its Failure to Comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination for Case No. PL2200237)” dated November 20, 2023 (the “Historic Letter”). Also attached is a technical memorandum from the architecture historian firm Kaplan Chen Kaplan that responds the two historic reports attached to the Historic Letter as Exhibits B and C.
Appellant’s arguments are, as they were before, without merit. The City followed its Code and the Project conforms with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation (“SOI Standards”). Appellant’s analysis of the Project’s conformance is inconsistent with the SOI Standards, which are intended as general guidance for work on historic properties to ensure historic character-defining features are maintained.
1. The City’s Processes for Landmark Designation and Historic Incentive Permit Approval Were Correct
Appellant argues that the City did not follow proper procedures to consider designation of the property as a landmark, and to approve the Historic Incentive Permit. Appellant argues that the Cultural Heritage Commission was required to consider the building for landmark designation with the proposed rooftop addition included before the Planning Commission could approve the Historic Incentive Permit. (Historic Letter, p. 2.) This is wrong.
On April 13, 2023, the Cultural Heritage Commission found the Building eligible for landmark status. Then, on July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission made the required findings for a Historic Incentive Permit based in part on the evidence from the Cultural Heritage 2 November 29, 2023
Commission as well as on Applicant’s evidence in the record, including two reports from Kaplan Chen Kaplan. The City’s required process was followed precisely and Appellant’s argument is meritless.
The Cultural Heritage Commission is tasked with considering a property’s eligibility, as it exists, for local historic landmark status under BHMC section 10-3-3215. The Cultural Heritage Commission considered the Building’s eligibility for local landmark status at a preliminary hearing in April 2023, voted to initiate landmark proceedings, and determined during the preliminary hearing that the Building merits formal consideration as a local landmark.
Contrary to Appellant’s erroneous claim, the Cultural Heritage Commission was not required to consider the penthouse addition, or the Project’s conformance with the SOI Standards, as part of the landmark eligibility proceedings.
Instead, the Planning Commission is specifically tasked with considering the Project’s conformance with SOI Standards as part of the findings for the Historic Incentive Permit. Under BHMC section 10-3-3251, a Historic Incentive Permit is available to (A) properties designated as a local historic landmark by the City, or, (B) “[a]ny property that the cultural heritage commission or the city council has determined, at a preliminary hearing . . . formal consideration by the cultural heritage commission for nomination as a landmark; provided, however, that any historic incentive permit issued by the planning commission pursuant to this subsection shall be expressly conditioned on the property's designation as a landmark by the city council and inclusion on the city of Beverly Hills’ local register of historic places.” The Cultural Heritage Commission found the Building merits formal consideration as a landmark, so the Building meets the BHMC section 10-3-3251 (B) criteria.
Under BHMC section 10-3-3254, the “planning commission shall be the reviewing authority for all historic incentive permit applications” and, as part of its review of the Historic Incentive Permit application, the Planning Commission makes certain findings including whether the Project complies with the SOI Standards. (BHMC, § 10-3-3256(A).) Appellant makes the confusing claim that the Planning Commission “never – not once, discussed or evaluated the third-floor rooftop addition’s consistency with the SOI Standards.” (Historic Letter, p. 2.) But the Resolution approving the Project includes findings of consistency with the SOI Standards. No more was required for the Planning Commission to find the Project is consistent with the SOI Standards.
The City’s process for evaluating the Building’s consistency with the SOI Standards complied with the BHMC.
2. Project Complies with Applicable Requirements for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties
Appellant argues the rooftop addition to the Building cannot comply with the SOI Standards, so the Project is ineligible for a Historic Incentive Permit and CEQA Class 31 Categorical Exemption. As discussed in detail in the memorandum prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan as a supplement to the Historic Impacts Analysis (the “Memorandum”), the Project conforms with the SOI Standards. Appellant’s experts’ rigid analysis of the Project’s 3 November 29, 2023
conformance is inconsistent with the purpose of the SOI Standards which are intended as general guidance for work on all historic properties in order to maintain historic character-defining features.
Appellant and its two historic reports point to certain Interpreting the Standards (“ITS”) bulletins published by the National Park Service and claim that this guidance means that a twostory building can never include a third-story addition and be in compliance with the SOI Standards. This is not how the SOI Standards or NPS guidance are intended to be applied.
As explained in the Memorandum, the SOI Standards explicitly state that they are “guidance” and recognize there can be “exceptions” and that “technical feasibility” should be taken into consideration in applying the SOI Standards in a “reasonable manner.” In short, the guidance for applying the SOI Standards recognizes that each historic building has unique circumstances, and the SOI Standards and ITS bulletins should “assist in applying the Standards to rehabilitation projects in general” but “they are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or rare instances.” (See Memorandum, p. 4). Further, a recent California Court of Appeal case addressed compliance with the SOI Standards in the context of approval of a CEQA Class 31 Exemption for an addition to a historic house and found that the City’s determination that the project complied with the SOI Standards was supported by substantial evidence. (Historic Architecture Alliance v. City of Laguna Beach, 2023 S.O.S. 3701 (Oct. 6, 2023, Cal. Ct. App).) The Court deferred to the City’s finding of consistency with the SOI Standards under the substantial evidence standard.
As discussed in the Memorandum, the third-story addition is the only technically feasible option for an addition to the Building that is consistent with the SOI Standards – a detail Appellant’s two reports fail to address. The Building’s corner-lot configuration and the placement of the character-defining louver banks on the building’s sides make it impossible to add an addition to the rear or any other side of the Building. These constraints led to the proposed solution to construct a partial third story penthouse that would be set back from the front and side elevations of the building and use predominantly glazed materials to impart a lightweight, receding impression. The design would not alter the existing roofline or roof, and is removable without damage to the building’s character-defining features.
The Planning Commission’s finding that the Project complies with the SOI Standards, and is therefore eligible for a Historic Incentive Permit and the CEQA Class 31 categorical exemption, is correct and is supported by substantial evidence.
For all these reasons we respectfully ask the City Council deny the appeal in full. The Planning Commission’s unanimous approval was correct.
Very truly yours,
Benjamin J. Hanelin
of Latham & Watkins LLP
November 29, 2023
4 cc: Mr. Yaniv Tepper, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
Mr. Daniel Weiss, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
George Mihlsten, Esq.
Kate Johnstone, Esq.
(;+,%,7
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica CA 90405
Telephone 310.452.7505
Facsimile 310.452.1494
MEMO
Date: November 28, 2023
To: Ms. Devon Montmity
BA Collective
From: Pam O’Conner, Senior Historian
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Re: 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow - Lautner Building Impacts Memo
Introduction
This memorandum was prepared as a supplement to the Historic Impacts Analysis prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan regarding the proposed addition to the commercial building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard. That report analyzed the proposed addition for its consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Properties. This supplement was prepared in response to the Belvedere Hotel’s Partnership’s appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit to allow for rehabilitation of and construction of a new penthouse atop the existing two-story commercia building.
Background
The subject property is a commercial building located at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard. At the April 13, 2022, meeting of the City of Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission, the subject property was approved “to initiate nomination proceedings for inclusion on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties,” by a unanimous vote of the Commission. The proposed project is the rehabilitation of the historic building and its adaptive reuse as contemporary office space.
The building is located on the southeast corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The building was designed by Master Architect John Lautner and is a rare example of a commercial building designed by Lautner. In addition to Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
its Mid-20th Century provenance and Expressionist design, the building is an early example of sustainable elements integrated in a commercial building.
Current view (Google Earth) 1950 Sanborn Map excerpt
An addition is proposed to the two-story building to accommodate the programmatic requirements of the re-use of the building. The challenge is that three sides of the building contain significant character-defining features; the fourth side of the building is at the east property line and abuts the adjacent property. (Note, the subject building pre-dates the building located to its east.)
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, front and side elevation
Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
Charleville Blvd. side elevation Rear elevation (note: building to the east was constructed to the property line and
abutted the existing historic building
The challenge facing adding onto this historic building is where to place an addition as there are no non-significant visible elevations. The typical option of siting an addition at the rear of a building would require that the building’s rear elevation, with its highly articulated louver bank, be demolished. The louver bank is a significant design and sustainability element of the building and its demolition to accommodate an addition would have a major, irreversible, adverse impact to the historic significance of the building.
The constraints of the site and the significance of the rear elevation led to the proposed solution to construct a partial third story onto the building. A partial third story addition would use the roof as its platform and would not alter the form or materials of the roof.
Also, the roof addition is reversible; it can be removed in the future.
Drawing with roof addition
As the elevation of the partial third story shows, it will be set back from the front and side elevations of the building. The partial third story will be predominantly glazed including windows and sliding doors to impart a lightweight, receding impression. The area in front of the partial third story’s exterior on the front and side will function as a terrace and be enclosed by a transparent wall. The flat roof of the partial third story project out slightly Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
over the terrace area to provide shade. The proposed design will not cause alteration of the existing roofline or roof.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The federal Secretary of The Interior's Standards for the Treatment Of Historic Properties and the Standards For Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (SOI, National Park Service) are used by local and state governments.1 The purpose of The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (2017) is to provide guidance to historic building owners and building managers, preservation consultants, architects, contractors, and project reviewers prior to beginning work.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties address four treatments: preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction. The following is from the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretary-standards-treatment-historic-properties.htm).
As stated in the regulations (36 CFR Part 68) “one set of standards …will apply to a property undergoing treatment, depending upon the property’s significance, existing physical condition, the extent of documentation available, and interpretive goals, when applicable.
The Standards will be applied taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of each project.” “The Guidelines are intended as an aid to assist in applying the Standards to all types of historic buildings. They are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or unusual conditions.”
Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials, and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for Preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form.
Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the 1 The federal Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation as well as the National Register criteria for designation of historic properties are used by local governments as guidance. Cities, such as the City of Beverly Hills, adapt these criteria and standards to suit the City’s unique circumstances. The City of Beverly Hills designation criteria for historic buildings includes criteria unique to the City as does its Historic Incentive Program.
Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The Restoration Standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, finishes, and spaces from its period of significance and removing those from other periods.
Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. The Reconstruction Standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. In particular the Standards for Rehabilitation, are intended as general guidance for work on all historic properties.
The purpose of rehabilitation of historic buildings is not to freeze the building in time or make the building a historic museum. Rather, the intent of rehabilitation is to encourage retention and long-term preservation of the building for contemporary use while maintaining its significant historic character-defining features. According to the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Brief (https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/secretarystandards-treatment-historic-properties.htm), the Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation are to be applied in “a reasonable manner,” “taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.” The Standards and Guidelines as well as technical briefs such as the Interpreting the Standards (ITS) series “assist in applying the Standards to rehabilitation projects in general” but “they are not meant to give case-specific advice or address exceptions or rare instances.” 2
Two reports were submitted by the appellant regarding the proposed projects stating that the project does not conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation based on a rooftop addition being proposed. Neither report recognized that the proposed project is for an addition to a building -- which is allowed under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation. Neither of the reports analyzed where else a building addition could be constructed onto the historic 2 https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/secretarys-standards-rehabilitation.htm Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
building nor discusses the impacts that such an addition would have on the distinctive and historic character-defining features of the building.
The unique nature of the building and site must be considered when analyzing a rehabilitation project that includes an addition which is why the Standards are explicit in that they provide guidance and recognize that there can be “exceptions and rare instances” and that “technical feasibility” should be taken into consideration in applying the SOI Standards.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The Rooftop Addition is Consistent With the Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation
Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
SOI Standard 4 (alterations that have achieved historic significance), SOI Standard 7 (chemical and physical treatments that cause damage) and Standard 8 (regarding archeological resources) do not apply to the proposed rehabilitation project.
SOI Standard 1 states that a property should be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.” The building was designed as a commercial building and in recent decades had been adapted into medical offices. The proposed use will retain the commercial use of the building. The proposed project conforms with SOI Standard 1.
Two standards deal with the retention of historic character-defining features of a building, SOI Standards 2 and 5. SOI Standard 2 states that “the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.” SOI 5 states that “distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be retained and preserved.” Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
The National Park Service provides guidance in applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Interpreting the Standards (“ITS”) No. 3 Preservation Brief, New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings, states that a new addition should “not obscure character-defining features of the historic building.” ITS No. 36 Preservation Brief, Rooftop Additions states that rooftop additions should be designed to “not damage characterdefining features of the historic building.” The proposed project retains all the character-defining features of the building including the louver bank. The louver bank wraps around the building from a streamlined section along Charleville Boulevard to an articulated geometric form along the rear elevation. Both elevations are visible from the public right-of-way. To retain this configuration and the rear louver bank, an addition cannot be built onto the rear of the building. By adding a penthouse roof addition, the distinctive historic louver bank, which also is an example of an early sustainability feature on a commercial building, will be retained and preserved.
While in most situations, additions can be located at the rear, or on another secondary and inconspicuous elevation of the building, the configuration of the subject building on a corner lot limits the location of an addition as there are no secondary or inconspicuous elevations on the subject building. The location of the addition as a roof penthouse will not obscure any character-defining features of the building.
Placing an addition at the rear of the building would result in a major alteration of the design of the historic building and removal of significant character-defining features of the building. A rooftop addition does not require demolition of the distinctive louver bank on the rear elevation, which would otherwise alter the significant historic design of the building.
The significant historic and sustainable design of the building’s major visible elevations and its distinctive features will be retained and preserved with the proposed rooftop addition.
The proposed project’s penthouse addition conforms with SOI Standards 2 and 5.
SOI Standard 3 does not allow any changes that create a false sense of historic development such as adding conjectural features or architectural features from other buildings. The design of the penthouse roof addition is of contemporary styling, representative of the period in which it is designed. It is not a conjectural design from any historic building style.
The proposed project conforms with SOI Standard 3.
SOI Standard 6 states that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The treatment proposed for rehabilitation of the building is to retain and repair the characterdefining features of the historic building.
The proposed rehabilitation project conforms with SOI Standard 6.
SOI Standard 9 states the “new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials the characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.” SOI Standard 10 states that “new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that is removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.” ITS No. 3 Preservation Brief, New Additions to Mid-size Historic Buildings states that a new addition to a building is allowed if it is compatible with the historic building and its historic character. A new addition meets the Standards if: (1) it is located at the rear, or on another secondary and inconspicuous elevation of the building; (2) its size and scale are limited and appropriate for the historic building; (3) the new addition does not obscure characterdefining features of the historic building; and (4) the new addition is designed in such a way that clearly differentiates the new from the old.
The uniqueness of the historic design of the subject building is that three elevations contain character-defining features and are visible from the public right-of-way. There is no secondary rear elevation or any inconspicuous elevation of the building where a new addition could be attached. Thus, a rooftop penthouse is proposed.
The footprint of the rooftop penthouse is less than the surface area of the roof. The penthouse is set back from the edges of the building. The walls of the penthouse are primarily glass and designed to visually lighten and reduce the volume and massing of the addition. The size and scale of the rooftop addition are limited. The penthouse addition is appropriate for the building which has no other area to construct an addition without having an adverse impact on a major elevation of the building.
An addition to the rear of the building, a typical place for an addition, in this unique case would result in the loss of a major and distinctive character-defining feature of the building, the articulated bank of louvers on the rear elevation. The design of a penthouse addition will not obscure any historic character-defining features of the building. All the character- Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
defining features of the building from minor to the most distinctive and significant features of the building will be retained.
The new addition is designed in such a way that clearly differentiates the new from the old.
The design uses modern glass material and employs a contemporary design. The proposed rooftop penthouse addition is subordinate to the historic building as the rooftop addition is set back along the long Charleville Boulevard elevation and matches the plane of the rear elevation. The addition uses transparent materials in contrast to the opaque and solid materials that define the existing building.
Also, the original roofline of the building remains. The proposed rooftop addition is reversible and can be removed in the future. The proposed rooftop addition will not destroy any historic materials that characterize the building.
The proposed rooftop addition preserves the historic character of the building by retaining the building’s design and significant historic materials, features and the form of the building. The addition is compatible but differentiated from the historic building in terms of both its design and materials.
The proposed penthouse roof addition conforms with SOI Standards 9 and 10.
The proposed rehabilitation with addition that is proposed for the historic building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) was established “to incentivize the protection of significant historic resources by providing a process by which owners of locally designated historic landmarks may request waivers or deviations from certain development standards.” The HIP can be applied to projects that have been designated as City of Beverly Hills Landmark or to any property that has been determined to merit formal consideration by the Cultural Heritage Commission for nomination as a landmark.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is pursuing a HIP for the proposed project to rehabilitate the building that includes an addition to the building. To receive the HIP, the proposed rehabilitation project must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as defined by the City of Beverly Hills in that it:
1. Complies with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings"; or
Ms. Devon Montminy, BA Collective
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills
Darrow – Lautner Building Impacts Memo
November 28, 2023
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
Architects & Planners
2. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings", but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property.
The proposed rehabilitation project is approved for a CEQA Category 31 exemption if it conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
The proposed addition to the building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings and the HIP requirements of consistency with the SOI. As guidance regarding application of the SOI notes, each historic site/building has unique circumstances. The configuration of the subject building on a corner parcel with three visible elevations, each of which contain significant expressionist design and bold features, results in an atypical situation. Typically, there is a subordinate rear building addition and space to build an at grade addition onto the building or the potential of using an adjacent, “infill” site. This is not the case with the subject building. The historic building has three major, prominent elevations, two of which (including its rear elevation) contain a major character-defining historic and sustainable feature of the building. The only place to add onto the building is at the rooftop.
The rooftop addition is the only addition that would not have a permanent adverse effect on the physical historic integrity of the building. It is the only addition option that would not physically remove significant design and character-defining features of the building. The rooftop addition is reversible and can be removed in the future – without having an adverse impact on any historic character-defining feature of the building. The historic integrity of the historic building is retained as the rooftop addition preserves the bold expressionist volumes of the historic building by not demolishing major historic and sustainable character-defining features. The proposed addition to the historic building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the City of Beverly Hills HIP standards, and a CEQA Category 31 exemption.
ATTACHMENT 7
July 13, 2023
Planning Commission Staff Report
OF DECEMBER 5, 2023 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):
A. Applicable Beverly Hills Municipal Code Sections and Findings B. Draft Resolution
C. Public Notices
D. Historic Resource Evaluation
E. Historic Impact Analysis
F. April 13, 2022 Cultural Heritage Commission Staff Reports G. Applicant’s Loading and Deliveries Narrative
H. Project Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment)
Report Author and Contact Information:
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1138
[email protected]
Meeting Date: July 13, 2023
Subject: 9884 SOUTH SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit (PL2200237) Request for a Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building and a third story addition, along with waivers and deviations from certain development standards. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.
Project Applicant: Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit, and find the project exempt from CEQA.
REPORT SUMMARY
The proposed project involves a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition at the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “project site”). The project site is an approximate 6,000 square-foot (SF) lot currently developed with a 6,288 SF commercial building and a surface parking lot with seven parking spaces. The existing commercial building, known locally as the “Darrow Office Building,” was built in 1946 and was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects listed on the City’s List of Master Architects. The HIP request includes deviations from Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) requirements related to the minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading space requirements. The project site is located in the City’s C-3, Commercial Zone and the MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone.
This report details the physical context of the property and its vicinity, the requested development standard deviations, outlines the findings that are required to be made for the requested entitlements; and analyzes key project issues, which include: the proposed use of the property in relation to the adjacent uses, physical characteristics of the subject property, and discussion on Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
applicable state law requirements related to parking. Based on analysis contained in this report, staff’s recommendation is to conditionally approve the project.
BACKGROUND
File Date 6/6/2022
Application Complete 5/3/2023
Subdivision Deadline N/A
CEQA Recommendation Class 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination
Permit Streamlining 60 days from Determination of CEQA Exemption Applicant(s) Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
Owner(s) Impact Real Estate Group, LLC
Representative(s) Jason Somers, Crest Real Estate
Karen Mitri, Crest Real Estate
Brock DeSmit, Belzberg Architects LLP
Registered Legislative Advocates1 Jason Somers, Crest Real Estate Karen Mitri, Crest Real Estate
Prior Planning Commission Action None
Prior City Council Action None
PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address(es) 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Assessor’s ID No. 4328-003-001
Zoning District C-3 – Commercial Zone
MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone
General Plan Low Density General / Mixed Use Overlay – Commercial Existing Land Use(s) Commercial (Office)
Lot Dimensions & Area 50’ x 120’ (≈ 6,000 SF)
Year Built 1946
1 All project representatives listed here have been confirmed as registered legislative advocates in the City’s database as of Wednesday, July 5, 2023.
Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
Historic Resource The existing commercial building, known locally as the “Darrow Office Building,” was built in 1946 and the design of the building and site improvements are attributed to John Lautner and Douglas Honnold. A Historic Resources
Assessment (HRA) commissioned by the applicant was
prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan that details the
property’s eligibility for designation as a local historic landmark and inclusion on National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). (Attachment D).
Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Office, and Restaurant Uses)
South C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Hotel Uses)
R-4 – Multiple Residential Zone (Apartments and
Condominiums)
East C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Hotel Uses)
West C-3 – Commercial Zone / MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone / M-PD-5 Overlay Zone (Mixed Use Commercial/MultiFamily Residential – Under Construction) Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard Adjacent Alleys 15’ wide alley at rear of property
Parkways & Sidewalks South Santa Monica Boulevard Parkway – 10’ from curb face to property line
Charleville Boulevard Parkway – 10’ from curb face to
property line
Parking Restrictions South Santa Monica Boulevard – No Parking Anytime with painted red curb
Charleville Boulevard – No Parking Anytime on west side of street (current condition due to construction of the Rosewood Residences at 9908 South Santa Monica
Boulevard). Previously Two-hour metered parking from
8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday.
Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
Nearest Intersection South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard Circulation Element South Santa Monica Boulevard – Arterial Street Charleville Boulevard – Local Street
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, notable architects listed on the City’s List of Master Architects.
2 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.
Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery
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 consisting of retail, restaurant, and 2 The current List of Local Master Architects is available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/96555667244227986/MasterArchitectList_Version4-1_active.pdf Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
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.
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. The existing commercial building, known locally as the “Darrow Office Building,” was built in 1946 and was 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.
As detailed on the Historic Resources Evaluation (Attachment D) commissioned by the applicant and prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, a historic resources 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 architectural style. As detailed in the Impact Analysis (Attachment E) 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
• Canted sliding doors with wood frame and glazing under louvers • Light court on party wall side of building
Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
Fig. 2: Existing Building at Corner of South Santa Monica and Charleville Source: Google StreetView
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. 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.
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 H) 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 Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
planter bed on the ground floor along this elevation. A roof overhang projects over 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.
Fig. 3: Rendering of Building from South Santa Monica Blvd.
Source: Belzberg Architects
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, 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 Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
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.
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 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 vanaccessible handicap stall, as well as the required transformer for the project.
Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
Fig. 5: Site Plan
Source: Belzberg Architects
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.
3 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 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.4
The applicant is requesting approval of a DPR to allow for construction of the new third story and a 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:
3 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.
4 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.
Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
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) 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 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 to this report.
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 Planning Commission 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. While generally a project’s loading area could not be provided in an area that would block access to on-site parking areas, the applicant has provided a narrative detailing how the load area would be used to prevent from impacting access to available on-site parking (Attachment G). 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 Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
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.
REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
• Development Plan Review
A Development Plan Review (DPR) is required pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3100 to allow the construction of an addition that would increase the height of the building. • Historic Incentive Permit
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). The subject property has not yet been granted local landmark status; however, the City Council will consider granting such status at a future public hearing. The proposed project requests the following waivers/deviations:
o BHMC §9-3-1: Minimum Dimensions for Rubbish Storage Facilities o BHMC §10-3-2741: On-Site Loading Space Requirements
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES5
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the city. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project include the following:
Land Use Element Policies
• Policy LU 2.1 – City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors.
Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces.
• Policy LU 2.2 – Public Streetscapes and Landscape.
Maintain and enhance the quality and health of the “green infrastructure” that contributes to the City's identity and quality of life, including its street trees, landscaped medians and parkways, parks, and open spaces, while seeking to conserve water resources. 5 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/communitydevelopment/longrangeplanning/generalplan/ Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
• Policy LU 2.4 – Architectural and Site Design.
Require that new construction and renovation of existing buildings and properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and construction practices, landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City’s distinctive image and complement existing development. • Policy LU 2.6 – City History.
Acknowledge the City’s history of places and buildings, preserving historic sites, buildings, and districts that contribute to the City's identity while accommodating renovations of existing buildings to maintain their economic viability, provided the new construction contextually “fits” and complements the site or building. • Policy LU 15.3 – Revitalization of Vacant and Underutilized Land Promote the revitalization of distressed, underutilized, and vacant buildings to sustain economic viability, activity, and provide income for City services.
Historic Preservation Element Goals and Policies
• Policy HP 1.4 – Develop Incentives to Protect Significant Historic Resources.
Develop and fund financial and regulatory incentives to encourage the protection of historic buildings, districts, and public landmarks/monuments from demolition or significant alteration, which may include Mills Act contracts, wavier of fees, flexible development standards, conservation easements, transfer of development rights, and other incentivebased mechanisms to make preservation feasible for owners and developers.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines6(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), 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 Impact Analysis (Attachment E), the project fully complies with SOI Standards. If the Planning Commission is able to make findings in support of approval of the project, staff recommends that the Commission find the project exempt from further review under the provisions of CEQA.
6 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
TABLE 1 – PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Type of Notice Required
Period
Actual
Period
Required
Date
Actual
Date
Notice of Pending Application
(Owners & Occupants – 500' Radius +
block-face)
Within 45
Days 39 Days 7/21/2022 7/15/2022
Adjacent Neighbors Notice
(Owners & Occupants – 100’ Radius) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notice of Public Hearing
(Owners & Occupants – 500' Radius +
block-face)
20 Days 20 Days 6/23/2023 6/23/2023
Newspaper Notice N/A N/A N/A N/A
Property Posting 20 Days 20 Days 6/23/2023 6/23/2023
Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 7/10/2023 7/6/2023
Website (Agenda) 72 Hours 7 Days 7/10/2023 7/6/2023
Public Comment
As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any public comment related to this project.
ANALYSIS7
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary action requested by the applicant. This section is intended to provide a detailed analysis of the project to assist the Planning Commission in assessing whether a project is able to meet the required findings for approval of the requested entitlements. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided as Attachment A to this report.
Additionally, the draft resolution provided as Attachment B contains draft language for findings that may be used to guide the Planning Commission’s deliberation on the subject project.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The SOI Standards provide guidance and allow historic properties to be adapted to the changing needs of modern times, and the SOI Standards are used as the general criteria to review modifications to historic properties. The SOl Standards have purposefully been crafted to allow flexibility for historic buildings to be adapted over time in a way that allows ongoing functionality of historic buildings without unnecessarily destroying historic fabric. The SOl Standards for Rehabilitation assume that at least some repair or alteration of a historic building will be needed over time in order to provide for efficient contemporary use; however, these repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy original materials, features, or finishes that are important in defining the historic 7 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.
Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
character of the resource. There are ten guiding standards to be applied in the rehabilitation of historic properties.
In evaluating the proposed project, a Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment D) and Impact Analysis (Attachment E) was commissioned by the project. The Historic Resource Evaluation and Impact Analysis was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, a historic preservation consultant, and detailed the condition of the existing building, its eligibility for designation as a local historic landmark, and the proposed rehabilitation and addition project’s compliance with SOI standards. The Impact Analysis concluded that the proposed project complies with the applicable SOI Standards. These reports 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 initiating the landmarking process in advance of the CHC’s meeting on April 13, 2022. Based on the finding 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 keeping with the requirements set forth in the SOI Standards, as the project will be retaining characterdefining features of the existing building.
Development Plan Review. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3104, the Planning Commission’s review of a Development Plan Review application is based on the following findings:
• The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.
The proposed project appears to meet several polices of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, including City Places (Policy LU 2.1) through maintaining and enhancing the character of existing business districts, City History (Policy LU 2.6) through the preservation existing buildings while accommodating renovations of existing buildings to maintain their economic viability, and Revitalization of Vacant and Underutilized Land (LU 15.3) by promoting the revitalization of distressed, underutilized, and vacant buildings to sustain economic viability, activity, and provide income for City services.
As such, the proposed project is consistent with the general plan and the project site is not located in a specific plan area.
• The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.
The proposed project includes the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the construction of a 1,400 SF third story addition. The project site is located directly to the east of an active construction project at 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Rosewood Residences). The project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that would be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment on-site. The small scale of this project is not anticipated to negatively impact existing development in the area, as the project would be required to submit a construction management during plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planned construction in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
would not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.
• The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
The project seeks to rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building that was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, notable architects listed on the City’s List of Local Master Architects, while providing a new third story addition of approximately 1,400 SF. The proposed addition would increase the existing height of the building by 15’-3”, resulting in a total building height of 38’-0”. The existing building line would be retained for the existing building facing South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The new addition is proposed with a 16’-6” setback from South Santa Monica Boulevard and 8’-9” from Charleville Boulevard. The addition would result in a net floor area increase of 765 SF, for a total building floor area of 7,053 SF and an FAR of 1.17, where the development standards allow for a maximum height of 45’ and a maximum FAR of 2.0. The project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable density, height, and location requirements established for commercial development within the City’s C-3 Zone. The closest existing residential property is located over 60’ away along Durant Drive, a two-story multifamily residential property located across the street and to the south of the project site.
The request includes deviations of the development standard as part of the Historic Inventive Permit request that would facilitate the introduction of services that the existing building does not provide. The project seeks to provide an on-site loading area on a site that currently has no on-site loading areas. Similarly, the project would provide a dedicated room in the building to house rubbish storage containers where currently none are provided. These features would upgrade the existing condition of the project site while promoting the rehabilitation of an architecturally significant building in the City’s commercial area. As such, the nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of the project will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
• The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
The proposed project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) thresholds due to the small scale of the project consisting of the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the addition of a 1,400 SF third story. The project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that would be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment on-site. Additionally, the project would be required to submit a construction management during plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planned construction in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
proposed project would not create any significant adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards. • The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The project site is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable development standards, including adherence to maximum height, FAR, and the SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. The proposed project seeks to rehabilitate an existing commercial building that was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, a notable architect in the Southern California region that is also listed on the City’s List of Local Master Architects, and provides for future designation of the property as a local historic landmark, preserving a building possessing a unique style of architecture in the city. As such, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Historic Incentive Permit.
Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3256, the Planning Commission’s review of a HIP application is based on the following findings:
• The proposed project complies with the "Secretary of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings"
The proposed project complies with Standards of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. The project provides for the rehabilitation of the existing structure and the preservation of unique architectural elements that are characterdefining features of Late Modern architecture. Deteriorated historic building features would be repaired rather than replaced unless the features are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement feature will be required to match the original element in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The new third floor addition would allow for the construction of the additional level without necessitating additions or extensions of the existing first and second floors that would cause the removal and destruction of existing architecturally significant building elements. The thoughtful design and placement of the addition keeps the design of the existing Lautnerdesigned building while facilitating the additional improvements at the project site.
Additionally, in approving a HIP, the Planning Commission shall also find that the proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the following:
• The scale, massing, or character of the streetscape.
The project seeks to rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building, while providing a new third story addition of approximately 1,400 SF. While the project would increase the existing height of the building by 15’-3”, the proposed addition is set back further 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 Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
South Santa Monica 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. Additionally, rehabilitation of the existing John Lautner-designed building preserves the existing character of the streetscape by retaining an architecturally significant building along South Santa Monica Boulevard. As such, the project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape.
• The scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties.
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, and a rear setback of 44’-6”. As viewed from South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, the design of the addition orients the scale and massing of the building away from view of neighboring properties. To the east, the addition includes the extension of an existing solid building wall that abuts the neighboring three-story building on the Peninsula property that would also screen the proposed outdoor terrace on the third floor. 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. As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties.
• Neighbors' access to light and air.
The project site abuts the Peninsula Hotel to the east and south. The existing hotel was developed as a four-story building with a height of approximately 45’ that also includes rooftop uses and pool areas. The project would increase the height of the existing building by approximately 15’-3”, from the 23’-9” tall building that currently exists to a proposed height of 38’-0”, in compliance with the applicable maximum allowable height for development in commercial zones. In review of the provided shade and shadow study on the set of plans, shadows cast primarily during the winter month generally cast toward the street, while shadows cast from the proposed project would Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
be largely contained on-site, with minimal shadows after 6:00 P.M. As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact to neighbor’s access to light and air. • Neighbors' privacy.
As noted, the project site abuts the Peninsula Hotel to the east and south. Along the east elevation of the building abutting the hotel property, the existing building wall located at the property line would be extended, without openings to the neighboring property. This solid wall on the east elevation is designed to provide privacy to the neighboring property from working and open space areas on the third floor and outdoor terrace areas. No building programming would be visible from the east, and similarly, workers on the third-floor terrace would not be able to have a view into the hotel property. 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 building programing along the south elevation of the third-story addition primarily consists of stairs, a stair well, and a closet. 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.
As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact to neighbors’ privacy. • The garden quality of the city.
The project includes a new site-wide landscape plans that would improve the quality of landscaping provided facing South Santa Monica Boulevard, Charleville Boulevard, and at the rear of the property in the redesigned surface parking lot. Typically, existing commercial development along Santa Monica Boulevard is built to the property line and doesn’t provide for areas to soften the adjacent streetscape. The project would retain existing landscape planters along these street frontages to provide a buffer from pedestrians and the property, while also enhancing the quality of landscaping on-site.
As such, the proposed project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the city.
• The public health, safety, or welfare.
The project site is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable development standards, including adherence to maximum height, FAR, and the SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. The proposed project seeks to rehabilitate an existing commercial building that was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, a notable architect in the Southern California region that is also listed on the City’s List of Local Master Architects, and provides for future designation of the property as a local historic landmark, preserving a building possessing a unique style of architecture in the city. As such, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Planning Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Review and Historic Incentive Permit for the proposed project at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, and find the project exempt from CEQA.
Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions of approval.
2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings.
3. Direct staff or Applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines.
Report Reviewed By:
Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner
Planning Commission Staff Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
ATTACHMENT A
Applicable Beverly Hills Municipal Code
Sections and Findings
OF JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
ARTICLE 31. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
10-3-3100: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED:
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code or ordinance of the City of Beverly Hills, the following shall not be permitted to be established unless a development plan is approved pursuant to the provisions of this article establishing a development plan review procedure unless exempted pursuant to section 10-3-3101 of this article:
A. All uses involving new construction that requires the issuance of a building permit other than new construction subject to a discretionary permit under this chapter (excluding architectural review) or any other interim zoning ordinance of the City.
B. All rooftop gymnasiums and lunchrooms permitted pursuant to section 10-3-3107 of this article.
C. All projects constructed pursuant to a density bonus permit.
D. All new parking lots.
A new parking lot shall mean a parking lot established in a location not previously used for parking purposes.
E. Conversion of parking to a commercial parking lot.
Parking shall be considered to be converted to a commercial parking lot upon the initial posting of signs advertising the availability of such parking to the general public. Nothing in this subsection shall require development plan review of an existing parking lot that currently contains signage advertising the availability of parking to the general public. Signage indicating the availability of parking for patrons or employees of a commercial establishment shall not be considered to be signage advertising the availability of parking to the general public.
F. All common interest development projects, as defined in chapter 2, article 7 of this title.
G. All projects which would increase the floor area of a structure or building by two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more.
H. All projects that would increase the height of a structure or building more than twenty-four (24) inches, but not exceeding the maximum height limit otherwise applicable to the zone nor resulting in an additional story, unless the addition or alteration is specified in this chapter as an element not considered when determining building height. (Ord. 18-O-2755, eff. 7-20-2018; amd. Ord. 22-O-2860, eff. 6-10-2022)
10-3-3101: EXEMPTIONS FROM DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW:
The development plan review procedure required by this article shall not apply to the following:
A. Single-family residences and accessory uses permitted in single-family zones except single-family residences constructed pursuant to a density bonus permit.
B. Signs.
C. Sculptures or other types of artwork.
D. Landscaping not involving any new construction of buildings or structures on the site.
E. Facade 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.
F. Awnings.
G. Encroachment permits approved by the City Council.
H. New construction involving less than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet of new or additional floor area that does not increase the height of the structure or building and is not for the purpose of establishing a rooftop gymnasium or lunchroom pursuant to section 10-3-3107 of this article, or an automatic teller machine adjacent to a public right-of-way.
I. Resurfacing, restriping and similar alteration of an existing legally nonconforming surface parking facility.
J. Satellite dish antennas permitted as accessory uses pursuant to section 10-3-4503 of this chapter.
K. Wireless telecommunication antenna facilities permitted without a conditional use permit pursuant to section 10-3-4509 of this chapter. (Ord. 11-O-2615, eff. 12-16-2011)
10-3-3102: REVIEWING AUTHORITY FOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
A. The Planning Commission shall be the reviewing authority for all development plan review applications involving the following:
1. Projects in the C-5 or Public Service Zone involving new construction with a floor area ratio greater than 1.5, other projects in those zones involving more than forty thousand (40,000) square feet of new or additional floor area, and projects in any other zone involving more than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of new or additional floor area.
2. Multi-family residential projects involving five (5) or more new units.
3. Any project requiring the granting of a variance.
4. Rooftop gymnasiums and lunchrooms in the C-3, C-R, C-3A, and C-3B Zones.
5. Any project referred to the Planning Commission by the Planning Director.
6. All common interest development projects, as defined in chapter 2, article 7 of this title.
7. Any project constructed pursuant to a density bonus permit.
The reviewing authority for all other projects subject to the provisions of this article shall be the City Planning Director or such other person that may be designated by the City Manager. The Planning Director or such other designated person may refer to the Planning Commission any project that the Director or other designated person deems appropriate for review by the commission due to the size, location, or other characteristics or impacts of the project. (Ord. 11-O-2615, eff. 12-16-2011) 10-3-3103: PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
A. A public hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission on all applications for which it is the reviewing authority. Noticing shall be completed in accordance with article 2.5 of this chapter and the City's public notice guidelines. A public hearing shall not be required for applications subject to review by the Director of Planning and Community Development pursuant to this article.
B. A public hearing shall be held by the City Council on all applications for which it is the reviewing authority pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsection A of this section. (Ord. 14-O-2661, eff. 6-20-2014) 10-3-3104: STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
Except as provided in this section for development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the reviewing authority shall approve a development plan review application only if it makes all of the following findings:
A. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.
B. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.
For those proposed plans to be located in the C-5 Zone that are reviewed by the Planning Commission, the commission shall consider the factors set forth in section 10-3-2021 of this chapter as part of the commission's determination regarding whether a project will promote harmonious development of the area.
C. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
D. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
E. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
In approving a development plan application, the reviewing authority may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.
With regard to development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and to be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the review of the Director shall be ministerial and limited to whether such building conforms to the requirements of the C-5 Zone. (Ord. 11-O-2615, eff. 12-16-2011)
ARTICLE 32.5. HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT
10-3-3250: PURPOSE:
This article is intended 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 set forth in this code. (Ord. 14- O-2670, eff. 1-2-2015)
10-3-3251: APPLICABILITY:
The historic incentive permit shall be available only to:
A. Those properties that are designated as a local historic landmark in the city of Beverly Hills pursuant to the provisions set forth in article 32 of this chapter, or
B. Any property that the cultural heritage commission or the city council has determined, at a preliminary hearing held pursuant to subsection 10-3-3215A5 of this chapter, 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 pursuant to this subsection shall be expressly conditioned on the property's designation as a landmark by the city council and inclusion on the city of Beverly Hills' local register of historic places. (Ord. 15-O-2682, eff. 11-19-2015) 10-3-3252: HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT ISSUED:
In addition to any other provision of this code or ordinance of the city of Beverly Hills, waivers or deviations from any development standards set forth in this code may be permitted through the issuance of a historic incentive permit approved pursuant to the provisions of this article. (Ord. 14-O-2670, eff. 1-2-2015) 10-3-3253: HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT AUTHORITY:
Upon application by a property owner, in a form satisfactory to the director of community development, the reviewing authority may, if it makes the necessary findings, issue a historic incentive permit to waive or deviate from any development standard set forth in this chapter, except that no waiver or deviation shall be granted to: exceed the building height standards for the Trousdale Estates area of the city, as set forth in section 10-3-2605 of this chapter; allow construction off the level pad in the Trousdale Estates area of the city, as set forth in section 10-3-2603 of this chapter; and/or allow grading of sloped areas for the Trousdale Estates area of the city, as set forth in section 10-3-2604 of this chapter. No certificate of appropriateness shall be required for any project for which a historic incentive permit is granted pursuant to the provisions of this article. Nothing in this section, however, shall be construed to permit any waiver or deviation from land use requirements or restrictions set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 16-O-2700, eff. 4-1-2016) 10-3-3254: REVIEWING AUTHORITY:
The planning commission shall be the reviewing authority for all historic incentive permit applications. (Ord. 14-O-2670, eff. 1-2-2015) 10-3-3255: PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE:
The reviewing authority shall hold a public hearing concerning each application for a historic incentive permit.
Notice of any hearing held pursuant to this section shall be completed in accordance with article 2.5 of this chapter and the city's public notice guidelines. (Ord. 14-O-2670, eff. 1-2-2015) 10-3-3256: FINDINGS REQUIRED TO ISSUE A HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT:
The reviewing authority shall not issue a historic incentive permit unless the reviewing authority makes the following findings:
A. The proposed project either:
1. Complies with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings"; or
2. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the "Secretary Of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings", but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property; and
B. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on:
1. The scale, massing, or character of the streetscape,
2. The scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties,
3. Neighbors' access to light and air,
4. Neighbors' privacy,
5. The garden quality of the city, and
6. The public health, safety, or welfare. (Ord. 14-O-2670, eff. 1-2-2015) Planning Commission Staff Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
ATTACHMENT B
Draft Resolution
OF JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS 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 (PL2200237)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:
Section 1. Yaniv Tepper, on behalf of Impact Real Estate Group, LLC, (collectively the “Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition, along with deviations from certain development standards to allow for reduced minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and alternative loading area requirements at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Project”).
Section 2. The 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. The existing commercial building, known locally as the “Darrow Office Building,” was built in 1946 and was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects listed on the City’s List of Local Master Architects. The Project includes the construction of 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.
The new third floor addition would increase the existing height of the building by approximately 2 15’-3”, from 23’-9” to a proposed height of 38’-0”. Additional interior improvements include the addition of required elevators and stair shafts that provide access to all existing and proposed floors of the building and are exempt from counting against the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for the site. While the proposed third story addition measures 1,404 SF, 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 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. The existing structure would maintain its existing setbacks. 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 is proposed with 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, and a rear setback of 44’-6”. 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, with exposed wood elements and full height storefront glazing on the front, street-side, and rear of the addition. The Project includes the reconfiguration the existing surface parking lot located at the rear of the property to provide a new transformer to provide improved electrical service to the property. 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. The Project would reduce the number of parking spaces on the Project site, from seven (7) to three (3) parking spaces, in order to accommodate the required van-accessible handicap stall, as well as the required transformer for the Project. Additionally, the Project requires modifications from the following BHMC development standards:
3 • BHMC §9-3-1: Minimum Dimensions for Rubbish Storage Facilities • BHMC §10-3-2741: On-Site Loading Space Requirements
Rubbish Storage Facilities
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 proposes 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 Historic Incentive Permit.
Loading Area
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. While generally a project’s loading area could not be provided in an area that would block access to on-site parking areas, the use of this loading area would be managed to prevent from impacting access to available on-site parking. Deliveries would be managed by the property owner and would be limited to occurring during non-peak office hours to minimize congestion and traffic conflict from delivery vehicles and customer vehicles from accessing the parking lot at the same time. 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 4 to the infeasibility of provided a standalone loading space without further eliminating available on-site parking.
Section 3. 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. The Project qualifies for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Section 15303 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Class 3 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).
Therefore, the Planning Commission finds the Project exempt from further review under CEQA.
Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on June 23, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, extended to the block face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on June 23, 2023. On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing.
Section 5. In considering the request for approval of a Development Plan Review, pursuant to Section 10-3-3104 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the 5 Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:
1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.
2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.
3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Development Plan Review:
1. The proposed Project appears to meet several polices of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, including City Places (Policy LU 2.1) through maintaining and enhancing the character of existing business districts, City History (Policy LU 2.6) through the preservation existing buildings while accommodating renovations of existing buildings to maintain their economic viability, and Revitalization of Vacant and Underutilized Land (LU 15.3) by promoting the revitalization of distressed, underutilized, and vacant buildings to sustain economic viability, activity, and provide income for City services. As such, the 6 proposed project is consistent with the general plan and the project site is not located in a specific plan area.
2. The Project includes the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the construction of a 1,400 SF third story addition. The project site is located directly to the east of an active construction project at 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Rosewood Residences). The project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that would be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment on-site. The small scale of this project is not anticipated to negatively impact existing development in the area, as the project would be required to submit a construction management during plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planned construction in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.
3. The Project seeks to rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building that was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, notable architects listed on the City’s List of Local Master Architects, while providing a new third story addition of approximately 1,400 SF. The proposed addition would increase the existing height of the building by 15’-3”, resulting in a total building height of 38’-0”. The existing building line would be retained for the existing building facing South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The new addition is proposed with a 16’-6” setback from South Santa Monica Boulevard and 8’-9” from Charleville Boulevard. The addition would result in a net floor area increase of 765 SF, for a total building floor area of 7,053 SF and an 7 FAR of 1.17, where the development standards allow for a maximum height of 45’ and a maximum FAR of 2.0. The project would be constructed in compliance with all applicable density, height, and location requirements established for commercial development within the City’s C-3 Zone. The closest existing residential property is located over 60’ away along Durant Drive, a two-story multi-family residential property located across the street and to the south of the project site. The request includes deviations of the development standard as part of the Historic Inventive Permit request that would facilitate the introduction of services that the existing building does not provide. The project seeks to provide an on-site loading area on a site that currently has no on-site loading areas.
Similarly, the project would provide a dedicated room in the building to house rubbish storage containers where currently none are provided. These features would upgrade the existing condition of the project site while promoting the rehabilitation of an architecturally significant building in the City’s commercial area. As such, the nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of the project will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
4. The Project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) thresholds due to the small scale of the project consisting of the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the addition of a 1,400 SF third story. The project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that would be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment on-site.
Additionally, the project would be required to submit a construction management during 8 plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work would not adversely affect planned construction in the vicinity of the project site. As such, the proposed project would not create any significant adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
5. The Project site is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable development standards, including adherence to maximum height, FAR, and the SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. The proposed project seeks to rehabilitate an existing commercial building that was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, a notable architect in the Southern California region that is also listed on the City’s List of Local Master Architects, and provides for future designation of the property as a local historic landmark, preserving a building possessing a unique style of architecture in the city. As such, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Section 7. In considering the request for approval of a Historic Incentive Permit, pursuant to Section 10-3-3252 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:
1. The proposed project complies with the "Secretary of The Interior's Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings."
2. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape.
3. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties. 9 4. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the neighbors' access to light and air.
5. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the neighbors' privacy.
6. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the city.
7. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare.
Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Historic Incentive Permit:
1. The Project complies with Standards of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. The project provides for the rehabilitation of the existing structure and the preservation of unique architectural elements that are character-defining features of Late Modern architecture. Deteriorated historic building features would be repaired rather than replaced unless the features are deteriorated beyond repair. Any replacement feature will be required to match the original element in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. The new third floor addition would allow for the construction of the additional level without necessitating additions or extensions of the existing first and second floor that would cause the removal and destruction of existing architecturally significant building elements. The thoughtful design and placement of the addition keeps the design of the existing Lautner-designed building while facilitating the additional improvements at the project site.
10 2. The Project seeks to rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building, while providing a new third story addition of approximately 1,400 SF. While the project would increase the existing height of the building by 15’-3”, the proposed addition is set back further 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 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.
Additionally, rehabilitation of the existing John Lautner-designed building preserves the existing character of the streetscape by retaining an architecturally significant building along South Santa Monica Boulevard. As such, the project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale, massing, or character of the streetscape.
3. 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, and a rear setback of 44’-6”. As viewed from South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, the design of the addition orients the scale and massing of the building away from view of neighboring properties.
To the east, the addition includes the extension of an existing solid building wall that abuts the neighboring three-story building on the Peninsula property that would also screen the 11 proposed outdoor terrace on the third floor. 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. As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties.
4. The Project site abuts the Peninsula Hotel to the east and south. The existing hotel was developed as a four-story building with a height of approximately 45’ that also includes rooftop uses and pool areas. The project would increase the height of the existing building by approximately 15’-3”, from the 23’-9” tall building that currently exists to a proposed height of 38’-0”, in compliance with the applicable maximum allowable height for development in commercial zones. In review of the provided shade and shadow study on the set of plans, shadows cast primarily during the winter month generally cast toward the street, while shadows cast from the proposed project would be largely contained onsite, with minimal shadows after 6:00 P.M. As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact to neighbor’s access to light and air. 12 5. As noted, the Project site abuts the Peninsula Hotel to the east and south.
Along the east elevation of the building abutting the hotel property, the existing building wall located at the property line would be extended, without openings to the neighboring property. This solid wall on the east elevation is designed to provide privacy to the neighboring property from working and open space areas on the third floor and outdoor terrace areas. No building programming would be visible from the east, and similarly, workers on the third-floor terrace would not be able to have a view into the hotel property.
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 building programing along the south elevation of the third-story addition primarily consists of stairs, a stair well, and a closet. 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. As such, the project would not have a substantial adverse impact to neighbors’ privacy.
6. The Project includes a new site-wide landscape plans that would improve the quality of landscaping provided facing South Santa Monica Boulevard, Charleville Boulevard, and at the rear of the property in the redesigned surface parking lot. Typically, existing commercial development along Santa Monica Boulevard is built to the property line and doesn’t provide for areas to soften the adjacent streetscape. The project would retain existing landscape planters along these street frontages to provide a buffer from pedestrians and the property, while also enhancing the quality of landscaping on-site. As 13 such, the proposed project will not have a substantial adverse impact on the garden quality of the city.
7. The Project site is located within a commercial area and is required to be developed to all applicable development standards, including adherence to maximum height, FAR, and the SOI Standards for rehabilitation of historic structures. The proposed project seeks to rehabilitate an existing commercial building that was built in 1946 and designed by John Lautner, a notable architect in the Southern California region that is also listed on the City’s List of Local Master Architects, and provides for future designation of the property as a local historic landmark, preserving a building possessing a unique style of architecture in the city. As such, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Section 9. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit associated with the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition at the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:
Project-Specific Conditions
1. The Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Historic Incentive Request, which included deviations from the applicable dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and standards for on-site loading spaces. The Applicant shall provide a rubbish storage room on the first floor of the building abutting the parking lot with interior dimensions sufficient to accommodate a two (2) cubic yard refuse bin. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide one (1) on-site loading space in the surface parking lot at the rear 14 of the property available during off-peak office to facilitate deliveries to the building. The loading area shall be 10’ in width by 25’ in length.
2. This approval is for those plans submitted to the Planning Commission on July 13, 2023, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.
3. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development or her/his designee. A significant change to the approved Project shall be subject to Planning Commission review.
4. Approval of the Historic Incentive Permit shall not become effective unless and until the City Council designates the subject property as a Local Historic Landmark.
5. Project Plans are subject to compliance with all applicable zoning regulations, except as may be expressly modified herein. Project plans shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are submitted for plan check.
Compliance with all applicable Municipal Codes is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
6. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or his/her designee for a consistency determination with the original approval.
7. The proposed loading area shall be operated as detailed on the applicant’s Loading and Deliveries Narrative. To minimize congestion and traffic conflicts, deliveries shall be coordinated so that they occur primarily during early morning or evening hours, 15 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.) shall be coordinated and approved by building management in order to better manage access to the proposed parking areas. Delivery vehicles shall 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 Director of Community Development shall have the authority to provide additional operational conditions on the use of the loading area if impacts result from the proposed operation, and may refer any loading operation issued to the Planning Commission for review, if necessary.
Construction-Related Conditions
8. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and such Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the earlier of the issuance of a demolition or the issuance of a building permit. The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum the following:
a. Written information about the construction parking arrangements and hauling activities at different stages of demolition and construction to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works and the Building & Safety Department.
b. Information regarding the anticipated number of workers, the location of parking with respect to schedules of the demolition and construction period, the arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of 16 operation, designation of construction staging area and other pertaining information regarding construction related traffic.
c. The proposed demolition construction staging for this Project to determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for demolition, deliveries, etc., to the subject site.
9. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the Community Development Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.
10. The Applicant shall post the names and telephone numbers of two construction representatives for the Project and a City contact on all construction fence signs. The phone numbers shall be manned at all times during construction hours.
11. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.
12. The Applicant shall remove and replace all curbs and gutters adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.
13. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall 17 be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or his/her designee) is first obtained.
14. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by the Director of Public Works (or his/her designee), and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Development.
15. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations performed under any permits issued by the City.
16. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.
17. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.
18. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the subject site. No such installations will be allowed in any City right-of-way.
19. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.
20. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline. 18 21. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards, and shall be paid for by the applicant. No privately-owned structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.
Standard Conditions
22. APPEAL. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk’s office.
An appeal fee is required.
23. RECORDATION. This resolution approving this Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving an amendment to the Planned Development shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180-day period, grant a written waiver from the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days if, at the time of the request, the Director determines 19 that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant.
24. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review and Historic Incentive Permit:
The exercise of rights granted in such approvals shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date of approval of this resolution, as provided for in BHMC §10-3-207.A., unless otherwise extended.
25. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in enforcement action by the City until such violation is abated or the entitlement granted herein is revoked pursuant to Section 10-3-258 of the BHMC, or its successor regulation. All costs incurred by the City as a result of abatement of a violation on the property shall be reimbursed by the party in breach of this resolution.
26. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. ///
///
///
///
///
20 Section 10. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.
Adopted: July 13, 2023
Theresa M. Kaplan
Vice-Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:
Masa Alkire, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved As To Form:
David M. Snow
Assistant City Attorney
Approved As To Content:
Masa Alkire, AICP
City Planner
Planning Commission Staff Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
ATTACHMENT C
Public Notices
OF JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard – Building Elevations Source: Belzberg Architects
- 2 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
- 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.
Planning Commission Staff Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
ATTACHMENT D
Historic Resource Evaluation
OF JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills, California
Historic Resource Evaluation
March 2, 2022
Submitted by:
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
David Kaplan, Principal
Pam O’Connor, Architectural Historian
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Summary of Research and Field Methodology 1
Regulatory Framework 2
Property Location and Setting 5
Commercial Architecture in Beverly Hills and Development History 9 Architectural Style, Building Description and History 13 John Lautner, Architect 27
Evaluation of Eligibility 33
Conclusions 38
References 39
Attachments
Attachment A: Photographs
Attachment B: Maps
Attachment C: Permits
Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Attachment E: DPR Record
Attachment F: Letter from Judith Lautner, The John Lautner Foundation Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 1 March 2, 2022
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kaplan Chen Kaplan conducted an Historic Resource Assessment of the property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills.
The building, known as the Darrow Office Building, is an excellent example of the design philosophy and design skills of Master Architect, John Lautner. The Darrow Office Building is an excellent example of the Late Modern architectural style. It is an early example of a building incorporating sustainable features. It is also a rare extant example of a commercial office building designed by Lautner early in his career. Lautner is recognized as a master architect with many published books by architectural historians and academics as well as articles published in national and international architectural journals and magazines that feature and evaluate Lautner’s body of work. In 2016, sixtyfour residential properties designed by Lautner were formally designated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.
The findings of this KCK report are the result of thorough research, field observations and building evaluations using current technical guidance from national, state, and local historic preservation agencies. Based on the data presented in the report below, the property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard meets the criteria to be eligible as a City of Beverly Hills Landmark, It also appears eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources.
SUMMARY OF RESEARCH AND FIELD METHODOLOGY
A comprehensive methodology for researching the development history of the properties at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard and evaluation of the research to determine potential historic eligibility included conducting the following activities:
• Field review of subject property in December 2021
• Field review of adjacent properties and area
• Photography of subject property and adjacent properties • Review of Beverly Hills Historic Resources Surveys, and related materials • Building Permit Research
• Los Angeles County Assessor data research
• Tract Map research
• Research online databases and sources
• Research Los Angeles and Beverly Hills Public Library online resources • Review of City Directories
• Review of aerial and topographic maps
• Review of Sanborn Insurance Maps
• Research online photographic databases
• Review of John Lautner histories and organizations
• Review of National Register of Historic Places registration documents • Research historic newspaper databases
• Review of publications including professional architectural publications and academic journals
• Analysis of all data and materials
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2 March 2, 2022
• Evaluation of property in accordance with federal, state, and local eligibility criteria
All the field data and research data were analyzed and evaluated by an architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Preservation and by an architect who meets the Professional Qualification Standards for Historic Architect.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The importance of historic resources has been recognized by federal, state, and local governments through programs and legislation that identify and recognize buildings, structures, object, landscapes, and districts that possess historic significance.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considers historical resources part of the environment. A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the significance of an historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment. A property that is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, is listed in a local register of historical resources, or has been identified as historically significant in an historic resources survey that meets specific criteria is considered a historical resource under CEQA.
To determine if a property is a potential historical resource, it must be evaluated for its eligibility for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources and/or as a local historical resource.
National Register of Historic Places
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) as an authoritative guide “used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and indicate what properties should be afforded protection from destruction or impairment.”1
Buildings, districts, sites and structures may be eligible for listing in the National Register if they possess significance at the national, state or local level in American history, culture, architecture or archeology, and in general, are over 50 years old. Significance is evaluated using established criteria:
A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Yield, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 136 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 60.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 3 March 2, 2022
Significance of Association. National Register Bulletin 32, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons, provides guidance on evaluating potential historic association with people who have “made contributions or played a role that can be justified as significant.” For association with leaders or prominent families it is necessary “to explain their significant accomplishments” and they “must be compared to those of others who were active, successful, prosperous, or influential in the same field.” Most properties nominated for associations with significant persons also are nominated for other reasons and a majority of properties nominated under the association criterion are also significant in the area of architecture or for the area in which the individual(s) achieved recognition.
National Register Bulletin 32 adds that “the fact that we value certain professions, or the contributions of certain groups historically does not mean that every property associated with or used by a member of that group is significant. “Associations with “one or more individuals in a particular profession, economic or social class, or ethnic group will not automatically qualify a property.” The contribution must be distinctive: “it is not enough to show that an individual has acquired wealth, run a successful business, or held public office, unless any of these accomplishments, or their number or combination, is a significant achievement in the community in comparison with the activities and accomplishments of others.”
Integrity. Properties may be eligible for inclusion on the National Register as individual resources and/or as contributors to an historic district. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation states that in addition to meeting at least one of the four criteria, a resource should be evaluated to assess its integrity. For individual resources to qualify for inclusion they must represent an important aspect of an area’s history and possess integrity. An historic district must retain integrity as a whole, “the majority of the components that make up the district’s historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished.” The seven aspects of integrity are location, design, feeling, association, setting, workmanship and materials. To “retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects.” For a resource to be evaluated as significant for its design, a “property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.”
Historic Context. A resource must also be significant within an historic context. National Register Bulletin 15 states that an historic context explains “those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific…property or site is understood and its meaning…is made clear.” To be determined eligible for listing on the National Register a property must possess significance within a historic context and possess integrity.
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register, based on the National Register, is the “authoritative guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and indicate which properties are to be protected.” A building, site, structure, object, or historic district may be eligible for inclusion on the California Register if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 4 March 2, 2022
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values
4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6, California Register and National Register: A Comparison states that in addition to meeting one of the criteria of significance, a resource must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance” and “integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.” Historical resources that “have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.” Series 6 guidance also states, “Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance.” Historical resources that do not retain sufficient integrity to qualify for the National Register may still be eligible for listing in the California Register: “a resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data.”2
City of Beverly Hills Landmark Designation Criteria
An eligible property may be nominated and designated as a City of Beverly Hills landmark if it satisfies the following requirements.
A. A landmark must satisfy all of the following requirements:
1. It is at least forty five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance;
2. It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period;
3. It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and
4. It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article.
B. In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
2 California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #6: California Register and National Register: A Comparison, p. 3.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 5 March 2, 2022
1. It is listed on the national register of historic places;
2. It is an exceptional work by a master architect;
3. It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person's endeavors or the history of the nation. For purposes of this subsection B3, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous;
4. It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence;
5. It is an iconic property; or
6. The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s)
of the property
PROPERTY LOCATION AND SETTING
The subject property, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, is located near the western border of the City of Beverly Hills at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard. The building, sited on the southeast corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, also has the address of 9885 Charleville Boulevard. The following report will use the 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard address to reference the building and site.
The street was originally named Burton Way and has also been known as Santa Monica Boulevard South or colloquially as “Little Santa Monica.” The subject parcel is along a segment of the commercial corridor that is just west of the “Golden Triangle” commercial district of Beverly Hills. This segment of Santa Monica Boulevard runs from the western City border and the crossing of Wilshire Boulevard.
Location Map (Google Earth, c2021)
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 6 March 2, 2022
Area Map (Google Earth, c2021)
There are two parallel (at this point) streets named Santa Monica Boulevard. The one to the north is the wider thoroughfare that functions more as a highway. The subject property is on the Santa Monica Boulevard to the south, a narrower street that is lined with commercial buildings as it runs through the City of Beverly Hills. The buildings on the north side of Santa Monia Boulevard (the south street) have a narrow surface parking lot that runs from the City’s west border to Wilshire Boulevard. That parking area provides a buffer from the wider and busier Santa Monica Boulevard to the north.
Wilshire Boulevard angles from the north and crosses both Santa Monica Boulevards about a block from the subject property. The area to the north of the northern Santa Monica Boulevard, a triangular section between the City limit and Wilshire Boulevard, contains two large hotel properties, the Beverly Hilton, and the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills.
The subject parcel is at the west end of the southern Santa Monica Boulevard. There are small commercial buildings on the north of the street between the western City limit and the Wilshire Boulevard crossing. The south side of the 9900 block consists of small commercial buildings on the west end and vacant parcels on the east end.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 7 March 2, 2022
City of Beverly Hills Zoning Map
City of Beverly Hills Zoning Map excerpt
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 8 March 2, 2022
Portion of 9900 block of Santa Monica Boulevard and 9800 block of Santa Monica Boulevard South showing parking area to north and the northern Santa Monica Boulevard to its north. (Google Earth, c2021) 9800 block of S. Santa Monica Boulevard, bounded by Charleville Boulevard on the west, Durant Drive on the south, and S. Lasky Drive on the east.
The subject parcel is located on the south side of Santa Monica Boulevard on the southeast corner of the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard.
3 The block that contains the subject parcel, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, is bounded by Charleville Boulevard on the west, Durant Drive on the south, and S. Laskey Drive on the east. The subject parcel is 50-feet wide by 114-feet deep. The 15 other parcels on the block were consolidated and contain the Peninsula Hotel which was initially developed in 1991.
The Los Angeles County Assessor Parcel Number for the property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is 4328-003-001. The City of Beverly Hills zoning designation for the parcel is C3, Commercial Zone.
3 Charleville Boulevard starts at Santa Monica Boulevard and runs south to the end of the subject block where it crosses Durant Drive and then turns east continuing through the city.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 9 March 2, 2022
BRIEF HISTORY OF COMMERCIAL ARCHITECTURE IN BEVERLY HILLS AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF 9884 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND ENVIRONS The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is in Tract 7710 which was subdivided and recorded in 1924 for its owners, the Amalgamated Oil Company. Tract 7710 includes a triangular section of what is the west end of the City of Beverly Hills; this section is bounded by Santa Monica Boulevard (then known as Burton Way) on the north, Moreno Drive on the south, and Lasky Drive on the east. The streets are oriented on an angle running from southwest to northeast. Most of the parcels have a 50-foot street frontage and vary in depth from 110-feet to 140-feet.
The larger area of Tract is rectangular shaped, bounded ty Lasky Drive on the west, Olympic Boulevard (originally named Country Club Drive) on the south and Beverly Boulevard on the east. The northern boundary is generally Wilshire Boulevard or midblock between Wilshire Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. Intervening streets include Spalding Drive, Linden Drive, McCarty Drive, Roxbury Drive, Bedford Drive, Peck Drive, Camden Drive, Rodeo Drive and El Camino Drive (originally Speedway Drive). The parcels in this section of Tract 7710 are oriented east-west and were generally uniform in size, from 50-feet to 67.5-feet wide and 122.5-feet to 127.5-feet in depth, to accommodate residential development.
The parcels on the north side of the 9800 and 9900 blocks of Santa Monica Boulevard had long widths of 150-feet facing Santa Monica Boulevard but were extremely shallow at 40-feet deep. The original size of the parcels on the south side of the 9800 and 9900 blocks were 50-feet wide facing Santa Monica Boulevard and 120-feet deep.
Tract 7710, recorded 19244
4 Larger image of Tract Map in Attachments
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 10 March 2, 2022
West portion of Tract 7710
To the east of Lasky Drive, Santa Monica Boulevard continues its southwest to northeast trajectory and forms the northern boundary of the commercial center of Beverly Hills, dubbed the “Golden Triangle.” The 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey describes this commercial triangle with boundaries of Santa Monica Boulevard on the north, Rexford Drive on the east and Wilshire Boulevard on the south.
In describing the historic commercial development in Beverly Hills, the 1985-86 report stated that “with the exception of spurs south of Wilshire on Beverly Drive and the eastern portion of Wilshire Boulevard to the city limits [on the east], the majority of commerce took place within the twenty square block area known as the ‘triangle.’” The short section of Santa Monica Boulevard, west of Lasky Drive to the western city boundary, is a commercial corridor that leads into the “Triangle.” The subject parcel is located along that stretch of Santa Monica Boulevard with the 9800 block is bounded by Lasky Drive on the east almost adjacent to where Wilshire Boulevard crosses Santa Monica Boulevard.
Most of the area of Tract 7710 was subdivided to accommodate residential development with commercial development focused on the Triangle to its north. 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey observed that while commercial development began slowly after World War I in the 14-year period between 1920 and 1934 “a marathon construction campaign” resulted “in a fifteen-year buildout of the triangle” with 291 commercial buildings constructed.5
5 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, pp. 63-64 Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 11 March 2, 2022
The principal center of commerce initially was Beverly Drive. Over the decades the buildings in this area have undergone “regeneration” which was “constant” with buildings “razed or remodeled every ten years or so to keep abreast of current design trends.” The Survey Report observed that “while many structures have played an important role in the history of commerce for the city, few display their original architectural characteristics.”6
In the mid-1920s “substantial buildings” were developed along Brighton Way near Camden. Many of these buildings were designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style and had professional office spaces on their upper floor such as the Churrigueresque style Beverly Hills Professional Building (9601 Brighton Way, 1926). This building “became the address of choice for those in the medical profession.”7
In 1924 the Artists and Writers Building was constructed at 9501 Santa Monica Boulevard (a half mile to the east of the subject building). That building “occupies a special place in community history. Like the Beverly Professional Building, the Artists and Writers Building provided space for people of like professions to have offices…[and] thee building has been in continuous use by creative professionals ever since[1986].8 The 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey stated “the development of the commercial triangle by a handful of developers and talented architects gave the district a concentration of quality structures designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival, Art Deco, and Moderne styles which were in keeping with the image the City was trying to create of a sophisticated, urbane suburb. The scale of these buildings remained small.
Continuous remodeling has eradicated any visual continuity, but fine examples” remain.9 The 2004 City of Beverly Hills Commercial Area 5 – Historic Resources Survey Update included context regarding commercial development in the City in the post-World War II period, 1945-1975. The Update observed that “a large number of medium to large-scale office buildings were erected along the commercial corridors of Beverly Hills…these buildings were predominantly architect designed by practitioners offering a wide range of modernistic interpretations. They represent an impressive collection of designs from the period.”10
City of Beverly Hills building permits show that the subject parcel contained a service station constructed in 1928; it was demolished in 1945 to make way for the subject building.
The 1950 Sanborn Map, the earliest for this area of the City, shows the north side of the 9800 and 9900 blocks of Santa Monica Boulevard with about half of the small parcels developed with stores. On the south side, about half of the parcels on the 9900 block were developed with larger commercial buildings. In 1950 the subject building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard was the only parcel developed on that block. 6 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, p. 64 7 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, p. 66 8 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, p. 67 9 1985-86 Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey, p. 71 10 2004 City of Beverly Hills Commercial Area 5 – Historic Resources Survey Update, p. 4 Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 12 March 2, 2022
By 1969 the Sanborn Map shows that most of the south side of the 9900 block of Santa Monica Boulevard had been developed and many of the buildings took up most of their lot. The north side of the 9800 and 9900 blocks of Santa Monica Boulevard each had one additional building constructed since 1950. The 1969 Sanborn Map shows that one other building had been constructed on the block containing the subject property between 1950 and 1969. Located facing Durant Drive, the Beverly Hills Office Building has since been demolished.
1950 Sanborn Map excerpt
1969 Sanborn Map excerpt
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 13 March 2, 2022
Satellite view, c2021 (Google Earth)
On the north side of the 9800 and 9900 blocks of Santa Monica Boulevard of the extant buildings one was built in 1939, eight in the 1940s, four in the 1960s, two in the 1970s and one in the 1990s. On the south side of the 9900 block of Santa Monica Boulevard of the extant buildings, six were built in the 1950s, one in the 1960s and one in the 1980s.
On the 9800 block of Santa Monica Boulevard, the subject building was built in 1947 and the Peninsula Hotel was constructed in 1991.
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, BUILDING DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF 9884
SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is an office building constructed in 1946 for owner John Darrow. The 1946 building permit lists the architect of the building as Douglas Honnold. The contractor is Structon General Contractors. The building is twostories, 24-feet tall with a floor area of 6,546 square-feet. The building is generally rectangular in plan; its rear (south) elevation features a broad angle at the southwest corner of the building. There is a light well on the east side of the building facing the shared party wall of the building to the east.
Current plan view (Google Earth) 1950 Sanborn Map excerpt Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 14 March 2, 2022
While the City of Beverly Hills building permit lists licensed architect Douglas Honnold as the architect of the building, the design of the building is attributed to John Lautner, the firm’s design associate. The attribution of the design to Lautner is documented in numerous published sources. Later in this report is a full discussion regarding John Lautner and his role as a master architect and as designer of the subject building.
The building’s architectural design style is Late Modern Architecture. After World War II the Late Modern Architectural style evolved from other Modern Architectural styles of the of the 20th Century such as the International Style and Mid-Century Modern. The National Register of Historic Places Registration form for The Residential Architecture of John Lautner states that the Late Modern architectural style was typically applied to commercial and institutional buildings. The style exhibited a “more deliberate sculptural quality with bold geometric volumes, uniform surfaces such as glass skin or concrete, and sometimes exaggerated expression of structure and systems. Late Modern architects imagined their buildings not as a simple, straightforward set of volumes, but as highly articulated sculptural forms.”11
Sketch of 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Douglas Honnold, architect From Getty Research Institute Archives.
11 National Register of Historic Places Registration Form, Residential Architecture of John Lautner, p. E-26.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 15 March 2, 2022
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, north and west elevations (c. 1950s, undated, from Getty Institute files)
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, north and west elevations, 2021.
The character-defining features of Late Modern architecture includes:
• Bold geometric volumes
• Large expanses of unrelieved wall surfaces
• Uniform use of cladding materials including wood, glass, concrete, or masonry veneer
• Exaggerated expression of structure and systems
• Hooded or deeply set windows
• Little or no applied ornament
• Horizontal massing
• Ribbon windows
• Belt courses
• Use of industrial building materials such as concrete Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 16 March 2, 2022
• Boxed, cantilevered, or tight eaves
• Flat or shed roof
The building is designed to reflect the conditions of the corner site. The shorter elevation, the north elevation, faces the more travelled east-west street of Santa Monica Boulevard. The longer elevation is the west elevation, along Charleville Boulevard. While Charleville Boulevard is a not a major thoroughfare, the corner location of the building and relative width of the street, gives prominence to views of the west elevation.
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, north and west elevations
from Getty Institute files, undated.
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, north and west elevations, 2021.
Review of City of Beverly Hills building permits for 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard show that the there are no permits for additions to the building. The only permits for exterior alterations to the building was the addition of an exterior staircase on the rear elevation in 1976 and re-roofing in 1996.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 17 March 2, 2022
All the other permits were for changes to the interior, electrical and plumbing, HVAC and installation of signs. Over the decades numerous interior alterations/tenant improvements (permitted and likely some unpermitted) occurred. In 1976 a permit was taken to remodel the second-floor offices. In 1980 a permit for a “new stairway to the second-floor reverse front door” was applied for. Permits were taken out in 1978, 1985 and 1989 for non-structural interior changes and unspecified tenant improvements.
Permits were taken out for signage in 1989, 2001 and 2009. No interior space configurations or original interior finishes or materials remain and in 2021 those nonoriginal structural elements and non-original interior walls and spaces were removed.
Front, north elevation North elevation, looking west,
North elevation with fins on upper-level Main building entry along north elevation The north elevation is the “front” elevation of the building as it faces Santa Monica Boulevard. This ground level of this elevation is divided into two modules. The eastern half abuts a projecting wing wall that functions as a party wall. The building design anticipated the parcel to the east would be developed with a building without any side setback. The projecting wing wall functions to delimit the building and not allow any adjacent building to interfere with the design of the subject building. A cantilevered, shed roof canopy with boxed eaves runs across the front elevation and is attached to the east wing wall. This overhang provides shading to the first-floor windows.
The east half of the ground level of the north elevation, recessed below the cantilevered canopy, consists of a large plate glass window, and two door assemblies – one with a single door and another with double doors. The doors have large expanses of glass. The Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 18 March 2, 2022
west half of the ground level elevation consists of a brick exterior wall with a horizontal band or windows tucked under the canopy.
At the upper level there are a series of nine tall vertical windows. These windows are separated by angled fins that project out to the edge of the canopy. In addition to creating a dynamic rhythm across this elevation, the fins provide shading from the late summer sun on the northerly façade while allowing for natural lighting in other seasons.
Based on the original rendering and observation in the field it appears that four or five of the vertical fins originally extended all the way downward to the sidewalk in the area of the glazed storefronts.
East wing wall Entry doors on north elevation toward east. The vertical fins above the storefronts may have originally extended to the ground.
Northwest corner of building West elevation from northwest corner of building The upper windows of the front, north, elevation stop short of the corner where they abut the geometric volume of the rectangular west elevation. The cantilevered canopy returns at the corner and runs along the entire west elevation. The band of horizontal windows under the canopy also returns and runs along the north half of the west elevation, terminating before the entry on the west elevation. The canopy provides shading from the sun. The portion of exterior wall at the ground level along the west elevation is of brick like that of the front elevation.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 19 March 2, 2022
West elevation Geometric volume of west elevation
The west elevation is defined by a bold geometric volume expressed at the upper level.
The upper level had a major sustainability feature, a bank of louvers which also cover the south (rear) elevation. The metal louvers are angled from the edge of the canopy to the stucco clad exterior of the rectangular geometric volume, to about two-thirds of the height of the elevation. The louvers provide protection from the strong west sun exposure. There are wood frame sliding doors along the interior side of the louvers that allow for natural ventilation and daylight while protecting from direct sun. The louvers are angled to allow for views to the outside.
Louvers on west elevation Entry on west elevation
Looking toward entry stairs, west elevation Lovers above canopy at west elevation Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 20 March 2, 2022
The ground level of the west elevation has an entry way near the south end of that elevation. This side of the building has the Charleville Boulevard address listed, 9885 Charleville Boulevard. This entry is reached by a series of brick clad steps. The building exterior at this point consists of a window wall with a stepped design leading up to the entry door which is recessed under the cantilevered canopy. To the sidewalk side of the steps is a brick wall that continues southward to encase a portion of the rear surface parking area.
The staircase leads to an entrance on the first floor and then turns inward to reach the second floor. The stairwell to the second floor is located between the louvers and the building, creating an “in-between” or transitional space – connecting the outdoors and the indoors.
Stair entry on west elevation, Stair entry on west elevation, current view Undated photo, Getty Institute
Window wall at west entry stairs Transitional space of the stairwell Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 21 March 2, 2022
The south elevation of the building has an angled pop out along the west two-thirds of the elevation. The exterior wall at the lower level is recessed under the louvers. The ground level of this rear elevation also contains a band of horizontal windows along the west portion of the elevation. There is an entry door and an exterior staircase up to the second level. At the east end of the building is a secure caged area that provides access to building utilities. The rear of the parcel is paved to accommodate vehicle parking.
There are a few triangular shaped tree wells located in the parking lot which contain trees, the only landscaping features on the property.
South elevation South elevation, canopy with lovers
Lower level on south elevation Exterior staircase, south elevation East side of south elevation and party wall Rear surface parking area Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 22 March 2, 2022
As evidenced by the building permits, over the decades tenant improvements and remodeling resulted in the loss of all interior configurations, materials, and finishes.
These non-structural alterations have been removed. There are a few sections of flooring laid in an angled pattern that may be original.
The exterior of the building, the brick wall, has been and remains exposed in areas. The wood-frame glass sliding doors adjacent to the louvers are original and remain. They are slightly canted. On the east side of the building interior is another original feature, an internal light court. This opening is adjacent to the party wall on the east. This light court provides cross-ventilation for the building and daylight including light that is reflected off the party wall.
View of louvers and stairway from View of louvers and sliding doors Inside along interior corridor
Detail of louvers from inside building View of louvers and wood frame sliding doors Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 23 March 2, 2022
Historic image of building interior, Current image of interior with louvers Getty Institute, undated
Internal light court View out of north windows
Interior room, medical, Interior corridor, demolished
(exterior wall/windows extant)
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 24 March 2, 2022
Interior corridor, demolished Interior space, demolished First floor after non-structural demolition First floor after non-structural demolition Second floor after non-structural demolition Second floor after non-structural demolition Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 25 March 2, 2022
Interior looking at light well after non-structural Remaining flooring demolition
City Directories provided information about businesses that occupied the building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, also known as 9885 Charleville Boulevard. 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
1946-1975 Darrow Agency/Darrow Development Inc.
1950-1954 Irving Berman, Physician
1950 Ralph Bookman, Physician
1950 Benjamin Feingold, Physician
1950 Alfred Goldman, Physician
1950-1954 Melville Jacobs, Physician
1950 George Piness, Physician
1954 Arnold Kadish, MD
1956 John Omar Fareed, MD
1962 Arc Construction Corp, General Contractors
1962 Catermat Corp of America
1962 Federman Stonehill & Co Investments
1962-1967 Chet Heintz Agency, Insurance
1962-1967 Ross Dick & Co, Investments
1962 N.F. Wallach
1962 Party Park
1965 B-K-S Oil Company
1965 Gladys Barnard, Realtor
1965 Gerson Cohen
1965 Nesbit-Barnard Realtors
1970 Beverly Hills Driving School
1970 California Testing Service
1970 Chorpash Lowell Insurance
1970-1975 Charles Morgan Realtor
1970 Harold Rahkis, MD
1970 Will Rosenfeld
1970 John Schumacher
1970 Two Group Mail Order
1971 Beverly Hills Offices
1971 Farmers Insurance Group
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 26 March 2, 2022
1975 Albert Ladies Tailoring
1975 Bedford Productions Inc.
1975 Jack Chazan
1975 Frank Gabriel and Associates
1975 Bob Haskell Enterprises
1975 Gregory Morton
1975 Pacific West Properties
1975 Palomino Production
1976 Marshall Donin
1981 Boardwalk Records
1985-1991 Golden Harvest Films Inc
1991 Day & Night Copy & Printing Center
1991 Flaherty Winters & Partners
1991 The Gabriel Group
9885 Charleville Boulevard
1950 Darrow Agency
1950-1951 Albert Kandelin, Physician
1950 Herbert Kupper, Physician
1950-1951 Trans Pacific Film Corporation
1951-1954 Louis B. Mayer
1951-1954 Oscar Elkins, MD
1954 Joaquin Alvarez
1954 Bobby Shell, Attorney
1954 Gamer Brothers Livestock
1958 Albert Burford, Attorney
1958 W.B. Copes, Attorney
1958-1962 Dempsey Thayer Deibert & Kumler, Attorneys
1958 John Dinkins, Business Consultant
1958 William Kumler, Attorney
1958-1976 Lewislor Enterprises Television Films
1958 Rayner Wellman, Attorney
1958-1970 Robert Shewalter, CPA
1958 William Sreene, Attorney
1958-1970 Toreto Enterprises
1962-1965 Hrant Agbabian, Architect
1965 Paul Cornell
1965 Economics International, Inc.
1965 William Kamler, Attorney
1965 Val Powelson, Designer
1970-1975 LYL Productions
1970 Roe Financial Corp.
1970 Jesse Stool
1975 C.E. Christie Jr, Engineer
1975 Energy Development of California, Inc
1975 Peol-Huber & Associates
1980 American Red Cross
1980 Cavallo Ruffalo Management
1980 American Recording Co.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 27 March 2, 2022
JOHN LAUTNER, ARCHITECT
John Lautner (1911-1994) is considered a master architect, “one of Southern California’s most significant twentieth century architects” according to the National Register of Historic Places.12 Architectural historian Thomas Hines described Lautner’s designs as “freeform, modernist, expressionism.”13
Architectural historian Alan Hess states that Lautner became “a quintessential Los Angeles architect, defining and expressing an entire spectrum of approaches to the Southern California land, the culture, the cars, the city grid” adding that “it is not possible to have a complete picture of Los Angeles’ remarkable development of modern architecture without taking into account the series of houses that John Lautner designed.”14
John Edward Lautner, Jr., FAIA (1911-1994)
Lautner spent his 55-year career working in Southern California. Over his career he designed 188 structures of which 113 were built.15 Sixty-four of the residential buildings he designed are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The “John Lautner:
An Annotated and Illustrated Bio-Bibliography” in addition to providing a timeline of Lautner’s career, lists 1,289 citations regarding Lautner and his work. Lautner and his works have been published in professional architectural publications and popular magazines including Progressive Architecture, Architectural Record, Arts & Architecture, Architecture + Urbanism, Architectural Digest, Modernism, LA Architect, Dwell, Wallpaper, and Interior Design, as well as in international publications. A documentary movie about Lautner and his career, The Spirit in Architecture: John Lautner, tells the story of his career and philosophy of architecture. His buildings have been used as locations in motion pictures such as James Bond movies, Lethal Weapon and Body Double. Several exhibitions focused on Lautner and his work have been shown at museums worldwide. And books studying Lautner and his body of work have been issued by prestigious architectural publishers including Taschen and Rizzoli International.
John Lautner was born in Marquette, Michigan in the state’s Upper Peninsula in 1911 to John and Vida Lautner. His mother was an artist, a painter, and his father was a 12 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1990.” https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a-4010- a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940-1994.pdf 13 Hines, p. 609 14 Hines, p. 614 15 Hines, p. 614.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 28 March 2, 2022
professor at Northern State Teachers College in Marquette. Lautner’s school years were spent in Marquette and traveling with his parents – for a year in Boston and a year in New York City when he was an adolescent. Lautner attended college at Northern State Teachers College graduating in 1933 at the age of 22 with an A.B. Degree in English.
He initially contemplated taking a year to travel after his graduation but his mother encouraged him to apply to Frank Lloyd Wright’s newly founded Taliesin Fellowship at Wright’s estate in southern Wisconsin. The unorthodox architecture school offered the “experience of hearing and observing Wright in a Dewey-esque [architecture] course of ‘learning by doing.’” The fellows learned about architecture by observing Wright and having him direct them in “adding to and rebuilding Taliesin with their own hands.”16 It was an “integrated education” that included students working on the farm, cooking meals, and serving it in the communal dining room. Lautner believed that “such experiences enriched his professional skills.” 17
Lautner embraced Wright’s belief that “every building, and in fact, architecture itself, should revolve around an organic ‘idea,’ from which the structure’s details would follow.” Lautner said that “no other single person would impress and influence him as strongly.”18 Lautner worked with Wright on projects during his fellowship and in 1937 helped to build Wright’s Taliesin West in Scottsdale, Arizona. In 1938 Lautner moved to Los Angeles and worked as superintendent on Wright’s Surges House project. He built his own house in 1940 in Silver Lake for his wife and newly born child. Architectural historian Thomas Hines observed that the house “reflected Wrightian influences while also demonstrating, in certain small ways, Lautner’s increasing independence.” The house was noticed in the profession and “it testified to a talent that would soon inspire others to commission him for similar structures and then for increasingly complex buildings.”19 In the early 1940s Lautner supervised several of Wright’s Los Angeles area commissions including houses for the Bell and Mauer families. When the owners of those projects balked at the budgets, Wright withdrew. With Wright’s approval, Lautner took over the projects and designed smaller versions under his own practice. Lautner noted that he “had about twelve or fifteen clients built up over the first two or three years, and then the war stopped everything.”20
From Wright “Lautner acquired the sense of confidence required to push the boundaries of design and structure. Perhaps the most important quality that Lautner learned from Wright was a sense of independence when it came to architectural design. Lautner was able, unlike many other Wright students, to take what he had learned from the master and reconfigure it into his own unique design esthetic.”21 Architectural Historian BarbaraAnn Campbell-Lange noted that “Lautner’s early projects embodied some influences of the work of Frank Lloyd Wright…however, in time his work evolved a unique conception 16 Hess, p. 13 17 Hines, p. 611 18 Hines, p. 612 19 Hines, p. 616 20 UCLA Oral History with John Lautner, p. 73. 21 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1990.” https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a-4010- a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940-1994.pdf Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 29 March 2, 2022
of architectural space, form and attitude to materials.”22 Architectural Historian Alan Hess agrees stating that “the separation [from Wright] was complex but was best for Lautner’s design ability. Los Angeles gave him the opportunity to grapple with his own sense of design, to apply Wright’s principles to new conditions.”23 At the time the connection to Frank Lloyd Wright was not an advantage. Lautner said that “when I came here [Los Angeles] if I told somebody I had studied with Frank Lloyd Wright, they’d kick me out. I wouldn’t get a job. I couldn’t get a job in any office because that’s too radical”24
With World War II going on, Lautner joined the Structon Company in 1943 to work on wartime military construction and engineering projects. Near the end of the war, in 1944, Lautner joined the architectural firm of Douglas Honnold as a design associate. 25 Honnold (1901-1974) studied at Cornell University and the University of CaliforniaBerkeley. He apprenticed with George Washington Smith, known for his Spanish Colonial Revival style buildings. In the 1930s Honnold worked on set designs for MGM.
Around 1938 he used his movie industry connections to start his architectural practice.
At that time, he partnered with George Vernon Russell. They produced examples of period revival styles such as Colonial, as well as Hollywood Regency, Moderne and late Modern.
“At first glance Honnold and Lautner are very different types of architects. Lautner had “no patience for historical styles” and an early Lautner employee referred to Honnold as “an establishment type.”26 Honnold was older and had an established architectural practice. Lautner needed a steadier income so the pair worked together worked with for several years. “Small houses and commercial work, spurred by the restaurants and offices he did with Honnold kept Lautner going between 1946 and 1950. This was the period when Lautner brilliantly redefined the roadside coffee shop at Henry’s and Googie’s.” These flamboyant coffee shop designs were “a genre that both Lautner and Honnold would continue to develop after the partnership ended.” 27 Elizabeth Honnold-Harris stated that her father, Douglas Honnold “was 100 percent convinced of John’s excellence right from the beginning. He used to tell anyone who ever asked him that John was the best designer he ever saw. Doug was a gifted businessman…John loathed that side of the practice and was perhaps happy…to dig in and do what he did best while Doug shoveled the trenches and got signatures.”28 Honnold-Harris observed that “until John came, my father’s clients received a fine bunch of eclectic solutions to their needs. No new ground was broken, no surprises came, and the sedate rich of the movie colony could expect fine Georgian and Beaux Arts details and elegant moldings and finials and sweeping staircases” and then “one day John Lautner joined up. All we knew about him at first was that he had come from Frank Lloyd Wright, identified only as a faraway eminence whose stuff was out there somewhere 22 Campbell-Lange, p. 7. 23 Hess, p. 19 24 UCLA Oral History with John Lautner, p. 60 25 Crosse, John. John Lautner: An Annotated and Illustrated Bio-Bibliography,” p. 9. 26 Hess, p. 26. 27 Hines, p. 619 28 Hess, pp. 27-28.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 30 March 2, 2022
being admired. Daddy said that everything Mr. Wright had built tended to leak and fall apart, so he hoped that John wouldn’t mind being careful about stuff like that. Little did we know.”29
Honnold-Harris continued to describe Lautner saying:
“My first encounter with John was at his first lunch hour with the draftsmen… I had never seen a grownup man wearing a bright turquoise shirt with a plaid wool tie before…I had never heard an architect laugh so loudly…and certainly none of the draftsmen had ever heard Serious Architecture and Principles of Beauty and Excellence talked about over their noon-time sandwiches. They hung on John’s every word with their jaws ajar and their eyes very round indeed. Daddy, in his dark gray flannel slacks, white Brooks Bros. shirt and regimental striped tie, stood at one side with a very serious expression on his face. He was seeing the future and, with his keen eclectic sense of what works in everyday life, he wondered if he was really ready for it all. And as the weeks and months rolled by, Daddy found that turning John loose was the way to go, but for heaven’s sake keep him away from the clients…[with] those brilliantly colored shirts, that giant Irish guffaw, those massive hands that carved their jobs out of thin air…a risky flight indeed. And building by building, up one side of Rodeo Drive and down Doheny and around the corner on Sunset, the magical Lautner touch came to pass and when the most maidenly priss of a draftsman turned up at work one morning in a bright yellow shirt, Daddy wasn’t the only one who had seen the future. John had brought it with him to Grace Avenue [Honnold’s office], and the rest (as they say) is Architectural History.”30
Architectural Historian Alan Hess noted that “Honnold admired – was even envious of – Lautner’s work; Lautner’s strong design sense may well have influenced Honnold’s. In their office…Lautner designed houses and commercial buildings.”31 Lautner offered that he and Honnold “did some black-market work in Beverly Hills, because you weren’t allowed to build anything, and you couldn’t get any materials unless you had the priorities.” Lautner went on say that he worked with Honnold for “two or three years. And I designed about one hundred and fifty jobs while I was with him.
And, I don’t know, maybe ten or fifteen were built. But he knew how to – he had all the contacts , you know. Her knew how to get jobs.”32
One of the commercial buildings in Beverly Hills was the Darrow Office Building.
Architectural Historian Hess notes that “the Darrow office building at 9884 Little Santa Monica Boulevard in Beverly Hills began in the Honnold office and [was] completed by Lautner…[and] displays a louvered hood to protect windows and a deck, while distinctive geometric fins face the main street.”33
29 “The High Impact Arrival and Influence of the Real Thing,” The John Lautner Foundation Newsletter, October 2001, p. 4.
30 Ibid. 31 Hess, p. 27 32 UCLA Oral History with John Lautner, p. 74 33 Hess, p. 27.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 31 March 2, 2022
The professional relationship ended around 1947 when Lautner and Honnold’s wife fell in love, eventually marrying in 1950. With the divorce, Lautner’s wife, Mary, moved back to Marquette, Michigan with their children. 34 Lautner left Honnold’s firm and resumed private practice. Lautner did not discuss the situation in his 1986 UCLA Oral History Interview. He did not make any reference to his second wife, Honnold’s former wife, or to the “Googie” phenomenon that he and Honnold had fostered.
In his own words Lautner said that after separating with Honnold “I went completely on my own again…I’ve been on my own all the time, really.” He added that clients were “just people who came and found out about me. They came, and I did the work. And it’s been that way. I still get jobs the same way.”35 There were also many talented professionals who worked with Lautner. Campbell-Lange states that “Lautner was familiar with the work of contemporary engineers…His architectural vision, combined with his appreciation of fine craftsmanship and daring structures, attracted gifted engineers, contractors and master-builders.”36 In 1952 Lautner acquired his license as an architect.
As Lautner established his own practice in the 1950s he decided to leave “the commercial world largely behind in 1957, devoting his inventiveness to houses.”37 In 1993 Lautner was honored with the first Gold Medal issued by the American Institute of Architects/Los Angeles Chapter. Lautner passed away in 1994.
Architectural Historian Hess observed that “reworking old territory was not Lautner’s desire. Each house remains as a remarkably complex, thoughtful, and inventive architectural idea” adding that Lautner’s commercial designs…had a measurable impact on the direction of commercial design nationally.” 38
Lautner provided some insight on his perspective regarding commercial buildings in his UCLA Oral History. He said that he built “some offices – but not too many because they [developers/owners] really don’t want any architecture.” He added that “office developers “don’t think about anything at all…it’s just enclosed the space fast and cheap.” In describing an office project in San Juan Capistrano, he built, he noted that he “did that with brick and natural light and ventilation” and that the “building didn’t cost any more than the typical concrete block building with air conditioning and fluorescent lights.” Lautner also stated that he had done a few similar commercial buildings – “like some of the jobs I did when I was with Honnold in Beverly Hills.”39 In assessing Lautner’s early career, historian Hess observed: “In the first twenty years of his career, Lautner proved the fertility of his imagination. The designs are remarkably varied, with round houses, angled houses, rectangular houses, wood, steel, and brick structures, prefab systems, and custom crafting. Each house, indeed, has a big idea, a concept which unites the space, structure, and program.”40 34 Hess, p. 28 35 UCLA Oral History with John Lautner, p. 76. 36 Campbell-Lange, p. 10 37 Hess, Alan, “The Legacy of John Lautner, ‘Lyrical Technologist,’ “ Progressive Architecture, December 1994, p. 16.
38 Hines, p. 30 39 UCLA Oral History with John Lautner, p. 82 40 Hess, p. 37 Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 32 March 2, 2022
The National Register Registration Form observed that “Lautner’s work from this period integrated indoor and outdoor space…[and] Lautner sought to establish his own distinctive approach to connecting his residences with nature. Lautner’s work during this period expanded on Wright’s concept of the connection of a building to its environment…Lautner merged the building with its surrounding.”41 The National Register Registration Form adds that “by the close of the 1940s, Lautner had established hie own identity, and he had become increasingly daring in his spatial concepts and use of materials. His work from this period shows a strong preoccupation with essential geometric forms, and it is significant for its radical expansion of both the technical and spatial vocabulary of domestic architecture.”42 In an interview with Historian Campbell-Lange, John Lautner said: “I choose not to be classified and remain instead continuously growing and changing, with basic real ideas contributing to life itself, for timeless enjoyment of spaces – which I call Real Architecture. No beginning, no end – always.”43 His architecture included the “seamless integration of natural elements into architectural design, and the way in which a building should emerge from and be inspired by the site.”44
In 2016, sixty-four of Lautner’s Southern California residential buildings were added to the National Register of Historic Places. The registration form states that “Lautner’s fascination with new shapes and structures came from his determination to humanize spaces and create what he referred to as ‘real’ architecture: ‘architecture that was authentic, creative, new – yet tied to ancient and timeless ways of building; based on the needs – including emotional needs – of his clients, and the demands of the site.’ He brought to architecture an expressive and adventurous use of structure, form, and materials.”45
In a tribute to Lautner in Progressive Architecture in 1994, architectural historian Alan Hess observed that Lautner “was one of the last living links to the American organic architecture that Frank Lloyd Wright nurtured when the century was young. What made Lautner important, however, was that unlike many of Wright’s early apprentices, he escaped Wright’s spell, set out on his own, and spent 55 years in a highly personal and productive exploration of organic architecture’s possibilities. Lautner’s wide-ranging search produced an astonishing variety of designs.”46
In !993 in the introduction to an interview with John Lautner in Progressive Architecture, architectural journalist Ziva Freiman observed that “most critics agree that while Lautner is undoubtedly a disciple of Wright in his mind, his more than 80 built works are hardly derivative; indeed, regarding structural and spatial tours de force such as the Arango, 41 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1990.” https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a-4010- a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940-1994.pdf 42 Ibid. 43 Campbell-Lange 44 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1990.” https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a-4010- a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940-1994.pdf 45 Ibid. 46 Hess, Alan, Progressive Architecture, December 1994, p. 16 Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 33 March 2, 2022
Elrod, and Silvertop houses, many acknowledge that the apprentice transcended the master.
47 In 1965 in Arts & Architecture architectural historian Esther McCoy observed that space, not style, had been Lautner’s concern: Lautner’s “primary interest was in the creation of space; his spaces are strong and democratic, never precious, and there is an idealism at work that conceives of man in a happy relationship with nature. There is a thoughtfulness in his work but no sense of its having been over designed to the point that spontaneity is refined out of it. For all the dramatic elements of structure, he strives more for a relaxed ampleness rather than purely dramatic effects-which is always a surprise, and a pleasant one, when entering one of his houses. There is nothing to suggest the artist isolated from society.”48
Freiman noted that Lautner’s “unselfconscious employment of ‘gadgets’ …[and] his avid use of industrial processes did not arise from mere infatuation with brilliant engineering” but according to McCoy, had come from “a search for certain universal answers.”49 McCoy further observed “if one tried to sum it up [his body of work], is that of the lyrical technologist.”50
Historian Hess observed that “in the end it is extraordinary that John Lautner kept his architecture practice going for 53 years. He lived on a shoestring, his office never made much money, and recognition was intermittent. Yet under these difficult conditions he was able to produce a remarkably varied and creative set of buildings that refused to be conventional” concluding that “Lautner’s buildings are profoundly significant. They confront the great themes of 20th Century architecture: the intersection of technology, the environment, and human habitation.51
EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Review of Previous Surveys
The City of Beverly Hills conducted a Historic Resource Surveys in 1985-86. This was a windshield survey conducted by volunteers. The subject building is in Area 5 of the survey. The property was not identified in that survey. In 2004 an historic resources survey was conducted for Area 5, the commercial areas of the City of Beverly Hills. That survey found the property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and given a California Historical Resource Status Code of 3S, “appears eligible for National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.” The property was evaluated as eligible under National Register Criterion C as “an important and extremely rare example of a commercial building designed by renowned Modernist architect John Lautner.”
47 Frieman, Ziva, Progressive Architecture, December 1993, p. 64 48 McCoy, Esther, Arts & Architecture, August 1965. p. 22 49 Frieman, Ziva, p. 64 50 McCoy, Esther, p. 22. 51 Hess, p. 157 Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 34 March 2, 2022
In 2016 the “Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1994,” which includes 64 residential properties, were listed on the National Register of Historic Places.52
Analysis of Eligibility of 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is being evaluated using the City of Beverly Hills criteria for designation of historic resources and the SurveyLA Context for the Late Modern architectural style.
Evaluation of Eligibility as a Beverly Hills Landmark
A property may be nominated and designated as a City of Beverly Hills landmark if it satisfies the following requirements.
Criterion A. To meet Criterion A, a property must satisfy all of the elements of Criterion A.
Criterion A1. It is at least forty-five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, was constructed in 1946 and is over 45 years of age. It is also a rare extant commercial building designed by master architect, John Lautner.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, meets Criterion A1.
Criterion A2. It possesses high artistic or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period.
The commercial building, the Darrow Office Building, at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is a rare extant commercial building designed by master architect John Lautner. Lautner’s commercial design work included creation of the iconic Southern California Googie style which was applied to coffee shops and restaurants. Lautner’s design for the Darrow Office Building, reflects his innovative design that incorporated sustainable features and creative interior spaces defined by the exterior walls and the building’s relationship with the outdoors.
The office building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is an excellent example of Lautner’s design philosophy and is an excellent example of the Late Modern Architectural style, and an early example of sustainable design applied to a commercial building. The Late 52 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1990.” https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a-4010- a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940-1994.pdf Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 35 March 2, 2022
Modern styling of the building includes its horizontal massing. bold geometric volumes, and large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the west elevation, and ribbon windows. The building design is also representative of Lautner’s creation of unique spaces as evidenced by the canted sliding glass doors adjacent to the louvers. Unique design elements such as the staircase on the west elevation, provide “in-between” spaces – between the interior and exterior. The building is sited and fenestration arranged to adapt to sunlight and other environmental conditions. The building also includes early application of sustainable design including its siting on the parcel and includes sustainable features such as louvers that allow natural light and ventilation into the building while also allowing the outside to be seen through the spacing of the louvers.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, meets Criterion A2.
Criterion A3. It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance.
The building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard retains a high level of historic architectural integrity from its period of significance, when it was built in the late 1940s. The exterior of the building has had very few alterations and all are reversible. On the front elevation, the continuation of the concrete fins from the second floor to the ground floor were removed; these can be accurately reconstructed. There is a small cut-out on the west elevation that can be re-filled. At the rear an exterior staircase was added but did not remove any original building elements; the staircase can be removed.
Over the decades the interior spaces of the building (excluding the perimeter walls) have undergone alterations to accommodate the needs of the building’s office and medical tenants. There are no original interior spaces extant.
The building’s exterior retains a high level of integrity. The building remains in its original location. The corner setting has not changed – and the building was designed to take advantage of its setting, with its long west elevation having shaded windows on the west and a large metal louver system to mitigate the strong western sun. Also recognizing that the adjacent parcel along Santa Monica Boulevard would be developed, there is a wall that projects out to the lot line so that the front elevation of any adjacent building would not be seen as “connected” to the subject building. The workmanship represents that of the era in which the building was constructed. The building possesses is original materials and there have been no major exterior alterations. The building retains a very high level of integrity.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, meets Criterion A3.
Criterion A4. It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article.
The commercial building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is a rare extant commercial building designed by master architect John Lautner. Lautner’s body of work, and this Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 36 March 2, 2022
specific building, has been recognized as being among the most significant buildings in Southern California in the mid-to-late 20th Century. This commercial design, which reflects Lautner’s emphasis on space as well as on sustainability features, is a significant example of his early design work and a rare extant commercial building designed by Lautner. As such, it is an important historic building that is located in the City of Beverly Hills.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, meets Criterion A4.
Criterion B. In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection A of this section, a landmark must satisfy at least one of the following requirements:
Criterion B1. Is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The building is not listed in the National Register of Historic Places. However, most of the extant buildings that Lautner designed are residential dwellings. Under a multiple property registration, 64 of his buildings are included, and have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, does not meet Criterion B1.
Criterion B2. It is an exceptional work by a master architect The building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is an example of an early commercial design from master architect John Lautner. It is also an exceptional design of a commercial office building incorporating Late Modern architectural styling with sustainability features. Lautner’s ability to create spaces in which the indoors and outdoors merge is reflected in the design of this commercial building. The Darrow Office Building is an exceptional work by master architect John Lautner.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, meets Criterion B2.
Criteria B3 and B4 both deal with a property’s association with a person of historic significance.
Criterion B3: It is an exceptional work that was owned and occupied by a person of great importance and was directly connected to a momentous event in the person's endeavors or the history of the nation. For purposes of this subsection B3, personal events such as birth, death, marriage, social interaction, and the like shall not be deemed to be momentous.
Criterion B4. It is an exceptional property that was owned and occupied by a person of great local prominence.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 37 March 2, 2022
There is no evidence that any person or business of historic significance operated in the Darrow Office Building. The Darrow Agency was a talent agency active in the 1930s into the 1950s. There is no evidence that the Darrow Agency achieved historic significance in terms of their business operations.
The building is not an early example of a building dedicated to house talent/production agencies; the first building in Beverly Hills dedicated for officers for professionals in the entertainment industry is the Artists and Writers Building (9501 Santa Monica Boulevard) that was constructed in 1924, over 20 years earlier.
Master architect John Lautner did not have any association with the building beyond his design and construction of the building.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, does not meet Criteria B3 and B4.
Criterion 5. It is an iconic property
As a rare example of the early designs of master architect John Lautner and as a rare example of the design of a commercial building, the subject building is considered an iconic property.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, meets Criterion B5.
Criterion 6. The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property
The owners of the property are initiating a landmark designation procedure. They intend to rehabilitate this historic building.
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the Darrow Office Building, meets Criterion B8.
Summary of Evaluation of Individual Eligibility:
The property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, the commercial building known as the Darrow Office Building, designed by master architect John Lautner, meets all four subcriteria of Criterion A as well as Criterion B2, B5 and B6. Thus, the building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is eligible for designation as a City of Beverly Hills Historic Landmark under the City of Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance.
The City of Beverly Hills criterion for designation as a historic landmark are similar to the National Register of Historic Places criteria and the California Register criteria. Based on the analysis and evaluation explained above for City of Hill designation, the subject property at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 38 March 2, 2022
CONCLUSION
Based on the facts and analyses presented in this report, the office building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, known as the Darrow Office Building, in the City of Beverly Hills is eligible for designation as a City of Beverly Hills historic landmark as the property:
--is an excellent example the Late Modern architectural style --is the work of a master architect, John Lautner
--is a rare example from the first decade of John Lautner’s architectural career --is a rare example of a commercial building designed by John Lautner --retains a high level of historic architectural integrity The building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is also eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and to the California Register of Historical Resources.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 39 March 2, 2022
REFERENCES
Aerial Photographs. EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
The Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, at Los Angeles Public Library, lapl.org Campbell-Lange, Barbara-Ann. John Lautner, 191101994: Disappearing Space. Koln, Germany: Taschen, 2005.
City of Beverly Hills Building Permit Records
City of Beverly Hills, Historic Resources Survey Report 1985-86. http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/6333100111590038901/HistoricResourc esInventory(1985-1986).pdf
City of Beverly Hills, Historic Resources Survey Report, Survey Area 5: Commercial Properties.
https://www.laconservancy.org/sites/default/files/community_documents/City%20of%20 Beverly%20Hills%20Historic%20Resources%20Survey%2C%20commercial%20properti es%20update%2C%202006.pdf
City Directories, EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.
Crosse, John. John Lautner: An Annotated and Illustrated Bio-Bibliography, 2010 file:///Users/pamelaoconnor/Downloads/John%20Lautner%20Annotated%20Bibliograph y%202010.pdf
Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. Los Angeles: An Architectural Guide.
Salt Lake City: Gibbs-Smith. 2003.
Hess, Alan. The Architecture of John Lautner. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1999.
Hines, Thomas. Architecture of the Sun: Los Angeles Modernism 1900-1970. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2010.
Honnold-Harris, Elizabeth, “The High Impact Arrival and Influence of the Real Thing,” The John Lautner Foundation Newsletter, October 2001
https://www.johnlautner.org/oct2001.pdf
Kikkert, Jan-Richard, and Saariste, Tycho. Lautner, A-Z. Arnhem, Netherlands: ArtEZ Press, 2018
Los Angeles County Assessor Records.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses: The Definitive Guide to Identifying and Understanding America’s Domestic Architecture. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 2013.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 40 March 2, 2022
McCoy, Esther. “West Coast Architects V/John Lautner,” Arts & Architecture, August, 1965.
National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/ National Register Bulletin #32, Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties Associated with Significant Persons.
(www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb32)
National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form; Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1994. Added to National Register of Historic Places, 2016. https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a4010-a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940- 1994.pdf
Olsberg, Nicholas, ed. Between Earth and Heaven: The Architecture of John Lautner.
New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 2008.
Progressive Architecture
Freiman, Ziva. “Perspectives, Interview: John Lautner,” December 1993 Hess, Alan. “The Legacy of John Lautner “Lyrical Technologist,” December 1994
“Responsibility, Infinity, Nature: John Lautner.” Interview by Marlene L. Laskey. Oral History Program, University of California, Los Angeles. 1986.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps
The John Lautner Foundation, https://www.johnlautner.org/wp/?page_id=5 U.S. Modernist, “John Edward Lautner, Jr., FAIA (1911-1994)” https://usmodernist.org/lautner.htm?gclid=CjwKCAjwrqqSBhBbEiwAlQeqGiduTUbVOH0 ZyEOsoYpd4C0b0rzynDoO5bVRKs2F-MmuUmieY0dy3hoC6o0QAvD_BwE YouTube:
John Lautner(1978 Part 1 of 2) Sci-Arc Media Archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeuYl6yfv14
John Lautner(1978 Part 2 of 2) Sci-Arc Media Archive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOo5_vknCPc
Sci-Arc 1991 Lecture Series, John Lautner
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7txeJU4oRM
The Spirit in Architecture: John Lautner -- A film by Bette Jane Cohen Syracuse University Department of Architecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPvadMFJaXk
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 2, 2022
Attachment A: Photographs
Darrow Building, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
1. Drawing of 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, proposed building, from Getty Research Collection, listed as Douglas Honnold, architect
2. Current photograph of building
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 2, 2022
3 Undated photo of north and west elevations, Getty Research Institute
4. Undated photo of north and west elevations, Getty Research Institute Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 2, 2022
5. Undated photo of stair entrance on west elevation, Getty Research Institute
6. Undated photo of interior, Getty Research Institute
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 2, 2022
7. North and west elevations
8. West elevation
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan v March 2, 2022
9. West elevation
10. West elevation
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi March 2, 2022
11. South elevation
North Elevation
12. North elevation
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii March 2, 2022
13. North elevation (party wall with adjacent property on left)
14. North elevation showing main entry
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii March 2, 2022
15. North elevation, main entry
16. North elevation, upper windows and party wall
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix March 2, 2022
17. North elevation, upper windows detail
18. North elevation, ground floor windows
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan x March 2, 2022
19. North elevation, ground floor windows
20. North elevation, looking west
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi March 2, 2022
21. Corner of north and west elevations
22. North elevation, west end
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii March 2, 2022
23. North elevation, upper corner
West Elevation
24. West elevation at north corner looking south
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii March 2, 2022
25. West elevations, windows at north end
26. West elevation, band of windows
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv March 2, 2022
27. West elevation, looking south
28. West elevation, window band at ground level; louvers at upper level Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv March 2, 2022
29. West elevation, louvers
30. West elevation, louvers detail
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi March 2, 2022
31. West elevation, south end by staircase
32. West elevation, looking north from mid-section
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii March 2, 2022
33. West elevation, looking south toward staircase
34. West elevation, staircase and window wall
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii March 2, 2022
35. West elevation, staircase and window wall
36. West elevation, window wall
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xix March 2, 2022
37. West elevation, looking down at exterior staircase
38. West elevation, looking at back side of louvers
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xx March 2, 2022
39. West elevation, south end with brick wall
South Elevation
40. South elevation
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxi March 2, 2022
41. South elevation, louver detail at corner of west and south elevations
42. Sleuth elevation at west corner
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxii March 2, 2022
43. South elevation
44. South elevation, entry and exterior staircase
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxiii March 2, 2022
45. South elevation, exterior staircase
46. South elevation, exterior staircase and utility area Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxiv March 2, 2022
47. South elevation
48. South elevation, party wall on right
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxv March 2, 2022
49. Perimeter of rear parking area
50. Perimeter of rear parking area
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxvi March 2, 2022
51. Rear parking area and driveway
Interiors of Building
52. Staircase on west elevation with window wall
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxvii March 2, 2022
53. Interior view of louvers
54. Interior corridor and louvers
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxviii March 2, 2022
55. Interior louver detail
56. Interior louvers
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxix March 2, 2022
57. Corner office with louvers
58. Internal light court
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxx March 2, 2022
59. Front (north elevation) windows
60. First floor office
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxi March 2, 2022
61. Former medical office interior
62. Former interior corridor
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxii March 2, 2022
63.. Former interior staircase and corridor
64. Former interior corridor
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxiii March 2, 2022
65.. Former interior corridor from parking area
66.. Former interior office area
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxiv March 2, 2022
67. Current interior, ground floor showing internal light court windows and north windows
68. Current interior, ground floor showing front (north) windows and entry Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxv March 2, 2022
69. Current interior, ground floor showing bands of windows, north and west elevations
70. Current interior, second floor showing windows and louvers Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxvi March 2, 2022
71. Current interior, second floor showing windows and louvers
72. Current interior, second floor showing windows and louvers, and internal light well windows Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxvii March 2, 2022
73. Current interior, second floor showing internal light well windows
74. Interior, remaining wood flooring
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxviii March 2, 2022
Area Around 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
75. Garage entrance for Peninsula Hotel and subject building on Santa Monica Blvd.
76. Peninsula Hotel to east of subject building, south side of 9800 block of Santa Monica Bl.
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xxxix March 2, 2022
77. Peninsula Hotel to east of subject building
78. Peninsula Hotel to east of subject building
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xl March 2, 2022
79.North side of 9800 block of Santa Monica Blvd. across from subject building
80. North side of 9800 and 9700 blocks of Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xli March 2, 2022
81. North side of 9700 block of Santa Monica Boulevard
82. South side of 9700 block of Santa Monica Boulevard
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xlii March 2, 2022
83. Looking north on Charleville Boulevard, 9800 block of Charleville Boulevard
84. East side of 9800 block of Charleville Boulevard
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xliii March 2, 2022
85. East side of 9800 block of Charleville Boulevard
86. West side of 9800 block of Charleville Boulevard
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xliv March 2, 2022
87. West side of 9800 block of Charleville Boulevard
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 2, 2022
Attachment B: Maps
Aerial photograph (ca. 2019)
Los Angeles County Assessor's Map
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0013-062) Page 1
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0013-062) Page 2
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0013-062) Page 3
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan v March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0013-062) Page 4
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0038-065) Page 1
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0038-065) Page 2
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0083-094) Page 1
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix March 2, 2022
Original Tract Map (number TR0083-094) Page 2
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 2, 2022
ATTACHMENT C: Building Permits
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan i March 2, 2022
Attachment D: Historic Aerials and Sanborn Insurance Maps Historic Aerials
Aerial Photo 1928
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ii March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1938
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iii March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1948
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan iv March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1953
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan v March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1964
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vi March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1967
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan vii March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1977
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan viii March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1979
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan ix March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1983
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan x March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1989
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xi March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 1994
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xii March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 2002
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiii March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 2005
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xiv March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 2009
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xv March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 2012
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvi March 2, 2022
Aerial Photo 2016
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xvii March 2, 2022
Sanborn Insurance Maps
Sanborn Insurance Map 1950
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan xviii March 2, 2022
Sanborn Insurance Map 1969
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 2, 2022
ATTACHMENT E: DPR Records
Page1of 2 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA P1. Other Identifier: Darrow Building ____
DPR 523A (9/2013) * Required information
S tate of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP S tatus Code 3S
Other Listings R eview Code R eviewer Date
*P2. Location:Not for PublicationUnrestricted
*a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location M ap as necessary.) *b. US GS 7.5' Quad Date T; R; of of S ec; B.M.
c. Address City 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills Zip 90210 d. UTM: (G ive more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone, mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) APN: 4328-003-001
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The north elevation is the “front” elevation of the building as it faces Santa Monica Boulevard. This ground level of this elevation is divided into two modules. A cantilevered, shed roof canopy with boxed eaves runs across the front elevation and is attached to the east wing wall. This overhang provides shading to the first-floor windows. At the upper level there are a series of nine tall vertical windows. These windows are separated by angled fins that projects out to the edge of the canopy. In addition to creating a dynamic rhythm across this elevation, the fins provide shading from the late summer sun on the northerly façade while allowing for natural lighting in other seasons. The west elevation is defined by a bold geometric volume expressed at the upper level. The upper level had a major sustainability feature, a bank of louvers which also cover the south (rear) elevation. The metal louvers are angled from the edge of the canopy to the stucco clad exterior of the rectangular geometric volume, to about two-thirds of the height of the elevation. The louvers provide protection from the strong west sun exposure. There are wood frame sliding doors along the interior side of the louvers that allow for natural ventilation and daylight while protecting from direct sun. The louvers are angled to allow for views to the outside.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List
attributes and codes) HP6
*P4.Resources Present:X Building
S tructure Object S ite District
E lement of District Other (Isolates,
etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date,
accession #) J anuary 2022
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
S ource: X Historic Prehistoric
B oth
1946
*P7. Ow ner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen
Kaplan, 2526 18thSt., Santa Monica, CA
90405
*P9. Date Recorded: 3/2022 Survey
Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey
report and other sources, or enter "none.")
Historic Resources Survey, 9884 Santa
Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Kaplan Chen Kaplan,3/2022 *Attachments:NONELocation M apContinuation S heetB uilding, S tructure, and Object R ecord Archaeological RecordDistrict R ecordLinear Feature R ecordM illing S tation R ecordR ock Art R ecord Artifact R ecordPhotograph R ecord Other (List):
P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
50400290175040029017
1*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Darrow Building, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard *NRHP S tatus Code: 3S Page2of2
DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
S tate of California The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, S TRUCTURE, AND OBJ ECT RECORD
(T his s pace res erved for official com ments.)
2100 N Cahuenga Blvd
B1Historic Name: B2. Common Name: B3. Original Use: Commercial B 4. Present U se: Commercial
*B5. Architectural S tyle: Late Modern
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) In 1976 a permit was taken to remodel the second-floor offices. In 1980 a permit for a “new stairway to the second-floor reverse front door” was applied for. Permits were taken out in 1978, 1985 and 1989 for non-structural interior changes and unspecified tenant improvements. Permits were taken out for signage in 1989, 2001 and 2009. No interior space configurations or original interior finishes or materials remain and in 2021 those non-original structural elements and non-original interior walls and spaces were removed. All the other permits were for changes to the interior, electrical and plumbing, HVAC and installation of signs. Over the decades numerous interior alterations/tenant improvements (permitted and likely some unpermitted) occurred. *B7. Moved? No Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: John Lautner; Douglas Honnold b. Builder: Structon General Contractors *B10. S ignificance: Theme: Late M odern Architecture Area: Architecture and Engineering Period of S ignificance: 1945-1980 Property Type: Commercial Applicable Criteria None (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.
The office building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is an excellent example of the design philosophy of master architect John Lautner, is an excellent example of the Late Modern Architectural style, and an early example of sustainable design applied to a commercial building. The Late Modern styling of the building includes its horizontal massing. bold geometric volumes, and large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the west elevation, and ribbon windows. The building design is also representative of Lautner’s creation of unique spaces as evidenced by the canted sliding glass doors adjacent to the louvers. Unique design elements such as the staircase on the west elevation, provide “in-between” spaces – between the interior and exterior. The building is sited and fenestration arranged to adapt to sunlight and other environmental conditions. The building also includes early application of sustainable design including its siting on the parcel and includes sustainable features such as louvers that allow natural light and ventilation into the building while also allowing the outside to be seen through the spacing of the louvers.
B11. Additional R esource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:
Historic Resources Survey, 9884 Santa Monica Blvd.,
Beverly Hills, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 3/2022
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Pam O’Connor, Kaplan Chen Kaplan
*Date of Evaluation: 3/2022
Historic Resource Evaluation 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Beverly Hills, California
Kaplan Chen Kaplan March 2, 2022
ATTACHMENT F: Letter from Judith Lautner, The John Lautner Foundation Post Office Box 29517
Los Angeles, California 90029-0517
http://www.johnlautner.org
THE JOHN LAUTNER
F O U N D A T I O N
14 February 2022
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
SUBJECT: Darrow Building, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills From: Judith Lautner, President
The John Lautner Foundation
The John Lautner Foundation supports the designation of the Darrow Building, located at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills, as a City of Beverly Hills Historic Resource.
The building was designed in the office of Douglas Honnold in 1945 by architect John Lautner, who was at the time the principal design architect for Honnold. All buildings Lautner designed in the period just after the war, 1945-1946, were done in Honnold's office. He left Honnold’s employment in 1946 to start his own practice. Unfortunately, Honnold’s work was burned in a fire many years ago so plans no longer exist. However, the John Lautner Archive, held at the Getty Research Center, contains photographs and a print of a rendering of the building. A visit to the building in 2007 confirmed that while changes have been made to the interior, the exterior is essentially unchanged.
The building is one of only a few extant commercial buildings designed by John Lautner. In addition to the building’s exceptional aesthetic design, the building incorporates innovative sustainable features – decades before today’s growing emphasis on sustainable architecture.
The John Lautner Foundation, Federal Taxpayer I.D. 95-4629545, is a nonprofit entity as defined under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Contributions are deductible to the extent allowed by law. __________________________________________________________________________________ Board of Directors
Judith Lautner, President, Treasurer, Henderson, NV * Christopher Carr, Vice President, Los Angeles, CA * Frank Escher, Archive Affairs, Los Angeles, CA * John C. English, Preservation Affairs, Los Angeles, CA * Eleanor Schrader, Secretary, Los Angeles, CA Planning Commission Staff Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
ATTACHMENT E
Historic Impact Analysis
OF JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Darrow Office Building
Beverly Hills, California
Impacts Analysis
March 15, 2022
Submitted by:
Kaplan Chen Kaplan
2526 Eighteenth Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
David Kaplan, Principal
Pam O’Connor, Architectural Historian
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Property Description 2
Regulatory Framework 6
Proposed Project Description 8
Analysis of Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 11 Analysis of Compliance with City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Program 14 Conclusion 15
Attachments: Proposed Project Drawing Set
Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 1 March 15, 2022
Introduction
The office building at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, designed by master architect John Lautner, is an excellent example of his design philosophy, an excellent example of the Late Modern Architectural style, an early example of sustainable design on a commercial building, a rare extant example of a commercial building designed by Lautner, and an example of his early work. The Late Modern architectural styling of the building includes its horizontal massing, bold geometric volumes and sculptural design, and large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the side elevation. The building design is also representative of Lautner’s creation of unique spaces as evidenced by the canted sliding glass doors adjacent to the louvers. Unique design elements such as the staircase on the west elevation, provide “in-between” spaces – between the interior and exterior.
Sketch of 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard (Getty Research Institute Archives) 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, front and side elevations (undated from Getty Institute files)
9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, front and side elevations, 2021.
The building is sited and fenestration arranged to adapt to sunlight and other environmental conditions. A major character-defining feature of the building is its sustainable design that includes the bank of louvers (along the side and rear elevations) Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 2 March 15, 2022
that allows natural light and ventilation into the building while also allowing the outside to be seen through the spacing of the louvers. This building is eligible to be designated a City of Beverly Hills historic landmark. The building is also eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and on the California Register of Historical Resources.
Property Description
The building is designed to take advantage of its corner site. The shorter elevation, the front elevation, faces the more travelled east-west street of Santa Monica Boulevard.
This section of the alignment is narrow and thus the views of the elevations of buildings is also limited. The longer elevation, the side elevation, faces Charleville Boulevard.
While Charleville Boulevard is a not a major thoroughfare, the corner location of the building and relative width of the street, gives prominence to views of the side elevation.
The rear elevation is visible from Charleville Boulevard. 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, front and side elevation Front elevation Review of City of Beverly Hills building permits for 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard show that the there are no permits for additions to the building. The only permits for exterior alterations to the building was the addition of an exterior staircase on the rear elevation in 1976 and re-roofing in 1996.
All the other permits were for changes to the interior, electrical and plumbing, HVAC and installation of signs. Over the decades numerous interior alterations/tenant improvements (permitted and likely some unpermitted) occurred. In 1976 a permit was taken to remodel the second-floor offices. In 1980 a permit for a “new stairway to the second-floor reverse front door” was applied for. Permits were taken out in 1978, 1985 and 1989 for non-structural interior changes and unspecified tenant improvements.
Permits were taken out for signage in 1989, 2001 and 2009. No interior space configurations or original interior finishes or materials remain and in 2021 those nonoriginal structural elements and non-original interior walls and spaces were removed.
The front elevation of the building faces Santa Monica Boulevard. The ground level of this elevation is divided into two modules. One half abuts a projecting wing wall that functions as a party wall. The building’s design anticipated that the adjacent parcel would be developed with a building without any side setback. The projecting wing wall functions to delimit the subject building and not allow any adjacent building to interfere with the design of the subject building.
Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 3 March 15, 2022
This half of the ground level of the front elevation, recessed below the cantilevered canopy, consists of a large plate glass window, and two door assemblies – one with a single door and another with double doors. The doors have large expanses of glass.
Originally the four fins from the upper level extended down to the sidewalk; these fins separated the two building entries as well as providing shade.
The other half of the ground level of the front elevation consists of a brick exterior wall with a horizontal band or windows tucked under the canopy. It appears that the brick was originally unpainted; currently it is painted white.
A cantilevered, shed roof canopy with boxed eaves runs across the front elevation and is attached to the wing wall. It also turns to run across a portion of the long side elevation that faces Charleville Boulevard. The overhang provides shading to the first-floor windows.
At the upper level of the front elevation there is a series of nine tall vertical windows.
These windows are separated by angled fins that project out to the edge of the canopy.
In addition to creating a dynamic rhythm across this elevation, the fins provide shading from the late summer sun on the northerly façade while allowing for natural lighting in other seasons. There is a canted hood above these windows.
The upper windows of the front, north, elevation stop short of the corner where they abut the geometric volume of the rectangular west elevation. The cantilevered canopy returns at the corner and runs along the entire west elevation. The band of horizontal windows under the canopy also returns and runs along the north half of the west elevation, terminating before the stairway and entry on the west elevation. The canopy provides shading from the sun. The portion of exterior wall at the ground level along the west elevation is of brick like that of the front elevation.
Geometric volume of the side elevation
The side elevation is defined by a bold geometric volume strongly expressed at the upper level above the overhang of the first floor. This sculptural upper area is stucco clad without any ornament. The upper level has a major sustainability feature, a bank of louvers which also runs across the rear elevation. The individual metal louvers are angled from the edge of the canopy to the exterior of the rectangular geometric volume, to about two-thirds of the height of the elevation. The louvers provide protection from the strong west sun exposure.
There are wood frame sliding doors along the interior side of the louvers that allow for natural ventilation and daylight while protecting from direct sun. The louvers are angled to allow for views to the outside. To the front of the bank of louvers, a small opening was Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 4 March 15, 2022
later cut into the wall and contains a small mechanical unit; this opening is not an original element.
The ground level of the west elevation has an entry way near the south end of that elevation. This side of the building has the Charleville Boulevard address listed, 9885 Charleville Boulevard. This entry is reached by a series of brick clad steps. The building exterior at this point consists of a window wall with a stepped design leading up to the entry door which is recessed under the cantilevered canopy. To the sidewalk side of the steps is a brick wall that continues southward to encase a portion of the rear surface parking area.
The staircase leads to an entrance on the first floor and then turns inward to reach the second floor. The stairwell to the second floor is located between the louvers and the building, creating an “in-between” or transitional space – connecting the outdoors and the indoors.
Stair entry on side elevation Window wall at side entry stairs The rear elevation of the building has an angled pop out along two-thirds of the elevation. The bank of louvers conforms to the profile of this elevation and extends across the full width of the elevation. The exterior wall at the lower level is recessed under the louvers. The ground level of this rear elevation contains a band of horizontal windows along the west portion of the elevation. Later additions include a secure caged area that provides access to building utilities and an exterior staircase.
Side elevation Rear elevation
As evidenced by the building permits, over the decades tenant improvements and remodeling resulted in the loss of all interior configurations, materials, and finishes.
These non-structural alterations have been removed. There are a few sections of flooring laid in an angled pattern that may be original.
The exterior of the building, the brick wall, has been and remains exposed on the interior of the ground. The wood-frame glass sliding doors adjacent to the louvers are original Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 5 March 15, 2022
and remain. They are slightly canted. On the far side of the building interior is another original feature, an internal light court. This opening is adjacent to the party wall on the east. This light court provides cross-ventilation for the building and daylight including light that is reflected off the party wall. The non-original interior configuration and tenant improvements have been removed.
View of louvers and stairway View of louvers and sliding from Inside doors along interior corridor
First floor interior, interior side First floor interior of brick exterior
Second floor interior showing Second floor interior with sliding canted sliding doors doors
Character-Defining Features
The significant character-defining features of the building are:
• Sculptural and geometric massing of building’s three visible elevations • Brick and stucco on exterior elevations
• Fins on front elevation
• Vertical windows on front upper elevation
• Ground level storefront/entry assemblies on front elevation Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 6 March 15, 2022
• Band of windows under canopy on ground level of front and side elevations • Bank of louvers on upper level of side and rear elevations • Stairway on side elevation
• Brick wall along the side elevation
• Canted sliding doors with wood frame and glazing under louvers • Light court on party wall side of building
•
Regulatory Framework
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation1 were developed by the National Park Service to regulate the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program. “Rehabilitation” is defined as ”the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.”2
The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and the Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings provide guidance on how to repair, alter and construct additions to historic building. The Sustainability Guidelines state that “the key to a successful rehabilitation project is to identify and understand any lost original and existing energy-efficient aspects of the historic building, as well as to identify and understand its character-defining features to ensure they are preserved. The most sustainable building may be one that already exists. Thus, good preservation practice is often synonymous with sustainability.” The Sustainability Guidelines add: “whether a historic building is rehabilitated for a new or continuing use, it is important to utilize the building’s inherently sustainable qualities as they were intended.”3 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation are also used by state and local governments to evaluate proposed repairs and additions to historic buildings. The ten Standards for Rehabilitation are:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
1 Codified as 36 DRF 67
2 The Secretary of the Interior’s Treatments for Historic Properties, p. 2. https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf 3 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, p. 1.
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/sustainability-guidelines.pdf Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 7 March 15, 2022
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Findings
The City of Beverly Hills conducts an Historic Incentive Permit Program. To be eligible for the program the following findings must be made:
1. The proposed project either:
a. Complies with the “Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings”; or
b. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the “Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings”, but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 8 March 15, 2022
and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property; and
2. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on:
a. The scale, massing, or character of the streetscape, b. The scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties; c. Neighbors’ access to light and air,
d. Neighbors’ privacy,
e. The garden quality of the city, and
f. The public health, safety, or welfare.
Proposed Project Description
The rehabilitation project for 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard proposes to:
• Retain, repair, and restore character-defining historic exterior features o Retain sustainable character-defining elements such as fins o Restore ground level fins on front elevation (extension of upper-level fins) to original location; match finish
o Exterior stucco to be repainted
o Metal louvers to be restores or replaced with similar o Window frames to be restored; existing glazing to be replaced o Remove paint from exterior brick to bring back original natural finish • Configure interior spaces for offices and retail (no original interiors are extant) • Construct additional office space
Sculptural geometric volume of side elevation Rear elevation John Lautner designed the subject building in the Late Modern architectural style; it was an early conception of the style in which buildings were not “a simple, straightforward set of volumes” but were “highly articulated sculptural forms.”4 Lautner also merged the buildings he designed with their surroundings. The subject building makes use of the corner site using the length of the parcel along Charleville Boulevard to display the sculptural geometric volume of the building. All three visible sides of the building (the 4 National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, Residential Architecture of John Lautner in Southern California, 1940-1990.” https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/65df4e3f-569a-4010- a2e7-93e1bdd0bdda/ResidentialArchitectureofJohnLautnerinSoCalifornia_1940-1994.pdf Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 9 March 15, 2022
fourth side is shared with the adjacent building) contain significant architectural design features.
The “rear” of the building is in the “rear” of the parcel but was not treated as the “back of the house.” While the front and side elevations were built to the lot line, the rear elevation was not. This allowed for the rear elevation to include an additional geometric element with a portion of that elevation featuring an angled projection. The louver bank that begins on the side elevation continues to wrap around the building covering the full width of the rear elevation. This louver bank is an early innovative sustainability feature that is integrated into the form and design of the building.
The rehabilitation proposal includes construction of additional office space. The challenge for the subject building is where to build an addition. The typical option of building additional space at the rear of a building would require that most of that rear elevation, with its articulated elevation and louver bank, would have to be demolished.
The constraints of the site led to the proposed solution to construct a partial third story on the building.
The proposed partial third story would use the roof as its platform. The interior of the third floor would be recessed on the front and side elevations; along the rear elevation it would conform to the edge of the building except for the projecting angled feature. The elevation of the partial third story, along the building’s side, would have a zig-zag design and would be set back from the front and side elevations of the building. The exterior of the partial third story would be predominantly glazed including fixed windows and sliding doors.
The area in front of the partial third story’s exterior on the front and side would function as a terrace and be enclosed by a transparent wall. The flat roof of the partial third story would project out over the terrace area.
Plan view of proposed partial third story5
5 Drawing set in Attachments
Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 10 March 15, 2022
Existing front and side elevations Drawing with proposed partial third story
Existing front elevation Drawing with proposed partial third story
Proposed partial third story, front elevation
Existing side elevation Drawing with partial third story Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 11 March 15, 2022
Proposed partial third story, side elevation
Existing rear elevation Proposed partial third story, rear elevation Analysis of Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
The property will be used for its historic purpose, as a commercial office and retail building. The only change will be the addition of more office space. The proposed project complies with Standard 1.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
The proposed design will retain and rehabilitate the three major historic elevations of the building, all of which are visible from the right of way and all of which contain major character-defining features. All replacement windows will be compatible with existing window types. The documented ground floor fins will be restored. The louver banks will be repaired or replaced with similar materials. The proposed project complies with Standard 2.
Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 12 March 15, 2022
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
The project will retain all original extant elements. The project will repair damaged historic elements wherever possible or will replace in kind. There are no changes that would impart a false sense of historical elements. The proposed project complies with Standard .3
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
Limited changes have occurred on the building’s exterior (addition of rear staircase; small cutout for mechanical equipment on side elevation). None of these have achieved historic significance and they will be removed. The proposed project complies with Standard 4.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
The building has a major sustainable feature integrated into its design, the bank of louvers along the side and rear elevations. This bank of louvers will be retained and repaired. Sustainable features on the front elevation include fins along the front elevation. The ground floor fins were removed in the past; they are proposed to be reconstructed. Original windows, the side staircase, door assemblies, and exterior cladding will be retained and repaired as needed. The proposed project complies with Standard 5.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
The priority of the project is to repair historic features. If any historic feature is beyond repair, it will be replaced with an in-kind material. The fins on the ground floor will be reconstructed; their location and design are based on photographic and physical documentation. The proposed project complies with Standard 6.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
Originally the brick exterior was not painted; it currently is painted white. The proposed project will remove the paint to restore the original natural brick color. The least intrusive method of removal will be employed. The proposed project complies with Standard 7.
Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 13 March 15, 2022
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
The site was previously disturbed with the original construction of the building. No excavation is planned for the site. Only surface regrading of the rear parking lot is planned. Although unlikely, if any archeological resources are found during construction activities it is recommended that work cease until a qualified archeologist reviews the site. The proposed project complies with Standard 8.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
The proposed project includes addition of more office space. The challenge of the subject property is that the three elevations in public view all have major characterdefining features. Two of the elevations, the side and rear, are defined by an early sustainable building feature, a bank of louvers. The bank of louvers extends over the width of the rear elevation. Constructing an addition to the rear of the building would result either in the demolition of the louvers, or if left in place, the loss of a major feature that allows natural light into the interior of the building. Thus, the project proposed to add a partial third story to the building will allow the full bank of louvers, a significant early integrated sustainable design feature, to be retained.
This story is less than the full area of the footprint of the building and will be recessed from two of the building’s edges (it will go to the building line of the rear elevation and abut the adjacent building that shares a party wall). The added partial story will be recessed on the front and side elevations. The materials include glazed windows and sliding doors which to further “lighten” the new elevations helping them to also recede visually.
The new construction of a partial third story will not destroy any historic materials that characterize the property. The design of the partial third story is differentiated from the historic features and materials of the building. The partial third story will alter the massing of the building but its design and materials work to minimize the visual effect or impact of the added partial story. The proposed project generally complies with Standard
9. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The proposed project adds a partial third story to the building. As noted under Standard 9, the added partial third story would take up less square footage than the other floors of the building. The roof of the existing building will be its platform. This partial third story Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 14 March 15, 2022
could be removed in the future without impacting any of the original historic characterdefining features of the building. The proposed project meets Standard 10.
Analysis of Compliance with the City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Program Findings
The City of Beverly Hills conducts an Historic Incentive Permit Program. To be eligible for the program the following findings must be made:
1. The proposed project either:
a. Complies with the “Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings”; or
b. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the “Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings”, but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property; and
The proposed project complies with Standards 1 through 8 and 10 of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. The proposed project generally complies with Standard 9. The original historic design of the building includes three major elevations (the fourth is a party wall). Construction of a rear addition would result in adverse impacts to the historic bank of louvers, an integrated design and sustainable historic feature of the building. Thus, the constraints of the building’s historic design led to a solution that adds a partial third story to the building. The design of the partial third story is differentiated from the historic features and materials of the building. The partial third story will alter the massing of the building but its design and materials work to minimize the visual effect or impact of the added partial story. As such, the proposed addition generally meets Standard 9.
2. The proposed development will not have a substantial adverse impact on:
a. The scale, massing, or character of the streetscape.
The two-story building is sited along a commercial boulevard that contains a range of commercial buildings with varying heights. The subject building and is adjacent to a large multi-story hotel. The addition of a partial third story will not have an adverse impact on the commercial corridor of Santa Monica Boulevard. The building’s side is along Charleville Boulevard. The section Charleville Boulevard that runs south to Durant Street is zoned commercial on the side of the street that the subject building is located and the north half of the other side of the street is also zoned commercial. Thus, the character of that streetscape is commercial and the existing subject commercial building will not have any substantial adverse impact under this criterion.
Impacts Analysis 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard
Beverly Hills
Kaplan Chen Kaplan 15 March 15, 2022
b. The scale and massing of the property as viewed by neighboring properties; A partial third story will be added to the subject building. The subject building is on a single parcel on the block; all of the other parcels on the block were consolidated into a single parcel and a large hotel complex with multi-story buildings was constructed. The scale and massing of the subject building on a single parcel will not have an adverse impact as viewed from the larger adjacent hotel development. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact under this Criterion.
c. Neighbors’ access to light and air,
Similar to Criterion B, the subject building is on a single parcel will not have any impact on the access to light and air from the adjacent large multi-story hotel complex. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact under this Criterion. d. Neighbors’ privacy,
Similar to Criterion B, the subject building is on a single parcel will not have any impact on the access to light and air from the adjacent large multi-story hotel complex. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact under this Criterion. e. The garden quality of the city, and
The subject building and proposed project is in the commercial area of the city. The character of this zone is that of urbanized commercial development with most buildings constructed to the lot line. Thus, this criterion does not apply to commercial zones such as the zone in which the subject building is located.
f. The public health, safety, or welfare.
There is no evidence that the proposed project would have any adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare. The proposed project will not have an adverse impact under this Criterion.
Conclusion
Based on the analysis and evaluation above under the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation section and the City of Beverly Hills Incentive Program, it is found that the findings can be made that the proposed project generally complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and complies with the City of Beverly Incentive Program. The proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the historic resource at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard.
Planning Commission Staff Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
July 13, 2023
ATTACHMENT F
April 13, 2022
Cultural Heritage Commission Staff Reports
OF JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Cultural Heritage Commission
Report
Attachment(s):
(none)
Report Author and Contact Information:
Minjee Hahm
Associate Planner
(310) 285-1136
[email protected]
Meeting Date: April 13, 2022
Subject: 9884 SOUTH SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
Landmark Initiation
Initiation of nomination proceedings for inclusion onto the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties for the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard.
Project Applicant: David Kaplan
Recommendation: Review the initiation of the Master Architect-designed property and potential historic resource.
REPORT SUMMARY
The commercial property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard is before the Commission for consideration of initiation of landmark proceedings to determine its eligibility as a local landmark for placement onto the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties. The property generally remains in a well-maintained condition with no major compromises to its architectural integrity and appears to be eligible for listing. The subject property was preliminarily evaluated through City survey review and was determined to be eligible for placement on the California and National Register of Historic Places. Preliminarily, it appears that the property meets the required criteria for local landmark designation, as required by Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-3212 (Landmark Designation Criteria).
BACKGROUND
Located on the corner of South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, the subject property at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard was designed in 1946 by renowned local contemporary architect John Lautner, who is on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects.
The commercial building, commonly known as the “Darrow Office Building” was built for the original owner, John Darrow. While the original building permit from 1946 lists Douglas Honnold (also on the City’s List of Master Architects) as the architect, the building’s design is actually attributed to Lautner, who was part of Honnold’s architectural design team at the time.
Fig. 1. Historic Rendering of the Commercial Building
Cultural Heritage Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Landmark Initiation
April 13, 2022
Master Architect John Lautner designed 188 structures (64 of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places) over his 50-year career, and is considered as one of Southern California’s most significant twentieth century architects. Lautner was known for his unique, modernist designs that revolved around organic ideas and was deeply influenced by another Master Architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. Post World War II, Lautner worked on more commercial projects after joining Honnold’s architectural practice and it was during this time that Lautner designed the Darrow Office Building in Beverly Hills.
Designed in the Late Modern/ Mid-Century Modern architectural style, the two-story commercial building is generally rectangular with a floor area of approximately 6,546 square-feet. According to the City’s preliminary commercial survey, the subject building is a rare, extant example of a commercial building designed by John Lautner. The subject building embodies character-defining features of the architectural style, including bold geometric volumes, horizontal massing, large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the west elevation, and ribbon windows. Unique design elements like the staircase enclosed by a window-wall provide “in-between” spaces between the interior and the exterior. The building also utilizes sustainable design features such as the internal light court and a bank of custom louvers, which allows filtered natural light and ventilation into the building.
Based on the City’s permit records, the building has had some minor changes since its original construction. Permitted exterior alterations to the building include an exterior stair case at the rear Fig. 2 and 3. Current Images of the Building facades
Fig. 4 and 5. Unique glazing treatments and custom louvering system Cultural Heritage Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Landmark Initiation
April 13, 2022
(southern) elevation in 1976, and re-roofing in 1996. All other recorded City permits were for interior alterations. It appears that the property at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard substantially retains its original exterior appearance and all external character-defining features are intact.
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF LANDMARK CRITERIA
A property within the City may be nominated and designated as a landmark if it satisfies all of the requirements set forth in Criteria A and at least two of the requirements set forth in Criteria B of the Landmark Designation Criteria in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32). Upon initial assessment, the commercial building located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard appears that it may possibly satisfy the City’s criteria for designation as a local landmark as required in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) 10-3-3212 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Further research would be needed in order to investigate whether the subject property qualifies as an “exceptional work” or an “exceptional property,” per the definition contained in BHMC §10-3-32021. Preliminarily, this property appears to satisfy all of the mandates of subsection A and, potentially two of the mandates under subsection B, as follows:
Criteria A1: It is at least forty five (45) years of age, or is a property of extraordinary significance; Criteria A2: It possesses high artistic value or aesthetic value, and embodies the distinctive characteristics of an architectural style or architectural type or architectural period; Criteria A3: It retains substantial integrity from its period of significance; and Criteria A4: It has continued historic value to the community such that its designation as a landmark is reasonable and necessary to promote and further the purposes of this article (BHMC Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32).
Criteria B2: It is [potentially] an exceptional work by a master architect. Further research would need to be undertaken to determine whether the residence qualifies under Criterion B2.
Criteria B6: The landmark designation procedure is initiated, or expressly agreed to, by the owner(s) of the property.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
No public notice is required to be provided to the property owner for initiation of landmark proceedings; however, courtesy notice has been provided to the owner’s representative. In the 1 EXCEPTIONAL WORK: 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.
Cultural Heritage Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Landmark Initiation
April 13, 2022
event that landmark proceedings are initiated by the Commission, future hearings will require formal written notice to the property owner in accordance with Municipal Code requirements.
Type of Notice Required Period Actual Period Required
Date
Actual
Date
Newspaper Notice n/a n/a n/a n/a
Mailed Notice n/a n/a n/a n/a
Property Posting n/a n/a n/a n/a
Agenda Posting 72 Hours 6 Days 04/10/22 04/07/22
Website (Agenda) 72 Hours 6 Days 04/10/22 04/07/22
NEXT STEPS
Should the Cultural Heritage Commission vote to initiate landmark proceedings on the subject property, the following steps are required to complete the landmark designation process:
1) Preliminary Evaluation by the Director of Community Development with a preliminary hearing before the Cultural Heritage Commission;
2) A nomination hearing by the Cultural Heritage Commission to make a formal recommendation to the City Council; and
3) A public hearing by the City Council considering whether to designate the property as a local landmark and place the property on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties.
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Cultural Heritage Commission
Report
Attachment(s):
A. Preliminary Evaluation completed by the Director of
Community Development
Report Author and Contact Information:
Minjee Hahm, Associate Planner
(310) 285-1136
[email protected]
Meeting Date: April 13, 2022
Subject: 9884 SOUTH SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
Preliminary Hearing
Preliminary Hearing for the property at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard to determine whether the property merits formal consideration for nomination and placement onto the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties.
Recommendation: Review the Preliminary Evaluation from the Director of Community Development, conduct a public hearing and vote whether or not sufficient evidence exists and the subject property merits formal consideration for nomination by the Commission
REPORT SUMMARY
At its April 13, 2022 Regular Meeting, the Cultural Heritage Commission will review the initiation of landmark proceedings for possible inclusion of the subject property (9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard) onto the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties. Pursuant to the requirements of Beverly Hills Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32 (Historic Preservation Ordinance), the Director of Community Development has completed a preliminary evaluation of the subject property which was issued on April 13, 2022 and forwarded to the property owner, as required in the Municipal Code. This memorandum transmits the Director’s written Preliminary Evaluation (Attachment A) for the Commission’s consideration during a preliminary hearing on the property’s eligibility under landmark criteria contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Director’s Preliminary Evaluation concludes that the subject property could potentially satisfy the required criteria for landmark designation in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3212 (Landmark Designation Criteria), subject to further research and confirmation from the Commission.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3215, within fourteen (14) days after the Commission designates initiation proceedings, the Director of Community Development shall prepare a written preliminary evaluation opining whether or not sufficient evidence exists to support a finding that all of the applicable requirements for designation as a landmark can be met, and setting forth all of the facts known to the director in support of said opinion. Upon completion of the preliminary evaluation, the Director shall schedule a preliminary hearing before the Commission at the reviewing body's next regularly held meeting to determine whether the proposed landmark merits formal consideration for nomination by the Commission. If, based on the director's preliminary evaluation and any other evidence provided to the Commission at or prior to the hearing, the Commission determines that sufficient evidence exists and the property merits formal consideration, it shall schedule a public hearing before the Commission within seventy five (75) days for the Commission to consider nomination of the property. If the Commission determines that sufficient evidence does not exist, or that the property does not merit formal consideration, that shall be a final action of the Commission (appealable). At its April 13, 2022 hearing, the Cultural Heritage Commission Report
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Preliminary Hearing
April 13, 2022
Cultural Heritage Commission initiated landmark proceedings and a subsequent Preliminary Hearing was also scheduled to further expedite the overall nomination process.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
Notice that the Cultural Heritage Commission would conduct a Preliminary Hearing to consider the Preliminary Evaluation was provided to the property owner and the owner has also formally waived the deadlines, as required in the Municipal Code (BHMC §10-3-3215A.4).
Type of Notice Required Period Actual Period Required
Date
Actual
Date
Newspaper Notice n/a n/a n/a n/a
Mailed Notice
(to property owner only)
10 days 7 days *Time
periods
waived
4/6/22
Property Posting n/a n/a n/a n/a
Agenda Posting 24 Hours 6 Days 4/10/22 4/7/22
Website (Agenda) 24 Hours 6 Days 4/10/22 4/7/22
RECOMMENDATION
The Commission should conduct a public hearing in accordance with Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3215A.5 and vote whether or not sufficient evidence exists and if the subject property merits formal consideration for nomination by the Commission.
NEXT STEPS
Should the Commission determine at the preliminary hearing that sufficient evidence exists to conclude that the subject property satisfies all applicable designation criteria, and that the property merits formal consideration for nomination, then the Commission shall schedule a future public hearing to consider nomination of the property and make a recommendation to the City Council on the matter. Finally, a public hearing and action by the City Council are required in order to designate the property as a local landmark and place it on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties.
$77$&+0(17$
April 13
Cultural Heritage Commission Report
Preliminary Hearing - 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard Preliminary Evaluation
completed by the
Director of Community Development
OF APRIL 13, 2022 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Tel. (310) 285-1141 Fax. (310) 858-5966
LANDMARK DESIGNATION PROCEEDINGS (BHMC §10-3-3215)
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
Property Address 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Applicant (initiated by) David Kaplan
2526 18th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Date of Initiation by Cultural
Heritage Commission
April 13, 2022
Date Prelmininary Evaluation
Issued
April 13, 2021
PRELIMINARY EVALUATION
In consideration of the property as a potential city of Beverly Hills Landmark under the criteria listed in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section §10-3-3212, the Director preliminarily finds that the property at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard:
܈ Appears potentially eligible as a local landmark based on available evidence at this time
܆ Appears ineligible as a local landmark based on available evidence at this time The subject property appears to affirmatively satisfy all of the required criteria in BHMC 10-3- 3212 (Landmark Designation Criteria).
BACKGROUND
Property Description
Located on the corner of South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, the subject property at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard was designed in 1946 by John Lautner, who is on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects. The commercial building, commonly known as “Darrow Office Building” was built for the owner, John Darrow. While the original building permit from 1946 lists Douglas Honnold (also on the City’s List of Master Architects) as the architect, the building’s design is actually attributed to Lautner, who was part of Honnold’s architectural practice at the time.
Master Architect John Lautner designed 188 structures (64 of which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places) over his 50-year career and is considered as one of Southern California’s most significant twentieth century architects. Lautner was known for his unique, modernist designs that revolved around organic ideas and was deeply influenced by another Master Architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. Post World War II, Lautner worked on more commercial projects after joining Honnold’s architectural practice and it was during this time that Lautner designed the Darrow Office Building in Beverly Hills.
Preliminary Evaluation
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
April 13, 2022