AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: February 20, 2024
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Michael Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development Masa Alkire, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THIRD STORY, ALONG WITH MODIFIED LOADING FACILITIES, AT 9884 SOUTH SANTA MONICA
BOULEVARD, FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND DENYING A
RELATED APPEAL (PL2200237)
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
2. Required Findings
3. Appeal Petition (July 26, 2023)
4. Appeal Petition Supplement (November 20, 2023)
5. January 23, 2024 City Council Agenda Report (without attachments)
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029
7. Applicant’s Project Alternatives Letter (January 22, 2024)
8. Appellant’s Continued Opposition Letter (January 22, 2024)
9. Applicant’s Project Conditions Letter (January 23, 2024)
10. Applicant’s Construction Hour Change Letter (February 9, 2024)
11. Public Comments
12. Updated Project Plans
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the modified project (Attachment 1) and denying a related appeal (Attachments 3 and 4), which would allow the project to move forward through the City’s architectural review and building permit processes.
Meeting Date: February 20, 2024
INTRODUCTION
On January 23, 2024, the City Council held a de novo public hearing (Attachment 5) to consider an appeal filed by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Belvedere Hotel Partnership (“Peninsula Beverly Hills”) (Attachments 3 and 4) of the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 decision approving a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) (Attachment 6) associated with planned improvements for the property at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “project site”), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Commission’s approval of the project included a DPR to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition and a HIP to allow the project to deviate from the minimum dimensions required for rubbish storage facilities and the applicable on-site loading space requirements.
At the hearing, the Council considered the issues raised in the appeal petition and subsequent correspondence, as well as public comment on the project from the Applicant, Appellant, Planning Commissioner Jeff Wolfe, and interested members of the public. Additional correspondence received immediately prior to the hearing consisted of a letter from the Applicant noting a potential project alternative with modifications that would no longer require approval of a HIP (Attachment 7), a letter from the Appellant reiterating their continued opposition of the project and proposed project alternatives, which also included proposed construction and operational measures for consideration by the Council if the project was to be approved (Attachment 8), and a letter from the Applicant agreeing to several of the Appellant’s proposed construction and operational measures should the project be approved by the Council (Attachment 9).
The Applicant’s alternative proposal consists of modifications to the project to increase the size of the rubbish room to comply with the eight-foot minimum dimension required in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §9-3-1.F and provide modified loading facilities as part of a DPR request, pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2742.D, instead of seeking a deviation through the HIP process. The modified proposal would no longer require approval of the HIP, as the rubbish room would be redesigned to comply with code and the modified loading area would be requested as part of the DPR, which includes the request for construction of the proposed thirdstory addition and adjacent outdoor terrace.
Based on Council discussion with the Applicant and Appellant regarding project alternatives and potential additional construction and operational conditions, the Council closed the public hearing and directed staff to draft resolution for the Council’s consideration at a subsequent meeting approving the modified project proposed by the Applicant.
Amended Project and Entitlement Request
The proposed modifications to the project proposed by the Applicant include enlarging the new rubbish room proposed within the existing building to provide an enclosed area for the storage of refuse containers. Previously, the applicant sought approval of the proposed rubbish room through a HIP, which included a request to deviate from the minimum dimensions required for these storage facilities. Specifically, BHMC §9-3-1.F provides that a rubbish room must be at least 8’-0” by 5’-0”; the rubbish room was previously designed with internal dimensions of 7’-2⅛” by 7’-1⅞” (Fig. 1). The Applicant has modified the project plans (Attachment 12) to enlarge the size of the rubbish room to provide internal dimensions of 8’-0” by 7’-2¾” (Fig. 2), which now complies with code and no longer requires a HIP.
Meeting Date: February 20, 2024
Fig. 1: Original Rubbish Room Design Fig. 2: Modified Rubbish Room Design Source: Belzberg Architects Source: Belzberg Architects Fig. 3: Proposed Parking Lot Design with Loading Area
Source: Belzberg Architects
Meeting Date: February 20, 2024
Additionally, the Applicant has amended the DPR application to include the request for approval of modified loading facilities, along with the original request to allow for the new third-story addition to the existing building with an adjacent outdoor terrace. As part of the original design of the project, which has not been modified, the applicant is proposing to provide an area for loading within the redesigned parking lot (Fig. 3). The loading area would be located immediately behind the existing parking spaces and would measure 10’ wide by 25’ in length.
The request to approve modified loading facilities 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 providing a standalone loading space without eliminating on-site parking. The joint use of a parking area and loading area for this project allows for a more efficient use of space on the property.
Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2741.D, the City Council as the approving body for the de novo review of the project, may approve modified loading space requirements for a project as part of the approval of any discretionary permit. As discretionary approval of a DPR is required for the proposed third-story addition, the Council may approve the proposed loading area configuration as part of the DPR, instead of through a HIP.
As a result of the proposed amendments to the requested entitlements and the modification of the rubbish room to comply with code, the project is eligible for approval through a DPR. The project, as amended at the Applicant’s request, no longer requires approval of a HIP which would have required the Applicant to apply for designation of the property as a local landmark.
However, approval of the DPR without the HIP would not limit the ability of the Applicant to seek historical designation of the property as a local landmark in the future.
Conditions of Approval
At the January 23, 2024 hearing, the Council facilitated a discussion with the Applicant and the Appellant on acceptable construction and operational conditions of approval. Specifically, the Council considered the additional conditions requested by the Appellant (Attachment 8) and those agreed to by the Applicant (Attachment 9). Based on this discussion and the direction at the hearing, City staff has a provided a draft resolution (Attachment 1) for the Council’s consideration with draft conditions that are reflective of the Council’s direction and the consensus reached between the Applicant and Appellant at the hearing. The proposed conditions of approval include the following:
Additional Conditions of Approval
Condition No. 6 – Prohibiting smoking of any kind on the third floor outdoor terrace.
Condition No. 7 – Regulating the use and occupancy of the third floor outdoor terrace, limiting the number of events allowed (maximum of six events per year) and the hours of such events (11:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M., Monday - Friday), requiring advanced notice to the Peninsula Hotel of any planned events, and clarifying that use outdoor terrace for incidental office uses is allowed.
Condition No. 8 – Requiring review of the project by the Planning Commission if three or more confirmed noise complaints are received by the City within a sixmonth period.
Meeting Date: February 20, 2024
Condition No. 9 – Allowing pre-recorded background music in compliance with applicable City noise standards and provided that the sound is not materially audible beyond the project site’s property lines.
Condition No. 10 – Requiring the outdoor kitchen on the third floor outdoor terrace area to be vented away from the Peninsula hotel property.
Condition No. 11 – Requiring landscaping to be installed on the wall adjacent to the southern edge adjacent to the Peninsula hotel property.
Condition No. 12 – Limiting deliveries to the hours of 9:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and clarifying that this condition is not applicable to deliveries made by third party delivery services or general courier deliveries.
Additional Construction Measures/Conditions
Condition No. 13 – Limiting the start time of all exterior high noise-generating construction activities to 9:30 A.M., unless mutually agreed upon in writing between the Applicant and the Peninsula hotel.
Condition No. 14 – Prohibiting the use of metered on-street parking for construction-related worker parking and allowing the temporary use of this area for delivery of construction materials or temporary staging of vehicles for constructionrelated activities (e.g., hauling, concrete trucks, or similar), subject to the issuance of a Public Right-of-Way Permit.
The draft resolution, including the proposed conditions of approval, were distributed to both the Applicant and Appellant for their review prior to publication of this report. Also, the Applicant and Appellant were requested to provide their comments on the resolution and conditions of approval so that the comments could be distributed with this report. With the exception of the previous delivery condition that was approved by the Planning Commission that has been amended, the remaining conditions adopted by the Commission as part of Resolution No. 2029 have been carried over unchanged into the draft resolution.
Additionally, on February 9, 2024, the Applicant requested a 9:00 A.M. start time instead of a 9:30 A.M. start time for high noise-generating construction activities (Attachment 10). Condition No. 13 in the attached draft resolution (Attachment 1) reflects a 9:30 A.M. start time and would have to be modified if the Council is amenable to the Applicant’s requested change.
Findings
To approve the requested DPR for the modified project, the Council is required to make the findings provided in BHMC §10-3-3104 for project approval. The required findings are provided as Attachment 2 to this report, with draft language in support of the findings included in Section 7 of the draft resolution (Attachment 1).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City.
Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Meeting Date: February 20, 2024
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).
The Council was presented with evidence, including expert testimony, that the project would comply with SOI Standards. If the City Council is able to make findings in support of approval of the project, staff recommends that the Council find the project exempt from further CEQA review.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Wednesday, November 15, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site for the December 5, 2023 City Council meeting. On-site posting was also posted on the subject property on Wednesday, November 15, 2023. At the December 5th meeting, the City Council continued consideration of the project to January 23, 2024, where the Council closed the public hearing and directed staff to return to the Council with a draft resolution approving the project. As the project was previously continued to a date certain and the public hearing concluded at the January 23rd meeting, no additional public noticing was required. However, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of this meeting to consider approval of the draft resolution.
Public Comment
No additional public comment has been submitted for this project. All previous public correspondence received as part of this project is included as Attachment 11.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellant at the time the appeal was filed. If approved, the project has the potential to generate new business tax revenue, as the existing building is currently vacant and has been without a tenant for a number of years. Additionally, the planned improvements to the Project site and proposed third story addition would provide for additional revenue through the issuance of building permits associated with project construction and increased property tax revenue.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Resolution
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 24-R-________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THIRD STORY, ALONG WITH
MODIFIED LOADING FACILITIES, AT 9884 SOUTH SANTA
MONICA BOULEVARD, FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AND DENYING A RELATED APPEAL (PL2200237)
The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills herby finds, resolves and determines as follows:
Section 1. Yaniv Tepper, on behalf of Impact Real Estate Group, LLC, (collectively the “Applicant”) has submitted an amended application for a Development Plan Review (DPR) to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition with modified loading facilities at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Project”).
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §§10-3-3100.A and 10-3-2742.D, Development Plan Review is required to allow for the construction of the new third-story addition with modified loading facilities.
Section 2. The Project consists of the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building and the construction of a new third story addition, with modified loading facilities 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 a 945 SF outdoor terrace on the third floor that will face South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. The new third floor addition will increase the -2-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
existing height of the building by approximately 13’-9”, from 23’-9” to a proposed height of 37’- 6”. The existing structure will retain its current setbacks and the new third story addition is proposed within the footprint of the second floor and will 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 Project includes the reconfiguration of 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 and a new loading area accessed from an existing alley to the south of the Project site. 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 will 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 includes a request to provide modified loading facilities within the redesigned parking lot, pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2742.D, to allow loading area that will be accessible to a van providing scheduled deliveries to the Project site. The loading area will be located immediately behind the existing parking spaces and will measure 10’ wide by 25’ in length. The modification will allow for the loading area to be located within an existing driveway aisle and behind existing parking spaces. The use of this loading area will be managed to prevent from impacting access to available on-site parking. Deliveries will be managed by the property owner and those deliveries that are within the control of the owner will be limited to occurring during 9:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. The modified loading facility will allow for this managed loading area to be provided within the existing parking aisle, rather than as a standalone space, due to the -3-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
infeasibility of providing a standalone loading space without further eliminating available on-site parking.
Section 3. On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing after which it adopted Resolution No. 2029, conditionally approving a Development Plan Review to allow for the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition, along with a Historic Incentive Permit as then requested by the Applicant to allow for deviations from certain development standards to allow for reduced minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and alternative loading area requirements.
Section 4. On July 26, 2023 a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Belvedere Hotel Partnership (“Peninsula Beverly Hills”), in accordance with BHMC §1-4-101 et seq., seeking City Council review of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
Section 5. On December 5, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed appeal hearing, after mailing a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500’ radius (extended to the block face) of the Project site and posting a Notice of Public Hearing sign on the Property. At the request of the Applicant and Appellant, this meeting was continued to January 23, 2024, to allow for the City to complete public records requests submitted by the Appellant and Applicant. At the January 23rd meeting, the Council held a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and the proposed Project, as well as considered testimony from the Applicant, Appellant, and interested members of the public. After closing the public hearing, the Council moved to approve a modified version of the Project (4-1) and directed staff to prepare a resolution approving the modified Project, which consists of a DPR request only to allow for the -4-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
third story addition with adjacent outdoor terrace, along with modified loading facilities. The Applicant, on the record, narrowed their request to eliminate the previously proposed Historic Incentive Permit. On February 20, 2024, the Council considered the proposed draft resolution approving the revised Project proposal and denying the associated appeal. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearings.
Section 6. In considering the request for approval of a Development Plan Review and modified loading facilities, pursuant to Sections 10-3-3104 and 10-3-2742.D of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the City Council 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.
-5-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
Section 7. After conducting a de novo public hearing, the City Council hereby finds as follows in support of approving a Development Plan Review for the Project, with modified loading facilities pursuant to Section 10-3-2742.D of the BHMC, and rejects the appeal based upon an analysis of the appeal and an independent review of the evidence contained in the record. The City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the Project:
1. The Project meets 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 of existing buildings while accommodating renovations of to maintain the building’s 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 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 with a 945 SF third floor outdoor terrace. The addition will result in a net floor area increase of 765 SF due to the construction of new elevator and stair shafts which are exempt from floor area, for a total building floor area of 7,053 SF and an FAR of 1.17, where the development standards allow for a maximum FAR of 2.0. The Project site is located directly to the east of an active construction project at 9908 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Rosewood Residences).
Additionally, the Project site is located to the west of the villas of the Peninsula Beverly Hills property at 9882 South Santa Monica Boulevard, with each structure currently built -6-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
to the shared property line and having exterior wall that abut each other. The Project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that will be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment onsite. The small scale of this Project is not anticipated to negatively impact existing development in the area, as the Project will be required to submit a construction management during plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work will not adversely affect neighboring properties and planned construction in the vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the conditions of approval provide measures to address potential noise impacts by limiting the occupancy of the proposed third floor outdoor terrace and requiring that all amplified sound comply with the City’s noise regulations and not be audible beyond the property line; address potential air quality impacts by prohibiting smoking on the outdoor terrace and requiring that that the outdoor kitchen be vented away from the Peninsula Beverly Hills property; and construction-related impacts by requiring that all exterior high noise generating construction activities to do not begin until 9:30 A.M.
As such, the Project will 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 will increase the existing height of the building by 13’-9”, resulting in a total building height of 37’-6”. The existing building line will be retained for the existing building facing South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard. Similarly, the Project would retain its existing building line along -7-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
the west-side property line, to which the existing structure is currently built and which abuts a building wall from the neighboring hotel villas on the Peninsula Beverly Hills property. The new addition is proposed with a 16’-6” setback from South Santa Monica Boulevard and 8’-9” from Charleville Boulevard. The addition will result in a net floor area increase of 765 SF due to the construction of new elevator and stair shafts which are exempt from floor area, 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 will 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 properties with residential land uses are located approximately 60’ away, along with a 17-unit condominium and mixed use building under construction to the west of the project site along South Santa Monica (Rosewood Residences) and other multifamily residential property along Durant Drive, to the south of the Project site. The Project includes a request to allow for modified loading facilities pursuant to BHMC §10-3- 2742.D, which will facilitate the introduction of services that the existing building does not provide. The Project will provide an on-site loading area whereas currently there is no onsite loading areas. 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, which consists of the rehabilitation of an existing commercial building and the addition of a 1,400 SF third story. The addition will -8-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
result in a net floor area increase of 765 SF due to the construction of new elevator and stair shafts which are exempt from floor area, for a total building floor area of 7,053 SF and an FAR of 1.17. The Project site is currently improved with an existing surface parking lot at the rear that will be used to provide construction related parking and staging of building materials and equipment on-site. Additionally, the Project will be required to submit a construction management during plan building plan check to ensure that the proposed work will not adversely affect neighboring properties and planned construction in the vicinity of the Project site. As such, the Project will 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. The 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 improvements to the site to provide features not current provided, which include new rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading area for deliveries to the Project site, while retaining the unique style of architecture of the existing two-story building. As such, the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
Section 8. Based on the City Council’s review of the Project at the January 23, 2024 de novo hearing, at which the Council facilitated discussion of the Project between the Applicant and the Appellant and publicly reviewed Project conditions considering testimony from both -9-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
parties, the Council directed the preparation of a resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review for the Project. Therefore, the Council rejects the appeal and approves a modified Project that includes a request for Development Plan Review to allow for the construction of the third story addition with modified loading facilities.
Section 9. 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 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). The City Council finds, based on substantial evidence in the record including expert testimony, that the proposed building modifications are consistent with the SOI Standards. Therefore, the City Council hereby finds the Project exempt from further review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15331.
Section 10. Based upon the evidence contained in the record on this matter and the findings set forth herein, the City Council hereby rejects the appeal, and approves the requested Development Plan Review associated with the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial -10-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
building with a new third story addition and modified loading facilities at the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, subject to the following conditions:
Project-Specific Conditions
1. The City Council hereby approves the requested Development Plan Review, which includes the addition of the third story addition with an adjacent outdoor terrace, along with modified on-site loading facilities. The Applicant shall provide one (1) on-site loading space in the surface parking lot at the rear of the property 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 City Council on February 20, 2024, 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 may 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. 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.
5. 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 -11-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
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.
6. Smoking of any kind shall be prohibited on the third floor outdoor terrace.
7. Rental of third floor outdoor terrace space to non-occupant third parties shall be prohibited. Events hosted by building occupants on the outdoor terrace shall be limited to a maximum of six (6) events per year and shall not exceed a maximum occupancy of 17 persons, or the maximum occupancy permitted under applicable building and fire codes, whichever is less. Events shall be limited to the hours 11:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M, Monday through Friday, and shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, or holidays. The Applicant shall provide notice to the Peninsula Beverly Hills of any planned events that would be hosted on the third floor outdoor terrace within 14 days of such event. Incidental use of the third floor outdoor terrace for meetings associated with general office activities or by office workers during the normal course of business shall not constitute an event and shall be permitted as part of standard office activities.
8. If the Community Preservation Division of the City receives three (3) or more noise complaints resulting in violations of the City’s noise ordinance or this Development Plan Review approval, which are confirmed by staff, regarding third floor terrace operations within six (6) months, the Community Development Director shall return the Project to the Planning Commission for review.
9. Pre-recorded, background music which does not interfere with normal speech communication may be played on the third floor outdoor terrace, provided the volume level is not plainly audible beyond the Project site’s property lines. -12-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
10. The proposed outdoor kitchen on the third floor outdoor terrace shall be vented away from the adjacent Peninsula Beverly Hills property at 9882 South Santa Monica Boulevard.
11. Landscaping shall be planted on the wall that is on the third floor’s southern edge consistent with the landscape plan set forth in the Project plans and shall be maintained for the life of the Project, as required by Condition No. 5.
12. Planned deliveries to the building that utilize the off-street loading area shall only be allowed between the hours of 9:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Deliveries by third party services or by general courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, and similar) and mail delivery services (USPS), or other delivery services over which the Applicant has no control over delivery times, are not subject to the restrictions of deliveries to the building.
Construction-Related Conditions
13. The Applicant shall not begin any exterior high noise construction activities (which might include, but not be limited to: jackhammering, saw-cutting concrete and steel/re-bar, use of drill rigs, heavy haul activities, earth compaction activities performed via vibratory means, and use of pneumatic tools) before 9:30 A.M., unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing between the Applicant and the Peninsula Beverly Hills. All other construction activity that does not generate high noise levels shall be completed in compliance with the City’s restrictions on construction activity in BHMC section 5-1-205 (Monday through Friday - 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M).
14. The use of street parking, including metered street parking, at any time for any construction-related activity, including construction worker parking shall be prohibited. However, temporary use of metered street parking along Charleville Boulevard, -13-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
directly abutting to the Project site, shall be allowed for construction-related deliveries and construction-related activities (e.g., debris hauling, concrete truck staging, or similar activities), subject to the issuance of a Public Right-of-Way Permit.
15. 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 permit 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 operation, designation of construction staging area and other pertinent 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.
16. 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 -14-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.
17. 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 Project phone numbers shall be manned at all times during construction hours.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or his/her designee) is first obtained.
21. 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-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
22. 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.
23. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.
27. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline.
Standard Conditions
28. RECORDATION. This resolution approving this Development Plan Review 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 City Council decision. At the time that -16-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
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 a Development Plan Review 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 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.
29. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review: 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.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgments and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees, Incurred by -17-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgments, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the City Council’s actions, this approval and the City Council’s actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determinations herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due. ///
-18-
B0785-0001\2922673v1.doc
Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.
Adopted:
JULIAN A. GOLD, M.D.
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills,
California
ATTEST:
_______________________________
HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
LAURENCE S. WIENER
City Attorney
NANCY HUNT-COFFEY
City Manager
RYAN GOHLICH, AICP
Assistant City Manager
ATTACHMENT 2
Required Findings
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)
ATTACHMENT 3
Appeal Petition
(July 26, 2023)
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION
APPEAL TO COMMISSION OJ^ITY COUNCil^ COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY IN BLACK INK July 26. 2023 Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of the Planning Commission (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on July 13 , 2023 ; which decision consisted of:
The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State allsrounds for appeal Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper if necessary.) Please see attached.
The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:
Masa Alkire, City Planner on July^£>2023
(Department Head(s) Involved/ Date
It is requested that written notice of the time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:
Michael Tenner, General Counsel, Probity International, 421 N. Beverly Drive #350, Beverly Hills, OA 90210 Name Address
Signature igna\ure of appealing appealing party
421 N. Beverly Drive #350, Beverly Hills, OA 90210
Address
Phone: 310-888-1882 Fax: 310-888-8838
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid 0 0 (Por City Clerk's use) DATE RECEIVEDBEM HILLS CITV CLERK ^ 2023JUL26pm1:18
LOG NO. 2.\ ^ C y Written Notice mailed to appellant: ^ Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, i(\ Involved Department
Introduction
The Belvedere Hotel Partnership, doing business as The Peninsula Beverly Hills ("Appellant"), owner of the hotel property at 9882 S. Santa Monica Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills ("City"), is filing this Appeal of the Planning Commission's July 13, 2023 determination for Case No. PL2200237 for the property at 9884 5. Santa Monica Boulevard ("Project Site"), which abuts the Appellant's property to the west and south.
This Planning Commission determination approved a Historic Incentive Permit ("HIP") and Development Plan Review ("DPR"), subject to the approval of a City Landmark nomination, to allow for the rehabilitation and construction of a new third story at an existing two-story commercial building ("Project"), along with waivers and deviations of development standards relating to minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading space requirements. The Planning Commission also found the Project to qualify for Class 1, Class 3, and Class 31 Categorical Exemptions ("CE") under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
Over the past three decades, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has solidified its status as an integral part of Beverly Hills' iconic identity. As the only AAA Five Diamond and Forbes Five Star-rated hotel in Southern California every year since 1993, The Peninsula Beverly Hills sets the highest standards for luxury accommodations in the Los Angeles metropolitan area and is the preferred hotel for global travelers visiting the region.^ The Peninsula Beverly Hills' restaurants, event spaces, spa, and wellness facilities are treasured by the local Beverly Hills community, and it is one of the most significant contributors to the City's tax base and its economy. The Peninsula Beverly Hills has a proven track record of being a respectful neighbor, while implementing operational procedures and providing ample on-site vehicular parking to ensure that it does not generate impacts for the surrounding neighborhood, which includes residential and commercial uses.
Appellant's priority is to maintain the highest standards for its guests and preserve the high quality of life that characterizes the surrounding neighborhood, in the near-term and the long-term. Appellant is very seriously concerned the abutting Project (which includes new office space and an outdoor roof deck pushed up against its villas, as shown in Exhibit 1) will jeopardize its ability to maintain these standards and that this Project will adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood and Appellant's property and reputation, as further described in the Appeal Findings below.
Appeal Findings
The approval of Case No. PL2200237 is inconsistent with law, for the following reasons:
1. Project materials submitted to the City do not accurately convey the full realistic impact the Project will have on Appellant's property, which will result in near-term and long-term impacts to Appellant.
The Project Applicant's design materials presented to the City, including renderings on Sheet A302 of their architectural plans (see Exhibit 2) use strategic views and cropping to obscure the extent of new building height being created and prevent viewers from being able to see the actual proposed rooftop addition's impact on surrounding properties. As shown in massing studies prepared by Appellant's ^ Appellant was also voted as the #1 City Hotel in Los Angeles in 2021 by the readers of Travel + Leisure. For more information on Appellant and its awards, visit: https://www.peninsula.com/en/beverlv-hills/5-star-luxurv-hotel-beverlv-hllls architect CSA Architects (Exhibit 1), which realistically show the proposed new construction in context, and photos of existing conditions (Exhibit 3), the Project will create significant height that will be highly visible from Appellant's property and will block views from guestrooms.
Appellant is also aggrieved that Project materials do not include any acknowledgement or analysis of construction-related noise and vibration impacts, which will be detrimental to Appellant's operations and its guests during the construction period and will make the villas that literally touch the Project Site uninhabitable. The Proiect will have near-term and long-term impacts that make Appellant's property less attractive to euests. which will have a negative impact on the Appellant and its contributions to the City's tax base.
2. The Project increases the size and intensity of an office building while unlawfully reducing on-site parking to be severely inadequate. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).
The Project Site currently contains seven parking spaces. The Project will reduce this parking allocation to a total of just three spaces, including only two standard spaces and one handicap accessible space.
At the Planning Commission hearing, the Project Applicant claimed that up to 15 staff are anticipated to work at the Project Site once the Project is finished. This number does not account for visitors, building maintenance, and the fact that the building's rooftop event space and conference center would be made available to the Project Applicant's affiliates for events. Since it is fantasy that the building's employees and numerous visitors will be arriving via public transportation, it is inevitable that most of these staff and visitors will have to park on adjacent residential and commercial streets, which already lack sufficient parking to accommodate existing uses in the area. Parking demand and associated traffic will further rise when loading is taking place in the parking area, restricting access to the paltry three parking spaces. The increase in drivers circulating the neighborhood to find parking will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards.
The Project Applicant referenced the Project's proximity to a bus stop at Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, and the future Metro D Line Century City subway station (assuming it remains on schedule to open in 2025p as reasons why the Project cannot be subject to minimum vehicular parking requirements, pursuant to AB 2097, which became effective this year. In fact, AS 2097 was the sole justification for why the Planning Commission was falsely led to believe that the Applicant could reduce existing parking from seven to three spaces. However, neither AB 2097 nor the Beverly Hills Municipal Code permit the reduction of existing, required nonconforming parking provided for existing buildings.
AB 2097 prevents the City from imposing parking requirements for the new addition to the building. It does not apply retroactively to permit the removal of existing, required parking spaces from an existing building. Specifically, California Government Code Section 6S863.2(a), which codified the parking provisions of AB 2097, states that "[a] public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is 2 More information on the Metro D Line extension can be viewed at httDs://www.beverlvhil[s.org/departments/publicworks/DurplelineDrolect/ located within one-haif mile of public transit." {Cal. Gov. Code 65863.2(a)) Under AB 2097, the "project" only includes new development - in this case, the addition to the building - and cannot reasonabiy be interpreted to include existing square footage that already has parking allocated to it. Otherwise, a building owner could simply paint a building, upgrade the plumbing, and in the process argue that all parking in the building could be eliminated. That is a very dangerous precedent for the City to set and is contrary to the legislative intent of AB 2097.
In further support of this position, the Project Applicant is pursuing a DPR, which is only required for the increase in square footage for the rooftop addition. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3- 3101 provides specific exemptions from DPR, including "[fjacade remodeling of existing buildings or structures not increasing the square footage by two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more, or the height of the building or structure." The renovation of the existing building falls squarely within this exemption and is therefore hardly considered a "project" under the City's Code and could not reasonably be interpreted as a development project for purposes of applying AB 2097.
Moreover, regardless of the applicability of AB 2097 to the Project, AB 2097 does not allow the City to circumvent its Code requirements for maintenance of existing parking. Specih'cally, Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-2736 states the following: "In the event off street parking facilities required to be provided under this code, or any prior provision thereof, in connection with any structure or use are at any time not maintained for automobile parking purposes to the extent required, the city building official shall revoke and cancel the certificate of occupancy. . . ." This provision expresses the City Code's clear intent to prohibit the reduction of existing, required parking.
And there can be no question that all seven spaces are required. Today's Code actually requires 18 parking spaces for the building, making the existing 7 spaces a legal nonconforming requirement.
Accordingly, the Project Applicant cannot reduce the number of parking spaces already required for the existing building. A contrary position would allow any restaurant, grocery store, or office building in the City performing a minor renovation to get rid of all its parking. That is an absurd result that the City would not condone, and it cannot provide preferential treatment to the Applicant here.
In addition to basic compliance with the iaw, Appeilant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to enforce implementation of adequate transportation demand measures to mitigate impacts.
Recognizing that office building owners and tenants often change over time, Appellant is particularly concerned about the long-term risk of future building owners and operators having even higher staffing leveis with increased parking needs, and the associated traffic and pedestrian safety impacts.
The Planning Commission decision gives no consideration to the long-term implications of the recent Proiect approval.
3. The Project's loading area is inadequate and blocks all on-site parking spaces. This will generate new adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards. Therefore, the required DPR findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104).
The Project's loading area (a requirement triggered by the proposed new construction) completely blocks access to the three available on-site parking spaces. While the Project approval references a very brief Project Applicant-prepared Loading and Deliveries Narrative, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate how loading and parking activities will be managed in order to ensure effective operations and avoid traffic and pedestrian conflicts and hazards. Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if someone tries to enter the parking lot when a dump truck is present or loading is taking place and then realizes there is no way to get to a parking space. That vehicle will have to back out onto a busy street, and there is no analysis of any potential queuing issues from any other vehicles attempting to enter the parking lot. All of this will create significant pedestrian hazards not only within the parking lot, but on City sidewalks.
Furthermore, Appellant continues to be concerned about potential noise impacts associated with future loading activities.
4. The Project creates a sizable roof deck pushed up against the Appellant's villas without any measures in place to ensure this feature will not adversely affect surrounding properties and create noise and privacy issues. Therefore, the required DPR and HIP findings cannot be made (BHMC Section 10-3-3104,10-3-3256).
Appellant is very concerned about the impacts that the Project's third story and new roof deck will have on its abutting hotel and guests, as well as the surrounding neighborhood. As recently as last year, the disruptive nature of office building roof decks was at the forefront of City discussions, when the Planning Commission held a hearing to review an abundance of ongoing noise complaints and violations associated with the roof deck of the nearby Spring Place office building at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard, which emerged as a nuisance in the neighborhood.^ Given that this entire project is taking place for the construction of a roof deck (i.e., there must be significant financial motivations behind building a conference center and event space on a roof deck), it is shocking that the true, likely impacts of this deck have not been analyzed. And there is significant evidence that the City has been unable to contain the noise from parties and events at the nearby 9800 Wilshire Boulevard roof deck. As reported by the Beverly Hills Courier, one Commissioner made it abundantly clear that violators can operate with impunity for very long times:
"You've had your last chances; you've had it many times again, and again, and again, and again," said Planning Commissioner Myra Demeter, who presided as chair over the hearing. "We have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people contacting you, letting you know what is allowed and what is not allowed. And you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this, and you would do that, and we haven't seen it.
Appellant is extremely concerned about the Project Applicant and any future operator of the Project using the roof deck in a disruptive manner that generates noise and privacy issues for the abutting hotel and its guests (including Appellant's villas that are immediately next to the proposed roof deck (shown in Exhibits 1 and 3) and surrounding neighborhood. Simply put, a roof deck for parties and events is not appropriate immediately adjacent to one of Beverly Hills' most Iconic hotels, renowned throughout the world for creating perfect experiences for its guests. We do not believe the Commission understood, or gave proper consideration to, the fact that just a few noise violations that prevent guests from sleeping could irreversibly tarnish Appellant's reputation. Furthermore, this is not just about the Appellant and the City's tax revenue from its property, the Commission also failed to consider the impacts from roof deck noise on all the residential neighbors to the south. 3 For more information on the Planning Commission's rebuke of Spring Place and its roof deck, see httDs://beverlvhillscourier.com/2022/05/20/Dlanning-commission-rebukes-spring-place/ Appellant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the roof deck is operated in a responsible manner by current and future operators and that no acoustical study has been conducted to evaluate potential noise impacts of the Project. Overall, however, the City Council must consider whether this is a proper location for any roof deck, and we believe that a review of the facts here militates strongly against any roof deck, period.
5. The Project Site's potential City Landmark ellglblilty Is not adequately justified, and findings in the Planning Commission approval are based on inaccurate historic analysis in the Project Applicant's reports.
Established under BHMC Section 10-3-3212, the City of Beverly Hills' local Landmark designation criteria have a much higher bar for eligibility than criteria for other historic registries, including the California Register of Historical Resources and National Register of Historic Places. The Project Applicant's eligibility findings do not adequately justify the property's eligibility for historic designation, as described further below.
Let's be clear: the Applicant would not be seeking historic designation for the Project Site if it did not want to add the roof deck and deviate from Code requirements through a Historic Incentive Permit.
If the Applicant truly believes that the building should be deemed a Beverly Hills Landmark, then the Applicant should allow the landmark designation process to be completed first, and then allow the Planning Commission and City Council to consider the Project based on the findings of the Cultural Heritage Commission. The current process has put the cart before the horse - it has resulted in the Planning Commission making findings about compatibility with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation without the Cultural Heritage Commission first making the requisite findings about what. If anything, is a character defining feature or historic. That is arbitrary and capricious.
The Planning Commission staff report and the Project Applicant's historic resource evaluation based the property's eligibility for historic designation on a finding that the property is "an excellent example of Late Modern architectural style.'"^ The Project Applicant's historic resource evaluation uses the Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture from SurveyLA (the City of Los Angeles' historic resource survey) as the main resource for evaluating the property's significance.^ However, examination of the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement and eligibility standards (included as Exhibit 5) reveals that the oropertv is not an example of Late Modern architecture.^ As described in the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement, Late Modern buildings were designed and constructed between 1966 and 1990, representing the tail end of the broader Mid Century Modern design movement, and for Late Modern buildings to be eligible for historic designation, they must be constructed during this 1966-1990 period of significance.' The Project Site's building was constructed in 1946, decades before the emergence of the Late Modern aesthetic. As described in the SurveyLA Historic Context Statement, Late Modern buildings fall within three sub-categories, including buildings that are completely clad in glass skin (exemplified by the Century City Medical Plaza at 2080 Century Park East, Los Angeles and the Pacific Design Center at 8687 Melrose Avenue, West Hollywood), ^ Planning Commission staff report, page 5.
5 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on March 2, 2022, page 34. ® For the full SurveyLA Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture, visit:
https://plannine.lacitv.Org/odocument/de23aa2c-7d44-4f2d-a071-67354bbf9255/6.13 LateModern 1966-1990.pdf ' SurveyLA Historic Context Statement for Late Modern architecture, pages 36, 38, 40 Brutalist buildings that feature concrete as the dominant building material {exemplified by the Liberty Savings Building, now Chase, at 1180 S. Beverly Drive, Los Angeles), and "High Tech" buildings with exposed structural features (exemplified by the Helmut Schulitz residence at 9356 Lloydcrest Drive, Beverly Hills). The Project Site building does not represent any of these Late Modern styles.
In addition, the property lacks integrity (City Landmark Criterion A.3), as "there are no original interior spaces extant."^ Furthermore, as described in a peer review analysis completed by the City's historic consultant Ostashay & Associates, sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that the property satisfies the City Landmark Section B criteria to demonstrate that it is an Exceptional Work® or Iconic Property.
6. The Project does not conform with the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation, and thus the Project is ineligible for a CEQA Class 31CE.
Rooftop additions are a controversial preservation topic because they have the potential to dramatically alter a building's appearance and original design intent. The Project Includes a sizable rooftop addition that is highly visible on every building elevation.
Codified in 36 CFR Part 67, the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation are the basis for determining whether or not a project qualifies for a CEQA Class 31 CE, as well as an HIP. Within the Department of the Interior, the National Park Service has published Interpreting the Standards ("ITS") bulletins to advise on application of the Secretary's Standards to development projects. ITS #47 specifically focuses on rooftop additions.
As described in ITS #47, rooftop additions are generally "not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less." In the rare cases where a rooftop addition might be compatible, "it must be set far enough back from the primary elevation(s) of the building - usually at least one bay, so that it is not highly visible from the public riaht-of-wav."
As shown in the Project renderings on page A302 of the Applicant's architectural plans (Exhibit 2), the Project's proposed rooftop addition is extremely visible when viewed from ^ surrounding public rights-of-way and dramatically changes the appearance of the existing building. In fact, the proposed rooftop addition closely resembles the example in ITS #47 of an incompatible addition that does n^ meet the Secretary's Standards for Rehabilitation (see Exhibit 6). In addition, the rooftop addition's. ® 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Historic Resource Evaluation, prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan on March 2, 2022, page 35. 9 Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3202, an Exceptional Work is defined as follows: A remarkably superior example of architectural work that has been recognized as such by members of the architectural community. At a minimum, the work's exceptional quality shall have been documented by at least one of the following; a) it was the subject of a major architectural award; b) it was substantively discussed (i.e., not just mentioned) and photographically depicted in a monograph on a master architect's career; or c) it was substantively discussed or photographically depicted in at least two (2) publications (e.g., a book, treatise, trade magazine article, film, or set of photographs made available to the public by an institutional archive) authored by acknowledged experts in the field of architecture. A monograph or publication made available to the public solely in electronic form and without any reasonable expectation of compensation to the author, or substantially authored by the architect of the work, shall not count toward this minimum.
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-3202, an Iconic Property is defined as follows: A property that has been visited and photographed so often by residents and visitors to the city that it has become inextricably associated with Beverly Hills in the popular culture and forms part of the city's identity to the world at large. ^^For ITS #47, see https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its-47-rooftop-additions-mid-size-buildings.pdf 12 ITS #47, page 1
" ITS #47, page 1
including its overall style, materials, placement, and expansive size, feels incongruent with the originai design intent. Therefore, there is insufficient documentation to support the Proiecfs elieibilitv for a Class 31CE.
7. The Project Does Not Qualify For Categorical Exemptions.
Given the unusual circumstances arising from the proposed Project, especialiy noise on sensitive receptors from the proposed rooftop deck, categorical exemptions cannot be relied upon here and further environmental review in the form of a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report must be prepared. As a threshold matter, the Class 1 exemption can apply where the project proposes only a "minor alteration" to the existing building, and there is "negligibie" or "no expansion" of the existing or former use. (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, sect. 15000 et seq.), sect. 15301.)(Emphasis added.) Here, the project proposes a completely new use in the form of an outdoor terrace and rooftop use. Regardless, the Class 1 exemption is subject to severai exceptions precluding its application. The exceptions that apply here include the cumulative impacts exception (State CEQA Guideiines, sect. 15300.2(b)) and the unusual circumstances exception (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(c)). Further, whiie we disagree that the project site should be considered a historic resource under Pubiic Resources Code, section 21084.1, the Class 31 categorical exemption "shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource." (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(f).) if, for sake of argument, the City's finding that the site qualifies as a historic resource for purposes of CEQA were supportable, then the Class 31 exemption cannot apply. The Class 31 categorical exemption also cannot apply, due to the applicability of the cumuiative impacts exception and the unusuai circumstances exception. (State CEQA Guidelines, sect. 15300.2(a), (b); see also Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4*'' 1086,1104-1105.)
8. The July 13,2023 Planning Commission hearing was not properly noticed.
The Planning Commission's resolution approving the Project entitlements finds the Project to quaiify for the following CEQA CEs: Class 1 CE for Existing Facilities, Class 3 CE for New Construction or Conversion of Smaii Structures, and Class 31 CE for Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation in conformance with the Secretary of the interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties ("Secretary's Standards").
However, as shown in Exhibit 4, the pubiic notice for the Planning Commission hearing inadvertently described the Project as appearing to qualify for Class 3 and Class 31 CEs only. Therefore the Project approval included a CEQA determination that was not included on the Project's public hearing notice and any such CEQA clearance violated the Brown Act and cannot be considered part of the Project's CEQA clearance. At any rate, this clearance would violate CEQA for all the reasons stated above.
Appellant appreciates the City's consideration of these findings and reserves the right to provide additional information prior to any future public hearings on this matter.
EXHIBIT 1
STUDIES SHOWING RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED ROOFTOP ADDITION TO ABUTTING PENINSULA HOTEL PREPARED BY CSA ARCHITEaS (APPELLANTS ARCHITECT)
Z Jiii "" ""
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9894 S. SAWA MONICA BIVD.. BtVEftY HUS. CA 90212
im inr
HI! HI!
2rG noar addition
AERIAL VIEW
PROJ.# 2551.00
'3rd floor addHion |
%n
■fm 11 II innmi
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
□ARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD.. ePitW-Y HIUS. CA 90212
VIEW FROM SANTA MONICA BLVD.
PROJ.# 2851 .X
3rd floor addition
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
<JB84 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HEiS, CA 90212
llil nil
! ii i!ll iiil
l!il ill!
.ik.
0 E3S
■ ■■
III
VIEW FROM CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
P(}OJ,#2551.00
V.
|3rd floor addition ^
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
9584 S. S4NTA MONCA BIVD.. BMHV KUS, CA 90212
VIEW FROM HOTEL ROOF DECK
PROJ.#2551.00 18jaY2023
EXHIBIT 2
PROJECT APPLICANTS RENDERINGS
i
O
ro '1' f'i
icr
EXHIBITS
APPELLANTS JULY 2023 PHOTO SHOWING VIEW THAT WILL BE BLOCKED BY PROJECT
GUESTROOM VIEW THAT WILL BE BLOCKED BY PROJECT
Site where third floor
roof deck are proposed
EXHIBIT 4
PUBLIC NOTICE FOR JULY 13, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING NOTE: NOTICE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CLASS 1 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION THAT WAS APPROVED
BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: Thursday, July 13,2023
TIME: 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard
LOCATION: Meeting will be held in person at:
Conmiission Meeting Room 280A
Beverly Hills City Hall
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Members of the pubhc may also
participate via teleconference; details
provided below:
WIISHIRE BlVD WIISKKEBIVD
PROIECrSITE
9S84 SOUTH SANTA
MONICA BOULEVARD
OWttEWllE^
\ sL
PROJECT ADDRESS: 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
(Cross Street Charleville Boulevard)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, at its REGULAR meeting on Thursday, July 13,2023, will hold a public hearing beginning at 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard to consider the following:
A request to construct a third-story addition and rehabilitate an existing two-story commercial building located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard. The proposed 814 square-foot (SF) third-story addition would increase the height of the building by approximately 15'-3", from 23'-9" to 39'-0". Parking for the project would be provided at the rear of the property within a surface parking lot for three vehicles. The project site is within the Cit/s C-3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The following entitlements have been requested in association with the project:
Development Plan Review. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-3100.A., Development Plan Review is required to construct an addition that would increase the height of the building.
2-48
City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141 f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org Historic Incentive Permit Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3252, waivers or deviations from any development standards may be permitted through the issuance of a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP). Such permits are available to properties that the Cultural Heritage Commission has determined merits formal consideration for nomination as a landmark at a preliminary hearing. The existing commercial building, generally referred to as the "Darrow Office Building", was designed by John Lautner, an architect on the City's List of Master Architects. Specifically, the proposed project requests waivers or deviations from the following development standards through the issuance of a HIP:
• BHMC §9-3-1: Minimum Dimensions for Rubbish Storage Facifities • BHMC § I0-3-274I: On-Site Loading Space Requirements
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a Class 3 Categorical Exemption (New Construction) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15303 and 15331 of the state CEQA Guidelines. Accordingly, the Planning Commission will consider a recommendation to find the project exempt from the environmental review requirements of CEQA.
How to Participate
In the interest of maintaining appropriate social distancing, members of the public can participate in, watch or listen to the conunission meetings through the following methods:
• In Person: Submit a speaker card to the Recording Secretary at the meeting. • Oral Comment: Call (310) 288-2288, select Option I when prompted. You will be placed on a brief hold, and called upon to make a comment at the appropriate time. • Video Comment: https://beverlyhills-org.zoom.us/my/bevpublic. enter passcode: 90210 when prompted. • Written Comment: Email [email protected]
• Audio Only: Call (310) 288-2288, select Option 2 when prompted. • Watch LIVE: BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable or www.beverlyhills.org/watchlive It is recommended that written public comments be submitted to the Planning Commission Recording Secretary by 11:30 AM on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the Planning Commission. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item number or topic in the subject line of the email. In order to be read at the meeting, written comments will be allowed with a maximum of350 words, which corresponds to approximately three (3) minutes of speaking time.
If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Any written conunents received by end of the day on Wednesday, July 5,2023, will be attached to the agenda report regarding this item.
Any comments received after Wednesday, July 5, 2023, but prior the public hearing, will be distributed to the Commission under separate cover. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the City's 2-49
action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.
Please note that any comments received prior to or during the public hearing will be considered as part of the public record.
If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner in the Planning Division at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected]. Copies of the project plans and associated application materials are on file in the Community Development Department, and can be reviewed by contacting the project planner listed above.
Sincerely/ ^
nior Planner Mailed: June 23,2023
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-1126 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired. 2-50
EXHIBIT 5
SURVEYLA ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITECTURE FROM SURVEYLA HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITEaURE, 1966-1990 FOR FULL HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT, VISIT:
HTTPS://PLANNING.LACITY.ORG/ODOCUMENT/DE23AA2C-7D44'4F2D-A071- 67354BBF9255/6.13 LATEMODERN 1966-1990.PDF
SurvevLA
Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey
LOS ANGELES CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Context: Architecture and Engineering, 1850-1980
Subcontext: L.A. Modernism, 1919-1980
Theme: Late Modern, 1966-1990
Preparedfor:
City of Los Angeles
Department of City Planning
Office of Historic Resources
July 2020
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990
ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS FOR LATE MODERN ARCHITECTURE
Eliglbnity Standards for Glass Skin
Summary Statement of
SigniUcance:
Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Applying the qualities of exaggeration, mutation, and paradox to Modernist architectural language, LateModernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late
Modernism expresses the conditions and new developments of Western society between 1965 and 1990, including the advent of late capitalist and post-industrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.
In the 1960s, Los Angeles' open and benevolent physical and social climate encouraged experimentation well suited to Late Modern architecture and its reactions against Modernism.
The region's dominant high-technology industry and notable art scene further encouraged this local experimentation.
Resultant designs included the all-over reflecting glass skin, a regionally developed motif that became ubiquitous In
corporate and office architecture across the Western World.
Period of Significance:
Period of Significance
Justification:
Geographic Location:
1966-1990
The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed In 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.
Citywide with concentrations of commercial examples may be found in Downtown Los Angeles, Wilshire Corridor,
Century City, the western San Fernando Valley;
concentrations of industrial examples may be found near LAX or Van Nuys Airport.
Area(s) of Significance: Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
Page ( 35
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Industrial
Property Type Description: The Late Modern glass skin was typically applied to largescale commercial and industrial buildings that frequently used sculpturally handled chamfers, cuts, punch-outs,
sloping, sharp angles, and curves to break apart the
rectangular form.
Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.
Eligibility Standards:
• Was constructed during the period of significance
• Is an excellent example of Late Modern glass skin architecture • Exhibits quality of design through distinctive features, including designs that are sculptural in character Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Typically displays bold, sculptural forms, often with chamfers or cut-outs • May have sharply articulated angles and distinctive geometric forms • Smooth, continuous surfaces over the primary massing or entirety of the building • Usually rendered in a single monochromatic palette or material • Glass skin encloses building in an all-over manner, or in certain instances set upon a base or plinth of a different material
• Glass skins are typically of reflecting or mirrored glass paired to smooth grids mullions and muntins
• Later glass skins may exhibit seamless neoprene glazing with no aluminum mullions or muntins visible.
• Window or door articulation may be subsumed into distinctive cladding or distinctive shape • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age
Integrity Considerations:
• Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship • Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
• Removal of exterior light fixtures or original signage acceptable • Original landscaping may have been altered or removed • Original use may have changed
• Skins replaced with incompatibly colored glass, transparent glass in place of reflecting glass, or of glazing having variegated color and transparency may compromise historic integrity. • Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 36
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Eligibility Standards for Brutalism
Summary Statement of
Significance:
Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Late Modernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late Modernism expresses the conditions and
new developments of Western society between 1965 and
1990, including the advent of late capitalist and postindustrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.
One expression of Late Modern is the Brutalist style.
Brutalist Late Modern designs liberated architecture from Orthodox Modernism. Brutalist buildings were typically
rendered in a single monochromatic material, usually exposed concrete, and read as sculptural, heavy, and solid. Bold oversized angular shapes break apart the typical rectangular form. Exteriors reveal the construction process, such as keeping welds or the imprint of wood used in the setting of the concrete. This style was frequently used in institutional architecture, such as civic and educational buildings, through the 1980s.
Period of Significance: 1966-1990 (Brutalist examples may predate 1966 though examples in Los Angeles are not common)
Period of Significance
Justification:
The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed in 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.
Geographic Location:
Area(s) of Significance:
Citywide
Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Institutional
Property Type Description: The Brutalist architectural style was typically applied to civic and educational buildings that used bold oversized angular shapes to break apart the rectangular form.
Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.
Eligibility Standards:
• Was constructed during the period of significance
• Is an excellent example of Brutalist architecture
• Exhibits quality of design through distinctive features Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Typically displays bold oversized angular shapes with sculptural and distinctive geometric forms to break apart the rectangular form
• Unpainted exposed concrete, raked or smooth, dominating visible elevations • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age.
Integrity Considerations:
• Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship • Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
• Original landscaping may have been altered or removed • Original use may have changed
• Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 38
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Eligibility Standards for High Tech
Summary Statement of
Significance:
Resources evaluated under this sub-theme are significant in the area of Architecture as excellent examples of Late
Modernism and exhibit quality of design through distinctive features. Applying the qualities of exaggeration, mutation, and paradox to Modernist architectural language, LateModernism is a distinct and historically significant twentieth century reaction against Orthodox Modernism. Late
Modernism expresses the conditions and new developments of Western society between 1965 and 1990, including the advent of late capitalist and post-industrial culture, to which Late Modern architecture is internationally associated.
One expression of Late Modernism is the High Tech style, which exaggerates Modernism's emphasis on function and
transparency by openly revealing structural and
infrastructural components such as escalators, elevators, air ducts, and structural systems, which would normally be
enclosed or hidden. Lightweight in character, designs typically employ metal and glass with an exterior color palette of white, black or grey, often with exposed components painted in bright colors.
Period of Significance: 1966-1990
Period of Significance
Justification:
The earliest regionally developed Late Modern designs are designed in 1966. Late Modern architecture remains
ubiquitous through the 1980s, when Postmodern and CADinformed designs more frequently appear.
Geographic Location:
Area(s) of Significance:
Citywide
Architecture
Criteria: NR:C CR:3 Local: 3
Page I 39
SurveyLA Citywide Historic Context Statement
Architecture and Engineering/ LA Modernism/ Late Modern, 1966-1990 Associated Property Types: Commercial
Institutional
Industrial
Residential: Single Family and Multi-Family
Property Type Description: The High Tech architectural style was typically applied to commercial buildings, but can also be found in industrial, institutional, and particularly for Los Angeles- residential buildings. High Tech exaggerates Modernism's emphasis on function and transparency by openly revealing structural and infrastructural components.
Property Type Significance: See Summary Statement of Significance above.
Eligibility Standards:
• Constructed during period of significance
• Is an excellent example of the Late Modern High Tech subtype • Exhibits quality of design through distinctive feature Character-Defining/Associative Features:
• Retains most of the essential character-defining features from the period of significance • Metal and glass exterior with a limited color palette of white, black, or grey • Artistically treated, deliberately exposed structural and infrastructural components (escalators, elevators, air ducts, structural systems) which may be painted in bright colors • For the National Register, a property must possess exceptional importance if less than 50 years of age.
Integrity Considerations:
Should retain integrity of Location, Design, Materials, Workmanship Retains sufficient integrity to convey significance
Original landscaping may have been altered or removed
Original use may have changed
Setting may have changed (surrounding buildings and land uses) Page I 40
EXHIBIT 6
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INTERPRETING THE STANDARDS BULLETIN #47
ROOFTOP ADDITIONS ON MID-SIZE HISTORIC BUILDINGS
SEE PAGE 2 FOR EXAMPLE OF AN INCOMPATIBLE ROOFTOP ADDITION
THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SECRETARY'S STANDARDS, LARGELY DUE TO ITS VISIBILITY National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Technical Preservation Services
ITS
Number 47
Interpreting
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Subject: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings Applicable Standards: 2. Retention of Historic Character
5. Preservation of Distinctive Features, Finishes, and Craftsmanship
9. Compatible New Additions/Alterations
Issue: The roofline is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building. A large cornice, tall tower, or a projecting dormer can identify a building in the skyline. Even a simple roofline defines a building's character. Accordingly, rooftop additions proposed as part of a rehabilitation project must be carefully designed in order to preserve the building's historic character. Although a rooftop addition is not appropriate for all historic buildings, under certain circumstances a compatible rooftop addition may be constructed that meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
A successful rooftop addition does not significantly impact the character of the historic building. It is subordinate to the historic building in size and design, and compatible with its massing, scale, materials and features. It must be set far enough back from the primary elevation(s) of the building — usually at least one bay, so that it is not highly visible from the public right-of-way. In most cases, rooftop additions should not be more than one story and, generally, they are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.
Application i {Compatible treatment): The rehabilitation of this mid-i9th century commercial building included a rooftop addition as part of ^e project. Though the building is only four stories in height, this rooftop addition is compatible with its historic character. It is set back substantially— almost halfway
from the
front fa(;ade
and, thus, it
is minimally
visible from
the public
street and
from within
the district.
High party
walls on either
side also help
to reduce the impact of the addition and allow it to blend in with the adjacent rooflines. This rooftop addition does not detract from the historic character of the building and, therefore, meets the Standards.
Application 2 (/7ico;«par/W(? irea?we«t):Thisthree-storycommercialbuilding, originally constructed ini847butgreatly altered ini907,underwentrehabilitation for mixed commercial, office, and residential use. The rehabilitation included a substantial new rooftop addition.
m
Mid-i^th century commercial building with
1 rooftop addition as it
appeared after rehabilitation (center).
Three-story commercial buildingprior to reha
bilitation.
NEW ADDITIONS
Contrary to National Park Service guidance
which states that rooftop additions should be
limited to one story and are rarely acceptable
for low-rise buildings, this addition rises a full
story and a half above the roof. The prominent
cornice, an important character-defining feature
of the primary elevation of the historic building,
is overwhelmed and greatly diminished by the
new rooftop addition. Not only is the addition
barely set back from the front of the building, its
asymmetric, modernist design further detracts
from the character of the building's classicallystyled fagade. The rooftop addition competes for attention with the historic building and it is also
out of character with the surrounding district.
This rooftop addition is not compatible with the
historic character of the building and, therefore,
does not meet the Standards.
[■ijHH
-
PI
Drawing of front elevation with proposed rooftop
addition.
r
Three -story commercial building showing rooftop addition under construction.
Liz Crevelinq, Technical Preservation Services. National Park Service These bulletins are issued to explain preservation project decisions made by the U.S. Department of the Interior. The resulting determinations, based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, are not necessarily applicable beyond the unique facts and circumstances of each particular case.
July 2007, ITS Number 47
ATTACHMENT 4
Appeal Petition Supplement
(November 20, 2023)
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 November 20, 2023 Client-Matter: 70815-030
Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Appeal Supplement re 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd., Beverly Hills (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination for Case No. PL2200237) Dear Honorable Mayor Julian Gold and Beverly Hills Councilmembers:
This law firm represents The Belvedere Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills, in its appeal of the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 determination for Case No. PL2200237, in relation to the property at 9884 S. Santa Monica Boulevard (“the Darrow Building”), which is immediately adjacent to The Peninsula Beverly Hills.
On July 26, 2023, Michael Tenner, on behalf of The Peninsula Beverly Hills, submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 action, which approved both a Development Plan Review (“DPR”) and Historic Incentive Permit (“HIP”) for the Darrow Building. Together, the DPR and the HIP allow for the construction of a third story addition to the Darrow Building, as well as deviations from Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) requirements related to the minimum dimensions for rubbish storage facilities and on-site loading requirements (the “Project”).
Mr. Tenner’s July 26, 2023 submission identified several grounds for the appeal and The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023 actions. These grounds include the Project’s impacts on traffic and parking, design hazards, pedestrian safety concerns, blocked views, reputational and revenue impacts, incompatibility issues, and lack of conditions to control noise and other intrusiveness from events held on the proposed rooftop event spaces, among others.
This Appeal Supplement clarifies and expands on the points made in the July 26, 2023 submission, and for that reason, is intended to supersede the prior appeal submission.
I. INTRODUCTION
The Peninsula Beverly Hills (“Appellant”) is the property immediately adjacent to the Darrow Building, and is located at 9882 S. Santa Monica Boulevard, in the City of Beverly Hills.
November 20, 2023
Over the past three decades, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has solidified its status as an integral part of Beverly Hills’ iconic identity. As the only AAA Five-Star and Forbes Five Diamond hotel in Southern California for every year since 1993, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has set the highest standards of product quality and service amongst its peers, worldwide.
The Peninsula Beverly Hills has an outsized following of loyal fans and repeat guests who have come to consistently expect superior luxury accommodations and outstanding services and guest experiences at the hotel. The Peninsula’s restaurants, bars, rooftop pool, spa and event facilities are frequented by the Beverly Hills local community, as well as by the most discerning world travelers who call the hotel their second home. The Peninsula Beverly Hills has become part of the fabric of its community and is one of the most significant contributors to the City’s tax base and its economy.
And importantly, for the past 33 years, The Peninsula has demonstrated a proven track record of being a good and respectful neighbor, having implemented many operational procedures to accommodate the surrounding community. For one, by having built adequate vehicular parking on site, The Peninsula has also made every effort to ensure that the scarce street parking in its surrounding neighborhood, whether in the residential or commercial zones, are not further negatively impacted by the hotel.
Appellant’s priority is to maintain the highest standards for its guests and preserve the high quality of life that characterizes the surrounding neighborhood, in the near-term and the long-term. For all the reasons discussed herein, Appellant is very seriously concerned that the proposed alterations and new construction at the Darrow Building, which notably increase the size of the building by approximately 22 percent and increase the height of the building by at least 40 percent, will jeopardize Appellant’s ability to maintain these standards at The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Further, Appellant is concerned about impacts to the neighborhood at large, as further detailed below.
II. THERE ARE SEVERAL GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD OVERTURN THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE DPR AND HIP—AND EACH AND EVERY ONE PROVIDES AN
INDEPENDENT BASIS FOR GRANTING THE APPEAL.
The Planning Commission’s approval of Case No. PL2200237, including both the DPR and the HIP, is inconsistent with the law, and should be overturned on any one of the following several grounds:
November 20, 2023
A. The DPR and HIP will have significant direct impacts on the attractiveness and viability of The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ guest experience—impacts that the Applicant hid and the Planning Commission ignored.
1. The proposed height increase of more than 40 percent will block guest room views from The Peninsula Beverly Hills and create shade-shadow impacts.
The design materials presented to the City by the Darrow Building applicant, Impact Real Estate Group, LLC (“Impact Group”), including the project renderings on Sheet A302 of the Darrow Building’s architectural plans (Exhibit 1), use strategic views and cropping to obscure the extent of the height increase actually proposed at the Darrow Building. The deceptive materials obscure the extent of the new building height, and misrepresent the true impacts of the proposed height increase on The Peninsula Beverly Hills.
To place the proposed building size and height increase in context, the Darrow Building, as it currently stands, is a low-profile, two-story office building. The proposed third story addition approved by the Planning Commission via the DPR would add approximately 1,404 square feet of new office space over the existing building, which is currently 6,288 square feet.
Thus, the proposed addition would increase the size of the building by approximately 22 percent. Further, the third story addition would increase the building’s height from 23 feet, 9 inches, to 38 feet – not even including the additional height associated with the elevator tower, solar panels, and mechanical equipment enclosures, which are also proposed atop the new rooftop. This increases the height of the low-profile Darrow Building by more than 40 percent. This is not an insignificant change, even as depicted by Impact Group’s misleading renderings, which leave the impression that the Darrow Building stands alone in space, when, in truth, it directly abuts The Peninsula Beverly Hills and blocks the views of a significant number of guest rooms and suites, diminishing the hotel’s ability to compete in a very competitive market, particularly in the post-Covid era.
Massing studies prepared by Appellant’s architect, CSA Architects (Exhibit 2), and photos of existing conditions (Exhibit 3), realistically show the proposed new construction in context. From these it is clear that the Project’s height increase is significant, highly visible from Appellant’s property, and will block views from luxury guestrooms at The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Having a third floor addition immediately adjacent to the Peninsula will also result in shading that will significantly darken rooms and suites in the west wing of the hotel. When the Peninsula Beverly Hills is associated with dark luxury guest rooms with windows that look directly out at a wall, this will hurt the Peninsula’s ability to retain its loyal, returning guests who count on the hotel’s reputation for delivering the perfect guest experience.
November 20, 2023
B. The HIP will result in significant impacts associated with vehicular circulation, access and design hazards.
1. The DPR and HIP increase the size and intensity of the building, while simultaneously reducing the already inadequate number of onsite parking spaces.
The Darrow Building site currently contains seven parking spaces. The DPR and HIP permit Impact Group to increase the size of the building and expand its use, while simultaneously reducing this already inadequate number to just three spaces – two standard spaces, and one ADA accessible space. In other words, while the Darrow Building’s size increases by 22 percent, the number of parking spaces provided decreases by nearly 60 percent.
At the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing, Impact Group claimed that up to 15 staff persons will work out of the Darrow Building once the Project is completed. In addition to the 15 staff persons, the Darrow Building will have visitors, building maintenance workers, and guests attending special events, business conferences, or other meetings in the new rooftop conference and event space. Making a bad situation even worse is the fact that the only place for loading to occur will block the mere three available spaces, making them inaccessible altogether.
It is pure fantasy that any of the building’s employees, visitors, or special event attendees will be arriving at the Darrow Building via public transportation at all times. Thus, it is absolutely inevitable that these persons will have to park on adjacent residential and commercial streets which already lack sufficient parking to accommodate existing uses, let alone new ones.
The increase in parking demand, drivers circling the neighborhood, cars double parking because they have no other place to stop for quick loading or unloading, all leads to further traffic congestion and, more importantly, increases the likelihood of vehicle-vehicle and pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. This is not conjecture, but a certainty; the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard has multiple shops, such as hair and nail salons, many of which have absolutely no parking yet do a brisk business. Management of the Peninsula Beverly Hills is well aware of how incredibly parking-impacted this area is already. Accordingly, the complete lack of parking is a design hazard that will result in safety impacts for cars and pedestrians.
Impact Group points to the building’s proximity to a bus stop at Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as the future Metro D Line Century City subway station (assuming it remains on schedule to open in 2025) to excuse any need to provide adequate, onsite parking under AB 2097. But AB 2097 only prohibits cities from imposing minimum parking requirements on any new project. Neither AB 2097 nor the BHMC permit the reduction of existing, required and nonconforming parking that is provided for an existing building.
November 20, 2023
Specifically, Government Code, section 65863.2(a), reads: “A public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential, commercial, or other development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit.”1
But nothing in section 65863.2 applies retroactively to permit the removal of existing, required parking spaces from an existing building. It is wholly unreasonable to define “project” as that term is used in section 65863.2 as including existing development. Otherwise, a building owner could simply paint a building or upgrade plumbing for the purpose of declaring its “project” falls under AB 2097, and pursuant to section 65863.2, all existing parking could be removed. If the Legislature intended for such a sweeping rule—wherein any property owner could remove any amount of parking currently serving its use—it would have so stated. Instead, the clear purpose underlying AB 2097 was to reduce the cost of developing new housing: “The Legislature finds and declares that the imposition of mandatory parking minimums can increase the cost of housing, limit the number of available units, lead to an oversupply of parking spaces, and increased greenhouse gas emissions.” (Govt. Code, § 65863.2(i).) Not a single purpose would be furthered by an interpretation that any property owner can, at any time, declare its property a “project” and on that ground eliminate all of its existing parking. In specific regard to the Darrow Building, not a single of these public policy purposes is relevant to, or furthered by, the proposed reduction of Darrow Building parking from seven to three parking spaces. In fact, as described above, reducing the onsite parking and increasing the square footage of the building, will result in an undersupply of parking here, push vehicles further into the residential areas, and actually increase greenhouse gas emissions while cars circle looking for available parking, or leave their cars idle and double parked after giving up hope of finding the same.
Here, Impact Group has required, and the Planning Commission has approved, a DPR, which is only required for the increase in square footage for the rooftop addition. BHMC, section 10-3-3101, provides specific exemptions from DPR, including “[f]acade remodeling of existing buildings or structures not increasing the square footage by two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet or more, or the height of the building or structure.” The renovation of the existing building falls squarely within this exemption and is therefore hardly considered a “project” under the City’s Code and could not reasonably be interpreted as a development project for purposes of applying AB 2097.
Moreover, nothing in AB 2097 allows an agency to circumvent its own code requirements for maintenance of existing parking. Here, BHMC, section 10-3-2736, reads, “In the event off street parking facilities required to be provided under this code, or any prior provision thereof, in connection with any structure or use are at any time not maintained for automobile parking purposes to the extent required, the city building official shall revoke and 1 Notably, Government Code, section 65863.2(d) nonetheless excludes from the minimum parking requirement prohibition event centers: “Notwithstanding subdivision (a), an event center shall provide parking, as required by local ordinance, for employees and other workers.”
November 20, 2023
cancel the certificate of occupancy. . . .” This provision expresses the City’s clear intent to prohibit the reduction of existing, required parking.
Here, there can be no question that all seven existing spaces are required. In fact, were the Darrow Building proposed in its original configuration today, the BHMC would require no less than 18 parking spaces for the building. Hence, the existing seven spaces are a legal, nonconforming requirement. Accordingly, Impact Group cannot reduce the number of parking spaces already required for the existing building. A contrary position would allow any restaurant, grocery store, or office building in the City performing any minor renovation to eliminate all its existing parking. That is an absurd result that the City would not condone, and it cannot provide preferential treatment to Impact Group here.
Finally, even if there was support for an interpretation of AB 2097 that would permit the elimination of more than half of the existing parking on the site—and there is not—the Planning Commission did not condition the DPR and HIP with any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the applicant actually encourages Darrow Building staff, visitors, and event attendees to take alternative transportation and public transit. Further, no condition capping the number of staff or event attendees was considered. Even if the Darrow Building applicant reasonably believes that only 15 staff persons will be working out of the building upon its opening, what if the applicant decides in the near, or even long-term future, to significantly increase this number? Or sells the building to a new operator or new use that results in even greater unmet parking demand? The Planning Commission should have considered these impacts and conditioned the DPR and HIP to address these eventualities.
2. The proposed loading area is inadequate and blocks all proposed onsite parking spaces.
The DPR and HIP propose a new loading area that, when used for loading, completely blocks all access to the mere three available on-site parking spaces. The applicant did not provide any evidence of how parking and loading activities and times would be managed. This results in a clear design hazard on the highly congested block of Charleville Boulevard between South Santa Monica Boulevard and Durant Drive.
For example, while a large truck is in the loading area, an employee, visitor, or event attendee, looking to park in one of the mere three onsite parking spaces, enters the parking lot, only to realize, too late, that the parking space is blocked by a truck. The employee, visitor, or event attendee would then have to reverse back out of the lot and onto a busy street avoiding conflicts with vehicles that may have queued up behind, also looking for onsite parking (causing traffic chaos next to The Peninsula Beverly Hills and across from the new Rosewood condominium entrance), as well as pedestrians or bicyclists using the City sidewalks and street.
November 20, 2023
It is also unclear what types of loading activities Impact Group anticipates will occur here. As a result, it is impossible to understand the full scope of noise and vibration impacts that would occur on The Peninsula Beverly Hills.
C. The proposed third story addition immediately abuts The Peninsula Beverly Hills, yet not a single condition or mitigation measure to address reasonably foreseeable noise, privacy, and aesthetics impacts has been considered.
Appellant is very concerned about the impacts that the Project’s third story and new roof deck will have on The Peninsula Beverly Hills, as well as the surrounding neighborhood.
As recently as last year, the disruptive nature of office building roof decks was at the forefront of City discussions, when the Planning Commission held a hearing to review an abundance of ongoing noise complaints and violations associated with the roof deck of the nearby Spring Place office building at 9800 Wilshire Boulevard, which emerged as a nuisance in the neighborhood. Appellant finds it highly strange that after all the issues with the Spring Place office building, the Planning Commission immediately turns around to permit construction of yet another roof deck in the very same neighborhood (and from the same architect no less). It appears the entire purpose of renovating the Darrow Building seems to be solely to provide the third story addition and roof deck to be used for holding events and conferences, which could disturb hotel guests and hurt the Peninsula’s reputation. Yet, not a single impact from the introduction of Impact Group’s new outdoor event space have been considered, let alone mitigated.
As reported by the Beverly Hills Courier, one Planning Commissioner made it abundantly clear that rooftop deck events can seemingly operate with impunity for very long times. When addressing the Spring Place rooftop deck nuisance, she said:
You’ve had your last chances; you’ve had it many times again, and again, and again, and again,” said Planning Commissioner Myra Demeter, who presided as chair over the hearing. “We have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people contacting you, letting you know what is allowed and what is not allowed. And you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this, and you would do that, and we haven’t seen it. (See Exhibit 4.)
Appellant is extremely concerned about Impact Group and any future operator of the Project using the rooftop deck in a disruptive manner that generates noise and privacy issues for the abutting Peninsula Beverly Hills, its guests (including, notably, guests of The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ villas, which are immediately next to the proposed roof deck) and surrounding neighborhood. (See Exhibits 2 and 3.) Simply put, a roof deck for parties and events is not November 20, 2023
appropriate immediately adjacent to one of Beverly Hills’ most iconic hotels, renowned among discerning travelers throughout the world for creating perfect experiences for its guests. We do not believe the Planning Commission understood, or gave proper consideration to, the fact that just a few noise violations that prevent guests from sleeping could irreversibly tarnish the reputation of The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Furthermore, this is not just about the Appellant and the City’s tax revenue from the hotel, the Commission also failed to consider the impacts from roof deck noise on the community’s residential neighbors to the south.
Appellant is aggrieved that the Project approval does not include any protections, conditions, or monitoring requirements to ensure that the roof deck is operated in a responsible manner by current and future operators and that no acoustical study has been conducted to evaluate potential noise impacts of the Project. Included with this appeal are various materials from the 9800 Wilshire Boulevard project that make it abundantly clear that there is a fair argument under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) that the Project’s proposed roof deck will have significant noise and vibration impacts, if not create a complete nuisance. (See Exhibit 4.) Overall, however, the City Council must consider whether this is a proper location for any roof deck, and we believe that a review of the facts here militates strongly against any roof deck, period.
D. The Darrow Building’s nomination for landmark designation must be denied if such designation will serve to enable the highly inappropriate third floor addition.
As explained in our companion letter, The Darrow Building’s Proposed Third-Floor Addition and its Failure to Comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination for Case No.
PL2200237), The Peninsula Beverly Hills is not against the preservation of the Darrow Building.
Instead, The Peninsula Beverly Hills has been placed in the uncomfortable position of having to object to the Darrow Building’s landmark designation because once the Darrow Building is so designated, its owner will ironically have the ability to construct the third story addition that will result in the destruction of the very characteristics upon which the designation would be based.2 The landmark designation for the Darrow Building was first considered on April 13, 2022 by the CHC. At that meeting, the CHC determined that, as the building currently stands today, 2 When it filed its appeal, the Peninsula Beverly Hills believed it was necessary to challenge landmark designation in order to challenge the HIP. Having retained land use counsel, Appellant now understands that the HIP can be challenged on the grounds that the proposed rooftop addition would damage the historic integrity of the Darrow Building.
November 20, 2023
the building maintains its historic integrity and nomination proceedings for inclusion of the building on the Beverly Hills Register of Historic Properties should be initiated.
The Peninsula Beverly Hills does not object to the CHC’s April 13, 2022 findings for the existing building in principle. However, Impact Group never again returned to the CHC despite it having urged Impact Group to do so to allow the CHC to weigh in on the rooftop addition and other components of the proposed Project. Indeed, the CHC acknowledged that it had not been asked to review or opine on the proposed addition, and had not seen any plans for the addition.
We believe that if the CHC had the benefit of those plans, it would have certainly given pause to its preliminary decision to initiate landmark designation proceedings. It is inconceivable that the CHC would want to have the Darrow Building designated a landmark if the end result of such designation would involve a third floor addition that would so blatantly destroy the building’s architectural integrity and compromise its eligibility for landmark designation.
At the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing on the Darrow Building’s proposed DPR and HIP, Commissioner Ostroff questioned why, to date, the Darrow Building application never returned to the CHC to pursue the landmark designation. (“I’m looking at these as two different tracks, two separate tracks, and I’m asking why they didn’t proceed with the Historical Landmark designation track at the same time [as pursuing the DPR and HIP approvals]”.) If Impact Group truly cared about the landmark designation status of its historic resource, the building would already be designated. Instead, Impact Group is well aware of the fact that if the Darrow Building were designated prior to the Planning Commission’s approval of the DPR and HIP, those entitlements most likely would have never been issued. This is because, had the building already been designated, the CHC would have clear jurisdiction to determine whether the proposed third story addition was consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (“SOI Standards”). Impact Group also very well knows that the CHC, the members of which are experts in these matters, would likely flatly reject the HIP and its incompatible and historically inappropriate third story addition.
It is for these reasons that The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ appeal of the Darrow Building DPR and HIP initially included objecting to the Darrow Building’s landmark designation, and the grounds upon which the City Council should overturn the Planning Commission approvals on appeal.
E. The proposed third story addition is flatly inconsistent with the SOI Standards.
As explained in our companion letter, The Darrow Building’s Proposed Third-Floor Addition and its Failure to Comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination for Case No.
PL2200237), it is not possible for a third story addition to a two-story historic building of the sort November 20, 2023
proposed by Impact Group to conform with the SOI Standards. In her technical review memorandum, attached to our companion letter as Exhibit B, historic preservationist Jenna Snow applies National Park Service (“NPS”) guidance documents, including specific technical guidance bulletins addressing rooftop additions specifically, and concludes that the Darrow Building’s “rooftop addition will, without a doubt, negatively impact the character of the building . . . . The proposed project would overwhelm the historic building and would shift the horizontal massing to a more vertical massing. As noted above, the change in massing would result in a change in character, not at all in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. . . . The proposed rooftop addition certainly does not preserve the most important character-defining features of the Darrow Office Building—the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes.” Please see our companion letter and its multiple attachments for more detail.
F. Given the incompatibility with the SOI Standards, the proposed changes to the Darrow Building cannot qualify for any exemption from environmental review under CEQA.
In approving the DPR and HIP on July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission also determined that no environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) was required. The Planning Commission instead determined that its approval of the DPR and HIP was exempt from review under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation Exemption). State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), section 15331, exempts from environmental review the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the SOI Standards. But, as discussed above, this Project is not consistent with the SOI Standards. Worse yet, the proposed third story addition significantly adversely impacts the historic character and integrity of the Darrow Building, as discussed in the Snow and Turnbull memoranda. (Ex. A, B.) Given that the exemption cannot possibly apply, and given that a significant adverse impact would occur as a result of the DPR and HIP, the City is required to undertake environmental review, in the form of an environmental impact report, prior to approving the proposed Project.
The Planning Commission also determined that approval of the DPR and HIP was exempt under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15301. This section exempts from environmental review the “minor alteration” of existing structures, and limits additions to existing structures to no more than 10,000 sf in urban settings. However, this exemption, and all other categorical exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15301 through 15333, cannot apply to any project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(f).)
A building does not need to be designated a historic landmark in order to be considered a “historical resource” for purposes of State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2(f). (See Pub.
November 20, 2023
Resources Code, § 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5.) A “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a resource occurs when a project materially alters in an adverse manner a resource’s character-defining features and render an eligible historic resource ineligible. (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Here, “construction of the rooftop addition would render this historical resource ineligible for listing in either the National or California Registers.
Therefore, the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and would result in a significant impact.” (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Again, given that no categorical exemption can possibly apply as a result of the proposed third story addition’s significant impact on a historic resource, the City must complete an environmental impact report before approving the Project.
G. Construction noise and vibration impacts will significantly impact The Peninsula Beverly Hills to the extent that several guest villas immediately adjacent to the Darrow Building will be uninhabitable.
Impact Group has completely failed to acknowledge, let alone address, the significant construction-related impacts on The Peninsula Beverly Hills. Of specific concern are the construction-related noise and vibration impacts that will make several guest rooms at the hotel uninhabitable. As a result, the hotel will become less attractive to guests and the local community, and this will result in a direct impact to The Peninsula Beverly Hills’ contributions to the City’s tax revenue.
As addressed in detail above, the DPR and HIP are not exempt from environmental review under CEQA. Thus a full analysis of noise and vibration impacts is required and mitigation measures must be identified and adopted prior to the issuance of any permit. The Planning Commission failed to evaluate construction and vibration noise altogether.
H. The July 13, 2023 Planning Commission hearing was not properly noticed.
The Planning Commission’s resolution approving the Project entitlements finds the Project to qualify for the following categorical exemptions under CEQA: State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15301 (Existing Facilities); 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures); 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation in Conformance with the SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties).
However, as shown in Exhibit 5, the public notice for the July 13, 2023, Planning Commission hearing notified the public only that the City was considering the Class 3 and Class 31 categorical exemptions (State CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15303, 15331). Therefore the Project approval included taking action on a CEQA determination that was not included in the public hearing notice. This constitutes a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, which requires that agendas and notices for public meetings identify each and every separate item of business to be transacted at the meeting.
November 20, 2023
***********
For all the reasons set forth herein, as well as those detailed in our companion letter, The Darrow Building’s Proposed Third-Floor Addition and its Failure to Comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Appeal of Planning Commission Determination for Case No. PL2200237), we respectfully request that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s July 13, 2023, approval of the Darrow Building DPR and HIP in Case No. PL2200237.
Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
EXHIBIT 1
Rev Date Issue DATE: SCALE: DRWN BY: CHKD BY: BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP 2740 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 313.477.9477 T ARCHITECT 12818 Venice Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90066 T: (310) 310-8438 11/07/22 PLANNING SUBMITTAL E: [email protected] Stephen Billings Landscape Architecture DARROW OFFICE BUILDING 9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 01/06/23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 02/14/23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 03/10/23 PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 2023 03 10 AS NOTED SFSB L3.7 ELEVATION
ELEVATION & SECTION SYMBOLS
CON-1
MATERIAL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.00
ELEVATION & SECTION NOTES
1. SEE MATERIAL SCHEDULES ON A600.
1i
WINDOW WALL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.10
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
CBA
PAINT TO BE REMOVED USING
CHEMICAL TREATMENTS
FROM EXTG. BRICK WALLS.
BRICK TO BE NATURAL,
ORIGINAL INTENDED FINISH.
(E) PAINTED METAL LOUVERS
TO BE RESTORED OR
REPLACED WITH SIM.
WINDOW FRAMES TO BE
RESTORED. EXTG GLAZING TO
BE REPLACED, TBC.
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED
AND REPAINTED TO MATCH
EXISTING
MTL-7
STC-01
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
2 A400
X114 XSA1
101 100
102
300
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
EXIST NI G BU LI DING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
WD-2
BRK-01
BRK-01
37'-6"
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
12345
WINDOW FRAMES TO BE RESTORED. EXTG
GLAZING TO BE REPACED, TYP.
EXTG. PAINTED METAL LOUVERS
TO BE REPLACED OR RESTORED
TO MATCH EXISITING
EXT. STUCCO TO BE PATCHED
AND REPAINTED TO MATCH
EXISTING.
METAL FINS TO BE EXTENDED TO GROUND
FLOOR PER ORIGINAL INTENDED HISTORIC
DESIGN. FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING FINS
ABOVE
(E) STAINLESS STEEL STANDING SEAM TO
BE RESTORED TO ORIGINAL CONDITION
BRK-01 BRK
-01
MTL-7
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
STC-01
STC-01
SOLAR PANELS
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
MECHANICAL EQUIP. SCREENING
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
X100B
104 WW-4 101
301
102
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
CON-2
CON-2
(E) PAINTED CONCRETE WALL. PAINT TO
BE REMOVED BY RESTORATION
CONTRACTOR USING GENTLE CHEMICAL
TREATMENT. FINISH TO BE EXPOSED,
NATURAL CONCRETE
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED AND
REPAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING
(N) PROPOSED CONCRETE WALL , FINISH
TO MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE WALL
BELOW
305 303
37'-6"
12'-3"
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects
APPLICANT
IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:22 AM
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A300
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION
2 # DESCRIPTION DATE
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
ABC
BRK-01
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
2 A400
108
105
307
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
PAINT TO BE REMOVED (USING
CHEMICAL TREATMENT) FROM
EXT. BRICK WALLS. BRICK TO
BE NATURAL, ORIGINAL FINISH,
TYP.
EXTG.PAINTED METAL
LOUVERS TO BE RESTORED
OR REPLACED WITH SIM.
WINDOW FRAMES TO BE
RESTORED. EXTG GLAZING TO
BE REPACED, TBC.
(E) STUCCO TO BE PATCHED
AND REPAINTED TO MATCH
EXISTING.
(E) STAINLESS STEEL
STANDING SEAM TO REMAIN,
RESTORED TO ORIGINAL
FINISH
209
MTL-1
MTL-1
EXIST NI G BU LI DING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
STC-01
HIGHEST POINT
OF GRADE
37'-6"
306 305
EXTERIOR GRADE -1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
54321
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
EXISTING CONCRETE WALL.
SOLAR PANELS
EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT (T.O. PARAPET)
23'-9"
MECHANICAL EQUIP. SCREENING
NEW CONCRETE WALL
PROPOSED ADDITION
13'-9"
37'-6"
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects
APPLICANT
IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:29 AM
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A301
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
WEST ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
NORTH ELEVATION
2 # DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects
APPLICANT
IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:29 A
M
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
RENDERINGS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A302
SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
EXTERIOR RENDERING - SW ELEV
2 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"
EXTERIOR RENDERING - WEST ELEV. 3 SCALE: 3/4" = 1'-0"EXTERIOR RENDERING - SOUTH ELEV. 1 NTS NTS
NTS
# DESCRIPTION DATE
ELEVATION & SECTION SYMBOLS
CON-1
MATERIAL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.00
ELEVATION & SECTION NOTES
1. SEE MATERIAL SCHEDULES ON A600.
1i
WINDOW WALL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.10
EXTERIOR GRADE
-1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
1 2 3 4 5
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
CLG. HT. @ SHARED SPACES, TYP.
11'-6"
OFFICE
203
EMPLOYEE
LOUNGE/
KITCHEN
211
EMPLOYEE
LOUNGE /
INFORMAL
CONFERENCE
110
OPEN OFFICE
101
LOBBY
100
OFFICE
106
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
OPEN OFFICE/
RECEPTION
200
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
212
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306 305
204
SA3
9'-0" 12'-3" 2'-7" 3'-7" 7'-11" 1'-6" 8'-2" 1'-6"
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
7'-8"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT
ENCLOSURE
PHOTOVOLTAIC PANEL
ARRAY
9'-6"
ELEVATOR
LOBBY/
CIRCULATION
300
LOUNGE
301
CONFERENCE
302
1'-9 1/4"
9'-7 1/4"
EXTERIOR GRADE
-1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
5 4 3 2 1
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
OFFICE
204
EXTERIOR
COURTYARD
112
OFFICE
207
OFFICE
303
STAIR
SA1
STAIR
SA3
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306
STAIR
SA2
HATCHED AREA
REPRESENTS EXTERIOR
SPACES
SA2
SA3
204
WOMENS
RESTROOM
209
1'-0" 8'-2" 1'-6" 7'-11" 3'-7" 2'-7" 12'-3" 9'-0"
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
8'-2"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
9'-6"
10'-3"
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects
APPLICANT
IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:32 A
M
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
BUILDING SECTIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
A400
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LONGITUDINAL SECTION A
1 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
LONGITUDINAL SECTION B
2 # DESCRIPTION DATE
EXTERIOR GRADE
-1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
1 A400
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
C B A
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
225 SF
EXTERIOR
COURTYARD
112
53 SF
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
205
713 SF
OPEN OFFICE/
RECEPTION
200
162 SF
OFFICE
201
59 SF
MENS RESTROOM
108
699 SF
OPEN OFFICE
101
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
HATCHED AREA
REPRESENTS EXTERIOR
SPACES
SOLAR PANELS
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
205
7'-6" 1'-6" 12'-3" 2'-7" 3'-7" 7'-11" 1'-6" 8'-2" 1'-6" 2 A400
202 203
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
7'-8"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
EXTERIOR GRADE
-1'-6"
01 GROUND FLOOR
0'-0"
02 SECOND FLOOR
9'-8"
SECOND FLOOR CLG
(EXISTING)
17'-7"
1 A400
GROUND FLOOR CLG.
8'-2"
A B C
ADDITION ROOF
36'-0"
03 THIRD FLOOR
(PROPOSED)
23'-9"
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT
45'-0"
SECOND FLOOR CLG.
(PROPOSED)
21'-2"
PROPOSED MECH. SCREEN
SOLAR PANELS
7'-6" 1'-6" 12'-3" 2'-7" 3'-7" 7'-11" 1'-6" 8'-2" 1'-6" OFFICE
106
OFFICE
102
OFFICE
207
OFFICE
206
OPEN OFFICE/
RECEPTION
200
OFFICE
303
LOUNGE
301
OUTDOOR
TERRACE
306
OPEN OFFICE
101
2 A400
00 BASEMENT FLOOR
-9'-2"
7'-8"
04 T.O. STRUCTURE
37'-6"
6'-0"
11'-6"
9'-6"
ELEVATION & SECTION SYMBOLS
CON-1
MATERIAL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.00
ELEVATION & SECTION NOTES
1. SEE MATERIAL SCHEDULES ON A600.
1i
WINDOW WALL TAG
SEE SCHEDULE ON A6.10
PROJECT NUMBER:
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
310.453.9611
www.belzbergarchitects.com
belzberg architects
APPLICANT
IMPACT REAL ESTATE GROUP, LLC
2029 CENTURY PARK EAST
SUITE 2980
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
310.552.2727
[email protected]
ARCHITECT
BELZBERG ARCHITECTS LLP
2740 MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
BROCK DESMIT, R.A.
313.477.9477
[email protected]
4/28/2023 9:44:33 A
M
DARROW OFFICE
BUILDING
APRIL 27, 2023
21004
BUILDING SECTIONS
9884 S SANTA MONICA BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL
CROSS SECTION B
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
2 CROSS SECTION A
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
1 A401
# DESCRIPTION DATE
EXHIBIT 2
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
AERIAL VIEW
SANTA MONICA BLVD.
CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
VIEW FROM SANTA MONICA BLVD.
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
VIEW FROM CHARLEVILLE BLVD.
9884 S. SANTA MONICA BLVD., BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
THE PENINSULA BEVERLY HILLS HOTEL
DARROW OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION
PROJ.# 2551.00 18 JULY 2023
VIEW FROM HOTEL ROOF DECK
EXHIBIT 3
Project Site where third floor
and deck are proposed
Appellant’s
Property
EXHIBIT 4
Planning Commission Rebukes Spring Place - Beverly Hills Courier https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/05/20/planning-commission-rebukes-spring-place/[11/20/2023 11:44:30 AM] n a contentious hearing on May 12, the Planning Commission issued a stern rebuke of the private club and co-working space Spring Place and crafted stringent limits on its 6,000 sq.-ft. rooftop space. “You’ve had your last chances; you’ve had it many times again, and again, and again, and again,” said Planning Commissioner Myra Demeter, who presided as chair over the hearing. “We have pages of violations and pages of letters and pages of telephone calls and pages of different people contacting you, letting you know what is allowed and what is not allowed. And you continued again and again with making promises that you would do this, and you would do that, and we haven’t seen it.” Planning Commission Chair Andy Licht recused himself from the hearing given his home’s proximity to the club and the fact that he is a member. Commissioner Thomas Hudnut also recused himself given the proximity of his home and office to the club.
Three members of the Commission ultimately agreed on strict limits to the rooftop uses of the club. Under the new provisions, which the Commission will vote on at its May 26 meeting, no more than 30 members can use the rooftop at a time, nor can the club offer food and beverage services on the roof. Additionally, the Commission limited rooftop hours to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Located at the vertex of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards in the Gores Group building, Spring Place offers members access to shared workspaces and amenities such as a bar, lounges, a restaurant, and programming and events. The exclusive club has one other I
Planning Commission Rebukes Spring Place
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, NEWS
BY SAMUEL BRASLOW b MAY 20, 2022
SIGN IN REGISTER
Planning Commission Rebukes Spring Place - Beverly Hills Courier https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2022/05/20/planning-commission-rebukes-spring-place/[11/20/2023 11:44:30 AM] location in New York’s Tribeca neighborhood.
The hearing focused on the decked-out rooftop space open to the club’s 630 members, who are each permitted to bring three guests. The Planning Commission previously granted Spring Place the right to hold “occasional” rooftop events that go no later than 10 p.m. and with 72-hour notice to the city. Furthermore, events could not have live or amplified music and could not be open to members of the public
The club has elicited complaints from neighbors alleging excessive noise from events and other violations since it opened in 2018. More recently, the city received documentation showing that the club advertised itself for use as a private event rental space, which would violate the club’s agreement with the city. The city also received documents showing Spring Place advertising events to members of the public and hosting social events including engagement parties and a bar mitzvah.
City staff warned Spring Place in January 2022 that the events violated its conditions of operation and to cease similar activity. But according to a report compiled by staff, the club persisted in holding events that appeared to violate city code, including a wedding celebration, a party with a DJ, a beauty event for a dermatologist and a Grammy’s party.
After the alleged violations, City Prosecutor Steven Rosenblit sent a letter to the club’s representatives in March warning them that their actions were “incurring criminal and civil liability.” If the club continued with the alleged wrongdoing, Rosenblit threatened possible “criminal prosecution against you for misdemeanor offenses” or a civil case. Failure to comply could also result in a loss of the club’s entitlements and legal consequences to the property owner, billionaire Alec Gores.
Given the legal issues at play, the hearing at times took on the air of a trial, with a legal representative for the club advising new CEO Christian Toraldo not to answer a question by Commissioner Peter Ostroff.
Toraldo, who became CEO in late December 2021, told the Commission that financial pressures related to COVID-19 led Spring Place to host events that “negatively impacted our neighbors.” He said that he had attended a meeting with Rosenblit and members of the city’s code enforcement personnel to address concerns regarding two upcoming events. Furthermore, he reported asking the City Council “to develop a program to ensure that Spring Place remains in compliance with the conditions governing our operations.” Commissioners expressed skepticism at the efforts to signal a change in direction. “I’m very disappointed in what I’ve seen over the last two years. I’m extremely disappointed of what has been alleged over the last three or four months since the new team has been in place,” said Commissioner Gary Ross.
The years of issues and assurances had clearly taxed the faith of the Commission. Ostroff quoted from a letter to city staff by a lawyer for Spring Place in 2019 saying that prior leadership “did not fully understand how to be in compliance with the conditions of approval” and that “missteps were made as with any new business.” But the letter promised that “under new leadership, Spring Place is now well versed in its conditions of approval.”
“We have heard this before,” Ostroff said. “We thought this was going to be a great place and it turned out to be a disaster for the neighborhood [and] for the city.”
EXHIBIT 5
2-48
- 2 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2-49
- 3 -
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-1126 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired. 2-50
ATTACHMENT 5
January 23, 2024
City Council Agenda Report
(without attachments)
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: January 23, 2024
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Michael Forbes, AICP, Director of Community Development Masa Alkire, AICP, City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Subject: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S JULY 13, 2023
DECISION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN
REVIEW AND HISTORIC INCENTIVE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE
REHABILITATION OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL
BUILDING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THIRD STORY,
ALONG WITH WAIVERS AND DEVIATIONS OF CERTAIN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AT 9884 SOUTH SANTA MONICA
BOULEVARD, AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
Attachments: 1. December 5, 2023 City Council Agenda Report
2. Public Comments
3. Project Plans
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the project and denying the appeal, which would allow the project to move forward through the City’s architectural review and building permit processes.
INTRODUCTION
On July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution conditionally approving the rehabilitation of an existing two-story commercial building with a new third story addition at the property located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “project site”), and finding the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Subsequently, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed on July 26, 2023, by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Belvedere Hotel Partnership (“Peninsula Beverly Hills”) (Attachment 1 of December 5, 2023 City Council Agenda Report). On September 12, 2023, the City Council set F-2
Meeting Date: January 23, 2024
the appeal hearing date for the project for December 5, 2023, at the request of the appellant, to allow for additional time to work with the applicant team for the project at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard to reconcile the issues in the appeal.
At the December 5th meeting, the City Council continued consideration of the appeal to January 23, 2024 at the request of the appellant, with concurrence from the applicant, to allow for additional time for the City to process a public records request for documents related to the City’s review of the project. On January 12, 2024, the City completed the request for public records and provided the requested project documents to the appellant and the applicant for their review.
A copy of the December 5, 2023 City Council Agenda Report, which contains project information and a full analysis of the appeal, is provided in its entirety as Attachment 1 to this report. Additionally, copies of the July 13, 2023 Planning Commission Staff Report and Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029 are provided as Attachments 7 and 8 to the December 5th Council Report, respectively (Attachment 1).
It is recommended that the City Council hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving the project and denying the appeal, which would allow the project to move forward through the City’s architectural review and building permit processes. Alternatively, the City Council may direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the project and granting the appeal, or remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Council, as part of its de novo review, will consider not only the appeal and points raised therein, but also will conduct an independent review of whether or not the required findings can be made to approve the project.
Alternatively, the Council may elect to continue the item to a date certain to allow for continued resolution talks between the appellant and the applicant in hopes of a resolution.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption (Existing Facilities) and a Class 31 Categorical Exemption (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation) in accordance with the requirements of Sections 15301 and 15331 of the state CEQA Guidelines. The Class 1 exemption is applicable to additions to existing structures that do not exceed 10,000 SF. Additionally, the Class 31 Categorical Exemption is applicable to the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (SOI Standards). Per an analysis conducted as part of the updated Historic Impact Analysis (Attachment 9 of December 5th Council Agenda Report (Attachment 1)) and updated Historic Impact Analysis report (Attachment 10 of December 5th Council Agenda Report (Attachment 1)) the additional discussion regarding the project and CEQA issues above, the project complies with applicable SOI Standards. As part of its review, the City Council may consider finding that, based on evidence in the record, the SOI standards have been met, and if so that the project is Meeting Date: January 23, 2024
exempt from CEQA, and that the exceptions to the categorical exemptions related to impacts on historical resources, or impacts as a result of unusual circumstances, do not apply.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Wednesday, November 15, 2023 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site for the December 5, 2023 City Council meeting (Attachment 11). On-site posting was also posted on the subject property on Wednesday, November 15, 2023. At the December 5th meeting, the City Council continued consideration of the project to January 23, 2024. As the project was continued to a date certain, no additional public noticing was required. However, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the continued hearing date.
Public Comment
The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on July 13, 2023, where members of the public provided oral and written comments on the proposed project. Oral public comment was provided by Michael Tenner, on behalf of the Peninsula hotel, expressing concerns regarding the project’s impact to the adjacent hotel property. All public correspondence from interested parties received as part of this project is included for the Council’s consideration as Attachment 2.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellant at the time the appeal was filed. Due to the uncertain nature of the future use of this commercial property, fiscal impacts are difficult to quantify at this time.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2029
RESOLUTION NO. 2029
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, (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
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 exist
was built in 1946 and was designed by John Lautner and Douglas Honnold, architects listed on the 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 - - 8 - 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 - onica - - 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 - 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 ar es to - - 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 ed 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 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 P
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 approximately 1,400 SF. The proposed addition would increase the existing height of the - 8 - would be retained for the existing building facing South Santa Monica Boulevard and - -
in a net floor area increase of 765 SF, for a total building floor area of 7,053 SF and an 7 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 -3 Zone. The closest existing
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 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
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 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 - is set back further than the existing building line along primary street frontages along South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard - South Santa Monica Boulevard, where the existing structure maintains the - -
-
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 - - Boulevard, a zero - 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 - use by hotel guests. The floor level of the proposed third-story addition would be built on - 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 - - 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 fourincludes rooftop uses and pool areas. The project would increase the height of the existing - - proposed height of 38 - 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
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-
-
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 - - proposed third-story addition at the project site. As such, the project would not have a
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 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 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
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 Development Plan Review and 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. Loading and Deliveries Narrative. To minimize congestion and traffic conflicts, deliveries 15 shall be coordinated so that they occur primarily during morning or evening hours, during non-peak office hours (before 8:00 A.M. and after 5:00 P.M.) however, deliveries shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. the following day. 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 affic 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 16 period, the arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of 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 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
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2029 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on July 13, 2023, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:
AYES: Commissioners Wolfe, Demeter, Ostroff, Vice Chair Kaplan NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Chair Ross
________________________________
KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 196601353790429EB702916DDC629D3A Status: Completed Subject: Please DocuSign: PC Reso 2029 - 9884 SSMB.pdf
Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 21 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Karen Myron
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
7/20/2023 2:23:54 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Theresa M. Kaplan
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 75.85.175.170
Signed using mobile
Sent: 7/20/2023 2:28:51 PM
Viewed: 7/20/2023 6:16:20 PM
Signed: 7/20/2023 6:18:09 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
David M. Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 107.77.229.93
Sent: 7/20/2023 6:18:10 PM
Viewed: 7/21/2023 8:49:18 AM
Signed: 7/21/2023 8:54:27 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Masa Alkire
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 7/21/2023 8:54:28 AM
Viewed: 7/21/2023 8:55:52 AM
Signed: 7/21/2023 9:02:52 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
Karen Myron
[email protected]
COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,
CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.181
Sent: 7/21/2023 9:02:54 AM
Viewed: 7/21/2023 10:47:57 AM
Signed: 7/21/2023 10:50:52 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via DocuSign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 7/20/2023 2:28:51 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 7/21/2023 10:47:57 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 7/21/2023 10:50:52 AM Completed Security Checked 7/21/2023 10:50:52 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 7
Applicant’s
Project Alternatives Letter
(January 22, 2024)
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
January 22, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor Gold and City Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd – Agenda Item F-2
Honorable Mayor Gold, Vice Mayor Friedman, and City Councilmembers:
On behalf of Impact Real Estate Group, LLC (“Applicant”), we write to follow-up on The Belvedere Hotel Partnership’s (“Belvedere”) appeal of the Planning Commission’s unanimous approval of the rehabilitation and rejuvenation of the John Lautner-designed building at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (the “Project”).
As the Staff Report makes clear, the appeal is entirely without merit and should be denied. We agree.
While there have been meaningful discussions between our client and Belvedere and the parties continue to have discussions, we have been unable to resolve all issues. However, in the spirit of neighborly compromise and to accommodate Appellant’s concerns with having a landmarked building next to its property, we write to offer an alternative approval path that would avoid the Historic Incentive Permit’s requirement that the building be landmarked.
Specifically, in denying the appeal of the Historic Incentive Permit, the City Council could, as part of its de novo review, approve the requested modification to the off-street loading space through Design Plan Review. This approach is consistent with City Code, and we believe would address Belvedere’s concerns regarding the Historic Incentive Permit’s requirement to landmark the building.
Our client originally sought a Historic Incentive Permit from the City to accommodate certain Project components that deviated from City standards. Appellant has objected to landmarking the building. To respond to Appellant’s concerns, the City could approve the one January 22, 2024
2 deviation still needed,
1 a modified on-site loading area for small delivery vans, through the Design Plan Review.
The Loading Space Can Be Approved Under Development Plan Review The proposed temporary on-site loading space for small delivery vans is the only Project component the Planning Commission approved under a Historic Incentive Permit that continues to require a discretionary approval. In addition to denying the appeal of the Historic Incentive Permit, the loading space’s configuration can be approved through Development Plan Review to accommodate Appellant’s concerns with landmarking the building.
BHMC section 10-3-2741.D provides that “[n]othing in this section shall limit the planning commission from modifying the size of any loading space required by this article or imposing additional loading space requirements as a condition of approval of any discretionary permit.” Because the City Council is considering this appeal de novo, the City Council can modify the loading space requirements in connection with its review and approval of the Development Plan Review. The BHMC does not require that deviations to loading space requirements be done through a Historic Incentive Permit under Article 32.5. Thus, the City Council may approve the loading space as-designed through Development Plan Review.
All the Development Plan Review findings can still be made. The Planning Commission found that the Project meets several policies of the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, including preservation of existing buildings and revitalizing distressed, vacant buildings; it would not adversely affect existing or anticipated development in the area because it involves rehabilitation of an existing building, is directly adjacent to an active construction site, and is small-scale; it would not significantly adversely interfere with use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity because it would be constructed in compliance with all applicable development standards in the City’s C-3 Zone, and would provide new services the existing building does not have; it would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards because the existing surface parking lot would be used for construction staging and it is a small-scale project screened out of the City’s vehicle miles traveled and local transportation assessment thresholds; and it would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare since it is located in a commercial area and complies with all applicable standards.
Moreover, as explained in our November 21, 2023, letter, the proposed loading space would not create adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards, because building management has set forth a management plan for the parking lot to ensure access to the three on-site parking spaces is not impacted. 1 Due to a change in law and project design changes, the Historic Incentive Permit is no longer needed to accommodate the Project’s parking or its rubbish storage facility. The site is “within a half mile of a major transit stop,” so no onsite parking is required. The rubbish storage facility has been redesigned to now meets the Code’s standards. (See Exhibit 1.) January 22, 2024
3 Condition No. 7 to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2029 confirms this. Condition No. 7 details how, to minimize congestion and traffic conflicts, deliveries will be coordinated to occur primarily during morning or evening hours, during non-peak office hours (before 8 a.m., after 5 p.m.), deliveries will be prohibited from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and any deliveries during peak office hours will be coordinated and approved by building management to manage access to the parking spaces. Delivery vehicles may only use the loading area for a maximum of 10 minutes unless additional time is authorized by building management, and the Director of Community Development will have the authority to require additional conditions for loading area use if impacts result from operations, which may be referred to the Planning Commission for review, if necessary. Accordingly, the loading space can be approved through Development Plan Review.
Conclusion
We respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal, and uphold the Commission’s Project approvals in full.
To respond to Belvedere’s concerns regarding the Historic Incentive Permit and the building being landmarked, the City Council could, in addition to denying the appeal, grant the loading space modification through Development Plan Review.
We appreciate the City staff’s thorough Project analysis and look forward to responding to any questions that you may have.
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.
EXHIBIT 1
VFDOH
1 VFDOH
06$ 06$
$
$%
&
66$17$021,&$%/9'
&200(5&,$/
(
%2//$5'
1(,*+%25
6
(
*$6075
3523(57</,1(727$/$5($
6)
3 52
3(
5 7
<
/
1 ,
(
835
126(7%$&.5(48,5('
6(7%$&.
1(:3/$17('
$5($
/,1(2)
29(5+$1*
$%29(
67$1'$5'
(9 &+$5*,1* 67$1'$5' (9 &+$5*,1* 9$1 $&&(66,%/( (9 &+$5*,1* &,7<$//(<
1 3$'02817('
75$16)250(5
[
(
%5,&.:$//
352326('7(0325$5<
;
9$1/2$',1*63$&(
3$5.,1*/2$',1*63$&(
02',),&$7,212)0,1,0800$1(89(5$%,/,7<67$1'$5'6)25/2$',1*63$&(65(48(67('$73/$11,1*&200,66,21 6',6&5(7,213(5%+0&'7+(352-(&7352326(6
216,7(
;
9$1/2$',1*63$&($65(48,5('%<%+0&352-(&7(;(037)5200,1,0803$5.,1*5(48,5(0(1763(5$% 7+(3$5.,1*352326('&216,6762)
67$1'$5'$&&(66,%/(9$163$&($1'
67$1'$5'3$5.,1*63$&(6:+,&+,6/(667+$17<3,&$//<5(48,5(''8(727+(3+<6,&$/&21675$,1762)7+(/27$1',125'(57235(6(59(7+((;,67,1*+,6725,&%8,/',1* 58%%,6+5220
$17,&,3$7('58%%,6+*(1(5$7,21&$/&8/$7('3(5%+0&6(&7,21 '
)256)2)),&
(&8%,&)((73(5'$<)256)5(7$,/
&8%,&)((73(5'$<
58%%,6+6725$*(63$&(5(48,5('3(5%+0&
(58%%,6+6725$*(63$&(5(48,5('72&217$,1127/(667+$1648$5()((72))/225$5($:,7+0,1,080,16,'(',0(16,2162)
;
3(5%+0&
)
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 '$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<
6,7(3/$1
66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
''352*5(666(7
$ 6&$/(
6,7(3/$1 1257+
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(
83 83
'1
6'
&0'
6'
$
$
$
$
$%
&
835 835
&+$5/(9,//(%/9'
66$17$021,&$%/9'
$
83 72%$6(0(17
6)
23(12)),&(
6)
(03/2<((
/281*(
,1)250$/
&21)(5(1&(
6)
2)),&(
6)
(;7(5,25
&2857<$5'
6)
2)),&(
6)
$//*(1'(5
5(675220
6)
0(165(675220
6)
/2%%<
6)
2)),&(
6)
67$,5
6$
6)
(/(9$725
(9
$
$
;6$
;
;$
;%
;%
(
( (
(
/,1(2)29(5+$1*$%29(
;$
$
$
$
&<%,1
;
6)
(/(9$725
0$&+,1(5220
6)
2)),&(
0,//:25.:$//:,7+9(57,&$/%,.(6725$*(
$
,17(5$&7,9(%8,/',1*0(75,&6'$6+%2$5'
$
:$//028171(7:25.5$&.6(59,1**5281')/225
(
(
;
52201$0( 180%(5'225180%(5
3/$16<0%2/6
:$//)5$0,1*7<3(:,1'2::$//180%(56.</,*+77<3(0$7(5,$/7$* L
%HGURRP
*<3
3/$1127(6
($&+$33/,$1&(3529,'('$1',167$//('0((76(1(5*<67$5,1$1(1(5*<67$5'(6,*1$7,21,6$33/,&$%/()257+$7$33/,$1&(
7+()/2:5$7(6)25$//3/80%,1*),;785(66+$//&203/<:,7+7+(0$;,080)/2:5$7(6,17$%/(7$%/(
5()(572*5121*%$7+5220)$16127)81&7,21,1*$6$&20321(172)$:+2/(+286(9(17,/$7,216<67(00867%(&21752//('%<$+80,',67$7:+,&+6+$//%(5($',/<$&&(66,%/(
',0(16,216723$57,7,21621)/2253/$16$5(72 )$&(2)678' 25)$&(2)&21&5(7(81/(6627+(5:,6(127('6(($ $)25$//522)5812))72'5$,1725$,1:$7(56725$*(7$1.6((3/80%,1*$1'&,9,/'5$:,1*6 (;+$867)$1,1&(,/,1*(1(5*<67$5&203/,$17'8&7('727(50,1$7(2876,'(7+(%8,/',1*&20%,1$7,21602.(&$5%210212;,'('(7(&725602.('(7(&725 352-(&7180%(5
0$,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
30 '$552:2)),&(%8,/',1*
0$<
*5281')/225
3/$1
66$17$021,&$%/9'%(9(5/<+,//6&$
''352*5(666(7
$
6&$/(
*5281')/2253/$1
1257+
'(6&5,37,21 '$7(
RUBBISH RM.
114
ATTACHMENT 8
Appellant’s
Continued Opposition Letter
(January 22, 2024)
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 January 22, 2024 Client-Matter: 70815-030
Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Continued Objections to Darrow Building Project’s Third-Floor Addition Dear Mayor Gold and Honorable Councilmembers:
We are writing on behalf of The Belvedere Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”), to inform you that, regrettably, we have been unable to resolve our differences with Impact Real Estate Group, LLC (“Impact” or the “Applicant”), the owner and applicant behind the Darrow Building’s proposed third-floor addition (the “Project”).
After multiple attempts by the Peninsula to arrive at a negotiated settlement of our differences, on Thursday, January 18, Impact’s attorneys informed us that their client was unwilling to enter into a written agreement of any sort with the Peninsula – even if the agreement only covered basic construction and operational measures. This late rejection of any attempt to compromise came after multiple overtures by the Peninsula since the last City Council appeal hearing was rescheduled. That is why today’s eleventh-hour letter from the Applicant’s attorneys stating that Impact is withdrawing its request for a Historic Incentive Permit (“HIP”) is so disingenuous – removing the HIP does nothing to address the actual design, construction, and operation of a third-floor addition that cannot legally be approved as proposed and would have a significant adverse impact on the Peninsula. Rather, discarding the HIP is a self-serving – albeit ultimately inadequate – attempt to try to insulate the Project from having to make a finding that the addition complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (the “SOI Standards”), something that as described below does not cure the Project’s legal deficiencies.
Suffice it to say, the process for this Project has been troubling. On one hand we have an applicant that has no desire whatsoever to address its neighbor’s concerns. On the other, the City approval process has departed from the usual levels of scrutiny and transparency generally applied to projects of this nature, with City Staff seemingly agreeing that a textbook example of what not to do to a historic building is somehow considered “preservation”.
Furthermore, although the City has continuously failed to comply with the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”), even the limited documents it did ultimately turn over in response to the Peninsula’s CPRA request indicate that: (1) City Staff decided to ignore the Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
January 22, 2024
Cultural Heritage Commission’s request that it be allowed to provide input on the Project; (2) the City sidestepped third-party review and “allowed” the Applicant’s consultant to be the final arbiter on the third-story addition’s compliance with the SOI Standards; and (3) not once was the Applicant asked to make even the most minor of tweaks to the Project’s design to address issues of historic compatibility and integrity. These irregularities make it all the more concerning that the City has refused to turn over many documents that must be disclosed under the CPRA on the vague, nebulous ground that “public policy” militates against their disclosure.
The issues with the Project are so significant that our appeal must be granted for the reasons set forth below and in our letters of November 20, 2023. At a minimum, we respectfully request that the Project be sent back to the Cultural Heritage Commission so that it can be allowed to provide input on the Project as it had requested to do. Finally, if and when a revised project that is compliant with the SOI Standards returns to the Planning Commission and/or City Council, it is imperative that the City impose operational and construction measures that are absolutely critical for the Peninsula’s business not to be negatively affected and to maintain its high standards of excellence for its guests. Those operational and construction measures are enumerated in Section D of this letter.
At a minimum, the City Council must postpone this appeal hearing and direct City Staff to release all documents on this matter that are not protected by the attorney-client privilege as required by the CPRA. It is unreasonable for a city of Beverly Hills’ caliber to withhold documents from one of the City’s most important stakeholders and taxpayers on “public policy” grounds, especially when the record points to highly irregular preferential treatment being accorded to the Applicant. California courts have been unequivocally clear that such an exemption under the CPRA should not be invoked lightly, and there is absolutely no legal ground for the City to invoke it here. Until all required documents are disclosed to the Peninsula, any appeal hearing under these circumstances constitutes a violation of our client’s due process.
A. Our Review of the Documents Released in the City’s Response to the Peninsula’s Public Records Act Request Indicates that the City Insulated the Project from Cultural Heritage Commission Review and Failed to Apply Its Independent Judgment to the Proposed Third-Floor Addition
It is undeniable that the City’s Cultural Heritage Commission asked the Applicant to return to it so that the Commission – the City’s experts on historic rehabilitation issues – could provide comments on the third-floor addition. (The Cultural Heritage Commission was only given an opportunity to weigh in on the Darrow Building’s potential historic designation, without ever reviewing the proposed third-floor addition.) As a result of our CPRA request, we have now reviewed e-mail correspondence between City Staff indicating that a decision was made to ignore the Cultural Heritage Commission and prevent it from reviewing the rooftop addition. Even worse, in that same e-mail, a decision was made to exempt the Applicant’s Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
January 22, 2024
historic assessment report from any third-party review. Specifically, on July 5, 2022, a City Staff member wrote:
The Commission was generally in support of the project proposal for expansion and for formal local designation. The drawings were not complete at the time and the Commissioners encouraged the applicant to return with final drawings for review and to provide additional comments. That being said, I think that we can provide any additional comments for the HIP in conjunction with the expansion and restoration and in advance of the project returning to the CHC.
I also don’t think it necessary to send to Jan for review, as we can handle the review of this proposal, unless you require something more formal from her.
Please remember that Jan did not write the historic assessment report for this project, as we allowed the applicant’s consultant to provide that information.1 (Emphasis added.)(Exhibit A.)
This e-mail alone raises very serious concerns. Why was the Cultural Heritage Commission’s desire to review and comment on a very substantial addition to an important historic building completely ignored? Why was the Applicant’s consultant “allowed” to provide a historic resource assessment of the Project’s third-floor addition without any critical, neutral third-party review? And our review of the CPRA documents is also noteworthy for what the materials do not include. We were not provided a single document in which City Staff “provide[d] any additional comments for the HIP” as City Staff said they would do, nor were we provided a single document where City Staff presumably “handle[d] the review” of the Applicant’s historic assessment report. At least from our vantage point, we now understand why the proposed Project has been able to make it this far despite being a textbook example of what not to do to a historic building.
We hope the City Council will rectify these mistakes. In the absence of the Peninsula’s appeal being granted in full, we believe it is incumbent on the City Council to send the Project’s third-floor addition to the Cultural Heritage Commission for review and comment. The proposed third-floor addition’s historic assessment report should also be sent to an independent third-party consultant for review against the SOI Standards. The questions raised in our appeal make it imperative that the Project be sent to a third-party reviewer that will provide his or her own independent judgment without any pressure from any parties adamant to defend the decisionmaking that has taken place to date (i.e., not someone with an existing City contract). We also note that while statements have been made at prior hearings about the Applicant’s report being independently reviewed, we were not provided with a single e-mail indicating that this happened.
1 Jan Ostashay is contracted as the City’s third-party reviewer for historic assessments.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
January 22, 2024
B. The City’s Response to our Public Records Act Request Has Failed to Comply With the State’s Public Records Act and Basic Minimum Standards of Transparency As if the e-mail correspondence indicating a desire to insulate the Project from Cultural Heritage Commission and third-party consultant review was not suspect enough, we are extremely concerned that the City’s response to our CPRA request refused to turn over various materials, most notably draft reports, by invoking the exemption in Section 7927.500 of the CPRA. As we stated in our December 22, 2023, letter to the City Clerk (Exhibit B) – a letter which received no response from the City – this exemption applies only to preliminary drafts “that are not retained by a public agency in the ordinary course of business” and only if “the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” (See also Getz v. Superior Court of El Dorado County (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 637, 654-655 [agency cannot withhold emails where it provided no evidence that the agency does not retain “drafts” of any of the emails or their attachments].) “If preliminary materials are not customarily discarded or have not in fact been discarded as is customary they must be disclosed.” (Citizens for a Better Environment v. Cal. Department of Food and Agriculture (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 704, 714, emphasis added.) Thus, if the preliminary drafts the City is attempting to withhold are still in the City’s files, they must be provided to us. If the preliminary drafts were discarded without any policy in place that would indicate that such records are customarily discarded in the City’s ordinary course of business, those records were discarded in violation of the CPRA. We are unaware of any City policy describing when preliminary drafts, such as the preliminary drafts of any reports or memoranda responsive to our CPRA request, including those attached to emails, are to be discarded. In fact, emails sent by City staff include the following trailer: “The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.” (Emphasis added.) Further, the wording of the City’s attached December 19, 2023 email implies that these preliminary drafts are still within the City’s files, making section 7927.500 inapplicable. We respectfully reiterate our request for the documents that the City has failed to provide us with. The Peninsula’s inability to fully represent itself in this appeal because the City has refused to turn over documents constitutes a significant due process violation.
C. The Project Fails to Comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation
The Peninsula’s correspondence to-date has made it very clear that the Project’s thirdfloor addition fails to comply with the SOI Standards. Apparently, the Applicant is concerned about this too because today it sent you correspondence stating that the Applicant will no longer request a Historic Incentive Permit (“HIP”) for the Project. Please do not be fooled into Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
January 22, 2024
believing that this is somehow some sort of concession to the Peninsula. Impact is walking back its request for a HIP because it knows that its proposed third-floor addition cannot possibly meet the HIP finding requiring conformance with the SOI Standards. However, this desperate move to attempt to insulate the Project from legal challenge is unavailing because the Project would create a significant adverse impact to a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”).
We note that in approving the Project on July 13, 2023, the Planning Commission determined that no environmental review under CEQA was required based on the Project’s alleged compliance with the SOI Standards. The Planning Commission instead determined that its approval of the Project was exempt from review under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15331 (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation Exemption). State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), section 15331, exempts from environmental review the maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historical resources in a manner consistent with the SOI Standards. But as discussed in great detail in our November 20, 2023 letter, the Project is not consistent with the SOI Standards. Worse yet, the proposed third story addition significantly adversely impacts the historic character and integrity of the Darrow Building, as discussed in the Snow and Turnbull memoranda attached to our November 20 letter and attached here. The memoranda from Snow and Turnbull, both highly reputable experts on the City’s approved consultant list, are attached here again. (Exhibit C.) In addition, Ms. Snow has submitted another letter responding to the Applicant’s consultant, who in her response to the Snow and Turnbull memoranda makes the preposterous implication that the Applicant is somehow entitled to an addition on the roof if an addition on the sides would be worse – the SOI Standards say no such thing and, in fact, state that additions are not appropriate on some buildings, period. (Exhibit D.) Given that the exemption cannot possibly apply and given that a significant adverse impact would occur as a result of the Project, the City is required to undertake environmental review in the form of an environmental impact report prior to approving the Project.2
A building does not need to be designated a historic landmark in order to be considered a “historical resource” for purposes of State CEQA Guidelines, section 15300.2(f). (See Pub. 2 The Planning Commission also determined that approval of the DPR and HIP was exempt under State CEQA Guidelines, section 15301. This section exempts from environmental review the “minor alteration” of existing structures, and limits additions to existing structures to no more than 10,000 sf in urban settings. However, this exemption, and all other categorical exemptions found in State CEQA Guidelines, sections 15301 through 15333, cannot apply to any project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15300.2(f).) Consequently, there are no types of categorical exemptions that can be approved for a project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
January 22, 2024
Resources Code, § 21084.1; State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5.) A “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a resource occurs when a project materially alters in an adverse manner a resource’s character-defining features and renders an eligible historic resource ineligible. (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Here, “construction of the rooftop addition would render this historical resource ineligible for listing in either the National or California Registers.
Therefore, the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and would result in a significant impact.” (Snow Memorandum, p. 7.) Again, given that no categorical exemption can possibly apply as a result of the proposed third story addition’s significant impact on a historic resource, the City must complete an environmental impact report before approving the Project.
D. Proposed Construction and Operational Measures
Finally, no project can be approved that does not include operational and construction measures that are absolutely necessary to minimize adverse impacts on the Peninsula and surrounding community. The Project’s third-floor addition would be directly adjacent to the Peninsula – literally sharing a wall with hotel villas – yet, shockingly, the Project’s proposed conditions of approval do not include any measures that would meaningfully reduce impacts on the Peninsula, making it critical that the City Council adopt the following if and when a revised project comes before it:
Operational Measures for Third-Floor Addition/Outdoor Rooftop 1) In addition to existing code restrictions that address noise and rooftop use, outdoor rooftop activities shall only occur between 12 pm to 8 pm Monday-Friday, and no activities Saturday, Sunday, or holidays.
2) No smoking (vapes, cigarettes, cigars etc.) shall be allowed at any time. 3) No rental of the third floor to any third party for any reason. Events on the third floor shall only be for the Applicant’s business-related events.
4) Neither live nor amplified music shall be allowed on the third floor. 5) No barbeque, outdoor kitchen, or cooking smoke allowed on the third floor. 6) Provide landscaping on the wall that is on the third floor’s southern edge to limit the visual impact from the Peninsula.
7) Deliveries shall only be allowed between 9:30 am to 6 pm.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
January 22, 2024
8) Limit rooftop occupancy at all times to 17 people per Fire Department occupancy limits.
Construction Measures
1) The Applicant shall comply with a Construction Management Plan that must be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of a building permit. The Construction Management Plan shall include all feasible measures, as determined by the City Building Official, to limit high noise activities (which might include, but not be limited to: jackhammering, saw-cutting concrete and steel/re-bar, use of drill rigs, heavy haul activities, earth compaction activities performed via vibratory means, and use of pneumatic tools) before 9:30 AM, including but not limited to, as necessary: sound barriers; and sound blankets. Any exceptions, as approved by the City, will only occur after prior written notice of at least 24 hours is provided to The Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel management, in addition:
• The Applicant shall provide the Peninsula Beverly Hills with a construction schedule and a weekly schedule of construction activities. Such schedule shall be provided no later than Friday afternoon for the following week. • The Applicant shall provide the Peninsula Beverly Hills with the names and mobile phone numbers for Applicant’s or general contractor’s site superintendent, who shall respond to all noise and/or vibration complaints. 2) Street parking, including but not limited to metered street parking, shall be prohibited at all times for any construction-related activity, including construction worker parking. 3) Prior to and during construction of their respective projects, the parties agree to commercially reasonable efforts to cooperate and coordinate their construction activities and schedules.
In addition, we believe it is important that the Peninsula be provided with a private cause of action in connection with the above operational and construction measures so that the City is not solely responsible for ensuring compliance.
E. CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, and the detailed objections set forth in our letter of November 20, 2023, we urge the City Council to grant the Peninsula’s appeal and deny the proposed Project. Alternatively, the Project should be sent to the Cultural Heritage Commission so that the City’s experts on historic rehabilitation can weigh in on the third-floor addition’s compliance with the SOI Standards. In that regard, an objective third-party consultant should also review the Project for compliance with the SOI Standards. Finally, we demand that the City provide all documents to us as required by the CPRA. Until that happens, any approval of the Project would constitute a blatant violation of the Peninsula’s due process rights.
Honorable Mayor Gold and Councilmembers
January 22, 2024
Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Ryan Gohlich, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Department Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
EXHIBIT A
From: Mark Odell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2022 3:12 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]>; Minjee Hahm <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 9884S. Santa Monica • Historic Incentive Permit Review Edgar, The preliminary proposal was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Commission at it's hearing on 4/13/22. The Commission reviewed and approved the landmark Initiation and Preliminary Hearing for the project. The Commission was generally in support of the proj ect proposal for expansion and for formal local designation. The drawings were not complete at the time and the Commissioners encouraged the applicant to return with final drawings for review and to provide additional comments. That being said, I think that we can provide any additional comments for the HIP in conjunction with the expansion and restoration and in advance of the project returning to the CHC. I also don't think it necessary to send ~o Jan for review, as we can handle the review of this proposal, unless you require something more formal from her. Please remember that Jan did not write the historic assessment report for this project, as we allowed the applicant's consultant to provide that information] Thank you and let me know if you have any questions.
Mark
Mark Odell,
Urban Designer
Comrunilf Developrrenl
455 Norti Rexbrd Drive
Beverly Hils, CA 90210
(310) 2~1116 (Orea)
[email protected]
EXHIBIT B
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 December 22, 2023 Client-Matter: 70815-030
Ms. Huma Ahmed
City Clerk
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr., Room 290
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Re: Inapplicability of Govt. Code Section 7927.500 to Preliminary Drafts Responsive to September 26, 2023 Public Records Act Request (CRM-23- 1415)
Dear Mrs. Ahmed:
On behalf of The Belvedere Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”), I am writing in response to the email I received on December 19, 2023, from the Beverly Hills Customer Portal, regarding the substantial number of responsive records that are still outstanding and have not yet been provided in response to my September 26, 2023 Public Records Act (“PRA”) request. This email is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
Over the course of the past three months, the City’s response to our PRA request has been highly irregular and incomplete. These irregularities were detailed in our December 1 and December 4, 2023 letters to the City Council, attached hereto as Attachments 2 and 3, and have resulted in the necessary postponement of our appeal hearing. Moreover, as detailed in our December 1 and December 4, 2023 letters, they threaten the Peninsula’s right to a fair hearing and due process.
We had hoped that our correspondence would lead to an improvement in the City’s compliance with the Public Records Act, but unfortunately the problems continue. The December 19, 2023 email attached hereto as Attachment 1, states that the City Clerk will be “withholding . . . any preliminary drafts where the public interest in withholding the record clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure pursuant to Government Code section 7927.500.”
We find it incredibly doubtful that the PRA exemption in section 7927.500 could possibly apply here. This exemption applies only to preliminary drafts “that are not retained by a public agency in the ordinary course of business” and only if “the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” (See also Getz v. Superior Ms. Huma Ahmed
December 22, 2023
Court of El Dorado County (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 637, 654-655 [agency cannot withhold emails where it provided no evidence that the agency does not retain “drafts” of any of the emails or their attachments].) “If preliminary materials are not customarily discarded or have not in fact been discarded as is customary they must be disclosed.” (Citizens for a Better Environment v.
Cal. Department of Food and Agriculture (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 704, 714, emphasis added.) Thus, if the preliminary drafts the City is attempting to withhold are still in the City’s files, they must be provided to us. If the preliminary drafts were discarded without any policy in place that would indicate that such records are customarily discarded in the City’s ordinary course of business, those records were discarded in violation of the PRA. We are unaware of any City policy describing when preliminary drafts, such as the preliminary drafts of any reports or memoranda responsive to our PRA request, including those attached to emails, are to be discarded. In fact, emails sent by City staff include the following trailer: “The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.” (Emphasis added.) Further, the wording of the City’s attached December 19, 2023 email implies that these preliminary drafts are still within the City’s files, making section 7927.500 inapplicable.
Finally, the December 19, 2023 email does not provide any explanation of how the public interest in disclosing the preliminary drafts at issue is “clearly outweighed” by the public interest in withholding the same. “If the records sought pertain to the conduct of the people’s business there is a public interest in disclosure. The weight of that interest is proportionate to the gravity of the governmental tasks sought to be illuminated and the directness with which the disclosure will serve to illuminate.” (Citizens for a Better Environment, supra, 171 Cal.App.3d at 715.) As explained in our December 1, and December 4, 2023 letters to the City Council, attached, the public interest in disclosure here pertains to the conduct of the people’s business and there are significant implications to the Peninsula’s rights to due process and a fair hearing of its appeal of the Planning Commission Determination for Case No. PL2200237. Of note, some of the technical reports for the proposed project at issue are incredibly deficient, completely sidestepping relevant laws and regulations, as well as the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The public is entitled to know, for example, if information detrimental to the applicant was removed from the reports, and if so, why.
In sum, the City cannot rely on Government Code, section 7927.500 to withhold any preliminary drafts within the City’s files that are responsive to our September 26, 2023 PRA request. We once again request that all documents responsive to our (now three month’s old) PRA request be provided to us as required by the PRA, due process, and basic fairness.
Ms. Huma Ahmed
December 22, 2023
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Ryan Gohlich, Assistant City Manager, Community Development Department Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
EXHIBIT C
Jenna Snow ● Historic Preservation Consulting ● 323/317-3297 ● [email protected] Memorandum
DATE: October 12, 2023
TO: Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
FROM: Jenna Snow
RE: 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Darrow Office Building, Beverly Hills, CA
Introduction
A development project is proposed for the commercial building located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, historically known as the Darrow Office Building, in Beverly Hills, California (Assessor Parcel 4425-017-013, “subject property” or “property”). Designed in 1946 by noted architect John Lautner, the Darrow Office Building is one of his few commercial buildings. A Historic Resource Evaluation of the subject property was prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK) in March 2022 that concluded the property is eligible as a local City of Beverly Hills Landmark, as well as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical Resources (California Register).
The development project includes rehabilitation of the exterior of the building; construction of new interior circulation, demising walls, and finishes, and construction of a one-story, 1,404 square foot, rooftop addition surrounded by a covered roof deck that encompasses the majority of the roof. To allow for the project to deviate from the minimum dimensions required for trash storage and on-site loading space requirements, the property owner has applied for a City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentives Permit (HIP). In addition, the project requires Development Plan Review (DPR). The HIP and DPR are both discretionary actions that require an environmental clearance under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The proposed project was considered at the July 13, 2023 City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission approved a motion that the proposed project “complies with the Standards of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation.”1 This motion also included conditional approval of the HIP, DPR, and Class 1, Class 3, and Class 31 CEQA Categorical Exemptions. However, as described in this memo, based on guidance provided by the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Services, it is not possible for a rooftop addition to a two-story building to conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards).
Furthermore, as the subject property is eligible for listing in the California Register, it is considered a historical resource for purposes of the CEQA. As described below, because the proposed project 1 See Section 8.1. of “Draft Resolution.”
Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 2 does not conform with the Secretary’s Standards, it would constitute a significant impact to the historical resource.
Qualifications
With over 20 years of experience on both the east and west coasts of the United States, as well as internationally, I have a strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state, and local regulations. In February 2015, I launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice, after over a dozen years with Chattel, Inc. Over the course of my career, I have worked on over 100 historic preservation projects. I am included on the City of Beverly Hills Qualified Consultant list and have worked on quite a few projects in Beverly Hills.
Among the projects I have worked on in Beverly Hills include a historic resources survey of the former industrial area east of the “Golden Triangle;” rehabilitation of the Unocal 76 gas station at 427 N. Crescent Drive; and a successful National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Beverly Hills Women’s Club at 1700 Chevy Chase Drive.
Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit (HIP)
The City of Beverly Hills established a Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) in 2015 “to incentivize the protection of significant historic resources by providing a process by which owners of locally designated historic landmarks may request waivers or deviations from certain development standards.”2 A HIP is available to properties that are local Beverly Hills Landmarks, as well as “any property that the cultural heritage commission or the city council has determined, at a preliminary hearing,… merits formal consideration by the cultural heritage commission for nomination as a landmark.”3 In order to receive a HIP, the Planning Commission must make a finding that the proposed project either:4
1. Complies with the “Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings”; or
2. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the “Secretary Of The Interior’s Standards For The Treatment Of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, And Reconstructing Historic Buildings”, but nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property
2 Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3250 3 Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3251 4 Beverly Hills Municipal Code §10-3-3256.A Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 3 Subject Property Significance
KCK, in their 2022 Historic Resource Evaluation, write, “The commercial building, the Darrow Office Building, at 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard is a rare extant commercial building designed by master architect John Lautner…[it] is an excellent example of the Late Modern Architectural style, and an early example of sustainable design applied to a commercial building.”5 The Darrow Office Building is also “a rare extant commercial building designed by Lautner.”6 Character-defining features are those visual and tangible aspects of a historic building that identify a particular architectural style, property type, and/or period of construction. Based on significance of the subject property, the KCK 2002 Historic Resource Evaluation defines character-defining features of the Darrow Office Building as: 7
• horizontal massing
• bold geometric volumes
• sculptural design
• large expanse of unadorned wall surface along the west elevation • ribbon windows
KCK also prepared an Impacts Analysis Report in March 2022 that identified additional character defining features.8 They are:
• Sculptural and geometric massing of building’s three visible elevations • Brick and stucco on exterior elevations
• Fins on front elevation
• Vertical windows on front upper elevation
5 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation,” March 2, 2022, 34 6 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation,” March 2, 2022, 36. 7 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation,” March 2, 2022, 35. 8 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Darrow Office Building, Beverly Hills, California, Impacts Analysis,” March 15, 2022, 5-6.
Figure 1: Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Blvd., north (left) and west (right) elevations, view southeast (Snow, 2023)
Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 4 • Ground level storefront/entry assemblies on front elevation • Band of windows under canopy on ground level of front and side elevations • Bank of louvers on upper level of side and rear elevations • Stairway on side elevation
• Brick wall along the side elevation
• Canted sliding doors with wood frame and glazing under louvers • Light court on party wall side of building
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes exterior rehabilitation of the existing 6,288 square foot office building and construction of a rooftop addition. The 15-foot high addition would increase the overall height of the building from 23-feet 9-inches to 38-feet, not including the additional height of the elevator tower, angled solar panels, or mechanical equipment enclosure, as shown on project drawings.
Additional work proposed includes complete reconfiguration of all interior spaces, demising walls, finishes, circulation elements, and entrances along the north and south elevations.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) were developed by the National Park Service initially in 1978 and revised in 1995. The Secretary’s Standards were initially developed to provide guidelines for review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and federal historic preservation tax credit applications but have been incorporated into CEQA regulations, as well as, in Beverly Hills, the HIP process. The Secretary’s Standards are the principal philosophical structure throughout the United States that provides a consistent framework and vocabulary for the field. The goals of the Secretary’s Standards are twofold: preservation of historic materials and preservation of a property’s “distinguishing character.” In the absence of guidance on conformance with the Secretary’s Standards specific to the City of Beverly Hills, it is typical to rely on guidance prepared by the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Service. The introduction to the Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Guidelines) state, “the Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation’s irreplaceable cultural resources.” In addition to the Guidelines, the National Park Service has Figure 2: Proposed project plans, Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Blvd., west elevation, view east (Belzberg Architects and Stephen Billings, Landscape Architecture 2023) Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 5 published considerable information and interpretation on the Secretary’s Standards, including 50 Preservation Briefs, 50 Tech Notes, and 56 Interpreting the Standards Bulletins, as well as an on-line guide to the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program entitled “Incentives!” that has detailed, illustrated sections on meeting the Secretary’s Standards.
The Secretary’s Standards define four treatments for historic buildings: Preservation, Restoration, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation. The treatment proposed for the Darrow Office Building is Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is “defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character.” The Rehabilitation Standards are:
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The National Park Service, throughout its guidance, consistently and unequivocally recommends against rooftop additions on two-story buildings as they will detract from the historic character of the building and will not meet the Secretary’s Standards. The Guidelines specifically do not recommend “constructing a rooftop addition that is highly visible, which negatively impacts the character of the Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 6 historic building.”9 In addition, the Guidelines state a “rooftop addition on low-rise, one- to threestory historic buildings that is highly visible, overwhelms the building.” The Interpreting the Standards Bulletin No. 47: Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings begins by stating, “the roofline is often an important character-defining feature of a historic building…Even a simple roofline defines a building’s character.” The bulletin goes on to state, “In most cases…they [rooftop additions] are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less.”
Finally, guidance from 1997 in a Technical Preservation Service “Rehabilitation Project Review,” states that “adding one or more floors to a two-or three-story building generally will change the massing of the building and result in a change of character.” If a rooftop addition is to be constructed, it needs to be “inconspicuous from the public-right-of-way and…not damage or obscure character defining features.”
Evaluation for conformance with the Secretary’s Standards Kaplan Chen Kaplan prepared an Impacts Analysis Report in March 2022 that concluded that the proposed project conforms with the Secretary’s Standards. However, in discussing the rooftop addition, which is the largest and most visually prominent feature of the proposed project, the Impacts Analysis Report does not conclude that it conforms with the Secretary’s Standards. Rather, the Impacts Analysis Report states, “The partial third story will alter the massing of the building but its design and materials work to minimize the visual effect or impact of the added partial story.” (emphasis added)10 Perhaps minimized, the massing will nevertheless be fundamentally altered by the rooftop addition.
A prominent third-floor addition on a two-story building cannot conform with the Secretary’s Standards, as is made abundantly clear in the guidance from the National Park Service quoted above.
The proposed rooftop addition would be highly visible from all elevations and surrounding areas along Santa Monica Boulevard, as well as Charleville Boulevard. In fact, the rooftop addition will likely be highly visible from Durant Drive, a block to the south.
The rooftop addition will, without a doubt, negatively impact the character of the building.
Specifically, as noted above, the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes are two of the most important character-defining features of the building’s design. The canopy between first and second floors, with horizontal ribbon windows pressing up against it, provides a strong horizontal axis.
Horizontality is reinforced by metal louvers along west and south elevations. Even the simple cornice and parapet contribute to the overall horizontal massing and help to define the building’s character. The proposed project would overwhelm the historic building and would shift the horizontal massing to a more vertical massing. Specifically, the primary Santa Monica Boulevard facing façade would transform from a horizontal orientation to a vertical. As noted above, the change in massing would result in a change in character, not at all in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards.
While the HIP does not require “strict compliance” with the Secretary’s Standards, it does require that a project “preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features.” The 9 Ann E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Building, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2017), 159-160. 10 Kaplan Chen Kaplan, “9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Darrow Office Building, Beverly Hills, California, Impacts Analysis,” March 15, 2022, 13.
Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 7 proposed rooftop addition certainly does not preserve the most important character-defining features of the Darrow Office Building – the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA defines a historical resource as:
a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant (California Public Resources Code, PRC §21084.1).
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a project would result in a significant impact to historical resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. A substantial adverse change is defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(4)(b)(1), as “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.” The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired, according to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(4)(b)(2), when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to §5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of §5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.11
A substantial adverse change occurs when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner a resource’s character-defining features. In other words, if a project would render an eligible historic resource ineligible, then there would be a significant adverse effect under CEQA.
CEQA Guidelines specify that a project “shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource” if it follows the Secretary’s Standards (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b)(3)). Compliance with the Secretary’s Standards indicates that a project may have a less than significant impact on an historical resource.
As the Darrow Office Building is eligible for listing in the National and California Registers, it is a historical resource as defined by CEQA. As described previously, the proposed project will significantly alter character defining features of the building, specifically the horizontal massing and bold geometric volumes and does not conform with the Secretary’s Standards. As a result, construction 11 CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(4)(b)(2). Emphasis added.
Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 8 of the rooftop addition would render this historical resource ineligible for listing in either the National or California Registers. Therefore, the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and would result in a significant impact.
Conclusion
I commend the City of Beverly Hills for encouraging rehabilitation of historic buildings through a historic incentive permit. However, this is not the right project to employ the incentive as the proposed project does not conform with the Secretary’s Standards. The Darrow Office Building has a truly unique architectural design. It retains a remarkably high degree of integrity and the exterior looks nearly identical to how it appeared when it was constructed in 1946. By adding a rooftop addition, the horizontal massing of the building would change to a more vertical orientation and the low height of the building would increase over 60%. The rooftop addition would overwhelm the building. Not only does the proposed project not meet the requirements of a HIP, but it would also materially alter character-defining features such that the proposed project would result in a significant impact under CEQA.
523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Imagining change in historic environments through
design, research, and technology
MEMORANDUM
DATE November 20, 2023 PROJECT
NUMBER
23292
TO Victor De la Cruz
Partner
PROJECT 9884 South Santa Monica
Boulevard, Beverly Hills
OF Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
FROM Flora Chou, Project Manager
Stephanie Hodal, Cultural
Resources Planner
CC John Lesak, Principal, Page &
Turnbull
VIA Email
REGARDING Professional opinion on SOI Standards compliance of proposed project at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building), Beverly Hills
INTRODUCTION
At the request of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Page & Turnbull (P&T) reviewed the project proposed by Impact Real Estate Group at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, in Beverly Hills, California (Assessor Parcel Number 4328-003-001). The project is applying for the Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit Program, which requires findings be made that the project complies with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” (SOI Standards and SOI Guidelines), or if it does not strictly comply, that the project “protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property” (Beverly Hills City Code, 10-3-3256).
The project proposes to rehabilitate the exterior of the existing two-story, 1946 commercial office building, also known as the Darrow Office Building, reconfigure the interior, and construct a new third story addition. P&T generally concurs with the Attachment E: Impacts Analysis report prepared by Kaplan Chen Kaplan in March 2022 for the project applicant that the exterior rehabilitation substantially complies with the SOI Standards and SOI Guidelines (see Methodology for report reference). However, in our professional opinion, the proposed 15-foot high rooftop addition with its projecting roof does not comply with the SOI Guidelines and other guidance for applying and interpreting the SOI Standards for rooftop additions.
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]
PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Background
The 6,000-square-foot rectangular parcel at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard is located on the south side of Santa Monica Boulevard between Charleville Boulevard to the west and Lasky Drive to the east. On the parcel is a 6,288-square-foot two-story commercial office building, also known as the Darrow Building, with a rear surface parking lot. According to a Historic Resource Evaluation report by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, on behalf of the proposed project applicant, the building was designed in a Late Modern/Mid-Century Modern style for owner John Darrow by Modernist architect John Lautner. The original building permit from 1946 lists Douglas Honnold as the architect, though the design is attributed to Lautner who was part of the design team in Honnold’s office at the time.
Both architects are on the City of Beverly Hills List of Master Architects.
The City of Beverly Hills 2004 Historic Resources Survey found the property to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) under Criterion C as “an important and extremely rare example of a commercial building designed by renowned Modernist architect John Lautner.” A subsequent 2022 Historic Resource Evaluation report by Kaplan Chen Kaplan, on behalf of the proposed project applicant, found the property is also eligible for the Beverly Hills Local Register of Historic Properties. The property owner has initiated a Beverly Hills Historic Landmark nomination based on the property’s significance as a Late Modern/Mid-Century Modern design by Modernist architect John Lautner. The Cultural Heritage Commission held a preliminary hearing on April 13, 2022 and determined the nomination merits formal consideration as a landmark, though City Council approval of the designation is pending. However, the Cultural Heritage Commission considered only the Darrow Building in its existing form for landmark nomination. It did not consider the proposed project, including the proposed third story addition.
The City of Beverly Hills offers a Historic Incentive Permit Program for properties designated as a local landmark. To be eligible for the program the following findings must be made:
1. The proposed project either:
a. Complies with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” or
b. Does not demonstrate strict compliance with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” but nonetheless 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]
PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property.
A description of the proposed rooftop addition and the Darrow Building’s character-defining features are provided at the end of this memorandum after the Methodology.
Basis of Review
The SOI Standards are federally recognized standards for treating historic resources. In applying and interpreting the SOI Standards, practitioners rely on guidance from the National Park Service’s Technical Preservation Service, including Guidelines to Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, as well as National Park Service Preservation Briefs and Bulletins.
Some of these address rooftop additions, specifically:
• Guidelines to Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, specifically do not recommend highly visible rooftop additions, and additions that negatively impact the character of the historic building. The Guidelines also state that “rooftop addition[s] on low-rise, one- to three-story historic buildings” are not recommended, nor are additions that visually overwhelm the building.
• National Park Service Preservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:
Preservation Concerns, addresses additions generally by stating that any new addition to a historic building “should preserve its historic character,” that additions should “be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the building,” and cautions that “a new addition to a historic building has the potential to change its historic character as well as to damage and destroy significant historic materials and features.” It goes on to state that “[a] new addition should always be subordinate to the historic building; it should not compete in size, scale or design with the historic building." Finally, it warns that additions that overpower the historic form and change the scale will usually compromise the historic character of the building. In regard to rooftop additions specifically, Preservation Brief 14 states: “It is difficult, if not impossible, to minimize the impact of adding an entire new floor to relatively low buildings, such as small-scale residential or commercial structures, even if the new addition is set back from the plane of the façade. Constructing another floor on top of a small one, two or three-story building is seldom appropriate for buildings of this size as it would measurably alter the building’s proportions and profile, and negatively impact its historic character.”
• National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 36, Rooftop Additions, states that rooftop additions are almost never appropriate for buildings that are less than four stories high, should not be more than one story in height, and are more compatible on buildings that are adjacent to taller buildings or in dense urban environments. According to ITS Number 36, rooftop additions that do not meet these principles generally will not meet the SOI Standards.
9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]
PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 • National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 47, Rooftop Additions on Mid-Size Historic Buildings, states that in most cases, rooftop additions are not appropriate for buildings consisting of three stories or less, and reiterate that the roofline is an important, character-defining feature of a historic building.
SOI Standards Compliance Discussion
The proposed project adds a 1,404-square-foot addition to the roof of the two-story Darrow Building. In its current state, the character defining features that have been identified for the Darrow Building include its sculptural and geometric massing (see Character-Defining Features section). As more fully discussed below, not only does the proposed addition adversely impact this character defining feature and the architectural qualities of the Darrow Building, it fails to conform with the SOI Standards.
According to the above referenced guidance documents, rooftop additions on buildings under three stories are not appropriate. They can measurably alter the building’s proportions and profile, as stated in Preservation Brief 14, which is the case with the proposed rooftop addition. With its prominent projecting roof that extends almost to the edge of the existing roof on all three visible sides (north, west, and south), the proposed rooftop addition not only alters the building’s proportions and profile, but it also changes the historic building’s sculptural and geometric massing that is a character-defining feature. It creates a new sculptural massing that competes with the historic building, rather than be subordinate or secondary, as is recommended by the SOI Guidelines. The projecting roof is highly visible from the public rights-of-way on South Santa Monica Boulevard and Charleville Boulevard, which is not in line with the SOI Guidelines, Preservation Brief 14, and ITS Number 36 guidance, and is visually overwhelming in its size, shape, and use of wood finish on the underside of the canopy.
Further, even if the Darrow Building were greater than three stories, such that a rooftop addition could possibly be appropriate, rooftop additions should nonetheless be no more than one-story in height. While the proposed rooftop addition is technically one-story, its height is actually akin to one and one half stories since it is approximately 15 feet tall to the top of the addition’s roof, not including additional features, such as the elevator shaft, solar panels, and other mechanical equipment. This is significantly taller than the floor heights of the Darrow Building, which are approximately 10 feet each. The height of the proposed rooftop addition further adds to the visibility of its projecting roof and its impact on the Darrow Building’s character-defining sculptural and geometric massing that is contrary to the provided guidance. 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]
PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Because the proposed rooftop addition does not follow the guidance for applying the SOI Standards, the proposed project does not comply with Standard 9 of the Rehabilitation Standards that addresses additions and exterior alterations. The projecting roof of the proposed rooftop addition is not compatible with the Darrow Building in size, scale, or proportion. It would be highly visible and would alter the Darrow Building’s spatial relationships and its overall historic character.
As designed and shown in the proposed elevations and renderings in Attachment H: Project Plans, the proposed rooftop addition with its projecting roof would not comply with Rehabilitation Standard 9, the SOI Guidelines, or other guidance on applying and interpreting the SOI Standards.
Compliance with the Historic Incentive Permit Program Requirement As the proposed project does not comply with the SOI Standards, it could still be possibly eligible for the Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit Program if it “nonetheless protects and preserves the historic and architectural qualities and the character defining features that make the property a landmark or contributing property.”
However, here, the proposed rooftop addition with its projecting roof does not preserve the building’s architectural qualities that would make it eligible for landmark designation. The proposed addition alters the proportions, profile, and sculptural composition of John Lautner’s design. In its prominence and high visibility, the proposed rooftop addition with its projecting roof reshapes the building form in a way that detracts from John Lautner’s design, as well as from its sculptural and geometric massing that is a defining characteristic.
Methodology
Page & Turnbull prepared this memorandum using information from the City of Beverly Hills Planning Division, Planning Commission Report for 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, issued on July 13, 2023 (Planning Commission Report), including the documents attached to the report, particularly:
• Attachment B: City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission, Draft Resolution for Conditional Approval of a Historic Incentive Permit for the Rehabilitation at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, July 13, 2023 (Attachment B: Draft Resolution); • Attachment D: Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Historic Resource Evaluation, March 2, 2022 (Attachment D: Historic Resource Evaluation); 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]
PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 • Attachment E: Kaplan Chen Kaplan, 9884 Santa Monica Boulevard Darrow Office Building Beverly Hills, California, Impacts Analysis, March 15, 2022 (Attachment E: Impacts Analysis); • Attachment F: City of Beverly Hills Cultural Heritage Commission Staff Reports, April 13, 2022 (collectively Attachment F: CHC Staff Reports)
o Landmark Initiation, April 13, 2022 (Attachment F: Landmark Initiation) o Preliminary Hearing, April 13, 2022 (Attachment F: Preliminary Hearing) o Attachment A of the April 13, 2022 CHC Staff Report: Preliminary Evaluation completed by the Director of Community Development/Landmark Designation Proceedings Preliminary Evaluation, April 13, 2022 (Attachment F: Preliminary Evaluation)
• Attachment H: Project plans for the proposed project by Belzberg Architects dated April 27, 2023 (Attachment H: Project Plans).
In addition, the memorandum relies on guidance from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, for additions to buildings and additions to rooftops, including:
• Anne E. Grimmer, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Technical Preservation Services, Washington, D.C.: 2017), https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines2017.pdf. • Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, “Preservation Brief 14, New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns,” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services, last modified August 2010, www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/preservation-brief-14-exterior-additions.pdf • “Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, ITS Number 36:
Rooftop Additions,” National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Preservation Services, last modified June 2006, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/upload/its36-rooftop-additions.pdf Page & Turnbull staff conducted a site visit to 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard on October 29, 2023.
Proposed Rooftop Addition Description
Based on Attachment H: Project Plans, supplemented by information from Attachment B: Draft Resolution, and Attachment E: Impacts Analysis (see Methdology), the project proposes construction of a new 1,404-square-foot partial third floor, rooftop addition. This would increase the existing height of the building by approximately 15’-3”, from a height of 23’-9” to a proposed height of 38’-0”. 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]
PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 The proposed addition has an irregular floor plan that is set back from the north (front) and west (side) roof edges.1 It aligns with the roof edge at the southeast corner, though it is set back from the south (rear) angled projecting section of wall and is also set back from the east party wall for the north half of the roof.
The addition, housing a conference room, office, and elevator lobby and lounge, would comprise a large predominantly glazed room, including fixed windows and sliding doors. The southeast corner, with a stair, elevator, restroom, and closet, appears to be clad with a solid material that is not described at the south façade. The rooftop surrounding the new addition is to be resurfaced and partially landscaped as an outdoor terrace surrounded by a safety railing (shown as horizontal rails or cables on the elevations and as glass in the renderings) at the roof’s north (front), west (side), and south (rear) perimeter.
The roof of the addition projects beyond the wall enclosures to shade the full roof terrace and extends close to (north), at (west) or beyond (south) the existing roof edge. It is positioned flush to the east party wall. The solid roof plane becomes open slats at its northeast and southwest corners, and an open void above the reconfigured east side interior light court/courtyard. The underside of the projecting roof appears to be finished in wood.
The elevations in Attachment H: Project Plans show an additional 1 foot, 6 inch vertical plane or soffit above the edge of the projecting roof, noted as the top of structure. At the west, Charleville Boulevard side of the building, solar panels are to be mounted vertically on the projecting roof.
Character-Defining Features | Darrow Building
For a property to be eligible for national, state, or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity.
Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials.
1 The memorandum uses the directions (north, west, etc.) from the Planning Commission Report, which are consistent with Attachment E: Impacts Analysis. Because the property is at an angle from due north, the directions for the building’s elevations used in Attachment H: Project Plans are different. The north (front) façade is labeled as the west elevation, the west (side) façade is labeled as the south elevation, and the south (rear) façade is labeled as the east elevation. 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard (Darrow Building) | Professional Opinion [23292]
PAGE & TURNBULL 523 WEST 6TH STREET, SUITE 1013 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90014 TEL 213-221-1200 Because the landmark designation process has not concluded, no definitive character-defining features list is available. Attachment E: Impacts Analysis provides a list of character-defining features for the Darrow Building that was used for this review:
• Sculptural and geometric massing of building’s three visible elevations • Brick and stucco on exterior elevations
• Fins on front elevation
• Vertical windows on front upper elevation
• Ground level storefront/entry assemblies on front elevation2 • Band of windows under canopy on ground level of front and side elevations • Bank of louvers on upper level of side and rear elevations • Stairway on side elevation
• Brick wall along the side elevation
• Canted sliding doors with wood frame and glazing under louvers • Light court on party wall side of building
2 An historic photograph in the Attachment D: Historic Resource Evaluation shows that this part of the ground floor façade was originally stepped back and that the second-floor fins continued to the ground in this area. The extant storefront/entry assembly is a non-original alteration.
EXHIBIT D
Jenna Snow ● Historic Preservation Consulting ● 323/317-3297 ● [email protected] Memorandum
DATE: January 22, 2024
TO: Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2049 Century Park East Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
FROM: Jenna Snow
RE: 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard
Darrow Office Building, Beverly Hills, CA
In October 2023, I prepared a memorandum describing how the proposed rooftop addition to the Darrow Office Building, located at 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, does not conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards). The Darrow Office Building has a truly unique architectural design and retains a remarkably high degree of integrity. By constructing a highly visible rooftop addition, the horizontal massing of the building would change to a more vertical orientation and the low height of the building would increase over 60%. The rooftop addition would overwhelm the building and does not conform with the Secretary’s Standards.
You have asked me to review a response to my earlier memorandum, prepared by Pam O’Connor, Senior Historian at Kaplan Chen Kaplan (KCK), dated November 28, 2023. The basic assumption of KCK November 2023 memo is that “the proposed project is for an addition to a building.” Actually, the proposed project also includes rehabilitation of the building’s exterior, complete reconfiguration of all interior spaces, demising walls, finishes, circulation elements, and entrances along the north and south elevations. The reason the project is seeking a City of Beverly Hills Historic Incentive Permit (HIP) is to allow for the project to deviate from the minimum dimensions required for trash storage and on-site loading space requirements. In asserting that the proposed project consists only of an addition to the Darrow Office Building, she presupposes that an addition in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards must be possible somewhere on site. As noted in guidance provided by the National Park Service on interpreting the Secretary’s Standards, their publication Interpreting the Standards (ITS) Number 36: Rooftop Additions states, “not all historic buildings can be enlarged in a manner that is consistent with the Standards, whether for reasons of size, siting, or location within a district.”
The November 2023 KCK memo correctly notes the unique “Expressionist design” of the building (see page 2). In their 2022 Historic Resource Evaluation, KCK identifies the building’s horizontal massing, bold geometric volumes, and sculptural design. Because of its unique architecture, as well as its two-story height, the Darrow Office Building is an example of a building that cannot be enlarged in a manner consistent with the Secretary’s Standards.
Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 2 The November 2023 KCK memo dismisses guidance on the Secretary’s Standards for rooftop additions by stating, “the Standards are explicit in that they provide guidance and recognize that there can be ‘exceptions and rare instance’” (see page 6). Because the entire November 2023 KCK memo presupposes that an addition in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards must be possible somewhere on site, the evaluation of the proposed project included in that memo misses the forest for the trees. It is true that individual components of the building will be retained, such as the existing roofline and louvers, but at the expense of the overall sculptural character and Expressionist design.
The reason that the National Park Service, throughout its guidance on rooftop additions, consistently and unequivocally recommends against them on two-story buildings is that they will detract from the historic character of the building. It is abundantly clear from the proposed project plans above that the rooftop addition will be highly visible and will negatively impact the unique sculptural character of the historic building.
KCK’s November 2023 memo states that the only possible location for an addition, due to the character-defining features located on three elevations, would be the roof. However, there is no documentation that a detached addition at or below grade on the existing surface parking lot south of the building would be infeasible, with required parking and loading below grade. Such a location for an addition should be studied before destroying the unique design of the Darrow Office Building.
Figure 1: Proposed project plans, Darrow Office Building, 9884 South Santa Monica Blvd., west elevation, view east (Belzberg Architects and Stephen Billings, Landscape Architecture 2023) ATTACHMENT 9
Applicant’s
Project Conditions Letter
(January 23, 2024)
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
January 23, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor Gold and City Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 9884 S. Santa Monica Blvd – Response to Appellant’s January 22 Letter Honorable Mayor Gold, Vice Mayor Friedman, and City Councilmembers:
We write to respond to the lengthy letter The Belvedere Hotel Partnership submitted late yesterday afternoon.
It is unfortunate that Belvedere believes it proper to disclose confidential settlement communications. It is even more disappointing that Belvedere misstates those confidential discussions. To be clear, Belvedere demanded three things from our client and stated that absent any one of them it would continue to oppose the Project. 1 First, Belvedere insisted on a contractual right to Impact’s real property through either a right of first refusal or right of first offer if the property was ever to be sold. Second, Belvedere sought a commitment never to landmark the building. Third, Belvedere demanded burdensome and overreaching limits on the use of a 945 square foot outdoor patio that fronts on South Santa Monica Boulevard and unworkable construction conditions.
Belvedere now maligns Impact’s efforts to address Belvedere’s concerns regarding having a landmarked building on “its block.” As our January 22 letter made clear, this alternative path for approving the off-street loading area was only offered in response to Belvedere’s concerns. The alternative is for the City to deny the appeals.
Impact bought the property in 2020. Belvedere could have bought the building.
Belvedere did not and now appears to regret not doing so. Instead, Belvedere abuses the City’s administrative process to try to secure rights in the property. The City Council must reject these gross tactics and Belvedere’s efforts to delay this matter further. 1 We understand that Belvedere told members of the City family the same.
January 23, 2024