Accordingly, the Project relies on the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.5) (“HAA”) which prohibits the City from using its objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing development project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5).
Submission of DPR Application, First Incomplete Letter, and Applicant’s Response The Applicant submitted the Project’s DPR Application on April 24, 2023, which was within the six-month statutory time period required by Government Code Section 65941.1(d) to maintain the vested rights conferred by the HCA Preliminary Application. On May 12, 2023, the City issued a letter deeming the DPR Application incomplete (the “First Incomplete Letter”). The City’s First Incomplete Letter rejected the entire legal premise that the Project may proceed under the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA, and instead instructed the Applicant to pursue a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to cure areas where the Project does not comply with current zoning. The City also claimed that the HCA Preliminary Application was of no further force or effect because the DPR Project was allegedly “substantially different” from the Project as described in the HCA Preliminary Application, purportedly because the DPR Project includes commercial uses which were not initially described in the HCA Preliminary Application.
On August 9, 2023, the Applicant submitted a formal written response to the First Incomplete Letter (“Response to First Incomplete Letter”), which included detailed written responses to each of the First Incomplete Letter’s 38 comments as well as attachments addressing the specific information identified as outstanding by the First Incomplete Letter. The letter refuted the First Incomplete Letter’s assertions that 1) the Project’s right to HCA vesting have been lost due a change in the Project’s uses, and 2) that additional entitlement approvals, including a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, are required to allow the Project to be approved. The Response to First Incomplete Letter was sent to the City within 90 days of the date of the First Incomplete Letter, in conformance with Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2), and was sent to the Project’s assigned planner at the City via email, which is consistent with the method of communication and transmittal of application materials used for all other Project-related correspondence between the City and this firm.
Pursuant to the HCA, the Applicant expected to receive a response regarding the DPR Application’s completeness from the City within 30 days, or on or before Friday, September 8, 2023. No such response was provided by the City by that date, and therefore this firm sent additional correspondence to the City on September 15, 2023 (“Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter”), again via email, advising the City that because no response to the Response to First Incomplete Letter or additional requests for application items had been timely received, the Project was therefore considered “deemed complete” in accordance with HCA and the PSA. The City responded to the Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter on September 18, 2023, via email, stating that they never received the Response to First Incomplete Letter due to an issue with the City’s email security filter system.
Notwithstanding that the Response to First Incomplete Letter was in fact timely transmitted to the City requirements; therefore, revisions to the element continue to be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.”
See also “HCD Letter of Technical Assistance Letter” to Rand Paster & Nelson LLP, dated October 5, 2022.
Edgar Arroyo
May 9, 2024
on August 9, 2023, within the 90-day timeframe prescribed by Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2), and notwithstanding the fact that prior and subsequent email correspondence between this firm and the City was timely received by the City, the Applicant agreed to provide the City with a new 30-day period from September 15, 2023 (the date of the Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter transmittal) to review the materials originally transmitted on August 9, 2023 as part of the Response to First Incomplete Letter.
Second Incomplete Letter, Applicant’s Response, and Appeal On October 13, 2023, the City issued a second letter, stating that the DPR Application had again been deemed incomplete (“Second Incomplete Letter”). On January 10, 2024, the Applicant submitted a formal written response to the Second Incomplete Letter (“Response to Second Incomplete Letter”), which included detailed written responses to each of the Second Incomplete Letter’s comments as well as attachments addressing the specific information identified as outstanding by the Second Incomplete Letter.
In light of the City’s repeated rejection of the DPR Application and the ongoing disagreement between the Applicant and the City about how to process the Builder’s Remedy aspect of the Project, it became clear that the parties have reached an irreconcilable impasse. After the Applicant’s multiple attempts to explain and clarify how the Builder’s Remedy provision applies to this Project and why local zoning rules are suspended given the lack of a substantially complaint Housing Element, it was abundantly clear the City refused to follow State law. As such, the Applicant exercised its right to file an appeal of the City’s incompleteness determination in accordance with the procedure established by Government Code Section 65943(c). The appeal again requests that the City recognize the continued validity of the HCA Preliminary Application and continue to process the DPR Application as a Builder’s Remedy project under the provisions of the HAA, without the need for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change and without the need for compliance with the general plan or zoning code. The appeal was sent to the City via email on November 13, 2023 and the City responded to confirm the necessary filing fees and physical submittal requirements on November 20, 2023. The Applicant paid the required appeal fee to the City on January 11, 2024. On February 6, 2024, the City originally scheduled the appeal to be heard by the City Council on March 11, 2024. On March 11, 2024, the appeal hearing was continued to April 16, 2024 by mutual agreement between the City and the Applicant. On April 16, 2024, the hearing date was again continued to May 21, 2024 by mutual agreement of the City and the Applicant.
Third Incomplete Letter
On February 9, 2024, the City issued the Third Incomplete Letter. The Third Incomplete Letter makes substantially the same arguments made in the First and Second Incomplete Letters, with some additions. The Applicant’s responses follow.
The Preliminary Application Remains Valid
First, the City reiterates the argument that the HCA Preliminary Application is no longer valid because the DPR Project was “substantially different” from the Project as described in the HCA Preliminary Application. The City’s claim that the HCA Preliminary Application and its vesting protections are no longer in effect because new land uses were introduced for the DPR Project is without merit, as Edgar Arroyo
May 9, 2024
the language of Government Code Section 65941.1(a)(4) is not relevant to any determination regarding a loss of vesting. Instead, the solely relevant statutory language regarding changes to a project description contained in a HCA Preliminary Application that forfeit vested rights is provided by Government Code Section 65941.1(c), which states:
After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the revisions. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).2F
3 The Project submitted with the HCA Preliminary Application consisted of a residential project that included 200 dwelling units within a 259,547 square foot, 16-story building. The DPR Project consists of a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel and hotel restaurant within a 311,197 square foot, 19-story building. The number of residential units was reduced from 200 in the HCA Preliminary Application to 165 in the DPR Project (a 17.5 percent decrease), and the square footage of construction was increased from 259,547 square feet in the HCA Preliminary Application to 311,197 square feet in the DPR Project (a 19.9 percent increase). These revisions are within the 20 percent threshold set forth in Government Code Section 65941.1, and do not require the Applicant to resubmit information required by Section 65941.1(a). Therefore, the vesting protections established by the HCA Preliminary Application continue to apply to the Project.
The City also reiterates its position that the Applicant is only provided with one 90-day time period during which the Applicant must respond perfectly to all of the items in the city’s incomplete letter in order to maintain vested rights. This is a misreading of state law. First of all, Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2) does not say that the Applicant only gets one 90-day period within which to resubmit a complete application. It only states that resubmittals must be made within 90 days of receiving an incomplete letter. Furthermore, the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) clearly establishes an iterative process whereby the applicant submits the application, the City responds within 30 days, and then the applicant can resubmit, followed by another 30-day review by the City, and so on. (Government Code Section 65943(a) and (b).) What Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2) adds is a time period in which the applicant must resubmit a revised application in response to an incomplete letter from the City - namely, 90 days. Section 65941.1(d)(2) is part of the PSA, and should therefore be read and interpreted in a way that harmonizes that Section with the broader review procedures outlined in the PSA, including the iterative process described above. In light of Section 65943(a) and (b) and the broader context of the PSA, Section 65941.1(d)(2) should be interpreted as limiting the time that the Applicant has to respond to an incomplete letter to 90 days, but not as limiting the amount of resubmittals that the Applicant can make. In other words, the applicant has 90 days to resubmit each time they resubmit, but they can resubmit as many time as necessary. 3 Government Code Section 65941.1(c) (emphasis added).
Edgar Arroyo
May 9, 2024
Applicant Is Not Required to File Applications for Legislative Approvals Second, the Third Incomplete Letter states that, notwithstanding the clear applicability of the Builder’s Remedy, the Applicant must still file applications for discretionary legislative approvals that the City is legally prohibited from requiring for the Project:
The City continues to disagree with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 incomplete letter, as provided below. The City continues to maintain that it has the authority to require the applications to be filed and processed as part of an overall project, even if, assuming arguendo, that it may be constrained by state law in its ability to deny a project on consistency bases.3F
4 Under the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA, if a jurisdiction lacks a substantially compliant Housing Element, it cannot use its objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing development project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5). The City’s insistence that a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application are required is incorrect given this state law standard, as the Project is not legally required to show conformance with the general plan or zoning per the HAA which controls over and supersedes the City’s local land use regulations.
The City also cites the need to ensure that “the due process rights of surrounding property owners are respected” as a reason to require General Plan Amendment and Zone Change entitlement applications. The Project’s DPR Application provides a clear and publicly noticed process through which surrounding property owners can be informed or engaged in the process, so this is not a valid reason to require additional entitlements.
Furthermore, requiring the Applicant to submit a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change in order to deem the DPR Application complete violates the Permit Streamlining Act because a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change are not included on the City’s list of requirements for a complete application. Government Code Section 65940(a)(1) requires each public agency to “compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project.” Pursuant to Government Code Section 65941(a), “The information compiled pursuant to Section 65940 shall also indicate the criteria which the agency will apply in order to determine the completeness of any application submitted to it for a development project.” In accordance with Government Code Section 65943(a), “Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the development project. If the application is determined to be incomplete, the lead agency shall provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete. That list shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency's submittal requirement checklist.” (Emphasis added.) Here, the City has listed the requirements for submitting a complete DPR Application in the document entitled “Development Plan Review Planning Review Application.” Section 5 of that document is entitled “Submittal Requirements & Checklist.” There is no item in the Submittal 4 Third Incomplete Letter, p. 4.
Edgar Arroyo
May 9, 2024
Requirements & Checklist requiring the Applicant to file either a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change in order to have the DPR Application deemed complete for projects that do not comply with General Plan and zoning code standards. Consequently, by requiring the Applicant to apply for these amendments as a condition of deeming the DPR Application complete, the City is violating the PSA.
Lastly, the fact that HAA challenges must be filed under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 indicates that Builder’s Remedy applicants cannot be required to request a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change. The HAA contemplates that when a housing project is disapproved, it will be disapproved following an evidentiary, quasi-judicial hearing. Consequently, Government Code Section 65589.5(m)(1) requires that “Any action brought to enforce the provisions of [the HAA] shall be brought pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” Section 1094.5 is the “administrative mandamus” procedure, and can only be used to challenge a “final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer.”4F
5 In other words, Section 1094.5 is the appropriate legal procedure for reviewing the outcome of an evidentiary hearing. If Builder’s Remedy applicants are required to file for General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes - which are legislative actions5F 6 - then the denial of their project could
take the form of a legislative decision - namely, the denial of the General Plan Amendment and/or Zone Change - rather than a quasi-judicial decision following an evidentiary hearing. But challenges to legislative actions are brought under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085, not Section 1094.5. 6F 7 Consequently, in the event a Builder’s Remedy project was disapproved through the denial of a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, the applicant would be in the odd or even legally contradictory position of having to file a Section 1094.5 writ to challenge a legislative action or having to file a Section 1085 writ to enforce the HAA. This contradictory and, in fact, legally impermissible result indicates that it was never the Legislature’s intent that a Builder’s Remedy applicant would be required to request legislative approvals as part of a Builder’s Remedy project application.
Parking
In previous response letters for this Project, we have argued the Project is not required to replace parking for the adjacent office building, which currently uses the existing parking located on the Project site. These arguments are stated in detail in Section 13 of the Response to Comments in Attachment B to the letter. Although we continue to maintain that the Project is not required to provide replacement parking for the adjacent office building, the Applicant also continues to reserve the right to request a concession under Government Code Section 65915 to eliminate any required replacement parking for the office building on the Project site, which the Applicant would be entitled to on account of the fact that the Project reserves 20% of its units for low-income households. 5 Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5(a). 6
“[T]he rezoning of land is a legislative act.” Snowball W. Invs. L.P. v. City of Los Angeles, 96 Cal. App. 5th 1054, 1072 (2023) (quoting Yost v. Thomas, 36 Cal.3d 561, 570 (1984)). 7 “[T]he rezoning of property, even a single parcel, is generally considered to be a quasi-legislative act thus subject to review under ordinary mandamus under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085.” Snowball, 96 Cal. App. 5th at 1072 (internal quotations omitted).
Edgar Arroyo
May 9, 2024
Additional Concessions/Incentives and Waivers
The Applicant also continues to reserve the right to request additional concessions/incentives, waivers of development standards, density bonuses, reductions in required parking, and any other benefits to which the Project is entitled under Government Code Section 65915 at a later date. HCD has recently confirmed that a project can use both the Builder’s Remedy and State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915), provided that the project meets the affordability requirements for both, which this Project does by reserving 20% of the total units for low-income households. (See HCD Letter of Technical Assistance attached to this letter as Attachment D.) Responses to Additional Comments
As set forth in Attachment B, detailed written responses to each of the Third Incomplete Letter’s comments are also being provided to the City, and Attachment C comprises all of the specific information identified as outstanding by the Third Incomplete Letter and needed to complete the DPR Application. Following its receipt of this timely transmittal, the City is obligated under State law to continue to process the Project’s DPR Application as filed and respond within 30 days. While the applicant has filed an appeal to the City Council in the hopes of resolving the threshold question of whether the Project may proceed under the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA without the need for a General Plan Amendment and/or zone change, this submittal should nevertheless be utilized by the City to continue review and processing of the Project in accordance with the PSA's mandatory timeframes and procedures.
We emphasize that the Project materials have been modified in response to specific comments noted in the City’s Third Incomplete Letter other than those City comments requiring zoning code compliance or the need to file additional, unnecessary entitlements. Specifically, to be responsive and in the interest of completeness, the Applicant revised the Project plans to provide additional information, dimensions, and/or illustrations in response to the City’s requests for information necessary to process the DPR Application in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy request. The attachments provided with this submittal clearly indicate which objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations are not applicable to the Project. We request that the City continue with its review and processing of the Project and as a next step determine what type of environmental review will be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The Applicant will provide additional materials and studies as determined to be appropriate at that time.
Please contact us with any questions about this transmittal. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
Attachments
Edgar Arroyo
May 9, 2024
A – Third Incomplete Letter
B – Written Responses to Third Incomplete Letter Comments C – Revised Project Plans including Survey and Landscape D – HCD Letter of Technical Assistance to Sonoma County Sonoma Developmental Center (April 26, 2024)
ATTACHMENT 8
June 7, 2024 Incomplete
Determination
(4th Round)
1 Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
SENT VIA EMAIL June 7, 2024
Dave Rand
Rand Paster & Nelson LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, 64th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[email protected]
RE: 125 – 129 South Linden Drive – Development Plan Review for Mixed Use Development (PL2300126)
Dear Mr. Rand:
Staff has reviewed your application and materials for the Development Plan Review resubmittal received on May 9, 2024 for the proposed construction of a new mixed-use development at 125-129 South Linden Drive. The subject properties are located in the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and High Density Multi-family residential General Plan land use designation. At this time, the application has been deemed incomplete for the reasons set forth below, and the previously filed Preliminary Application relating to the project site is deemed to be of no further effect due to changes in the project. Further, additional applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan and zoning ordinances are required to enable processing of the proposed project.
Appeal of October 13, 2023 Incomplete Determination
Prior to this January 10, 2024 project resubmittal, an appeal of the City’s October 13, 2023 incomplete letter was submitted on November 13, 2023; however, the appeal fee was not paid until January 11, 2024, which is considered the date that the appeal was filed. The appeal was filed pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(c), which enables an applicant to appeal the City’s determination that an application is incomplete to the City’s governing body. Pursuant to this section, the governing body is required to provide a final written determination within 60 days of receiving the appeal. On February 6, 2024, the City Council scheduled the appeal hearing for March 11, 2024. At the request of the applicant, the March 11, 2024 hearing was continued by the City Council to April 16, 2024, which was subsequently continued a second time to May 21, 2024 and a third time to June 27, 2024.
The City Council appeal hearing is currently scheduled Thursday, June 27, 2024 at 7:00 P.M.
1. Preliminary Application
As part of the resubmittal received on May 9, 2024, the materials included a response letter from Rand, Paster, Nelson LLP with Attachment B, which includes written responses to the incomplete letter issued by the City on January 10, 2024, and included the following response to this correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees 2 with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.”
The City disagrees with the position that the Preliminary Application submitted on October 24, 2022 remains valid, as detailed in the October 23, 2023 incomplete letter and provided below.
As stated in the prior letter, on October 24, 2022,1 the property owner (9300 Wilshire LLC) submitted a Preliminary Application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 (the PA) for a housing development to vest the rights of a project under the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time that the preliminary application was submitted.
Thereafter, on April 14, 2023, the property owner submitted a formal Development Plan Review (DRP) application for a housing development project, which was within 180 days of the PA submittal date noted above as required to maintain the validity of the PA.
The project that was submitted as part of the PA (the PA project) consisted of a residential-only project that included 200 dwelling units within a 259,547 SF, 16-story building. The building was proposed with a height of 170’ and included 124 parking spaces within a four-level subterranean parking structure.
The project for which the DPR application was submitted (the DA project) is substantially different from the project for which the PA was submitted. The DPR plans submitted entail a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel and hotel restaurant within a 311,197 SF, 19-story building. The building contemplated in the DPR application is now proposed with a height of 200’ and includes 126 parking spaces within a fourlevel subterranean parking structure.
Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65941.1 (a):
“An applicant for a housing development project … shall be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application upon providing all of the following information about the proposed project to the city … from which approval for the project is being sought and upon payment of the permit processing fee: ….” (Emphasis added.) The information required in a preliminary application includes “[t]he proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the categories in the applicable zoning ordinance.” (Govt. Code Sec. 65941.1(a)(4). (Emphasis added.))
The description of the proposed land uses included in the PA’s proposed project made no mention of any hotel or restaurant use or, for that matter, any other commercial or nonresidential uses, and did not contemplate a mixed use project. The PA described the proposed land uses only as follows: “The proposed project will include 200 residential dwelling units in 259,547 (gross) sq. ft .”
1 Although the Preliminary Application was submitted on Friday, October 21, 2022, the fees for the application were paid after hours, thus the submittal date is considered to be Monday, October 24, 2022. 3 The argument in the January 10th letter and applicants May 8, 2024, responses, that the PA remained valid even though it made no mention of any nonresidential development, as specifically required by Government Code Section 65941.1(a)(4), is flawed.
The DPR application describes a very different project:
“The project consists of the construction of a new 19-story mixed use, multifamily residential and hotel building, with 165 rental apartment units (including 33 affordable housing units) and ancillary residential spaces, 73 hotel rooms and ancillary hotel spaces, and 126 parking spaces.”
Based on the introduction of the new hotel use in the DPR project, which was not contemplated in the PA project, the Department continues to conclude that the DPR project submittal is for a project different from the PA project. Because the DPR project is substantially different from the project described in the PA, the Department continues to conclude that the DPR application, although filed within 180 days of the filing of the PA, is not sufficient to meet the filing requirement of Govt. Code Section 65941.1(d)(1). Therefore, the Department continues to find that the PA has expired and is of no further force or effect.
Further, as a separate and independent ground, the PA is expired and of no further effect because, for the reasons described below, the application remains incomplete. The May 9, 2024 resubmittal materials did not include all of the necessary information required in order to deem the application complete, and any subsequent submittals in response to this incomplete letter will necessarily be submitted well outside of the 90 days period following the City’s initial incompleteness letter dated May 12, 2023. Thus the application submittals have not and cannot meet the requirements of Govt. Code Section. 65941.1(d)(2).
Your letter of May 9, 2024, asserts that the applicant is entitled to a rolling 90-day period after each incompleteness determination, however, the text of Govt. Code Section 65941.1(d)(2) is different from the text of Govt. Code Section 65943(a) cited in your letter. Section 65943(a), expressly states that resubmittals begin a new 30-day review period, whereas the text of Section 65941.1(d)(2) is framed as a singular 90-day period. If the legislature intended the 90-day period in Section 65941.1(d)(2) operate in the same manner as the 30-day review periods under Section 65943(a), they clearly could have said so. They did not.
2. General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications Required The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.”
The City continues to disagree with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below. The City 4 continues to maintain that it has the authority to require the applications to be filed and processed as part of an overall project, even if, assuming arguendo, that it may be constrained by state law in its ability to deny a project on consistency bases. Further, the HCD Technical Assistance letter to the City of Compton dated March 28, 20242, supports the City’s position. That letter states that “[n]o provision in the HAA prevents a local government from requesting a general plan/zoning code amendment in order to avoid a legal non-conformity.” The letter also states that “the Builder’s Remedy” does not expressly prevent the City from requiring discretionary permits and/or legislative actions… that would be required for similar projects where the Builder’s Remedy does not apply.”
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
The proposed DPR project does not conform to the City’s General Plan and various provisions of the City’s zoning code. These deviations include, but are not limited to that:
• Neither a hotel nor a mixed residential/commercial use project is a permissible use in either the High Density Multifamily Residential General Plan land use designation or the R-4 zoning applicable to the project site.
• The proposed height exceeds the maximum permissible heights allowed in the General Plan and R-4 zoning
• The proposed residential density exceeds the maximum allowed density on the site.
The substantial deviations from the General Plan and applicable R-4 zoning and related ordinance contemplated by the DPR project must be analyzed and processed pursuant to the City’s procedures, and nothing in the Housing Accountability Act (Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5.) divests the City of its authority to require an applicant to follow the City’s procedural and administrative requirements.
Thus, in order to process the DPR project application, the applicant must also submit applications for amendments to the City’s General Plan, and zoning ordinances and/or map for concurrent processing. The applications for the respective amendments must clearly describe each of the amendments that are necessary to enable the proposed DPR project, including the land use designation and zoning so as to accommodate the mixed use and hotel uses, which are prohibited in the General Plan land use designation and R-4 zone in which the property is located. Further, the amendment applications must address any other necessary changes to related development standards with which the proposed DPR project does not comply, including but not limited to height, density, setbacks, and other standards as described in more detail below.
Following the proper amendment process, in addition to the DPR process, is critical to, among other considerations, ensuring that the due process rights of surrounding property owners are respected, and that those property owners may participate in the proceedings, including required public hearings, should they so choose.
3. Land Use – Sheets A01, A06, A07, A14, A15, A16, A17, A28, A29, A30, A31, A32, L1.10, and L1.13 The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
2 HCD Letter of Technical Assistance, City of Compton dated March 28, 2024:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/compton-hau604-ta03282024.pdf 5 “The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.”
For the reasons noted above, the City disagrees with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required to facilitate commercial uses on a residentially zoned lot, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter, reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
The project site is located within the City’s R-4 Zone, and the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation. BHMC Sections 10-3-1202 and 10-3-1203 detail the types of permitted and conditionally permitted uses within the R-4 Zone. As proposed, the DPR project3 consists of a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73- room hotel and hotel restaurant. While residential development is permissible within the R-4 Zone and the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation, subject to the applicable development standards, as noted above, mixed-use developments, including hotel and hotel restaurant uses, are not permissible in the R-4 Zone or the High Density Multi-family Residential General Plan land use designation.
Revise the project to remove commercial uses in the project or, as noted above, submit Zone Change and General Plan Amendment applications to seek consideration of the project, as well as the regulations within the R-4 Zone that do not facilitate the type of proposed mixed-use development.
4. Density – Sheet A01
The materials provided in the January 10, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated January 10, 2024, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.
Regarding additional comments in Third Incomplete Letter:
The architectural plans have been updated to revise these typos in the project data on sheet A01. The project proposes 165 units. Please see the plans as Attachment C.” 3 Hereafter, the word “project” refers to the DPR project, unless otherwise noted. 6 For the reasons provided above, the City disagrees with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required to facilitate a project that exceeds the allowable density for a project site, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
The proposed project includes the development of 165 dwelling units on a 21,676.05 square-foot (SF) project site. The application materials submitted for this project note that the proposed project is not a density bonus project and is not seeking incentives, concessions, and/or waivers, or any subdivision which may be contemplated to separate the hotel uses from the residential uses. Specifically, as to density bonus, the PA specifically says “The project does not include a density bonus request under State Density Bonus Law”.
The City’s General Plan details the applicable density requirements for multi-family properties in the city. The applicable density for properties located in Multi-family Residential High Density Area is 50 dwelling units per acre (or 1 unit for every 871.2 SF of lot area). As such, the applicable density requirements would facilitate 25 dwelling units on the project site (21,676.05 / 871.2 =
24.88 units). Fractional figures are rounded up to the nearest whole number.
As designed, the project exceeds the maximum number of allowable units by over 140 dwelling units. Revise the project with a reduction in proposed units to comply with applicable density requirements. Alternatively, the project may seek additional dwelling units above the otherwise applicable requirements by applying for a Density Bonus Permit. A density bonus project would be reviewed in compliance with applicable state density bonus law requirements.
Should the density of the project not be revised to comply with code requirements or pursuant to a density bonus proposal, the project as designed would require a zone change and general plan amendment, as noted above, because the project currently exceeds all applicable development standards for multi-family development in the City’s R-4 Zone and does not conform with the City’s General Plan.
Additionally, Sheet A01 of the set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024 lists an additional unit on the Project Information sheet. The "RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNT" table now lists a "CORR" unit, which increases the unit total on the table by one (1) additional unit, from 165 to 166. However, this "CORR" unit does not appear to be shown on any residential floor plan (Sheets A17 - A24).
Additionally, the rest of the project information on Sheet A01 has multiple references to the project only having 165 units, not 166.
Verify the proposed number of dwelling units for the project and update the set of plans accordingly. Additionally, clearly call out the "CORR" unit on the floor plans for the project, if applicable.
New Comment: The unit count on Sheet A01 has been corrected in the May 9, 2024 submittal.
5. Minimum Floor Area for Dwelling Units – Sheet A01 and Sheets A16 A17 through A23 The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
7 “The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.”
The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the standards for minimum floor area for dwelling units is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
BHMC Section 10-3-2802 details the applicable minimum dwelling unit requirements for new development on properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. The applicable minimum dwelling unit size are as follows:
• Studio/Efficiency Unit: Minimum floor area of 600 SF
• One Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,000 SF
• Two Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,300 SF
• Three Or More Bedroom Unit: Minimum floor area of 1,500 SF In review of the set of plans, the residential portion of the project consists of 165 dwelling units with a mix of 13 studio, 59 one-bedroom, and 93 two-bedroom units. As noted on Sheet A01, the average size of a studio unit is between 450 SF and 486 SF, the average size of a one-bedroom unit is between 652 SF and 658 SF, and the average size of a two-bedroom unit not located on the penthouse level (19th floor) is between 892 SF to 970 SF. As such, these units do not appear to provide the applicable minimum floor area for an efficiency, one-bedroom, or two-bedroom unit.
Revise the project and design of each unit to provide the minimum floor area required.
6. Outdoor Living Space – Sheets A01, A08, and A09
The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.”
The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the outdoor living space requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
8 a. Required Outdoor Living Space – BHMC Section 10-3-2803 details the applicable open space requirements for new development on properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone.
Pursuant to this section, 200 SF of outdoor living space is required per dwelling unit. The required outdoor living space can be provided as private outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 6’-0” on all sides, or as common outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides.
While the proposed development of 165 dwelling units exceeds the density allowed for the project site, should the applicant seek a zone change/general plan amendment to facilitate the project, the project would need to provide 33,000 SF of open space. As provided on the Open Space tables on Sheets A01, A08, and A09, the proposed project is proposing 18,228 SF of open space, which is approximately 14,772 SF less than what is otherwise required. Revise the project to provide the applicable area of outdoor living space per unit. b. Outdoor Living Space Dimensions – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2803, outdoor living space can be provided as private outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 6’-0” on all sides, or as common outdoor living space with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides.
Based on the Open Space tables provided on Sheets A08 and A09, it appears that the project is providing open space in both common and private outdoor living areas. While the 18,228 SF of proposed outdoor living area is not sufficient to meet the required outdoor living space required per unit (33,000 SF of outdoor living space is required for 165 dwelling units), the open space diagrams provided do not include any dimensions to show that the minimum outdoor living space dimensions are being provided. Revise the open space diagrams to include the dimensions of each proposed common and private outdoor living space areas.
Each area shall provide the minimum dimensions required to count toward the required outdoor living space.
c. Number of Dwelling Units – This has been corrected on the set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024.
The number of dwelling units noted on the Open Space tables provided on Sheets A01, A08, and A09 do not match the number of units proposed for the project. The Open Space tables show that 171 dwelling units are proposed, while the plans for the project show a total of 165 dwelling units proposed. Revise the tables according to reflect the correct number of proposed units. Revise the amount of required open space to reflect the correct unit count.
7. Building Height – Sheets A01, A11, A24, A25, A26, A27, A28, A29, A30, and A31, and A32 The materials provided in the January 10, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated January 10, 2024, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.”
9 The materials included new plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding building height. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the height requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
a. Maximum Allowable Height – The project site is comprised of two properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. BHMC Section 10-3-2804 details the applicable height requirements for properties located in the R-4 Zone. The first property at 125 S. Linden Drive is located within Height District C, which allows for development up to five (5) stories with a maximum height of 55’. The second property at 129 S. Linden Drive is located within Height District B, which allows for development up to four (4) stories with a maximum height of 45’.
In review of the project plans, the new development is designed with 19 stories and at a height of approximately 200’ tall. As designed, the portion of the project located in Height District B exceeds the maximum allowable height by 155’. Similarly, the portion of the project located in Height District C exceeds the maximum allowable height by 145’. Reduce the height of the proposed project to conform to the maximum allowable height for each applicable height district.
b. Height of Rooftop Elements – Call out the height of all proposed rooftop elements on all sections and elevations, including the height of the proposed rooftop elevators, rooftop stairs, mechanical equipment screening, and any unoccupied architectural features (e.g., rooftop trellises and similar). The rooftop elements shall comply with the maximum heights detailed under the definition of "Height of Building" for Multiple-Family Residential Zones in BHMC Section 10-3-100, as provided below, otherwise these features shall not be exempt from height and shall be counted toward the overall height of building:
• Structures enclosing elevator equipment and/or elevator lobbies if such structures are not higher than fifteen feet (15') above the adjacent roof deck and are not larger than the shaft of the elevator or elevators and their respective lobby areas. • Structures enclosing stairs required by law to be carried to the roof if such enclosing structure is used for no other purpose than enclosing the stairs and is no larger than the stair shaft below and if such enclosure is not more than twelve feet (12') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck.
• Penthouse structures used exclusively for mechanical equipment for the building or structure if such penthouse structure is not more than ten feet (10') in height as measured from the adjacent roof deck.
• Parapets or handrails not more than forty-five inches (45") in height as measured from the roof or floor which they surround.
c. Mechanical Equipment Screening – Show the proposed rooftop mechanical equipment screening on all sections and elevations, as the proposed screening is not shown on the sections and elevations provided. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-100 (Height), the max height is 15'-0" for mechanical equipment penthouses and enclosures. 10 8. Alley Dedication – Sheets A11 through A29 A15 and L1.10 through L1.15 Sheets A11 though A29 have been updated to reflect the required alley dedication on the north side and rear. However, the new The landscape plans submitted for this second third round of review (Sheets L1.10 and L1.13 – L1.15) do not have these dedication areas shown and show landscaping and site paving in the required alley dedication area. Revise the landscape plans accordingly per the city’s correction. issued on May 12, 2023 and as listed below.
The set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024 still show landscaping in the 2’-6” alley dedication area where the alley would be, which is not allowable. The alley surface shall be paved with asphaltic concrete for vehicle use. Revise accordingly.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
As required by the City’s Street Master Plan, a 2’-6” dedication is required along the north side and rear of the project site for widening of the existing 15’ alley to improve vehicular circulation. (See also BHMC Section 10-6-2, regarding street dedication and improvement requirements.) This dedication area needs to be shown on all details of the set of plans. Additionally, any required property setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line, post-alley dedication.
Show the required 2’-6” alley dedication area on all details of the set of plans, including on landscape plans site plan, floor plans, and all sections and elevations provided. Adjust the location of the property lines adjacent to the required dedication areas accordingly.
New Comment: Landscaping in alley dedication area has been removed in the revised plans provided in the May 9, 2024 submittal.
9. Setbacks – Sheets A01, and A11 A12 through A32 A29, A30, A31, and L1.10 through L1.15 The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.
Regarding additional comments in Third Incomplete Letter:
The exhibit on A10 is intended to provide information on the modulation of the building for informational purposes only. The exhibit has been updated with additional square footage information. The provided exhibit shows the depth of the setback and the varied modulation of the proposed design through a colored legend with dimensions. As stated in the response to Item 1 and in previous resubmittals, the project is not required to comply with the requirements of BHMC 10-3-2806.”
The materials submitted on May 9, 2024 included new revised plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding required setbacks and modulation. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the setback and modulation requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below. 11 Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
a. Front Setback – The applicable front yard setback for the project site is 15’-0”. As designed, portions of the proposed building located above ground level would encroach into the required setback.
As proposed, complete sections of the building on almost every floor level appear to encroach into the required front yard setback, with a seven-inch (7”) setback shown on the site plan provided on Sheet A11 A12 of the set of plans. Such building encroachment is not permissible within the front yard setback area.
Revise the project to provide the applicable 15’-0” front setback for the project. b. Side Yard Setbacks – BHMC Section 10-3-2807 details the applicable side yard setbacks for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, the development of a project with more than four (4) stories or greater than 45’ in height shall be subject to a cumulative setback of 23’-0’, with a minimum setback of at least 9’ required on one side.
When a project is subject to a dedication of land required for improving and widening existing alleys adjacent to the project site, the required setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line post-alley dedication.
As proposed, complete sections of the building on most floor levels appear to encroach into the required side setback, with a 7’-0” side setback provided to the north and an 11’-0” side setback provided to the south. The 18’-0” cumulative setback does not appear to meet the applicable cumulative setback of 23’-0’ required for a project that exceeds four stories and 45’ in height. Similarly, the 7’-0” setback shown on the north side does not appear to meet the minimum side setback required for properties in the R-4 zone. Revise the project to provide the required minimum and cumulative side yard setback.
c. Rear Setback – BHMC Section 10-3-2808 details the applicable rear yard setback for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, a setback of 15’ is required for all new development in the R-4 zone. When a project is subject to a dedication of land required for improving and widening existing alleys adjacent to the project site, the required setback shall be measured from the adjusted property line post-alley dedication.
As proposed, sections of the building on several floor levels appear to encroach into the required rear setback, with a portion of the building designed with a 2’-6” rear from existing property lines. Revise the project to provide the applicable 15’-0” rear yard setback to the project.
d. Setbacks Throughout Plan Set – Show all applicable front, side, and rear setback lines on the site plan, floor plans, sections, and elevation on the set of plans. These details are missing from several sheets of the plan set.
e. Garage Encroachment in Front Setback – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2811, basement garages are allowed to encroach into the front yard setback area. However, as designed, the portion of the basement garage built into these setback areas needs to be 2’-0” lower than the grade of the adjacent sidewalk. Additionally, that 2’-0” depression shall be used to provide planting areas within the front yard setback area.
12 As shown on Section 2 on Sheet A29 A30, the portion of the basement garage within the front yard setback is currently designed to be at the same level as the adjacent sidewalk along South Linden Drive, which is not permissible. Revise the design of the basement garage that encroaches into the front yard setback area so that it is 2’-0”lower than the adjacent sidewalk along South Linden Drive.
f. Modulation – An elevation/diagram noting the depth of modulation on the front facade was provided as Sheet A10 in this plan set submitted on January 10, 2024. This exhibit, however, does not provide calculation or figures noting the required area of modulation or the area of modulation proposed.
As previously noted, BHMC Section 10-3-2806 details the applicable front modulation standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. In review of the set of plans provided, no details were included as to the amount of front building modulation provided for the project. As a separate exhibit to the set of plans, pProvide front modulation diagrams showing the required amount of modulation required and the modulation proposed for the project. Additionally, the diagrams shall show the depth of the modulation provided per floor and calculations for the aggregate principal building area. The depth of the modulation is not shown on the front building modulation exhibit provided on Sheet A10 of the set of plans.
Adjust the project design accordingly to provide the applicable front modulation for the project pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2806.
New Comment: A revised front building modulation exhibit was provided in the May 9, 2024 submittal as Sheet A10 of the set of plans. Sheet A10 includes the square footage of the various modulated areas of the building along the South Linden Drive street elevation along with the proposed setback for these modulated areas. As provided in BHMC Section 10-3- 2806.C., the building or portions of the building are required to be setback an additional 10’- 0” from the applicable front yard setback to count toward the required area of modulation for the building.
The project is currently designed with portions of the building that encroach into the required 15’-0” front yard setback. As such, those portions of the building that encroach into the front yard setback area or that do not provide the additional 10’ setback from the required front yard setback line shall not count toward the required modulation area for the project. This includes those portions of the building designed with a 7” front setback and 8’- 0” front setback. Furthermore, pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2806.C.3.a, portions of the building setback an additional 25’ from applicable front yard setback shall also not be counted toward the required front modulation for a project. This includes those portions of the building that are currently designed with a 53’-9” front setback and 84’-4” front setback along South Linden Drive. Therefore, while Sheet A10 now shows that approximately 29,942.98 SF of modulation would be provided for the project, the areas of modulation provided along the front façade do not meet the applicable modulation setback requirements and cannot be counted toward meeting this development standard.
Adjust the project design accordingly to provide the applicable front modulation for the project pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2806.
13 10. “NO BUILD ZONE” Area – Sheets A12 and A13
Area of no build zone added to the set of plans.
In reviewing the Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation dated October 7, 2020, previously prepared for the project site, several active earthquake faults were discovered on the properties at 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive. The “Structural Setback Plan” on Page 60 of the document establishes a “NO BUILD ZONE” where no portion of a habitable structure could be built.
Please show this no build zone area on the site plans and floor plans provided for the first floor and every subterranean level of the project to ensure that the proposed building does not encroach into the NO BUILD ZONE.
11. Front Yard Paving – Sheets A14 A15, L1.10 and L1.13 The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that additional entitlements are required and that the Preliminary Application is expired. The Applicant also disagrees with the City’s position that Applicant has a single 90-day period to submit a complete application. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. Please refer to further explanation provided in the cover letter and appeal letter.
Regarding additional comments in Third Incomplete Letter:
The landscape drawings have been updated to ensure consistency between the architectural and landscape design. Please see the plans as Attachment C.” The materials included changes to previously provided plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding front yard paving. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the front yard paving requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
BHMC Section 10-3-2813 details the applicable front yard paving standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, no portion of any front yard within the R-4 Zone shall be paved, except for not more than one walkway not exceeding five feet (5’) in width and one driveway not exceeding the width of its curb cut. Based on the design provided on Sheet A14 A15, the project includes a paved courtyard and walkway to the north side of the property. No driveway paving is proposed within the front yard setback area. Together, these walkways exceed the maximum allowable width for walkways located in the front yard setback area.
Revise the design of the paving proposed in the front yard setback area to include one (1) walkway that does not exceed 5’ in width. Additional walkways not exceeding 5’ in width may be permissible as detailed in BHMC Section 10-3-2813.
14 Additionally, as a result of changes to the paving area provided in the January 10, 2024 submittal, the design of the front yard paving adjacent to the hotel lobby on the landscape plan does not appear to match the design shown on the 1st floor plan on Sheet A15. Sheet A15 shows a larger paving area with what appears to be bicycle racks installed. This landscape sheet is missing those details and the additional paving. Revise the plans accordingly to be consistent.
New Comment: Paving design on architectural plans and landscape plans has been revised and is now consistent in the set of plans provided with the May 9, 2024 submittal. While this specific comment has been addressed, the remainder of the corrections from the previous incomplete letters have not been addressed.
12. Site Walls and Fences – Sheets A11, A14, L1.10, and L1.13 Details for the proposed fence at the rear of the property have been provided on Sheet A36 of the set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024. Sheet A36 shows a 6’ tall fence that is in compliance with applicable fence requirements.
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Refer to the response to item #1 and the cover letter. Adherence to this zoning standard is not required. For informational purposes, the plans have been revised to show details on the site walls and fences. Refer to sheets A11 and A14.”
The materials included new plan sheets in this round of review where comments/corrections from the city have been provided regarding front yard paving. Sheets A11 and A14 were revised to show a proposed 6’ tall security gate and fence at the rear of the property, however, the revised plans did not include details or sections showing the height or design of the wall. Provide sections and details for the proposed site fences and gate at the rear of the property. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the site fence and wall requirements is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 incomplete letter, as provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 Incomplete Letter)
Show all proposed site fences and walls on the site plan for the project. Provide additional details and sections on the set of plans showing the design and height of any proposed fences and walls.
All site fences and walls shall be designed in conformance with the applicable fence/wall standards provided in BHMC Section 10-3-2814.
13. Parking – Sheets A01, A12 and A13 and A14
The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“In this comment, the City restates parking requirements for the proposed uses specific to Residential Parking, Guest Parking, Hotel and Hotel Restaurant Parking, Parking Stall Dimension, and Parking Aisle Depth. The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that adherence to these zoning standards is required. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action. 15 As further clarification to the original response to this item, the Project itself is not seeking and does not require a reduction in parking using Assembly Bill 2097 (“AB 2097”). However, the Applicant proposes to apply the parking reductions of AB 2097 to the adjacent office building, which currently uses the existing parking located on the Project site. The City claims that AB 2097 cannot be applied to reduce parking at the office building at 9740 Wilshire Boulevard because a parking covenant was recorded to provide a portion of the required office building parking off-site at 125 Linden Drive. The Applicant disagrees with this claim. AB 2097 (Government Code Sec�on 65863.2(h)(1)) states “Subdivision (a) shall not apply to commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2023, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. This subdivision shall apply to an existing contractual agreement that is amended after January 1, 2023, provided that the amendments do not increase commercial parking requirements.”
The existing, recorded parking covenant is not a “contractual agreement” (such as a Development Agreement) that requires the commercial parking to be shared with the public and is not subject to this limitation in AB 2097. The covenant, as recorded, states Lots 38 and 39 of Tract 6648 (125 Linden Drive) are to be used for parking of automobiles servient to the structure proposed to be built on and servient to Lots 35 and 36 of Tract 6648 (9740 Wilshire Boulevard), for the use and benefit of “owners, tenants, customers, and invitees of the occupants of said structure.” The covenant does not require the parking to be shared with the public. As such, the office building at 9740 Wilshire Boulevard qualifies as a commercial development project which is eligible to use the parking reductions provided by AB 2097.
At the time that the City confirms that the DPR application may proceed, the Applicant will initiate the necessary request to apply the AB 2097 parking reduction to 9740 Wilshire Boulevard and terminate the parking covenant. As described above, the new Project at 125-129 Linden Drive is not subject to the parking requirements of the Zoning Code and does not seek any parking relief from AB 2097.
Furthermore, the Project is an “affordable housing development” under the HAA which means it includes 20 percent of the total units for deed restricted Low Income Housing.
The provision of Low Income units entitles the Project to incentives, concessions and/or waivers of development standards under the State Density Bonus Law (i.e., California Government Code Sec�on 65915, et seq.). The Applicant therefore reserves the right to utilize permitted incentives and/or waivers as another, separate legal mechanism to eliminate parking requirements to (i) produce project cost reductions that allow for the provision of the Project’s affordable housing units (i.e., incentive/concession) or (ii) that would have the effect of physically precluding development of the Project (waivers).
While we do not believe State Density Bonus Law incentives and/or waivers are legally necessary to provide the required parking relief necessary to construct the Project given the flexibility afforded by both the “Builders Remedy” provision of the HAA and AB 2097 as described above, we nevertheless reserve the right to request incentives/concessions and/or waivers from existing parking requirements as permitted by the State Density Bonus Law.”
16 The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the parking standards is not required and that replacement parking for the site at 9740 Wilshire Boulevard is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below. Further, we note that the provisions of Assembly Bill 2097 do not apply to this project because the project includes a hotel component. (Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 65863.2(e)(6)), and even if it did apply, the City reserves it argument that covenant satisfies the requirements for a contractual agreement.
The applicant response also suggests that incentives of wavier provisions under State Density Bonus law may be invoked, however, the Preliminary Application clearly states that this is not a density bonus project. Additionally, the materials submitted for the Development Plan Review Application do not indicate that State Density Bonus Law is being applied to this project.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
a. Residential Parking – BHMC Section 10-3-2816 details the applicable parking standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, the project shall provide the following number of parking spaces per dwelling unit type:
• One (1) parking space shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that is an efficiency unit of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet. • Two (2) spaces shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that contains one bedroom.
• Two and one-half (2 ½) parking spaces shall be provided for each multiple-family dwelling unit that contains two (2) bedrooms.
In review of the set of plans, the residential portion of the project consists of 165 dwelling units with a mix of 13 studio, 59 one-bedroom, and 93 two-bedroom units. Based on the unit mix proposed, 364 parking spaces would be required for the 165 dwelling units proposed.
The total number of required parking spaces will be confirmed once floor plans of the residential portion of the project are provided to confirm an accurate bedroom count. As the project is only designed with 127 parking spaces, the project does not conform to the applicable parking standards. As provided on the set of plans and application materials, this project is not a density bonus project and thus is not eligible for the reduced parking standards under state density bonus provisions.
Revise the project to provide the required number of parking spaces.
New Comment: Item not addressed in May 9, 2024 submittal. b. Guest Parking – BHMC Section 10-3-2817 details the applicable parking standards for properties located within the City’s R-4 Zone. Pursuant to this section, guest parking shall be provided for the project at a ratio of 0.25 spaces/unit. As proposed, a project with 165 dwelling units would be subject to 42 guest parking spaces (41.25 rounded up to the nearest whole number).
Revise the project to provide the required number of guest parking spaces. Clearly call out which parking spaces for the project are being allocated for only guest parking.
New Comment: Item not addressed in May 9, 2024 submittal. 17 c. Hotel and Hotel Restaurant Parking – While previously noted that the hotel and hotel restaurant uses proposed for this project are not permissible within the R-4 Zone, should the applicant seek a Zone Change/General Plan Amendment to facilitate the proposed commercial uses, such uses shall be designed in compliance with the applicable parking requirements detailed in BHMC Section 10-3-2730. Such parking shall be provided on-site.
Based on the plans provided, a 73-room hotel would require 73 parking spaces (1 space/room). Additionally, the proposed 3,497 SF hotel restaurant would require 14 parking spaces (1 space/350 SF for first 3,000 SF – 1 space/100 SF for portion over 3,000 SF).
However, 25% of the spaces required to be provided for the hotel may also be applied toward the hotel restaurant, which can provide a credit of approximately 19 parking spaces for hotel restaurant use.
As designed, the parking garage for the development does not currently provide parking for the commercial uses of the project. Each space is labeled as “RES”, implying that the parking spaces are reserved for the residential uses of the project and not available to service the proposed hotel and hotel restaurant uses. Should the applicant seek a Zone Change/General Plan Amendment for consideration of this project, parking for the proposed hotel and hotel restaurant uses shall be provided on-site.
New Comment: Item not addressed in May 9, 2024 submittal. d. Parking Stall Dimensions – The City’s parking standards require all parking spaces provided for a project to be provided in standard configuration, with a minimum parking stall width of 9’-0” and a length of 19’-0”. Compact parking stall dimensions are not allowable for any required parking stall associated with the residential use of the property. However, pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2727, the proposed hotel use may provide up to 25% of the required parking as compact parking stalls and through tandem spaces as part of a Conditional Use Permit.
In review of the set of plans, the subterranean parking structure includes compact parking stalls on each of the four levels for the residential uses, which is not permissible. No parking appears to be specifically provided for the commercial hotel and hotel restaurant uses proposed for the project. Revise the design of the parking garage to include standard parking stalls with the minimum required stall width and length and remove compact stalls for the residential uses. Provide the required parking for the hotel and hotel restaurant uses.
New Comment: Item not addressed in May 9, 2024 submittal. e. Parking Aisle Depth – The minimum aisle width required for parking spaces provided at a 90 degree angle is 26’-0” per the City’s parking standards. The drawings prepared for parking levels P1 - P4 show that a 24’-0” parking aisle is proposed where parking spaces are provided with a 90 degree turning angle.
Revise the design of the parking aisle width to provide the 26’-0” wide minimum aisle width.
New Comment: Item not addressed in May 9, 2024 submittal. f. Garage Encroachment into Alley Dedication Area – Correction addressed. Basement garage no longer encroaches into alley dedication area.
18 As designed, the basement garage would encroach into the 2’-6” alley dedication area required along the north side and rear of the property. The garage cannot encroach into the required alley dedication area. Revise the design of the parking garage so that no portions of the building encroach into the required alley dedication areas. g. Replacement Parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd
The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The existing, recorded parking covenant is not a “contractual agreement” (such as a Development Agreement) that requires the commercial parking to be shared with the public and is not subject to this limitation in AB2097. The covenant, as recorded, states Lots 38 and 39 of Tract 6648 (125 Linden Drive) are to be used for parking of automobiles servient to the structure proposed to be built on and servient to Lots 35 and 36 of Tract 6648 (9740 Wilshire Boulevard), for the use and benefit of “owners, tenants, customers, and invitees of the occupants of said structure.” The covenant does not require the parking to be shared with the public. As such, the office building at 9740 Wilshire Boulevard qualifies as a commercial development project which is eligible to use the parking reductions provided by AB 2097.” First, as noted above, Assembly Bill 2097 does not apply to this project because the project includes a hotel component. (Cal. Govt. Code Sec. 65863.2(e)(6).) Thus, the City disagrees with the position that AB 2097 impacts the obligation to provide replacement parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Furthermore, even if AB 2097 did apply, pursuant to Government Code Section 65863.2(h)(1), the city retains the ability to enforce a covenant or contractual agreement for parking. As noted in the city’s May 12, 2023, incomplete letter, “…a parking covenant was filed with the city and recorded on August 12, 1957, against the properties at 9740 Wilshire Blvd and 129 S. Linden Drive to provide a portion of the required parking off-site. The use of the 129 South Linden Drive site for commercial parking purposes was approved through Variances issued by the City Council in 1941 and 1958 (City Council Resolution Nos. 1061 and 2841).”
The City disagrees that the existing covenants for parking associated with 9740 Wilshire Boulevard do not constitute a contractual agreement that is enforceable pursuant to AB 2097.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
The project site at 129 S. Linden Drive is currently improved with a surface parking lot that provides required parking for the commercial office building located at 9740 Wilshire Blvd.
The original building plans for the commercial building at 9740 Wilshire Boulevard show that the surface parking lot at 129 S. Linden Drive was designed with diagonal parking for 50 vehicles. To facilitate this, a parking covenant was filed with the city and recorded on August 12, 1957, against the properties at 9740 Wilshire Blvd and 129 S. Linden Drive to provide a portion of the required parking off-site. The use of the 129 South Linden Drive site for commercial parking purposes was approved through Variances issued by the City Council in 1941 and 1958 (City Council Resolution Nos. 1061 and 2841). 19 In review of the project, 126 parking spaces would be provided for the residential portion of the project. No parking is specifically provided for on the set of plans for the proposed the hotel and hotel restaurant uses. Additionally, the plans for the project and the application materials do not address how the required covenanted parking for 9740 Wilshire Blvd would be replaced.
However, Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2737, it is not permissible to locate parking required for a commercial use or commercial property on a site that is zoned for residential land uses. As it pertains to the replacement parking for 9740 Wilshire, the replacement parking would either need to be provided on an alternative site zoned for commercial uses, or the applicant would need to seek a code amendment to allow for replacement of the required parking within this new development. As previously noted, in addition to the parking required for the proposed project, a total of 50 parking spaces will need to be provided as replacement parking for the 9740 Wilshire site because the new development is proposing the removal of the existing covenanted parking required for the development on that property.
New Comment: Item not addressed in May 9, 2024 submittal.
14. Loading – Sheets A06, A14, L1.10, and L1.13 A15
The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B)that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that adherence to these zoning standards is required. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action.
Regarding the new comment: The architectural plans contain a loading study on sheet A37 in response to this comment. Please see the plans in Attachment C.” The materials included a new loading diagram as Sheet A37 in this round of review to address loading area comments from the previous round of review. The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the loading requirement is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below. In addition, the loading study and maneuvering information is necessary to disclose the potential effects of the project and to provide decision-makers adequate information to conduct the required discretionary review of the project.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
a. Number of Loading Spaces Required – BHMC Sections 10-3-2740 [through] 10-3-2743 detail the applicable loading space requirements. Based on the area schedule provided on Sheet A06, approximately 48,032 SF of floor area is proposed for use as hotel and hotel restaurant on the first and second floors. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2741, the number of loading spaces required for the proposed commercial floor area is three (3) truck spaces. Each truck loading space shall have a minimum length of 35’, width of 12’, and overhead clearance of 10’.
As proposed on Sheet A14, the project is designed with what appears to be one (1) loading space accessed from the alley that is 12’ wide by 30’ long. This single loading space provided 20 does not appear to comply with the number of loading spaces required for the project or the minimum dimensions required for a truck loading space.
Revise the project to provide the applicable number of loading spaces at the required minimum dimensions.
The revised plans submitted on January 10, 2024 now show three (3) truck-size loading spaces that would be accessible from the alley at the rear of the property, in compliance with the applicable loading requirements.
b. Loading Study – Provide a loading study that evaluates the loading demands of the proposed project and determines the adequacy of the loading areas proposed. The loading study shall also study vehicle maneuverability into the proposed loading areas, particularly truck maneuverability for accessing the loading space located adjacent to the alley at the rear, as it appears difficult to maneuver a truck in the alley due the existing width. The existing alley measures 15’ in width, but would be widened to 17’-6” feet once the project dedicates land along the alleys.
Additionally, the new design of the loading area provided on Sheet A15 shows three (3) new truck loading spaces at the rear of the property. The Loading Study shall also evaluate this new proposed design and evaluate the feasibility that trucks are able to maneuver in the alley, as this alley forms a “T-intersection” to the north with a 15’ wide alley where trucks may have difficulty turning to exit to the street.
New Comment: While a loading diagram was provided as Sheet A37 in the set of plans for the May 9, 2024 submittal, a loading study was not provided that evaluates the feasibility of the proposed loading and circulation area, particularly from the vehicles traveling north on the alley at the rear of the property to the T-alley intersection, and then turning east to exit toward Linden Drive. Sheet A37 shows that 18’-0” long cargo vans and 26’-0” long truck would have to utilize a portion of the property to maneuver out of the loading areas and onto the street. The exhibit does not provide dimensions showing the width of the turning areas, nor does show compliance with applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. Provide a loading study prepared by a licensed professional, as previously requested, that assesses the adequacy of the turning areas shown on the loading diagram and their compliance with applicable AASHTO turning design standards.
c. Location of Loading Spaces – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2742, when a project site or structure abuts an alley, access to loading spaces shall be provided from the alley. Alley accessed loading spaces shall be parallel to the alley unless the project applicant establishes one of the following:
• Site constraints preclude construction of a parallel loading space or spaces; or, • The alternative loading space configuration proposed by the project applicant meets the functional requirements of the code.
As currently designed, the loading space provided on Sheet A14, is perpendicular to the alley instead of parallel to it. Revise the project to include the required loading spaces in compliance with BHMC Section 10-3-2742. If this cannot be achieved and the applicant is seeking an alternative configuration, provide findings as noted above detailing site 21 constraints and how the alternative loading space will meet the functional requirements of the code.
The project has been redesigned on the set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024 to show loading accessed from the alley at the rear that is parallel to the existing alley, in compliance with BHMC Section 10-3-2742.
d. Maneuvering – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2740, loading spaces shall be directly accessible for the distribution of goods within the structure or use. For multi-story structures, such access shall be direct to an elevator or stairway serving all stories, and in this case, all stories of the hotel and hotel restaurant. In order to meet the functional requirements, loading spaces shall have a minimum maneuvering area as specified in the MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LOADING SPACES table in BHMC Section 10-3-2740. Said maneuvering area shall be contiguous to the end of the loading space and may include the width of the alley or street.
Provide maneuvering diagrams showing truck ingress and egress to the loading spaces provided for the project.
The project has been redesigned on the set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024 to show loading accessed from the alley at the rear that meeting the maneuvering dimension required, in compliance with BHMC Section 10-3-2740.
15. Survey – Sheet A10
Comments regarding survey have been addressed. New survey file submitted in response to comments.
a. Scale of Plan – In review of the survey provided on Sheet A10, the drawing does not appear to match the scale noted on the plan sheet. When several site features with dimensions are measured at the noted scale (1” = 10’), the dimensions scale out to less than what are noted on the survey. Provide a survey that is drawn to the scale noted on the plan sheet. b. Survey Legibility – The survey provided appears to be scanned from an original of that document and placed on the set of plans. As such, the details and dimensions provided are pixelated and not very legible. Provide a survey that is clear, legible, and not pixelated. c. Surveyor’s License Expiration – The survey provided notes that the surveyor’s license expired on 12/31/2020. Provide an updated survey with an updated expiration date of the surveyor of record.
16. Title Report – Sheet A10
Title report provided with resubmittal. No easements recorded against property per title report.
Provide a Title Report of the project site to verify whether any easements exist on the properties at 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive. The survey provided on Sheet A10 notes that there are no easements on the project site, “per referenced preliminary title report.” However, a copy of this title property was not provided. Provide a title report of the project site with project resubmittal. 22 17. Elevations and Renderings – Sheets A00, A02, A03, A04, A24, A25, A26, and A27, and A28 The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B)that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Applicant respectfully disagrees with the City’s position that adherence to these zoning standards is required. The applicant has filed an appeal pursuant to Government Code Section 65943 so that this issue may be resolved via City Council decision or through subsequent legal action.
Regarding the new comments: The west building elevation on Sheet A27 has been updated to ensure consistency in the design. The south elevation is included as A28.
Please see the plans in Attachment C.”
The City disagrees with the position that adherence to the city’s development standards is not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and reiterated in the October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 incomplete letters, as provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter (Reiterated in October 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024 Incomplete Letters)
Revise the elevations and renderings provided for the project, as required, to address the corrections and comments provided in this review letter and the redlined set of plans.
Additionally, based on changes on the set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024, it doesn't appear that the building elevations have been updated to account for the changes in the loading zone, trash area and transformer room on the west elevation on Sheet A27. The plan set from the October 13, 2023 submittal showed 6 doors on the west elevation and this current set of plans shows the same. However, the first floor plan clearly shows less doors and the placement has changed with the changes to the trash area and transformer room. There are now only five (5)doors. Revise the west elevation accordingly.
Lastly, Sheet A28, which is the south elevation of the building, is missing from the set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024. Provide this plan sheet an elevation with resubmittal for review.
New Comment: Building elevations revised per additional comments provided in the January 10, 2024 incomplete letter. Elevations updated to match proposed building floor plans and Sheet A28 was now provided in the May 9, 2024 submittal.
18. Floor Plan Layouts for Dwelling Units – Sheets A16 through A23 The floor plans have been revised to provide the interior layout of each unit. Correction addressed by applicant.
Provide floor plans layouts for each of the proposed dwelling units in the project. The floor plans provided only have a call out to the number of bedrooms in each unit, but the layout of each unit is not provided. The floor plans shall show the proposed kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, and living area of each of the proposed dwelling units.
19. Rubbish Storage – Sheets A14 A15 and A36, L1.10, L1.13 The materials provided in the January 10, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated January 10, 2024, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
23 “The Rubbish Storage calculations are included with this resubmital on Sheet A15. A specification has been added for the trash compactor on Sheet A36.” The set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024 show an enlarged rubbish room, along with calculations showing the required amount of rubbish spaces required on A15. However, there appears to be an error in the calculations provided, as the residential portion of the calculation only factors in 63 units instead of the 73 units proposed (10 units short). Revise the rubbish room calculations to account for the correct number of proposed dwelling units.
The City requires this information to be provided at this stage to determine if the required amount of rubbish storage is being provided for the project. Please provide this requested information to verify compliance with the applicable requirement, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
BHMC Section 9-3-1 details the applicable rubbish storage standards for residential and commercial development. As proposed, the project would include a 592 SF trash room located in the first floor of the building, adjacent to the alley at the rear. However, calculations were not provided on the set of plans or in the application materials to demonstrate that the proposed trash room is of sufficient size to accommodate the anticipated demand for waste generated by the project site.
Provide calculations pursuant to BHMC Section 9-3-1 showing the anticipated amount of rubbish that would be generated by the project and the size of the rubbish/trash room needed to accommodate the projected waste quantities that would be generated by the project.
New Comment: Updated rubbish room calculations were provided in the May 9, 2024 submittal.
Proposed 858 SF rubbish room complies with applicable requirements.
20. Landscape Plans – Not Provided Sheets L1.00 through L1.15 Landscape plans provided for review. Please review the other sections of this letter for comments and corrections applicable to the landscape plans, along with the redlined set of plans for this round of review. Also note that the alley dedication area is not shown on these plans. Instead, tThe landscape plans show landscaping and project site hardscaping in the future alley area. The area to be dedicated for widening of the alley shall be paved with a surface approved by the Public Works Department for alleys, which is generally asphaltic concrete.
The set of plans submitted on January 10, 2024 still show landscaping in the 2’-6” alley dedication area where the alley would be, which is not allowable. The alley surface shall be paved with asphaltic concrete for vehicle use.
Revise the landscape plans accordingly.
Provide landscape plans of the proposed project with resubmittal. The landscape plans shall show all proposed landscaping improvements on the project site and in the public right-of-way.
New Comment: The item related to landscaping in the future alley dedication area was addressed as provided in the May 9, 2024 submittal. Remaining items related to outstanding corrections 24 provided on the architectural plans also being applicable to the landscaping plans are still pending.
21. Environmental Review
Once all major corrections have been addressed and complete applications have been submitted, the City will review the proposal to determine what review may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant will be responsible for paying the costs for the preparation of any required environmental document, including but not limited to the costs of any consultants as may need to be retained by the City.
22. Low Impact Development (LID)
To be provided in Building Plan Check.
Pursuant to BHMC Section 9-4-508, the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements are applicable to new developments projects.
As you progress with the design of the project, review the applicable LID requirements and incorporate them into your project and set of plans. This will ensure that the project, as designed, can accommodate the required LID provisions early on and will reduce or eliminate any changes needed once the project is submitted for building plan check.
A copy of the Low Impact Development (LID) Fact Sheet is available for download from the City’s website using the following link:
http://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/1266023136723167408/ChecklistforLIDR equirementsFINAL(6).pdf
For question related to LID requirements, please contact Trevor Alsop at 310-288-2837 or by email at [email protected].
23. Shade and Shadow Study – Sheet A32 A33
In review of the shade and shadow study provided, see the following comments provided below:
a) Show the property lines, addresses, and street names on all pages of the shade and shadow study. Show property lines and addresses for all properties shown on the study.
The property lines and the addresses of the properties shown in the study were not provided, as noted in the October 13, 2023 incomplete letter.
b) Show the fully extent of the shadow cast by the proposed building. The exhibits provided are small and do not appear to fully depict the extent of the shadow cast by the proposed building.
Provide a shade and shadow study for the proposed project. Diagram the shadows from the proposed structure during the winter and summer equinoxes, from 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., at three-hour intervals. The study shall show adjacent properties and the projected shadow on those properties during the noted intervals.
New Comment: This information has been provided as part of the May 9, 2024 submittal.
24. Rooftop Operations Plan
This information has been provided as part of the January 10, 2024 submittal. 25 The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The 18th and 19th floor rooftop areas include passive seating areas and landscaping. The rooftop areas will be used for residential users only. The maximum occupancy will be confirmed by the City during the plan check phase once construction documents are prepared.”
The narrative provided in the response letter does not provide sufficient detail as to the proposed operations on the rooftop areas for the project. This information is necessary to disclose the potential effects of the project and to provide decision-makers adequate information to conduct the required discretionary review of the project. Please provide a detailed Rooftop Operation Plan that addresses the items detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
Provide the following information for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas proposed:
• Indicate the types of uses proposed for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas. • Indicate the proposed hours of operation of all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas. • Indicate whether the rooftop area will be used exclusively by the residential portion of the project or if hotel rooftop access will be provided.
• If the hotel will have access to the rooftop, indicate the type, frequency (yearly, monthly, daily, etc.) of rooftop events, appointments, etc.
• If the hotel will have access to the rooftop, indicate maximum occupancy anticipated for each type of event.
25. Arborist Report
As no trees are being removed from the Public Right-of-Way, no arborist report is required.
Provide an Arborist Report detailing all existing trees located within adjacent public right-of-way along South Linden Drive. The arborist report shall also detail all proposed removal and/or installation of new trees in the public right-of-way.
26. Transportation/Traffic Studies
A Transportation Impact Analysis was submitted with this second round of review. Further comments on the Transportation Impact Analysis may result as part of the preparation of environmental documents as required under CEQA.
Pursuant to the City’s Local Transportation Assessment Guidelines adopted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1901, the following transportation/traffic studies are required:
a. Transportation Impact Analysis – Based on the City’s screening criteria, the project does not appear to be screened out from providing a Transportation Impact Analysis. Please provide a Transportation Impact Analysis that evaluates potential Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)- related impacts associated with the proposed Project.
b. Local Transportation Assessment – For projects that generate over 75 peak hour trips, a local transportation assessment/traffic study shall be required using Level of Service (LOS) metric to evaluate signalized and unsignalized intersection operation and use the percentage increase in traffic volumes to evaluate impacts on local residential streets. Analyzed locations 26 should primarily consist of major signalized intersections that are likely to be affected by the project. Additionally, the study area should also look at roadways providing access to the project site, such as the roadway(s) containing the project’s primary driveway or secondary access point, or the intersection(s) immediately adjacent to the project site along with the surrounding area. Such report shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City for review and comment by the City’s Traffic Engineer.
27. Transportation and Trip Reduction Measures - Transportation Impact Analysis This information has been provided as part of the January 10, 2024 submittal.
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a response letter dated August 9, 2023, with Attachment B that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“Please see the enclosed Transportation Impact Analysis by LLG (Attachment E), dated July 31, 2023 in response to this comment.”
In review of the Transportation Impact Analysis provided, Pages 62-64 of the report provides a copy of BHMC Section 10-7-301. However, the Transportation Impact Analysis of the set of plans do not show how the project will comply with the applicable trip reduction measures, including but not limited to, where the required bicycle parking will be provided. The analysis only states on Page 64 that “The Project will comply with the required TDM and trip reduction measures detailed in Section 10-7-301 of the BHMC,” but provided no information on how the project will comply or what measures are incorporated into the project to achieve compliance.
Revise the Transportation Impact Analysis and the set of plans to show how these requirements are implemented in the project. Show the location of the required bicycle parking on the set of plans.
Please provide this requested information to verify compliance with the applicable requirement, as detailed in the May 12, 2023, incomplete letter and provided below.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-7-301, the applicant is required to incorporate various measures to provide for transportation demand management and trip reduction. As the project appears to provide more than 50,000 SF of gross floor area for commercial uses, the applicant shall incorporate all required measures into this project, which includes but is not limited to, providing bicycle parking, spaces reserved for vanpool, and information on rideshare and public transit opportunities.
Revise the project to incorporate the applicable transportation and trip reduction measures accordingly.
28. Geotechnical/Soils Report
A Geotechnical Investigation Report was provided. Comments on the report are provided below.
Provide a geotechnical/soils report for the project and project site. The geotechnical/soils report shall evaluate the proposed project and provide recommendations for the construction of the proposed building based on existing soil conditions. The report should also address the sitespecific fault issues and constraints. 27 a. Discrepancy in Project Scope
This has been corrected. The project scope in the Geotechnical Investigation Report dated November 22, 2023 and submitted on January 10, 2024 now matches the scope of the project plans.
The materials provided in the September 15, 2023, resubmittal of the project included a Geotechnical Investigation Report dated April 8, 2021. In review of the Geotechnical Investigation Report, there appears to be an error in the type of project analyzed by the Geotechnical Engineer in preparation of this document. The proposed project is a 19-story building with four levels of subterranean parking provided at an approximate depth of 41’ at parking level P4 and about 50’ in depth at the hotel elevator well. However, the Geotechnical Investigation Report notes that the project is a nine-story residential structure with three levels of subterranean parking, which does not match the project submitted as part of the Development Plan Review application. Additionally, the excavation depths noted in the report at 35’ do not match the project that was submitted to the city for review. Specifically,
“Based on information provided to us by the client, we understand that the proposed development consists of one nine-story residential structure over three subterranean parking levels that will extend to depths of approximately 35 feet below ground surface.” Furthermore, Item 7.1.16 in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the report (Page 18) stated the following:
“7.1.16 - Any changes in the design, location or elevation, as outlined in this report, should be reviewed by this office. Geocon should be contacted to determine the necessity for review and possible revision of this report.”
Revisions by the geotechnical engineer to the Geotechnical Investigation Report and its recommendations are required to accurately analyze the correct project scope and the currently submitted plans. See comments provided on Geotechnical Investigation.
29. Construction Management Plan
This information has been provided as part of the January 10, 2024 submittal.
Provide a construction management plan that provides relevant project construction details, including but not limited to:
• Anticipated timelines for the different construction phases of the project (e.g., demolition, grading, shoring and excavation, construction of the basement, foundations, and above grade work). Provided and in receipt.
• Proposed locations for the staging of construction materials and equipment. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted. • Anticipated closures of any right-of-way area (alley/street) and timelines for such closures. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
30. Noise Study
The preparation of a noise study will be commissioned by the city as part of the preparation of an environmental report for the project.
Comments from May 12, 2023 Incomplete Letter
28 Provide a noise study of the project to evaluate projected construction noise and noise levels anticipated post-construction with the proposed rooftop outdoor living space uses.
31. Metro Adjacent Development Review
The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
“The Development Plan Review checklist does not require evidence of outreach to the Metro Adjacent Development Review process. As such, this items cannot be required under the HAA and the Permit Streamlining Act in order to complete a Development Plan Review application. The requested items may be provided at the appropriate time during plan check.”
As such, the following is a recommendation to assist the applicant team to do outreach early in the process to avoid potential project alterations as a result of potential project impacts to Metro facilities.
The project site is located within close proximity to the upcoming Metro Purple (D Line) subway, which is currently under construction. The subway line is projected to run under Wilshire Boulevard and travel southwest to a station located in Century City, potentially under the project site. To ensure safety, developers, utility companies, and other third parties must consult with Metro for development, construction, and maintenance activities occurring within 100 feet from Metro right-of-way (ROW) and other real estate assets.
As noted on Page 2 of the Geotechnical Investigation report, “Due to the location of the Metro tunnels for the Purple Line Extension, it is possible that portions of the proposed structure will be situated within the influence zone defined by Section 4.1-A of the MTA Design Criteria and Standards, Volume III, Adjacent Construction Design Manual Adjacent Construction Design Manual. New construction within or near the MTA influence zone, must not impose a surcharge on the subterranean MTA facilities in excess of what the structure is designed to withstand. If proposed subterranean levels are not sufficiently deep then building loads could exceed the surcharge allowable by MTA; therefore, the new loads will have to be transferred below or outside of the defined MTA Surcharge Influence Zone projection.” Provide information to the city of the applicant’s outreach efforts with Metro documenting that the proposed project would not impact Metro’s Purple Line facilities or exceed allowable surcharge limits. Also, as noted on Item 28.A, the project evaluated in the Geotechnical Investigation does not match the project that has been submitted to the city for review. As the project has changed from the nine-story building with three subterranean levels evaluated in the Geotechnical Investigation to the 19-story project with four subterrean levels that was submitted to the city, the larger project may have the ability to result in increased surcharges to Metro facilities and requires their review.
For information on how to request and obtain Metro Adjacent Development Review, please contact Metro’s Development Review Team at (213) 418-3484 or by email at [email protected]. Additional information can be obtained by visiting https://www.metro.net/about/adjacent-development-review/.
29 32. Public Works Stormwater/Environmental Compliance/Sustainability Comments To be reviewed in Building Plan Check.
Below are Stormwater/ Environmental Compliance/ Sustainability comments provided by the Public Works Department:
• Project to use available 100% renewable energy from local utilities. • Sewer system capacity requirement. Require hydraulic modeling to assess sewer capacity issues for the development. Improvement to wastewater system if it impacts sewer system flow.
• If permanent dewatering system is needed, design the project to re-use groundwater for non-potable water systems as required pursuant to BHMC Section 9-4-610.B.2. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board and may require a permit from the City of Beverly Hills. • Appropriate number of approved Meter Service Protection backflow prevention assemblies for Domestic, Irrigation and Fire Meters required. • Must implement Low Impact Development (LID) meeting requirements of LID ordinance to mitigate stormwater runoff.
• The applicant is required to install a grease interceptor for food service establishment use. Grease interceptor design shall meet the Los Angeles County Public Works Industrial Waste Program requirements. Placement should be accessible for maintenance operation.
• Water discharged from a loading dock and trash enclosure shall be directed through grit/oil separator. A loading dock is not to be confused with a loading zone or designated parking space for loading and unloading.
• Organic residuals from daily operations and water used to wash trash rooms cannot be discharged to surface public right of way.
• Condensate from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Trevor Alsop, Environmental Compliance Inspector, at (310) 288-2837 or by email at [email protected].
33. Building and Safety – Building and Technical Code Comments Below are comments provided by Building and Safety regarding compliance with applicable building and technical codes:
• These comments reflect high-level conceptual review comments. Complete code compliance review will be forthcoming upon plan check submittal. Building Plan Check Item
• The review comments are in accordance with 2022 California Building Code and its references. Building Plan Check Item
• General contractor must submit Construction Management Plan for review and approval prior to any building permit issuance. The plan needs to address how to the building to be built including demolition, excavation, shoring, access to site for ingress and egress, haul route, tower crane if needed, pedestrian protection, sanitary facilities, a temporary or permanent stairway, standpipe, fire watch during construction, traffic control plan (will be reviewed by Public Works), etc. Refer to California Building Code (CBC) Chapter
33. Building Plan Check Item
30 • The project to comply with requirements of Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 10 and Chapter 6, STREET, ALLEY, AND HIGHWAY DEDICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS. Alley dedications inconsistently shown on resubmitted plans. All sheets must identify location of alley dedications. Item Addressed.
• Survey map is required to show all easements on the properties. Provided • Comply with the City’s applicable parking standards.
https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/563485925821755963/ParkingSt andards(REV2.18).pdf
https://www.beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/1014/Parking-StandardsPDF?bidId= Not addressed. See Planning’s comments related to adherence with the City’s parking requirements.
New Comment: Updated link provided to applicable parking standards. • The project requires LID (Low Impact Development) plan check. Building Plan Check Item
• On site plan, confirm the location of seismic fault line with dimensions per the seismic fault investigation report. Provided on revised Architectural Plans. • Provide complete Fire department and vehicle access. Building Plan Check Item • Hotel will be classified as R-1 occupancy. CBC 310. Building Plan Check Item • The project is required to be designed in compliance with requirements of CBC 403, Highrise building and CBC 405, Underground Building. Building Plan Check Item • The project is required to provide separate accessible parking requirements per CBC 11A and CBC 11B for residential and nonresidential, respectively. Additionally, the project shall provide accessible and standard EV charging parking spaces. Show the location of these required EV parking spaces in the proposed garage. EV parking spaces not provided on parking plans. Revise parking plans to call out all EV parking spaces within the project. • The project shall comply with both residential and nonresidential requirements of California Green Building Standards Code in accordance with Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 2 and Article 11. Building Plan Check Item • The project is required to fully comply with California Energy Code. Building Plan Check Item
• The project is required fully comply with accessibility provisions of CBC 11A and CBC 11B for residential and nonresidential, respectively. Building Plan Check Item • The hotel shall be designed in compliance with CBC 11B-224. Building Plan Check Item • The project building shall be designed in compliance with requirements of CBC 705.5 and CBC 705.8. Building Plan Check Item
• The project shall fully comply with requirements of CBC Chapter 10. No exiting analysis was provided. Building Plan Check Item
• The project shall comply with accessible means of egress requirements per CBC 1009.
Building Plan Check Item
• The enclosed parking structure shall be designed in compliance with CBC 406. Building Plan Check Item
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Ocean Kwon, Senior Plan Review Engineer, at (310) 285-1153 or by email at [email protected].
34. Building and Safety – Right of Way Comments
The materials provided in the May 9, 2024 resubmittal of the project included a response letter (Attachment B) that includes the following response to this comment/correction:
31 “The Development Plan Review checklist does not require a water demand study, a will serve letter, or a proposal of Edison upgrades. As such, these items cannot be required under the HAA and the Permit Streamlining Act to complete a Development Plan Review application. The City may, however, request these items as part of the CEQA process once the DRP application is deemed complete, depending on the type of CEQA clearance ultimately determined to be required for the Project. If the applicable CEQA review does not require these items to determine adequate water supply and anticipated demand (i.e., should the Project be determined to be CEQA exempt) the City may request (and the Applicant would provide) these items during the plan check process, prior to the issuance of a building permit.”
The City requested this information to have ready for future environmental review of the project.
This information may requested at a later date for environmental review and is listed here to advise the applicant team of the documents and studies that may needed.
Below are comments provided by Building and Safety regarding areas in the public right-of-way:
• Provide a water demand study to evaluate anticipated water demand for project and for the City to evaluate the types of upgrades and improvements that will be necessary to existing infrastructure. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
• Obtain will serve letter from the Public Works Water Division. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
• Coordinate with Edison to evaluate necessary upgrades to existing infrastructure to facilitate the project and provide the City a proposal of all upgrades required to provide service to the project. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted.
• Provide a Construction Management Plan with a narrative detailing the types of temporary encroachments that the project would require during project construction.
Based on the proposal, the project would require working areas for the staging and storage of construction materials, equipment, crane(s), trailers, deliveries, and for a laydown area for transport and maneuvering of vehicles. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted. A version of this was provided as Attachment H to the materials submitted on January 10, 2024.
• Provide a plan showing the proposed haul routes and delivery route to the project site.
To limit construction impacts to residential properties within the vicinity of the project site, all construction-generated traffic should provide ingress and egress to and from the project site directly to Wilshire Boulevard. Incomplete as this information was not provided, needs to be resubmitted. A version of this was provided as Attachment H to the materials submitted on January 10, 2024.
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Ara Retchian, Senior Plan Review Engineer, at (310) 285-1106 or by email at [email protected].
35. Fire Department Comments
Below are comments provided by the City’s Fire Department:
32 • The project shall be designed in compliance with all applicable California Fire Code (CFC) and California Building Code (CBC) requirements for high rise buildings. Although these are preliminary drawings, all applicable high rise requirements shall be considered and incorporated into the project during the design process. Fire Plan Check Item
For questions regarding these comments, please contact Cecilia Sohn, Plan Check Inspector, at (310) 281-2716 or by email at [email protected].
36. Responses to Corrections Required
On a separate sheet, provide a detailed response to each correction noted in this letter clarifying how each correction was addressed. Submit this response letter when resubmitting your project.
37. Additional Corrections
Based on the responses to this incomplete letter and changes to the project plans, additional corrections may result from the review of the revised project.
38. Additional Comments
See redlined set of plans for additional comments.
In order for staff to continue processing the case, the foregoing list of corrections must be addressed on a resubmittal of plans and/or application materials, and additional entitlement applications.
Before resubmitting your project to the Planning Division, please ensure that all corrections have been addressed and that each correction has been acknowledged by the architect team.
Once the items above have been addressed and submitted, the application will once again be assessed for completeness. In your response resubmittal, please provide a copy of this letter.
Should you have any questions regarding the above comments, please feel free to call me at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
_________________________________
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT 9
City’s Appeal Procedures
ARTICLE 1. APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS TO COUNCIL 1-4-101: RIGHT TO APPEAL:
A. Where a right of appeal to council exists under this code, and a procedure is not otherwise specifically set forth in this code, an appeal may be taken to the council, in accordance with the procedures set forth in this article, from any act, ruling, or determination of any commission, board, or official or from the denial, suspension, or revocation of any permit or license.
B. No right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by an official of the city pursuant to any of the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised pursuant to any of the provisions of this code.
C. No appeal pursuant to the provisions of this article may be taken from any administrative decision made by an official of the city, unless the decision to appeal has been first taken up with the official rendering the decision. (1962 Code § 1-6.101) 1-4-102: TIME WITHIN WHICH APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED; WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL PETITIONS:
A. Any appeal petition shall be filed with the city clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision. In the event the last day of the filing period falls on a nonbusiness day, the appeal period shall be extended to include the next business day. The timely filing of the appeal petition is jurisdictional. The fee schedule for appeal petitions shall be approved by the council and maintained on file by the director of finance administration.
B. If an appeal petition, filed pursuant to subsection A of this section, is withdrawn at any time prior to the council decision on the appeal petition, then subsequent to such withdrawal, the council may review the decision which was the subject of the withdrawn petition. Such review may be ordered by motion of the council duly adopted within fifteen (15) calendar days after the appeal petition is withdrawn. If the council orders a review of such a decision, the effectiveness of such decision shall be stayed until council review is final. (1962 Code § 1-6.102; amd. Ord. 94-O-2211, eff. 9-2-1994) 1-4-103: CONTENTS OF APPEAL PETITIONS:
Every appeal petition shall contain a statement of the facts upon which the appeal is based in sufficient detail to enable the council to understand the nature of the controversy, the basis of the appeal, and the relief requested. (1962 Code § 1-6.103) 1-4-104: STAYS PENDING APPEALS:
Upon the filing of an appeal petition, the effectiveness of any permit, entitlement to use, or other right granted by the decision appealed from shall be stayed pending a final decision by the Council. (1962 Code § 1-6.104) 1-4-105: CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL PETITIONS:
After an appeal petition is filed in accordance with this article, the City Clerk shall place the matter on the Council agenda for Council action. Based on the appeal petition and the written material presented, the Council shall determine whether to refer the matter back to the commission, board, or official rendering the decision pursuant to subsection A of this section or whether to grant a hearing on the appeal pursuant to subsection B of this section. The Council shall not permit oral testimony in its determination under this section.
A. If the Council finds the facts in the appeal petition contain new and material evidence not previously presented to the board, commission, or official, the Council may order that the board, commission, or official rehear the matter. Written notice of the rehearing shall be mailed to the appellant and to such other persons who have appeared and addressed the board, commission, or official at the prior hearing in connection with such matter, and mailing shall be at least twenty (20) days before such rehearing, and such other notice as required by law for the previous hearing shall also be given.
B. Except as provided for in subsection A of this section, the Council shall set the matter for a hearing. At least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing, written notice shall be mailed to the appellant and to other persons who appeared and addressed the board, commission, or official at the prior hearing on the matter, and such other notice as required by law for the previous hearing shall also be given. (Ord. 18-O-2752, eff. 5-11-2018)
1-4-106: HEARINGS BY THE COUNCIL:
Unless otherwise ordered and noticed, hearings shall be held as a part of the regular meetings of the Council. The hearing shall be de novo in that an independent reexamination of the matter shall be made. The appellant shall have the burden of proof in all cases, and where it appears that an appellant was served with a notice of hearing but fails to appear either in person or by counsel, or fails to present or offer evidence, the Council may adopt the determination or approve the act of the board, commission, or official, or it may itself decide the matter upon the record with or without taking any additional evidence. Any oral or documentary evidence may be received, but the Mayor shall exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. Unless a demand is made, witnesses will not be sworn. It shall not be a ground for objection that the evidence is hearsay or secondary, however, the Council's decision shall be made upon substantial evidence. (1962 Code § 1-6.106) 1-4-107: DECISIONS BY THE COUNCIL FINAL:
Upon the hearing of the appeal, the Council may refer the matter back to the board, commission, or official, with directions for further consideration, or the Council may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or may make such decision or determination as may appear just and reasonable in the light of the evidence presented. The decision of the Council shall be final and conclusive at one minute after twelve o'clock (12:01) A.M. on the first day after issuance. (1962 Code § 1-6.107) 1-4-108: FINDINGS BY THE COUNCIL:
The Council shall prepare written findings if, prior to closing the public hearing, the appellant, the applicant, or an aggrieved party requests the Council to make written findings. In such event, the Council shall direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution containing the facts found to be true, which findings shall be considered and adopted by resolution at a subsequent regular meeting of the Council. The findings shall include the reasons for the Council's ruling, including, but not limited to, findings of facts, if any, required by the Code sections or ordinance upon which the appeal is based. (1962 Code § 1-6.108) ATTACHMENT 10
HCD Letter of Technical Assistance
March 28, 2024
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
March 28, 2024
Robert Delgadillo, Planning Director
City of Compton
Via: [email protected]
205 S. Willowbrook Avenue
Compton, CA 90220
Dear Robert Delgadillo:
RE: 1601 W. El Segundo Blvd, Compton – Letter of Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance to the City of Compton (City) regarding the proposed development at 1601 W. El Segundo Blvd (Project). This assistance is based upon an inquiry submitted through the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) online portal by the Project applicant on December 6, 2023. The request for technical assistance pertains to the ability of the City to require discretionary approvals for project applications submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), also known colloquially as the “Builder’s Remedy” under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). HCD met with the applicant on December 19, 2023, and with City staff on February 5, 2024, as part of its review.
From these meetings and the submitted materials, HCD understands that the Project proposes to construct 45 units on the site, which has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Industrial and is zoned Limited Manufacturing. Nine of the units (20 percent of the overall unit count) will be reserved for low-income households. HCD also understands that the City accepted the Preliminary Application1 in its letter dated July 18, 2023. In the letter, the City states that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), General Plan Amendment (GPA), and Zone Change (Zone Change), will be required as part of the application submittal.
Question: Does the HAA prevent a city from requiring that a project application include a request to amend the general plan/zoning code in order to avoid a legal non-conformity if/when the project is approved?
1 Gov. Code, § 65941.1, subd. (a).
Robert Delgadillo, Planning Director
City of Compton
No provision in the HAA prevents a local government from requesting a general plan/zoning code amendment in order to avoid a legal non-conformity. The HAA provides only that a local government must make one of five findings to deny a housing development project for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households. 2 Here, because
the City did not have an adopted housing element in substantial compliance with state law when the applicant submitted its Preliminary Application, the City cannot make the findings necessary to deny the Project under subdivision (d), paragraph (5). 3 However, this
situation does not preclude the City from making one of the other four findings when it ultimately considers the Project at a future public hearing.
Further, the Builder’s Remedy does not expressly prevent the City from requiring discretionary permits and/or legislative actions (e.g., GPAs, Zoning Changes, CUPs, specific plan amendments, etc.) that would be required for similar projects where the Builder’s Remedy does not apply.4 Note, however, that a violation of the HAA will result if the City’s insistence on a GPA or Zoning Change renders the project infeasible.5 For example, if insisting on the GPA or Zoning Change delays project approval or increases the cost of the approval process, a violation of the HAA would result.
In summation, HCD does not find, at this point, that the City is in violation of Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d), by requiring a GPA, Zone Change, and CUP as a part of the Project entitlement package. However, any action by the City that would render the project infeasible, as described above, will likely constitute a violation of the HAA.
If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Bentley Regehr at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief
2 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d). 3 Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d), paragraph (5), also known as “Builder’s Remedy,” provides that if a jurisdiction has not adopted a current housing element certified by HCD, developers may propose eligible housing development projects that do not comply with either the zoning or the general plan.
4 As explained by City staff, the GPA and Zoning Change are only intended to remedy the inconsistencies between the Project and applicable regulatory documents that will result when the Project is approved.
5 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d).
ATTACHMENT 11
Public Hearing Notice
City Clerk’s Office
RLY
IM
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its regular meeting to beheld on Monday, March 11,2024, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:
AN APPEAL OF STAFF’S OCTOBER 13, 2023 INCOMPLETE
DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65943(c), PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED 19-STORY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MIXEDUSE BUILDING AT 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE The proposed project consists of the construction of a new 19-story, 200’ tall, residential and commercial mixed use building at 125-129 South Linden Drive. The commercial portion of the project consists of a 73-room hotel and restaurant located on the first through fifth floors of the building. The residential portion consists of 165 apartment dwelling units, ranging from studio to two-bedroom units, located on the sixth through the 19th floors of the building, with 20% of the units (33 units) to be reserved for rental to lower income households. Parking for the project is proposed within a four-level subterranean parking structure that would be accessed from an alley abutting the rear of the property, providing parking for 126 vehicles. The project site consists of two vacant lots with a combined lot area of approximately 21,676 square feet located along the west-side of the 100-block of South Linden Drive, within the R-4 Multiple Residential Zone. The applicant has submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application for review of the development as a “Builder’s Remedy” project, which relies on the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), codified in Government Code §65589.5.This project is currently under review by the City and no action regarding a decision on the projecthas occurred. The applicant (9300 Wilshire, LLC) has filed an appeal of City’s staff’s determination, issued on October 13, 2023, that an application to construct the proposed project is incomplete.
On February 6, 2024, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for the City Council’s regular meeting of March 11, 2024.
City ofBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15378(b)(5)), administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, including determinations of application completeness, arenot considered projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is currently under review and the City has not performed an environmental analysis of the project,as project details may change in response to the City’s comments during project review.
Environmental review ofthe project will be performed and publicly available prior to any decision on the project being issued.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please be advised that pre-entry metal detector screening requirements are now in place at CityHall. Members of the public are requested to plan visits accordingly. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meetingthrough live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings are broadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms. Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed.These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.
Public Comment Participation:
• Oral Comment/Listen only: (310) 288-2288• Email: [email protected]• Video (during public comment only): http://beverlyhills.org/comment• To Watch Video Live: http://beverlyhills.org/live or• On-Demand: http://beverlyhills.org/citycouncilmeetings• In-Person: Submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk at the meeting How to Submit Public Comment (Email/Video):It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council/Parking Authority. Written comments should identify theAgenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only thefirst three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a largenumber of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the City Clerk’s Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part ofthe record.
If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Public comment via video conference will be no longer than three (3) minutes per each individual comment, subject to City Council discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting. In person speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk directly during the meeting.
City ofBeverly Hifis I 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 I t(310) 285-2400 f(310) 385-0862 BeverlyHffls.org Any interested person may participate in the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the City Council. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Council’s 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.In Person Participation:
All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the above information on the location and time of this meeting.
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 earroyobeverlyhffls.org. Please also contact us to add your email to the interested parties list for this ordinance, so that important updates and notifications may be sent to you.
HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
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) 285-2400 (voice) J 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.
City ofBeverly Hifis I 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hifis, California 90210 I t(310) 285-2400 fl310) 385-0862 BeverlyHills.org ATTACHMENT 12
Public Correspondence
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: munkhbat ania
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 9:05 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: 9300 Wilshire LLC
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: External Sender
Use cauƟon when clicking links or opening aƩachments
________________________________
Good morning,
The proposed building if permiƩed is going to make the traffic on Linden and Wilshire impossible. Most cars traveling from Olympic to West LA to UCLA transit through Linden and if a hotel is built at that locaƟon the traffic will become insurmountable.
Thank you and I can be reached at if you have any quesƟon.
Ania
Sent from my iPhone
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
October 10, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Edgar Arroyo
Senior Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Email: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive (PL2300146) Dear Mr. Arroyo:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the proposed development at 125- 129 S. Linden Drive. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments on the project.
This project is subject to the so-called “builder’s remedy” under the Housing Accountability Act. Because the project qualifies as “a housing development project . . . for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” under the Act, the City must approve it unless the City can satisfy its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicability of one of the exceptions in subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(5) of Section 65589.5. And because the City has not adopted a general plan housing element that substantially complies with state law, it is further prohibited from using subdivision (d)(1) or (d)(5) to reject the project.1 When a locality rejects a housing development project without complying with the Act, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov.
Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. 1 In a September 12 decision in our litigation against the City, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP00143, the Court determined that the City’s housing element does not substantially comply with state housing element law.
October 10, 2023
Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce the Act:
In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform. San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees. In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that the Los Altos violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixeduse residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case. In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, a case brought by our organization, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the Housing Accountability Act when it rejected a 48-unit condominium project based on vague concerns about health and safety. Following the decision, the City agreed to pay $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to our organization and two other plaintiffs.
Based on the above legal framework, we are not aware of any legal basis for the City to deny the application to develop this project. If the City nevertheless does so, we reserve the right to initiate litigation against the City as a “housing organization” under the Act.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Jeffery Lambert, Interim Comm. Dev. Dir. (by email to [email protected]) Laurence Wiener, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected])
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
February 20, 2024
VIA EMAIL
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Email: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive (PL2300146) Dear Mr. Arroyo:
As you know, Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using impact litigation to address California’s housing crisis. This letter follows up on our October 10, 2023 letter regarding the proposed development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. That letter established our standing to challenge any denial of the application under subdivision (k)(2) of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Codes Section 65589.5. Now that the City stands at the precipice of denying the application, we are notifying the City of our intention to initiate litigation against the City under the HAA if it does so.
As we explained in our prior letter, this project is subject to the so-called “builder’s remedy” under the HAA. Because the project qualifies as “a housing development project . . . for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” the City must approve it unless the City can demonstrate the applicability of one of the exceptions in subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(5) of the HAA. And because the City has not adopted a general plan housing element that substantially complies with state law, it is further prohibited from using subdivision (d)(1) or (d)(5) to reject the project.
More specifically, as you know, a court recently determined that the City’s housing element does not substantially comply with state housing element law. The City therefore has no good faith basis for believing that it is not subject to the builder’s remedy.
When a locality rejects a housing development project without complying with the HAA, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last decade in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). The locality bears the burden of proof in HAA litigation, and must pay a prevailing challenger’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(i), (k)(1)(A)(ii), (k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
Indeed, just last week, a court fined the City of Berkeley $2.6 million on this basis, and that city February 20, 2024
was also forced to pay $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees arising out a developer’s HAA lawsuit.1 We have successfully litigated under the HAA. In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the HAA when it unlawfully rejected a condominium project. That city attempted to appeal the decision but abandoned its appeal after coming to understand that it would need to post a multimillion dollar bond to do so. It ultimately agreed to approve the project and pay $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to us and two other plaintiffs.
And to be clear, if the City Council affirms the incompleteness determination regarding the 125-129 S. Linden Drive project, that will constitute a denial of the project for purposes of the HAA. The City’s action is a transparent sham that attempts to insulate the City from HAA liability by disguising a denial as an incompleteness determination. Among other things, the City cannot demand that an applicant under the builder’s remedy apply for a general plan amendment or rezoning in order to have its application deemed complete. The builder’s remedy requires the City to disregard its zoning and general plan standards, not to change them.
It is not surprising that the City would rather the applicant follow a much more discretionary pathway to permit this project, but it cannot legally required the applicant to do so.
If anything, the City’s attempt to disguise its denial as an incompleteness determination only provides further evidence that would support a bad faith finding under the HAA. And we note that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge recently overruled a demurrer filed by another City that had similarly attempted to misconstrue a denial as an incompleteness determination.2 We urge the City to follow the law. If it refuses to do so, we intend to initiate litigation against the City under the HAA.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Michael Forbes, Comm. Dev. Dir. (by email to [email protected]) Masa Alkire, City Planner (by email to [email protected]) Nancy Hunt-Coffey, City Manager (by email to [email protected]) Ryan Gohlich, Asst. City Manager (by email to [email protected]) City Council (by email to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected])
Laurence Wiener, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected]) 1 https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/02/16/court-ruling-1900-fourth-street 2 November 22, 2023 Order Overruling Demurrer, California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP02614.
From: n a
Date: February 21, 2024 at 8:47:57 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 125-129 S. Linden Drive - Project Update and Public Hearing Information Hello,
Thanks so much for keeping us in the loop for this project. We live on Linden Dr and would be utmost affected if this project gets a go ahead. Already Linden residents are greatly affected by heavy traffic and lack of parking spaces on the street. There are literally just a few metered parking spaces and the guests and visitors, as well as the parents of Good Shepherd Catholic school get a lot of parking tickets.
Linden is a main connecting corridor for any transit from Olympic Drive to Wilshire especially for westbound traffic. The businesses surrounding the Linden-Wilshire suffer severely from the lack of parking spaces. Already when someone travels from Golden Triangle to Linden we spend almost 10 minutes to pass Wilshire specially since a No turn on red sign was placed from North Linden to Wilshire last year significantly slowing the traffic.
We hope these points would be taken into consideration when the project is discussed.
Thanks so much for your kind attention.
Nara
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dan Landis < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:28 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Shawn < >; Harris Rosenblum < >
Subject: 125-129 Linden
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello,
Please be advised that we own a home at South Linden and became aware of the proposed new project. As a property owner, we object and oppose this project as submitted. As we understand, the developer is seeking approval under the “Builder’s Remedy” which we have been advised would allow them to build without following Beverly Hills Code. We strongly encourage City Council to reject this proposal as drafted. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Landis
Wilshire Development Company
Calabasas Road, Suite 104
Calabasas, CA 91302
Some people who received this message don't o�en get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
To: Beverly Hills City Council
Re: Nonsupport, 125-129 S. Linden Drive
Date: April 15, 2024
From: Karen Constine, Resident
Greetings.
I am expressing my concerns about the proposed mixed-use development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. The applicant has filed an appeal, and the City Council is scheduled to hear it on April 16, 2024.
The project, described as a 19-story mixed-use development, includes an approximately 200-foot-tall building featuring 165 apartments and a 73-room hotel, far exceeding zoning limits on density and height. If constructed, it would be too large and significantly disrupt our residential neighborhood, including those living on Linden and nearby streets like McCarty.
Please do not support this project.
Very truly yours,
Karen R. Constine
(323)
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Ken Goldman < >
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:16 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo; Nancy Hunt-Coffey
Subject: RE: 125-129 South Linden Drive
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To the Beverly Hills City Council—
We also note that the proposed over-development far far exceeds the limits of our City’s General Plan and the applicable zoning limitations.
Thank you.
Ken
Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association
From: Ken Goldman
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:59 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 125-129 South Linden Drive
THE SOUTHWEST BEVERLY HILLS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
To the Beverly Hills City Council—
We see that both the staff and the applicant for the proposed project at 125-129 South Linden have requested that the Hearing currently scheduled for 7pm April 16, 2024 be postponed until May. Based on this, the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association will not appear on April 16.
However, we note that the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association remains very much opposed to this proposed over-development which will adversely affect our residential quality of life, traffic at the key intersection of Linden and Wilshire, traffic on the 300, 200 and 100 blocks of Linden Drive-- all residential streets-- traffic on Charleville and Gregory, shade and shadow of nearby homes, and many other aspects of our residents’ lives.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ken Goldman
2 Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association
Tel: (310)
Email:
From: Russell Haber < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 2:30 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniela Haber < >
Subject: 125-129 S Linden Drive Project
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am writing on behalf of those who live at S. Linden Drive, which is less than 100 yards south of this proposed project.
The City of BH must find a way to approve their housing element so they aren't strongarmed by developer, Leo Pustilnikov and his attorneys.
Although I have no problem with the building itself, has anyone taken the time to appreciate the chaos it will create to build such a project? The stretch of S. Linden Drive, over the past 10 years from Wilshire, to the north, south to Charleville, has become more dangerous to navigate as traffic has increased including the speeding cars racing north to Wilshire to beat the light to make a left turn onto Wilshire (as it's one of the few streets in the immediate area where one CAN make a left). Please contact Good Shepherd Catholic School (148 S. Linden) who recently had to add crossing guards at the Linden/Charleville intersection. Linden is a rather narrow street, like many others in Beverly Hills between Charleville and Wilshire, that allow parking on both sides. Since there are apartment buildings and a school on this stretch of the street, many park on the street at all times of the day/night. Getting out of a car, street-side, has become extremely dangerous task because of the speeding cars and lack of open street. It's already chaotic enough with all the delivery trucks (FedEx, UPS, Amazon, etc.) coming through, double-parked, during the day). I can only imagine it would be intolerable with all types of large trucks, construction workers, cement mixers, etc. passing through this narrow stretch for years on end. There appears to have been no thought of a mitigation strategy with regard to the building process. It's already bad enough we've dealt with the noise and inconvenience of the METRO for many years.
This project will be a disaster for the quality of life and safety this small community within Beverly Hills. People who do not live here can NOT appreciate how compromised this street has become over the past 10 years. Please find a way to stop this project. I am sure there are other areas within Beverly Hills where this project can be built.
Respectfully,
Russell Haber
S. Linden Drive Apt
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
From: catherine fitzmaurice kozubei
To: City Clerk
Cc: catherine fitzmaurice kozubei
Subject: 125-129 South Linden Drive
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:55:51 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
To whom it may concern:
I think the proposed construction on South Linden Drive will impact current area residents’ quality of life extremely negatively. There will be more traffic flow, pressure on finding street parking on surrounding blocks, and more pedestrians on the adjoining quiet streets, as well as visual impact and negative air quality. And an influx of potential for local crime.
I would like to vote NO on permission for this project to move forward. There are many other new (and old) hotels very close, and the community/ neighorhood quality of this part of Beverly Hills is suffering.
Thank you. Please let me know if I can do anything else to try to dissuade those who are just seeking an immediate cash boost for themselves.
~catherine
~~
Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Daniela Haber
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 1:02 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Project at 125-129 S. Linden Drive
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hi Edgar,
My name is Daniela Haber and I’m the owner and resident of S Linden Dr, Unit , Beverly Hills, CA.
I wanted to write this note to reiterate what others including Russell Haber have already expressed in their previous emails. I am completely against the development of this project as it would bring numerous problems to our community. From the impossible increase in what is already unmanageable traffic, to visual and environmental pollution to safety…. You name it. It would be a disaster.
I hope the city will continue to maintain its strict criteria and not approve such a horrendous project of this magnitude and nature.
Kind regards,
Daniela Haber
May 17, 2024
To:
Mayor Lester Friedman
Vice Mayor Sharona R Nazarian PsyD.
Councilmember John A. Mirisch
Councilmember Craig A. Corman
Councilmember Mary N. Wells
I am writing in regards to the proposed project at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. I am a resident and live on the block of South Linden. I am opposed to the proposed project at 125-129 S. Linden Drive development for the following reasons:
Height and Density Restriction
Over Development on a residential street
The safety and traffic element
Parking relationship to this development
Shadowing and blockage concern of building height
The height of 19 stories is higher than any building in Beverly Hills and in a residential area.
There are schools located a few buildings next to the 125-126 S. Linden Drive proposed development. One is located on the corner of Charleville Blvd. and Linden.
Drive. The safety of staff and children are of high concern. Also noted traffic at the drop off and pick up times of the children daily in this area. The Beverly High School is located in the path of this area. The students walk, bike and drive to school so the addition of traffic is safety concern too.
There are five hotels in the area so we are heavily populated with hotels.
The housing development has been certified and there are designated areas established in Beverly Hills
There was a restaurant located on the corner of Wilshire and Spaulding and it closed showing there is not a need for restaurant in this area.
There are several empty business establishments in the area so the concentration needs is to occupy these empty buildings.
The area is very congested due to the several department stores in the area. The safety of the residence and high traffic use is a concern. Often police are activated in the area since a crime is committed in the department stores and a police search is activated.
Thank you for your assistance,
Karen Popovich Levyn
Resident of the Block of South Linden Drive
ATTACHMENT 13
Appeal Petition
633 West Fifth Street
64th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
November 13, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
Planning Division
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Appeal Pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(c) 125 – 129 South Linden Drive
Dear Mr. Arroyo,
We are submitting this transmittal on behalf of 9300 Wilshire, LLC (the “Applicant”) in connection with the Development Plan Review application (“DPR Application”) for the proposed mixed use project at 125-129 South Linden Drive (“Site”), assigned case number PL2300126 (the “Project” or “DPR Project”). On October 21, 2022 the Applicant submitted a Senate Bill 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“HCA”) preliminary vesting application (“HCA Preliminary Application”) for the Project, which is attached as Exhibit A.1
At the time of submittal of the HCA Preliminary Application the City lacked a legally compliant Housing Element.2
Accordingly, the Project relies on the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) which prohibits the City from using its objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing development project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5). The City’s Housing Element remains out of legal compliance, as recently confirmed by the September 12, 2023 Los Angeles County 1 The City’s May 12, 2023 First Incomplete Letter states “Although the Preliminary Application was submitted on Friday, October 21, 2022, the fees for the application were paid after hours, thus the submittal date is considered to be Monday, October 24, 2022.” This point is not contested here. 2 In a letter to the City dated May 12, 2023, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that the City’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element, adopted February 21, 2023, does not substantially comply with State Housing Element law. HCD’s May 12, 2023 letter also stated that “[b]y no means was the City’s prior submittal [adopted October 15, 2021] in substantial compliance with State Housing Law,” and the “City’s findings as part of the adoption are inadequate to demonstrate substantial compliance with statutory requirements; therefore, revisions to the element continue to be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.”
See also “HCD Letter of Technical Assistance Letter” to Rand Paster & Nelson LLP, dated October 5, 2022.
Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
Superior Court ruling in Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Beverly Hills, Case No. 23STCP00143.
The Applicant submitted the Project’s DPR Application on April 24, 2023, which was within the six-month statutory time period required by California Government Code Section 65941.1(d) to maintain the vested rights conferred by the HCA Preliminary Application. The DPR Application is attached as Exhibit B. On May 12, 2023, within thirty days from receipt of the DPR Application, the City timely issued a letter deeming the DPR Application incomplete (the “First Incomplete Letter”), which is attached here as Exhibit C. The City’s First Incomplete Letter clearly rejected the entire legal premise that the Project may proceed under the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA, and instead instructed the Applicant to pursue a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to cure areas where the Project does not comply with current zoning. The City also claimed that the HCA Preliminary Application was of no further force or effect because the DPR Project was allegedly “substantially different” from the Project as described in the HCA Preliminary Application, purportedly because the DPR Project includes commercial uses which were not initially described in the HCA Preliminary Application. However, the City’s assertion is incorrect and the HCA Preliminary Application remains valid given the Project, as described in the DPR Application, did not violate the only two criteria recognized by California law that could result in a loss of vesting: namely, the DPR Project did not increase or decrease the number of residential units or square footage of construction by more than 20 percent from the project description and plans submitted with the HCA Preliminary Application.3 On August 9, 2023, the Applicant submitted a formal written response to the First Incomplete Letter (“Response to First Incomplete Letter”) which included detailed written responses to each of the First Incomplete Letter’s 38 comments as well as attachments addressing the specific information identified as outstanding by the First Incomplete Letter. The letter refuted the First Incomplete Letter’s assertions that 1) the Project’s right to HCA vesting have been lost due a change in the Project’s uses, and 2) that additional entitlement approvals, including a General Plan amendment and Zone Change, are required to allow the Project to be approved. We continue to maintain that these assertions are erroneous and reflect the City’s misunderstanding of State law requirements established by the vesting provisions of the HCA, the “Builders Remedy” provision of the HAA, and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”). The Response to First Incomplete Letter was sent to the City within 90 days of the date of the First Incomplete Letter, in conformance with Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2), and was sent to the Project’s assigned planner at the City via email, which is consistent with the method of communication and transmittal of application materials used for all other Project-related correspondence between the City and this firm. A copy of the Response to First Incomplete Letter and the associated email transmittal is attached to this letter as Exhibit D.
Pursuant to the HCA, the Applicant expected to receive a response regarding the DPR Application’s completeness from the City within 30 days, or on or before Friday, September 8, 2023. No such response was provided by the City by that date, and therefore this firm sent additional correspondence to the City on September 15, 2023 (“Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter”), again via email, advising the City that because no response to the Response to First Incomplete Letter or additional requests for application items had been timely received, the Project was therefore considered “deemed complete” in accordance with HCA and the PSA. The City responded to the Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter on September 18, 2023, via email, stating that they never received the 3 Government Code Section 65941.1(c).
Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
Response to First Incomplete Letter due to an issue with the City’s email security filter system. A copy of the Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter and associated email correspondence on this topic is included as Exhibit E. Notwithstanding that the Response to First Incomplete Letter was in fact timely transmitted to the City on August 9, 2023, within the 90-day timeframe prescribed by Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(2), and notwithstanding the fact that prior and subsequent email correspondence between this firm and the City was timely received by the City, the Applicant agreed to provide the City with a new 30-day period from September 15, 2023 (the date of the Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter transmittal) to review the materials originally transmitted on August 9, 2023 as part of the Response to First Incomplete Letter.
On October 13, 2023, the City issued a second letter which again deemed the DPR Application incomplete (the “Second Incomplete Letter”), which is attached as Exhibit F. The Second Incomplete Letter reiterates the argument that the HCA Preliminary Application is no longer valid because the DPR Project was “substantially different” from the Project as described in the HCA Preliminary Application.
The letter also states that, notwithstanding the clear applicability of the Builder’s Remedy, the Applicant must still file applications for discretionary legislative approvals that the City is legally prohibited from requiring for the Project. Specifically, the letter states:
“The City disagrees with the position that applications for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change are not required, as detailed in the May 12, 2023 incomplete letter and provided below.
The City continues to believe it has the authority to require the applications to be filed and processed as part of an overall project, even if, assuming arguendo, that it may be constrained by state law in its ability to deny a project on consistency bases.” The Second Incomplete Letter further claims that the HCA Preliminary Application is invalid because the application items, including the aforementioned General Plan Amendment and Zone Change applications, remain incomplete and it is now impossible to make the application complete within 90 days of the First Incomplete Letter, issued on May 12, 2023. As noted above, the record reflects that the Applicant timely submitted the Response to First Incomplete Letter, and elected to grant the City additional time to review the materials submitted as part of the Response to First Incomplete Letter, resulting from an issue with the City’s email system.
In light of the City’s repeated rejection of the DPR Application and the ongoing disagreement between the Applicant and the City about how to process the Builder’s Remedy aspect of the Project, it is clear that the parties have reached an impasse. After the Applicant’s multiple attempts to explain and clarify how the Builders Remedy provision applies to this Project and why local zoning rules are suspended given the lack of a substantially complaint Housing Element, it is now abundantly clear the City refuses to submit to State law. As such, the Applicant is left with no option but to submit this appeal in accordance with the procedure established by Government Code Section 65943(c). The appeal again requests that the City recognize the continued validity of the HCA Preliminary Application and continue to process the DPR Application as a Builder’s Remedy request, without the need for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change.
Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
I. BASIS FOR APPEAL
A. Government Code Section 65943(c)
As part of the HCA, Government Code Section 65943(c) provides an opportunity for appeal when an application for submittal has been determined not to be complete:
“(c) If the application together with the submitted materials are determined not to be complete pursuant to subdivision (b), the public agency shall provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. A city or county shall provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both.
There shall be a final written determination by the agency on the appeal not later than 60 calendar days after receipt of the applicant’s written appeal. The fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the 60-day period.
Notwithstanding a decision pursuant to subdivision (b) that the application and submitted materials are not complete, if the final written determination on the appeal is not made within that 60-day period, the application with the submitted materials shall be deemed complete for the purposes of this chapter.”
As described in detail above, the Project’s completion of a HCA Preliminary Application, DPR Application submittal, and subsequent adherence to the statutory timelines and requirements of HCA provide the Applicant with the right to appeal. As such, this appeal is filed in accordance with the procedure established by Government Code Section 65943(c) and must be routed to the City Council as the City’s governing body for a determination within 60 days.
II. APPEAL JUSTIFICATION
A. The Project Maintains Vested Rights Pursuant to the HCA.
As acknowledged by the First Incomplete Letter, on October 21, 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1, the Applicant submitted a HCA Preliminary Application to the City, which described the proposed Project as a 16-story, 200-unit development project (40 units [20 percent] of which would be deed restricted to lower income households) containing 259,547 square feet (“PA Project”), and on October 24, 2022, the City received the Applicant’s fee payment associated with the PA submittal, thereby establishing vested rights under the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect as of October 24, 2022.
On April 24, 2023, the Applicant filed the DPR Application with the City for the DPR Project, which is a proposed 19-story mixed use, multifamily residential and hotel building, with 165 rental apartment units (including 33 affordable housing units) and ancillary residential spaces, 73 hotel rooms and ancillary hotel spaces including a restaurant use. The DPR Application was submitted within the 180- day period following the submittal of the HCA Preliminary Application, as prescribed by Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(1). Accordingly, the Project’s October 24, 2022 vesting date was maintained.
However, as noted above, the First Incomplete Letter asserts that the Project no longer possesses vested rights due to the Applicant’s modifications to the Project between the submittal of the Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
HCA Preliminary Application and the DPR Application, including the introduction of a hotel use. To support this claim, the City cites language from Government Code Section 65941.1(a)(4), which specifies that an HCA Preliminary Application is required to provide information regarding “the proposed land uses” included in a development project. By the City’s logic, because the DPR Project contains additional land uses (i.e., hotel and restaurant uses) as compared to the proposal submitted with the HCA Preliminary Application, the Project no longer has any vested rights. This represents an incorrect reading of SB 330’s statutory provisions.
The City’s claim that the HCA Preliminary Application and its vesting protections are no longer in effect because new land uses were introduced for the DPR Project is without merit, as the preliminary application requirements as set forth in Government Code Section 65941.1(a)(4) do not dictate a loss of vested rights. Instead, the solely relevant statutory language regarding changes to a project description contained in a PA that forfeit vested rights is provided by Government Code Section 65941.1(c), which states:
“After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a), if the development proponent revises the project such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision, the housing development project shall not be deemed to have submitted a preliminary application that satisfies this section until the development proponent resubmits the information required by subdivision (a) so that it reflects the revisions. For purposes of this subdivision, “square footage of construction” means the building area, as defined by the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).4
(Emphasis added).
The HCA Preliminary Application Project consisted of a residential project that included 200 dwelling units within a 259,547 square foot, 16-story building. The DPR Project consists of a mixed-use development that includes 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel and hotel restaurant within a 311,197 square foot, 19-story building. The number of residential units was reduced from 200 in the HCA Preliminary Application Project to 165 in the DPR Project (a 17.5 percent decrease), and the square footage of construction was increased from 259,547 square feet in the HCA Preliminary Application Project to 311,197 square feet in the DPR Project (a 19.9 percent increase). These revisions are within the 20 percent threshold set forth in Government Code Section 65941.1, and do not require the Applicant to resubmit information required by Section 65941.1(a). Therefore, the vesting protections established by the HCA Preliminary Application continue to apply to the Project.
Additionally, the City has taken the stance that the Applicant is only provided with one 90-day time period during which the Applicant must respond perfectly to all of the items in the First Incomplete Letter in order to maintain vested rights. This cannot be the case as the HCA clearly establishes a more iterative process where more than one back-and-forth resubmittal is required to deem an application complete:
“(a) Not later than 30 calendar days after any public agency has received an application for a development project, the agency shall determine in writing whether the application is complete and shall immediately transmit the determination to the applicant for the development project. 4 Government Code Section 65941.1(c).
Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application, and the application includes a statement that it is an application for a development permit, the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter. Upon receipt of any resubmittal of the application, a new 30-day period shall begin, during which the public agency shall determine the completeness of the application. If the application is determined not to be complete, the agency’s determination shall specify those parts of the application which are incomplete and shall indicate the manner in which they can be made complete, including a list and thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. The applicant shall submit materials to the public agency in response to the list and description.”5
(Emphasis added).
According to this statutory provision, the Applicant has the obligation to resubmit within 90 days and the City must then respond within 30 days each time the Applicant provides a resubmittal in response to a determination of incompleteness. Accordingly, notwithstanding any statement to the contrary in this letter or in any other correspondence to the City, the Applicant reserves the right to continue with the statutory vesting timelines and to resubmit additional materials responsive to the City’s Second Incomplete Letter within 90 days of October 13, 2023.
Furthermore, setting aside the fundamental disagreement about the type of application required, as described below, the City has set the Applicant up for failure by making it impossible to fully respond to all 38 listed items on the City’s First Incomplete Letter. For example, the City included items on that list which they noted are solely within their control, not the Applicant’s, to initiate. For example, item 21 of the First Incomplete Letter required “Environmental Review,” which stated:
“Once all major corrections have been addressed and complete applications have been submitted, the City will review the proposal to determine what review may be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant will be responsible for paying the costs for the preparation of any required environmental document, including but not limited to the costs of any consultants as may need to be retained by the City.” All the Applicant can do at this stage is acknowledge this obligation since we are not permitted to draft the environmental review document. Additionally, the City listed comments from various departments on the First Incomplete Letter which addressed building code and other “plan check” level technical compliance requirements which are premature to require at the entitlement stage. These comments include item 22 (“Low Impact Development (LID)”), item 32 (“Public Works Stormwater/Environmental Compliance/Sustainability Comments”), item 33 (“Building and Safety – Building and Technical Code Comments”), item 34 (“Building and Safety – Right of Way Comments), item 35 (“Fire Department Comments”). Due to the level of architectural and design technicality needed to respond to these items, it would be impossible for the Applicant to satisfy these items within 90 days, or even during the entire duration of the entitlement process. In fact, the City acknowledges in the Second Incomplete Letter that items 22, 32, 33 and 35 are premature, should be assessed during the plan check process, and are no longer required for an entitlement completeness determination. For these reasons, we refute the City’s claim that all items identified in the First Incomplete Letter as being necessary to complete the DPR Application must be entirely satisfied in one 90-day period, and instead assert that 5 Government Code Section 65943(a).
Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
the Applicant and the City have the right and obligation to undertake a reasonable iterative process to make an application complete.
B. The Builder’s Remedy Provision of the HAA Applies to the Project.
As you know, the City’s Housing Element is currently out of compliance with State Housing Element law requirements.6
Under the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA, if a jurisdiction lacks a substantially compliant Housing Element, it cannot use its objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing development project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5). The Project is a 165-unit mixed-use development with 20 percent of the units (33 units) affordable to lower income households. Because the residential portion equates to approximately 77 percent of the Project, the Project qualifies as a “housing development project” under the HAA.7
The DPR Application explicitly states that the Project is proposed pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA, as the City lacked a substantially compliant Housing Element at the time of the HCA Preliminary Application and continues to lack a substantially compliant and certified Housing Element. Furthermore, the Project retains vesting rights under the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time the HCA Preliminary Application was submitted on October 24, 2022; these vested ordinances, policies and standards include the City’s noncompliant Housing Element status, as confirmed by HCD.8
As described above, these vested rights continue to apply to the Project, despite the City’s recent claims to the contrary. Therefore, the City cannot escape its obligation to process the Project pursuant to the mandates of the HAA and the Builder’s Remedy.
However, notwithstanding the City’s indisputably noncompliant Housing Element status and legal obligation to process the Builder’s Remedy request, the City is claiming the Project cannot proceed without a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change because the proposed design does not conform to the land use or zoning standards. Specifically, the First Incomplete Letter states that the Project requires a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and possibly other entitlements because the DPR Project does not “conform to the City’s General Plan and various provisions of the City’s zoning code.” The First Incomplete Letter goes on to identify use limitations, height limitations, and maximum permitted density limitations, and other standards to which the Project would need to comply. The Second Incomplete Letter restates this position and provides a new reason, claiming that:
6 In a letter to the City dated May 12, 2023, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that the City’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element, adopted February 21, 2023, does not substantially comply with State Housing Element law. HCD’s May 12, 2023 letter also stated that “[b]y no means was the City’s prior submittal [adopted October 15, 2021] in substantial compliance with State Housing Law,” and the “City’s findings as part of the adoption are inadequate to demonstrate substantial compliance with statutory requirements; therefore, revisions to the element continue to be necessary to substantially comply with State Housing Element Law.”
7 Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2)(B).
8 HCD Letter of Technical Assistance Letter to Rand Paster & Nelson LLP, dated October 5, 2022.
Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
“the City continues to believe it has the authority to require the applications to be filed and processed as part of an overall project, even if, assuming arguendo, that it may be constrained by state law in its ability to deny a project on consistency bases.” The City indicates it may require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to ensure the “due process rights of surrounding property owners”. This appears to be an attempt to create unnecessary administrative hurdles for the Project while creating a false sense of discretionary authority that does not apply to a project governed by the HAA. The DPR Application ensures ample due process rights by allowing the City to request a litany of detailed project plans and informational items, conduct a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission, provide an opportunity for an appeal to the City Council, and require the completion of environmental review under CEQA. As the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA prohibits a City from using its objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing development project it is therefore antithetical to the HAA standard of review to require the Applicant to apply for a discretionary General Plan Amendment and Zone Change application. In other words, a Project that may only be denied or reduced in density under the narrow and circumscribed discretion afforded by the HAA cannot be required to be processed through legislative actions (such as a General Plan Amendment and/or a Zone Change) which by definition afford the City far broader discretionary review authority. Thus, the DPR Application – the very entitlement applied for by the Applicant – is the appropriate approval mechanism for an HAA-governed affordable housing project in the City.
HCD has also provided guidance directly addressing this topic in its June 8, 2023 letter to the City of La Cañada Flintridge, stating:
Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), allows a local agency to disapprove an affordable housing project that ‘is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan’ if ‘the jurisdiction has adopted a revised housing element … that is in substantial compliance….’ HCD then goes on to explicitly clarify:
If HCD does not find a local jurisdiction’s adopted housing element in substantial compliance by the statutory deadline, the jurisdiction cannot use subdivision (d)(5) of Government Code section 65589.5 (inconsistency with zoning and general plan standards) as a basis to deny a qualifying affordable housing project.
Therefore, based on the provisions of the Builder’s Remedy itself as well as recent HCD guidance, the City cannot use inconsistency with zoning and general plan standards to deny or render infeasible the Project as currently proposed and it cannot require the Applicant to apply for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, or other entitlements that are solely intended to establish compliance with such inapplicable land use or zoning standards.
III. Conclusion.
As described above, the Applicant continues to assert the validity of its HCA Preliminary Application and the associated vesting protections. Moreover, the Project’s DPR Application is the appropriate mechanism for the City to review the Project pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of Edgar Arroyo
November 13, 2023
the HAA, and General Plan Amendments and/or Zone Changes may not be legally required, despite the City’s claims to the contrary.
The Applicant has endeavored in good faith to respond to the City’s requested items that are reasonably related to a typical DPR application in the context of the HAA, HCA, and the PSA. Yet after multiple attempts to explain the legal basis of this Project’s DPR Application, the Builder’s Remedy provision of the HAA, and the consequences of a non-compliant Housing Element, it is clear the City refuses to recognize and submit to State housing law. The positions reflected by the City’s incomplete letters and the Applicant’s responses demonstrate fundamental legal disagreement over the scope of the City’s discretion. Any objective observer at this point would conclude that the Applicant’s DPR Application will never be deemed complete by the City no matter how much time and effort may be expended by the Applicant to respond to the myriad of requested application items. As a result, the Applicant is left with no choice but to exercise its appeal right under the HCA to the City’s legislative body. We therefore respectfully request that the City process and grant this appeal, recognize the continued validity of the HCA Preliminary Application, and continue to process the DPR Application as a Builder’s Remedy request, without the need for a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change. Please note that pursuant to California Government Code Section 65943(c) the City must provide a final written determination on the appeal within sixty (60) calendar days from receipt of this appeal request.
Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
Attachments (Provided Via “WeTransfer” File Share Link) A – HCA Preliminary Application
B – DPR Application
C – First Incomplete Letter
D – Response to First Incomplete Letter
E – Confirmation of Deemed Complete Letter
F – Second Incomplete Letter
633 West Fifth Street
64th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
October 21, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Community Development Department
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive – Builder’s Remedy Request and Preliminary Application To whom it may concern:
We represent 9300 Wilshire, LLC (the “Applicant”) in connection with a proposed 16 story, 200 unit development project (40 units of which would be deed restricted to lower income households) (the “Project”) on a 21,676 square foot property located at 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive (the “Site”) in the City of Beverly Hills (“City”).
To expedite the development of the Project’s much-needed market rate and affordable housing units, the Applicant requests the City’s approval of the Project pursuant to the provisions of the State Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) known as the “Builder’s Remedy” (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)). Under the Builder’s Remedy, if a jurisdiction lacks a substantially compliant Housing Element, it cannot use its objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing development project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code). There are a limited number of exceptions to the application of the Builder’s Remedy, including when a project is on agricultural or resource preservation lands, has inadequate water or sewer infrastructure or supply, would violate a specific state or federal law, or would result in a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d).).
As of the date of this preliminary application submittal, the City of Beverly Hills lacks a substantially compliant Housing Element, and therefore the Builder’s Remedy is available for qualifying affordable housing projects. As noted above, the Project includes 20 percent of the total number of units (or 40 units) for lower income households and therefore satisfies the affordability requirements under the Builder’s Remedy. Moreover, none of the exceptions to the Builder’s Remedy apply to the Site or Project. Accordingly, the City cannot apply objective general plan and/or zoning standards that would deny the Project or render it infeasible.
ATTACHMENT A - HCD PRELIMINARY APPLICATION
Planning Division
October 21, 2022
Concurrently with this letter, the Applicant submits a preliminary application for the Project pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1. The submittal of this preliminary application will vest the Applicant’s right to develop the Project in accordance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at time of submittal. (Government Code Section 65589.5(o)(1)). The State Housing and Community Development Department (“HCD”) very recently confirmed in the attached Technical Assistance Letter (dated October 5, 2022) that the vested policies and standards include the City’s noncompliant Housing Element in place at the time of a preliminary application filing. Accordingly, based on the provisions of the HAA, Senate Bill 330 (as amended by Senate Bill 8) and HCD guidance, the Builder’s Remedy and the HAA will remain available for and applicable to the Project throughout the duration of the Project’s application process, provided the applicable statutory requirements to maintain vesting are satisfied, even if the City were to adopt a substantially compliant Housing Element prior to Project approval.
We appreciate your attention to this matter, and please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding the Project.
Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
cc: Leo Pustilnikov
Olivia Joncich
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 5, 2022
Dave Rand
Rand Paster & Nelson LLP
633 W. Fifth Street, 64th floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Dear Dave Rand:
RE: 3030 Nebraska Avenue, Santa Monica – Letter of Technical Assistance This letter is in response to your September 16, 2022, request for technical assistance regarding the implementation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), particularly those provisions that require housing element compliance, in the context of the proposed multi-family residential development in Santa Monica at the address noted above. The inquiry pertains to the relationship of preliminary applications to projects that invoke the provisions of subdivision (d)(5) of Government Code section 65589.5 once a housing element has been found in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law.
Background
A housing development project with housing for very low-, low-, or moderate-income households1 cannot be denied (or approved in a way such that conditions render the inclusion of affordable housing infeasible) unless one of five potential written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, can be made. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d).) Under subdivision (d)(5), a jurisdiction can only deny a qualifying project if both of the following criteria are satisfied: (1) The project is inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation and (2) the jurisdiction has a housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law. Therefore, the status of a jurisdiction’s housing element is of critical importance when determining the applicability of the provisions of subdivision (d)(5).
1 “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3).)
Dave Rand, Rand Paster & Nelson LLP
Analysis
The question posed in your September 16, 2022; request is as follows:
If a preliminary application is submitted to a jurisdiction without a compliant Housing Element, and the jurisdiction subsequently achieves Housing Element compliance during the project’s entitlement process, do the rights vested by the preliminary application continue to apply?
The answer is “yes.” The submittal of a complete preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 vests the right to develop a housing development project in accordance with the ordinances, policies, and standards in effect when a preliminary application is submitted. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (o)(1).) Therefore, if the submittal occurs at a time when the jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status would remain throughout the entitlement process even if the jurisdiction subsequently achieves compliance during the entitlement process.
If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Melinda Coy
Proactive Housing Accountability Unit Chief
ŝƚLJŽĨĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐ
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐŝǀŝƐŝŽŶ
ϰϱϱE͘ZĞdžĨŽƌĚƌŝǀĞ
ĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐ͕ϵϬϮϭϬ
dĞů͘;ϯϭϬͿϮϴϱͲϭϭϰϭ
&Ădž͘;ϯϭϬͿϴϱϴͲϱϵϲϲ
WƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚWƌŽũĞĐƚ
WůĂŶŶŝŶŐ&ŽƌŵWͲϬϰ
sĞƌƐŝŽŶ͗ĞĐĞŵďĞƌϮϬϭϵ WĂŐĞϭŽĨϲ
WƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶKǀĞƌǀŝĞǁ͗
dŚŝƐ ƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ŝƐ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚ ƚŽ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶ ϲϱϵϰϭ͘ϭ ŽĨ ƚŚĞ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ 'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ ŽĚĞ ĨŽƌ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘ ůů ƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂŶĚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞĨĞĞƐƉĂŝĚŝŶŽƌĚĞƌĨŽƌƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŽďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ͘dŚŝƐƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƚĂŬĞƚŚĞƉůĂĐĞŽĨƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚŝƐ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĨŽƌƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ dŚĞĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĂůůŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ ƚŽ ƉƌŽĐĞƐƐ ƚŚĞ ĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ŵƵƐƚ ďĞ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ ƚŽ ƚŚĞ ŝƚLJ ǁŝƚŚŝŶ ϭϴϬ ĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌĚĂLJƐĂĨƚĞƌƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘/ĨƚŚĞĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ;ƐͿĂƌĞŶŽƚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶϭϴϬĐĂůĞŶĚĂƌĚĂLJƐ͕ƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƐŐƌĂŶƚĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŚĂůůďĞĐŽŵĞŶƵůůĂŶĚǀŽŝĚ͘
/Ĩ͕ĂĨƚĞƌ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůŽĨ ƚŚŝƐƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ĂŶĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ƌĞǀŝƐĞƐĂŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƐƵĐŚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůƵŶŝƚƐŽƌƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞŽĨĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶĐŚĂŶŐĞƐďLJϮϬйŽƌ ŵŽƌĞ͕ ƚŚĞ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƐŚĂůů ŶŽƚ ďĞ ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ Ă ǀĂůŝĚ ƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ƵŶƚŝů ƚŚĞ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ƌĞƐƵďŵŝƚƐ ƚŚĞ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŽ ƌĞĨůĞĐƚ ƚŚĞ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ ƌĞǀŝƐŝŽŶƐ͘/ĨƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚƌĞǀŝƐĞƐƚŚŝƐƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌǁĂLJ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚŽƌĞǀŝƐĞ ĂŶLJƉƌĞǀŝŽƵƐůLJŝŶĐŽƌƌĞĐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĞƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŚĂůůďĞĚĞĞŵĞĚ͞ƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͟ ŽŶƚŚĞĚĂƚĞƚŚĞƌĞǀŝƐĞĚ͕ĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘ &ŝůŝŶŐ&ĞĞ͗
dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŚĂůůŶŽƚďĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĞĚƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚƵŶůĞƐƐƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞƉƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ ĨĞĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉĂŝĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƚLJ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐĞĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ&ĞĞ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞŚĞƌĞ͗ ǁǁǁ͘ďĞǀĞƌůLJŚŝůůƐ͘ŽƌŐͬƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŽƌĐĂůůŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂƚ;ϯϭϬͿͲϮϴϱͲϭϭϰϭ͘ ƉƉŽŝŶƚŵĞŶƚΘ^ƚĂĨĨŽŶƚĂĐƚ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗
WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƐƚĂĨĨƚŽƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂŶĂƉƉŽŝŶƚŵĞŶƚƚŽƐƵďŵŝƚĂWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĂ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐ ĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘/ĨLJŽƵŚĂǀĞƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞĐĂůů;ϯϭϬͿͲϮϴϱͲϭϭϰϭ͕ĂŶĚĂƐŬ ƚŽďĞĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƵƌƌĞŶƚWůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͕ŽƌǀŝƐŝƚƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐǁĞďƐŝƚĞĨŽƌƐƚĂĨĨĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͗ ǁǁǁ͘ďĞǀĞƌůLJŚŝůůƐ͘ŽƌŐͬĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
ŝƚLJŽĨĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐʹWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ WĂŐĞϮŽĨϲ
ϭ͘ WƌŽũĞĐƚĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ƐƐĞƐƐŽƌ͛ƐƉĂƌĐĞůŶƵŵďĞƌƐ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ >ĞŐĂůĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƐŝƚĞ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ Ϯ͘ /ĚĞŶƚŝĨLJƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƵƐĞƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞĂŶĚĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨŵĂũŽƌƉŚLJƐŝĐĂůĂůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƵƉŽŶǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞůŽĐĂƚĞĚ͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϯ͘ WůĞĂƐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶƐŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐƐŚŽǁŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ͕ ĐŽůŽƌ͕ĂŶĚŵĂƚĞƌŝĂů͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŵĂƐƐŝŶŐ͕ŚĞŝŐŚƚ͕ĂŶĚĂƉƉƌŽdžŝŵĂƚĞƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞ͕ŽĨĞĂĐŚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ƚŚĂƚŝƐƚŽďĞŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ;ƚƚĂĐŚƚŽƚŚŝƐĨŽƌŵͿ͘
ϰ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝďĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚůĂŶĚƵƐĞƐďLJŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƵŶŝƚƐĂŶĚƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚŽĨƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĂŶĚ ŶŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞĐĂƚĞŐŽƌŝĞƐĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐ DƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŽĚĞ͘
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϱ͘ ĞƐĐƌŝďĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨƉĂƌŬŝŶŐƐƉĂĐĞƐƚŽďĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ ϲ͘ ƌĞƚŚĞƌĞĂŶLJƉŽŝŶƚƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŽĨĂŝƌŽƌǁĂƚĞƌƉŽůůƵƚĂŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͍/ĨƐŽ͕ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞ͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϳ͘ ƌĞƚŚĞƌĞĂŶLJƐƉĞĐŝĞƐŽĨƐƉĞĐŝĂůĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŬŶŽǁŶƚŽŽĐĐƵƌŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͍ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ 4328-009-007, 4328-009-021
TRACT # 6648 LOTS 40, 39, 38
NO
NO
The proposed project will include 200 residential dwelling units in
JURVV
VTIW
The project will include ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ parking spaces within three levels of a subterranean garage. ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ The proposed project includes the demolition of any existing improvements and new The property at 125 Linden Dr is currently improved as a surface parking lot.
The property at 129 Linden Dr is a vacant, unimproved lot. construction of a multi-family residential building with 200 units 125, 129 S. Linden Drive (125 S. Linden Drive is also identified as 9744 Wilshire Blvd) subterranean parking providing a total of 124 parking stalls. and three levels of
ŝƚLJŽĨĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐʹWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ WĂŐĞϯŽĨϲ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϴ͘ ŚĞĐŬƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞďŽdž;ĞƐͿŝĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚǁŝƚŚŝŶ͗ ǀĞƌLJŚŝŐŚĨŝƌĞŚĂnjĂƌĚƐĞǀĞƌŝƚLJnjŽŶĞ͕ĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨ&ŽƌĞƐƚƌLJ ĂŶĚ&ŝƌĞWƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϱϭϭϳϴ͘
tĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͕ĂƐĚĞĨŝŶĞĚŝŶƚŚĞhŶŝƚĞĚ^ƚĂƚĞƐ&ŝƐŚĂŶĚtŝůĚůŝĨĞ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞDĂŶƵĂů͕WĂƌƚϲϲϬ &tϮ;:ƵŶĞϮϭ͕ϭϵϵϯͿ͘
ŚĂnjĂƌĚŽƵƐǁĂƐƚĞƐŝƚĞƚŚĂƚŝƐůŝƐƚĞĚƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϲϱϵϲϮ͘ϱŽƌĂŚĂnjĂƌĚŽƵƐǁĂƐƚĞ ƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚŽĨdŽdžŝĐ^ƵďƐƚĂŶĐĞƐŽŶƚƌŽůƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϮϱϯϱϲ ŽĨƚŚĞ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJŽĚĞ͘
ƐƉĞĐŝĂůĨůŽŽĚŚĂnjĂƌĚĂƌĞĂƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽŝŶƵŶĚĂƚŝŽŶďLJƚŚĞϭƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŶŶƵĂůĐŚĂŶĐĞĨůŽŽĚ ;ϭϬϬͲLJĞĂƌ ĨůŽŽĚͿĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďLJ ƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŐĞŶĐLJŝŶĂŶLJ
ŽĨĨŝĐŝĂůŵĂƉƐƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ&ĞĚĞƌĂů
ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJDĂŶĂŐĞŵĞŶƚŐĞŶĐLJ͘
ĚĞůŝŶĞĂƚĞĚĞĂƌƚŚƋƵĂŬĞĨĂƵůƚnjŽŶĞĂƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ'ĞŽůŽŐŝƐƚŝŶĂŶLJŽĨĨŝĐŝĂů ŵĂƉƐƉƵďůŝƐŚĞĚďLJƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞ'ĞŽůŽŐŝƐƚ͕ƵŶůĞƐƐƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĐŽŵƉůŝĞƐǁŝƚŚĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ ƐĞŝƐŵŝĐƉƌŽƚĞĐƚŝŽŶďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĐŽĚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐĂĚŽƉƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂƵŝůĚŝŶŐ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ ƵŶĚĞƌ ƚŚĞ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ^ƚĂŶĚĂƌĚƐ >Ăǁ ;WĂƌƚ Ϯ͘ϱ ;ĐŽŵŵĞŶĐŝŶŐ ǁŝƚŚ ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϴϵϬϭͿŽĨŝǀŝƐŝŽŶϭϯŽĨƚŚĞ,ĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚ^ĂĨĞƚLJŽĚĞͿ͕ĂŶĚďLJĂŶLJůŽĐĂůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚƵŶĚĞƌŚĂƉƚĞƌϭϮ͘Ϯ;ĐŽŵŵĞŶĐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϴϴϳϱͿŽĨŝǀŝƐŝŽŶϭŽĨdŝƚůĞϮ͘ ƐƚƌĞĂŵŽƌŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƚŚĂƚŵĂLJďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĂƐƚƌĞĂŵďĞĚĂůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚ ƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽŚĂƉƚĞƌϲ;ĐŽŵŵĞŶĐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϲϬϬͿŽĨŝǀŝƐŝŽŶϮŽĨƚŚĞ&ŝƐŚĂŶĚ'ĂŵĞ ŽĚĞ͘
ϵ͘ ŽĂŶLJŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐŽƌĐƵůƚƵƌĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐĞdžŝƐƚŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͍/ĨƐŽ͕ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞ͘ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϭϬ͘ ,ŽǁŵĂŶLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚďĞůŽǁŵĂƌŬŝŶŐƌĂƚĞƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͍tŚĂƚĂƌĞ ƚŚĞůĞǀĞůƐŽĨĂĨĨŽƌĚĂďŝůŝƚLJ͍
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ NO
The project will include 40 units restricted for LowHU Income Households and 160 PDUNHWUDWH ŝƚLJŽĨĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐʹWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ WĂŐĞϰŽĨϲ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϭϭ͘ tŚĂƚĂƌĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨďŽŶƵƐƵŶŝƚƐĂŶĚĂŶLJŝŶĐĞŶƚŝǀĞƐ͕ĐŽŶĐĞƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕ǁĂŝǀĞƌƐŽƌƉĂƌŬŝŶŐ ƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞĞŶƐŝƚLJŽŶƵƐ>Ăǁ͍ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϭϮ͘ ƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞ^ƵďĚŝǀŝƐŝŽŶDĂƉĐƚ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƚůŝŵŝƚĞĚƚŽ͕ĂƉĂƌĐĞůŵĂƉ͕Ă ƚĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŵĂƉ͕ŽƌĂĐŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵŵĂƉďĞŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚ͍
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϭϯ͘ ƌĞƚŚĞƌĞĂŶLJƵŶŝƚƐŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƚŽďĞĚĞŵŽůŝƐŚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚŝƐ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͍,ŽǁŵĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƐĞƵŶŝƚƐĂƌĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŽĐĐƵƉŝĞĚ͍ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ϭϰ͘ WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞĂƐŝƚĞŵĂƉƐŚŽǁŝŶŐĂƐƚƌĞĂŵŽƌŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƚŚĂƚŵĂLJďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽĂ ƐƚƌĞĂŵďĞĚĂůƚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƉƵƌƐƵĂŶƚƚŽŚĂƉƚĞƌϲ;ĐŽŵŵĞŶĐŝŶŐǁŝƚŚ^ĞĐƚŝŽŶϭϲϬϬͿŽĨ ŝǀŝƐŝŽŶϮŽĨƚŚĞ&ŝƐŚĂŶĚ'ĂŵĞŽĚĞĂŶĚĂŶĂĞƌŝĂůƐŝƚĞƉŚŽƚŽŐƌĂƉŚƐŚŽǁŝŶŐĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ ĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƐŝƚĞĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐďLJĂƉƵďůŝĐ ĂŐĞŶĐLJ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐĐƌĞĞŬƐĂŶĚǁĞƚůĂŶĚƐ͘
ϭϱ͘ ƌĞƚŚĞƌĞĂŶLJƌĞĐŽƌĚĞĚƉƵďůŝĐĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ƐƵĐŚĂƐƐƚŽƌŵĚƌĂŝŶĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ǁĂƚĞƌůŝŶĞ ĞĂƐĞŵĞŶƚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌƉƵďůŝĐƌŝŐŚƚƐŽĨǁĂLJŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞ͍/ĨƐŽ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞƐŚŽǁƚŚĞŝƌƉƌĞĐŝƐĞ ůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶ͘
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ NO
See attached.
NO
The project does not include a density bonus request under State Density Bonus Law. (or unrestricted) units.
NO
ŝƚLJŽĨĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐʹWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ WĂŐĞϱŽĨϲ
ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŽŶƐĞŶƚĨƌŽŵWƌŽƉĞƌƚLJKǁŶĞƌ͗ ŚŽŝĐĞ ŽĨ >Ăǁ͘ dŚŝƐ ĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ ƐŚĂůů ďĞ ĚĞĞŵĞĚ ƚŽ ŚĂǀĞ ďĞĞŶ ŵĂĚĞ ŝŶ ƚŚĞ ^ƚĂƚĞ ŽĨ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ ĂŶĚ ƐŚĂůů ďĞ ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĞĚ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞƌŝŐŚƚƐĂŶĚůŝĂďŝůŝƚŝĞƐŽĨƚŚĞƉĂƌƚŝĞƐĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞĚ͕ŝŶĂĐĐŽƌĚĂŶĐĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞůĂǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨ ĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂ͘
/ŚĞƌĞďLJĐĞƌƚŝĨLJƵŶĚĞƌƉĞŶĂůƚLJŽĨƉĞƌũƵƌLJƵŶĚĞƌƚŚĞůĂǁƐŽĨƚŚĞ^ƚĂƚĞŽĨĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂƚŚĂƚ/ĂŵƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌ;ƐͿ ŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ŽƌŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂƵƚŚŽƌŝnjĞĚƚŽƐŝŐŶŽŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌ͕ĂŶĚĐŽŶƐĞŶƚ ƚŽƚŚĞĨŝůŝŶŐŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞͲƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞĚƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
džĞĐƵƚĞĚŽŶƚŚŝƐͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ;ĂLJͿŽĨͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ;DŽŶƚŚͿŽĨϮϬͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ;zĞĂƌͿ ŝŶͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ;ŝƚLJͿ͕ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ;^ƚĂƚĞͿ͘ ĂƚĞĚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ z͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ;^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞͿ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ z͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ;dŝƚůĞ͕ŽŵƉĂŶLJͿ ;WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞͿ
ĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůKǁŶĞƌ^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞ;ŝĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞͿ͗
ĂƚĞĚ͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ z͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ;^ŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞͿ
ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ z͗ͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺͺ ;dŝƚůĞ͕ŽŵƉĂŶLJͿ ;WƌŝŶƚĞĚEĂŵĞͿ
WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞƚŚĞƌŽůĞŽĨƚŚĞƐŝŐŶĂƚŽƌLJ;ŝĞƐͿĂďŽǀĞ͗
KǁŶĞƌ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ ŐĞŶƚͬZĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞ ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ/ŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ/ŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů;ƐͿŽƌĞŶƚŝƚLJďĞŶĞĨŝƚƚŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƚůĞŵĞŶƚ EĂŵĞ;ƐͿ͗
ĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗
ŝƚLJ͗ ^ƚĂƚĞΘŝƉŽĚĞ͗
WŚŽŶĞ͗
ͲDĂŝů
9300 Wilshire, LLC
9744 Wilshire Blvd, STE 203
Beverly Hills CA 90212
310-208-4100
[email protected]
October 22
California
20th
Beverly Hills
10/20/2022
Manager, 9300 Wilshire LLC Leo Pustilnikov
**
ŝƚLJŽĨĞǀĞƌůLJ,ŝůůƐʹWƌĞůŝŵŝŶĂƌLJƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ WĂŐĞϲŽĨϲ
/ĨƚŚĞŽǁŶĞƌĚŝĚŶŽƚƐŝŐŶƚŚĞƉƌĞĐĞĚŝŶŐƉĂŐĞ͕ŝƐĂ>ĞƚƚĞƌŽĨƵƚŚŽƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚΎ͍ zĞƐ EŽ
ΎWůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚĂ>ĞƚƚĞƌŽĨƵƚŚŽƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚǁŚĞŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌĚŽĞƐŶŽƚƐŝŐŶƚŚŝƐ ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ ďƵƚ ŝŶƐƚĞĂĚ ŚĂƐ ĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ ŝŶĚŝǀŝĚƵĂů ƐŝŐŶ ŽŶ ƚŚĞŝƌ ďĞŚĂůĨ͘ ^ĞĞ >ĞƚƚĞƌ ŽĨ ƵƚŚŽƌŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
džĂŵƉůĞĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞ͘WůĞĂƐĞĂůƐŽŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚŝĨƚŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞ ŚĞĂƌĚďLJƚŚĞWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŽƌŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝů͕ƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƌĞĐŽƌĚĂ ŽǀĞŶĂŶƚΘŐƌĞĞŵĞŶƚƚŽĂĐĐĞƉƚƚŚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨĂƉƉƌŽǀĂů͕ŝĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂďůĞ͘ **The property is co-owned by five tenants in a Tenancy In Common (TiC) structure. The tenants are EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 1”), 1112 INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 2”), 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 3”), 9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 4”), E.D. FLORES, LLC, a California limitedliability company (“Tenant 5”), and DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 12, 1995.
The TiC Agreement included with this application includes authority for 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC to sign on behalf of the co-owners as the "TiC Manager." The TiC Agreement identifies Leonid (Leo) Pustilnikov as the managing principal of 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC with the authority to sign on behalf of the co-owners of the property.
SB 330 Vesting Application – 125-129 S. Linden Drive
Attachment for Item 14 – Aerial Site Map
(site outlined in yellow)
$87202%,/(3$5.,1*
ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIREDCBC SECTION 1109A.3:2% OF COVERED MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. AT LEAST 1 SPACE: OF EACH TYPE OF PARKING FACILITY SHALL BE MADE ACCESSIBLE.2% x 200 UNITS = 4 SPACES.CBC SECTION 1109A.8.61 OF EVERY 8 ACCESSIBLE SPACES SHALL BE VAN ACCESSIBLE, MINIMUM 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE: 1 SPACE.ELECTRICAL VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED:PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE SECTION 4.106.4.2.25% OF PARKING SHALL BE EV CHARGING STATION INSTALLED 5% x 124 STALLS = 6.2 (ROUNDED) = 7 EVCS25% OF PARKING SHALL BE EV READY25% x 124 STALLS = 31 EVSE 10% OF PARKING SHALL BE RACEWAY/ CONDUIT SUPPLIED10% x 124 STALLS = 12.4 (ROUNDED) = 13 CONDUIT INSTALLED PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE SECTION 4.106.4.2.2: ONE IN EVERY EV 25 SPACES SHALL HAVE AN 8 WIDE MINIMUM AISLE, MINIMUM 1 SPACE. 352-(&7,1)250$7,21
PROJECT NAME:ADDRESS:OWNER:CONSTRUCTION TYPE:PROPOSED BLDG HEIGHT:PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES:OCCUPANCY TYPE:
129 LINDEN DR125-133 S LINDEN DR, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST;9300 WILSHIRE, LLC;9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC;E.D. FLORES, LLC;1112 INVESTMENT CO., LLC;EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC TYPE IA170'-0"16 STORIESS2 - PARKINGR2 - RESIDENTIAL A3 - ROOF DECK
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOTS 38, 39, AND 40 OF TRACT NO.6648, IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, IN COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 71, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 4328-009-007, 4328-009-021
/(*$/'(6&5,37,21
9,&,1,7<0$3
SANTA MONICA BLVD
SITE:125 S LINDEN DR
WILSHIRE BLVD
CHARLEVILLE BLVD
LASKY DR
SPLAUDING DR
S LINDEN DR
S MCCARTY DR
S ROXBURY DR DURANT DR ROBBINS DR
ZONING:LOT SIZE:UNITS PROPOSED:FAR PROVIDED:
R421,676.05 SF200 UNITS5.7:1
$))25'$%/(+286,1* =21,1*'$7$
REQUIRED AFFORDABLE UNITS CALCULATION:REQUIRED AFFORDABLE UNITS PER AB2345: 20% OF TOTAL UNITS 200 x 20% = 40 AFFORDABLE UNITS BUILDING AREA PER 2019 CBC SECTION 202:
AREA, BUILDING. THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS, OR EXTERIOR WALLS AND FIRE WALLS, EXCLUSIVE OF VENT SHAFTS AND COURTS. AREAS OF THE BUILDING NOT PROVIDED WITH SURROUNDING WALLS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING AREA IF SUCH AREAS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR ABOVE. %8,/',1*$5($3(5&%&
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
PROPOSED 16-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH A TOTAL OF 200 UNITS AND 3 LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING PROVIDING A TOTAL OF 124 PARKING STALLS. 6+((7,1'(;
81,7&2817
UNIT COUNT BY TYPE
PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL
AVERAGE AREA
CENTER LINE OF
UNIT TYPE COUNT WALL
STUDIO 46 23% 5001 BR 93 47% 7542 BR 61 31% 1,050TOTAL 200 2,303 $5($6&+('8/(
*5266)/225$5($
LEVEL TYPE AREA
LEVEL P3 PARKING 16,172 SFLEVEL P2 PARKING 16,172 SFLEVEL P1 PARKING 16,172 SF1ST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 12,216 SF2ND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF3RD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF4TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF5TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF6TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF7TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF8TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF9TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF10TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF11TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF12TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF13TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF14TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF15TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SF16TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,254 SFGRAND TOTAL 259,547 SF A01 PROJECT INFORMATIONA07 SITE PLANA23 ELEVATIONSA24 ELEVATIONSA25 ELEVATIONS &23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
9
/,1'(1'5,9(
352-(&7,1)250$7,21
3$5.,1*3529,'('
TYPE COUNT
STANDARD 10EVSE 31COMPACT 79
ACCESSIBLE - VAN 1ACCESSIBLE 3
GRAND TOTAL 124
S. LINDEN DRIVE
(E) BUILDING
4 STORIES
PROPOSED 16-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WITH 200 UNITS, 3 LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN
PARKING PROVIDING 124 PARKING STALLS
PARKING
ENTRANCE
BUILDING
ENTRANCE
LOADING
ZONE
(E) BUILDING
4 STORIES
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
EMPTY LOT
(E) PARKING
LOT
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
5' - 10"
116' - 8"
5' - 0"
7' - 6" 127' - 6" 12' - 0" 18' - 0"
7' - 0" 154' - 7" 8' - 5"
169' - 11"
5' - 10"
37' - 2" 30' - 9" 22' - 10" 30' - 4" 7"
8' - 5"
2' - 11"
11' - 1" 63' - 6"
4' - 0"
36' - 9"
5' - 0"
31' - 5" 7' - 0"
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
9
/,1'(1'5,9(
6,7(3/$1
1 ALLEY
ALLEY
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+269.93
3RD FLOOR
+279.93
4TH FLOOR
+289.93
TO PARAPET
+424.93
ROOF LEVEL
+419.93
5TH FLOOR
+299.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+436.93
7<3
6TH FLOOR
+309.93
7TH FLOOR
+319.93
8TH FLOOR
+329.93
12TH FLOOR
+369.93
3/ 3/
7<3
7<3
7<3
12' - 0" 5' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 14' - 0" 166' - 10 1/2" 9TH FLOOR
+339.93
10TH FLOOR
+349.93
11TH FLOOR
+359.93
13TH FLOOR
+379.93
14TH FLOOR
+389.93
15TH FLOOR
+399.93
16TH FLOOR
+409.93
7<3
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
7<3
7<3
7<3
1CLEAR ANONODIZED ALUM. STOREFRONT2 CORRUGATED METAL PANEL 13 CORRUGATED METAL PANEL 24 42" HIGH GLASS GUARDRAIL6 EXTERIOR SMOOTH PLASTER, DARK GRAY7 METAL CANOPY8 METAL FRAME &23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
9
9/,1'(1 '5,9
(
(/(9$7,2
16 .(<127(6
($67%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+269.93
3RD FLOOR
+279.93
4TH FLOOR
+289.93
TO PARAPET
+424.93
ROOF LEVEL
+419.93
5TH FLOOR
+299.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+436.93
6TH FLOOR
+309.93
7TH FLOOR
+319.93
8TH FLOOR
+329.93
12TH FLOOR
+369.93
3/ 3/
7<3
7<3
14' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 5' - 0" 12' - 0" 166' - 10 1/2" 9TH FLOOR +339.93
10TH FLOOR
+349.93
11TH FLOOR
+359.93
13TH FLOOR
+379.93
14TH FLOOR
+389.93
15TH FLOOR
+399.93
16TH FLOOR
+409.93
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+269.93
3RD FLOOR
+279.93
4TH FLOOR
+289.93
TO PARAPET
+424.93
ROOF LEVEL
+419.93
5TH FLOOR
+299.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+436.93
6TH FLOOR
+309.93
7TH FLOOR
+319.93
8TH FLOOR
+329.93
12TH FLOOR
+369.93
12' - 0" 5' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 14' - 0" 166' - 10 1/2"
7<3
7<3
7<3
9TH FLOOR
+339.93
10TH FLOOR
+349.93
11TH FLOOR
+359.93
13TH FLOOR
+379.93
14TH FLOOR
+389.93
15TH FLOOR
+399.93
16TH FLOOR
+409.93
3/ 3/
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
9
9/,1'(1 '5,9
(
(/(9$7,2
16
1257+%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
6287+%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+269.93
3RD FLOOR
+279.93
4TH FLOOR
+289.93
TO PARAPET
+424.93
ROOF LEVEL
+419.93
5TH FLOOR
+299.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+436.93
6TH FLOOR
+309.93
7TH FLOOR
+319.93
8TH FLOOR
+329.93
12TH FLOOR
+369.93
3/ 3/
7<3
7<3
12' - 0" 5' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 14' - 0" 7<3
7<3
9TH FLOOR
+339.93
10TH FLOOR
+349.93
11TH FLOOR
+359.93
13TH FLOOR
+379.93
14TH FLOOR
+389.93
15TH FLOOR
+399.93
16TH FLOOR
+409.93
166' - 11" 6
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
7<3
7<3
7<3
7<3
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
9
9/,1'(1 '5,9
(
(/(9$7,2
16
:(67%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
1CLEAR ANONODIZED ALUM. STOREFRONT2 CORRUGATED METAL PANEL 13 CORRUGATED METAL PANEL 24 42" HIGH GLASS GUARDRAIL6 EXTERIOR SMOOTH PLASTER, DARK GRAY7 METAL CANOPY8 METAL FRAME .(<127(6
TENANCY IN COMMON AGREEMENT
This TENANCY IN COMMON AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made as of December ___, 2020 by and between EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 1”), 1112 INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 2”), 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 3”), 9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 4”), E.D. FLORES, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 5”), and DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 12, 1995 (“Tenant 6”), collectively, the “Co-Owners” and individually, each a “Co-Owner.”
RECITALS
A. The Co-Owners own, as tenants in common, a fee interest in the real property located at 125-129 S. Linden Dr., Beverly Hills, CA and a hold interest in the real property, with all improvements thereon, located at 9740-9744 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA (collectively, the “Property”).
B. The Co-Owners desire to enter into this Agreement to memorialize certain agreements with respect to the joint ownership of the Property.
C. This Agreement and the activities of the Co-Owners are intended to comply with the provisions of Internal Revenue Service Revenue Procedure 2002-22, 2002-14 I.R.B. 438 (March 19, 2002) and Private Letter Ruling 201622008.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Co-Owners hereby agree as follows:
1. Ownership of the Property. The Co-Owners have intended expressly to create a tenancy in common with regard to the joint ownership of the Property. The Co-Owners shall hold title to the Property as tenants-in-common in the following undivided interests:
Tenant 1 10%
Tenant 2 5%
Tenant 3 10.55%
Tenant 4 43.95%
Tenant 5 2.5%
Tenant 6 28%
The interest of each Co-Owner in the Property is herein referred to as such Co-Owner’s “Ownership Interest,” and the percentage interest of the Property which each Co-Owner owns (as set forth above) is herein referred to as such Co-Owner’s “Ownership Percentage.” Each of the Co-Owners shall be entitled to a portion of the income and cash flow from the Property, and shall bear a portion of the expenses of the Property, in accordance with such Co-Owner’s Ownership Percentage. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event the Property generates any cash available for distribution, whether from operations, refinancing, casualty or condemnation 2 proceeds, sale, or otherwise, each Co-Owner shall receive such cash flow in proportion to its Ownership Percentage.
2. No Partnership. Neither this Agreement nor the tenancy in common constitutes a partnership, joint venture, association or agency relationship and none of the Co-Owners shall have the right to bind any other Co-Owner except as expressly set forth herein. None of the CoOwners shall file a partnership tax return in connection with this Agreement or their ownership of the Property, or otherwise hold themselves out as partners, shareholders or members of a business entity or conduct business under a common name. The Co-Owners shall file an election to be excluded from subchapter K of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in accordance with Treasury Regulations Section 1.761-2(a)(2).
3. Management of the Property.
3.1 Management Generally. The Co-Owners shall jointly manage the Property. Decisions regarding the Property which require unanimous consent of the Co-Owners shall include all major decisions in accordance with guidance set forth by United States Internal Revenue Service Revenue Procedure 2002-22, and shall include, without limitation, the payment of any fees to any Co-Owners or any affiliates thereof, contracts related to the Property exceeding $500,000 in value and not pursuant to a unanimously agreed upon budget, the hiring of any Property Manager (as defined and more particularly set forth in Section 3.2 below), the lease of or re-lease of all or a portion of the Property, or the sale, exchange, financing, refinancing, creation or modification of a blanket lien on the Property or other disposition of the Property in whole or in part. For all other actions, except for those day-to-day decisions set forth in Section 3.2 below, the Co-Owners agree to be bound by the vote of a majority count of the unaffiliated Co-Owners at the time any such decision shall be made, regardless of each CoOwner’s Ownership Percentage at such time (eg, 2 out of 3 Co-Owners as of the date hereof, 3 out of 5 Co-Owners if there shall be 5 unaffiliated Co-Owners at some time in the future, etc).
All leases of the Property shall be bona fide leases for federal tax purposes. Rents paid by a lessee shall reflect the fair market value for the use of the Property and shall not be based on upon a percentage of net income from the property, cash flow, increases in equity or similar arrangements.
3.2 Day-to-Day Management. Day-to-day management of the Property, such as collection of rent, hiring of service contractors on an as-needed basis and payment of expenses, shall be handled by Tenant 3 (the “TiC Manager”), subject to any consent required from the Co-Owners as described in Section 3.1. In the event Leonid Pustilnikov is unable or unwilling to serve as the managing principal of Tenant 3, the Co-Owners agree to be bound by the vote of a majority count of the unaffiliated Co-Owners at the time any such decision shall be made, regardless of each Co-Owner’s Ownership Percentage at such time (eg, 4 out of 6 CoOwners as of the date hereof, 3 out of 5 Co-Owners if there shall be 5 unaffiliated Co-Owners at some time in the future, etc). The Co-Owners may agree, by unanimous consent, to a third party property manager (the “Property Manager”) to manage the Property and provide such property management, construction management, asset management, leasing and debt placement services as may be required for operation of the Property and as shall be set forth in a property management agreement with an initial one (1) year term subject to annual renewal, and which shall set forth the Property Manager’s duties, responsibilities and compensation. Any annual extension of the term of the Management Agreement must be approved by all of the Co- 3 Owners. Property Manager shall be responsible for maintaining a common bank account on behalf of the Co-Owners for the collection and deposit of rents.
4. Sale or Transfer of the Property.
(a) General. Subject to Section 4(b), a Co-Owner may not make or undertake any “Transfer” (as hereinafter defined) made which: (a) violates any provision of this Agreement, (b) violates any loan that encumbers the entire Property or (c) results in more than 35 persons being tenants in common of the Property. For purposes of the foregoing sentence, a husband and wife shall be treated as a single person and all persons who acquire interests from a Co-Owner by inheritance shall be treated as a single person. A “Transfer,” for purposes of this Agreement, shall be deemed to include, but not be limited to: (i) any sale, transfer, assignment, pledge or other disposition of, or creation of a security interest in, all or any portion of a CoOwner’s Ownership Interest, (ii) a consolidation or merger to which a Co-Owner is a party, or (iii) any sale, transfer or assignment of a general partner’s interest or any portion thereof in a CoOwner if such Co-Owner is a general partnership, or any sale, transfer, or assignment of a member’s interest or any portion thereof in a Co-Owner if an such Co-Owner is a limited liability company.
(b) Right of First Offer. If a Co-Owner desires to sell its Ownership Interest to a third party purchaser, such Co-Owner (the “Selling Co-Owner”) shall first allow the other Co-Owners (each, an “Offeror,” and collectively, the “Offerors”) to make an offer to purchase the Selling Co-Owner’s Ownership Interest pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this section. A Selling Co-Owner shall provide written notice (the “ROFO Notice”) of its intent to sell its Ownership Interest to each Offeror. The Offerors shall have the right, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of such ROFO Notice, to deliver a written offer to the Selling CoOwner to purchase the Selling Co-Owner’s Ownership Interest. If the Selling Co-Owner does not accept an offer from any of the Offerors within fourteen (14) days after receipt of such each offer, then for the following one hundred twenty (120) days, the Selling Co-Owner shall be free to sell its interest in the Property to a purchaser other than an Offeror, provided that the sale of the Selling Co-Owner’s Ownership Interest to a purchaser (other than an Offeror) is for a price greater than any purchase price offered by an Offeror pursuant to this Section and is in compliance with the terms of any loan encumbering the entire Property. If a sale is not consummated within such one hundred twenty day period, then the rights of the Offerors to notice and first offer as aforesaid will again apply as to any sale occurring subsequent to such period. The rights contained herein shall be subject and subordinate to the terms of any loan documents encumbering the entire Property. For the avoidance of doubt, however, a third party purchaser shall not be deemed to include any Co-Owners, their principals, or any entities under majority common ownership or control with such Co-Owners or principals.
5. Partition. Each Co-Owner agrees that prior to instituting an action for partition that involves an actual physical division of the Property as described in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 872.810 and 873.210 to 873.290, such Co-Owner will first offer the other Co-Owners the right to purchase its Ownership Interest at fair market value, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 or Section 6, as applicable. Additionally, any action for partition shall be subject to any restrictions required by a lender and that are consistent with customary commercial lending practices.
4 6. General Provisions regarding the Tenancy in Common.
6.1 Advances Among Co-Owners. No Co-Owner nor the Property Manager may advance funds to another Co-Owner to meet expenses associated with the Property, unless the advance is recourse and is not for a period exceeding one (1) year.
6.2 Proportionate Sharing of Debt. In the event the Co-Owners unanimously agree to obtain indebtedness to be secured by the Property, each Co-Owner shall share in such indebtedness in proportion to their Ownership Percentage.
6.3 No Business Activities. The activities of the Co-Owners in regards to the Property shall be limited to those customarily performed in connection with the maintenance and repair of rental real estate.
6.4 Loan Agreements. The lender of any indebtedness secured by the Property shall not be a related person to any Co-Owner, the Property Manager, any lessee of the Property or any affiliate of the Co-Owner, Property Manager or any lessee of the Property, unless otherwise unanimously agreed to by the Co-Owners in writing.
7. Miscellaneous.
7.1 Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the Co-Owners with respect to the Property and may be amended only by an agreement in writing signed by the party to be charged.
7.2 Partial Invalidity. If a court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction holds any portion of this Agreement to be invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part for any reason, the validity and enforceability of the remaining clauses, or portions of them, shall not be affected.
7.3 Successors and Assigns. Subject to the restrictions on transfer contained herein, this Agreement shall bind and benefit the Co-Owners to this Agreement and their legal representatives and successors in interest.
7.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
7.5 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any party to this Agreement brings an action against another to enforce or interpret this Agreement, then the non-prevailing party shall pay the attorney’s fees and costs and expert witness fees and costs of the prevailing party.
7.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts.
7.7 Legal Counsel; Mutual Drafting. Each party hereto recognizes that this is a legally binding contract, and acknowledges and agrees that he, she or it, as applicable, has read and understands this Agreement, is entering into it freely and voluntarily, and has had ample opportunity to consult with legal counsel of his, her or its choice. Each party has cooperated in the drafting, negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. Hence, in any 5 construction to be made of this Agreement, the same shall not be construed against any party on the basis of that party or its counsel being the drafter of such language. [Remainder of page intentionally blank]
S-1 Signature page to
Tenancy In Common Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
CO-OWNERS:
TENANT 1:
EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Eli Taban, Manager
TENANT 2:
1112 INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
TENANT 3:
9300 WILSHIRE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Leonid Pustilnikov, Manager
TENANT 4:
9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: 505 Investment Company, LLC
Its: Managing Member
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
_________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
__________________
Ely Dromy, Manage
laware limited liabi
________________
2 TENANT 5:
E.D. FLORES, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
TENANT 6:
DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 12, 1995
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Trustee
By: ________________________________
Judy Dromy, Trustee
__________________
Ely Dromy, Manag
___________________
Ely Dromy, Trustee
________
dy Dromy
y Dromy,
EXHIBIT 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
125 - 129 South Linden Fee:
LOTS 38, 39, AND 40 OF TRACT NO. 6648 IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, IN THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 71, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN(s): 4328-009-007 and 4328-009-021
4 9740-9744 Wilshire Leasehold:
A leasehold interest in a five (5) story office building located at 9740 and 9744 Wilshire Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, with a legal description for the land thereunder of:
LOTS 35 AND 36 OF TRACT 6648, IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 71 PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 4328-009-003
The leasehold interest is more particularly described as:
A leasehold estate as created by that certain unrecorded lease dated August 29, 1957, executed by Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, as Trustee under the Will of Grace K. Burt, deceased as lessor and 9740 Wilshire Building, a Limited Partnership as lessee, as disclosed by a Lease – Short Form for Recording recorded September 27, 1957 as Instrument No. 1606 in Book 55719, Page 14 of Official Records. Said lease was amended and assigned as follows:
a. that certain unrecorded Amendment to Lease dated May 29, 1959; b. that certain Amendment to Lease dated May 29, 1959 and recorded June 24, 1959 as Document No. 1852;
c. that certain Assignment of Undivided Interest in Lease dated January 3, 1961 and recorded
January 4, 1961 as Document No. 1567;
d. that certain Assignment of Undivided Interest in Lease dated January 3, 1961 and recorded
January 4, 1961 as Document No. 1568;
e. those certain unrecorded Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease dated March 2, 1979;
f. those certain unrecorded Assignments of Lessee's Interest in Lease dated March 21, 1980;
g. that certain unrecorded Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease dated March 26, 2003;
5 h. that certain unrecorded Assignment of Leasehold Interest dated July 27, 2012; i. that certain Assignment of Lease dated October 25, 2019 and recorded October 28, 2019 as Document No. 20191155144;
j. that certain Assignment of Leasehold Interest dated December 28, 2020 and recorded January ___, 2021 as Document No. ;
)26 %4%0+6)++1
%5&.0$0)4%%4%0+6)++1"+)&.0-)"
%4%0+6)++1
"4)$!%+2.- %/326 3)+$)-'
&&)#)"+
%4%+./,%-2 %04)#%1)4)1).-
.,,3-)26%4%+./,%-2%/"02,%-2
October 23, 2020
9300 Wilshire, LLC, Beverly Hills
A California Limited Liability Company
22%-2).-
0%.
312)+-)*.4
0.,6-2%0-"2).-"+-4%12,%-20.3/
)+1()0%.3+%4"0$ 3)2%
%4%0+6)++1"+)&.0-)"
Subject: Acceptance of City’s Peer-Reviewer Recommendation For Acceptance: Investigation Of Potential Faulting 125 S. Linden Drive (aka 9744 Wilshire Boulevard) APN: 4328-009-007 and 129 S. Linden Drive, APN: 4328-009- 021, Beverly Hills, California, 90212
Dear 9300 Wilshire, LLC, Beverly Hills:
The “Fault Hazard [Ground Rupture] Investigation” (Investigation) for the 125 and 129 S. Linden Drive properties, in the City of Beverly Hills, California 90212. The investigations were carried out by Geocon West, Inc. (“Geocon”), the Consultants-of-Record, on behalf of the applicant, 9300 Wilshire, LLC, Beverly Hills. The main purpose of the Geocon investigation was to determine if possible splays of the Santa Monica fault zone potentially impact the sites, and if such faults were “active” (defined by the California Geological Survey [CGS] as surface or near-surface displacement within the last 11,700 years). The Geocon investigation has been peer reviewed by the City’s consultant, Roy J. Shlemon, Ph.D., PG 2867; CPG 1766; CPESC 2167, of Roy J. Shlemon & Associates, Inc. (“RSA”).
The peer review included critique of the Site-Specific Fault Rupture Investigation report provided by Geocon, titled “Fault Rupture Hazard Investigation 125 South Linden Drive (aka 9744 Wilshire Boulevard) and 129 South Linden Drive, Beverly Hills, California, 90212 Tract: #6648; Lots: 38, 39 & 40, Assessor ID No. 4328-009-007 & 4328-009-021” (Geocon Project File No. W1121-06-01 dated October 7, 2020 attached).
As the lead agency, the City of Beverly Hills requires appropriate fault-activity investigations and independent technical reviews for conformance with governing local and state building codes, including Department of Conservation California Geological Survey Special Publication 42 titled, “Earthquake Fault Zones A Guide For Government Agenies, Property Owners / Developers, And Geoscience Practitioners For Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards In California,” and with current geologic standards of practice that ensure public health, safety and welfare.
Accordingly, in reliance on the technical documentation and assurances provided by the Consultants-of-Record, including their opinions and conclusions, the City of Beverly Hills now formally accepts the technical “Recommendation For Acceptance” of the Reviewer (attached).
Sincerely,
Attachments: 1) Geocon Project File No. W1121-06-01 dated October 7, 2020 2) Roy J. Shlemon, Ph.D., PG 2867; CPG 1766; CPESC 2167, of Roy J. Shlemon & Associates, Inc., “Recommendation For Acceptance,” October 16, 2020
129 S. Linden Drive – Development Plan Review Application April 7, 2023
ATTACHMENT “A” – PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND FINDINGS
125-129 S. Linden Drive, Beverly Hills CA
PROJECT SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
The project site is comprised of two legal lots at 125-129 S. Linden Drive, assigned Assessor Parcel Numbers 4328-009-007 and 4328-009-021. The project site is a rectangular property measuring 21,676.05 square feet with approximately 170 feet of frontage along S. Linden Drive, it’s only public street frontage. The project site adjoins a public alley for approximately 170 feet to the west, a public alley for 127.5 feet to the north, and a private multi-family property for 127.5 feet to the south. The project site currently consists of a publicly-accessible surface parking lot (APN 4328-009-007) and an unimproved vacant lot (APN 4328-009-021). All existing improvements would be removed as part of the project.
To the north, the project site is adjoined by commercial properties that front Wilshire Boulevard. These properties are improved with various multi-story commercial and mixed use buildings.
To the west and south, the properties along Linden Drive are improved with multi-story multi-family residential structures. To the west, the project site is adjacent to a multi-story medical office building.
The project site is also within approximately 550 feet of the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, both major commercial thoroughfares which connect Beverly Hills to the rest of the Los Angeles region.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of a new 19-story mixed use, multifamily residential and hotel building, with 165 rental apartment units (including 33 affordable housing units) and ancillary residential spaces, 73 hotel rooms and ancillary hotel spaces, and 126 parking spaces. The project will replace a surface parking lot and a develop a vacant lot. The new 19-story building would contain a gross floor area of 311,197 square feet (per California Building Code) and floor area ratio of 14.3:1. The overall height of all improvements, including the required access elevators and stairwells, is proposed at a height of 213 feet. Parking for the project would be provided within a four level subterranean parking structure, which takes access from the alley to the west. A loading zone would be provided just south of the parking entrance, along the alley to the west. In order to abide by a fault line known to exist on the project site, the project would relegate the building structure to the northern two-thirds of the project site. By providing this fault line setback, the project would provide a large outdoor courtyard space at the southeast corner of the project site which will be programmed as an outdoor amenity space for the project users.
Residential Use and Affordable Housing
The project will include 165 rental units on floors six through 19 of the building, consisting of 13 studios, 59 one-bedrooms, 91 two-bedrooms, and two two-bedroom penthouse units. Of the total units, 33 units will be affordable to Lower Income Households, distributed proportionally among the units as three studios, 12 one-bedrooms, and 18 two-bedrooms. Access to the residential portion of the project will be provided from the ground floor residential lobby and associated elevators at the north end of the building. Open space for the residential units will be provided both as common areas, on the first floor courtyard and on the 18th and 19th floors, as well as in private open space balconies on the sixth through the 19th story.
ATTACHMENT B - DPR APPLICATION
129 S. Linden Drive – Development Plan Review Application April 7, 2023
Hotel Use
The project will include 73 hotel rooms on floors one through five and a hotel restaurant accessory to the hotel use on the second floor. The hotel rooms will be comprised of 64 hotel rooms, averaging 430 square feet each, and 9 hotel suites, averaging 698 square feet each. The hotel use will be accessible through a separate hotel lobby, which takes access directly off of Linden Drive. The hotel portion of the building will be accessible through the central elevator and stair core, with secondary stairs at the north and south ends of the building. The hotel will operate, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Parking and Loading
All parking will be located interior to the site, on subterranean levels P1-P4. The project will provide a total of 126 parking spaces which will include 51 spaces equipped or installed with electric vehicle charging capabilities and 4 spaces designed to comply with disabled access requirements. The parking will be accessible via a central core of elevators and stairs, with two access elevators for the residential and two for the hotel use. A separate elevator lobby will provide access to both sets of elevators. A separate stair the southwest corner of the garage levels will provide an alternative means of ingress and egress to each level. In the alley to the west, the building will provide a 425 square foot loading zone, trash area, and other utility spaces. The loading zone will serve the hotel and hotel restaurant portions of the project.
Open Space and Landscaping
The project will provide 18,228 square feet of common and private open space through various levels of the building. On the first floor, the southeast corner of the project site will be developed as a lush courtyard that will be programmed for passive and active use with landscaping and lighting. The courtyard will adjoin an interior space within the building, comprising a total of 8,500 square feet of interior and exterior open space. Private open space balconies will be located on the sixth through 19th floor, at various units. On the 18th and 19th floor, interior and exterior common areas will be provided on opposite ends of the building. The open spaces, comprising 1,845 and 1,342 square feet respectively, will be programmed as amenities for residents.
129 S. Linden Drive – Development Plan Review Application April 7, 2023
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS
The proposed project will seek approval for a Development Plan Review per Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-3100 to allow the construction of a 19-story mixed use building with 165 residential units, including 33 affordable units, a 73-room hotel with a hotel restaurant, and associated parking and open space. In accordance with the Preliminary Application submitted and accepted on October 24, 2022, the project will utilize the Builder’s Remedy. Under the Builder’s Remedy, if a jurisdiction lacks a substantially compliant Housing Element, it cannot use its objective general plan, specific plan or zoning regulations to deny or render infeasible an affordable housing development project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code). The project meets the criteria to grant a Development Plan Review as follows:
A. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.
The proposed Project substantially conforms with the purpose and intent of the City’s General Plan. The site has a General Plan Land Use designation of High Density Multi-Family Residential. The subject site is not within any specific plan area.
The Beverly Hills General Plan states the following Goals and Policies:
Land Use Element
LU 7.2 Amenities. Encourage new multi-family development to provide amenities for residents such as on-site recreational facilities, community meeting spaces, and require useable private open space, public open space, or both. (Imp. 2.2)
LU 9.1 Uses for Diverse Customers. Accommodate retail, office, entertainment, dining, hotel, and visitor serving uses that support the needs of local residents, attract customers from the region, and provide a quality experience for national and international tourists. (Imp. 2.1) LU 12.2 Building, Parking Structure, and Site Design. Require that buildings, parking structures, and properties in commercial and office districts be designed to assure compatibility with abutting residential neighborhoods, incorporating such elements as setbacks, transitional building heights and bulk, architectural treatment of all elevations, landscape buffers, enclosure of storage facilities, air conditioning, and other utilities, walls and fences, and non-glare external lighting. (Imp. 2.1, 2.2)
The project will be consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the general plan as it will include a project that provides amenities for residents and for hotel guests, therefore alleviating the demand on other uses in the area. It will contribute to the blend of office, restaurants, residences, and medical uses in the immediate vicinity and expand the offering of housing and affordable housing in an immensely walkable area of Beverly Hills. The project design has been carefully crafted to maintain transitions from the lower scale residences to the south, while responding to the existing high-rise massing along Wilshire Boulevard. The site will provide ample on-site parking and open space to accommodate both residents and visitors. 129 S. Linden Drive – Development Plan Review Application April 7, 2023
Housing Element (Adopted and Certified for 2021-2029)
H 2 Housing Supply and Diversity. Provide a variety of housing types and adequate affordable housing supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community.
H 2.8 Transit-Oriented Housing. Promote access, where feasible, from residential neighborhoods and new residential development to existing transit stops and to the anticipated subway stations. (Imp. 12.1)
H 2.7 Environmentally Sustainable Housing. Promote conservation of water and energy, use of sustainable building materials and drought resistant landscaping to reduce the operating costs and carbon emissions associated with housing. (Imp. 10.5) H 2.9 Jobs-Housing Balance. Promote programs seeking to provide housing opportunities for people who work in the City as a means of reducing long commutes, easing local traffic, improving air quality and helping to achieve a balanced regional jobs-housing distribution for the western portion of Los Angeles County. (Imp. 10.6)
H 4 Reducing Constraints. Mitigate potential governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, while maintaining community character.
The project meets the goals of the adopted and certified 2021-2029 Housing Element by providing both housing and jobs in an area that is already developed with multi-family housing and substantial quantities of jobs, transit and businesses. The project provides for more housing opportunities in a variety of sizes, in an area developed primarily with multi-family structures. The project will create a total of 33 new units that will be restricted as affordable to Lower Income Households, with a variety of studio, one- and two-bedrooms types that can accommodate difference family and household sizes. The project will meet all local, state, and federal sustainability targets applicable to new construction and will provide a high quality housing asset on a site that currently only provides parking. The project will be consistent with the General Plan and the relevant portions of the Land Use and Housing Elements.
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.
The project site is not located in the C-5 zone.
The project will not adversely effect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity as it will develop an under-utilized site that is currently developed as surface parking and is partially vacant. The project will not remove any existing housing uses, but will provide 165 new multifamily units of various bedroom types and sizes and 33 new affordable units where there are currently no residential uses. The project will provide ample on-site parking within a four level subterranean garage and adequate loading space in the adjacent alley, which will relegate 129 S. Linden Drive – Development Plan Review Application April 7, 2023
vehicular activity away from Linden Drive and other properties along the street. The project will provide an appropriate transition between the commercial activity of Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard to the north and west, and the lower density residential uses to the east and south.
The project will promote harmonious development of the area by creating a new hybrid mixed use residential and hotel building that provides a transitional blend of uses, while further the provision of affordable housing in the City. The hotel with an associated restaurant will be a use that is compatible with those uses in the vicinity, which include commercial office, other hotels and restaurants, and medical office uses. The development will take access off of an existing alley and will not generate major alterations to public infrastructure that would impact other developments or existing buildings. Therefore, the project will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and 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.
The project proposes a 19-story structure on a 21,676.05 square foot site, adjacent to a Wilshire Boulevard, a commercial thoroughfare that is currently developed with several highrise buildings including hotels and office buildings. The project responds to the surrounding context by concentrating the mass to the north, towards Wilshire Boulevard, while providing an ample setback from the south and east corners of the property. This transitional setback creates a respectful separation from the lower scale residential uses to the south and east of the project. The setback will allow for the residential properties in the vicinity to maintain the existing enjoyment and use of those properties that currently exist.
The operation of the building as a multifamily and hotel project with an accessory restaurant will be wholly enclosed within the project site. An operation plan for the hotel and restaurant will be developed so as to prevent any interference with nearby residences. By virtue of having a blend of uses in the same building, the hotel operations will be maintained to be compatible with both the on-site and off-site residents in the surrounding area. All off-street parking will be enclose within the four level underground garage and all loading and trash operations will take place in the alley, away from the residences on Linden Drive. Therefore, 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.
The proposed plan centralizes pedestrian access at the northeast corner of the project site, with a designated hotel lobby and designated residential lobby. The project will include the closure of one large driveway along Linden Drive, which will be replaced with new sidewalk, curb, and gutter, therefore ensuring continuous pedestrian access along Linden Drive.
Pedestrian accessibility and connectivity will be improved by the project, while vehicular access will be redirected towards the rear alley. As the project does not propose to create any new curb cuts or driveways, it will improve circulation and safety along Linden Drive and will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle 129 S. Linden Drive – Development Plan Review Application April 7, 2023
conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
E. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The project is not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety of general welfare. The project will provide 33 new affordable housing units, will generate jobs and economic productivity through the establishment of a new hotel, and will provide a new landscaped courtyard along Linden Drive where only a surface parking lot currently exists. The project is compatible with the surrounding commercial uses along Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, which are generally high intensity office, hotel, and restaurant uses, and also provides a setback transitional from the lower scale multifamily residential uses to the south and east. The project construction and operations will comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations intended to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, and therefore it will not be detrimental.
City of Beverly Hills
Community Development Department
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Tel. (310) 285-1141
Fax. (310) 858-5966
Development Plan Review
Planning Review Application
Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023
Application Overview:
Before submitting a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR), the Applicant should thoroughly review this application, as well as the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), available online at www.beverlyhills.org/zoning. The Applicant should also consult with City staff that will be involved in reviewing and processing the application, primarily in the Community Development Department. Electronic copies of all Planning Review Applications are available on the City’s Planning Division webpage at www.beverlyhills.org/planningapplications.
Applications will not be accepted if they are not fully complete at the time of submittal.
Application Table of Contents:
There are five (5) parts to this application. Each section must be completed in its entirety, and all requirements must be met in order for this application to be accepted for filing. Section 1 – Property Information & Project Description Section 2 – Owner Authorization & Applicant Team Contact Information Section 3 – Supplemental Questions
Section 4 – Public Notice Requirements
Section 5 – Submittal Requirements & Checklist
Filing Fee:
See current Planning Department Fee Schedule here:
www.beverlyhills.org/planningapplications or call Community Development at (310)-285-1141.
Staff Contact Information:
If you have questions about this application, please call (310)-285-1141 and ask to be directed to Current Planning, or visit the following website for staff contact information:
www.beverlyhills.org/contactplanning.
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 2 of 13
Section 1 – Property Information & Project Description
A. Property Information
Project Address: _____________________________________________________________ Legal Description of Property: 1 _________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________ Adjacent Streets: ____________________________________________________________ Lot Area: (square feet) Assessor Parcel Number(s): _____________________ Existing Use: ________________________________________________________________ Existing Height: ________Existing Floor Area: (square feet) Existing FAR: _________ Existing Setbacks from Property Lines:
Front: ______________ Side(s): ______________, ______________ Rear: ______________ B. Project Information:
Proposed Use:
Proposed Height: Proposed Floor Area: (square feet) Proposed FAR: ________ Proposed Demolition: Yes No If yes, describe:
Proposed Setbacks from Property Lines:
Front: ______________ Side(s): ______________, ______________ Rear: ______________ C. Identify the site’s zoning designation (City Zoning Map: http:/gis.beverlyhills.org/):
________________
D. Describe the existing conditions of the subject site (i.e. existing structures, landscaping, and present use):
E. Were any existing structures on the property designed by a Master Architect or are any identified on any historic resource inventory, including the City of Beverly Hills Historic Resource Inventory? (see list of Local Master Architects here:
www.beverlyhills.org/historicpreservation )
Yes No If yes, please list the architect(s):________________________________ Please contact the Historic Preservation Group at (310)-285-1141 for more information.
Have you spoken with the Historic Preservation staff? Yes No 1 Legal Description Requirements:
The legal description must include the lot, block, and tract name/number of all contiguously owned parcels (even if the parcels are not a part of the proposed project), and should be based on a Title Report, Grant Deed, or survey from a licensed engineer.
125-129 S. Linden Drive
Surface Parking Lot / Vacant Lot
N/A
0 ft / N/A 0 sf /N/A 0 / N/A
N/A N/A
191'-11"
21,676.05
Mixed Use building including 165 dwelling units and a 73-room hotel, with associated parking and open space Demolition of existing parking lot
Linden Drive / Wilshire Boulevard / Spaulding Drive / Charleville Blvd LOTS 38, 39, AND 40 OF TRACT NO.6648, IN THE CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS, IN COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 71, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. 311,197 14.3:1
R4
The property at 125 Linden Dr is currently improved as a surface parking lot; The property at 129 Linden Dr is a vacant, unimproved lot. 4328-009-007, 4328-009-021
7" (North) 7' 5'-10" (South) 11'
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 3 of 13
Section 2 – Owner Authorization & Applicant Team Contact Information A. Property Owner Information: 2
Name(s):
Address:
City: State & Zip Code:
Phone:
E-Mail
2 Ownership Information Requirements:
In order to verify that the property owner has given consent to file this application, the following documentation must be submitted at the time of filing.
Grant Deed – This is required if the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Records do not match the current ownership as listed on the application. The deed information should match the property owner as listed above.
Letter of Authorization – This is required if the property owner does not sign the application. The property owner may instead provide a signed and dated letter in lieu of their original signature on this form, which must authorize the signatory of this application. Please see Letter of Authorization Example attached to this application.
Ownership Entity Documentation – This is required if the property is owned by an entity rather than an individual. Please provide the applicable required documentation for the type of ownership entity, as shown in the table below.
Ownership Documentation Requirements
Type of Property
Owner Required Ownership Documentation Documents that May be Required (If Applicable) Individual N/A Grant Deed, Letter of Authorization
Limited Liability
Company (LLC)
Operating Agreement or Articles of
Organization Grant Deed, Letter of Authorization
Corporation Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws,
and/or Meeting Minutes Grant Deed, Letter of Authorization Limited Partnership
(LP) Partnership Agreement Grant Deed, Letter of Authorization Trust Trust Instrument Grant Deed, Letter of Authorization
**The property is co-owned by five tenants in a Tenancy In Common (TiC) structure. The tenants are EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 1”), 1112 INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 2”), 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 3”), 9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 4”), E.D. FLORES, LLC, a California limitedliability company (“Tenant 5”), and DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 12, 1995.
The TiC Agreement included with this application includes authority for 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC to sign on behalf of the co-owners as the "TiC Manager." The TiC Agreement identifies Leonid (Leo) Pustilnikov as the managing principal of 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC with the authority to sign on behalf of the co-owners of the property.
9744 Wilshire Blvd, STE 203
Beverly Hills CA 90212
210-208-4100
[email protected]
9300 Wilshire LLC** (Manager: Leo Pustilnikov)
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 4 of 13
Property Owner Signature:
Choice of Law. This document shall be deemed to have been made in the State of California and shall be construed, and the rights and liabilities of the parties determined, in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that I am the owner(s) of the subject property, or have been authorized to sign on behalf of the property owner, and consent to the filing of this application on the above-referenced property.
Executed on this ____________ (Day) of __________________________ (Month) of 20_______ (Year) in ___________________________ (City), _______________ (State).
Dated:_______________________ BY: _____________________________________ (Signature)
________________________________ BY: _____________________________________ (Title, Company) (Printed Name)
Additional Owner Signature (if applicable):
Dated:_______________________ BY: _____________________________________ (Signature)
________________________________ BY: _____________________________________ (Title, Company) (Printed Name)
Please indicate the role of the signatory(ies) above:
Owner Applicant Agent/Representative Architect
If the owner did not sign above, is a Letter of Authorization provided*? Yes No
*Please note that a Letter of Authorization is required when the property owner does not sign this application, but instead has another individual sign on their behalf. See Letter of Authorization Example at the end of this application for reference. Please also note that if this application will be heard by the Planning Commission or City Council, the property owner will be required to record a Covenant & Agreement to accept the conditions of approval, if applicable. 23 CA
3 April
Manager, 9300 Wilshire LLC Leonid (Leo) Pustilnikov
Per TIC Agreement, Leo Pustilnikov may sign on behalf of all owners. 4/3/23
____________ ( y) _____________________
___________________________ (City), _______________
_____________________ BY: ____________
CA
3/23
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 5 of 13
B. Applicant Information [Individual(s) or entity benefitting from the entitlement] (Only provide if different from Property Owner)
Name(s):
Address:
City: State & Zip Code:
Phone:
E-Mail
C. Representative Information [Individual acting on behalf of the Applicant] Name(s):
Company/Firm:
Address:
City: State & Zip Code:
Phone:
E-Mail
D. Architect/Design Team Information [If applicable]
Name(s): Registered Architect? Yes No
Company/Firm:
Address:
City: State & Zip Code:
Phone:
E-Mail
E. Please indicate who will be the main point of contact for the project:
Owner Applicant Representative Architect
9300 Wilshire LLC (c/o Manager: Leo Pustilnikov)
9744 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 203
Beverly Hills
210-208-4100
[email protected]
Dave Rand
Rand Paster & Nelson LLP
633 W Fifth Street, 64th Fl
Los Angeles
213-557-7222
[email protected]
CA 90212
CA 90071
Jesse Ottinger
Ottinger Architects
1117 Venice Blvd
Los Angeles CA, 90015
323.250.2820
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 6 of 13
Section 3 –Supplemental Questions
Have you completed Concept Review for this project? Yes No If yes, please attach a copy of the concept review letter to this application.
Please indicate the reason for the Development Plan Review, pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3100*:
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 uses permitted pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3107 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 BHMC Title 10, Chapter 2, Article 7 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 which would increase the height of a structure or building, unless the addition is specified in this chapter as an element not considered when determining building height *Please note that certain types of projects are exempted from this type of review, pursuant to BHMC §10- 3-3101. See the reference BHMC section for more details.
Please also indicate below if any additional planning entitlements are required in connection with the proposed project.
Are there any outstanding Code Enforcement citations on the property? Yes No If yes, please attach copies.
Are there any recorded easements or encumbrances on the property? Yes No If yes, please attach copies. Show easements on survey plan.
Project Description: Explain the overall scope of the project, including other project elements that are not part of the Development Plan Review Request.
See attached Attachment "A"
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 7 of 13
Section 4 – Public Notice Requirements
The public notice requirements for all planning applications are located in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (§10-3-2.5). In addition, the public notification requirements for an application submittal are explained in detail on www.beverlyhills.org/publicnotice.
Please note that your application will not be accepted for submittal unless certain public notification requirements are met.
Please contact the Planning Division with any questions regarding these requirements and the required materials for an application submittal.
x Planning Division: (310) 285-1141; [email protected] Section 5 – Submittal Requirements & Checklist
Architectural Plans Required:
x A total of three (3) sets of architectural plans are required for initial submittal: two (2) sets at 11”x 17” size, and two (2) sets at either 12”x 18” or 18”x 24” size*. *Please note that full-size plan sets (24”x 36”) may be requested by the Planner for initial submittal. o All plan sets must be stapled, drawn to scale, and legible. o All plan sheets must include an architect title block, a graphic scale, the owner’s or authorized agent’s name, address, and telephone number, the project address, and a North Arrow.
o The following plans in the checklist must be included in the architectural plan set.
Inconsistency between drawings, renderings, materials, etc., will be considered an incomplete submittal. Only complete applications will be accepted for filing.
NOTE: You will be required to submit additional plans (total of 10 sets) once the application is ready for review by the decision-making body (Commission-level projects only). All plans must be printed to scale and be legible. If the proposed project requires multiple applications for separate requests, then the submittal requirements of this application may be combined, at the discretion of the Planner. If submitting a site plan and massing model for public distribution purposes per SB 1214, please indicate that on relevant drawings.
† Items marked below with this symbol may not be required for every project, at staff’s discretion. Please consult with City staff whether or not such requirement may be waived for application submittal. In order to request a waiver from any of the requirements listed below, please submit a written request specifying the requirement and the reason it is not applicable to the proposed project.
Staff Verification
ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS:
x Electronic files (pdf) of this completed application and all of the required submittal items outlined in this application shall be provided on a CD or a USB flash drive at the time the application is filed.
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 8 of 13
TITLE PAGE:
x Date (note: this should be updated for each resubmittal) x Project Address
x Legal Description
x Scope of Work
x List of Requested Entitlements
x Ownership Information
x Applicant Contact Information
x Architect Contact Information
x Agent/Representative Contact Information (if applicable) x Zoning Conformance Table with Required/Allowed/Existing vs. Proposed Development Standards
SURVEY:
x An ALTA Survey is recommended.
x Must be stamped and signed by a licensed surveyor or licensed civil engineer. x Show all existing easements or other encumbrances, whether private or public, based on a review of a recent Title Report.
x Note: If any improvements are proposed over an easement or other encumbrance, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to obtain the necessary approvals and/or modifications to said easement or encumbrance in order to allow improvements in such areas. x Show survey/boundary markers.
x Show property lines, adjacent public right-of-way, and curb cuts. x Show utility infrastructure, including the adjacent public right-of-way. x Include Legal Description.
x Show all existing fences/walls/gates. Include height dimension. x Show all existing structures.
x Show existing paved area.
x Show existing trees.
SITE PLAN:
x Show entire parcel (indicate square footage of property) and label all property lines.
x Label & dimension all existing and proposed structures, including perimeter walls/fences/hedges.
x Show all code-required and proposed setbacks. For additions, include the existing setbacks.
x Indicate location, size, and species of existing trees and vegetation (indicate which are to be removed).
x Indicate location of streets and sidewalks.
x Show location of any public or private easements, curb cuts, and any obstructions in the public right-of-way.
x Show anticipated dedications and/or improvements to the public right-ofway. x Show the location of any ground-mounted mechanical equipment and required screening.
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 9 of 13
x Show the location of any loading spaces if not located within the building envelope.
x Provide a turning radius template for automobile access to and from the parking areas, driveway access, etc. from the City’s public right-of-way.
FLOOR PLANS:
x Show fully dimensioned existing and proposed floor and roof plans. x Show fully dimensioned existing and proposed floor plans and label each room. Clearly label the proposed bedrooms or rooms that can reasonably be used as a bedroom (note: a room can be considered a bedroom even if it does not have a bathroom and/or closet).
x Show the location of all parking spaces.
x Include a floor area blocking study to demonstrate floor area calculations. The blocking study should be comprised of measurable blocks and clearly delineate between exempt and non-exempt areas. Please refer to BHMC §10- 3-100 for areas that are exempt from floor area calculations (provided in the definition of floor area).
x Provide measurements for the depth of recessed windows and doors. x Provide a window and door key which corresponds with the window and door schedule.
x Show the location of an on-site loading spaces.
ROOF PLAN:
x Identify elevation points along roof pitches and slopes of pitches. x Show the location of any roof-mounted mechanical equipment and required screening.
x Show existing and proposed gutters and downspouts.
x If requesting rooftop uses, please provide the relevant area calculations as indicated in BHMC §10-3-3107, which depend upon the type of rooftop use proposed.
LANDSCAPE PLAN/ELEVATION (may be subject to compliance with Beverly Hills Water Efficiency standards):
x Indicate type, size, quantity, and location of existing and new plants. (Recommended Species List: www.beverlyhills.org/recommendedtrees). x Provide pictures of the plant species proposed.
x Label the location(s) of any proposed paving/hardscape treatment and provide the area calculations of the paving/hardscape within the required front yard area (multi-family residential projects only). x Provide a landscape lighting plan. If there is no lighting proposed, please indicate this on the plans and application.
x Provide cut sheets of any proposed landscape lighting fixtures. x Provide an elevation that includes the proposed landscaping, to scale, at the time of planting.
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 10 of 13
ELEVATIONS/RENDERINGS/SECTIONS:
x Provide existing and proposed elevations from all directions (north, south, east, and west).
x Label existing portions of structures to remain and the proposed additions (when applicable). Show all sides of the structure.
x Indicate the height of all existing and proposed structures. Indicate how height is measured. Include datum points.
x Provide details of architectural features (callouts, cut sheets, photos). x Provide dimensions of windows and doors in a window/door schedule. x Show the location of exterior light fixtures to scale. x Provide color renderings as viewed from adjacent public streets and alleys.
Note that the rendering must accurately represent the project and must be consistent with the elevations and environs.
x Provide two north-south building sections and two east-west building sections. Show all property lines, code-required setbacks, and proposed setbacks on each section.
DEMOLITION PLAN AND CALCULATIONS † (not required for new buildings):
• Provide dollar valuation of proposed improvements (labor and materials). • Estimated replacement cost of existing building as determined on a square foot basis per determination from the City’s Development Services Program. • The Development Services Program will have final reviewing authority on whether the existing building is permitted to retain legally nonconforming conditions (i.e., the demolition is less than 50% of the replacement cost of the building) or if it must comply with all applicable zoning and building codes (i.e., the demolition equals or exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of the building).
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
x Consultation with the City’s Urban Designer is required prior to project submittal in order to determine if the property/structure is considered to be a local/state/federal historic landmark, a property/structure that involved the work of a local master architect, or any property/structure identified on any of the City’s historic resources surveys.
x Historic Assessment Report (required only if the project involves the demolition of or modification to a local/state/federal historic landmark, a property/structure that involved the work of a local master architect, or any property/structure identified on any of the City’s historic resources surveys) x If the Urban Designer has determined that the property/structure is not considered a historic resource, documentation must be provided at the time of project submittal indicating that determination. Such determination must be current within six months.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION:
x Please consult with Planning staff to determine the environmental review required for submittal.
x Categorical exemption forms can be found here:
www.beverlyhills.org/planningapplications.
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 11 of 13
ADJACENT PROPERTIES:
x Show structures on neighboring properties on the plot plan or on a separate plan and show distances to proposal.
x Include cross-sections through the site and adjacent properties to show the relationship of the proposal to the adjacent properties’ structures. Indicate heights and distances.
SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY: †
x Diagram the shadows from the proposed structure during the winter and summer equinoxes, from 6 AM to 9 PM at three-hour intervals.
LOADING STUDY: † (required only if requesting a modification from the loading requirements pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2741)
x Provide a study to indicate that the type/site/location of the proposed loading space area is sufficient to meet the needs of the building and operation.
PARKING STUDY AND PARKING ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAMS: †
x Required only if requesting modifications to parking standards as permitted in the City’s Minimum Parking Standards document.
x Provide written description of the specific modifications/deviations requested.
x Provide a turning radius template that shows how a vehicle would access any modified parking stalls and/or would maneuver a modified drive aisle. x Provide a turning radius template for any access point into a parking area or drive aisle from the City’s public right-of-way.
ROOFTOP OPERATIONS PLAN: †
x Provide the following information for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas proposed pursuant to §10-3-3107:
x Indicate the types of uses proposed for all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas.
x Indicate the proposed hours of operation of all enclosed and unenclosed rooftop areas.
x Indicate the type, frequency (yearly, monthly, daily, etc.) of rooftop events, appointments, etc.
x Indicate maximum occupancy anticipated for each type of event.
ABRORIST REPORT: † (required only if requesting to move, replant, replace, etc. a tree located within the City’s public right-of-way)
x Provide an arborist report prepared by an individual that is certified as an arborist by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or an individual who is currently listed as a consulting arborist by the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). At minimum, the report shall include:
x A complete inventory of the tree(s) within the City’s public right-ofway with information on the tree size and tree species. Tree size shall be provided in a circumference measurement that is measured at a height of 4’-6” above natural grade.
x A site plan showing the location of all trees within the front yard area (the trees shall be keyed to the tree inventory).
x Clear photographs of all trees.
x The health of all trees within the front yard area.
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 12 of 13
x For trees that are proposed to be removed, a reason shall be provided for its removal.
x Valuation of the tree(s) proposed to be removed.
x For trees that are proposed to be retained, a description of the tree protection methods and the trees tolerance to construction impacts based on its species and health.
x A proposed tree replacement plan, if new trees are proposed to replace those that are removed. Such replacement plan shall include the species, box size, photograph, growth rate, and maximum growth height.
x Please note that the City Arborist will have final reviewing authority on the moving, replanting, replacement, etc. of any tree located within the City’s public right-of-way. Applicants are encouraged to confer with the City Arborist prior to developing comprehensive architectural plans.
TENANT INFORMATION REVIEW: †
x Consultation with the City’s Rent Stabilization Division to discuss the proposed project and determine if it must comply with any applicable rental or tenant protection regulations. The following information will be required for this review:
x Income levels of tenants
x Provide a clearance letter or email from the Rent Stabilization Division noting the result of this consultation meeting.
REQUIRED STUDIES/REPORTS: †
x VMT Analysis and/or Local Traffic Assessment, unless project is screened out per the City’s thresholds memorialized in Planning Commission Resolution No. 1901
x Construction Management Plan (required only if project requires the preparation of an environmental report)
x Noise Study (required only if request involves rooftop uses or an environmental report is required per CEQA)
x Please note that if any type of environmental report is required for the project, a noise study will be prepared by the City’s environmental consultant. The applicant is responsible for all fees associated with such report.
x Grading Calculations
REQUIRED FINDINGS: †
x Provide justification in response to the required findings for this entitlement request.
City of Beverly Hills – Development Plan Review Application Planning Form: P-09
Version: March 2023 Page 13 of 13
Letter of Authorization Example
[OWNERSHIP ENTITY LETTERHEAD]
[ADDRESS]
Date: ____________________
City of Beverly Hills
Community Development Department
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
To Planning Division Staff:
This letter is to verify that _________________________________________ (Name of Agent/Representative), ________________________ , __________________________ (Company),(Title) is hereby authorized to sign and complete Planning Review Applications as required by the City of Beverly Hills Community Development Department, on behalf of the Owner, ______________________________ (Name of Owner), _____________________ , ________________________ (Company),(Title) of the real property located at _____________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________(Address), which is legally described as _____________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ (Tract, Lot(s), Block(s)).
By signing this form, I hereby declare (choose one):
I am the owner of record of the aforementioned real property.
I have been empowered to sign on behalf of the ownership entity, ___________________________ (Entity Name), as the ________________________ (Title), as evidenced by the attached documents (attach applicable required ownership documentation as shown in the table on page 5 of this application).
By my signature below, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing statements are true and correct.
Signature: _______________________________ Print Name: __________________________________ Title, Entity: _____________________________________ , ____________________________________ OR
Not Applicable - See TiC Agreement Attached
1 Olivia Joncich
From: Cindy Gordon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2022 10:11 AM
To: [email protected]; Olivia Joncich
Subject: 125-129 S. Linden Drive - Project Update
Hello,
This email is to confirm that the City is in receipt of the Preliminary Housing Application for 125-129 S. Linden Drive. The application fee was paid after hours (i.e., after 5:00 PM) on Friday, October 21. Therefore, the submittal date is considered to be today, October 24, 2022 (the next available business day).
The application has been assigned to Edgar Arroyo (Senior Planner) and he can be reached directly at [email protected] or 310-285-1138 should you have any further questions on the application review/processing. Based on today's submittal date, the City will provide any responses no later than Wednesday, November 23, 2022.
Thank you.
CINDY GORDON, AICP
Principal Planner | City of Beverly Hills | 310.285.1191 The City keeps a copy of all EͲmails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained EͲmails 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.
TENANCY IN COMMON AGREEMENT
This TENANCY IN COMMON AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made as of December ___, 2020 by and between EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 1”), 1112 INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 2”), 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 3”), 9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Tenant 4”), E.D. FLORES, LLC, a California limited liability company (“Tenant 5”), and DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 12, 1995 (“Tenant 6”), collectively, the “Co-Owners” and individually, each a “Co-Owner.”
RECITALS
A. The Co-Owners own, as tenants in common, a fee interest in the real property located at 125-129 S. Linden Dr., Beverly Hills, CA and a hold interest in the real property, with all improvements thereon, located at 9740-9744 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA (collectively, the “Property”).
B. The Co-Owners desire to enter into this Agreement to memorialize certain agreements with respect to the joint ownership of the Property.
C. This Agreement and the activities of the Co-Owners are intended to comply with the provisions of Internal Revenue Service Revenue Procedure 2002-22, 2002-14 I.R.B. 438 (March 19, 2002) and Private Letter Ruling 201622008.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the Co-Owners hereby agree as follows:
1. Ownership of the Property. The Co-Owners have intended expressly to create a tenancy in common with regard to the joint ownership of the Property. The Co-Owners shall hold title to the Property as tenants-in-common in the following undivided interests:
Tenant 1 10%
Tenant 2 5%
Tenant 3 10.55%
Tenant 4 43.95%
Tenant 5 2.5%
Tenant 6 28%
The interest of each Co-Owner in the Property is herein referred to as such Co-Owner’s “Ownership Interest,” and the percentage interest of the Property which each Co-Owner owns (as set forth above) is herein referred to as such Co-Owner’s “Ownership Percentage.” Each of the Co-Owners shall be entitled to a portion of the income and cash flow from the Property, and shall bear a portion of the expenses of the Property, in accordance with such Co-Owner’s Ownership Percentage. For the avoidance of doubt, in the event the Property generates any cash available for distribution, whether from operations, refinancing, casualty or condemnation 2 proceeds, sale, or otherwise, each Co-Owner shall receive such cash flow in proportion to its Ownership Percentage.
2. No Partnership. Neither this Agreement nor the tenancy in common constitutes a partnership, joint venture, association or agency relationship and none of the Co-Owners shall have the right to bind any other Co-Owner except as expressly set forth herein. None of the CoOwners shall file a partnership tax return in connection with this Agreement or their ownership of the Property, or otherwise hold themselves out as partners, shareholders or members of a business entity or conduct business under a common name. The Co-Owners shall file an election to be excluded from subchapter K of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in accordance with Treasury Regulations Section 1.761-2(a)(2).
3. Management of the Property.
3.1 Management Generally. The Co-Owners shall jointly manage the Property. Decisions regarding the Property which require unanimous consent of the Co-Owners shall include all major decisions in accordance with guidance set forth by United States Internal Revenue Service Revenue Procedure 2002-22, and shall include, without limitation, the payment of any fees to any Co-Owners or any affiliates thereof, contracts related to the Property exceeding $500,000 in value and not pursuant to a unanimously agreed upon budget, the hiring of any Property Manager (as defined and more particularly set forth in Section 3.2 below), the lease of or re-lease of all or a portion of the Property, or the sale, exchange, financing, refinancing, creation or modification of a blanket lien on the Property or other disposition of the Property in whole or in part. For all other actions, except for those day-to-day decisions set forth in Section 3.2 below, the Co-Owners agree to be bound by the vote of a majority count of the unaffiliated Co-Owners at the time any such decision shall be made, regardless of each CoOwner’s Ownership Percentage at such time (eg, 2 out of 3 Co-Owners as of the date hereof, 3 out of 5 Co-Owners if there shall be 5 unaffiliated Co-Owners at some time in the future, etc).
All leases of the Property shall be bona fide leases for federal tax purposes. Rents paid by a lessee shall reflect the fair market value for the use of the Property and shall not be based on upon a percentage of net income from the property, cash flow, increases in equity or similar arrangements.
3.2 Day-to-Day Management. Day-to-day management of the Property, such as collection of rent, hiring of service contractors on an as-needed basis and payment of expenses, shall be handled by Tenant 3 (the “TiC Manager”), subject to any consent required from the Co-Owners as described in Section 3.1. In the event Leonid Pustilnikov is unable or unwilling to serve as the managing principal of Tenant 3, the Co-Owners agree to be bound by the vote of a majority count of the unaffiliated Co-Owners at the time any such decision shall be made, regardless of each Co-Owner’s Ownership Percentage at such time (eg, 4 out of 6 CoOwners as of the date hereof, 3 out of 5 Co-Owners if there shall be 5 unaffiliated Co-Owners at some time in the future, etc). The Co-Owners may agree, by unanimous consent, to a third party property manager (the “Property Manager”) to manage the Property and provide such property management, construction management, asset management, leasing and debt placement services as may be required for operation of the Property and as shall be set forth in a property management agreement with an initial one (1) year term subject to annual renewal, and which shall set forth the Property Manager’s duties, responsibilities and compensation. Any annual extension of the term of the Management Agreement must be approved by all of the Co- 3 Owners. Property Manager shall be responsible for maintaining a common bank account on behalf of the Co-Owners for the collection and deposit of rents.
4. Sale or Transfer of the Property.
(a) General. Subject to Section 4(b), a Co-Owner may not make or undertake any “Transfer” (as hereinafter defined) made which: (a) violates any provision of this Agreement, (b) violates any loan that encumbers the entire Property or (c) results in more than 35 persons being tenants in common of the Property. For purposes of the foregoing sentence, a husband and wife shall be treated as a single person and all persons who acquire interests from a Co-Owner by inheritance shall be treated as a single person. A “Transfer,” for purposes of this Agreement, shall be deemed to include, but not be limited to: (i) any sale, transfer, assignment, pledge or other disposition of, or creation of a security interest in, all or any portion of a CoOwner’s Ownership Interest, (ii) a consolidation or merger to which a Co-Owner is a party, or (iii) any sale, transfer or assignment of a general partner’s interest or any portion thereof in a CoOwner if such Co-Owner is a general partnership, or any sale, transfer, or assignment of a member’s interest or any portion thereof in a Co-Owner if an such Co-Owner is a limited liability company.
(b) Right of First Offer. If a Co-Owner desires to sell its Ownership Interest to a third party purchaser, such Co-Owner (the “Selling Co-Owner”) shall first allow the other Co-Owners (each, an “Offeror,” and collectively, the “Offerors”) to make an offer to purchase the Selling Co-Owner’s Ownership Interest pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this section. A Selling Co-Owner shall provide written notice (the “ROFO Notice”) of its intent to sell its Ownership Interest to each Offeror. The Offerors shall have the right, within fourteen (14) days after receipt of such ROFO Notice, to deliver a written offer to the Selling CoOwner to purchase the Selling Co-Owner’s Ownership Interest. If the Selling Co-Owner does not accept an offer from any of the Offerors within fourteen (14) days after receipt of such each offer, then for the following one hundred twenty (120) days, the Selling Co-Owner shall be free to sell its interest in the Property to a purchaser other than an Offeror, provided that the sale of the Selling Co-Owner’s Ownership Interest to a purchaser (other than an Offeror) is for a price greater than any purchase price offered by an Offeror pursuant to this Section and is in compliance with the terms of any loan encumbering the entire Property. If a sale is not consummated within such one hundred twenty day period, then the rights of the Offerors to notice and first offer as aforesaid will again apply as to any sale occurring subsequent to such period. The rights contained herein shall be subject and subordinate to the terms of any loan documents encumbering the entire Property. For the avoidance of doubt, however, a third party purchaser shall not be deemed to include any Co-Owners, their principals, or any entities under majority common ownership or control with such Co-Owners or principals.
5. Partition. Each Co-Owner agrees that prior to instituting an action for partition that involves an actual physical division of the Property as described in California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 872.810 and 873.210 to 873.290, such Co-Owner will first offer the other Co-Owners the right to purchase its Ownership Interest at fair market value, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 or Section 6, as applicable. Additionally, any action for partition shall be subject to any restrictions required by a lender and that are consistent with customary commercial lending practices.
4 6. General Provisions regarding the Tenancy in Common.
6.1 Advances Among Co-Owners. No Co-Owner nor the Property Manager may advance funds to another Co-Owner to meet expenses associated with the Property, unless the advance is recourse and is not for a period exceeding one (1) year.
6.2 Proportionate Sharing of Debt. In the event the Co-Owners unanimously agree to obtain indebtedness to be secured by the Property, each Co-Owner shall share in such indebtedness in proportion to their Ownership Percentage.
6.3 No Business Activities. The activities of the Co-Owners in regards to the Property shall be limited to those customarily performed in connection with the maintenance and repair of rental real estate.
6.4 Loan Agreements. The lender of any indebtedness secured by the Property shall not be a related person to any Co-Owner, the Property Manager, any lessee of the Property or any affiliate of the Co-Owner, Property Manager or any lessee of the Property, unless otherwise unanimously agreed to by the Co-Owners in writing.
7. Miscellaneous.
7.1 Entire Agreement; Amendments. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the Co-Owners with respect to the Property and may be amended only by an agreement in writing signed by the party to be charged.
7.2 Partial Invalidity. If a court or arbitrator of competent jurisdiction holds any portion of this Agreement to be invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part for any reason, the validity and enforceability of the remaining clauses, or portions of them, shall not be affected.
7.3 Successors and Assigns. Subject to the restrictions on transfer contained herein, this Agreement shall bind and benefit the Co-Owners to this Agreement and their legal representatives and successors in interest.
7.4 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.
7.5 Attorneys’ Fees. In the event any party to this Agreement brings an action against another to enforce or interpret this Agreement, then the non-prevailing party shall pay the attorney’s fees and costs and expert witness fees and costs of the prevailing party.
7.6 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in separate counterparts.
7.7 Legal Counsel; Mutual Drafting. Each party hereto recognizes that this is a legally binding contract, and acknowledges and agrees that he, she or it, as applicable, has read and understands this Agreement, is entering into it freely and voluntarily, and has had ample opportunity to consult with legal counsel of his, her or its choice. Each party has cooperated in the drafting, negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. Hence, in any 5 construction to be made of this Agreement, the same shall not be construed against any party on the basis of that party or its counsel being the drafter of such language. [Remainder of page intentionally blank]
S-1 Signature page to
Tenancy In Common Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written.
CO-OWNERS:
TENANT 1:
EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Eli Taban, Manager
TENANT 2:
1112 INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
TENANT 3:
9300 WILSHIRE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Leonid Pustilnikov, Manager
TENANT 4:
9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: 505 Investment Company, LLC
Its: Managing Member
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
_________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
__________________
Ely Dromy, Manage
laware limited liabi
________________
2 TENANT 5:
E.D. FLORES, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Manager
TENANT 6:
DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST DATED DECEMBER 12, 1995
By: ________________________________
Ely Dromy, Trustee
By: ________________________________
Judy Dromy, Trustee
__________________
Ely Dromy, Manag
___________________
Ely Dromy, Trustee
________
dy Dromy
y Dromy,
EXHIBIT 1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
125 - 129 South Linden Fee:
LOTS 38, 39, AND 40 OF TRACT NO. 6648 IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, IN THE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 71, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN(s): 4328-009-007 and 4328-009-021
4 9740-9744 Wilshire Leasehold:
A leasehold interest in a five (5) story office building located at 9740 and 9744 Wilshire Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, with a legal description for the land thereunder of:
LOTS 35 AND 36 OF TRACT 6648, IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 71 PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 4328-009-003
The leasehold interest is more particularly described as:
A leasehold estate as created by that certain unrecorded lease dated August 29, 1957, executed by Security-First National Bank of Los Angeles, as Trustee under the Will of Grace K. Burt, deceased as lessor and 9740 Wilshire Building, a Limited Partnership as lessee, as disclosed by a Lease – Short Form for Recording recorded September 27, 1957 as Instrument No. 1606 in Book 55719, Page 14 of Official Records. Said lease was amended and assigned as follows:
a. that certain unrecorded Amendment to Lease dated May 29, 1959; b. that certain Amendment to Lease dated May 29, 1959 and recorded June 24, 1959 as Document No. 1852;
c. that certain Assignment of Undivided Interest in Lease dated January 3, 1961 and recorded
January 4, 1961 as Document No. 1567;
d. that certain Assignment of Undivided Interest in Lease dated January 3, 1961 and recorded
January 4, 1961 as Document No. 1568;
e. those certain unrecorded Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease dated March 2, 1979;
f. those certain unrecorded Assignments of Lessee's Interest in Lease dated March 21, 1980;
g. that certain unrecorded Assignment of Lessee's Interest in Lease dated March 26, 2003;
5 h. that certain unrecorded Assignment of Leasehold Interest dated July 27, 2012; i. that certain Assignment of Lease dated October 25, 2019 and recorded October 28, 2019 as Document No. 20191155144;
j. that certain Assignment of Leasehold Interest dated December 28, 2020 and recorded January ___, 2021 as Document No. ;
6+((77,7/(
6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$
W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
&29(56+((7
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
$87202%,/(3$5.,1*
RESIDENTIAL:ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIREDCBC SECTION 1109A.3:2% OF COVERED MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. AT LEAST 1 SPACE: OF EACH TYPE OF PARKING FACILITY SHALL BE MADE ACCESSIBLE.2% x 165 UNITS = 3.3 (ROUNDED DOWN) = 3 SPACES.CBC SECTION 1109A.8.61 OF EVERY 8 ACCESSIBLE SPACES SHALL BE VAN ACCESSIBLE, MINIMUM 1 VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE: 1 SPACE.ELECTRICAL VEHICLE PARKING REQUIRED:PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE SECTION 4.106.4.2.25% OF PARKING SHALL BE EV CHARGING STATION INSTALLED 5% x 126 STALLS = 6.3 (ROUNDED) = 6 EVCS25% OF PARKING SHALL BE EV READY25% x 126 STALLS = 31.5 (ROUNDED) = 32 EVSE 10% OF PARKING SHALL BE RACEWAY/ CONDUIT SUPPLIED10% x 126 STALLS = 12.6 (ROUNDED) = 13 CONDUIT INSTALLED PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE SECTION 4.106.4.2.2: ONE IN EVERY EV 25 SPACES SHALL HAVE AN 8 WIDE MINIMUM AISLE, MINIMUM 1 SPACE.RESIDENTIAL:PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIALPER BHMC 10-3-2830HOTEL:PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR HOTELPER BHMC 10-3-27301 PARKING SPACE PER RENTABLE ROOM OR UNIT 73 ROOMS = 73 PARKING SPACES STUDIO, NO BEDROOMS1 BEDROOM2 BEDROOMGUEST PARKING (PER 10-3-2817) 1 SPACE PER UNIT2 SPACES PER UNIT2 1/2 SPACES PER UNIT 1/4 SPACE PER UNIT 352-(&7,1)250$7,21PROJECT NAME:ADDRESS:OWNER:CONSTRUCTION TYPE:PROPOSED BLDG HEIGHT:PROPOSED NUMBER OF STORIES:OCCUPANCY TYPE:
129 LINDEN DR125-129 S LINDEN DR, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212DROMY 1995 FAMILY TRUST;9300 WILSHIRE, LLC;9300 WILSHIRE FEE, LLC;E.D. FLORES, LLC;1112 INVESTMENT CO., LLC;EJT WILSHIRE LINDEN, LLC TYPE IA200' - 0"19 STORIESS2 - PARKINGR2 - RESIDENTIAL A3 - ROOF DECK
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOTS 38, 39, AND 40 OF TRACT NO.6648, IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, IN COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 71, PAGE 48 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 4328-009-007, 4328-009-021
/(*$/'(6&5,37,21
9,&,1,7<0$3
SANTA MONICA BLVD
SITE:125-129 S LINDEN DR
WILSHIRE BLVD
CHARLEVILLE BLVD
LASKY DR
SPLAUDING DR
S LINDEN DR
S MCCARTY DR
S ROXBURY DR
DURANT DR
ROBBINS DR
ZONING:LOT SIZE:RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED:HOTEL ROOMS PROPOSED:FAR PROVIDED:
R421,676.05 SF165 UNITS73 ROOMS14.3:1
=21,1*'$7$
$))25'$%/(+286,1*
REQUIRED AFFORDABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS CALCULATION:REQUIRED AFFORDABLE UNITS: 20% OF TOTAL UNITS 165 x 20% = 33 AFFORDABLE UNITS BUILDING AREA PER 2022 CBC SECTION 202:
AREA, BUILDING. THE AREA INCLUDED WITHIN SURROUNDING EXTERIOR WALLS, OR EXTERIOR WALLS AND FIRE WALLS, EXCLUSIVE OF VENT SHAFTS AND COURTS. AREAS OF THE BUILDING NOT PROVIDED WITH SURROUNDING WALLS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING AREA IF SUCH AREAS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE HORIZONTAL PROJECTION OF THE ROOF OR FLOOR ABOVE. %8,/',1*$5($3(5&%&
259,547 SF X 19.9% = 51,650TOTAL - 311,197 SF
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
PROPOSED 19-STORY RESIDENTIAL AND HOTEL BUILDING WITH A TOTAL OF 165 UNITS AND 73 HOTEL ROOMS. THERE ARE 4 LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING PROVIDING A TOTAL OF 126 PARKING STALLS. 23(163$&(
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PER BHMC 10-3-2802
200 SF OF OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT. OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CAN BE PROVIDED WITH A COMBINATION OF PRIVATE AND COMMON SPACES.
COMMON OPEN SPACE
PER BHMC 10-2-2803 COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CAN BE PROVIDED AS LONG AS EACH DIMENSION IS AT LEAST 15'-0".
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PER LAMC BHMC 10-3-2803 PRIVATE OUTDOORD SPACE THAT IS CONTIGUOUS TO A UNIT ( SUCH AS A PATIO) IT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE GROUND LEVEL ADN EACH DIMENSION (LENGTH, WIDTH, DEPTH) SHALL BE AT LEAST 6 FEET. (17,7/(0(176
'(9(/230(17
ZONING CONFORMANCE TABLE IS NOT APPLICATION AS PROJECT UTILIZES BUILDER'S REMEDY 5(9,(:3(50,7
352-(&77($0
ARCHITECTOTTINGER ARCHITECTS1117 VENICE BLVDLOS ANGELES, CA 90015323.250.2820CONTACT: JESSE OTTINGERLAND USE ATTORNEYRPN LLP633 W. FIFTH STREET, 64TH FLOORLOS ANGELES, CA 90071213.557.7222CONTACT: DAVE RAND OWNERS 9300 WILSHIRE, LLC9744 WILSHIRE BLVD, SUITE 203
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
PHONE: SEE REPRESENTATIVE
CONTACT: SEE REPRESENTATIVE
6+((7,1'(;
5(6,'(17,$/81,7&2817
UNIT COUNT BY TYPE PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL AVERAGE AREA UNIT TYPE COUNT
STUDIO 10 6% 450STUDIO AFF 3 2% 4861 BR 47 28% 6581 BR AFF 12 7% 6522 BR 73 44% 9702 BR AFF 18 11% 8922 BR PENTHOUSE 2 1% 3,266TOTAL 165 7,374 $5($6&+('8/(
*5266)/225$5($
LEVEL TYPE AREA
LEVEL P4 PARKING 14,977 SFLEVEL P3 PARKING 14,977 SFLEVEL P2 PARKING 14,977 SFLEVEL P1 PARKING 14,977 SF1ST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL/HOTEL 12,572 SF2ND FLOOR HOTEL 12,748 SF3RD FLOOR HOTEL 12,605 SF4TH FLOOR HOTEL 12,652 SF5TH FLOOR HOTEL 13,638 SF6TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,932 SF7TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,905 SF8TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,908 SF9TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,905 SF10TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,970 SF11TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,974 SF12TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,970 SF13TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,907 SF14TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,902 SF15TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,909 SF16TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,824 SF17TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 13,887 SF18TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,295 SF19TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 8,785 SFGRAND TOTAL 311,197 SF A00 COVER SHEETA01 PROJECT INFORMATIONA02 RENDERINGA03 RENDERINGA04 RENDERINGA05 MATERIAL BOARDA06 FAR CALCULATIONSA07 FAR CALCULATIONSA08 OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONSA09 OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONSA10 SURVEYA11 SITE PLANA12 P3 & P4 FLOOR PLANA13 P1 & P2 FLOOR PLANA14 1ST & 2ND FLOOR PLANA15 3RD & 4TH FLOOR PLANA16 5TH & 6TH FLOOR PLANA17 7TH & 8TH FLOOR PLANA18 9TH & 10TH FLOOR PLANA19 11TH & 12TH FLOOR PLANA20 13TH & 14TH FLOOR PLANA21 15TH & 16TH FLOOR PLANA22 17TH & 18TH FLOOR PLANA23 19TH FLOOR & ROOF PLANA24 ELEVATIONSA25 ELEVATIONSA26 ELEVATIONSA27 ELEVATIONSA28 SECTIONSA29 SECTIONS 6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
352-(&7,1)250$7,21
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
3$5.,1*3529,'('
TYPE COUNT
STANDARD 80COMPACT 42
ACCESSIBLE - VAN 2ACCESSIBLE 2
GRAND TOTAL 126
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS REQ'D OPEN SPACE
STUDIO 10 2,000 SFSTUDIO AFF 3 600 SF1 BR 47 9,400 SF1 BR AFF 12 2,400 SF2 BR 79 15,800 SF2 BR AFF 18 3,600 SF2 BR PENTHOUSE 2 400 SFTOTAL 34,200 SF +27(/5220&2817
HOTEL ROOM COUNT BY TYPE PERCENTAGE
OF TOTAL AVERAGE AREA ROOM TYPE COUNT
HOTEL ROOM 64 88% 427HOTEL SUITE 9 12% 693TOTAL 73 1,120 $5($6&+('8/(
23(163$&(3529,'('
LEVEL AREA
COMMON OPEN SPACE1ST FLOOR 8,590 SF18TH FLOOR 1,845 SF19TH FLOOR 1,342 SF 11,777 SF
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE6TH FLOOR 455 SF7TH FLOOR 456 SF8TH FLOOR 464 SF9TH FLOOR 464 SF10TH FLOOR 456 SF11TH FLOOR 457 SF12TH FLOOR 465 SF13TH FLOOR 461 SF14TH FLOOR 456 SF15TH FLOOR 541 SF16TH FLOOR 466 SF17TH FLOOR 465 SF18TH FLOOR 453 SF19TH FLOOR 391 SF 6,451 SF
TOTAL 18,228 SF
5(48,5('3$5.,1*
UNIT TYPE QUANTITY STALLS ALLOWED
1 BR 47 941 BR AFF 12 242 BR 79 197.52 BR AFF 18 452 BR PENTHOUSE 2 5HOTEL ROOM 66 66HOTEL SUITE 10 10STUDIO 10 10STUDIO AFF 3 3TOTAL 454.5 $87202%,/(3$5.,1*&217
6+((77,7/(
6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$
W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
5(1'(5,1*
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
6+((77,7/(
6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$
W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
5(1'(5,1*
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
6+((77,7/(
6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$
W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
5(1'(5,1*
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
6+((77,7/(
6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$
W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
0$7(5,$/%2$5'
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
*/$66*8$5'5$,/
:+,7(
0(7$/)$6&,$
(;7(5,2560227+3/$67(5
:+,7(
6725()5217*5$<)5$0(
0(7$/3$1(/6:+,7(
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED:HOTEL ROOMS PROPOSED:FAR PROVIDED:
R421,676.05 SF165 UNITS73 ROOMS14.3:1
=21,1*'$7$
HOTELRESIDENTIAL
/(*(1'
$5($6&+('8/(
)/225$5($
LEVEL TYPE AREA
1ST FLOOR HOTEL 1,708 SF1ST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 7,140 SF2ND FLOOR HOTEL 11,600 SF3RD FLOOR HOTEL 11,535 SF4TH FLOOR HOTEL 11,597 SF5TH FLOOR HOTEL 11,594 SF6TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,587 SF7TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,850 SF8TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,789 SF9TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,666 SF10TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,795 SF11TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,844 SF12TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,739 SF13TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,804 SF14TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,779 SF15TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,690 SF16TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,851 SF17TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,851 SF18TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 9,293 SF19TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 7,695 SFTOTAL 213,408 SF 6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
)$5&$/&8/$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
ZONING:
LOT SIZE:RESIDENTIAL UNITS PROPOSED:HOTEL ROOMS PROPOSED:FAR PROVIDED:
R421,676.05 SF165 UNITS73 ROOMS14.3:1
=21,1*'$7$
HOTELRESIDENTIAL
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
)$5&$/&8/$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
/(*(1'
$5($6&+('8/(
)/225$5($
LEVEL TYPE AREA
1ST FLOOR HOTEL 1,708 SF1ST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 7,140 SF2ND FLOOR HOTEL 11,600 SF3RD FLOOR HOTEL 11,535 SF4TH FLOOR HOTEL 11,597 SF5TH FLOOR HOTEL 11,594 SF6TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,587 SF7TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,850 SF8TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,789 SF9TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,666 SF10TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,795 SF11TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,844 SF12TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,739 SF13TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,804 SF14TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,779 SF15TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,690 SF16TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,851 SF17TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 11,851 SF18TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 9,293 SF19TH FLOOR RESIDENTIAL 7,695 SFTOTAL 213,408 SF
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
23(163$&(
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PER BHMC 10-3-2802
200 SF OF OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT. OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CAN BE PROVIDED WITH A COMBINATION OF PRIVATE AND COMMON SPACES.
COMMON OPEN SPACE
PER BHMC 10-2-2803 COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CAN BE PROVIDED AS LONG AS EACH DIMENSION IS AT LEAST 15'-0".
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PER LAMC BHMC 10-3-2803 PRIVATE OUTDOORD SPACE THAT IS CONTIGUOUS TO A UNIT ( SUCH AS A PATIO) IT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE GROUND LEVEL ADN EACH DIMENSION (LENGTH, WIDTH, DEPTH) SHALL BE AT LEAST 6 FEET.
COMMON OPEN SPACEPRIVATE OPEN SPACE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
23(163$&(&$/&8/$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS REQ'D OPEN SPACE
STUDIO 10 2,000 SFSTUDIO AFF 3 600 SF1 BR 47 9,400 SF1 BR AFF 12 2,400 SF2 BR 79 15,800 SF2 BR AFF 18 3,600 SF2 BR PENTHOUSE 2 400 SFTOTAL 34,200 SF /(*(1'
$5($6&+('8/(
23(163$&(3529,'('
LEVEL AREA
COMMON OPEN SPACE1ST FLOOR 8,590 SF18TH FLOOR 1,845 SF19TH FLOOR 1,342 SF 11,777 SF
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE6TH FLOOR 455 SF7TH FLOOR 456 SF8TH FLOOR 464 SF9TH FLOOR 464 SF10TH FLOOR 456 SF11TH FLOOR 457 SF12TH FLOOR 465 SF13TH FLOOR 461 SF14TH FLOOR 456 SF15TH FLOOR 541 SF16TH FLOOR 466 SF17TH FLOOR 465 SF18TH FLOOR 453 SF19TH FLOOR 391 SF 6,451 SF
TOTAL 18,228 SF
23(163$&(
REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PER BHMC 10-3-2802
200 SF OF OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT. OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CAN BE PROVIDED WITH A COMBINATION OF PRIVATE AND COMMON SPACES.
COMMON OPEN SPACE
PER BHMC 10-2-2803 COMMON OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE CAN BE PROVIDED AS LONG AS EACH DIMENSION IS AT LEAST 15'-0".
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PER LAMC BHMC 10-3-2803 PRIVATE OUTDOORD SPACE THAT IS CONTIGUOUS TO A UNIT ( SUCH AS A PATIO) IT SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM THE GROUND LEVEL ADN EACH DIMENSION (LENGTH, WIDTH, DEPTH) SHALL BE AT LEAST 6 FEET.
COMMON OPEN SPACEPRIVATE OPEN SPACE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
23(163$&(&$/&8/$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
/(*(1'
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
UNIT TYPE NUMBER OF UNITS REQ'D OPEN SPACE
STUDIO 10 2,000 SFSTUDIO AFF 3 600 SF1 BR 47 9,400 SF1 BR AFF 12 2,400 SF2 BR 79 15,800 SF2 BR AFF 18 3,600 SF2 BR PENTHOUSE 2 400 SFTOTAL 34,200 SF
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225
7+)/225 $5($6&+('8/(
23(163$&(3529,'('
LEVEL AREA
COMMON OPEN SPACE1ST FLOOR 8,590 SF18TH FLOOR 1,845 SF19TH FLOOR 1,342 SF 11,777 SF
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE6TH FLOOR 455 SF7TH FLOOR 456 SF8TH FLOOR 464 SF9TH FLOOR 464 SF10TH FLOOR 456 SF11TH FLOOR 457 SF12TH FLOOR 465 SF13TH FLOOR 461 SF14TH FLOOR 456 SF15TH FLOOR 541 SF16TH FLOOR 466 SF17TH FLOOR 465 SF18TH FLOOR 453 SF19TH FLOOR 391 SF 6,451 SF
TOTAL 18,228 SF
6+((77,7/(
6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$
W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
6859(<
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
S. LINDEN DRIVE
(E) BUILDING
4 STORIES
PROPOSED 19-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
WITH 165 UNITS AND 73 HOTEL ROOM. 4
LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING
PROVIDING 126 PARKING STALLS
SITE SF: 21,676.05
PARKING
ENTRANCE
HOTEL
ENTRANCE
LOADING
ZONE
(E) BUILDING
4 STORIES
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
EMPTY LOT
(E) PARKING
LOT
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
(E) BUILDING
2 STORIES
7"
7' - 6" 127' - 6" 12' - 0" 18' - 0"
11' - 0"
169' - 11"
5' - 10"
ALLEY
ALLEY
7' - 6"
RESIDENTIAL
ENTRANCE
163' - 0" 7' - 0"
COURTYARD
(E) TREE
(E) TREE
SITE FAULT LINE
LINE OF BUILDING OUTLINE ABOVE
(N) TREE
(E) TREE
(N) TREE
(N) TREE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
6,7(3/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
6,7(3/$1
1 83
83 '1
'1
'1
5(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 6
5(6
&
5(6
&
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(6&
5(6&
5(6 6
5(665(665(665(665(665(665(66
5(6&5(6&5(6&
5(66
5(66
5(6 65(6 6
5(6&
5(6&
83 83
'1
'1
5(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 6
5(6
&
5(6
&
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(6&
5(6&5(6 6
5(665(665(665(665(665(665(66
5(6&5(6&5(6&
5(66
5(66
5(6 65(6 6
5(6&
5(6&
$
$
$
$
67$,5
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
1' - 6" 160' - 5" 8' - 0"
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
8' - 0" 160' - 5" 1' - 6" 16.6% MAX SLOPE 5% MAX SLOPE 16.6% MAX SLOPE 5% MAX SLOPE
3$5.,1*
67$,5
(/(9/2%%<
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
(/(9/2%%<
87,/,7<
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
N
I
24' - 6" TYP 19' - 0" TYP
19'
- 0"
TYP
24'
- 0"
MIN
4 '
-
5 "
19' - 0" TYP 24' - 0" MIN
1 7
'
-
0 "
T
Y
P
7' - 6" TYP
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
N
I
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
N
I
24' - 0" MIN
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
$
$
$
$
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
1 '
-
6 "
1 6
0 '
-
5 "
8 '
-
0 "
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
8'
-
0 "
1 6
0 '
-
5 "
1 '
-
6 "
5% MAX SLOPE
16.6% MAX
SLOPE
5% MAX SLOPE
(/(9/2%%<
67$,5
5(6(/(9
67$,5
+27(/(/(9
(/(9/2%%<
87,/,7<
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
IN
24' - 6" TYP 19' - 0" TYP
19'
- 0"
TYP
24'
- 0"
MIN
4'
-
5 "
1 7
'
-
0 "
T
Y
P
7' - 6" TYP
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
IN
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
N
I
24' - 0" MIN
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
3 3)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
3)/2253/$1
3)/2253/$1
5(6 6
5(6 65(6 65(6 6
5(6
&
5(6
&
'$6
'$6 9 $1
5(66
5(66
5(6&
5(6&
5(6&5(6 65(6 6
5(6
&
5(6&5(6&5(6&
5(6
&
5(6&
5(6&
5(6 &
5(6&
5(6&
'$6 '$69$1
5(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 65(6 6
5(6
&
5(6
&
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(66
5(6&
5(6&5(6 6
5(665(665(665(665(665(665(66
5(6&5(6&5(6&
5(66
5(66
5(6 6
83 83
'1
'1
5(6 6
'1
5(6&
5(6&
$
$
$
$
19' - 0" TYP 24' - 0" MIN
1' - 6"
1 '
-
0 "
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
1 '
-
6 "
1 6
0 '
-
5 "
8 '
-
0 "
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
8 '
-
0 "
1 6
0 '
-
5 "
1 '
-
6 "
2 4
'
-
0 "
M
N
I
2 9
'
-
3 "
2 4
'
-
0 "
67$,5
67$,5
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
(/(9/2%%<
17'
- 0"
24'
- 0"
MIN
19'
- 0"
TYP
(/(9/2%%<
16.6% MAX
SLOPE
16.6% MAX
SLOPE
3$5.,1*
2 3
'
-
0 "
'1 83
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
$
$
$
$
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
1 '
-
6 "
1 6
0 '
-
5 "
8 '
-
0 "
1' - 6" 124' - 6" 1' - 6"
8'
-
0 "
1 6
0 '
-
5 "
1 '
-
6 "
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
N
I
19' - 0" TYP 19' - 0" TYP
24' - 0" MIN
24' - 6"
67$,5
67$,5
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
(/(9/2%%<
16.6% MAX
SLOPE
5% MAX SLOPE
16.6% MAX
SLOPE
5% MAX SLOPE
3$5.,1*
19'
- 0"
TYP
24'
- 0"
MIN
4'
-
5 "
(/(9/2%%<
87,/,7<
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
IN
TY
P
1 '
-
0 "
M
N
I
1 7
'
-
0 "
T
Y
P
7' - 6" TYP
24' - 0" MIN
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
3 3)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
3)/2253/$1
3)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
+27(/6(59,&(
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/68,7(
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
)5(,*+7(/(9
75$6+
,')
,')
(/(9$725/2%%<
6725$*(
+27(/(/(9
"
67$,5
67$,5
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/6(59,&(
6)
+27(/5(6785$17
5' - 10" 70' - 4" 14' - 1" 36' - 8" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
1 4
'
-
0 "
1 4
'
-
9 "
6 5
'
-
2 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 67' - 11" 53' - 9"
37' - 5" 30' - 6"
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
5(6(/(9
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
/,1'(1'5
$//(<
$
$
$
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$//(<
6)
+27(//2%%<
6)
75$16)250(5
6)
75$6+
6)
87,/,7<
6)
&20081,7<
5220
$
$
$
$
67$,5
67$,5
(/(9$725/2%%<(/(9$725/2%%<
+27(/(/(9
5(6(/(9
6)
/2$',1,*=21(
)5(,*+7(/(9
6)
5(6
/2%%<
87,/,7<
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
9 "
4 4
'
-
9 "
5' - 10" 67' - 11" 53' - 9"
31' - 6" 5' - 11" 30' - 6"
67$,5
MIN.
18' - 0" 48' - 7" 9' - 9" 26' - 7"
2 5
'
-
5 "
5 '
-
9 "
2 3
'
-
9 "
1 4
'
-
1 1
"
3 0
'
-
7 "
1 4
'
-
1 1
"
9'
-
9 "
2 7
'
-
1 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
4 1
'
-
4 "
&2857<$5' 12.5% MAX SLOPE 16.6% MAX SLOPE '1
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
67 1')/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
1')/2253/$1
67)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/68,7(
6)
+27(/68,7(
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/68,7(
67$,5
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
67$,5
(/(9$725/2%%<
6725$*(
"
+27(/(/(9
)5(,*+7(/(9
,')
75$6+
,')
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
1 "
1 0
'
-
1 1
"
3 7
'
-
2 "2
8 '
-
9 "
1 9
'
-
9 "
3 0
'
-
9 "
1 4
'
-
8 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 6" 6' - 1"
5(6(/(9 5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
40' - 4" 14' - 3" 66' - 6"
1 4
'
-
3 "
3 7
'
-
9 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
8 5
'
-
9 "
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/68,7(
6)
+27(/68,7(
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
$
$
$
$
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
)5(,*+7(/(9
75$6+
,')
,')
(/(9$725/2%%<
6725$*(
+27(/(/(9
5(6(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "3
0 '
-
1 1
"
1 4
'
-
6 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 6" 6' - 1"
67$,5
67$,5
+27(/(/(9
5(6(/(9
70' - 2" 14' - 4" 36' - 7"
8 5
'
-
1 0
"
1 4
'
-
2 "
5 2
'
-
1 "
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
5' 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
5')/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
6)
%5
$
$
$
$
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2$))
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725
29(5581
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
7 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
1 5
'
-
6 "2
0 '
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 6" 6' - 1"
5(6(/(9
4 5
'
-
5 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
4 7
'
-
0 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
3 1
'
-
2 "
2 '
-
3 "
14' - 11" 106' - 3"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/68,7(
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/68,7(
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/68,7(
67$,5
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
67$,5
(/(9$725/2%%<
6725$*(
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
)5(,*+7(/(9
,')
,')
6)
+27(/
5220
75$6+
6)
+27(/
5220
6)
+27(/
5220
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
1 '
-
1 0
"
1 1
'
-
2 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
9 "1
4 '
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
7 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
2' - 5" 77' - 6" 47' - 8"
3' - 5" 37' - 5" 30' - 6" 6' - 1"
5(6(/(9
+27(/(/(9
1 4
'
-
1 "
6 7
'
-
8 "2
4 '
-
1 0
"
1 4
'
-
2 "
3 1
'
-
2 "
40' - 4" 14' - 4" 66' - 5"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+ 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
7+)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2$))
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 106' - 1" 15' - 0" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
1 "
3 0
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 3" 6' - 5"
5(6(/(9
5 5
'
-
5 "
1 4
'
-
3 "
8 2
'
-
3 "
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2$))
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10"5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
0 "
3 0
'
-
5 "2
0 '
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 3" 6' - 5"
5(6(/(9
5 5
'
-
5 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
2 2
'
-
1 0
"
1 4
'
-
4 "
4 5
'
-
3 "
14' - 11" 91' - 4" 14' - 10"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+ 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
7+)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
3 0
'
-
5 "
1 5
'
-
0 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 6" 6' - 1"
5(6(/(9
5 9
'
-
9 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
7 8
'
-
2 "
16' - 10" 14' - 2" 39' - 4" 14' - 1" 36' - 8"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
3 0
'
-
7 "1
4 '
-
1 0
"2
0 '
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 3" 6' - 5"
5(6(/(9
1 4
'
-
3 "
1 3
7 '
-
9 "
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+ 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
7+)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
7 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
1 5
'
-
6 "2
0 '
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 3" 6' - 5"
5(6(/(9
1 0
6 '
-
7 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
3 1
'
-
2 "
94' - 11" 14' - 2" 12' - 1"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "1
5 '
-
9 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
6 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 6" 6' - 1"
5(6(/(9
16' - 8" 14' - 4" 39' - 2" 14' - 4" 36' - 7"
3 1
'
-
2 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
3 2
'
-
1 0
"
1 4
'
-
3 "
5 9
'
-
7 "
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+ 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
7+)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
1 "
3 0
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 3" 6' - 5"
5(6(/(9
4 5
'
-
3 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
2 2
'
-
1 0
"
1 4
'
-
2 "
5 5
'
-
5 "
40' - 4" 14' - 4" 66' - 5"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 1
'
-
1 "
1 4
'
-
1 "3
0 '
-
5 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 3" 6' - 5"
5(6(/(9
40' - 4" 14' - 3" 40' - 1" 14' - 4" 12' - 0"
9 2
'
-
6 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
4 5
'
-
5 "
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+ 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
7+)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
5(6(/(9
(/(9$725/2%%<
,')
75$6+
,')
)5(,*+7(/(9
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
678',2
6)
%5
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
2 '
-
5 "
1 5
6 '
-
7 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
2 '
-
5 "
1 5
6 '
-
7 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
4 1
'
-
9 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
3 0
'
-
7 "1
4 '
-
1 0
"2
0 '
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 3" 6' - 5"
5(6(/(9
14' - 11" 91' - 2" 15' - 0"
1 4
'
-
4 "
4 5
'
-
5 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
3 2
'
-
1 0
"
1 4
'
-
2 "
3 5
'
-
9 "
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
,')
,')
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
4 5
'
-
5 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 67' - 11" 53' - 9"
37' - 5" 30' - 6"
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
75$6+ (/(9$725/2%%<
)5(,*+7(/(9
5(6(/(9
14' - 11" 106' - 3"
1 4
'
-
2 "
6 8
'
-
1 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
5 5
'
-
5 "
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+ 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
7+)/2253/$1
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
,')
,')
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7 '
-
0 "
1 2
5 '
-
4 "
2 6
'
-
9 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
5' - 10" 74' - 0"
36' - 8" 31' - 3" 6' - 1"
2 8
'
-
9 "
2 0
'
-
6 "
1 5
'
-
8 "
1 4
'
-
2 "
1 5
'
-
7 "
2 '
-
5 "
1 3
5 '
-
8 "
3 1
'
-
1 0
"
4 '
-
6 "
3 6
'
-
6 "
47' - 8"
5(6(/(9
75$6+ (/(9$725/2%%<
)5(,*+7(/(9
5(6(/(9
70' - 2" 14' - 4" 10' - 5" 26' - 3"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
,')
,')
5' - 10" 121' - 1" 7"
7'
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
7 '
-
0 "
1 5
2 '
-
0 "
1 1
'
-
0 "
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
37' - 5" 30' - 6" 6' - 1"
3 7
'
-
2 "
2 8
'
-
4 "
2 0
'
-
2 "
3 0
'
-
5 "
1 5
'
-
0 "
2 0
'
-
1 1
"
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5$))
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
6)
%5
67$,5
67$,5
6)
%5
6)
678',2
5(6(/(9
75$6+ (/(9$725/2%%<
)5(,*+7(/(9
5(6(/(9
5 9
'
-
6 "
1 4
'
-
5 "
3 2
'
-
8 "
1 4
'
-
4 "
3 1
'
-
2 "
70' - 2" 14' - 3" 21' - 8" 14' - 4"
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+ 7+)/2253/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
7+)/2253/$1
7+)/2253/$1
$
SOLAR PANEL TRELLIS OVER MECH EQUIP
MECHANICAL EQUIP
MECHANICAL EQUIP
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5' - 10" 94' - 11" 26' - 10"
7 '
-
0 "
1 3
1 '
-
1 "
3 1
'
-
1 0
"
4 4
'
-
8 "
2 1
'
-
3 "
6 5
'
-
2 "
5' - 10" 67' - 11" 53' - 9"
31' - 6" 36' - 6"
4 4
'
-
9 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
5 '
-
1 0
"
84' - 5" 10' - 6"
67$,5
67$,5
3 1
'
-
1 0
"
1 3
1 '
-
1 "
7 '
-
0 "
7 0
'
-
1 "
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
6)
%53(17+286( )5(,*+7(/(9
6)
%53(17+286(
5' - 10" 94' - 11" 26' - 10"
7'
-
0 "
1 3
1 '
-
1 "
3 1
'
-
1 0
"
1 5
'
-
6 "
1 4
'
-
4 "1
5 '
-
7 "1
9 '
-
9 "
6 5
'
-
1 1
"
5' - 10" 74' - 0" 47' - 8"
36' - 8" 31' - 3" 6' - 1"
3 1
'
-
1 0
"
1 3
1 '
-
1 "
7'
-
0 "
1 0
'
-
6 "
5 '
-
1 0
"
67$,5
(/(9$725/2%%<
5(6(/(9
75$6+
67$,5
4 4
'
-
9 "
7 0
'
-
1 "
5(6(/(9
522)
'(&.
SEISMIC FAULT LINE
,')
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
7+)/225 522)3/$1
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1
522)/(9(/
7+)/2253/$1
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+270.93
3RD FLOOR
+285.93
4TH FLOOR
+295.93
TO PARAPET
+461.43
ROOF LEVEL
+457.93
5TH FLOOR
+305.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+468.93
7<3
7<3
6TH FLOOR
+315.93
7TH FLOOR
+325.93
8TH FLOOR
+335.93
12TH FLOOR
+375.93
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
3/ 3/ 7<3
7<3
7' - 6" 3' - 6" 12' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 200' - 0".
9TH FLOOR
+345.93
10TH FLOOR
+355.93
11TH FLOOR
+365.93
13TH FLOOR
+385.93
14TH FLOOR
+395.93
15TH FLOOR
+405.93
16TH FLOOR
+415.93
17TH FLOOR
+425.93
18TH FLOOR
+435.93
19TH FLOOR
+445.93
7<3
1 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM W/
LOW E GLASS
2 CLEAR ANONODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT3 42" HIGH GLASS GUARDRAIL4 EXTERIOR SMOOTH PLASTER, WHITE5 42" HIGH PARAPET6 METAL PANEL SIDING, WHITE 6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
(/(9$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
.(<127(6
($67%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+270.93
3RD FLOOR
+285.93
4TH FLOOR
+295.93
TO PARAPET
+461.43
ROOF LEVEL
+457.93
5TH FLOOR
+305.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+468.93
6TH FLOOR
+315.93
7TH FLOOR
+325.93
8TH FLOOR
+335.93
12TH FLOOR
+375.93
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
3/ 3/
7<3
7<3
15' - 0" 15' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 12' - 0" 3' - 6"
7' - 6"
200' - 0".
9TH FLOOR
+345.93
10TH FLOOR
+355.93
11TH FLOOR
+365.93
13TH FLOOR
+385.93
14TH FLOOR
+395.93
15TH FLOOR
+405.93
16TH FLOOR
+415.93
17TH FLOOR
+425.93
18TH FLOOR
+435.93
19TH FLOOR
+445.93
7<3
7<3
7<3
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
(/(9$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1257+%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
1 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM W/
LOW E GLASS
2 CLEAR ANONODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT3 42" HIGH GLASS GUARDRAIL4 EXTERIOR SMOOTH PLASTER, WHITE5 42" HIGH PARAPET6 METAL PANEL SIDING, WHITE .(<127(6
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+270.93
3RD FLOOR
+285.93
4TH FLOOR
+295.93
TO PARAPET
+461.43
ROOF LEVEL
+457.93
5TH FLOOR
+305.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+468.93
6TH FLOOR
+315.93
7TH FLOOR
+325.93
8TH FLOOR
+335.93
12TH FLOOR
+375.93
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
3/ 3/
7<3
7' - 6"
3' - 6"
12' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 7<3
7<3
9TH FLOOR
+345.93
10TH FLOOR
+355.93
11TH FLOOR
+365.93
13TH FLOOR
+385.93
14TH FLOOR
+395.93
15TH FLOOR
+405.93
16TH FLOOR
+415.93
200' - 0".
17TH FLOOR
+425.93
18TH FLOOR
+435.93
19TH FLOOR
+445.93
*$5$*((175<
7<3
7<3
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
(/(9$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM W/
LOW E GLASS
2 CLEAR ANONODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT3 42" HIGH GLASS GUARDRAIL4 EXTERIOR SMOOTH PLASTER, WHITE5 42" HIGH PARAPET6 METAL PANEL SIDING, WHITE .(<127(6
:(67%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+270.93
3RD FLOOR
+285.93
4TH FLOOR
+295.93
TO PARAPET
+461.43
ROOF LEVEL
+457.93
5TH FLOOR
+305.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+468.93
6TH FLOOR
+315.93
7TH FLOOR
+325.93
8TH FLOOR
+335.93
12TH FLOOR
+375.93
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
3/ 3/
7' - 6"
3' - 6"
12' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 200' - 0".
7<3
7<3
7<3
9TH FLOOR
+345.93
10TH FLOOR
+355.93
11TH FLOOR
+365.93
13TH FLOOR
+385.93
14TH FLOOR
+395.93
15TH FLOOR
+405.93
16TH FLOOR
+415.93
17TH FLOOR
+425.93
18TH FLOOR
+435.93
19TH FLOOR
+445.93
7<3
7<3
7<3
6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
(/(9$7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM WINDOW SYSTEM W/
LOW E GLASS
2 CLEAR ANONODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT3 42" HIGH GLASS GUARDRAIL4 EXTERIOR SMOOTH PLASTER, WHITE5 42" HIGH PARAPET6 METAL PANEL SIDING, WHITE .(<127(6
6287+%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+270.93
3RD FLOOR
+285.93
4TH FLOOR
+295.93
LEVEL P1
+244.93
LEVEL P2
+234.93
TO PARAPET
+461.43
ROOF LEVEL
+457.93
LEVEL P3
+224.93
5TH FLOOR
+305.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+468.93
LOWEST POINT
+255.82
6TH FLOOR
+315.93
7TH FLOOR
+325.93
8TH FLOOR
+335.93
12TH FLOOR
+375.93
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
9TH FLOOR
+345.93
10TH FLOOR
+355.93
11TH FLOOR
+365.93
13TH FLOOR
+385.93
14TH FLOOR
+395.93
15TH FLOOR
+405.93
16TH FLOOR
+415.93
10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 11' - 0" 15' - 0" 15' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 12' - 0" 3' - 6"
7' - 6"
17TH FLOOR
+425.93
18TH FLOOR
+435.93
19TH FLOOR
+445.93
LEVEL P4
+214.93
202' - 0"
3/ 3/
+27(/5(6785$17
&20081,7<
5220 3$5.,1*5$03
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
%5$)) 678',2$)) 678',2%5$)) 678',2$))%5$))
%5$))%5$))
%5$))
%5%5%5%5
%5%5%5
678',2$))
678',2
678',2
678',2678',2678',2678',2678',2678',2678',2
%5
%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5
+27(/
5220
%5%5%5%5%5%5%5
%5%5
%5%5%5%5
%53(17+286( %53(17+286(
3$5.,1*3$5.,1*3$5.,1*3$5.,1*
&2857<$5'
3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*3$5.,1*3$5.,1*
5(6
/2%%<
3$5.,1*5$033$5.,1*5$033$5.,1*5$033$5.,1*5$03
+27(/(/(9
5(6(/(9
$//(<
,') ,') ,') &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 &255 6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
6(&7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1 MECHANICAL TRELLIS2 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT3 ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE4 STAIR PENTHOUSE
.(<127(6
6(&7,21
1ST FLOOR
+255.93
2ND FLOOR
+270.93
3RD FLOOR
+285.93
4TH FLOOR
+295.93
LEVEL P1
+244.93
LEVEL P2
+234.93
TO PARAPET
+461.43
ROOF LEVEL
+457.93
LEVEL P3
+224.93
5TH FLOOR
+305.93
ROOF STRUCTURES
+468.93
LOWEST POINT
+255.82
6TH FLOOR
+315.93
7TH FLOOR
+325.93
8TH FLOOR
+335.93
12TH FLOOR
+375.93
HIGHEST POINT
+258.05
9TH FLOOR
+345.93
10TH FLOOR
+355.93
11TH FLOOR
+365.93
13TH FLOOR
+385.93
14TH FLOOR
+395.93
15TH FLOOR
+405.93
16TH FLOOR
+415.93
17TH FLOOR
+425.93
18TH FLOOR
+435.93
19TH FLOOR
+445.93
LEVEL P4
+214.93
202' - 0"
15' - 0" 15' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0" 12' - 0" 3' - 6"
7' - 6"
3/ 3/
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5 %5$)) %5 %5 %5 %5
%53(17+286(
67$,5
%5$)) %5 %5
5(6
/2%%<
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220 +27(/68,7(
+27(/68,7(+27(/68,7(+27(/68,7( +27(/ 5220 +27(/ 5220 +27(/ 5220 +27(/ 5220 +27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
+27(/
5220
%5$))%5$))%5$))%5$))%5$))%5$)) %5
%5%5%5%5%5
%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5%5
%5 %5%5%5
%5$)) %5%5$))%5$))%5$))
3$5.,1*
3$5.,1* 3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*3$5.,1*3$5.,1*
3$5.,1*3$5.,1*
/,1'(1'5 $//(<
CLR
8' - 2"
67$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,567$,5 6+((77,7/(6+((7180%(5,668('$7(9(1,&(%/9%/26$1*(/(6&$ W
&23<5,*+7277,1*(5$5&+,7(&76
30
$
6(&7,216
/,1'(1'5
6/,1'(1'5
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
1 MECHANICAL TRELLIS2 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT3 ELEVATOR PENTHOUSE4 STAIR PENTHOUSE
.(<127(6
6(&7,21
From: CD Planning
To: Olivia Joncich
Cc: Dave Rand; Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Re: Development Plan Review Submittal - 125-129 Linden Dr Date: Tuesday, April 11, 2023 5:37:32 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image.png
Application Receipt - PL2300146.pdf
Hi Olivia:
We are in receipt of the application materials you submitted. Payment of application fees is required for the City to review the submittal.
A copy of the application receipt is attached to this email. You can post payment online by logging into the CitySmart portal at https://www.beverlyhills.org/csportal. Based on the application materials that were submitted, $25,471.86 is due.
Instructions on how to access the portal are provided in the link below:
https://www.beverlyhills.org/departments/communitydevelopment/developmentservices/permitcenter/citysmarttutorials/
If someone else who wasn't listed on the application will be making payment, please let me know and I will add them to the system so that they can access and pay for the project using the payment portal. I'll need their contact information and email address to add them. So far, I've added the following people by email addresses to this project:
If your team would prefer to pay for this with a check, feel free to stop by City Hall during our morning walk-in hours (Monday - Thursday from 8:00am to 10:00am) to pay for the applications fees with our counter permit team. See a Customer Service Representative and present them with a copy of the Application Receipt and check to make payment. If you intend on mailing payment to the City, please address the envelope to my attention.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Edgar Arroyo
Planning Division
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA
(310) 285-1141
[email protected]
From: Olivia Joncich <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 5:25 PM
To: CD Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Dave Rand <[email protected]>
Subject: Development Plan Review Submittal - 125-129 Linden Dr CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello,
Enclosed with this email is the Development Plan Review submittal for the project located at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. This submittal email includes the following:
1. Development Plan Review Application, signed by Leonid (Leo) Pustilnikov.
2. Tenancy In Common Agreement for property ownership entities, showing signatory authority for Leonid Pustilnikov as manager of 9300 Wilshire LLC to sign on behalf of all owner (SOI attached).
3. Attachment “A” – Project Description and Findings
4. Plan Set (Dated 04-07-2023)
5. Email from City of Beverly Hills confirming acceptance and payment of SB 330 Preliminary Application for project
6. Notification Materials (500' radius + block face, with radius map, excel labels, and affidavit) Please confirm receipt of this email and attachments when received.
Thank you,
Olivia Joncich
Senior Planner
Direct: 213.557.2703
Cell: 818.518.4496
633 W. Fifth Street, 64th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90071
[email protected]
www.rpnllp.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
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.
%$
(QWLW\'HWDLOV
/LPLWHG/LDELOLW\&RPSDQ\1DPH
:,/6+,5(//&
(QWLW\1R
)RUPHG,Q '(/$:$5(
6WUHHW$GGUHVVRI3ULQFLSDO2IILFHRI//&
3ULQFLSDO$GGUHVV
:,/6+,5(%/9'67(
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
0DLOLQJ$GGUHVVRI//&
0DLOLQJ$GGUHVV
:,/6+,5(%/9'67(
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
$WWHQWLRQ
6WUHHW$GGUHVVRI&DOLIRUQLD2IILFHRI//&
6WUHHW$GGUHVVRI&DOLIRUQLD2IILFH
:,/6+,5(%/9'67(
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
0DQDJHU
V
RU0HPEHU
V
0DQDJHURU0HPEHU1DPH 0DQDJHURU0HPEHU$GGUHVV
/HRQLG3XVWLOQLNRY
:,/6+,5(%/9'67(
%(9(5/<+,//6&$
$JHQWIRU6HUYLFHRI3URFHVV
$JHQW1DPH 0$5&&2+(1
$JHQW$GGUHVV 6635,1*675((768,7(
/26$1*(/(6&$
7\SHRI%XVLQHVV
7\SHRI%XVLQHVV 5($/(67$7(
(PDLO1RWLILFDWLRQV
2SWLQ(PDLO1RWLILFDWLRQV <HV,RSWLQWRUHFHLYHHQWLW\QRWLILFDWLRQVYLDHPDLO &KLHI([HFXWLYH2IILFHU
&(2
&(21DPH &(2$GGUHVV
1RQH(QWHUHG
/DERU-XGJPHQW
1R0DQDJHURU0HPEHURIWKLV/LPLWHG/LDELOLW\&RPSDQ\KDVDQRXWVWDQGLQJILQDOMXGJPHQWLVVXHGE\WKH'LYLVLRQ RI/DERU6WDQGDUGV(QIRUFHPHQWRUDFRXUWRIODZIRUZKLFKQRDSSHDOWKHUHIURPLVSHQGLQJIRUWKHYLRODWLRQRIDQ\ ZDJHRUGHURUSURYLVLRQRIWKH/DERU&RGH
67$7(2)&$/,)251,$
2IILFHRIWKH6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWH
67$7(0(172),1)250$7,21
/,0,7('/,$%,/,7<&203$1<
&DOLIRUQLD6HFUHWDU\RI6WDWH
WK6WUHHW
6DFUDPHQWR&DOLIRUQLD
B0812-7003 06/09/2022 3:12 PM Received by California Secretary of State