WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The Municipal League of Beverly Hills
likely to build a large percentage of affordable apartments so they would not be seeking large density bonuses.
This project has 56 units and only 6 of them or 11% of them are for very low income tenants.
According to Govt. Code §65915(f)(2) the density bonus is 35%.
A 35% density bonus increases a 3 story mixed use project by one story or actually 1.05 % of a story, to a 4 story building.
So how was this developer able to concoct a density bonus which entitled him to build a 7 story plus rooftop building instead of the 4 story building? First, there was not accurate direction from our planning department which does not even have updated density bonus application forms for the 2020 mixed use ordinance. In fact, our planning department is using a form from 2004 which is based on B.H.M.C. §10-3-1204, a code section which was repealed in 1997.
The builder’s convoluted calculation of the state density bonus has to do with the builder’s confusing inapplicable density concepts and ignoring unit sizes when advantageous.
As stated, for the initial allowed density or base density to which a density bonus is added, the builder should have used the FAR density of 2 stories of units on top of 1 story of commercial in a 3 story mixed use zone.
Instead the builder cited BHMC §10-3-1881 which provides that a mixed use development cannot have more units than the site area divided by 550 sf. Since the lot size is 20,655 sf, the builder divided that lot size by 550 sf and concluded that the “base density” was 38 units.
But the base density is not 38 units because a builder is not limited to building 38 units and in fact could build 2 floors having 38 units each, for a total of 76 units, without having to request a state density bonus, provided the units would be 550 sf each.
BHMC §10-3-1881, sited by the developer was not titled “base density for mixed use projects”. However it was titled “Residential Density”, which aided the developer’s erroneous application of this code section to his project even though the project contains no 550 sf units and section headings do not govern the meaning or intent of code sections per BHMC §1-1-8.
In fact the section was intended to prevent a high density of very small units in a project.
There were several other problems with the developer’s “base density” claim.
First, he did not indicate that he was entitled to build 38 550 sf units. Instead he concluded that he could build 38 units of whatever sizes he had chosen, which were all much larger than 550 sf units, the average unit size being 1,315 sf.
If he wanted to build 38 units which averaged 1,750 sf each (the maximum average square footage for units), that would amount to 66,500 sf, well over three stories of units, when the developer was only entitled to build two stories of units in the three story mixed use zone.
So a measure of 38 units without any size limitation, could not be used for “base density” which was actually a 3 stories 45’ FAR.
If the builder wanted to build 38 550 sf units on each of the two floors or 76 units, and only 6 of them would be for very low income tenants, the project could not even be built in Beverly Hills because it would have included less than 10% affordable units.
Once the developer magically and inaccurately came up with a “base density” of 38 units, he chose to lose the 550 sf size limitation for such units.
Next, the developer ignored that he wanted to build 56 units of various sizes, having an average size of 1,315 sf, and contended that since he would be building 6 very low income units that he could compare those 6 units to 38 units of sizes much larger than 550 sf—instead comparing the 6 units to 56 units of sizes much larger than 550 sf. The result was an inflated percentage of 16% very low income units instead of the actual 11% of very low income units.
The developer’s cockamamy use of an incorrect low number of units, 38, resulting in the incorrect percentage of 16% very low income apartments, also resulted in an inaccurate 50% density bonus instead of the 35% density bonus to which the developer was entitled.
Continuing with the developer’s nonsensical calculation, after he claimed that he was entitled to build 38 units not limited to 550 sf, and that he was entitled to a 50% density bonus, he claimed that he could take 50% of 38 units of whatever sizes, and add 19 units of whatever sizes to the project, for a total of 57 units of whatever sizes, so he could build 56 units, again not limited to the 550 sf units upon which his calculation had been based upon.
Next, the developer claimed he was entitled to a waiver of the 3 story height limitation and that he could add another 4 stories plus roof top development to the allowed 3 stories, so he could build 56 units having much greater sizes than 550 sf.
A waiver must be granted if necessary for the developer to utilize his state density bonus.
However in this case the density bonus was grossly and irrationally miscalculated and therefore the requested waiver should not have been granted. Further, what the developer was actually asking for was a waiver of the allowed base density.
The planning commissioners did not want to approve the project as proposed, and since it had been briefly explained to them that given the small 11% of very low income units, the state density bonus had been miscalculated, the chair and the vice-chair questioned staff and the assistant city attorney about whether the state density bonus had been correctly calculated.
However, Assistant City Attorney Snow claimed the the density bonus had been correctly calculated, and planner Masa Alkire who recently stated at a council meeting that density bonuses will usually add only one story to a project, also claimed to the planning commissioners that the state density bonus adding 4 stories plus rooftop development had been correctly calculated. Assistant City Attorney Snow also explained to the planning commissioners that they were required by law to waive the 3 story height limit so the claimed density bonus could be utilized.
This is a complicated issue and a hearing should be set to assure and require that the state density bonus law is followed and that the state density bonus is correctly calculated and enforced.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Re: Agenda Item SS A-4
Honorable Mayor Dr. Gold, Vice Mayor Friedman, and Councilmembers, I am unable to attend the meeting in person but I live just three short blocks from the proposed project and walk my dog down Maple and back to Palm via the alley daily so am quite familiar with the impact it will have on the neighborhood.
I respectfully request that you set it for a new hearing. Many residents who live in the immediate area of this project have been deeply concerned about this project but may not even know that any decision or action is before you today.
Thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns.
Sincerely,
Sonia Berman
From: doheny cleaners
To: City Clerk
Subject: Stop 9229 Wilshire
Date: Tuesday, February 20, 2024 10:22:57 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Sent from my iPhone
My name is Eric Lavi. I live at . I oppose having a large 7 story built right by my street Thanks
Eric Lavi =
From: mshaheedymd
To: City Clerk
Subject: Maple/buiding
Date: Monday, February 19, 2024 6:59:23 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
As a Beverly Hills resident; I am unhappy with the planning commission approval of the massive building in a 3 story zone , which will bring traffic and parking problems to our R/1 residential area . Therefore we the resident s of Beverly Hills think this matter should be reviewed . Thank your consideration.
Sent from my iPhone=