Item F-1 Agenda Report (Part 1 of 2) — Beverly Hills City Council, March 4, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date:

Item Number:

To:

From:

Subject:

March 4, 2025
Honorable Mayor & City Council
Masa Alkire, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
AN APPEAL OF STAFF'S OCTOBER 3, 2024 INCOMPLETE

APPLICATION DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65943(c), PERTAINING TO
THE REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED 15-
STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AT 140 SOUTH CAMDEN
DRIVE; AND

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY
HILLS DENYING AN APPEAL OF STAFF’S OCTOBER 3, 2024

INCOMPLETE APPLICATION DETERMINATION AND
UPHOLDING THE CITY’S INCOMPLETE APPLICATION

DETERMINATION, AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution

2. Appeal Petition Form and Letter

3. Preliminary Application

4. October 3, 2024 Incomplete Application Determination (1st Round Review)

5. Applicant’s Response to 1st Round Review Incomplete Application Determination, received on December 31, 2024

6. January 30, 2025 Incomplete Application Determination (2nd Round Review)

7. 1ST Extension Request

8. 2ND Extension Request

9. City’s Appeal Procedures for Housing Development Projects

10. Staff Internal Correspondence

11. Acknowledgement of City Staff Email

12. Applicant Letter – October 3, 2024

13. HCD Letter of Technical Assistance to City of Berkeley

14. Consistency Memorandum – October 29, 2024
Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 2 of 14 ends

15. General Plan and Zoning Amendment Letter – December 27, 2024

16. Public Hearing Notice

17. Project Plans Received on September 3, 2024

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing to consider the appeal of staff’s October 3, 2024, determination that the application for a proposed 15-story residential building at 140 South Camden Drive is incomplete.

2. Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and upholding the October 3, 2024, incomplete application determination (Attachment 1).

INTRODUCTION
On March 15, 2024, Wilshire Camden, LLC, (the “property owner,” “applicant,” and “appellant”) submitted a Preliminary Application (the “PA”) pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.11 for a housing development project (Attachment 3). The purpose of a PA is to vest the rights of a project to be processed pursuant to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time that a PA is submitted. There are certain procedural aspects that must be followed to maintain the vesting effect of a PA, including the submittal of a formal project application for the project described in a PA within 180 days from the PA submittal date. In this case, the PA project at 140 South Camden Drive consisted of a 15-story, 175’-8” tall residential building with 26 rental units, including six affordable units. The PA project included four subterranean levels with level 1 designated as amenity spaces and levels 2 – 4 designated for mechanical parking to accommodate 57 vehicles.

Thereafter, on September 3, 20242
, and within 180 days of the PA submittal date as
required to maintain the validity of the PA, the property owner submitted a formal project application (“1st FA Submittal”) for a housing development project that consisted of:

1. A Development Plan Review , Density Bonus Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Tree Removal Permit to allow for the construction of a 15-story, 194’ tall, residential building with a total of 27 rental units, which include a mix of condominiums and rental units, as well as six affordable units, and four subterranean levels designated for mechanical parking to accommodate 44 vehicles.

City staff reviewed the formal project application and issued an incomplete application determination letter on October 3, 2024 based on the applicant’s 1st FA Submittal materials and plans (Attachment 4), which is the subject of this appeal. Subsequent to the submittal of the appeal, the applicant submitted additional information and revised plans (“2nd FA Submittal”) to the City on December 31, 2024 (Attachment 5), which were partially 1 The full text of Government Code Section 65941.1 is available online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65941.1.&lawCode=GOV 2 The formal project application was submitted 172 days after the PA submittal date of March 15, 2024.

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 3 of 14 ends

responsive to the City’s October 3, 2024 incomplete letter. Staff reviewed the 2nd FA Submittal and deemed the application incomplete on January 30, 2025 (Attachment 6); no additional information responsive to the incomplete determination has been submitted as of the writing of this report.

As documented in the City’s October 3, 2024 incomplete letter, staff determined that the application was incomplete for failure to address items listed in the City’s Commercial, Mixed Use, and Multi-Family Residential Planning Application (“Planning Application”) checklist and Vesting Tentative Map application required for completeness. The missing checklist items included information on the architectural plans, missing applications, and missing supporting studies and reports.

On Friday, October 16, 2024, Masoud “Max” Netty, on behalf of the property owner, submitted a timely appeal (Attachment 2) and required appeal fees of the City’s October 3, 2024 incomplete application determination regarding the 1st FA Submittal. The appeal was filed pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(c)3 . This section stipulates that a
public agency must provide a process for an applicant to appeal a determination that an application is incomplete to the City’s governing body and the governing body is required to provide a final written determination within 60 days4 of receiving the appeal. If a final written determination is not issued by the City within 60 days, the application would be deemed complete and eligible for processing despite the missing required application materials.

On Monday, November 5, 2024, the City and the appellant’s legal counsel, Ryan Leaderman, mutually agreed to extend the State’s 60-day time limit for the City to make a determination on the appeal (Attachment 7). This agreement followed a request from Mr.

Leaderman on Monday, October 21 2024 and extended the deadline to February 28, 2025, pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(d). However, after receiving the 2nd FA Submittal materials on December 31, 2024, the City and the appellant mutually agreed on January 13, 2025 to further extend the deadline to March 31, 2025 to allow staff sufficient time to assess and determine whether the 2nd FA Submittal was complete (Attachment 8). As previously noted, the 2nd FA Submittal was deemed incomplete.

The appellant’s October 15, 2024, appeal letter includes the following rationale for the appeal:

1. “The Project was ‘Deemed Complete’ by Operation of Law on September 30, 2024 a. The City Failed to Meet the 30-day Deadline Pursuant to Gov. Code §65943(a).
b. The City’s Arguments Concerning Commencement of 30 days and the Time of Day Have No Foundation in Any Relevant City or State Law. 3 The full text of Government Code Section 65943(c) is available online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=65943.&nodeTreePath=11.1.15.3&lawCo de=GOV 4 Sixty days after receiving the appeal would have been December 15, 2024.

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 4 of 14 ends

2. The City Must Complete an Initial Environmental Study by October 3, 2024 to Comply with CEQA.

3. Additional Bases for Appeal.
a. Neither a General Plan Amendment nor a Zoning Amendment Required is Required for Builder’s Remedy Projects Ever, Let Alone During Completeness Review.
b. The Project’s Final Development Application Does Not Materially Deviate from the Corresponding Preliminary Application in Any Manner Recognized by Law.”
The appellant has submitted the formal project application as a “Builder’s Remedy” project, which relies on the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), codified in California Government Code Section 65589.55, by providing at least 20% of the total units in the development to lower income households. For context, the term “Builder’s Remedy” generally refers to certain findings pursuant to the HAA that must be made in order for a local agency to disapprove a qualifying housing development project meeting certain affordability requirements, and which findings require a certified housing element (Govt.

Code Section 65589.5(d)(1) and (5)). Under certain circumstances, this may limit a local agency’s authority to deny a project proposing “housing for very low, low-, or moderateincome households”, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(3), even if that project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations.

With respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), projects submitted pursuant to Builder’s Remedy provisions are subject to CEQA review. The HAA states specifically that nothing relieves a local agency from making the required CEQA findings and otherwise complying with CEQA. (Govt. Code § 65589.5(e)).

DISCUSSION
Appeal Process
California Government Code Section 65943(c) requires public agencies to provide a process by which an applicant can appeal the City’s determination that an application is incomplete to the City’s governing body, as noted below (underlined emphasis added):

Government Code Section 65943(c)
“(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.” The City’s process for appeals of administrative decisions on housing development projects to the City Council is detailed in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Title 1, 5 The full text of Government Code Section 65589.5 is available online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65589.5 Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 5 of 14 ends

Chapter 4, Article 3 (Attachment 9), and includes provisions establishing the time frame for appeals to be filed with the City.

Pursuant to BHMC Section 1-4-303 A., an appeal petition must be filed with the City Clerk within 14 calendar days after the decision date. The appeal petition (Attachment 2) was filed and the full appeal fee was paid on October 16, 2024, which is within 14 days after October 3, 2024, the date of the incomplete application determination, and within the timeframe prescribed by the BHMC.

Analysis of Appellant Appeal Letter
Staff provides the following responses to the various points raised in the appeal letter dated October 15, 2024. Much of this information was previously provided to the applicant in the incomplete application determination letters issued previously.

Appellant Grounds for Appeal #1:
“The project was ‘Deemed Complete’ by Operation of Law on September 30, 2024
a. The City Failed to Meet the 30-day Deadline Pursuant to Gov. Code §65943(a).
a. The City’s Arguments Concerning Commencement of 30 Days and the Time of Day Have No Foundation in Any Relevant City or State law.” The appellant asserts that the project was deemed complete by operation of law based on the claims above. The appellant asserts that the applicant submitted the [1st FA Submittal] to the City on August 30, 2024, and takes issue with City staff’s determination that the filing date was September 3, 2024.

City Response to Appeal Ground #1
Staff disagrees. The project was not deemed complete by operation of law on September 30, 2024.

Submission Date
The formal project application materials were emailed to the City on Friday, August 30, 2024 at approximately 12:32 PM. After reviewing the application materials to verify that the submittal package contained the minimum materials required for filing with the City (e.g., property ownership authorization/documentation and public notification materials), City staff generated an invoice at approximately 4:20 PM for the required fees and provided it to the applicant via email. The fees were ultimately paid at 5:30 PM on Friday, August 30, 2024, outside of regular business hours (which are from 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM on Fridays), meaning staff could not confirm receipt until the next business day. It is important to note that payment of the required application fees is the action that determines the date a project is submitted. Further, it is the City’s longstanding policy that applications received after hours are considered to be submitted the next business day.

As a result, the City staff determined the official submission date to be the next business Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 6 of 14 ends

day, Tuesday, September 3, 2024, because City Hall was closed for the weekend on August 31, and September 1, 2024, as well as Monday September 2, 2024, in observance of Labor Day.

Because staff was unavailable to acknowledge the payment after business hours on August 30, 2024, the application could not be considered received until the next business day, September 3, 2024.

As documented in the attached City staff’s internal email correspondence (Attachment 10), standard departmental practice was followed on the intake of the 1st FA Submittal. On September 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM, staff confirmed to Principal Planner Cindy Gordon that the application fee for the 1st FA Submittal had been paid. At approximately 2:19 PM Principal Planner Gordon sent an email to staff assigning the project based on the confirmed receipt of payment and, consistent with City policy, confirmed that the official submittal date was Tuesday, September 3, 2024.

On September 5, 2024, staff emailed the applicant team and Mr. Leaderman, informing them that the 1st FA Submittal was officially received by the City on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, following payment after the close of business on Friday, August 30, 2024, and to expect to receive comments on Thursday, October 3, 2024, which is the end of the 30- day review period. Both the project architect and Mr. Leaderman responded and acknowledged City staff’s September 5, 2024, email and did not contest the City’s timeline or assert that the completeness review period had begun earlier (Attachment 10).

Thus, the first time the City was made aware of appellant’s submittal date argument was on October 3, 2024, the exact day staff had informed the applicant team to expect completeness review comments. On that date, the City received a letter from Mr.

Leaderman (Attachment 11) asserting that the application had been “deemed complete by operation of law on September 30, 2024” because the City did not issue an incomplete letter by September 29, 2024, which the applicant asserts was the final date of the 30-day review period. However, the City completed its review and sent the review letter on October 3, 2024, which is within 30-days of September 3, 2024, submittal date.

The appeal letter makes various arguments regarding the 30-day statutory period for review of development applications for completeness, however, those arguments turn on the threshold question of whether the submittal date is September 3rd or August 30th.

In support of this argument appellant cites a December 7, 2023, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Letter or Technical Assistance to the City of Berkeley (attached hereto as Attachment 12); the “Berkeley Letter”) in support of its arguments, however, the facts at issue in that letter are readily distinguishable. First, the City of Beverly Hills does not have a “ready to review” application procedure akin to the one described in the HCD letter. HCD states:

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 7 of 14 ends

“[Berkeley’s] application intake review process appears to be a completeness review consistent and subject to the [Permit Streamlining Act] because the [Berkeley] requires all the application checklist items be provided in this process.” (Berkeley Letter at p. 2.)
Whereas the process described in the Berkeley Letter appears to have required an application to be subject to a full completeness review prior to acceptance of the application, the City of Beverly Hills has no such requirement or procedure.

Further, in the Berkeley Letter, HCD states that the “time it takes for a project to achieve ‘ready to review’ status is indefinite and may exceed 30 calendar days.” (HCD Letter, at p. 2.) In this case, staff generated the invoice within hours of the applicant/appellant seeking to submit its application. The City’s submittal process is typical, in that submittals must include both the application materials and the required fee. Appellant seems to suggest that an applicant could “submit” an application without a fee, and expect the City to conduct its completeness review, and incur the associated costs, without any certainty that the fee will ever be paid. This scenario is contrary to the well settled principle that cities can require applicants to pay fees to cover the costs for processing planning and land use applications.

Appellant also suggests that the Beverly Hills calendared the 30-day completeness review period based on business days, rather than calendar days. This is not so. Community Development staff is very well aware that the 30-day completeness review period is measured in calendar days, since that is what the statute requires. The fact that the statute is silent as to after hour submissions in no way precludes a policy and practice like the City’s, which is necessary and appropriate for the City’s implementation of the Permit Streamlining Act.

Finally, while the City has a policy regarding timing for application submittals, it has not found it necessary to adopt a policy deeming correspondence from the City to an applicant after the close of business as having been sent the following day. Once the submittal date is determined, the City has 30 calendar days from that date to provide its completeness review determination, and nothing in the statute or City policy dictates that the response be provided prior to the close of business. Appellant has provided no legal authority in support of its position, and the City very clearly provided its response within 30 calendar days of the September 3, 2024 submittal date, exactly as it said it would in the September 5, 2024 correspondence to the appellant6
.

Appellant Grounds for Appeal #2:
“The City Must Complete an Initial Environmental Study by October 3[sic], 2024 to Comply with CEQA.”
6 Although the City does not agree with the applicant’s assertion that the application is deemed complete by operation of law, a memorandum (generally referred to as a consistency memo and included as Attachment 13), was issued to the applicant on October 29, 2024 in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589(j)(2) and outlined the inconsistencies of the proposed housing development project with the applicable plans, programs, ordinances, standards, and requirements of the City. As stated in the October 29, 2024 memorandum, the City considers the application incomplete and rejects any claim that the project was deemed complete by operation of law. The memorandum was provided to the applicant as a courtesy to ensure clarity regarding the project’s inconsistencies with the City’s objective development standards as well as other applicable standards.

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 8 of 14 ends

The appellant states “Public Resources Code Section 21080.2 requires the City to complete an initial environmental study within 30 days from the date a project is deemed complete.” The appellant further asserts that “because the Project was deemed complete by operation of law on September 30, 2024, the City must perform its initial study and determine which CEQA document will be required expeditiously.” City Response to Appeal Ground #2
Staff disagrees. The requirement to conduct an Initial Environmental Study has not been triggered because the application remains incomplete.

As stated in the City’s Response to Appeal Ground #1, the City issued its initial incomplete application determination letter regarding the 1st FA Submittal within the 30-day period provided by Government Code Section 65943(a), on October 3, 2024. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the application was not deemed complete by operation of law.

Additionally, the City’s determination letters for this project, including specifically the October 3, 2024, letter that is the subject of this appeal, clearly indicate which items need to be submitted and/or resolved in order to deem the application complete. In summary, the following Planning Application checklist requirements were not satisfied in the applicant’s September 3, 2024, 1st FA Submittal, and were memorialized in the City’s October 3, 2024, letter:

1. Title Page: The architectural plans did not include the correct project address, ownership address, and did not provide accurate information on development standards (Correction No. 3.c.1).

2. Site Plan: The architectural plans did not include the property’s square footage, dimensions of all existing structures, and the size and species of existing trees.

Additionally, it did not show all code-required and proposed setbacks or include all anticipated improvements to the public right-of-way (Correction No. 3.c.3).

3. Floor Plans: The architectural plans included dens that would be considered bedrooms so the bedroom type count needed to be updated to reflect the correct unit types and a floor area blocking study was not included (Correction No. 3.c.4).

4. Roof Plan: The architectural plans did not include the location of proposed gutters and downspouts (Correction No. 3.c.5).

5. Adjacent Property Information: The architectural plans did not provide information regarding adjacent properties to the east and the distances to all neighboring properties and structures (Correction No. 3.c.6).

6. Elevations/Renderings/Sections: The architectural plans did not include existing building elevations from all directions, did not specify how building height was determined, did not include information regarding any proposed architectural features and exterior light fixtures, and did not include all code-required and proposed setbacks (Correction No. 3.c.7).

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 9 of 14 ends

7. Landscape Plans: The architectural plans did not include images of proposed plant species, clear distinctions between hardscape and landscape areas in the front yard area, details regarding any proposed lighting, and an elevation with proposed landscaping (Correction No. 3.c.8).

8. Environmental and /Technical Studies/Plans: Missing a Trip Generation Analysis, a Construction Management Plan, preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan, and a Low Impact Development Plan (Correction 3.e).

9. Historic Resource Assessment: Report was not provided (Correction No. 3.f).

10. Other Supporting Studies and Information: Missing a complete Density Bonus Supplemental Form with justification for incentives/concessions, and waivers, a compliant Inclusionary Housing Plan, a Parking Study that analyses the proposed automated parking system, Required Findings for all requested entitlements, and a complete shade and shadow study (Correction No. 3.g).

11. Building Code Compliance: Analysis was not provided (Correction No. 3.h).

12. Vesting Tentative Map: A complete application was not provided (Correction No.

3.2).

Notably, the appellant does not challenge any of these incompleteness items in its appeal.

Because the application was incomplete and did not address all requirements of the Planning Application checklist, an environmental assessment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the City’s environmental regulations was not initiated.

As previously stated, subsequent to the appellant’s submittal of the appeal, the applicant submitted a 2nd FA Submittal with additional information and revised plans to the City on December 31, 2024, which were partially responsive to the City’s October 3, 2024 incomplete letter. Staff reviewed the resubmittal and in this second round of review again deemed the application incomplete on January 30, 2025 for failure to address the following Planning Application checklist requirements:

1. Title Page: The correct project address and ownership address were still missing.

2. Site Plan/Elevations: All code-required and proposed setbacks with dimensions were still missing.

3. Blocking study: Was still missing information.

4. Adjacent property Information: Adjacent property information to the east and distances to neighboring properties and structures was still missing.

5. Architectural Details: Callouts, cut sheets, and photos of architectural features were again not included.

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 10 of 14 ends

6. Construction Management Plan: Was not submitted.

7. Density Bonus Supplemental Form: Was still incomplete.

8. Inclusionary Housing Plan: Did not meet compliance requirements.

9. Shade and Shadow Study: Winter sun charts were still missing.

10. Vesting Tentative Map: A Title Policy was not provided.

No additional information has been submitted as of the writing of this report. If and when all required application materials are submitted, and the project application is deemed complete, environmental review of the project would be initiated.

Appellant Grounds for Appeal #3:
“Additional Bases for Appeal:
a) Neither a General Plan Amendment nor a Zoning Amendment Required is Required for Builder’s Remedy Projects Ever, Let Alone During Completeness Review.
b) The Project’s Final Development Application Does Not Materially Deviate from the Corresponding Preliminary Application in Any Manner Recognized by Law.”
The appellant asserts that “the City’s Untimely Incompleteness Determination states that the Applicant must apply for a General Plan Amendment and zoning amendment to entitle [the] Builder’s Remedy Project, even though these items are not listed on the City’s [Planning Application].”
Second, the appellant states that “the City asserts, without any legal support, that the Project’s [1st FA Submittal] deviates in a material way from the corresponding preliminary application. However, Government Code Section 65941.1(c) defines a “material change” exclusively as either a deviation in (1) the quantity of residential units or (2) the square footage of the construction, by more than 20 percent. The City’s Untimely Incompleteness Determination acknowledges that the Project complies with these restrictions.

Nevertheless, the City created a new standard for a material change based on the Applicant also submitting a density bonus supplemental application.” City Response to Appeal Ground #3
The City no longer requires General Plan and Zoning Amendment applications for Builder’s Remedy projects.

Page 11 of 14 ends

ensuring that any inconsistencies with the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance could be analyzed and resolved through the entitlement review process, which protects due process rights of neighbors as well. This good faith position was supported by a technical assistance memorandum issued to the City of Compton by the Department of Housing and Community Development on March 28, 20247
. In a subsequent letter from
HCD to the City of Beverly Hills dated June 26, 2024, HCD changed its position, and instead asserted that local agencies could not require legislative amendment application for Builder’s Remedy projects8
.

Further, the enactment of Assembly Bill 1893 (AB 1893), which became effective on January 1, 2025, amended the Housing Accountability Act to address the treatment of Builder’s Remedy projects by local agencies. AB 1893 expressly prohibits cities from requiring a General Plan amendment or zone change for Builder’s Remedy projects.

Therefore, on December 27, 2024, the City notified the applicant that the submission of General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment applications would no longer be required to reconcile the builder’s remedy projects’ inconsistencies with applicable plans and ordinances. (Attachment 14.) As a result, the lack of these applications would no longer be considered a basis to determine the application incomplete, to the extent that the project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. Further, the City Council memorialized this position when it adopted Resolution No. 25-R-13544, on February 19, 2025. In light of the City’s determination in this regard, this basis for appeal is moot.

The 1st FA Submittal Filed by the Applicant Exceeded the Scope of the PA, and a Conforming Formal Project Application was Not Filed within the 180-day period required by Government Code Section 6594.1(e)(1)9
.

Deviation from the PA
As stated in the City’s October 3, 2024 incomplete application determination letter, on March 15, 2024, the property owners submitted a PA pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development. However, the September 3, 2024 1st FA Submittal deviated from the PA by including a vesting tentative tract map and requests for additional incentives and waivers – none of which were identified in the PA. Staff also took the position that the PA failed to include information on potentially historic resources.

Vesting Tentative Tract Map
The Vesting Tentative Tract map submitted for an airspace subdivision and condominium units as part of the formal project application is a key deviation from the PA. The 1st FA includes a mix of for-sale condominiums and rental units, whereas only rental units were contemplated in the PA. The PA however, states: “No approvals under the Subdivision Map Act are requested” (Attachment 3).

7 See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/compton-hau604-ta-03282024.pdf 8 See https://beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/9455/125_129-Linden-Drive_BH-Ltr-of-Support-TechAssistance?bidId= 9 It should be noted that Government Code Section 65941.1 was amended effective January 1, 2025, which amendments included re-lettering subsection (d)(1) to (e)(1).

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 12 of 14 ends

Government Code Section 65941.1 requires preliminary applications to include all of the information listed in that paragraph (a) including “(12) Whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map, are being requested.”

Because the PA Project, on the face of the application, states there is no subdivision contemplated, and because a subdivision map is proposed as an integral part of the 1st FA, the project is inconsistent with the PA, and is not within the scope of the rights vested by the PA. Subdivision information is a required component of the preliminary application, and that information was not included, thus the PA failed to include all information required by Government Code Section 65941.1(a).

Accordingly, when there are omissions of required information in a preliminary application, and a subsequent development conflicts with the information included in the preliminary application, the City believes the most reasonable interpretation is that each of the 17 informational items required under Section 65941.1(a) must match up with what is in a subsequent project application for the subsequent application to enjoy vested rights. Any other interpretation would eviscerate the legislature’s stated intent for a preliminary application to include all of the required information before rights can vest in a project; Section 65941.1(c) is thus more properly seen as a safe harbor for adjusting the size of the project, which often occurs as a project goes through development.

Incentives/Waivers
While the City believes that there is a good faith argument in the context of the statutory requirement for preliminary applications to include information regarding density bonus incentive, concessions, waivers and parking reductions (Govt. Code Section 65941.1(a)(11)), that the PA filed for the 140 South Camden Project lapsed for failure to include this information, because the PA included some information responsive to this Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 13 of 14 ends

statutory requirement, the City has opted not consider the numerous discrepancies10 as a basis for the loss of any preliminary application vested rights.11 Historic and Cultural Resources
Information regarding whether there are any historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property is required to be provided in a PA. In review of the PA and the materials submitted for the 1st FA Submittal, information regarding historic or cultural resources was not provided, as required by Govt. Code Section 65941.1(a)(9). The 2004 Survey conducted by the City identified that the subject property appears to be a contributor to a district and appears eligible for local listing or designation. The City’s recently completed 2023 Multi-Family residential survey identifies the property as a contributor to a potential historic district. Additionally, the existing building is more than 45 years old, which is a well-known threshold for when a building may be considered potentially historic.

Based on the information above, staff initially adopted a strict interpretation regarding historic resources in this case. However, it could be argued that the PA submittal criterion requiring information on “known” resources, a only requires information regarding formally designated historic resources, which would be limited to formally designated local, state, or federal resources as opposed to potentially historic resources that have been preliminarily identified in historic survey materials on file with the City. Therefore, staff has subsequently determined that the omission of relevant information regarding these potentially historic or cultural resources in the PA does not invalidate the PA and recommends against continuing to treat this as a basis for asserting that the PA has lapsed.

Summary
In conclusion, staff believes that the PA is no longer valid as to the formal project application because the PA failed to include all of the information required by Govt. Code Section 65941.1 (a), and specifically, did not include the subdivision information required by Section 65941.1 (a)(12). While conceptually, the PA could remain applicable to a project that did not include a subdivision, the 180-day deadline within which to submit such an application expired on September 11, 2024.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The recommended action has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 2100 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to the state CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), a determination regarding the application’s completeness is exempt from CEQA as an administrative governmental activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

As noted above, an environmental review for the project has not yet been conducted, as the application remains incomplete. If and when all required application materials are 10 Further compounding the disconnect between the PA and the proposed project, the applicant’s 2nd FA Submittal, included one additional incentive and 10 additional waivers not mentioned in either the PA or the 1st FA Submittal. 11 The City informed HCD of the decision not to assert this argument in its January 10, 2025, response to HCD‘s December 2, 2024, notice of violation. We also note that the subsequently issued incompleteness letter issued by the City on January 30, 2025, inadvertently maintained this argument, when instead the applicant should have been informed that the City had opted not to pursue the argument further.

Meeting Date: March 4, 2025

Page 14 of 14 ends

submitted, and the project application is deemed complete, environmental review of the project will be completed and made available for public review and comment.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Friday, February 7, 2025, to property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 15). An on-site notice was also posted on the project site on Friday, February 7, 2025. Additionally, the appeal hearing was noticed in the Friday, February 7, 2025 edition of the Beverly Hills Courier and the Thursday, February 13, 2025 edition of the Beverly Hills Weekly. Courtesy emails were sent to all interested parties advising them of the appeal hearing date.

Public Comment
As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any written public correspondence specifically regarding this appeal. However, correspondence related to the merits of the proposed project has been included in the public record. Additionally, staff has received requests to be placed on the project’s interested parties list.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellant.

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Resolution
1 RESOLUTION NO. 25-R-________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS DENYING AN APPEAL OF STAFF’S
OCTOBER 3, 2024 INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
DETERMINATION AND UPHOLDING THE CITY’S

INCOMPLETE APPLICATION DETERMINATION, AND

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills herby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Wilshire Camden, LLC (the property owner, applicant, and appellant, referred to hereafter as “Appellant”) has filed a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Tree Removal Permit applications (Formal Application Submittal) for a new 15-story, 194’ tall, housing project with a total of 27 rental units, which include a mix of condominiums and rental units, as well as six affordable units, and four subterranean levels designated for mechanical parking to accommodate 44 vehicles (the “Project”) at 140 South Camden Drive (the “Project Site”). The City determined that the submittal date was September 3, 2024, which the Appellant has contested. The Appellant submitted the applications as a “Builder’s Remedy” project, which relies on the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), codified in Government Code Section 65589.5, by providing at least 20 percent of the total units in the development to lower income households.

Section 2. The City completed its review of the Project applications and deemed the applications incomplete by letter dated and delivered to the Appellant on October 3, 2024. Also, on October 3, 2024, Appellant first asserted to the City that the applications were deemed complete by operation of law, arguing that the City failed to meet the 30-day application completeness Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 2 review deadline set forth in the Government Code Section 65943(a). Appellant’s argument is based on their assertion of an August 30, 2024 application submittal date.

Section 3. On Friday, October 16, 2024, Masoud “Max” Netty, on behalf of Appellant, submitted a timely appeal of the City’s October 3, 2024, incomplete determination with all appeal fees paid, in accordance with BHMC Section 1-4-303 A., seeking City Council review of City staff’s October 3, 2024, incomplete application determination. As documented in the incomplete application determination letter, staff determined that the application was incomplete for failure to address items listed in the City’s Commercial, Mixed Use, and Multi-Family Residential (“Planning Application”) checklist and Vesting Tentative Map application required for completeness. The appeal was filed pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(c), which stipulates that the City must provide a process for an applicant to appeal to the City’s governing body and the governing body is required to provide a final written determination within 60 days of receiving the appeal. If a final written determination is not issued by the City within 60 days, the application would be deemed complete and eligible for processing despite the missing required application materials.

On Monday, November 5, 2024, the City and the appellant’s legal counsel mutually agreed on extending the State’s 60-day time limit for the City to make a determination on the appeal, extending the deadline to February 28, 2025, pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(d).

However, after receiving the 2nd Formal Application Submittal materials on December 31, 2024, the City and the appellant mutually agreed to further extend the deadline to March 31, 2025, to allow staff sufficient time to assess and determine whether the 2nd Formal Application Submittal was complete. However, the 2nd Formal Application Submittal was once again deemed incomplete on January 30, 2025.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 3 Section 4. The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Friday, February 7, 2025, to property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the Project Site. An on-site notice was also posted on the Project Site on Friday, February 7, 2025. Additionally, the appeal hearing was noticed in the Friday, February 7, 2025 edition of the Beverly Hills Courier and the Thursday, February 13, 2025 edition of the Beverly Hills Weekly. Courtesy emails were sent to all interested parties advising them of the appeal hearing date. On March 4, 2025, the City Council considered the appeal petition at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing.

Section 5. This appeal has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City (collectively “CEQA”)). 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, are exempt from CEQA.

Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that this appeal of application completeness is exempt from further review under CEQA.

Section 6. Based upon the evidence contained in the record on this matter, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of City staff’s October 3, 2024, incomplete application determination and upholds staff’s incomplete application determination and related appeal issues as set forth herein for the Project for the following reasons, each of which is a separate and independent basis for the City Council’s denial of the appeal:

A. The project was not deemed complete by operation of law on September 30, 2024.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 4 Submission Date. The 1st Formal Application Submittal materials were emailed to the City on Friday, August 30, 2024 at approximately 12:32 PM. After reviewing the application materials to verify that the submittal package contained the minimum materials required for filing with the City (e.g., property ownership authorization/documentation and public notification materials), City staff generated an invoice at approximately 4:20 PM for the required fees and provided it to the Appellant via email. The fees were ultimately paid at 5:30 PM on Friday, August 30, 2024, outside of regular business hours (which are from 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM on Fridays), meaning staff could not confirm receipt until the next business day. It is important to note that, in accordance with the City’s longstanding practice, payment of the required application fees is the action that determines the date a project is submitted. Further, it is the City’s longstanding policy that applications received after hours are considered to be submitted the next business day. As a result, the City considers the official submission date of the subject application to be the next business day, Tuesday, September 3, 2024, since City Hall was closed for the weekend on Saturday, August 30, 2024, and Sunday, September 1 , 2024, and in observance of Labor Day Monday, September 2, 2024.

Additionally, per the City’s stated policy, electronic planning applications and electronic project resubmittals are not considered received until they have been acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. This disclaimer is included in all Planning Division email correspondence, including on the specific correspondence from City staff to the applicant on August 30, 2024, and is consistently applied to all electronic project submissions. Because staff was unavailable to acknowledge the payment after business hours on August 30, 2024, the application could not be considered received until the next business day, September 3, 2024.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 5 Standard departmental practice was followed on the intake of the PA. On September 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM, staff confirmed to Principal Planner Cindy Gordon that the application fee for the 1st FA Submittal had been paid. At approximately 2:19 PM Principal Planner Gordon sent an email to staff assigning the Project based on the confirmed receipt of payment and, consistent with City policy, confirmed that the official submittal date was Tuesday, September 3, 2024. On September 5, 2024, staff emailed the applicant team and their legal counsel informing them that the application was officially received by the City on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, following payment after the close of business on Friday, August 30, 2024 and to expect to receive comments at the end of the 30-day review period on Thursday, October 3, 2024. Both the project architect and the Appellant’s legal counsel responded and acknowledged City staff’s September 5, 2024 email and did not contest the City’s timeline or assert that the completeness review period had begun earlier.

Thus, the first time the City was made aware of Appellant’s submittal date argument was on October 3, 2024, the exact day staff had informed the applicant team to expect completeness review comments. On that date, the City received a letter from the Appellant’s legal counsel asserting that the application had been “deemed complete by operation of law on September 30, 2024” because the City did not issue an incomplete letter by September 29, 2024, which the Appellant asserts was the final date of the 30-day review period. However, the City completed its review and sent the review letter on October 3, 2024, which is within 30-days of September 3, 2024, submittal date.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 6 The appeal letter makes various arguments regarding the 30-day statutory period for review of development applications for completeness, however, those arguments turn on the threshold question of whether the submittal date is September 3rd or August 30th.

In support of its argument, Appellant cites a December 7, 2023, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Letter or Technical Assistance to the City of Berkeley (the “Berkeley Letter”) in support of its arguments, however, the facts at issue in that letter are readily distinguishable. First, the City of Beverly Hills does not have a “ready to review” application procedure akin to the one described in the HCD letter. HCD states that “[Berkeley’s] application intake review process appears to be a completeness review consistent and subject to the [Permit Streamlining Act] because the [Berkeley] requires all the application checklist items be provided in this process.” (Berkeley Letter at p. 2.)
Whereas the process described in the Berkeley Letter appears to have required an application to be subject to a full completeness review prior to acceptance of the application, the City of Beverly Hills has no such requirement or procedure.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 7 Appellant also suggests that the Beverly Hills calendared the 30-day completeness review period based on business days, rather than calendar days. This is not so. Community Development staff is very well aware that the 30-day completeness review period is measured in calendar days, since that is what the statute requires. The fact that the statute is silent as to after hour submissions in no way precludes a policy and practice like the City’s, which is necessary and appropriate for the City’s implementation of the Permit Streamlining Act.

Finally, while the City has a policy regarding timing for application submittals, it has not found it necessary to adopt a policy deeming correspondence from the City to an applicant after the close of business as having been sent the following day. Once the submittal date is determined, Government Code Section 65943(a) provides 30 calendar days from that date for the City to provide its completeness review determination, and nothing in the statute or City policy dictates that the response be provided prior to the close of business. Appellant has provided no legal authority in support of its position, and the City very clearly provided its response within 30 calendar days of the September 3, 2024, submittal date, exactly as it said it would in the September 5, 2024, correspondence to the Appellant.

For the foregoing reasons, the City Council hereby finds that the submittal date was properly determined to be September 3, 2024, that the incompleteness letter sent on October 3, 2024 was timely, and that the 1st Formal Application Submittal has not been deemed complete by operation of law.

B. The requirement to conduct an Initial Environmental Study has not been triggered because the application remains incomplete.

The City issued its initial incomplete application determination letter regarding the 1st Formal Application Submittal within the 30-day period provided by Government Code Section Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 8 65943(a), on October 3, 2024. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the application was not deemed complete by operation of law.

Additionally, the City’s determination letters for this project, including specifically the October 3, 2024, letter that is the subject of this appeal, clearly indicate which items need to be submitted and/or resolved in order to deem the application complete. In summary, the following Planning Application and Vesting Tentative Map checklist requirements were not satisfied in the applicant’s September 3, 2024, 1st Formal Application Submittal, and were memorialized in the City’s October 3, 2024, letter:

1. Title Page: The architectural plans did not include the correct project address, ownership address, and did not provide accurate information on development standards (Correction No. 3.c.1).

2. Site Plan: The architectural plans did not include the property’s square footage, dimensions of all existing structures, and the size and species of existing trees.

Additionally, it did not show all code-required and proposed setbacks or include all anticipated improvements to the public right-of-way (Correction No. 3.c.3).

4. Roof Plan: The architectural plans did not include the location of proposed gutters and downspouts (Correction No. 3.c.5).

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 9 6. Elevations/Renderings/Sections: The architectural plans did not include existing building elevations from all directions, did not specify how building height was determined, did not include information regarding any proposed architectural features and exterior light fixtures, and did not include all code-required and proposed setbacks (Correction No. 3.c.7).

9. Historic Resource Assessment: Report was not provided (Correction No. 3.f).

11. Building Code Compliance: Analysis was not provided (Correction No. 3.h).

12. Vesting Tentative Map: A complete application was not provided (Correction No. 3.2) Notably, Appellant does not challenge any of these incompleteness items in its appeal.

Because the application was incomplete and did not address all requirements of the Planning Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 10 Application checklist and Vesting Tentative Map, an environmental assessment in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the City’s environmental regulations was not initiated.

Subsequent to the appellant’s submittal of the appeal, the applicant submitted a 2nd Formal Application Submittal with additional information and revised plans to the City on December 31, 2024, which were partially responsive to the City’s October 3, 2024, incomplete letter. Staff reviewed the resubmittal and in this second round of review again deemed the application incomplete on January 30, 2025, for failure to address the following Planning Application checklist requirements:

1. Title Page: The correct project address and ownership address were still missing.

2. Site Plan/Elevations: All code-required and proposed setbacks with dimensions were still missing.

3. Blocking study: Was still missing information.

4. Adjacent property Information: Adjacent property information to the east and distances to neighboring properties and structures was still missing.

5. Architectural Details: Callouts, cut sheets, and photos of architectural features were again not included.

6. Construction Management Plan: Was not submitted.

7. Density Bonus Supplemental Form: Was still incomplete.

8. Inclusionary Housing Plan: Did not meet compliance requirements.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 11 9. Shade and Shadow Study: Winter sun charts were still missing.

10. Vesting Tentative Map: A Title Policy was not provided.

If and when all required application materials are submitted, and the project application is deemed complete, environmental review of the project would be initiated.

The City Council finds that the 1st Formal Application Submittal was incomplete based on the Applicant’s failure to submit the foregoing information, individually and collectively.

C. The City no longer requires General Plan and Zoning Amendment applications for Builder’s Remedy projects.

At the time the appeal was filed, the City’s position remained that requiring the legislative actions did not mean that the City was denying or disapproving the project, but rather was ensuring that any inconsistencies with the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance could be analyzed and resolved through the entitlement review process, which protects due process rights of neighbors as well. This good faith position was supported by a technical assistance memorandum issued to the City of Compton by the Department of Housing and Community Development on March 28, 2024. In a subsequent letter from HCD to the City of Beverly Hills dated June 26, 2024, HCD changed its position, and instead asserted that local agencies could not require legislative amendment applications for Builder’s Remedy projects.

Further, Assembly Bill 1893 (AB 1893), which became effective on January 1, 2025, amended the Housing Accountability Act to address the treatment of Builder’s Remedy projects by local agencies. AB 1893 expressly prohibits cities from requiring a General Plan amendment or zone change for Builder’s Remedy projects.

Therefore, on December 27, 2024, the City notified the Appellant that the submission of General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment applications would no longer be required to Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 12 reconcile builder’s remedy projects’ inconsistencies with applicable plans and ordinances. As a result, the lack of these applications would no longer be considered a basis to determine the application incomplete, to the extent that the project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. In light of the City’s determination in this regard, this basis for appeal is moot.

C.1. The 1st Formal Application Submittal Filed by the Applicant Exceeded the Scope of the Preliminary Application (PA), and a Conforming Application was Not Filed within the 180- day period required by Government Code Section 6594.1(e)(1)1 Deviation from the PA. As stated in the City’s October 3, 2024 incomplete application determination letter, on March 15, 2024, the property owners, submitted a PA pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development. However, the September 3, 2024 1st Formal Application Submittal deviated from the PA by including a vesting tentative tract map, which was not identified in the PA.

The Vesting Tentative Tract map submitted for an airspace subdivision and condominium units as part of the 1st Formal Application Submittal is a key deviation from the PA. The formal project application includes a mix of for-sale condominiums and rental units, whereas only rental units were contemplated in the PA. The PA, however states: “No approvals under the Subdivision Map Act are requested.”
Government Code Section 65941.1 requires preliminary applications to include all of the information listed in that paragraph (a) including “(12) Whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map, are being requested.” Because the PA Project, on the face of the application, states there is no subdivision contemplated, and because a subdivision map is proposed as an 1 It should be noted that Government Code Section 65941.1 was amended effective January 1, 2025, which amendments included re-lettering subsection (d)(1) to (e)(1).

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 13 integral part of the formal project application, the project is inconsistent with the PA, and is not within the scope of the rights vested by the PA.

As pointed out in prior correspondence to HCD, the qualifier “all of” was deliberately added during the legislative process as part of the Assembly Amendments on June 12, 2019, to “[c]larify that all the elements of the initial application must be included in the initial application in order for the rules to lock (it is not clear in the current language).” At the same time, Section 65941.1(c) was also amended to begin “After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a)…” (Emphasis added.) Finally, as part of the final Assembly amendments on August 12, 2019, Section 65941.1(d) was amended to tie the 180-day period in which to submit a formal development project application to the submission of “a preliminary application with all the information required by subdivision (a)….” (Emphasis added.) Taken together, these changes evidence a clear legislative intent for a preliminary application to vest rights in a project only if all of the project information required by 65941.1(a)(1)-(17) is included in the application, and any subsequent development application must include the information contained in the preliminary application. Accordingly, when there are omissions of required information in a preliminary application, and a subsequent development conflicts with the information included in the preliminary application, the City Council believes the most reasonable interpretation is that each of the 17 informational items required under Section 65941.1(a) must match up with what is in a subsequent project application for the subsequent application to enjoy vested rights. Any other interpretation would eviscerate the legislature’s stated intent for a preliminary application to include all of the required information before rights can vest in a project; Section 65941.1(c) is thus more properly seen as a safe harbor for adjusting the size of the project, which often occurs as a project goes through development.

Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 14 For the foregoing reasons, the City Council concludes that staff has correctly determined in good faith that the 140 South Camden Drive project is a different project than the PA Project because of the omission of subdivision information. In furtherance of the City’s good faith efforts in applying and implementing the preliminary application statutes, the City Council has opted not to pursue what it believes would be good faith arguments for loss of PA vesting rights for Appellant’s failure to include complete density bonus, concession, and waiver information as required by Government Code Section 65941.1(a)(11)), and historic resource information as required by Government Code Section 65941.1(a)(9).Therefore, the PA is not valid as to the formal project application because it failed to include all of the information required by Govt. Code Section 65941.1 (a), and specifically, did not include the subdivision information required by Section 65941.1 (a)(12). While conceptually, the PA could remain applicable to a project that did not include a subdivision, the 180-day deadline within which to submit such an application expired on September 11, 2024.

Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the PA has lapsed in September 2024, and that the Project no longer qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. ///
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 15 Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.

Adopted:

LESTER J. FRIEDMAN,
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills,
California
ATTEST:
_______________________________

HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
(SEAL)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

LAURENCE S. WIENER
City Attorney

NANCY HUNT-COFFEY
City Manager
Docusign Envelope ID: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 3E0ECE2A-FAA5-4BDC-A6B8-E8F41E206C18 Status: Sent Subject: Complete with Docusign: CC Resolution 140 S CAMDEN - FINAL.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 15 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Evelin Welch
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
2/28/2025 9:21:48 AM
Holder: Evelin Welch
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Laurence S. Wiener
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 208.87.233.201
Sent: 2/28/2025 9:26:41 AM
Resent: 2/28/2025 9:27:23 AM
Resent: 2/28/2025 11:00:29 AM
Resent: 2/28/2025 11:12:24 AM
Viewed: 2/28/2025 11:18:53 AM
Signed: 2/28/2025 11:19:02 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Mandy Jiang
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 2/28/2025 11:19:04 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Nancy Hunt-Coffey
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Lester J. Friedman
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Huma Ahmed
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Keith Sterling
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Adrianne Tarazon
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Megan Grilley
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 2/28/2025 9:26:41 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 2
Appeal Form and Petition
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE WITHIN . 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION
APPEAL TO City flniirn’i1 COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLYINBLACKINK October 11.2024
Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions ofthe Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Beverly Hills Planning Department (Official, Board or Commission involved) rendered on October 3, 2024 ; which decision consisted of: The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State groundsfor appeaL Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper ifnecessary.) Please see attached letter.

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
(Department Head(s) Involved)
It is requested that written notice ofthe time
sent to:

Wilshire Camden LLC c/c
Masoud “Max” Nettv
Name
Fee Paid
LOG NO.
(For City Clerk’s use)
Written Notice mailed to appellant:

This firm represents Wilshire Camden LLC (the “Applicant”) in connection with its application for development of a multi-family housing development project consisting of 27 multifamily dwelling units (the “Project”) at 140 South Camden Drive (the “Property”), within the City of Beverly Hills (the “City”). The Applicant appeals the City’s incompleteness determination of the Project’s development application (the “Development Application”). The Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) establishes a statutory 30-day period for determination of a complete application. If a local agency does not determine an application within 30 days, it is deemed complete by operation of law. Here, the City did not make a determination of completeness within the statutorily required 30 day period, i.e., on or before September 30, 2024, so it is deemed complete by operation of law. Therefore, the City must grant this appeal and find that the Project is deemed complete by operation of law.

I. The Project Was “Deemed Complete” by Operation of Law on September 30, 2024 a. The City Failed to Meet the 30-day Deadline Pursuant to Gov. Code § 65943(a).

On August 30, 2024, the Applicant submitted the Development Application to the City, which Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 2 ends

#510555280_v6
followed the SB 330 Preliminary Application filed by the Applicant on March 15, 2024.1 In response, the City sent an incompleteness letter to the Applicant on October 3, 2024 – 35 days after the Applicant’s initial submission of the Development Application materials (the “Untimely Incompleteness Determination”).

Government Code Section 65943(a) states in relevant part:

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.

Thirty calendar days after August 30, fell on Sunday, September 29; however, because this date fell on a weekend, the operative deadline the City was required to meet was Monday, September

30. In either case, the City missed this deadline by failing to transmit a completeness determination to the Applicant until October 3, 2024.

When a local agency fails to meet statutory 30 day review period deadline under the PSA, Government Code Section 65943(a) mandates the following:

If the written determination is not made within 30 days after receipt of the application . . . the application shall be deemed complete for purposes of this chapter.2
State law is crystal-clear on this topic. If a local agency misses the 30-calendar-day deadline, the Project is deemed complete by operation of law.

As a courtesy to the City, on October 3, 2024, this firm wrote to City staff memorializing that the Project was deemed complete as a matter of law. When the City sent its Untimely Incompleteness Determination after business hours, it was also hours after this firm sent the above referenced courtesy correspondence to the City memorializing that the Project was deemed complete as a matter of law. When the City sent its October 3, 2024 correspondence, the Project had already been “deemed complete” under state law for several days. b. The City’s Arguments Concerning Commencement of 30 Days and the Time of Day Have No Foundation in Any Relevant City or State Law.

As noted above, the City transmitted its Untimely Incompleteness Determination to the Applicant after business hours on October 3, 2024. The City letter included a note expressing its determination that the Applicant’s Development Application date of submission was on September 1 Gov. Code § 65941.1(d) grants the Applicant 180 days after the submission of a preliminary application to submit a Development Application and retain project vesting. 180 days after March 15, 2024 is September 11, 2024. The Applicant complied with this deadline. 2
Emphasis added.

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 3 ends

#510555280_v6
3, rather than August 30. City staff unilaterally, and without any legal support, maintains that the August 30 filing of the Development Application was really September 3, 2024. However, the calendar does not lie. City staff has apparently re-written unambiguous Government Code Section 65943(a)’s 30-day period as 35 days without respect for the basic counting of days. There is no ambiguity: the Development Application for the Project was submitted on August 30 and filing fees were also paid in full on August 30. The City’s alternative facts do not substitute for actual facts; the City did not determine that the Project’s development application was incomplete within 30 days of the filing of the Final Application. The Development Application is therefore complete by operation of law.

Seemingly due to concern about the deemed-complete status of the Project, the City’s Assistant City Attorney posits that the Applicant’s October 3 letter “incorrectly asserts that the applications for the project at 140 S. Camden Drive have been deemed complete by operation of law” because “the application materials for the project were emailed to the City on Friday, August 30, 2024, however, the fees were not paid until 5:30 p.m. that day, which was after City offices closed for the day.”3 As recognized by the Assistant City Attorney, the Development Application was in fact filed on August 30, 2024 mid-day. The City generated an invoice late in the day and shortly after generating the invoice, i.e., within approximately one hour, the Applicant paid the invoice the same afternoon. Further, the City accepted the funds on August 30, 2024, and generated a receipt on August 30, 2024. The City’s own correspondence, invoice, and receipt show filing of the Development Application and payment of fees on August 30, 2024. Thus, the Project received the 30-day protection within Government Code Section 65943(a) starting on August 30, 2024. While we have great respect for the City’s outside counsel, in this particular matter there is no factual or legal support for the City’s position that the application was not filed on August 30, 2024.

Additionally, here, the City’s operating hours are immaterial for purposes of determining compliance with the PSA. No text within Government Code Section 65943 mandates that a development application must be submitted during operating hours; to the contrary, Government Code Section 65943 explicitly references “calendar days.”4 We know that City staffers work long hours – even if City Hall may be closed to the public, the City’s civil servants are often still hard at work. We have had previous communication with City staff after 5:30 p.m. and also have attended City meetings well after 5:30 p.m. The 5:30 p.m. cutoff is a red herring, as City Hall workers or computers were working at that time as they were able to generate a receipt and, in any event, payment for the filing fee and filing of the Development Application all happened on the calendar day of August 30, 2024.

The City is acting arbitrarily, unreasonably, and hypocritically because the Untimely Incompleteness Determination it did send – the subject of this appeal – was transmitted at 7:13 pm on October 3, 2024, well after closure of the City’s purported “operating hours.” Under the City’s interpretation of the PSA, if the Applicant paid the fee for a development application after 3 This quotation is sourced from an email correspondence sent to the Applicant’s counsel on October 4, 2024. 4 Gov. Code § 65943(a), (b), (c).

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 4 ends

#510555280_v6
business hours (even though the Development Application was submitted earlier in the day during operating hours), the City views the development application as not filed until the next business day; but if the City returns an incompleteness determination after business hours, that determination is considered timely, even though under the City’s reasoning the City’s transmission of Untimely Incompleteness Determination is deemed to have occurred October 4, 2024, i.e., more than 30 calendar days after the September 3, 2024 date that the City maintains is the start of the 30-day period for the City to render a completeness determination. Simply put, the City wants it both ways: the City would apply a fictitious rule to the Applicant that it will not apply to itself.

This interpretation finds no basis in state law, was directly rejected by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) in various technical advisory materials, is arbitrary and capricious, and could give rise to a bad faith claim under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”).
5 In a Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Berkeley dated December 7, 2023, HCD wrote:

Additionally, when [Berkeley] ultimately accepts an application for review, HCD understands the City adheres to its own timing provisions contained in the City’s municipal code which states, “…when business days are referenced, they include only days when City Hall is open. The end of a time period is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day. If the last day is a holiday observed by the City or a City Hall non-business day, that day is excluded” (BMC § 23.104.030(F)).

Based on this municipal code provision, it appears that the City excludes the day the application was submitted and excludes weekends, holidays, and days that City Hall is closed to the public. The practice of reviewing housing applications based on business days adds to constraints contributing to the housing crisis and is inconsistent with the provisions and intent of the PSA. The PSA explicitly states that local jurisdictions are required to determine whether an application is complete within 30 calendar days, and not business days.

Recommendations

1. Completeness review begins at application submittal. When an application is submitted to the City for review, the City has 30 calendar days from the submittal date to determine completeness in writing per the PSA. . . .

2. Calendar days. The PSA requires the City to provide written comments to the applicant for a completeness review within 30 calendar days. This includes weekends, holidays, and any City Hall closures. . . .6 7 5 See Gov. Code § 65589.5.
6 See https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/berkeley-ta-hau331- 120723.pdf. 7 Emphasis added.

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 5 ends

#510555280_v6
HCD is the government agency tasked with enforcing state housing law, and its interpretations are considered persuasive authority in California courts. On this topic, HCD’s interpretation is clear and unambiguous: completeness review begins on the calendar date that an application is submitted.

Finally, there are numerous logical shortcomings implicit in the City’s offered interpretation of the PSA. To offer one example: under the City’s offered interpretation of the PSA, the City could theoretically manipulate its operating hours however it sees fit in advance of anticipated unfavorable development applications. While this example is unlikely, it serves as an illustration of how the City’s interpretation of the PSA seeks to establish for the City a power under state housing law that otherwise makes little practical sense.

Based on Government Code Section 65943(a) and the City’s failure to identify incompleteness items within 30 days of the Development Application filing, the Project has deemed complete status: the City must grant this appeal of the City’s late incompleteness determination.

II. The City Must Complete an Initial Environmental Study by October 3, 2024 to Comply with CEQA.

Public Resources Code Section 21080.2 requires the City to complete an initial environmental study within 30 days from the date a project is deemed complete.8 The CEQA Guidelines9 further provide the following language:

The lead agency shall determine within 30 days after accepting an application as complete whether it intends to prepare an EIR or a negative declaration or use a previously prepared EIR or negative declaration except as provided in Section 15111. The 30 day period may be extended upon the consent of the lead agency and the project applicant.10 11
As stated above, because the Project was deemed complete by operation of law on September 30, 2024, the City must perform its initial study and determine which CEQA document will be required expeditiously. As of the writing of this letter, the Applicant does not consent to a time extension, but no discussions on this topic have occurred and the Applicant may be amenable to such an extension upon the City’s request.

III. Additional Bases for Appeal.

While the Applicant has no legal obligation to respond to the Untimely Incompleteness Determination that arrived more than 30 days after the filing of the Development Application, 8 Pub. Res. Code § 21080.1.
9 Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations is referred to herein as “CEQA Guidelines.” 10 CEQA Guidelines § 15102. 11 Emphasis added.

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 6 ends

#510555280_v6
there are also a number of assertions in that letter which incorrectly justify City staff’s denial of the Project. In response to those assertions, the Applicant also appeals on the following grounds:
a. Neither a General Plan Amendment nor a Zoning Amendment Required is Required for Builder’s Remedy Projects Ever, Let Alone During Completeness Review.

The City’s Untimely Incompleteness Determination states that the Applicant must apply for a General Plan Amendment and zoning amendment to entitle this Builder’s Remedy Project, even though these items are not listed on the City’s development application form.

Neither a General Plan Amendment nor zoning amendment is required for completeness review, since (1) such amendments are not listed on the Development Application’s completeness checklist; (2) they are not necessary for a Builder’s Remedy project pursuant to the HAA; (3) the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department (“HCD”) has explicitly told the City that it cannot mandate a zone text amendment for Builder’s Remedy applications; and (4) our governor has enacted into law AB 1893 – passed by our legislature – that explicitly and unambiguously states that no jurisdiction may require a General Plan or zoning amendment for a Builder’s Remedy project.

First, the City’s development application for a multifamily project does not require a General Plan Amendment or zoning amendment. As such, these legislative approvals cannot be completeness items, as they are not listed on the City’s checklist for application completeness. Government Code Section 65940(a) states that “[e]ach public agency shall compile one or more lists that shall specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project.” The City certainly did not place General Plan Amendment and zoning amendment requirements within its development application for multifamily projects, and even now the City cannot identify any such requirements for multifamily projects in its published application form because no such requirements exist.
12 Therefore, because the City failed to list these requirements on its applicable development application form, they are not completeness items and cannot be required for an application completeness determination pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(a).

Second, under the HAA the City cannot deny a Builder’s Remedy project on the basis of General Plan or Zoning Code inconsistency.13 Because the HAA prohibits the City from denying the Project on either basis, it is illogical, unnecessary, wasteful, and unlawful to require General Plan or zoning amendments, as asserted by the City.
12 See Section 4 – Submittal Requirements and Checklist (https://www.beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/8721/Commercial-Mixed-Use-And-Multi-Family-ResidentialPlanning-Application-PDF) 13 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(5).

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 7 ends

#510555280_v6
Third, HCD’s letter to the City, "125-129 Linden Drive, Beverly Hills -- Letter of Support and Technical Assistance," dated June 26, 2024 explicitly states that jurisdictions cannot mandate a General Plan Amendment or zoning amendment for Builder’s Remedy applications. To wit:

Under the HAA, the City should not require applicants of projects protected by the Builder’s Remedy to seek amendments to the City’s general plan or zoning code. Even if such amendments could somehow be required without violating the intent of the HAA, the PSA prohibits the City from using the absence of the GPA/ZC application as a reason to determine a project application is incomplete, if the requirement was not on the submittal requirement checklist.14 Fourth, our State Legislature opined on this very issue and said that for Builder’s Remedy projects, “[t]he project shall not be required to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval.”15 While AB 1893 does not go into effect until January 1, 2025, our State Legislature, in the text of that law, explicitly stated that “the amendments set forth in this act with respect to ‘builder’s remedy’ projects are intended to provide greater clarity of existing law, and should not be interpreted as constraints on or impediments to processing current ‘builder’s remedy’ project applications deemed complete.”16 As such, our State Legislature clearly established that no General Plan Amendment or zoning amendment is necessary for Builder’s Remedy projects, and that AB 1893’s revisions to existing law are designed to give cities, such as this City, an instruction not to interpret its provisions as constraints or impediments to current Builder’s Remedy projects. The State Legislature’s finding on this issue endorses Judge Chalfant’s decision in Jha v. City of Los Angeles (LA Superior Court Case No. 23STCP03499) (“Jha”) where the court stated:

Whether they are described as an entitlement or not, it is clear that the City cannot graft legislative changes such as a GPA or zoning change onto the completeness determination. The City’s refusal to process an application based on a missing GPA Application was invalid.17 18
The Jha court further found that:

The court need not agree with Jha that GPAs and zone changes are not entitlements to agree that they are legislative enactments that cannot be compelled when the builder’s remedy applies. The City cannot compel Jha to seek a legislative action through the review of a development project for the same reason Jha cannot compel the City to approve a legislative action through the submittal of a development 14 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/beverly-hills-hau-1071-losta062624.pdf 15 AB 1893, Government Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(i). 16 AB 1893, Section 1(i). 17 Jha at 18. 18 Emphasis added.

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 8 ends

#510555280_v6
application. The builder’s remedy applies to projects, not properties, and legislative changes are not ‘housing development projects’ governed by the HAA.19 Unlike Builder’s Remedy projects, which a city cannot deny due to inconsistencies with that city’s General Plan or zoning code, zone changes and General Plan Amendments are legislative actions which a city could potentially deny for almost any reason. By mandating an application for a zone change and a General Plan Amendment as completion items, the City is basically mandating that the Project include an unnecessary legislative entitlement – a basis by which it can deny the Project. Given political realities, a highly discretionary zone change and General Plan Amendment process would eviscerate HAA protections and would effectively constitute a project denial. As such, not only does the Applicant appeal the Untimely Incompleteness Determination simply for being procedurally untimely, it also appeals the City’s substantive requirements that the Project pursue a zone change and General Plan Amendment, as these requirements are not required by the City’s development application and will result in a denial of the Project. b. The Project’s Final Development Application Does Not Materially Deviate from the Corresponding Preliminary Application in Any Manner Recognized by Law.

The Project satisfies the legal requirement of being “deemed complete” pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(5):

Notwithstanding any other law, until January 1, 2030, “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1 or, if the applicant has not submitted a preliminary application, has submitted a complete application pursuant to Section 65943.

Here, the Applicant (1) submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 that provided all of the statutorily required information; (2) timely paid the City’s filing fee; (3) did not change the Project dwelling unit count or square footage by more than 20 percent; and (4) submitted “an application for a development project within 180 days of the preliminary application submission . . . that includes all of the information required to process the development application consistent with Sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5.”20 As such, with both the submission of the preliminary application and the submission of a development application within 180 days that did not deviate by more than 20 percent in dwelling unit count or square footage, the Project is therefore complete for purposes of vesting, pursuant to Government Code Sections 65589.5(h)(5), 65589.5(o)(1), and 65941.1(c).

The City asserts, without any legal support, that the Project’s Development Application deviates in a material way from the corresponding preliminary application. However, Government Code 19 Jha at 26 (citing Chandis Securities Co. v. City of Dana Point (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 475, 485-86). 20 Government Code § 65941.1(d)(1).

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 9 ends

#510555280_v6
Section 65941.1(c) defines a “material change” exclusively as either a deviation in (1) the quantity of residential units or (2) the square footage of the construction, by more than 20 percent. The City’s Untimely Incompleteness Determination acknowledges that the Project complies with these restrictions. Nevertheless, the City created a new standard for a material change based on the Applicant also submitting a density bonus supplemental application.

The City’s purported new material change standard is not found within any law. Government Code Section 65941.1(d)(1) does not require the Development Application to maintain exact conformance with the corresponding preliminary application, nor does any other relevant law. So long as the Development Application does not deviate by more than 20 percent with respect to dwelling units and square footage, and so long as the “application for a development project . . . includes all of the information required to process the development application consistent with [Government Code] Sections 65940, 65941, and 65941.5,” any other purported material change to the housing development project is irrelevant.21
The City’s fundamental argument appears to be that the Builder’s Remedy provision of state law does not apply within the City, even though the Development Application does not deviate from the corresponding preliminary application by more than 20 percent in square footage or dwelling unit count. The City, by claiming in its Untimely Incompleteness Determination that there is a loss of vested rights to develop the Builder’s Remedy Project, is denying the Project as such denials are defined under the HAA, because without the Builder’s Remedy there is no Project here. As such, in addition to the Applicant’s appeal of the Untimely Incompleteness Determination on procedural grounds because it was simply late and was submitted days after the Project had been deemed complete as a matter of law, the Applicant further appeals City staff’s substantive determination that the Project’s Builder’s Remedy rights were somehow terminated. 21 Logically, deviations of up to 20 percent in a housing development project with a preliminary application may result in substantial changes to a development project (such as with use, massing, height, bulk, floor area, setbacks, open space, parking, etc.) and conflicts with development standards, but the relevant statutes do not allow any of the resulting changes and potential conflicts with development standards, except for deviations above 20 percent in square footage and dwelling unit count, to make a legal difference with respect to vested rights under the Housing Crisis Act and the HAA.

Beverly Hills City Council
October 15, 2024

Page 10 ends

#510555280_v6
The Applicant reiterates its appreciation for City staff’s work on this Project thus far, and the Applicant looks forward to working collaboratively with the City to entitle and construct this multifamily housing development project, which will be located near major transit, add substantially to the City’s property tax base, and provide critically needed housing in the City of Beverly Hills.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Ryan M. Leaderman
Luca Trumbull
Attachment: Appeal Application
ATTACHMENT 3
Preliminary Application
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
Preliminary Application for
A Housing Development Project
Preliminary Application Overview:

This preliminary application is provided pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the California Government Code for housing development projects. All requested information must be provided and applicable fees paid in order for this application to be considered submitted to the City. This preliminary application does not take the place of the entitlement application that is required for submittal to the City for consideration of a housing development project.

The entitlement application for the housing development project, including all of the information required to process the entitlement application, must be submitted to the City within 180 calendar days after the submittal of this preliminary application. If the appropriate entitlement application(s) are not submitted within 180 calendar days, the rights granted by this preliminary application shall become null and void.

If, after submittal of this preliminary application, an applicant revises a housing development such that the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20% or more, the housing development project shall not be considered to have submitted a valid preliminary application until the applicant resubmits the information to reflect the project revisions. If the applicant revises this preliminary application in any other way, including to revise any previously incorrect information, the preliminary application shall be deemed “submitted” on the date the revised, accurate information is submitted to the City.

Filing Fee:

This application shall not be considered submitted unless the applicable preliminary application fee has been paid to the City. Please see current Planning Department Fee Schedule here:
www.beverlyhills.org/planningapplications or call Community Development at (310)‐285‐1141.

Appointment & Staff Contact Information:

Please contact staff to schedule an appointment to submit a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development. 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.

Planning Form P‐04
Version: December 2019 Page 1 of 7
City of Beverly Hills – Preliminary Application for Housing Development

Page 2 of 7 ends

1. Project Address: 140 S. Camden Dr., Beverly Hills CA 90212 Assessor’s parcel numbers: 4328-027-006
Legal description of site: Tract #6649, Lot #46

2. Identify the existing uses on the project site and description of major physical alterations to the property upon which the project is proposed to be located.

Existing use is a multi-family residential building located within an R-4X2 zone. Major physical alterations include construction of a 15-story tower containing residential uses atop one subterranean story of related amenities and a threestory subterranean automated parking structure.

3. Please provide a site plan showing the location on the property, elevations showing design, color, and material, and the massing, height, and approximate square footage, of each building that is to be occupied (Attach to this form).

4. Describe the proposed land uses by number of units and square feet of residential and nonresidential development using the land use categories described in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.

Multi-family Residential – 26 units, 74,972 gross square feet Parking – 16,734 gross square feet

5. Describe the proposed number of parking spaces to be provided in the project. 19 parking spaces are provided per floor of subterranean parking, for a total of 57 parking spaces.

6. Are there any point sources of air or water pollutants in the project? If so, describe.

No point sources exist in this project.

7. Are there any species of special concern known to occur on the property? No species of special concern are known to occur on the property.

City of Beverly Hills – Preliminary Application for Housing Development

Page 3 of 7 ends

8. Check the applicable box(es) if the proposed project site is located within:

A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178.

Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).

A hazardous waste site that islisted pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.

A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100‐year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

A delineated earthquake faultzone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2.

A stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code.

9. Do any historic or cultural resources exist on the property? If so, describe.

No known historic or cultural resources exist on the property.

City of Beverly Hills – Preliminary Application for Housing Development

Page 4 of 7 ends

10. How many proposed below marking rate units are included in the proposed project? What are the levels of affordability?
20% of units would be set aside for lower income tenants, as defined in Health & Safety Code § 50079.5.

11. What are the number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers or parking reductions requested pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law? The Applicant elects to use the Builder’s Remedy to modify the applicable height and building story limits set forth in the City’s General Plan Land Use Designations Map and BHMC § 10-3-2804; to reduce the setback requirements provided in BHMC §§ 10-3-2806, 10-3-2807, and 10-3-2808; to reduce the open space requirements established in BHMC § 10-3-2803; and to increase the Project’s density beyond the limit set forth in the General Plan Land Use Designations Map and BHMC § 10-3-2801; Except for density, these will also be waivers under State Density Bonus Law. The Applicant reserves the right to seek additional incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions (though AB 2097 applies for zero parking required).

12. Are any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map being requested?
No approvals under the Subdivision Map Act are requested.

13. Are there any units on the project site that are proposed to be demolished as part of this application? How many of these units are currently occupied? Eight occupied dwelling units will be demolished and replaced in accordance with all applicable state and local laws.

14. Please include a site map showing a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code and an aerial site photograph showing existing site conditions of environmental site features that would be subject to regulations by a public agency, including creeks and wetlands.

15. Are there any recorded public easements, such as storm drain easements, water line City of Beverly Hills – Preliminary Application for Housing Development

Page 5 of 7 ends

easements or other public rights of way on the project site? If so, please show their precise location on the site plan.

There are no recorded public easements on the project site.

City of Beverly Hills – Preliminary Application for Housing Development

Page 7 of 7 ends

If the owner did not sign the preceding page, 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.

ATTACHMENT 4
October 3, 2024 Incomplete
Application Determination (1st
Round Review)
1 Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department

SENT VIA EMAIL
October 3, 2024 [Revised; supersedes incomplete letter sent via email on October 3, 2024 at 4:58 PM] Ryan Leaderman
400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
[email protected]
RE: 140 South Camden Drive – Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Tree Removal Permit for a Housing Development (PL2400348) - REVISED Dear Mr. Leaderman:

Staff has reviewed the application and materials for the above referenced application submitted on September 3, 2024, for the proposed construction of a new housing development at 140 South Camden Drive. The subject property is located in the City’s R-4X2, Multiple Residential Zone and has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density. At this time, the application has been deemed incomplete for the reasons outlined below.

City staff has organized its comments regarding your proposed project into five sections. The first section addresses the Preliminary Application related to the proposed project. The second section outlines the requirement to submit amendment applications to the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The third section evaluates whether the items outlined in the City’s Commercial, Mixed Use, and Multi-Family Residential Planning Application (“Planning Application”), Density Bonus Permit Application, City’s Tentative Maps Application, and Tree Removal Permit Application requirements have been submitted.

The fourth section includes comments related to City staff’s review of applicable Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) development standards. The fifth section includes comments from City departments regarding your proposed project.

Thereafter, on September 3, 2024, the property owner submitted applications for a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Tree Removal Permit applications for a housing development project (the “Development Application Project” or “DAP”), which was within 2 180 days of the PA submittal date noted above, as required by the statute (Govt. Code Section 65915(d).).

While the DAP is similar to the PA Project, the DAP includes new components that are not included in the PA.

First, the DAP has an increase in the number of proposed residential units from 26 to 27. However, despite the increase in total number of residential units, this did not result in an increase in the total numbers of floors or overall square footage according to the September 3, 2024, submittal package. The number of residential units remains within the 20% change allowed under Govt. Code Section 65941.1(c).

Second, the DAP proposes the following density bonus incentive/concessions and waivers:
• Incentive: “Relief from BHMC §10-3-4806 to allow affordable units to be located in a separate lot structure in the areas depicted on the plans, and in the sizes proposed.” • Waiver 1: “Height: an additional 161'-0" of overall height above the 33-foot height limit as set forth in BHMC §10-3-2804 consisting of 194’ building height.” • Waiver 2: “Stories: an additional 12 stories above the three-story limit as set forth in BHMC §10-3-2804 for a total of 15 stories.”
• Waiver 3: “Setbacks: BHMC §10-3-2806 a reduced front yard from 15’ to 0’, BHMC §10- 3-2807 a reduced side yard from 9' to 2-6”; BHMC §10-3-2808 a reduced rear yard from 15' to 2'-6".”
• Waiver 4: “Modulation: Reduction of the required 10’ set back to 5’ and a reduction of 1,500 SF setback face to 1,200 SF.”
• Waiver 5: “Outdoor Living Space: Per BHMC §10-3-2803 (Modulation Requirements) and BHMC §10-3-2803 (Outdoor Living Space), a reduction of the required 5,400 SF to 4,194 SF.”
• Waiver 6: “Minimum Floor Area for Dwelling Units: BHMC §10-3-2802, a reduction of minimum floor area requirements from the required 1,300 SF to 914 SF.” The PA, however, states “The applicant elects to use the Builder’s Remedy to modify the applicable height and building story limits set forth in the City’s General Plan Land Use Designations Map and BHMC §10-3-2804; to reduce the setback requirements provided BHMC §§10-3-2806, 10-3-2807, and 10-3-2808; to reduce the open space requirements established in BHMC §10-3-2803; and to increase the Project’s density beyond the limit set forth in the General Plan Land Use Designations Map and the BHMC §10-3-2801; Except for density, these will also be waivers under State Density Bonus Law. The Applicant reserves the right to seek additional incentives, concessions, waivers, or parking reductions (though AB 2097 applies for zero required parking).”
3 Government Code Section 65941.1 requires preliminary applications to include all of the information listed in that paragraph (a) including “(11) the number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers or parking reductions requested pursuant to Section 65915.” The DAP proposed density bonus incentives and waivers beyond those set forth in the PA. While Waivers 1, 2, 3, and 5 as noted above, were stated in the PA, the Incentive and Waivers 4, and 6 were not included or disclosed.

Because the PA did not identify the Incentive, Waiver 4, or Waiver 6, and because the DAP proposes the deviations as an integral part of the DAP, the DAP is inconsistent with the PA, and is not within the scope of the rights vested by the PA.

In addition, the incentive, as described in the DAP, seeks deviation from multiple standards in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-4806, each of which must be addressed individually as an incentive or waiver under density bonus law. The applicant must clarify and submit more detailed information as to each specific provision of Section 10-3-4806 from which it seeks to deviate. Similarly, Waiver 3 seeks deviations from front, side, and rear setbacks, and thus must be treated as three separate waivers.

Further, the assertion of a reservation of “the right to seek additional incentives, concessions, waivers,” is not contemplated by or permissible under the statute because it would eviscerate and make meaningless the requirement in Government Code Section 65941.1(a) to provide all the information in that paragraph. The statute provides no authority for such a reservation of rights. And, for the sake of argument, if there was such a right, it would enable any applicant to submit a preliminary application without required information such as, by way of example, proposed land uses and square footage of nonresidential development (§ 65941.1 (a)(4)); the number of parking spaces (§ 65941.1 (a)(4)); the number of proposed below market rate units and their affordability levels (§ 65941.1 (a)(10)); density bonus incentives, concessions and waivers ((§ 65941.1 (a)(11)); and whether or not a subdivision is contemplated (§ 65941.1 (a)(12)), and then claim vested rights to the ill-defined project described in the preliminary application. Government Code Section 65941.1 requires this information up front with the preliminary application if an applicant seeks to take advantage of the contemplated vested rights, and the correlative limitations on local agency land use authority. The statute is clear that a preliminary application is only “deemed to be submitted” once all of the required information has been provided to the local agency.

Fourth, information regarding whether there is any historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property is required to be provided in a PA. In review of the PA and the materials submitted for the Commercial, Mixed Use, and Multi-Family Residential Planning Application (the “Application”), information regarding historic or cultural resources was not provided, as required by Govt. Code Section 65941.1(a)(9). The 2004 Survey conducted by the City identified that the subject property appears to be a contributor to a district and appears eligible for local listing or designation. Additionally, the existing building is more than 45 years old. Based on this, the subject property is considered a potentially historic resource. However, as the PA did not include relevant information regarding the potentially historic or cultural resource, as required by the statute, the Department concludes that the PA did not include all the required information, and is therefore of no effect.

Based on the foregoing, it is City staff’s conclusion that the PA has lapsed and is no longer in effect as to the DAP.

2. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS REQUIRED The DAP involves the construction of a new 15-story housing development with 27 residential units, including a mix of condominiums and rental units, with a height of approximately 194’-0”. The proposed building includes four subterranean levels designated for an alternative parking facility to accommodate 44 vehicles.

The DAP is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and does not comply with several provisions of the City’s zoning code. These inconsistencies include, but are not limited to that:
1 The PA does not include any assertion of a reservation of rights to propose a subdivision as part of the subsequent application for a development project, and for the reasons explained in the density bonus concession/incentive and waiver discussion above in Section 1 of this letter, any such claimed waiver would be of no effect. 5 • The proposed height of approximately 194’-0” exceeds the maximum permissible height allowed in the General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density and the City’s multiple-residential zone.
• The proposed number of stories exceeds the maximum permissible stories allowed in a multiple-residential zone.
• The proposed residential density exceeds the maximum allowed density on the site. • The proposed mechanical parking, referred to in the BHMC as an “alternative parking facility,” is not permitted in an R-4 zone.

Although the application includes a request for a Density Bonus Permit and seeks incentives and waivers related to height, number of stories, and setbacks, the significant deviations from the General Plan land use designation and the applicable zoning provisions must be analyzed and processed pursuant to the City’s procedures, and nothing in the Housing Accountability Act (Govt. Code Sec. 65589.5.) currently 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 DAP application and for a completeness determination, 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 DAP, including the land use designation and zoning so as to accommodate the proposed housing development at the proposed height, which are prohibited in the General Plan land use designation and multiple-residential zone in which the property is located.

Furthermore, the amendment applications must resolve inconsistencies with the General Plan and zoning provisions by proposing development standards specific to the proposal. This will enable staff to effectively analyze the proposed project. Following the proper amendment process, in addition to the Development Plan Review (“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. Further, these applications are necessary to resolve any inconsistencies with the general plan and zoning should the project be approved.

3. PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND CHECKLISTS

3.1. This section evaluates whether the items outlined in the City’s Commercial, Mixed Use, and MultiFamily Residential Planning Application (“Planning Application”) have been submitted to determine application completeness. Corrections outlined below have been identified on the Redlined Plans with the corresponding correction number.
a. Electronic Submittal
The application materials associated with the proposed project were submitted electronically on September 3, 2024.
6 b. Public Notification Requirements
Public notification materials have been submitted in accordance with the city requirements as part of the September 3, 2024, submittal package.
c. Plans

1. Title Page
• The submitted architectural plans include a Title Page as Sheet G-001. The Title Page lists the project address as 140 Camden Drive and is missing the directional street of “South”. Update the Title Page to reflect the include the directional street.

The Title Page lists the property owner address as “2121 Avenue of the States, #800, Los Angeles, CA 90067”, while the Planning Application shows “513 North Palm Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210”. Clarify this discrepancy and update either the Planning Application or the Title Page of the plans accordingly.
• Sheet G-001 must show all required/allowed/existing vs. proposed development standards and must be updated as follows:

BHMC Section 10-3-2806. C.1, requires that the building be modulated so that a portion or portions of the building are setback an additional 5’ from the front setback line and the area of the modulation created by this additional setback shall be 4% of the aggregate principal building area or 1,500 square feet, whichever is less. Sheet G-001 inaccurately lists the additional modulation requirement as 10’ and this does not apply as the lot does not exceed 50’ in width.

Although the site qualifies for AB 2097, Sheet G-001 must show the total number of parking spaces required in accordance with BHMC Sections 10-3- 2816 and 10-3-2817.

Therefore, for the above reasons this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

2. Survey
The submittal package includes a stamped and signed Alta Survey as Sheet G-002 of the architectural plan set.
7 3. Site Plan
The submitted architectural plans include the existing Site Plan as Sheet G-003 and the proposed Site Plan as Sheet A-100. Update the sheets as follows as required by the Planning Application Checklist:

Update Sheet G-003 to include the square footage of the property, include dimensions of all existing structures, label all perimeter walls/fences, and indicate the size/species of existing trees. Further, Sheet G-003 labels an existing Mexican Fan Palm tree located within the front yard as a plant. Revise the sheet to correctly identify all existing trees on the subject property and ensure to indicate the size and species of the existing trees.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

4. Floor Plans
The den shown on Sheets A-114 is classified as a bedroom according to the definition of "BEDROOM" in BHMC Section 10-3-100. As a result, this area must be counted as a bedroom, and the project should be updated accordingly, with particular attention to the proposed affordable unit types as BHMC Section 10-3- 4806 requires that affordable units contain a proportional number of bedrooms as market rates units.

The submitted architectural plans did not include a floor area blocking study, which is needed to verify floor area calculations. While City staff recognizes that Sheet G-001 provides gross floor area figures and an “Area Summary” table, net floor area figures must be calculated in accordance with BHMC Section 10-3-100 definition of FLOOR AREA. Submit a blocking study should be comprised of measurable blocks and clearly delineate between exempt and non-exempt areas.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

5. Roof Plan
The Roof Plan on Sheet A-116 does not indicate the location of proposed gutters and downspouts. Update the sheet to include this required information. 8 Therefore, for the reason outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

6. Adjacent Property Information
Update Sheet A-100 to include neighboring properties to the east and the distances to all neighboring properties and structures.

Update Sheets A301, A-302, A-401, and A-402 to show the height and distances from adjacent structures.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

7. Elevations/Renderings/Sections
Proposed building elevations were provided as Sheets A-301 and A-302. However, existing building elevations from all directions were not provided in the plan set.

Provide as required by the City’s Planning Application.

Sheets A-401, A-402 (building sections), A-301, A-302 (elevations), and G-001 do not show height measurements or provide datum points, pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-100 definition of HEIGHT OF BUILDING outlined below:
“B. Multiple-Family Residential Zones: Except as otherwise provided for walls and fences, in multiple-family residential zones, "height" shall mean the distance from the highest point of the natural ground level at the perimeter of a building or structure or from the highest point of the public sidewalk adjoining the lot or parcel upon which the building or structure is to be erected, whichever is higher, to the highest element of the building or structure.”
Provide details of architectural features including callouts, cut sheets, photos, etc.

The proposed building sections included as Sheets A-401 and A-402 as well as the proposed elevations (Sheets A-301 and A-302) do not include exterior light fixtures to scale and must be provided.

Lastly, the elevations and sections fail to show all code-required and proposed setbacks and must be provided.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness. 9 8. Landscape Plan/Elevations
Sheets L-100 and L-200 list the type, size, quantity, and location of new plants, but pictures of the proposed plant species are missing and must be submitted.

A Hardscape Summary is provided on Sheet L-100. Revise the Sheet to clearly indicate the area calculations for the paving/hardscape within the required front yard. The current table is unclear about what areas correspond to the proposed paving plan.

Provide a landscape lighting plan. If there is no lighting proposed, please indicate this on the plans and application. Provide cut sheets of any proposed landscape lighting fixtures.

Provide an elevation that includes the proposed landscaping, to scale, at the time of planting.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

9. Demolition Plan and Calculations
Not required for the proposed project as it involves construction of a new building. d. Residential Demolition and Development Requirements
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as amended by SB 8 (California Government Code Section 66300 et seq.), commonly referred to as the HCA, prohibits the approval of any proposed housing development project on a site that will require the demolition of existing dwelling units or occupied or vacant “protected units” unless the project replaces those units.

Additionally, the HCA requires new housing development projects to provide at least as many residential dwelling units that exist on the property within the past five (5) years prior to the submission of the project application.

As the proposal involves demolishing eight existing units, the applicant must submit and complete the City’s Replacement Unit Determination (RUD) application process and obtain a formal determination on the type of replacement units required for the project.

City records show that a RUD application was not filed prior to the submission of the proposed project application, as outlined in the City’s Planning Application requirements.

To assist in facilitating the submittal process, City staff emailed the RUD application to Associate Planner, Christine Delostrinos on October 3, 2024. The Applicant and Representative listed on the Planning Application were copied on the email. Ms.

Delostrinos will provide further instructions regarding the next steps for processing. 10 e. Environmental and Technical Studies/Plans
 Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis and/or Local Traffic Assessment (LTA) Submit a Trip Generation Analysis (TRA) to confirm if the project generates fewer than 50 peak-hour vehicle trips. If the TRA shows fewer than 50 trips, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) is not required. If it exceeds 50 trips, an LTA will be necessary. Additional fees for third-party review will apply.  Construction Management Plan
Based on the scope of the proposed project, submittal of a Construction Management Plan is required. The Plan must provide 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).
• Proposed locations for the staging of construction materials and equipment. • Anticipated closures of any right-of-way area (alley/street) and timelines for such closures.
 Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Based on the scope of the proposed project, submit a preliminary grading, draining, and erosion control plan.
 Other Environmental Studies
Additional studies (e.g., noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, water quality, etc., may be required depending on the level of environmental review required. These studies are typically prepared by a City-managed consultant at full cost to the applicant.  Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
In accordance with BHMC Section 9-4-508, the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements apply to new development projects. This project will result in at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, and thus a LID plan is required, to show compliance with the City’s LID standards.

For question related to LID requirements, please contact Trevor Alsop at 310-288-2837 or by email at [email protected].
f. Historic Preservation
The project site is currently improved with an eight-unit apartment building that was constructed in 1931, according to City records (Building Permit No. 11097) and is therefore older than 45 years. Therefore, for purposes of evaluating the project site and the existing structure to determine whether there would be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act 11 (CEQA), a historic assessment report will need to be prepared and submitted to the City as part of this review. Please also see comments below, under Correction No. 5.c., from City staff regarding historic preservation. Thus, the applications are incomplete at this time because the historic assessment report has not been submitted.

Once the historic assessment report is prepared and submitted to the City, staff will review the document and provide comments on the report. Additionally, the City may also utilize the city’s historic preservation consultant to peer review the report for additional comments and accuracy. Costs incurred by the city in reviewing the historic preservation report shall be invoiced to the applicant as part of the review of the project. g. Other Supporting Studies and Information
 Density Bonus Supplemental Form
(i) The City’s Density Bonus Supplemental Form was provided in the submittal package. The application references Exhibit D on page 2, under the Incentives/Concessions section, and Exhibit D states:
“1. Relief from BHMC § 10-3-4806: Standards for inclusionary units to allow affordable units to be located in a separate lot structure in the areas depicted on the plans, and in the sized proposed.”
The requested incentive appears to seek deviations from the entirety of BHMC Section 10-3-4806, which includes several development standards. Each specific development standard must be treated separately as either an incentive/concession or a waiver, rather than framing the incentive broadly to cover a number of different standards.
(ii) Wavier 3, as described above, must be separated into three waiver requests - one for the front setback deviation, one for the side setback deviation, and one for the rear setback deviation.
(iii) The assertion of a reservation of “the right to modify, and, subtract waivers and incentives as the Project goes through the application completeness process” is not contemplated by or permissible under the statute because it would eviscerate and 12 make meaningless the requirement in Government Code Section 65941.1(a) to provide all the information in that paragraph. The statute provides no authority for such a reservation of rights. Government Code Section 65941.1 requires this information up front with the preliminary application if an applicant seeks to take advantage of the contemplated vested rights, and the correlative limitations on local agency land use authority. The statute is clear that a preliminary application is only “deemed to be submitted” once all of the required information has been provided to the local agency.
(iv) The Incentive/Concessions and Waivers section of the Density Bonus Supplemental Form requires inclusion of “adequate information for the City to make a determination on the [incentive/concession or waiver] request.” The application materials include no information in support of the requested incentive or waivers.

Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65915(a)(3)(D)(i)(III) the City hereby notifies the applicant that the application materials do not include adequate information for the City to make a determination on the various incentives/concessions and waivers, and in some cases doesn’t even adequately describe the incentives or waivers being sought.2
For the foregoing reasons, the Density Bonus application is deemed incomplete.  Inclusionary Housing Plan
An Inclusionary Housing Plan was submitted as required by the City’s Planning Application as Exhibit A to the Planning Application. However, the Inclusionary Housing Plan does not comply with BHMC Section 10-3-4806.A. Specifically, the affordable units are not reasonably distributed throughout the development, as all affordable units are located on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Additionally, the project includes 26 two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit, yet all affordable units only include two-bedrooms, which is not proportional to the market-rate units.

Lastly, while the market-rate units include private outdoor living spaces, the affordable units do not have any private outdoor living spaces. Revise the Inclusionary Housing Plan to comply with BHMC Section 10-3-4806.A.  Operational Plan
An Operational Plan was included in the application package.  Rooftop Operations Plans
A rooftop operations plan was included in the submittal package. 2 The City will consider whether any additional incentive/concession or waiver requests requested by the applicant in response to this letter constitute a new density bonus application. 13  Parking Study and/or Parking Accessibility Diagrams The proposal includes the use of an alternative parking facility to accommodate a total of 44 vehicles. As a result, submit a Parking Study that analyses the proposed automated parking system and its operations. The Parking Study should also outline how parking will be managed for both guests and residents.  Arborist Report
An arborist report prepared by a licensed arborist was included in the submittal package. However, the Introduction section of the report must be updated to accurately describe existing site conditions, as it states that there is a single-story apartment building on the project site, while there is actually a two-story apartment building.

Secondly, the report indicates that a total of two trees are proposed for removal, including one City tree, a Chinese Flame Tree, and states that no replacement trees will be proposed.

Because the arborist indicates the removal of one city tree, 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. Please reach out to Ken Pfalzgraf at (310) 285-2540 or by email at [email protected].
 Loading Analysis
A loading analysis is not required as the proposed project includes the construction of a housing project without a commercial component.
 Required Findings
Justification for the required findings related to the requested Development Plan Review and Tree Removal Permit were included in the submittal package. However, the findings for the requested Vesting Tentative Tract Map, pursuant to Section 66474 of the California Government Code, were not submitted. Provide justification that incudes the required findings for all requested entitlements.

Therefore, for the reason outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.
 Shade and Shadow Study
Refer to Sheet(s): G-004
The architectural plan set includes a "Sun Study" on Sheet G-004; however, the diagrams for the summer equinox at 9:00 PM and the winter equinox at 6:00 AM 14 and 9:00 PM are missing, as required by the Planning Application checklist. Please provide the missing diagrams.

Therefore, for the reason outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.
 Common Interest Development Supplemental Materials
Not required as the proposal does not include conversion of an existing building to a common interest development.
h. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
Upon review of the architectural plans, Building Code Requirements as outlined in the Planning Application checklist were not addressed. Submit the following:

Building Code Analysis:
• Type of construction, allowable area, and height per Chapter 5 of the Building Code (Per BHMC Section 3701.1, except as provided in Section 3702, all building and structures hereafter erected, constructed, or moved within any commercial or industrial zone shall be of type I, II-A, or III-A construction, and shall comply with other provisions of this code) • Exiting Analysis per Chapter 10 of Building Code (e.g., number of exists from spaces and floors/occupied roofs, exit separation, size of the exits, common path of travel, exit access travel distance, etc.) Plumbing fixture analysis per Building and Plumbing Codes Accessibility plans per Chapters 11A and 11B of the Building Code:
• Accessible path of travel (e.g., parking, restrooms, building entrance, vertical access such as elevators and ramps, etc.)
• Accessible features e.g., door clearances, elevation changes, reach ranges, etc.)
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging analysis and plans
o Per CA Green Building Standards Code with the City of Beverly Hills Amendments (BHMC Section 9-1-1102)

3.2. This section evaluates whether the items outlined in the City’s Application for Subdivision ([Vesting] Tentative Map) (Attachment 3) have been submitted. However, the submission package received did not include the application itself or the necessary listed items. As a result, the application is incomplete due to the missing documents and information listed below:

1. Application
Included in the application submittal package.

2. Environmental Assessment Application
Included in the application submittal package.
15 3. Title Policy
Failed to submit.

4. Soil Report
Failed to submit.

5. Tentative Tract Map and Buildings Plans
Working drawings are not necessary for this application, but the preliminary plans shall show enough detailed to indicate that the project complies to the BHMC, according to the application.

Electronic copies of the proposed Tentative Tract Map and Building plans were provided in the application submittal package.

6. Two (2) sets of self-adhesive gummed labels with names and addresses of all property owners and residential occupants for multiple-family residential and commercial zones within a distance of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the project as well as all property owners of single-family residential zones within 500 feet. The names/address must be numbered with the corresponding numbers indicated on the radius map. Include applicant/agent address as well.

Mailing list/labels should be on 8½" X 11" sheets. Include a written affidavit indicating the mailing list is complete and up to date. Do not abbreviate city names. A charge per label is required to cover the cost of postage and handling. See current Fee Schedule for the cost of mailing and publication of the newspaper notice.

Electronic noticing materials were provided in the application submittal package.

7. 12 copies of a map (minimum size 8½" X 11") indicating each parcel of land and all land use within a distance of 500' of the exterior boundaries of the project. Parcels within 300' for commercial, industrial and multi-family residential and 500' for Single Family Residential Zones must be numbered with the corresponding address number of the mailing list.

Electronic noticing materials were provided in the application package.

8. Rent Stabilization Information Sheet (needed for all existing multiple family residential rental units; attached).

9. Water Unit Fixture Count.

Failed to submit.

10. (For condominiums) Three copies of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions or, if there are no covenants, conditions, or restrictions, any other agreements between any person who has an ownership interest in the project and who has the right to reside in the project which will 16 apply to the condominium project. These covenants, conditions, and restrictions or agreements are to include the following provisions:
a. Provisions for the maintenance of the common areas of the project by the City in the event of default in the maintenance of such common areas by individual owners of the units and for reimbursement to the City that result
b. For residential condominiums:
i. Provisions restricting the use of each residential unit to use as a single-family residence, and
ii. Provisions establishing each individual unit owner's exclusive right to the use of not less than two specifically designated covered parking spaces for each unit, and
c. A provision that any other provision required to be included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or any agreements by the City shall not be amended or deleted without the written consent of the City Council.

Failed to submit.

11. Condominium Conversion Tenant Notice (to be completed by the owner 60 days before application can be filed; see attached).

12. Rent Stabilization Form.

13. Fee.

Multiple-application fee was paid.

3.3. The submitted application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of a City tree and one tree located in the front setback area of the subject property. However, the tree regulations outlined in BHMC Sections 10-3.2900-2906 apply only to single-family properties and are not applicable to multi-family properties. Therefore, a Tree Removal Permit is not necessary for the removal of the existing Mexican Fan Palm Tree. Nonetheless, as previously outlined, consultation with the City’s arborist is required regarding the proposed removal of the City tree.

4. ANALYSIS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ADDITIONAL COMMENTS For the reasons outlined in Section 2 of this letter, the DAP is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and does not comply with several provisions of the City’s zoning code, including but not limited to residential density, height, number of stories, and alternative parking facilities. City staff has conducted a preliminary analysis of the project in accordance with BHMC development standards, with additional comments as outlined below:

Article 28 of the BHMC: Multiple-Family Residential Development Standards 17 A. Density
Refer to Sheet(s): G-001
The proposed project includes the development of 27 units on a 6,375.82 SF lot and the application materials include a request for Density Bonus. The City’s General Plan details the applicable density requirements for multi-family properties in the city. The General Plan allows for a density of 50 du/acre (or 1 unit for every 871.2 SF of lot area). As such, the applicable density requirements would facilitate 8 dwelling units on the project site (6,375.82 / 871.2 = 7.32 units). Fractional figures are rounded up to the nearest whole number.

To qualify for an initial 50% standard density bonus increase, the project must provide at least 15% of the base units as very low-income units. The base density of 8 units is multiplied by 15%, which results in a total of two low income units required in order to qualify for the 50% density bonus.

To qualify for an additional 50% Density Bonus increase (“stacked”), the project must provide at least 15% of the base units as moderate income units. The base density of 8 multiplied again by 15%, results in a total of two moderate income units required in order to qualify for an additional 50% density bonus. An additional two of the 8 units must be designated as moderate income units. The total number of additional units for the standard density bonus is calculated by multiplying the base density of 8 by 50%, resulting in 4 bonus units.

The proposal, utilizing both the standard and stacked Density Bonus, would allow for a total of 12 units. However, the proposal includes 27 units, which exceeds the allowable limit under the Density Bonus request and is therefore inconsistent with Density Bonus regulations.

B. Minimum Floor Area For Dwelling Units
Refer to Sheet(s): G-001, A-102, A-103
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2802, the minimum dwelling unit requirements for new development on properties located within a multi-family zone 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 Upon review, the residential portion of the project consists of 27 dwelling units consisting of the following dwelling unit types and sizes:
• Two-bedrooms: 26 units of 914 SF – 1,833 SF
• Three-bedrooms: 1 unit of 3,797 SF (See Correction No. 3.1.c.4). 18 The application submittal package includes a waiver request as a part of the Density Bonus Permit. However, the PA did not include this specific waiver, and the PA has expired.

Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with the multi-family zoning requirements for minimum floor area of two-bedroom units.

C. Outdoor Living Space Required
Refer to Sheet(s): G-001, A-104, A-114, A-115
a. Required Outdoor Living Space: – The proposal is inconsistent with BHMC Section 10- 3-2803, which requires 200 SF of outdoor living space per dwelling unit for new developments in multi-family zones.

While the proposed development of 27 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 5,400 SF of open space. The Outdoor Living Space table on Sheet G-001 shows 4,194 SF of outdoor living space, which is 1,206 SF below the required amount. Additionally, the architectural plans do not meet BHMC outdoor living space dimensions as outlined below, so the actual total is less than 4,194 SF. b. Outdoor Living Space Dimensions – The proposal is inconsistent with BHMC Sections 10-3-2803.A and 10-3-2803.B. Outdoor living spaces must either be private, with a minimum dimension of 6’ on all sides, or common, with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides. Outdoor living spaces that do not meet these dimensions do not count toward the required outdoor living space for the project.

City staff measured the proposed private outdoor living areas using the plan sheet scale, as they were not dimensioned. Some balconies fail to meet the minimum size for private outdoor living space of 6’, and the common outdoor living area is narrower than 15’.

Therefore, neither the private nor common outdoor living spaces can be counted toward the required total of 5,400 square feet of outdoor living area for the project.

Revise the plans to show the dimensions, including the length, width, and depth of each private outdoor living space.

D. Height Limits of Buildings in Multiple-Family Residential Zones Refer to Sheet(s): G-001, A-301 – A-402
Maximum Allowable Height – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2804, no building or structure located on a site that is less than or equal to sixty feet (60') in width shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty three feet (33') in height. Based on the survey provided for the project the project site has a width of 50’, which allows for development with a maximum of three stories and up to 33’ in height. As proposed, the project is designed as a 15-story building with a height of 194’-0”. The proposed height and number of stories exceeds the allowable height limits in BHMC Section 10-3-2804.
19 Pursuant to the Density Bonus request, the applicant is seeking waivers for height and number of stories. However, the proposed number of dwelling units is inconsistent with Density Bonus regulations.

E. Parking
Refer to Sheet(s): G-001, A-100P2-A-101
a. Residential Parking
Per BHMC Section 10-3-2816, the parking requirements for properties in the City's multifamily zone are as follows:
• Two-bedroom units: 2.5 spaces per unit
• Three-bedroom units: 3 spaces per unit
The project includes 26 two-bedroom units and 1 three-bedroom unit, requiring:
• Two-bedroom: 65 spaces
• Three-bedroom: 3 spaces
• Total required: 68 spaces
b. Guest Parking
Per BHMC Section 10-3-2817, guest parking is required at a rate of 0.25 spaces per unit.

For 27 units, this results in 7 guest spaces (rounded up), bringing the total parking requirement to 75 spaces.

The submitted architectural plans propose 44 parking spaces within an alternative parking facility. The project also includes a Density Bonus request, allowing for reduced parking requirements.

The application materials indicate that the project seeks to utilize parking relief under Government Code Section 65863.2 (AB 2097). Accordingly, documentation showing the project’s proximity to a qualifying major transit stop must be included.

However, the project proposes an alternative parking facility in a residentially zoned property, which is inconsistent with BHMC Section 10-3-2730.4, as this section allows alternative parking facilities only in commercially zoned properties.

F. Multiple-Family Residential Zones; Front Setbacks and Modulation Requirements Refer to Sheet(s): G-001
BHMC Section 10-3-2806 details the applicable front modulation standards for properties located within a multiple-family residential 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, provide front modulation diagrams showing the required amount of modulation and the modulation proposed for the project. 20 Additionally, the diagrams shall show the depth of the modulation provided per floor and calculations for the aggregate principal building area.

Pursuant to the Density Bonus request, the applicant is seeking waivers to allow a reduction in the modulation requirements. However, the PA did not include this specific waiver, and the PA has expired.

G. Front Yard Paving
Refer to Sheet(s): A-100, L-100
BHMC Section 10-3-2813 details the applicable front yard paving standards for properties located within a multi-family 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 front yard paving designs provided on the set of plans, the project would provide a driveway that would match the width of the planned curb cut (apron) and one walkway that exceeds 5' in width, which is not permissible.

Therefore, the proposed walkway is inconsistent with BHMC Section 10-3-2813.

H. Building Setbacks
Refer to Sheet(s): A-100, A-101 – A-115, A-401, A-402
a. Front Setback – The required front yard setback for the project site is 15’-0”. However, the proposed structure proposes a 5’ setback on floors 1 and 2, and a 0’ setback for floors 3 and above.

Pursuant to the Density Bonus request, the applicant is seeking a waiver to allow a reduction in the front yard setback from 15’ to 0’.
b. Side Yard Setbacks – BHMC Section 10-3-2807 details the applicable side yard setbacks for properties located within a multi-family residential 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.

However, the proposed side yard setback is 2’-6”. Pursuant to the Density Bonus request, the applicant is seeking a waiver to allow a reduction in the side yard setback to 2’-6”. c. Setbacks Throughout Plan Set - Show all code-required front, side, and rear setback lines on the site plan, floor plans, sections, and elevation on the set of plans. d. 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 21 the grade of the adjacent sidewalk. Additionally, that 2'-0” depression shall be used to provide planting areas within the front yard setback area.

As shown on Sheets A-401 and A-402, 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 Camden Drive, which is not permissible. Therefore, as designed this proposal is inconsistent with BHMC Section 10-3-2811.

BHMC Section 9-3-1: Rubbish Storage and Handling Facilities I. RUBBISH STORAGE
Refer to Sheet(s): A-101
BHMC Section 9-3-1 details the applicable rubbish storage standards for residential and commercial development. As proposed, the project would include a trash room of a size of 229 SF located on Level L01 of the building. 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. Provide the dimensions and size of the trash room on the set of plans.

Additional Comments
J. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Once the items outlined in this letter are addressed and the application has been deemed complete, the City will determine the required level of analysis in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The applicant will be responsible for covering the costs associated with the preparation of any necessary environmental documentation, including, but not limited to, fees for consultants retained by the City.

K. SURVEY
Refer to Sheet(s): A-101
The submittal package includes a stamped and signed Alta Survey as Sheet G-002 of the architectural plan set. However, the survey incorrectly references the City of Los Angeles in the “Zoning” information table. Update the survey to reflect the City of Beverly Hills.

L. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS
Refer to the redlined set of plans for additional comments/corrections that must be addressed. Each comment on the plans is hereby incorporated into this letter for reference. 22 5. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
As part of the city’s entitlement review process, the application materials for the proposal were routed to various departments. Their comments are listed below:
a. Development Services Program (Building and Safety) Comments Attached to this letter as Exhibit A
b. Public Works Comments
Attached to this letter as Exhibit B
c. Preliminary Historic Review Comments
The above referenced property [140 South Camden Drive] was not designed by a Master Architect.

However, the 2004 Survey conducted by the City identified that the subject property appears to be a contributor to a district and appears eligible for local listing or designation. No historic hold with respect to the removal of the structure from the site will be placed on the property. However, consideration of California Register and National Register eligibility were not assessed and may require further review in conjunction with a CEQA analysis of the site. d. Fire Department Comments

1. Applicant to confirm all highrise requirements per code are incorporated into the plans/designs when architectural plans are officially submitted.

2. Applicant to provide excerpt from Appendix B and confirm with Public Works that fire flow requirements can be met. This information should be shown on the Project Info sheet.

3. Fire hydrants to be in compliance with CFC Appendix C – further verification required.

4. Sprinkler (including standpipes, fire pumps, etc), fire alarm, DAS, etc plans would also be separate permits.

5. Applicant to refer to fuel mod guideline for information about which plants are not allowed.

Although this property is not located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, it would be beneficial to the property to keep in mind what vegetation is more fire resistive than others https://beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/1796/Fuel-Modification-Guideline-PDF.

6. Any rooftops or gathering places would be subject to special event fire permits as required.

7. 1010.2.12.1 Access-controlled elevator lobby egress doors requirements to be verified at official submittal.

8. Mechanical/automated parking to be reviewed for compliance and FD access at official submittal.

Please provide a detailed response to each correction noted in this letter, as well as any additional comments included in the redlined plans, in a clear and organized format (e.g., excel sheet). Each response should correspond to the specific correction listed. This will ensure that the project complies with all applicable development standards. Please provide this response letter when resubmitting your project.

In response to the incomplete letter and revisions made to the project plans, please note that additional corrections may be required during the review of the revised project. 23 Once the items above have been addressed and submitted, the application will once again be assessed. If you have any questions regarding the above comments, please call me directly at (310) 285-1192 or email [email protected].

Sincerely,
_________________________________
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
for Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
Attachments:
1) Redlined Plans
Exhibits:

A. Development Services Program (Building and Safety) Comments B. Public Works Comments

This firm represents Wilshire Camden LLC (the “Applicant”) in connection with its application for a multifamily residential housing development project that includes 27 multifamily dwelling units, including six income-restricted units, associated parking, and residential amenities (the “Project”) at 140 South Camden Drive (the “Property”) in Beverly Hills (the “City”), California.

This is a Builder’s Remedy1project that follows the SB 330 preliminary application that was filed on March 15, 2024.

The Applicant respectfully submits this resubmission package in response to the City’s October 3, 2024 correspondence indicating that the initial application materials were incomplete. As explained in the enclosed materials, the Applicant addressed all of the City’s incompleteness items via revised architectural plans or additional submittals requested by the City, and the Applicant also identified various items with which it respectfully disagrees are required at the completeness review phase of the entitlement process.
1 Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) is colloquially known as the “Builder’s Remedy.” The Project is also more broadly subject to the protections of the Housing Accountability Act and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (“SB 330”).

Thomas Gorham
December 30, 2024

Page 2 ends

#514102144_v3
As stated in prior materials, the Applicant reiterates that this is a Builder’s Remedy project, where 20 percent of the dwelling units will be made available for low income residents. While the Applicant additionally seeks the benefits available pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, please note that the Applicant does not strictly require a density bonus, incentives, or waivers of development standards under that law because, under the Builder’s Remedy, inconsistency with the City’s General Plan or zoning code development standards cannot form a lawful basis to deny this Project. Thus, the Applicant’s incentive and waiver requests supplement the Applicant’s underlying argument that the City may not deny the Project due to inconsistencies with local standards. The Applicant’s inclusion of waiver or incentive requests is in no way an abandonment of this underlying position.

Similarly, recall that the Applicant submitted its initial application on August 30, 2024. Pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act, the City was required to respond to the Applicant’s submission with a notification of whether the materials are complete within 30 calendar days.2 Because the City’s October 3, 2024 incompleteness determination was published more than 30 calendar days after the Applicant’s initial August 30, 2024 submission, the Applicant’s August 30, 2024 submission package was deemed complete as a matter of law on September 30, 2024, the 31st day after Applicant provided the City with these Project materials. 3 The Applicant has appealed the
incompleteness determination that forms the basis for this resubmission, and the Applicant’s submission of these responsive materials shall not be interpreted to constitute a forfeiture of the underlying position that this Project was deemed complete as a matter of law on September 30, 2024. Rather, these resubmitted materials illustrate the Applicant’s good faith and eagerness to work cooperatively with the City to entitle and construct this much-needed housing development project in Beverly Hills.

Additionally, given the location of the Project within a Transit Priority Area and a Priority Growth Area per the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) within ½ mile of the new Metro heavy rail transit stop along Wilshire Boulevard and Beverly Drive, while we have not discussed California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) review for the Project, the Applicant believes that the Project would be statutorily exempt under CEQA as a transit priority project. As such, on behalf of the Applicant we would like to meet with you to discuss the potential CEQA review for the Project given the CEQA statutory exemption available.
2 Gov. Code § 65943(a). See also HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Berkeley, dated December 7, 2023 (accessible here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/berkeley-tahau331-120723.pdf) at 2; HCD’s Letter of Technical Assistance to the City of Santa Ana, dated April 27, 2023 (accessible here: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/SantaAna-TA04272023.pdf) at 2; HCD’s Notice of Violation to the City of Elk Grove, dated October 12, 2022 (accessible here:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/elk-grove-NOV-101222.pdf) at 4. 3 Gov. Code § 65943(a).

Thomas Gorham
December 30, 2024

Page 3 ends

#514102144_v3
The Applicant appreciates the City’s diligent review of these materials and looks forward to working closely with the City to entitle and construct this Builder’s Remedy Project.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Ryan M. Leaderman
Luca Trumbull
Attachments:
1 st
Incompleteness Letter Response
Revised Plans
Arborist Report
AUTOParkt Operations Plan & Site-Specitif Requirements
Geotechical Report
Historic Resources Assessment
Preliminary LID Report
Support for Incentives & Waivers
VTTM Findings
Trip Generation Analysis
HCD Notice of Violation to the City of Beverly Hills, dated December 2, 2024 Water Unit Fixture Count
1 Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
Community Development Department

Staff has reviewed the application and materials for the above referenced application submitted on September 3, 2024, forthe proposed construction of a new housing development at 140 South Camden Drive. The subject property is located in the City’s R-4X2, Multiple Residential Zone and has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density. At this time, the application has been deemed incomplete for the reasons outlined below.

While the DAP is similar to the PA Project, the DAP includes new components that are not included in the PA.

Third, the DAP includes a vesting tract map proposal for an airspace subdivision and condominium units. The DAP includes a mix of for-sale condominiums and rental units, whereas only rental units were contemplated in PA. Further, the PA states: “No approvals under the Subdivision Map Act are requested.”
Government Code Section 65941.1 requires preliminary applications to include all of the information listed in that paragraph (a) including “(12) Whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, 4 including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map, are being requested.”
Because the PA Project, on the face of the application, states there is no subdivision contemplated, and because a subdivision map is proposed as an integral part of the DAP, the DAP is inconsistent with the PA, and is not within the scope of the rights vested by the PA.1 Fourth, information regarding whether there is any historic or cultural resources known to exist on the property is required to be provided in a PA. In review of the PA and the materials submitted forthe Commercial, Mixed Use, and Multi-Family Residential Planning Application (the “Application”), information regarding historic or cultural resources was not provided, as required by Govt. Code Section 65941.1(a)(9). The 2004 Survey conducted by the City identified that the subject property appears to be a contributor to a district and appears eligible for local listing or designation. Additionally, the existing building is more than 45 years old. Based on this, the subject property is considered a potentially historic resource. However, as the PA did not include relevant information regarding the potentially historic or cultural resource, as required by the statute, the Department concludes that the PA did not include all the required information, and is therefore of no effect.

Based on the foregoing, it is City staff’s conclusion that the PA has lapsed and is no longer in effect as to the DAP.

RESPONSE:

Thank you for confirming that the DAP remains compliant with the 20 percent residential dwelling unit quantity and square footage criteria established in Gov. Code Section 65941.1(c).

However, the rest of the items raised in this section of the City’s incompleteness determination letter appear to present the City’s legal argument that differences other than a 20 percent change in dwelling unit count and square footage between the preliminary application and the development application are valid grounds to divest the Project from vested rights afforded pursuant to the Housing Crisis Act/Government Code Sections 65941.1 and 65589.5. A valid preliminary application was submitted, as well as a valid development application. As the Project remains a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act, any change other than a greater than 20 percent deviation in square footage or dwelling unit count in a development application as compared to the preliminary application does not divest a project from vesting. A preliminary application is just that -- preliminary. As the Project goes through the iterative process and is refined, changes are made that of course change the project and potential anticipated entitlements. All the material 5 required for a valid preliminary application was submitted to vest under the law, as was all the material for the development application. Differences between the two other than the 20 percent cap for dwelling unit and square footage do not result in divestment of vested rights as the law does not provide such a remedy.

Additionally, please see the attached California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) December 2, 2024 Notice of Violation (“NOV”) letter that was addressed to the Director of Community Development of Beverly Hills and specifically references this Project. This HCD NOV letter states that “the preliminary application remains vested unless the number of residential units or square footage of construction proposed in the full application changes from the preliminary application by 20 percent or more.” In accordance with HCD, the Project does not lose vesting as asserted.

The DAP is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and does not comply with several provisions of the City’s zoning code. These inconsistencies include, but are not limited to that:
1 The PA does not include any assertion of a reservation of rights to propose a subdivision as part of the subsequent application for a development project, and for the reasons explained in the density bonus concession/incentive and waiver discussion above in Section 1 of this letter, any such claimed waiver would be of no effect. 6 • The proposed height of approximately 194’-0” exceeds the maximum permissible height allowed in the General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density and the City’s multiple-residential zone.
• The proposed number of stories exceeds the maximum permissible stories allowed in a multiple-residential zone.
• The proposed residential density exceeds the maximum allowed density on the site. • The proposed mechanical parking, referred to in the BHMC as an “alternative parking facility,” is not permitted in an R-4 zone.

RESPONSE:

Neither a General Plan Amendment nor Zoning Amendment is required for completeness since (1) these legislative requests are not listed on the City’s development application for a Builder’s Remedy project; (2) they are not necessary for a Builder’s Remedy project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5 et seq.); (3) HCD has explicitly told the City that it cannot mandate a zone text amendment for Builder’s Remedy applications1; and (4) our governor has enacted into law AB 1893 – passed by our legislature – that explicitly and unambiguously states that no jurisdiction may require a General Plan or 1 See HCD Letter to the City of Beverly Hills dated June 26, 2024 (accessible here:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/beverly-hills-hau-1071-nov082224.pdf); see also HCD Letter to the City of Beverly Hills dated December 2, 2024 (attached). 7 Zoning Amendment for a Builder’s Remedy project.

HCD’s December 2, 2024 NOV letter to the City unambiguously rejects the notion that a Builder’s Remedy project needs a General Plan Amendment and/or zone change. HCD stated “[t]he HAA is clear that a project protected by the Builder’s Remedy may not be disapproved for inconsistency with a jurisdiction’s general plan land use designation and zoning ordinance. Accordingly, a jurisdiction that refuses to process or approve a project subject to the Builder’s Remedy due to the applicant’s refusal to submit a GPA/ZC (requested or required by the jurisdiction to resolve such inconsistency) violates the HAA.” Pursuant to HCD’s interpretation of state housing law, the Applicant respectfully rejects the City’s contention that a General Plan Amendment and/or zone change is required. HCD’s letter is included in in the Applicant’s resubmission materials. The City’s demand that the Project receive a General Plan Amendment and zone change represents a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.

3. PLANNING APPLICATION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND CHECKLISTS

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
b. Public Notification Requirements
Public notification materials have been submitted in accordance with the city requirements as part of the September 3, 2024, submittal package.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
c. Plans

The Title Page lists the property owner address as “2121 Avenue of the States, #800, Los Angeles, CA 90067”, while the Planning Application shows “513 8 North Palm Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210”. Clarify this discrepancy and update either the Planning Application or the Title Page of the plans accordingly.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the enclosed revised Project drawings and accompanying application materials which reflect the Project’s full street address. • Sheet G-001 must show all required/allowed/existing vs. proposed development standards and must be updated as follows:

Although the site qualifies for AB 2097, Sheet G-001 must show the total number of parking spaces required in accordance with BHMC Sections 10-3- 2816 and 10-3-2817.

Therefore, for the above reasons this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the updated Sheet G-001 which now differentiates between the General Plan and BHMC zoning densities and includes BHMC requirements pursuant to Sections 10-3-2806, 10-3-2816, and 10-3-2817.

2. Survey
The submittal package includes a stamped and signed Alta Survey as Sheet G-002 of the architectural plan set.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
9 3. Site Plan
The submitted architectural plans include the existing Site Plan as Sheet G-003 and the proposed Site Plan as Sheet A-100. Update the sheets as follows as required by the Planning Application Checklist:

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the updated Sheet G-003, which now provides the Project’s overall square footage and dimensions for all existing structures, labels all perimeter walls and fences, and identifies the tree species and size.

Additionally, please refer to the updated Sheet A-100, which now provides all contemplated improvements to the public right-of-way, a turning radius template for automobile access, as well as the Code-required setbacks at the front, rear, and side property lines.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the revised Sheet A-115 and A-117, which now includes updated drawings to identify the dens as bedrooms. As these dens have been relabeled as bedrooms, the chart on G-100 has been adjusted accordingly. Additionally, diagrams of Floor Area as defined in BHMC Section 10-3-100 have been added in the drawing set on Sheets G-100.01 and G-100.02.

5. Roof Plan
The Roof Plan on Sheet A-116 does not indicate the location of proposed gutters and downspouts. Update the sheet to include this required information.

Therefore, for the reason outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed forthe purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

The revised plans depict no gutters or downspouts because the Project will be constructed without any gutters or downspouts. Rain water will be collected with drains and pipes and will be routed internally with no exposed piping.

6. Adjacent Property Information
Update Sheet A-100 to include neighboring properties to the east and the distances to all neighboring properties and structures.

Update Sheets A301, A-302, A-401, and A-402 to show the height and distances from adjacent structures.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the updated Sheet A-100 which now depicts neighboring properties to the east as well as distances to all neighboring properties/structures.

Additionally, please refer to the updated Sheets A-401 and A-402, which now depict the proposed Project’s height and distance from adjacent structures.

7. Elevations/Renderings/Sections
Proposed building elevations were provided as Sheets A-301 and A-302. However, existing building elevations from all directions were not provided in the plan set.

Provide as required by the City’s Planning Application. 11 Sheets A-401, A-402 (building sections), A-301, A-302 (elevations), and G-001 do not show height measurements or provide datum points, pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-100 definition of HEIGHT OF BUILDING outlined below:
“B. Multiple-Family Residential Zones: Except as otherwise provided for walls and fences, in multiple-family residential zones, "height" shall mean the distance from the highest point of the natural ground level at the perimeter of a building or structure or from the highest point of the public sidewalk adjoining the lot or parcel upon which the building or structure is to be erected, whichever is higher, to the highest element of the building or structure.”
Provide details of architectural features including callouts, cut sheets, photos, etc.

The proposed building sections included as Sheets A-401 and A-402 as well as the proposed elevations (Sheets A-301 and A-302) do not include exterior light fixtures to scale and must be provided.

Lastly, the elevations and sections fail to show all code-required and proposed setbacks and must be provided.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

According to the City’s Development Application form, existing building elevations are not required in the City’s incompleteness checklist. However, please refer to the updated set of plans which now provide building elevations from all directions at Sheets A-301, A-302, A-402, and A-403, including all code-required setbacks. Additionally, please refer to the updated Sheets A-301, A-302, A-402, and A-403 which now provide datum points and indicates how height is measured according to BHMC Section 10-3-100’s definition of HEIGHT OF BUILDING. A note has been added to the drawings clarifying the measurement of height in accordance with BHMC 10-3-100. Finally, please refer to the updated plan set for its various sheets depicting the Project’s lighting plan on each floor, including Sheets AL-301 and AL-302 for elevations that depict exterior light fixtures. Light fixtures have been added on the building elevation sheets (A-301 and A-302) but will not be visible on the building sections.

Landscape Plan/Elevations
Sheets L-100 and L-200 list the type, size, quantity, and location of new plants, but pictures of the proposed plant species are missing and must be submitted.

A Hardscape Summary is provided on Sheet L-100. Revise the Sheet to clearly indicate the area calculations for the paving/hardscape within the required front 12 yard. The current table is unclear about what areas correspond to the proposed paving plan.

Provide a landscape lighting plan. If there is no lighting proposed, please indicate this on the plans and application. Provide cut sheets of any proposed landscape lighting fixtures.

Provide an elevation that includes the proposed landscaping, to scale, at the time of planting.

Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed for the purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

Pictures of the proposed plant species are provided. Please refer to Sheet L-100 that includes area calculations. Please also refer to the revised plans at Sheets AL-001, AL-100, AL-101, AL-102, AL-115, AL-201, AL-204, AL-207, AL-214, AL-215, AL-301, AL-302, AL-501, AL-502, and AL-503 which now depict the Project’s landscape lighting plans. Please see the elevations that includes the proposed landscaping at time of planting on Sheet L-103 of the revised plans.

8. Demolition Plan and Calculations
Not required for the proposed project as it involves construction of a new building.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
d. Residential Demolition and Development Requirements
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019, as amended by SB 8 (California Government Code Section 66300 et seq.), commonly referred to as the HCA, prohibits the approval of any proposed housing development project on a site that will require the demolition of existing dwelling units or occupied or vacant “protected units” unless the project replaces those units.

City records show that a RUD application was not filed priorto the submission of the proposed project application, as outlined in the City’s Planning Application requirements.

To assist in facilitating the submittal process, City staff emailed the RUD application to Associate Planner, Christine Delostrinos on October 3, 2024. The Applicant and 13 Representative listed on the Planning Application were copied on the email. Ms.

Delostrinos will provide further instructions regarding the next steps for processing.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
14 e. Environmental and Technical Studies/Plans
▪ Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis and/or Local Traffic Assessment (LTA) Submit a Trip Generation Analysis (TGA) to confirm if the project generates fewer than 50 peak-hour vehicle trips. If the TRA shows fewer than 50 trips, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) is not required. If it exceeds 50 trips, an LTA will be necessary. Additional fees for third-party review will apply.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the TGA enclosed with these resubmission materials. ▪ Construction Management Plan
Based on the scope of the proposed project, submittal of a Construction Management Plan is required. The Plan must provide 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).
• Proposed locations for the staging of construction materials and equipment. • Anticipated closures of any right-of-way area (alley/street) and timelines for such closures.

RESPONSE:

The Applicant disagrees with the City’s conclusion that a Construction Management Plan is required at this completeness phase of the entitlement process. The City’s submittal checklist specifies that a Construction Management Plan is “[r]equired if the project needs to prepare an environmental report pursuant to the requirements set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). May also be required separate from CEQA requirements as determined by Planning Division staff depending on the scope of the Project.” The City has not commenced CEQA review of the Project and thus has not made a determination that the Project will be required to develop an environmental impact report, and furthermore the City’s subjective determination that the Project must produce one notwithstanding this fact, without further information justifying that decision, is inappropriate at the completeness phase of entitlement.

Notwithstanding that the Construction Management Plan is not a completeness item, please find enclosed a preliminary Construction Management Plan. The Applicant intends to submit a full Construction Management Plan when the Project is entitled and the design team begins to contemplate the construction process.
▪ Preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan Based on the scope of the proposed project, submit a preliminary grading, draining, 15 and erosion control plan.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. dated November 21, 2024 submitted with the updated application materials and this response.
▪ Other Environmental Studies
Additional studies (e.g., noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, water quality, etc., may be required depending on the level of environmental review required. These studies are typically prepared by a City-managed consultant at full cost to the applicant.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the report prepared by WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. submitted with the updated application materials and this response. ▪ Low Impact Development (LID) Plan
In accordance with BHMC Section 9-4-508, the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements apply to new development projects. This project will result in at least 5,000 square feet of impervious surface, and thus a LID plan is required, to show compliance with the City’s LID standards.

For question related to LID requirements, please contact Trevor Alsop at 310-288-2837 or by email at [email protected].

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the Preliminary LID Plan from Russell Consulting & Engineering as part of the Civil Engineering Plans submitted with the updated application materials and this response.
f. Historic Preservation
The project site is currently improved with an eight-unit apartment building that was constructed in 1931, according to City records (Building Permit No. 11097) and is therefore older than 45 years. Therefore, for purposes of evaluating the project site and the existing structure to determine whether there would be a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act 16 (CEQA), a historic assessment report will need to be prepared and submitted to the City as part of this review. Please also see comments below, under Correction No. 5.c., from City staff regarding historic preservation. Thus, the applications are incomplete at this time because the historic assessment report has not been submitted.

The City maintains a list of qualified historic preservation consultants that can assist you with the evaluation of the existing structure at the project site and preparation of a historic assessment report to determine if the structure qualifies as a historic resource. A copy of this list is available online using the link provided below, with consultants that are qualified in assessing architectural history listed on Page 3 of the document:
https://www.beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/6175/Historic-PreservationConsultantList-PDF?bidId= Once the historic assessment report is prepared and submitted to the City, staff will review the document and provide comments on the report. Additionally, the City may also utilize the city’s historic preservation consultant to peer review the report for additional comments and accuracy. Costs incurred by the city in reviewing the historic preservation report shall be invoiced to the applicant as part of the review of the project.

RESPONSE:

Please see the enclosed historic assessmentreport from Page and Turnbull. g. Other Supporting Studies and Information
▪ Density Bonus Supplemental Form
(i) The City’s Density Bonus Supplemental Form was provided in the submittal package. The application references Exhibit D on page 2, under the Incentives/Concessions section, and Exhibit D states:
“1. Relief from BHMC § 10-3-4806: Standards for inclusionary units to allow affordable units to be located in a separate lot structure in the areas depicted on the plans, and in the sized proposed.”
The requested incentive appears to seek deviations from the entirety of BHMC Section 10-3-4806, which includes several development standards. Each specific development standard must be treated separately as either an incentive/concession or a waiver, rather than framing the incentive broadly to cover a number of different standards.
(ii) Wavier 3, as described above, must be separated into three waiver requests - one forthe front setback deviation, one forthe side setback deviation, and one forthe rear setback deviation.
(iii) The assertion of a reservation of “the right to modify, and, subtract waivers and 17 incentives as the Project goes through the application completeness process” is not contemplated by or permissible under the statute because it would eviscerate and make meaningless the requirement in Government Code Section 65941.1(a) to provide all the information in that paragraph. The statute provides no authority for such a reservation of rights. Government Code Section 65941.1 requires this information up front with the preliminary application if an applicant seeks to take advantage of the contemplated vested rights, and the correlative limitations on local agency land use authority. The statute is clear that a preliminary application is only “deemed to be submitted” once all of the required information has been provided to the local agency.
(iv) The Incentive/Concessions and Waivers section of the Density Bonus Supplemental Form requires inclusion of “adequate information for the City to make a determination on the [incentive/concession or waiver] request.” The application materials include no information in support of the requested incentive or waivers.

RESPONSE:

The Applicant reiterates that, pursuant to a Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, the Project cannot be denied for failure to comply with any of the above-noted provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. In light of this, the Applicant notes that the incentives and concessions requested are requested as a formality, but note that the Project is not required to receive these requested incentives or waivers because the City cannot deny the Project for inconsistency with local development standards.

Notwithstanding the above, the incentives and concessions requested by the Project are revised hereby as follows:

INCENTIVES
Incentive 1: Relief from BHMC 10-3-4806 standards for inclusionary units to allow affordable units to be located in a separate lot structure in the areas depicted on the plans and in sizes proposed.

Incentive 2: Allow alternative parking system in an R4 zone. (BHMC 10-3-2730.4).

WAIVERS
18 Waiver 1: Relief from BHMC 10-3-3107(A), to permit the use of pool deck and resident lounge.

Waiver 2: Increase height limit from 15’-0” to 18’-4” for elevator overhead fits. (BHMC 10-3-3107-(A)(1)(b).

Waiver 3: Relief from the required 5’ setback from the story immediately below on the street facing façade. (BHMC 10-3-3107(A)(1)(i).

Waiver 4: Relief from the required push back of architectural features from exterior wall. (BHMC 10-3-3107(A)(1)(j).

Waiver 5: BHMC 10-3-2801: Relief from General Plan density of max. 50 du/ac.

Waiver 6: BHMC 10-3-2802: A reduction of minimum residential floor area requirements from the required 1,300 SF to 914 SF for a 2-bedroom unit.

Waiver 7: Elimination of the requirement that balconies need to be screened from the ground level. (BHMC 10-3-2803-A).

Waiver 8: Elimination of 15’ minimum dimension requirement of outdoor living area. (BHMC 10-3-2803-B).

Waiver 9: An additional 159’ of overall height above the 33-foot height limit as set forth in BHMC 10-3-2804 consisting of 192’ building height. (BHMC 10-3-2804).

Waiver 10: An additional 12 stories above the three-story limit as set forth in BHMC 10- 3-2804 for a total of 15 stories. (BHMC 10-3-2804).

Waiver 11: BHMC 10-3-2806: A reduced front yard from 15’ to 0’.

Waiver 12: Relief from modulation requirements. (BHMC 10-3-2806).

Waiver 13: BHMC 10-3-2807: Reduction of side setback from 9’ to 2’-6” and reduction of the sum of the two sides.

Waiver 14: BHMC 10-3-2803: Reduction of minimum outdoor living space from 5,400 square feet to 4,500 square feet.

Waiver 15: BHMC 10-3-2808: Reduction of the rear setback from 15’ to 2’-6”.

Waiver 16: BHMC 10-3-2813: Widening of walkway leading to the building entrance. ▪ Inclusionary Housing Plan
19 An Inclusionary Housing Plan was submitted as required by the City’s Planning Application as Exhibit A to the Planning Application. However, the Inclusionary Housing Plan does not comply with BHMC Section 10-3-4806.A. Specifically, the affordable units are not reasonably distributed throughout the development, as all affordable units are located on the 2
nd and 3rd floors. Additionally, the project
includes 26 two-bedroom units and one three-bedroom unit, yet all affordable units only include two-bedrooms, which is not proportional to the market-rate units.

RESPONSE:

BHMC Section 10-3-4806 requires:

To the maximum extent possible, all inclusionary units shall be:

1. Reasonably placed in the residential development with balanced consideration given to both the potential economic and physical design constraints as well as the impact that the location of the units may have on the quality of living for prospective tenants.

2. Proportional in number of bedrooms, to the extent practicable, to the market rate units, unless the number of bedrooms for affordable units is dictated by requirements of state law, in which case the state law requirements shall be followed.

3. Comparable with the market rate units in terms of the base design and appearance.

The above text from BHMC 10-3-4806 includes language that is inherently subjective because it necessarily invites a values-driven qualitative assessment of the Project based on the perspective of the reviewing party. By contrast, the Housing Accountability Act clarifies that “objective” means “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.”2In light of this explicit language in the Housing Accountability Act, it becomes clear that BHMC Section 10-3-2408 is not an “objective” development standard, and therefore noncompliance with this provision cannot form the basis of the Project’s disapproval; alleged inconsistency with these subjective standards cannot form the basis of the Project’s disapproval as a matter of law.

Additionally, and notwithstanding the above, the Project requests as an 2 Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(9).
20 incentive relief from various requirements of BHMC Section 10-3-4806. The State Density Bonus Law requires the City to grant this incentive request unless it can make findings that (1) the requested incentive will not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions; (2) the incentive would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety; or (3) the incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.3 Furthermore, the City must grant the waivers unless it can demonstrate that the requested waiver will not allow the Project to develop residential units at the proposed density.4 Thus, unless and until the City offers findings that satisfy the above requirements under the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus Law, the Project shall receive the requested incentives and waivers relating to BHMC 10-3-4806. As noted in the Project plans, the affordable units would be located in levels three and four and would all be two bedroom units. These affordable units would be located in separate legal structures, as they would be within their own legal lots.

In any event, the Applicant reiterates that this is a Builder’s Remedy project.

As such, the Project’s inconsistency with the provisions of the City’s General Plan or Municipal Code, such as BHMC Section 10-3-4806, cannot form a lawful basis upon which the City may deny this housing development project.5
▪ Operational Plan
An Operational Plan was included in the application package.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
▪ Rooftop Operations Plans
A rooftop operations plan was included in the submittal package.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
2 The City will consider whether any additional incentive/concession or waiver requests requested by the applicant in response to this letter constitute a new density bonus application. 3 Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1).
4 Gov. Code § 65915(e).
5 Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(5).
21 ▪ Parking Study and/or Parking Accessibility Diagrams The proposal includes the use of an alternative parking facility to accommodate a total of 44 vehicles. As a result, submit a Parking Study that analyses the proposed automated parking system and its operations. The Parking Study should also outline how parking will be managed for both guests and residents.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the AUTOParkit, AUTOChargit Operations Plan & Site-Specific Requirement Specification for Wilshire Camden, LLC 140 S. Camden Dr prepared by Dasher Lawless enclosed with these resubmission materials. ▪ Arborist Report
An arborist report prepared by a licensed arborist was included in the submittal package. However, the Introduction section of the report must be updated to accurately describe existing site conditions, as it states that there is a single-story apartment building on the project site, while there is actually a two-story apartment building.

Secondly, the report indicates that a total of two trees are proposed forremoval, including one City tree, a Chinese Flame Tree, and states that no replacement trees will be proposed.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the updated Arborist’s Report enclosed with these resubmission materials.
▪ Loading Analysis
A loading analysis is not required as the proposed project includes the construction of a housing project without a commercial component.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
▪ Required Findings
Justification for the required findings related to the requested Development Plan Review and Tree Removal Permit were included in the submittal package. However, the findings for the requested Vesting Tentative Tract Map, pursuant to Section 22 66474 of the California Government Code, were not submitted. Provide justification that includes the required findings for all requested entitlements.

Therefore, for the reason outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed forthe purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

Government Code Section 66474 does not require the Applicant to produce findings in support of the Project’s application for a vesting tentative tract map.

Rather, Government Code Section 66474 establishes that the City shall not approve the requested Vesting Tentative Tract Map if any of the enumerated findings are established. Under Government Code Section 66474, the burden to produce findings that support a disapproval of the requested Vesting Tentative Tract Map rests with the City, and the Applicant respectfully declines to offer findings pursuant to Government Code Section 66474 that would support disapproval of the Applicant’s proposed development. Additionally, Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Planning and Zoning Code does not require draft findings or findings with a filing or approval. See BHMC Sections 10-2-201, 10-2-202 and 10- 2-204.
▪ Shade and Shadow Study
Refer to Sheet(s): G-004
The architectural plan set includes a "Sun Study" on Sheet G-004; however, the diagrams for the summer equinox at 9:00 PM and the winter equinox at 6:00 AM and 9:00 PM are missing, as required by the Planning Application checklist. Please provide the missing diagrams.

Therefore, for the reason outlined above, this checklist item has not been addressed forthe purposes of application completeness.

RESPONSE:

Winter solstice is at 6:54 am and sunset is at 4:48 pm.6 There will be no shade and shadow prior to 6:54 am or after 4:48 pm because the sun will not be in the sky at that time. As such, winter solstice drawings where there is a possibility of shade and shadow are depicted. Notwithstanding these facts, please refer to Sheets G004.01 and G-004.02, which now depict figures showing the shade on the Project site at 6:00 am and 9:00 pm on the winter equinox.
▪ Common Interest Development Supplemental Materials
Not required as the proposal does not include conversion of an existing building to a common interest development.
6 https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/los-angeles?month=12&year=2024 accessed November 20, 2024. 23 RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
h. BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS
Upon review of the architectural plans, Building Code Requirements as outlined in the Planning Application checklist were not addressed. Submit the following:

Please refer to the updated plans which identify the type of construction as Type 1-A on Sheet G-001. Regarding the exiting analysis as per Chapter 10, the Applicant intends to submit it with the complete construction document set during the plan check process.

This is not a requirement for the completion of the Development Application.

Plumbing fixture analysis per Building and Plumbing Codes Accessibility plans per Chapters 11A and 11B of the Building Code:
• Accessible path of travel (e.g., parking, restrooms, building entrance, vertical access such as elevators and ramps, etc.)
• Accessible features e.g., door clearances, elevation changes, reach ranges, etc.)
• Electric vehicle (EV) charging analysis and plans
o Per CA Green Building Standards Code with the City of Beverly Hills Amendments (BHMC Section 9-1-1102)
RESPONSE:

The Applicant intends to submit the analyses required per Chapter 11A and 11B with the complete construction document set during the plan check process. This is not a requirement for the completion of the Development Application. The design team intends to submit an EV charging analysis and plans per CA Green Building Standards at plan check submittal after entitlement has been obtained. 24 3.2. This section evaluates whether the items outlined in the City’s Application for Subdivision ([Vesting] Tentative Map) (Attachment 3) have been submitted. However, the submission package received did not include the application itself or the necessary listed items. As a result, the application is incomplete due to the missing documents and information listed below:

1. Application
Included in the application submittal package.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.

2. Environmental Assessment Application
Included in the application submittal package.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.

3. Title Policy
Failed to submit.

RESPONSE:

Please see the enclosed Title Policy document which is submitted with the updated application materials and this response.

4. Soil Report
Failed to submit.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the soil report prepared by WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. submitted with the updated application materials and this response.

Electronic copies of the proposed Tentative Tract Map and Building plans were provided in the application submittal package.

RESPONSE:

The Applicant recognizes that this comment does not identify that the tentative tract map and building plans are incomplete or otherwise fail to satisfy the City’s requirements. This comment is acknowledged.
25 6. Two (2) sets of self-adhesive gummed labels with names and addresses of all property owners and residential occupants for multiple-family residential and commercial zones within a distance of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the project as well as all property owners of single-family residential zones within 500 feet. The names/address must be numbered with the corresponding numbers indicated on the radius map. Include applicant/agent address as well.

Electronic noticing materials were provided in the application submittal package.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the two sets of labels that are electronically submitted along with the updated application materials and this response.

Electronic noticing materials were provided in the application package.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the enclosed vicinity map depicting the Project parcel and all parcels within 500’ that is submitted along with the updated application materials and this response.

8. Rent Stabilization Information Sheet (needed for all existing multiple family residential rental units; attached).

9. Water Unit Fixture Count.

Failed to submit.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the Excel spreadsheet titled “Water Fixture Unit Count” that is submitted along with the updated application materials and this response.

10. (For condominiums) Three copies of the covenants, conditions, and restrictions or, if there are no covenants, conditions, or restrictions, any other agreements between any person who has an ownership interest in the project and who has the right to reside in the project which will apply to the condominium project. These covenants, conditions, and restrictions or agreements are to include the following provisions:
26 a. Provisions forthe maintenance of the common areas of the project by the City in the event of default in the maintenance of such common areas by individual owners of the units and for reimbursement to the City that result
b. For residential condominiums:
i. Provisions restricting the use of each residential unit to use as a single-family residence, and
ii. Provisions establishing each individual unit owner's exclusive right to the use of not less than two specifically designated covered parking spaces for each unit, and
c. A provision that any other provision required to be included in the covenants, conditions, and restrictions, or any agreements by the City shall not be amended or deleted without the written consent of the City Council.

Failed to submit.

RESPONSE:

There are no covenants, conditions, and restrictions yet developed for the Project.

Conditions, covenants, and restrictions to govern the property will be produced.

They will comply with provision 11(a) above. As the dwelling units would be residential condominiums in a multi-family building, the condominiums cannot be for single-family use, and the Project does not intend to potentially conflict with Fair Housing laws regarding the occupancy of the residents in the dwelling units, so it will decline to include provision 11(b)(i) above. Please also note that the Project will utilize AB 2097 which requires zero parking, so the Project will decline to add provision 11(b)(ii) above. With respect to provision 11(c), the Applicant would need to understand what other provisions the City would impose before making such a requested commitment. For instance, if the City required a provision that there is no Builder’s Remedy, or if the City would require half the density proposed, there would be no consent to the City’s request pursuant to provision 11(c) above.

11. Condominium Conversion Tenant Notice (to be completed by the owner 60 days before application can be filed; see attached).

12. Rent Stabilization Form.

13. Fee.

Multiple-application fee was paid.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.

3.3. The submitted application includes a request for a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of a City tree and one tree located in the front setback area of the subject property. However, the tree regulations outlined in BHMC Sections 10-3.2900-2906 apply only to single-family properties and are 27 not applicable to multi-family properties. Therefore, a Tree Removal Permit is not necessary for the removal of the existing Mexican Fan Palm Tree. Nonetheless, as previously outlined, consultation with the City’s arborist is required regarding the proposed removal of the City tree.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.

Article 28 of the BHMC: Multiple-Family Residential Development Standards 28 A. Density
Refer to Sheet(s): G-001
The proposed project includes the development of 27 units on a 6,375.82 SF lot and the application materials include a request for Density Bonus. The City’s General Plan details the applicable density requirements for multi-family properties in the city. The General Plan allows for a density of 50 du/acre (or 1 unit for every 871.2 SF of lot area). As such, the applicable density requirements would facilitate 8 dwelling units on the project site (6,375.82 / 871.2 = 7.32 units). Fractional figures are rounded up to the nearest whole number.

RESPONSE:

Please note that a zoning inconsistency cannot form a legal basis to deny this Builder’s Remedy Project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. Put differently, the Project’s inconsistency with the City’s maximum density requirements in the City’s General Plan shall not prevent the City from approving this Project absent the City’s publication of specific findings required to disapprove a housing development project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. Additionally, the City shall grant all requested waivers unless it can make findings required under Gov. Code § 65915(e) indicating that the requested waiver will have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated, or indicating that the requested waiver is contrary to state or federal law.

B. Minimum Floor Area For Dwelling Units
Refer to Sheet(s): G-001, A-102, A-103
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2802, the minimum dwelling unit requirements for new 29 development on properties located within a multi-family zone 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 Upon review, the residential portion of the project consists of 27 dwelling units consisting of the following dwelling unit types and sizes:
• Two-bedrooms: 26 units of 914 SF – 1,833 SF
• Three-bedrooms: 1 unit of 3,797 SF (See Correction No. 3.1.c.4).

The application submittal package includes a waiver request as a part of the Density Bonus Permit. However, the PA did not include this specific waiver, and the PA has expired.

Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with the multi-family zoning requirements for minimum floor area of two-bedroom units.

RESPONSE:

As the Project remains a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act, any change other than a greater than 20 percent deviation in square footage or dwelling unit count in a development application as compared to the preliminary application does not divest a project from vesting. A preliminary application is just that -- preliminary. As the Project goes through the iterative process and is refined, changes are made that of course change the project and potential anticipated entitlements. All the material required for a valid preliminary application was submitted to vest under the law, as was all the material for the development application. Differences between the two other than the 20 percent cap for dwelling unit and square footage do not result in divestment of vested rights as the law does not provide such a remedy.

RESPONSE:

The Applicant reiterates that, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, the Project cannot be denied for failure to comply with any of the abovenoted provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. In light of this, the Applicant notes that the incentives and concessions requested are requested as a formality, but note that the Project is not required to receive these requested incentives or waivers because the City cannot deny the Project for inconsistency with local development standards. Notwithstanding the above, the Project requests a waiver of BHMC 10-3-2803. The City shall grant all requested waivers unless it can make findings required under Gov. Code § 65915(e) indicating that the requested waiver will have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated, or indicating that the requested waiver is contrary to state or federal law.
b. Outdoor Living Space Dimensions – The proposal is inconsistent with BHMC Sections 10-3-2803.A and 10-3-2803.B. Outdoor living spaces must either be private, with a minimum dimension of 6’ on all sides, or common, with a minimum dimension of 15’ on all sides. Outdoor living spaces that do not meet these dimensions do not count toward the required outdoorliving space for the project.

City staff measured the proposed private outdoor living areas using the plan sheet scale, as they were not dimensioned. Some balconies fail to meet the minimum size for private outdoorliving space of 6’, and the common outdoorliving area is narrowerthan 15’.

Therefore, neither the private nor common outdoor living spaces can be counted toward the required total of 5,400 square feet of outdoorliving area forthe project.

Revise the plans to show the dimensions, including the length, width, and depth of each private outdoorliving space.

RESPONSE:

The Applicant reiterates that, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, the Project cannot be denied for failure to comply with any of the abovenoted provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. In light of this, the Applicant notes that the incentives and concessions requested are requested as a formality, but note that the Project is not required to receive these requested incentives or waivers because the City cannot deny the Project for inconsistency with local development standards. Notwithstanding the above, the Project requests a waiver of BHMC 10-3-2803. The City shall grant all requested waivers unless it can make findings required under Gov. Code § 65915(e) indicating that the requested waiver will have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated, or indicating that the requested waiver is contrary to state or federal law.
31 D. Height Limits of Buildings in Multiple-Family Residential Zones Referto Sheet(s): G-001, A-301 – A-402
Maximum Allowable Height – Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2804, no building or structure located on a site that is less than or equal to sixty feet (60') in width shall exceed three (3) stories or thirty three feet (33') in height. Based on the survey provided for the project the project site has a width of 50’, which allows for development with a maximum of three stories and up to 33’ in height. As proposed, the project is designed as a 15-story building with a height of 194’-0”. The proposed height and number of stories exceeds the allowable height limits in BHMC Section 10-3-2804.

Pursuant to the Density Bonus request, the applicant is seeking waivers for height and number of stories. However, the proposed number of dwelling units is inconsistent with Density Bonus regulations.

RESPONSE:

The Applicant reiterates that, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing 32 Accountability Act, the Project cannot be denied for failure to comply with any of the abovenoted provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. Pursuant to AB 2097 the Project is required to provide zero parking spaces. Please see attached AB 2097 documentation depicting the Project’s location in relation to AB 2097 requirements. The updated Project provides 40 parking spaces in a subterranean alternative parking facility. Additionally, note that Sheet G-001 has been updated to depict BHMC’s required parking count. b. Guest Parking
Per BHMC Section 10-3-2817, guest parking is required at a rate of 0.25 spaces per unit.

For 27 units, this results in 7 guest spaces (rounded up), bringing the total parking requirement to 75 spaces.

The submitted architectural plans propose 44 parking spaces within an alternative parking facility. The project also includes a Density Bonus request, allowing for reduced parking requirements.

RESPONSE:

The Applicant reiterates that, pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, the Project cannot be denied for failure to comply with any of the abovenoted provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. Pursuant to AB 2097 the Project is required to provide zero parking spaces. Please see attached AB 2097 documentation depicting the Project’s location in relation to AB 2097 requirements. The updated Project provides 40 parking spaces in a subterranean alternative parking facility. Additionally, note that Sheet G-001 has been updated to depict BHMC’s required parking count.

F. Multiple-Family Residential Zones; Front Setbacks and Modulation Requirements Refer to Sheet(s): G-001
BHMC Section 10-3-2806 details the applicable front modulation standards for properties located within a multiple-family residential 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, provide front modulation diagrams showing the required amount of modulation and the modulation proposed for the project. 33 Additionally, the diagrams shall show the depth of the modulation provided per floor and calculations for the aggregate principal building area.

RESPONSE:

As the Project remains a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act, any change other than a greater than 20 percent deviation in square footage or dwelling not divest a project from vesting. A preliminary application is just that -- preliminary. As the Project goes through the iterative process and is refined, changes are made that of course change the project and potential anticipated entitlements. All the material required for a valid preliminary application was submitted to vest under the law, as was all the material for the development application. Differences between the two other than the 20 percent cap for dwelling unit and square footage do not result in divestment of vested rights as the law does not provide such a remedy.

G. Front Yard Paving
Refer to Sheet(s): A-100, L-100
BHMC Section 10-3-2813 details the applicable front yard paving standards for properties 34 located within a multi-family 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 front yard paving designs provided on the set of plans, the project would provide a driveway that would match the width of the planned curb cut (apron) and one walkway that exceeds 5' in width, which is not permissible.

Therefore, the proposed walkway is inconsistent with BHMC Section 10-3-2813.

RESPONSE:

Pursuant to the Density Bonus request, the applicant is seeking a waiver to allow a reduction in the front yard setback from 15’ to 0’.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
b. Side Yard Setbacks – BHMC Section 10-3-2807 details the applicable side yard setbacks for properties located within a multi-family residential 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.

However, the proposed side yard setback is 2’-6”. Pursuant to the Density Bonus request, the applicant is seeking a waiver to allow a reduction in the side yard setback to 2’-6”.

RESPONSE:
35 Acknowledged. Thank you.
c. Setbacks Throughout Plan Set - Show all code-required front, side, and rear setback lines on the site plan, floor plans, sections, and elevation on the set of plans.

RESPONSE:

Noted. All code-required setbacks have been added throughout the set of drawings.
d. 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.

RESPONSE:

Noted. The basement concrete slab has been lowered 36” to satisfy the requirement pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2811.

RESPONSE:

Please note that inconsistency with local development standards cannot form a legal basis to deny this Builder’s Remedy Project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Ac. Put differently, the Project’s inconsistency with certain 36 provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code shall not prevent the City from approving this Project absent the City’s publication of specific findings required pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. Notwithstanding the above, please refer to the updated plan set at Sheets G-201 and A-101, which depict the Waste Management Basis of Design and the dimensions to the first-floor trash room, respectively.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.

RESPONSE:

Please refer to the updated survey that now correctly reflects the City of Beverly Hills.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.

5. 6. DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
As part of the city’s entitlement review process, the application materials for the proposal were routed to various departments. Their comments are listed below:
a. Development Services Program (Building and Safety) Comments Attached to this letter as Exhibit A
RESPONSE:

The Applicant thanks the Development Services Program for offering these comments, which will “aid the 37 applicant in preparing the project for building plan check submittal.” Because these are not “completeness items” as required in the City’s Submittal Checklist, and in light of the advisory nature of these comments, the various comments therein will be addressed via supplemental application materials when the Project receives entitlement approval and progresses to the plan check phase, including all information indicating compliance with California Building Code Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11A, 11B, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 30. Notwithstanding, the Applicant also notes the following:
• The information demonstrating compliance with Chapter 4 of the CBC will be incorporated into the set of drawings submitted for plan check. • The use and occupancy information has been clarified on Sheet G-001. The type of construction was already included, and we have added the allowable area and height details. Regarding an exiting analysis as per Chapter 10, the Applicant intends to submit it with the complete construction document set during the plan check process. This is not a requirement for the completion of the Development Application.
• When detailing building elements, design team will ensure compliance with CBC Chapter 6. Drawings then will be submitted for plan check submittal after obtaining entitlement approval.
• When detailing building elements, design team will ensure compliance with CBC Chapter 7. Drawings then will be submitted for plan check submittal after obtaining entitlement approval.
• When detailing building elements, design team will ensure compliance with CBC Chapter 8. Drawings then will be submitted for plan check submittal after obtaining entitlement approval.
• As written on Sheet G-001, building of construction Type 1A will be fully sprinklered and will be in full compliance of NFPA 13 and CBC Chapter 9. Floor plate have already incorporated stairs with pressurized vestibules to be in compliance. In addition, a 10’ by 20’ Fire Command Center has been incorporated into the ground floor design. All drawings to demonstrate compliance of items listed above will be submitted for plan check after obtaining entitlement approval. • Egress analysis/Life Safety plans will be provided for plan check submittal after obtaining entitlement approval. Separate plans for each story will be provided and those will include the following:
o The use and function of each space and occupancy load calculations; o The path of egress with egress components identified; o Sizes and capacities for egress components, including but not limited to corridors, exits, stairs, travel distances, etc.;
o The number of required and proposed exits as well as the required and proposed separation between exits;
o Accessible means of egress and exit discharges to a public way on the site plan.
• At plan check submittal, all residential units will be adaptable in compliance with CBC Chapter 11A and residential common areas will comply with CBC Chapter 11A.
• At plan check submittal, all public areas will be in compliance with CBC Chapter 38 11B.
• At plan submittal, all interior environments will satisfy CBC Chapter 11B. • At plan submittal, the roofing will satisfy CBC Chapter 15. • A Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. dated November 21, 2024 is submitted with the updated application materials and this response. A geotechnical soil report will be provided at the time of plan check submittal.
• The design team has integrated CBC Chapter 30 into the initial design. The design will be further articulated in construction documents for plan check submittal after entitlement approval.
• The design team is aware that full compliance with the California Energy Code is required at the time of plan check submittal after entitlement approval. • The Project will comply with all code sections addressing highrise requirements.

Further information will be provided at plan check submittal. • Egress analysis will be provided at plan check submittal. It will include the floor of the automated parking.
• Ownership acknowledges the requirement for a site-specific fault investigation at plan check submittal.
• Occupancy has been added to Sheet G-001. Further design information will be provided at plan check submittal after entitlement has been obtained. • A diagram depicting full compliance or deviation from CBC Table 705.8 will be provided in the construction documents, which will be submitted for plan check after entitlement approval has been obtained.
• The Project has no yard or court where CBC Section 1205 would apply. • At least one accessible route connects each habitable story to comply with CBC Chapter 11B. Further detail will be provided at plan check submittal. • Glass guardrails will comply with CBC 2407. Details and specifications will be included in the construction documents that will be submitted for plan check after entitlement approval has been obtained.
• Per CBC, Exception 3 to Section 140.10(a): No photovoltaic system is required if the total available solar access roof area is less than three percent of the conditioned floor area, or if it contains less than 80 contiguous square feet. b. Public Works Comments
Attached to this letter as Exhibit B
RESPONSE:

Thank you for providing this document summarizing requirements for the installation and removal of tie-backs and supporting structures. To the extent that these comments discuss future requirements, they are acknowledged and will be addressed in future submittals as they do not represent completeness items to be addressed at this phase.

Notwithstanding, the Applicant also notes that a Preliminary Geotechnical Report prepared by WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. dated November 21, 2024 is being submitted with the updated application materials and this response, and a 39 geotechnical soil report will be provided at the time of plan check submittal. c. Preliminary Historic Review Comments
The above referenced property [140 South Camden Drive] was not designed by a Master Architect.

RESPONSE:

Acknowledged. Thank you.
d. Fire Department Comments