Item F-1 Agenda Report — Beverly Hills City Council, August 5, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

Page 1 of 11 ends

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: August 5, 2025
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Masa Alkire, AICP, City Planner
Minjee Hahm, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECEMBER 12, 2024

DECISION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW EIGHT-STORY, 52-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

ON A DUAL JURISDICTIONAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN BOTH
BEVERLY HILLS AND LOS ANGELES WHERE 12 UNITS WOULD BE
CONSTRUCTED IN BEVERLY HILLS AND 40 UNITS WOULD BE
CONSTRUCTED IN LOS ANGELES, AND A R-4 PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL WALKWAY AT 412 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE; AND

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND
DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR A NEW EIGHT-STORY, 52-

UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON A DUAL

JURISDICTIONAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN BOTH BEVERLY HILLS
AND LOS ANGELES WHERE 12 UNITS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN
BEVERLY HILLS AND 40 UNITS WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN LOS
ANGELES AND A R-4 PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL WALKWAY, AT 412 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE AND DENYING A RELATED
APPEAL.

Attachments: 1. Appeal Petition

2. Applicant Response to Appeal

3. Appeal Extension Request Letter from the Appellant

4. Applicant Letter Regarding Public Resources Code Section 21080.66

5. Draft City Council Resolution

6. December 12, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)

7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2077

8. Required Findings
Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 2 of 11 ends

9. General Plan Policies

10. State Statutes

11. Class 32 Exemption Report

12. Applicant-provided Incentives/Waivers Narrative

13. November 22, 2023 City of Los Angeles Letter of Compliance

14. Replacement Unit Determination Letter

15. Notice of Public Hearing

16. Planning Commission Public Correspondence

17. City Council Public Correspondence

18. Project Plans

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal, and

2. Adopt a resolution approving the project and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision (i.e., denying the appeal).

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the City’s appeal procedures, the City Council must conduct a de novo public hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Commission decision. Under a de novo review, the City Council considers not only the appeal and points raised therein, but conducts an independent review of the project application and whether the required findings can be made to approve the project. The December 12, 2024 Planning Commission staff report is provided as Attachment 6 to this staff report and provides an in-depth analysis of the project, its vicinity, applicable state requirements (including the State Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process), and the required findings for approval. This staff report specifically addresses the issues raised in the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision.

The appeal hearing was originally scheduled and noticed for June 17, 2025. However, at that meeting, the Council continued the item to August 5, 2025.

Applicant Continuance Request
Subsequent to the Council’s June 17, 2025 continuance action, Assembly Bill 130 became effective on July 1, 2025, which provides a statutory exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for in-fill projects that meet all required standards set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21080.661
. On July 10, 2024, the applicant sent a letter
(Attachment 4) asserting that the new exemption applied and has verbally requested an additional continuance of the appeal hearing to allow for the required process of consulting with Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project, which must be completed before the new exemption can be acted upon. Because of the timelines within which to commencer tribal consultation and the applicant’s unwillingness to delay sending the consultation letters to the affected Tribes, City staff initiated the tribal consultation process on July 24, 2025; however, staff noted in the letters to the tribes that the tribal consultation may 1 Information on Assembly Bill 130 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 is online:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130. The CEQA exemption was also discussed on the July 15, 2025 City Council Meeting (Item SS C-3).

Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 3 of 11 ends

become moot if the Council makes a final determination on the project on August 5, 2025, since tribal consultation is not a required component of a Class 32 categorical exemption, which is the basis on which the Planning Commission found the project exempt from CEQA. On July 28, 2025, Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation responded to the City’s Section 21080.66 exemption letter and requested consultation under the provisions of AB 130. As of the writing of the report, no other tribes have responded to the City’s invitation for tribal consultation.

Furthermore, staff has informed the applicant team that the City serves as the lead agency in determining the project’s compliance with CEQA and the Council is not precluded from acting on the project in reliance on the Class 32 report even though the applicant has requested the use of the new statutory exemption. If the City Council were to continue the hearing, further notice would be required because it is currently unknown when the tribal consultation will conclude, and, as discussed below, both this evening’s hearing and the continued hearing would count toward the 5-hearing limit, leaving a single hearing for architectural review.

Accordingly, staff recommends that the Council continue with the hearing as scheduled based upon the prior CEQA determination made by the Planning Commission, as the project qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption for in-fill development, with extensive documentation supporting the categorical exemption provided in Attachment 11.

Planning Commission Discussion
On December 12, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the proposed project and associated Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, and R-4 Permit applications (Attachment 6). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment including concerns regarding the proposed height and scale of the building and the potential for displacement of senior citizens and the availability of tenant protections. After discussion and deliberation of the project and of the topics raised by the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2077 (Attachment 7) conditionally approving the project with a number of project-specific conditions. The project-specific conditions require the property to be operated as a rental, including the maintenance of three affordable units for a minimum of 55 years.

Residents of the affordable units must have full access to common areas and amenities.

Additional requirements include the installation of traffic safety equipment at vehicle entrances, enhanced EV charging capabilities, and a restriction preventing future residents from participating in the city’s permit parking program. Full text of the project-specific conditions is provided in Condition Nos. 1-19 of the resolution.

Appeal Filed
On December 26, 2024, Rabbi Ruben Milikan filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision (Attachment 1). Specifically, the appellant identified the following as grounds for the appeal, as summarized:
1) The City of Beverly Hills did not provide any recommendations on the City of Los Angeles application, which was approved over-the-counter on November 23, 2023, and neither the tenants nor the surrounding neighborhood were informed of that application. 2) Tenants of the existing apartment building at 412 North Oakhurst Drive were unaware that their units fall under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles until the public hearing on December 12, 2024, and had relied on public services and utilities provided by Beverly Hills. The new tenants at 412 North Oakhurst Drive will believe they are Beverly Hills residents, although the City will only receive property tax revenue for 12 of the 52 units.

Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 4 of 11 ends

3) The public hearing process did not allow participating members of the public to be heard and the Commission did not adequately discuss all matters. 4) The Commission did not adequately consider the economic conditions of displaced senior tenants (during the construction phase), which is an adverse impact under Government Code Section 65915.
5) The Commission could have found a reason to reject the Beverly Hills portion or require the building to be moved by 10 feet to preserve the required 25 foot front setback for the Beverly Hills portion.
6) Required findings for the Development Plan Review and R-4 Permit related to adverse impacts, neighborhood compatibility, and harmonious development cannot be made due to the project's bulk, mass, and lack of modulation.
7) Staff characterization of the project is in error and the project is not consistent with the development pattern nor complements the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive. 8) The letter of compliance issued by Los Angeles contains errors and does not adhere to the same review standards as Beverly Hills, particularly with respect to public notification requirements for the project.
9) A majority of the “Consistency Analysis” with the General Plan contained in the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be challenged as important issues were not considered by the Commission.
10) Substantial changes must be made to the project to address the issues related to the front setback, building modulation, parking, sustainability, rooftop amenities, the treatment of displaced senior tenants, and approval from the Mid City West Neighborhood Council.

Staff originally intended to schedule the appeal hearing for April or May 2025. However, the appellant indicated that they would not be available at that time and requested that the based on the appellant's initial request that the hearing be held in the second half of June. While the applicant did not support this scheduling and would have preferred the hearing to occur earlier in the year, staff nevertheless scheduled the hearing for the second meeting in June.

On April 15, 2025, the appellant submitted a letter requesting that the hearing be rescheduled to August, citing the unavailability of some residents in June and his intention to submit additional PRA requests in the coming weeks. In response, staff explained that the City’s long-standing practice was to accommodate one rescheduling request from each party. Since the appellant’s earlier request to schedule the meeting for the second half of June had already been honored, staff informed the appellant that the hearing would proceed as scheduled in June. Additionally, the applicant declined to support the rescheduling of the hearing from June to August. Staff also asked the applicant if they would agree to reschedule the hearing, but the applicant declined.

On April 24, 2025, staff confirmed and advised the appellant that the hearing would proceed in June, as initially scheduled out of fairness to the applicant.

On May 18, 2025, the appellant again emailed staff requesting a postponement of the hearing to a later date. Staff responded on May 19, 2025, stating that the hearing would proceed as scheduled in June. Subsequently on June 10, 2025, the appellant submitted another letter Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 5 of 11 ends

requesting that the appeal hearing be continued to a future date (Attachment 3). During the appeal hearing on June 17, 2025, the City Council discussed whether the project should be continued to a future date. The City Council decided to continue the hearing to August 5, 2025.

State law limits the number of public meetings for a housing development project to five meetings. There have been two meetings to date, which includes the Planning Commission hearing from December 12, 2024 and the City Council appeal hearing from June 17, 2025. The August 5, 2025 City Council meeting would be the third meeting on the project. At this time, staff recommends that the City Council proceed with the public hearing as scheduled. This would allow for two meetings to facilitate the review before the Architectural and Design Review Commission. If the Council continues the meeting to a future date, only one meeting would remain to complete the City’s architectural review process, which would limit the right of appeal or call up for that process.

DISCUSSION
The following is an analysis of the points raised in the appeal. 1) The City of Beverly Hills did not provide any recommendations on the City of Los Angeles application, which was approved over-the-counter on November 23, 2023, and neither the tenants nor the surrounding neighborhood were informed of that application.

The City of Los Angeles letter of compliance regarding the project (Attachment 13), dated November 22, 2023, identifies that the project was reviewed under that city’s 'OnMenu Density Bonus Ministerial Review' process. The letter states the project is compliant with the City of Los Angeles requirements for approval, specifically the objective planning standards of LAMC Section 12.22-A.25(g)(3) and California State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). The City of Los Angeles found the project to be Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a ministerial project.

Beverly Hills does not have the authority to review applications under the purview of the City of Los Angeles nor does it have the authority to require public noticing for applications over which it has no jurisdiction. The City of Los Angeles’ ministerial review process does not include public noticing and the City of Beverly Hills was not notified during their review process. However, once the applicant submitted the required entitlements to the City of Beverly Hills for processing, public noticing was provided in accordance with the requirements set forth in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. 2) Tenants of the existing apartment building at 412 North Oakhurst Drive were unaware that their units fall under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles until the public hearing on December 12, 2024, and had relied on public services and utilities provided by Beverly Hills. The new tenants at 412 North Oakhurst Drive will believe they are Beverly Hills residents, although the City will only receive property tax revenue for 12 of the 52 units.

There are circumstances on the edges of many cities where properties are located across the boundary between two jurisdictions. In the City of Beverly Hills, multi-family parcels located on the east side of the 300 and 400 blocks of North Oakhurst Drive are examples of this situation. As has occurred during the review of development projects proposed on other properties located on North Oakhurst Drive that are split jurisdiction, the portion of the project located within each jurisdiction is reviewed based on the applicable rules for that particular jurisdiction. The City of Beverly Hills requires Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 6 of 11 ends

discretionary review for State Density Bonus projects, thus the residents of the building and neighbors were notified of the project. The City of Los Angeles has its own process for “On-Menu Density Bonus Ministerial Review” and follows City of Los Angeles processing requirements for ministerial projects, which does not include public noticing.

Regarding the City of Beverly Hills providing services, it is correct that water and sewer services for the existing building are provided by Beverly Hills. Additionally, water service for all dual-jurisdictional properties on the 300 and 400 blocks of North Oakhurst Drive is provided by Beverly Hills and will continue to be provided by the City as confirmed by the will serve letter provided by the City’s Public Works Department (Attachment 11). As it relates to emergency services, both the Beverly Hills Fire Department and Beverly Hills Police Department are considered first responders for calls of service at the property, as well as the other properties that have frontage along and are addressed on North Oakhurst Drive.

The City of Beverly Hills, however, does not have jurisdiction over developments in Los Angeles. As such, the portion of the project located in Los Angeles is outside the Beverly Hills’ purview. The proposed building is designed in such a way that each dwelling unit and associated parking spaces are fully located within one or the other city’s jurisdiction.

While only 12 of the 52 units will be physically located in Beverly Hills, the entire building and its residents will be serviced by the City of Beverly Hills for utilities and emergency services as noted in the preceding section. Where a tenant believes they live does not affect the findings to be considered by the Council.
3) The public hearing process did not allow participating members of the public to be heard and the Commission did not adequately discuss all matters.

The public hearing on December 12, 2024, was open to all members of the public and provided for several methods of participation, including in-person, Zoom video conference, and telephone; and through providing written comment prior to the hearing.

The meeting was noticed in compliance with the City’s public noticing requirements, and such notice included information on how to participate in the hearing.

During the public hearing, the Commission heard public comments from all interested parties, and received testimony including concerns about the displacement of senior citizens currently residing in the existing apartment building on-site. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2), an adverse impact is defined as follows:
…a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

Individual economic and health conditions of displaced senior citizens are neither published nor governed by written objective standards that could serve as the basis for determining an “adverse impact on public health and safety.” It does not appear that the City would be able to make the findings in order to deny the project or find that the requested concessions and waivers have specific, adverse impacts based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions. Further, based upon the definition of adverse impact, the economic conditions of displaced senior tenants do not meet the definition of an adverse impact under Government Code Section Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 7 of 11 ends

65915. Finally, State Density Bonus Law (Govt. Code Section 65915(c)(3) and the Housing Crises Act (Govt. Code Sections 66300.5 and 66300.6) establish replacement unit obligations with which the applicant/developer must comply. For this particular property and other properties located on the east side of the 300 and 400 blocks of North Oakhurst Drive, tenant protections and relocation assistance are administered by the City of Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD).
4) The Commission did not adequately consider the economic conditions of displaced senior tenants (during the construction phase), which is an adverse impact under Government Code Section 65915.

Based upon the definition of adverse impact, as provided in the preceding section, the economic conditions of displaced senior tenants do not meet the definition of an adverse impact under Government Code Section 65915.
5) The Commission could have found a reason to reject the Beverly Hills portion or require the building to be moved by 10 feet to preserve the required 25 foot front setback for the Beverly Hills portion.

The front setback of 15 feet was one of the requested waivers for the portion of the project located in Beverly Hills. Pursuant to California Government Code §65915, local agencies are required to allow waivers from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a state density bonus housing development.

The applicant-provided narrative of incentives and waivers is provided as Attachment 12 and includes discussion of the front setback waiver request. The Applicant indicates that applying the 25-foot front setback to the project would materially impact all the housing units within the City of Beverly Hills as well as the housing project’s amenity space and lobby. As discussed in 3 above, the City is limited to denying the waiver request only if it can find significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

Furthermore, shifting the building to preserve the required front setback of 25 feet in Beverly Hills, the rear Los Angeles portion of the project would have had to be redesigned by the applicant to either meet the City of Los Angeles’ rear setback requirement of 10 feet or seek additional methods to allow a 0-foot rear setback. The City of Beverly Hills has no jurisdiction over Los Angeles and cannot require the project to be modified in such a way that it would not comply with the corresponding jurisdiction’s setback requirements.
6) Required findings for the Development Plan Review and R-4 Permit related to adverse impacts, neighborhood compatibility, and harmonious development cannot be made due to the project’s bulk, mass, and lack of modulation.

The project meets applicable zoning code requirements and State Density Bonus Law requirements allow for an applicant to receive certain concessions (minimum unit size and additional paved walkway) and waivers (height, side setbacks, front setback, and outdoor living space) which renders those zoning standards inapplicable to this project.

While the project’s scale may be attributed to the waivers for the increase in height and reduction of certain setbacks as permitted by State Density Bonus Law, the project otherwise complies with development standards that would impact the scale of the building, such as modulation.

Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 8 of 11 ends

Based on staff review and analysis of the project for a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus, and R-4 Permit, the project meets all required findings (Attachment 8).

Detailed analysis of the required findings can be found in Attachment 6. 7) Staff characterization of the project is in error and the project is not consistent with the development pattern nor complements the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive.

The project site is located mid-block on the eastern side of the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive, between Beverly Boulevard to the north and Alden Drive to the south and within the City’s R-4 (Multiple Residential) Zone. Existing development within the vicinity consists of multi-family residential buildings with varying heights between two to ten stories. Properties within the vicinity to the north, south, and west are zoned R-4 and are developed with multi-family buildings.

As described in the preceding section, the project meets all required findings for a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus, and R-4 Permit, which discuss adverse impacts and neighborhood compatibility. Detailed analysis of the required findings can be found in Attachment 6.
8) The letter of compliance issued by the City of Los Angeles contains errors and does not adhere to the same review standards as the City of Beverly Hills, particularly with respect to public notification requirements for the project.

The City of Los Angeles has different sets of rules governing its processes and different noticing requirements, and Beverly Hills does not have the authority to impose its review processes or public notification requirements on applications outside of its jurisdiction. 9) A majority of the “Consistency Analysis” with the General Plan contained in the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) should be challenged as important issues were not considered by the Commission.

The Class 32 report prepared by Michael Baker International (Attachment 11) provides substantial evidence that the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan. The petition states tenants and neighbors disagree with the Class 32 Exemption Report on a number of levels and identifies that they would challenge the majority of the “Consistency Analysis.” The appeal petition does not provide any additional detail as to what information there is disagreement with or what portions of the consistency analysis are being challenged. The lack of information in the appeal petition renders this particular grounds for appeal as speculative.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5), substantial evidence includes fact, a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact.

Substantial evidence is not argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence of social or economic impacts that do not contribute to, or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21080(d) and (e)). As the claims and assertions presented by the appellant rely on speculative and unsubstantiated assumptions, the information does not impact the City’s reliance on the Class 32 Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 9 of 11 ends

exemption. The Class 32 report clearly and definitively supports the finding that the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
10) Substantial changes must be made to the project to address the issues related to the front setback, modulation, parking, sustainability, rooftop amenities, the treatment of displaced senior tenants, and approval from the Mid City West Neighborhood Council.

Front setback: Front setback is one of the requested and granted waivers for the project pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. The applicant-provided narrative of incentives and waivers is provided as Attachment 11.

Modulation: The project provides 725 SF of modulation, which complies with the 702.4 SF required pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2806.

Parking: Charging for parking spaces is solely up to the applicant and not subject to any City requirements. As a condition of approval (Attachment 7), the residents of the project will not be able to participate in the City’s preferential parking program or overnight parking program.

Sustainability: All projects are required to comply with the standards set forth in the California Green Building Code; however, the City does not have specific requirements for projects to be built to LEED Silver standard.

Rooftop amenities: The project does not propose any rooftop amenities. The lack of rooftop amenities will help limit noise impacts for adjacent neighbors.

Re-renting to existing tenants and displaced senior tenants: For this particular property and other properties located on the east side of the 300 and 400 blocks of North Oakhurst Drive, tenant protections and relocation assistance are administered by the City of Los Angeles Housing Department (LAHD).

Mid-City West approval: The City of Beverly Hills has no authority to require the applicant to seek approval from a City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Council. It should be noted that neighborhood councils in the City of Los Angeles do not have formal land use decision-making authority.

A Notice of Pending Hearing and a Notice of Hearing for the project was mailed to owners and occupants within 500’ radius of the project site in accordance with the City’s public notification requirements. Based upon the project’s location, the mailing radius included properties located in Los Angeles, which provided the same opportunity for those residents to participate in the hearing as it did for Beverly Hills residents.

The Applicant’s legal counsel, Ryan Leaderman of Holland and Knight submitted additional information in advocating for the City’s denial of the appeal, which is included as Attachment 2 of this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 10 of 11 ends

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines2 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. An analysis was conducted by Michael Baker International to assess whether this project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA as an in-fill development project (Attachment 11; Available online at www.beverlyhills.org/environmental).

Based on this assessment, the Planning Commission determined that project qualifies for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that this exemption is applicable when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Staff recommends the City Council find, as the Planning Commission did, that the project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 32 exemption based on the analysis provided in the attached Class 32 categorical exemption report3
.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on May 29, 2025, to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 15). On-site posting was also posted on the subject property on May 29, 2025. Additionally, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the hearing dates. As the appeal hearing was continued to a date certain, to August 5, 2025, no additional public notification is necessary. However, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the August 5, 2025 hearing date.

Public Comment
All previously provided Planning Commission public correspondence is included as Attachment 16 to this report. City Council public correspondence received for the appeal item is included as Attachment 17 to this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellant at the time the appeal was filed.
2 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ 3 On July 10, 2024, the applicant invoked AB 130 and requested an additional continuance for the appeal hearing to meet all required standards set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 for a new statutory exemption, which requires tribal notification and consultation. City staff initiated the tribal consultation process on July 24, 2025. However, the project qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption for in-fill development.

Meeting Date: August 5, 2025

Page 11 of 11 ends

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Appeal Petition
APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE WITHIN . 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION

APPEAL TO COMMISSION OR CITY COUNCIL
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLYIN BLA CKINK 12/24/25
Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions ofthe Beverly Hills Municipal Code, The undersigned here by appeals from the decision of Planning (Official, Board e Commission involved) rendered on December 12. 2024 ; which decision consisted of:

The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State all groundsfor appeaL Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper ifnecessary.) A local resident, Rabbi Ruben Milikian, hereby appeals the December 12, 2024 decision of the Planning Commission regarding a Development Plan Review, a Density Bonus Permit and an R-4 Permit for 412 North Oakhurst. The grounds for appeal are set forth initially ina letter to the CityCounciL The Appellant reserves the right to supplement the initial letter.

The undersigned discussed the decision be appealed with:

Ryan Gohlich, Assistant City Manager on December 23. 2024 (Department Head(s) Involved) Date
It is requested that written notice oftime and place or the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:

Rabbi Ruben Milikan 412 Oakhurst Drive, Unit 304, Beverly Hills, California 90210 Name Address
Signature of appealing party
412 North Oakhurst Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Address
(310) 666-1244
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid
(For City Clerk’s use) DATE RECEIVED s cny CLERK 4 •
JL- LJL LL LOG NO. Written Notice mailed to appellant:

Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney,
Involved Department
$1,000
Community Development
PL2200529
40x24
412 North Oakhurst
Beverly Hills, California 90210
December 24, 2024
City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90212
RE: An Appeal of a Development Plan Review, a Density Bonus Permit and an R-4 Permit for a Proposed 8-story, 52-unit Apartment Project at 412 North Oakhurst
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:

Introduction
On December 12, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and approved a Development Plan Review, a Density Bonus Permit and an R-4 Permit for a proposed 8-story, 52-unit apartment project. 12 units would be located in the City of Beverly Hills.

A total of 10 units would be deed-restricted for lower income housing for the entire project. In the City of Beverly Hills, the 3 deed-restricted units would be 2 for very low-income households and I unit for low-income households.

The existing structure is 3-stories of 15 units. It is comprised of 3 onebedroom units with den and 1.5 bathrooms, 3 two-bedroom with den units and two bathrooms, and 9 two-bedroom, two bath units.

Of the 15 units, 12 units are occupied by long-term tenants, the other 3 units are supposedly reserved for temporary rental, such as Airbnb.

Of the long-term tenants, some have been there as long as 25 years or more. Most all are seniors. Many suffer from age-related conditions.

I am speaking on behalf of those tenants.

If this project is approved as is, these tenants will all be forced to move from the Beverly Hills area during the construction phase. The market rents in the Beverly Hills are 2-5 times the existing rents of the residents.

December 24, 2024

Page 2 ends

These tenants will also likely lose access to the same amenities, such as two nearby supermarkets and the Cedars Sinai Medical Center, along with their access to their usual religious services. Their sense of community, and protection by the City of Beverly Hills Police and Fire will be lost.

This is a bi-jurisdictional project. The approval from the Department of Planning for the City of Los Angeles came on November 22, 2023, on an “over the-counter” basis.

Neither the tenants nor the neighborhood was ever informed of that City of Los Angeles application. The City of Beverly Hills did not apparently make any recommendations on the City of Los Angeles Application, even though the City of Beverly Hills submittal was nearly a year earlier on November 30, 2022.

Until the public hearing, most 412 North Oakhurst tenants believed they were residents of Beverly Hills. They were unaware that their units were in Los Angeles. They call on Beverly Hills police and Beverly Hills fire, and are accorded Beverly Hills status by the Community Services department given a resident library card and the discounts afforded by being classified as a resident.

This will continue after the proposed project is constructed. The City of Beverly Hills will only receive property tax revenues on a portion of three units, but will be responsible for providing all services to all tenants to 52 units.

Participants At Public Hearing
There were two groups of people at the public hearing, those opposing the project due to its size and mass, and the tenants of 412 North Oakhurst.

Neither group felt that the hearing process allowed them to be heard.For example, the Commissioners stated they did not have jurisdiction of the Los Angeles portion. That made no sense. The Commissioners could have found a reason to reject the Beverly Hills portion, simply because it intruded 10’ in the front setback, while the Los Angeles portion has a 10’ rear setback.

Moving the building 10’ to the back would preserve the 25’ front setback.

As to senior tenants, they will suffer irreparable harm by having to spending upwards of 2 to 5 times current rents to remain the Beverly Hills area.

Due to their age and condition, the project could have been rejected. At the December 24, 2024

Page 3 ends

hearing it was stated the Commissioners could reject a project on the basis of “adverse impact on public health and safety.”
There are feasible methods to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impacts. The Commissioners felt they were not allowed to consider the senior tenants issue. The tenants believe that to be in error. The tenants believe that the economic condition of the current senior tenants to be an adverse impact (during the construction phase), according to Government Code Section 65915.

Findings
In addition to the aforementioned, the tenants and neighbors believe that the Commissioners erred in examining two specific aspects of the findings.

The residents and neighbors do not believe that the following findings can be made, due to the proposed project’s bulk and mass and lack of modulation:

Development Plan Review:

The proposedplan will not adversely affect existing and antic4’ated development in the vicinity and willpromote harmonious development ofthearea.

AND
The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner ofoperation of any commercial developmentproposed by theplan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment ofresidentialproperties in the vicinity ofthe subjectproperty.

R4 Permit:

Theproposal is compatible with the nearby streetscape and the scale ofthe surrounding development.

The residents and the neighbors object to the Staff characterization on page 14 of the Agenda Report that states:

A new eight-story building with a height of86’-ll” would replace the existing building and would continue to be consistent with the developmentpattern onthe 400 block ofNorth Oakhurst Drive. The project’s scale and massing would complement the existing multi-family residential development within theimmediate vicinity. No rooftop operations are proposed, as the rooftop would be occupied by solarpanels and mechanical equipment.

December 24, 2024

Page 4 ends

The proposed project is not consistent with the “development pattern” nor that the “scale and massing compliment” the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive.

It is wildly out of place on these metrics.

It should also be noted that the “Letter of Compliance” from the City of Los Angeles is riddled with errors. Further the City of Los Angeles does not have the same standards with regards to the City of Beverly Hills. For example, the City of Los Angeles “over-the-counter’ requirements for new applications relative to signage at the property and noticing is negligible. That there was no opposition in the City of Los Angeles speaks to lack of public awareness of the project.

The tenants and neighbors also disagree with the Class 32 Exemption Report on a number of different levels. They would challenge the majority of the “Consistency Analysis” with the General Plan. They do not believe that the Commissioners focused upon these important issues.

How the Project Can Be Fixed:

There are a number of ways for this project to be compatible to maintain the City’s “garden quality”:
• Front Setback 25’ feet. This can be achieved by the Applicant negotiating with the City of Los Angeles for reduced rear setback. • Modulation: The portion in Beverly Hills will comply with current height restrictions of 33’. Then, the structure can modulate into the larger portion in Los Angeles.
• Parking: The Applicant intends to charge for parking. Such parking rates should not be more than any other properties in the area, in order to encourage use of off-street parking.

Making parking permits unavailable to these new residents would be inconsistent with the neighborhood. The neighborhood would have no problem if to achieve such a goal that visitor parking could be on the street. • Sustainabilitv: Beyond rooftop solar and EV chargers, there are no mentioned sustainability enhancements. There is nothing in Government Code Section 65915 that precludes the City of Beverly Hills to order the construction of this building be to Leed Silver standards.

December 24, 2024

Page 5 ends

• Rooftop Ammenities: There are currently no rooftop amenities.

Utilization of the rooftop for common area could reduce the project by one story. • Re-Renting to Existing Residents: There is a provision in the City Of Los Angeles Municipal Code which allows displaced residents to return to their newly constructed units at inflation-adjusted rents.

This provision should be included in the Resolution, so that there is no ambiguity.
• Displaced Senior Tenants: This is the first project in Beverly Hills where over 70% of the potential displaced tenants are seniors. There needs to be some means by which either the Applicant and/or the City provides the rent differential for the period of construction.
• Mid City West: As there was no easy way for Los Angeles residents to weigh-in on the project, the Commissioners could have conditioned that the Applicant seek approval from the Mid City West Neighborhood Council.

In closing, for all intents and purposes, this is a Los Angeles project with a Beverly Hills address. The residents, and owners, will benefit from “living” inBeverly Hills. Most residents in dual-jurisdictional buildings do not know they technically live in Los Angeles. They receive Beverly Hills Police, Fire, Water, BHUSD and other services. The new tenants at 412 North Oakhurst will believe that they are Beverly Hills residents, but the City only receivesproperty taxes on 12 of the 52 units.

This project cannot be allowed to proceed unless substantial changes are made. Due to the dual jurisdictional nature of the proposed project, there is more latitude than with other Applicants to force change.

This is not an issue of “Sacramento made us do it.”
Instead, it is a matter of satisfying Sacramento mandates, while also meeting the needs of specific populations and neighborhoods in Beverly Hills.

This correspondence is submitted on behalf of the property owner of 412 North Oakhurst Drive, Oakhurst Skyline LLC (the “Applicant”) in response to the appeal filed by Reuben Milikan, dated December 24, 2024, challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, and R-4 Permit for the proposed redevelopment project located at the abovereferenced address (the “Project”).

The Applicant respectfully requests that the City Council deny the appeal in its entirety and affirm the approval of the Project. The appeal fails to present any substantial evidence of legal or procedural error and does not meet the narrow criteria under California law that would allow a local jurisdiction to deny a compliant housing development project.

The Project Complies Fully with Applicable State and Local Law The Project spans two jurisdictions—the City of Beverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles—and was reviewed and processed in full compliance with applicable planning, zoning, and environmental laws.

The Beverly Hills portion was reviewed under the Beverly Hills Municipal Code and evaluated in accordance with Government Code § 65915 et seq. (State Density Bonus Law) and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5 et seq.).

Mayor Nazarian
Honorable Councilmembers
June 5, 2025

Page 2 ends

#522838577_v1
The Project includes 52 dwelling units in total, inclusive of ten affordable units. Within Beverly Hills, the Project includes 12 dwelling units including two very low-income and one low-income unit. As shown on page 7 of the Planning Commission Report dated December 12, 2024, pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.), the Project would receive an 88.75 percent density bonus so that the total number of Beverly Hills dwelling units is 12.

Accordingly, in addition to the aforementioned density bonus, the Project qualifies for incentives pursuant to Gov. Code § 65915(d) and waivers of development standard waivers pursuant to Gov.

Code § 65915(e). Further, the Project is subject to the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3)) which states that “the receipt of a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or reduction of development standards pursuant to [Gov. Code] Section 65915 shall not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision specified in this subdivision.” Because the Project is consistent with objective development standards, inclusive of relief pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, and there is no preponderance of evidence in the record that the Project would have “a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety,”1 and even if there were such an adverse impact, there is no evidence in the record that there “is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact,”2 the law prohibits Beverly Hills from denying the Project.

Substantial evidence in the administrative record supports the Planning Commission’s findings that the Project is compatible with the General Plan, promotes harmonious development, and satisfies the public interest.

The Appeal Fails to Establish a Legally Cognizable “Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety”
Appellant argues that the Project should be denied due to the displacement of long-term senior tenants, many of whom rely on proximity to neighborhood services, religious institutions, and community amenities. These concerns are acknowledged and not taken lightly. In fact, Applicant has taken substantive efforts to attenuate the impact of developing the property on its current tenants, including compliance with replacement housing obligations within State Density Bonus and the Housing Crisis Act. However, displacement, relocation funding to tenants, and a right of return, do not constitute a “specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety” as defined by law.

Pursuant to Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1), a local agency may only deny a qualifying housing project if it finds, based on substantial evidence in the record, that the project will have a “specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety,” and that no feasible method exists to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid that impact other than denial. Similarly, Gov. Code § 65915(d)(1) further prohibits a local agency from denying an incentive on this basis. 1 Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A).
2 Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(B).

Mayor Nazarian
Honorable Councilmembers
June 5, 2025

Page 3 ends

#522838577_v1
This is a narrow and objective legal standard. “Specific, adverse impact” is defined as a significant, quantifiable, and direct risk to public health or safety. Courts have held that emotional, social, or economic concerns—however sympathetic—do not satisfy this threshold. (See California Renters Legal Advocacy & Education Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820.) Specifically, in this case:
• The Project poses no documented threat of physical or environmental harm, nor does it involve any hazardous materials, wildfire risk, or structural danger. • The temporary displacement of tenants during construction is addressed by existing state and local tenant relocation laws, and there is no evidence of a medical or emergency risk arising from temporary relocation.
• The Applicant is willing to explore additional voluntary measures to assist tenants, but those efforts fall outside the scope of the legal standard for Project denial and would further be outside the scope of a written objective standard at the time of Project application completeness. If City were to impose such a condition, this would be an impermissible condition lowering of density as defined in Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8) since it would have a harmful effect or impact on the Project’s ability to provide housing.

The Planning Commission correctly determined that the Project does not create a specific, adverse public health or safety impact, and the appeal’s argument to the contrary is unsupported by any expert analysis or substantial evidence.

Tenant Relocation is Governed by Existing Legal Protections The Project will comply with all applicable relocation obligations, including those set forth by the City of Beverly Hills for its portion of the Project site. Under controlling state law, a tenant relocation impact does not justify denial or reduction of housing density, particularly where this Project provides deed-restricted affordable housing.

The Project is Compatible with the Neighborhood and the City's Long-Term Housing Goals The Project includes architectural articulation, horizontal modulation, and stepped building forms that respect the scale and rhythm of adjacent structures. While taller than the existing 3-story building it replaces, the proposed structure is consistent with evolving patterns of multi-family development along North Oakhurst Drive and the surrounding neighborhood which has a variety of buildings with varying heights. The appellant has not provided evidence to support the assertion that the Project is “wildly out of place.” The Project has been designed to minimize shadow, privacy, and massing impacts, and includes no rooftop occupiable space.

The Planning Commission’s conclusion that the Project is compatible with the neighborhood and supportive of the City’s General Plan and Housing Element is supported by substantial evidence.

Mayor Nazarian
Honorable Councilmembers
June 5, 2025

Page 4 ends

#522838577_v1
Dual-Jurisdictional Processing was Proper and Legally Appropriate Although the site spans both Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, the Project was reviewed and approved in each jurisdiction according to each city’s governing ordinances. There is no legal basis for Beverly Hills to condition, delay, or deny the Project based on the process or timing of Los Angeles’ review.

The City’s approval was based on the portion within its control and complies fully with due process requirements.

Suggested Project Modifications and Conditions Were Considered and Appropriately Addressed The appeal requests that the City impose additional conditions regarding setbacks, sustainability standards, parking pricing, rooftop use, and return rights for displaced tenants. These matters were raised during the Planning Commission hearing and were considered by staff and the decision makers.

The Project complies with all objective standards. To the extent that the Project seeks incentives and waivers, these are not inconsistencies under the law3 and the City must approve these incentives and waivers to accommodate the Project as proposed. Courts have confirmed that State Density Bonus Law is not ambiguous as to the applicability of waivers: In Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, the Court concluded that the law provides a “developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards.”4 This is in accord with Wollmer v. City of Berkeley where the court held that there is nothing in State Density Bonus Law that “requires the applicant to strip the project of amenities, such as an interior courtyard, that would require a waiver of development standards. Standards may be waived that physically preclude construction of a housing development meeting the requirements for a density bonus, period.”5
A municipality may not require the elimination of the amenities of a project as proposed. In Bankers Hill, the court made clear: “So long as a proposed housing development project meets the criteria of the Density Bonus Law by including the necessary affordable units, a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.”6 In other words, cities must assess the validity of incentive and waivers based on projects as they are proposed rather than as they may theoretically be designed to a minimalist configuration.

Therefore, despite the appellant’s request for design changes, any condition that effectively reduces project density, violates granted incentives and waivers, or imposes undue burdens is preempted by state law.

Environmental Law/California Environmental Quality Act
The appellant disagrees with the conclusions of the Class 32 infill exemption. However, the appellant does not provide any substantial evidence that the determinations in the Class 32 are deficient, nor does 3 Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(3).
4 Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 774-75 (2022). 5 Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346-1347 (2011). 6 Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego, 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775 (2022).

Mayor Nazarian
Honorable Councilmembers
June 5, 2025

Page 5 ends

#522838577_v1
he provide any substantial evidence that any exception to the exemption applies. As such, there is no legal basis to support the appellant’s position with respect to the legal adequacy of the Class 32 infill exemption.

Conclusion
For the abovementioned reasons, the appeal fails to articulate any legal or factual basis to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision. The Project complies with all applicable land use and environmental standards, qualifies for entitlements under state housing law, and furthers the City’s goal of increasing affordable housing opportunities. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Council deny the appeal in full and affirm the Project’s approval without delay.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Ryan M. Leaderman, Esq.

Attachments
cc: Ryan Gohlich
Masa Alkire
Cindy Gordon
Minjee Hahm
David Snow, Esq.

Avi Stieglitz, Esq.

Alan Nissel, Esq.

Stephen Webb, Esq.

ATTACHMENT 3
Appeal Extension Request
Letter from the Appellant
412 North Oakhurst
Beverly Hills, California 90210
June 9, 2025
Honorable Mayor Sharona Nazarian, Ph.D.

Vice Mayor John Mirisch
Councilmember Craig Corman, Esq.

Councilmember Lester Friedman, Esq.

Councilmember Mary Wells
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90212
RE: Request For Extension
Appeal Hearing – 412 North Oakhurst
Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:

Please permit this letter to request an extension of the Appeal Hearing scheduled for June 17th for 412 North Oakhurst.

The reason for this request is that a PRA will not be able to be fulfilled until well after the June 17th hearing.

It would replace a 3-story, 15-unit multi-family apartment building, of which 80% of the long-term tenants are seniors.

On December 26, 2024, an Appeal was timely filed.

The two main thrusts of the Appeal were Tenant Issues and Land Use Issues.

At the time of filing, I was told there would be a date-setting hearing.

June 9, 2025

Page 2 ends

BHMC Code
On October 18, 2024, the Beverly Hills Municipal Code was changed, amending Title 4, Chapter 1.

The change focused upon modifying for setting a date for Appeal hearings.

For decades date-setting hearings were held by the City Council.

Frequently, the proposed date would be changed for a variety of issues, including the lack of fulfillment of PRAs and the like.

Now, the date-setting is the domain of the Director of Community Development.

A red-line copy of the new code is in Attachment A.

PRAs
In December, the first PRA (CRM-24-2336) was filed.

Three batches of information were provided in January and February. The last two batches were delivered on May 2nd.

On May 2, 2025, a second PRA (CRM-25-794) was filed. It is seen in Attachment B.

Request For Continuance - Timeline
On April 15th, a letter was hand-delivered to Staff, requesting a continuance. It is seen in Attachment C.

A subsequent email was sent on May 18, 2025, after the lack of a datesetting hearing. It is seen in Attachment D.

At the time of Appeal filing, I was told there would be a date-setting hearing.

On May 20th City Council meeting, I provided a non-agendized public comment to update you as to the status of the Appeal. That public comment summarized the forgoing.

June 9, 2025

Page 3 ends

Informing The Applicant
On June 10th, the Applicant will be informed by a hand-delivered letter that we would be requesting for the Appeal hearing to be continued. An excerpt:
“The reason I am providing this information is to strenuously advise you of the strong possibility of the Appeal hearing date being continued, and your cost to have your legal team and experts present would be for naught.” The full letter is seen in Attachment E.

Summary
Some might contend that we have not been diligent in preparing for the Appeal Hearing.

The reality is that I want this over as soon as possible. I am lucky if I can get four hours of sleep per night. It has exacerbated my health problems.

My fellow tenants have expressed similar experiences. One of my fellow tenants is 86 and is wondering “What I am supposed to do at my age? Why is the Beverly Hills City Council not defending me from having to move to Pacoima?”
We believe that there are substantial inaccuracies that can only be uncovered through the PRA process.

There are significant discrepancies between the plans submitted to the City of Los Angeles and City of Beverly Hills. The City of Beverly Hills has been disadvantaged, but the City of Beverly Hills is the Lead Agency.

The PRA process is not one that can be accelerated. The hoops that the City Clerk’s office has to jump through is exhaustive. It is about protecting innocent citizens.

Fulfillment of the May 1, 2025 PRA will take as long as it takes. Hopefully, there will not be a need for a second PRA.

Staff contends that I should have filed the second PRA in December, but the reality is that if it had been delivered in May, we would also have been requesting an extension. The volume of documents from the first PRA is beyond comprehension.

June 9, 2025

Page 4 ends

What Staff refuses to understand is that we, the tenants, are neophytes.

We are not land use experts. The Planning Commission agenda report was 522 pages long, and we only had a week to review brand new concepts and terminology.

Unlike the land-use attorneys that we will face, we don’t know what we don’t know. That gap in information can only be fulfilled through PRAs.

Both Avi Stiegliz (the Applicant) and I have sought solutions, but have been stymied at every turn.

While Avi and his partners are very frustrated, the tenants should have the right to create an Appeal that is both cogent and brings to light new information.

That can only be done through the PRA process.

For those reasons, we believe our request to continue the hearing is warranted.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Ruben Milikan

ATTACHMENT A
Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section Title 1. Chapter 4

ATTACHMENT B
PRA – April 30, 2025

ATTACHMENT C
Letter To Staff – April 15, 2025
412 North Oakhurst
Beverly Hills, California 90210
(310) 666-1244
April 15, 2015
Mr. Michael Forbes
Director of Community Development
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
RE: 412 North Oakhurst
Appeal Date
Dear Michael:

Thank you for taking the time for our conversation on Friday.

You have asked for a letter explaining our request for the Appeal Hearing for 412 North Oakhurst be in August. The City has proposed the second City Council meeting in June.

There are two main reasons:
(1) As you are likely aware, we are a collective group who paid for the Appeal. Some of our residents will not be available in late June, due to either pre-planned trips and/or medical procedures
(2) Later this week, we will be submitting an extensive PRA. Assuming that it is provided within a month, it will likely require a subsequent PRA. The multiple PRAs, and their review (including by our consultants), could extend into mid-July.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me directly at (310) 666-1244.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Ruben Milikan

ATTACHMENT D
Email To Staff – May 18, 2025
From: RUBI MAL <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 9:50 PM
To: Michael Forbes <[email protected]>
Cc: Minjee Hahm <[email protected]>; Cindy Gordon
<[email protected]>; Masa Alkire <[email protected]> Subject: June 17th Date

Dear Michael:

Please permit me to respond to your email of April 25th.

First, there was miscommunication between Minji and myself. The miscommunication was my fault solely. Minji has been exemplary and should be praised.

We were quite surprised that there was no date-setting hearing for the 412 North Oakhurst at the May 6th or the May 20th City Council meetings, the latter of which’s Agenda was published yesterday afternoon,
In the process of filing the Appeal, we were informed there would be a datesetting hearing.

After there was no date-setting hearing schedule on May 6th or May 20th, I asked for advice as to why, and was informed the code changed in October.

In the past, at date setting hearings there has been some variance from the Staff recommended date. The City Council considers mitigating circumstances of both parties, and adjusts accordingly.

Twice, within the last several years, Appeal hearings have been scheduled to coincide with the receipt of PRAs and/or subpoenaed materials. .As you are aware, PRA No. CRM-24-2459 was submitted in December. The last batch of materials was received last week.

As you also are aware, the timeline for distribution of PRA No. CRM-25-794 will not be provided until the end of May.

Further, the City Clerk advised us last week to seek certain records from the City of Los Angeles.

All of this would have been revealed to the City Counsel date-setting hearing, but alas, that is no longer an option.

In an Appeal, what the City Counsel wants to know is “What’s New?” Since we cannot file an amendment with further new information, until the PRA is fulfilled, it is futile to hold a June 17th hearing.

In light of foregoing, do you really want the Minji, Cindy, and Masa to undergo the preparation, along with the noticing, for a hearing that cannot take place? Sincerely,
Rabbi Ruben Milikan

ATTACHMENT E
Letter To Applicant – June 9, 2025
412 North Oakhurst
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Via Hand Delivery June 9, 2025
Mr. Avi Stieglitz
150 South Rodeo Drive
Suite 350
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Dear Avi:

Since December, we have had numerous discussions. Most were amongst ourselves, but some involved Ryan Gohlich and Michael Forbes, as well as some with your investment partners.

Both of us have tried diligently to find a solution, but we seem to be stymied by others.

This letter will address two key issues: the “Rent Differential” and the request for a continuance for the appeal hearing.

Rent Differential
You have asked for a “number” as to what it would take to drop our appeal.

Beyond land use issues, all we want is for our incurred expenses to be taken care of during the construction phase. That was our position at the December 12th Planning Commission hearing. We refer to such expenses as the “Rent Differential”
We believe the “Rent Differential” will in the range of $100,000 per tenant, assuming a three-year construction phase. While every tenant has a different monthly rent, we believe the market rate for the area for a comparable twobedroom unit is $5,500.

On December 12th, there were 12 long-term tenants in the building, who would be eligible to return. Of those, 10 were seniors.

In addition to the “Rent Differential,” there are a number of other factors that we need to be taken care of so that we are not disadvantaged. We believe these to be comparatively minor financially. They are listed in the enclosure.

Page 2 ends

To determine the bulk of the “Rent Differential,” we used a commonly available template on the internet to calculate the “Rent Differential.” This can be seen in a second enclosure.

Quite frankly, your ownership group likely knew this “number” months ago.

I cannot imagine that amongst the three land use attorneys in your team that similar projections had not been done.

When we had a meeting with Ryan and Michael, you also intimated what the collective “number” was for all tenants.

Nothing has changed from December.

In your text of last week, you stated that if the “number” was unsatisfactory to you, your existing offer would be rescinded before the Appeal Hearing. That seems disingenuous. You always knew what the “number” and, thus, this is, respectfully, a ridiculous “negotiating strategy.”
Continuance
As you have been made aware, we have requested a continuance for the June 17th Appeal hearing.

It revolves around the City’s not providing PRAs as quickly as you or I would want.

This is not a criticism of the City Clerk’s office, but the structural way a PRA is approached by the City to protect all citizens. The process is not quick.

My first PRA, initiated in December, was not fulfilled until May. I have not received an estimate as to when my April PRA will be fulfilled, but it would be reasonable to assume that the minimum would be several months.

In addition, the City has advised us to seek a PRA from the City of Los Angeles. Until the April PRA is fulfilled, we will not know what to seek from the City of Los Angeles.

The reason why this information is being provided to you is that you have scheduled your legal team and your experts to be at the June 17th hearing.

Page 3 ends

In the past, there was a date-setting hearing. This is the first time when the Director of Community Development has had the unilateral right to set the date.

Prior to the change of the Beverly Hills municipal code, on a number of occasions, the appeal date was extended at the date setting hearing due to PRA and other issues
The Director could have gone to a City Council Study Session when he received our April 15 letter, and asked for direction. He chose not.

The reason I am providing this information is to strenuously advise you of the strong possibility of the Appeal hearing date being continued, and your cost to have your legal team and experts present would be for naught.

I will be asking that this correspondence to be included in the Agenda Report.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Ruben Milikan
Enclosures
412 NORTH OAKHURST
Temporary Relocation
(1) Rent Differential
(2) Taxes (to pay for the rent differential for the temporary unit) (3) Moving Expense (both ways, including packers)
(4) Handyman (both ways)
(5) Cleaning person (both ways)
(6) Elevator (at temporary unit)
(7) 2-car parking (at temporary unit)
(8) Commission (if a realtor is paid to locate the temporary unit) (9) Comparable Unit Upon Return
"RENT DIFFERNTIAL" CALCULATION (412 North Oakhurst)
Annual Cumulative Cumulative
Current Market Rent Rent Rent
Year Rent(1) Rent (2)(6) Difference(7) Difference(8) Taxes(9) Differential(10) 1 $2,900 $5,500 $31,200 $31,200 $9,360 $50,560
2 $2,987 $5,665 $32,136 $63,336 $9,641 $72,977
3 $3,077 $5,835 $33,100 $96,436 $9,930 $116,366
4 $3,169 $6,010 $34,093 $130,529 $10,228 $150,757
5 $3,264 $6,190 $35,116 $165,645 $10,535 $186,180
Variables
Current Rent $2,900 (1)
Market Rent For Equivalent Unit $5,500 (2)
Income Tax Rate 30% (3)
Moving Costs (each way) $10,000 (4)
Annual RSO Rent Increase 3% (5)
Footnotes:
(1) Current Rent: Assumes that the tenant pays for utilities; (2) Market Rent For Equivalent Unit: Assumes that the tenant moves into an apartment, as opposed to renting a condo or a home (which are not protected by the Annual Rent Increase) and pays utilities.
(3) Income Tax Rate: The taxable "rent differential" amount could "bump" the tenant into a higher tax bracket. The Income Tax Rate could increase to as much as 45%. (4) Moving Costs: To create equivalent habitability, there could be other one-time costs incorporated into the Moving Costs. It is assumed that the Moving Costs would be payable to move Into the Market Rate unit, and the return to a newly constructed unit. (5) Annual RSO Rent Increase: Assumes a minimum annual RSO Rent increase.

The actual increase could be more.
(6) Market Rent: After year one, the future rent is calculated by multiplying the pevious year's "Market Rent" by the Annual RSO Rent Increase."
(7) Annual Rent Difference: The "Annual Rent Difference" is difference between the "Market Rent" and the "Current Rent"
(8) Cumulative Rent Difference: The "Cumulative Rent Difference" is calculated by adding the previous year's "Cumulative Rent Difference" with the current year "Annual Rent Difference."

(9) Taxes: "Taxes" are calculated by multiplying the "Annual Rent Difference" by the "Income Tax Rate."

(10) Cumulative Rent Differenial: The "Cumulative Rent Differential" is the sum of the "Cumulative Rent Difference" plus "Taxes" plus "Moving Costs." ATTACHMENT 4
Applicant Letter
Regarding Public Resources
Code Section 21080.66
1 | Page
Oakhurst Skyline, LLC
9229 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite #200
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
July 10, 2025

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Application PL2200529/Notice of CEQA Exemption under AB 130 and Public Resources Code § 21080.66
Project Site: 412 North Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 To Whom It May Concern:

This letter provides formal notice to the City of Beverly Hills (the “City”) that the abovereferenced project (the “Project”) qualifies for and claims an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code (“PRC”) Section 21080.66, as enacted by Assembly Bill 130 (effective July 1, 2025).

1. CEQA Exemption Under PRC § 21080.66
Pursuant to PRC § 21080.66(b)(1)(A)(ii), this transmittal notifies the City that the Project is exempt from CEQA and that the City is required to commence formal tribal notification and consultation within 14 days of this letter.

The Project meets all conditions required under PRC Section 21080.66 for CEQA exemption, including but not limited to:
• Lot size: The site is less than five acres meeting the requirement of PRC § 21088.66(a)(1).
• Urban infill: The site qualifies as within the incorporated City of Beverly Hills and is infill under at least one criterion (e.g., 75% perimeter urbanized). In fact, the site is 100 percent surrounded by urban uses, therefore qualifying under PRC § 21080.66(a)(2) and (3).
• General Plan/Zoning consistency: The Project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, therefore qualifying under PRC § 21080.66(a)(4). The Project, as authorized by the State Density Bonus statute, is consistent with various goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, and specifically, the land use and housing elements of the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed height and density of the Project are based on the allowable base heights and densities of the General Plan, taking into account waivers pursuant to 2 | Page
State Density Bonus Law, which will render certain standards inapplicable to this Project. Furthermore, the Project is consistent with the zoning, where deviations are sought pursuant to the State Density Bonus statute. See also pages 27 to 46 of the Class 32 Exemption approved by the Planning Commission, attached herewith.
• Minimum density: The minimum density is 15 dwelling units per acre and the Project’s 52 dwelling units on a 15,400 square foot lot exceeds the applicable minimum density threshold pursuant to PRC § 21080.66(a)(5). • Environmental factors: The site is not located on or near wetlands, prime farmland, earthquake faults, flood zones, or hazardous waste sites, thereby meeting the PRC § 21080.66(a)(6) threshold.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(A), the Project is not located in a coastal zone.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(B), the Project Site is not located on Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Project Site and surrounding area are designated Urban and Built-Up Land.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(C), the Project Site is not located on a wetland. The Project Site does not include any protected wetlands or water features.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(E), the Project Site is not a hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code. The Project Site is not located on any list of hazardous waste sites pursuant to Section 65962.5.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(F), the Project Site is not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone. The Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, and no active faults are known to pass through the immediate Project vicinity.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(G), the Project Site is not located in 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 (“FEMA”).

The Project Site is located in Zone X, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(H), the Project Site is not located within a regulatory floodway as determined by FEMA. The Project Site is located in Zone X, which is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(I), the Project Site is not on land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan. The Project Site is also not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State conservation habitat plan. o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(J), the Project Site does not contain habitat for protected species identified as candidate, 3 | Page
sensitive, or species of special status by State or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, the California Endangered Species Act, or the Native Plant Protection Act. The Project Site is in an urbanized area within the City and is developed with a residential building. The Project Site contains minimal ornamental landscaping in front of the building on Oakhurst and along the side setbacks. No vegetation exists within the Project Site or surrounding areas that could provide habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species.
o Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65913.4(6)(K), the Project Site is not land under conservation easement.
• No demolition of historic resources: The Project does not demolish any resource listed prior to the application (see PRC § 21080.66(a)(7)). • No freeway within 500 feet: The Project Site is not located within 500 feet of any freeway, so PRC § 21080.66(c)(2) is inapplicable.
• Tribal Consultation Notice – Required action by the City.

Under Public Resources Code § 21080.66(b)(1)(A)(ii), the City is now required to:
o Notify California Native American tribes traditionally affiliated with the area within 14 days.
o Include required project information (site maps, description, studies, contact info, etc.)
o Conclude consultation in accordance with the timelines and procedures specified in the statute.

The Project team stands ready to participate in the consultation process, consistent with statutory requirements.
• A Class 32 Categorical Exemption was prepared by Michael Baker at the behest of the City. There are no recognized environmental conditions. Therefore PRC § 21080.66(c)(1) has been satisfied.
• As the Project would not be greater than 85 feet in height, PRC § 21080.66(d) shall not apply.

2. Supporting Documentation
• Project Location Map and Site Plan
• Planning Commission Approved Class 32 Categorical Exemption Consistency Analysis, pages 27-46
4 | Page
Should you require additional information or have any questions regarding this CEQA exemption claim or tribal consultation procedures, please do not hesitate to contact us directly.

Sincerely,
Avi V. Stieglitz
ATTACHMENT 5
Draft City Council Resolution

!"##!"#$!
%&$"#' $ ((&)
'&(*( &+ ''$%
(* +! +)"
$,

*
! *$' %') '
-'# (($# '%"
%&$" ' )+".

+'%##'%&$" '/0
+'%##' ) '

/(* + '' + 1+ $,
/.
" 1"'& ''$) '
((

23#456#789:4;7<523#4567<%3=3>;6"4;;?23>@6<49A?,>3?7;=3?B9AA353>C493?B? <7;;7D?E
3:5479.53F239+3@@,79@32B;<7<523F>7F3>567D93>,BG28>?5G6;493# H:7;;3:54=3;6,523I FF;4:B95JK,2B??8@C4553AB9BFF;4:B5479<7>B'3=3;7FC395(;B93=43D57 B;;7D523:79?5>8:54797<B93D34L25?57>6HMNO
..JK,

8945C8;54
<BC4;6>3?4A3954B;@84;A49L49
D24:2.
8945?B>3;7:B53A49%3=3>;6"4;;?B9A/08945?B>3;7:B53A497? 9L3;3?,B'39?456 %798?(3>C4557B;;7DB9MMP
QA39?456@798?49BAA4547957:3>5B49:79:3??479?B9ADB4=3>?
<>7CA3=3;7FC395?5B9AB>A?57F>7=4A352>33B<<7>AB@;3278?49L8945?D45249523%3=3>;6"4;;? F7>54797<523F>7R3:5,B9AB
/(3>C4557B;;7D<7>B9BAA45479B;DB;GDB6D45249523>3S84>3A
<>7956B>AB>3B(8>?8B9557%3=3>;6"4;;?*894:4FB;#7A3H%"*#KTT.0 U
U.00 B9A#,
'3=3;7FC395(;B93=43DB9A'39?456%798?(3>C45B>3>3S84>3A57:79?5>8:552393DC8;54

<BC4;6>3?4A3954B;@84;A49L49B::7>AB9:3D4523:5479N
V.
7<523#B;4<7>94B)7=3>9C395#7A3
9BAA45479,F8>?8B9557%3=3>;6"4;;?*894:4FB;#7A3H%"*#KT.0 U

M.U,B9
/(3>C454?
>3S84>3A57B;;7D793<4=3<775H
WKD4A3DB;GDB649523<>7956B>AF3><4<56<335H
0WK7<<>795BL3
B;79L523<>795;75;4937<523?8@R3:5?453
XYZ[\]^_`_abcYdbeXfghigjkjlmnoplmgjjqmhrsnmrhjrprknhtui

!"!#
#$%&'(
#)*+,-../012
$3$"%&3")#4&"5$"4(

'5$"4('"""$4.#4&"$#'

)%6!")7""#&489$#'

)%:#;("#
&<('""5=!44
'"!"#%#$5&&=&<(&4#$%&"!"=&<(#=&#

'#$5&&
=&<("!"#'""&334&,,=&<(#=&#*.+#=&#"&46!")7""#>8+#=&# "&4:#;("#0
&"=&<(#=&#1"$4(=&<(&(&4"&4 ?)%
:#;("#1'""5@2

'""=!4=3&)=4#&&##%3A
B&<
$#
C!!&
'&"<'&)#&4=3&)!
$"&&##%3
&&"")&##4!&;"4
C!6!")6$"!&4;&"%.1@@D%$4"!(#=&'""5=!44

==#45$"4('""=!4&.2-%#5&<1&E- #4#5&<1&4&E-#$
#4
#5&<%&$3$"&!#4#5&<%.+-

'""43"#

F#(
#)1.2$3$"%&3")#4&"5$"4(
&4="&'
&&"%2$#1.%'

&
?)%6!")7""#B$%
.
$#1
$#'""5&%%4&5"
$#($#6&#4%3&=!445)
:#
;("#7$#(C=&3&4
&!&"&5"?3=
#!7$#(;%%4&5")&()
*?7;04&&%
)1&&"%44#4&%%4&5"$#'$"45G$4
==#42$
$#(4!"=31'
#!44#4"'3$#:#
;("#&4
44#4"'3$#6!")7""#H6!")7""#1'$# '""54#(&4%!)"'3
$#
"4#&4$'""54#(&4%&"'
3
$#
"4#&#%)
?)-#="&3$43&&4&4&'
#&C#)6$#:&'&47$#(?##;=!##
IJKLMNOPQPRSTJUSVIWXYZX[\[]^_`a]^X[[b^Ycd_^cY[cac\_YefZ

!
"#
$

% !&'(!!

(

!
#!
)*!"

%+
,!
)-!"+.

#!
)*!"

!#
#

!(!

& !
!
#!
)/% *
#!
((
!$"!
$

0*
#!
)1 22/
'
3 '"' !"'*$"!

%#"!#4!

!#!
)

!#
#%
"

!
" !$*!""!
5

# &!

#

$$#
*
" !&"!
26!

$

/
!"'*$*
"!

'
)**"

"!#
7
)04!

! 3"!

!#
!"'*$
$$#
*
" !&
"!
((#

%8)
% !'"!

!#!
% !'"!
2#!
)*!"

!#
#

%!89:;'$

0*
#!
) # &!

#

$$#
*

8)
% !'"
#1 !

!"!
9<;$
*
#!
)5/
:=; !

!#!
)

*(8 ##2>!
##
!

?2@:; !
!#!
)

*(8 ## $
!

##
!

9=;'$

0*
#!
) # &!

#

$$#
*

8)
% !'
"
#1
!#8)
% !'"!
A"

$
(
$

##
!

#!
)52>

#!
)

!
A" #
*"!##"(

!3
%
!"'*2$/

((8

$
,!
)-!"'
/%

!
" !$

$$#
*
" !&"!
/%

%$
'
3 '"'#!
)$9B"!
2
,8
('!
7! !+""
!

#!
)*!"

%/#8
('!

%

9<;$
*
"!

$$#
*

8)
% !'"
#
!

#

$"#8
('!
!!
8C! !1
$
$#

! !5/% "

!
#!
$
*

!#

"

#"
!2.(

)/
!>((

!
'
)

A"
%
8$' #8
('!

!#
#

8
$$
$()

)(
"# !&
!
"
!$

#8
('!

#!
%

! !

%#*),!
)-!"D
%/"!
"

A"
%

"
( $
#8("*

$
) '(

/
'

((
)/
EFGHIJKLMLNOPFQORESTUVTWXWYZ[\]YZTWW^ZU_`[Z_UW_]_X[UabV

#$
%
"
&

"
'

(

'&(
!"%)(

"
%

'

(

*&
"
+

",)
%""

'
%

(
#$
"+,
'
"
%

*&
"
'$))

! -
. -
/# 0(&(1
23-450.6/789:79

'
((&(!

!
"+&

'
(&
!
(
"

"%)(

! -
;<4"
(-0(&(!

!/,7772=#
;>4"
( -0(&(!

!/,8772=#
;>'

(
"
( -0(&(!

!/,?772=#
9#@
%+!2

A BC
A
-450.6/789:/8#4 )!
'

)

!
!

"
'
(&
)!
(
"

3 '
)
%",D)

!

(

'

A

D"+!%!
E?FG"
'
""
%

D"+
'"
'!
&
&
#>')
H
&"

+'

A

"
I
@
(

*&
!

"
A
#>'$))

*&
+
!

'
"
)
%"
A

'!

"!
')
)

'
%
&& )

'
B!
( "

"
' &
' "!
')
) "&"+#
C
%
-
/#4&"+5+'
->' &H
)
)

'

J

@

"&
" +

!0&
=
(I "

K5+'L

"
'(
D(&(

MNOPQRSTUTVWXNYWZM[\]^\_`_abcdeab\__fb]ghcbg]_geg`c]ij^

!"#$%&'$#(#)%*#!!*(#$#++*$#!*,- ../
,*%#*#!0#10'02'!+$*,3
../

-
4+42#"56789:;.<-3=
:
#2!"'0'!#)+>#%+
2#"5*,-<
,*%2'!+$##),*'%*%0*%*%*%#%%#%#$? $

!"#$%&'$#(#)%,*%#%+'"*$*,"'0'!#)2#"5*.3

<
@%*$42#"56
%+$#!%2#"50# *,">*,7)%!>8!! #2!,%*$2#"5,*% %* %>*2-

!"#$%&'$#(#)%
*#!!*(#%+'"*$*,,%*$2#"5*.

?
A'+**%B)$4 #"6789:;.<-3<#2!'#2!*'+**% !)$ #",*%#"+(!!$'$*2#!#-&'#%,
!"#$
%&'$#(#)%*#!!*(#%+'"*$$*'+**%!)$ #"*#*#!*,.C=-=4@C (%-C?4@(!!2%&'%+

D#%5$64#$+#%+ #%5$%&'%0$,*%$789:#%2#+*$$'02%*, 2+%**0$#"'$E*()%C#+$>2*$'!#( %*)+# #%5$%&'%0$ ,*%$+$>2*$'#' %)#!*)%!*"#!%&'%0$C# !"#$ !"*$

!"#$'!F$#+$>2*$' #%5$%&'%0$C("%&'%6 G4'+*HA$2+%**0I$6. #%5$ #"
G
(**
%7+%**0I$6.
#%5$ #"
G@*'%7+%**0I$6-
#%5$ #"
4#+$>2*$' #%5$%&'%0$#!*#!!*(#+)!* 0$* %*)+*$ #%5$ %*'#$+0*%'$"*)%+ #%5$

*%*$*,D%*J"!*"#+$7)%!>8!!## KLMNOPQRSRTUVLWUXKYZ[\Z]^]_`abc_`Z]]d`[efa`e[]ece^a[gh\

!"#
$%
$&'
()%$ *&
"+

$%
$,-'
$
%)&
"$&&$%
$&. $%
$&
$

&! (
%.'/$0)
$
(%1(/(2%%
$$,())"+ !'
$%
$

&! '
"3$) %
&'
4
*
)56))$
!'
$

) %
&'
. $0

)
*
)$,
7 % 8,9/
%
0
"3:3;3<:'
=)
> $$ '
)&&)5 %
&
0)%'

!
.'%'&
&?
$ ) @ ,3;##:% & ))5 *
'

/
*
)
=)?
*
.&/
$54 $=
)% $ )) .! '
% $% !
'

.)!)5
$&
)0)&
,-'
=)
> $$ A$&

.$0$
&
!&
$''
= B
%% )
&.''
>5A$C

)=)D. )& %$
5$
!%
&*
$
%$ '
$ &

$&
)

$$$&
$ $
% $$
.'
'

&
*%5D&& * )*
%
%)$
D. )&
$)5$
!%)5
&*
$
!!%%$:!!%$!
5'E&$:
&
$*
'%)
% !)%$:
&
$$!
5
'E&$D&% )
&.'))'
)%0)
&
*
)
$&&$$
! ''
>5
F%)> &
&7
/
$54 $G.,
7 % <,9/
%
0
3:3;3<:
)5
) !'
=)
> $$ A$
&
%$ .$!)
&05?00?0
F)%% &%
.'46F>H"<";"
$

,:$

>5> %)
*
. !'
=)
> $$ A$ *) !'
= B
%,
7 % I,9J
"#:3;3I:'
>5> %)'
)&&)5 %
&
)'

:!

)
@ %
!=0)%6

))
5 .
$&
$&
) %%$.'I;;A
&$1
K
&
& '
0) %!%
2 !'
= B
%$
& $
@ %
!=0)%6

$

'
=
5,('

:'
>5> %)%
&% $&
!'

) &

LMNOPQRSTSUVWMXVYLZ[\][^_^`abcd`a[^^ea\fgbaf\^fdf_b\hi]

!"#"!$% &' ()*&+

,

&''*,
&$
-
!$.

!"#"!,/0/

*,*&,

&''*,&
,&
''*
''**&'
+* )
0&
&&**(&
* )
0
&
,1&,
&&,'
2$
-
3$%
&,4
5
''
1*
561*
')7*81(&
6 09

7)'

-
:#;;:#<
5,91*0=** >
'*/
&
?9=>/@,/0/

*
&&(,,

*&)A,5
**
(5&
''

5
,7
2B
:$C,'
'
&'*
(,,*'*&0 '5'*
&
'&5
,$
"$C,'
'
&'*(**
&1 *055D &'&
&1*
'),10&(**'
)
,)

&1*
')
5,$
;$C,

5

*

& 0,,&)
5
'

50
))*&1*
')'
'
&+0,'*(**
5*0&&1 *0
5(,,
&2
0)
5 &*'
' ,10
5,
+2
'
'0$
<$C,'
'
&'*(**
0 5*0&1 55)'
55 50,E& '& 1,*
5*
'& 50,E& $
!$C,'
'
&'*(**
+&)*
,'
+*,*, 50

*(*5$
FGHIJKLMNMOPQGRPSFTUVWUXYXZ[\]^Z[UXX_[V`a\[`VX`^`Y\VbcW

!"# $%!&'(#")(*+*!',# (

''-"
".#%%$#/$'%,0'#1$-# /.+2!.0, (
03)# 3 (#%%#'&#. !%###'+.. (#%%#'# # % $-

($ # (
4(*+*!'(&+,#5.(
''-"
".
"# "(036
7 4(03)#.#!(8 &+(#/.+2!.#!)... -($#!."#'.# %'.
(*+9.:#'0'#)# .%
#''+)('# !.
# (!."',.
(:#'0'#

#''+)(%%. ("(# .+

(03#&#. (#''-#&'&#.("(.# .. (:#'0'#)
#5"#!-#$.%!.!#.# .+&!.'#-)-((-'' # .# # .#%%'#&'(.03
;!(,)(03.'# -(#+
.%
%'#.# %
(##

<
4(%3..'# , &'5(#.. (=>>&'5

?(@#5(!./$)&-2$'+2!'$# ((# ' /$(
.!(# -((*+9.1=AB!'%'1. #'CD
.(.. !#'
3!. #')(
.=<9
(%%+.'# 2$'+E''.)-('(,#" 7>9
(%%+.'# F.
"'.

--#+)<>9- #''+.#(#

(%3.
GH." $'%,-(($+...
,!'
#,'+
. #'&!' ".-($#+"("(.&--.. 0%.-((
$+(().!()# -.#8 1=# # $'% -(,!' #,'+
&!' ".
4(03'! . ,'.("(H."(.+)7I!,!' #,'+
#%#,&!' "

-"(.+&!' "-(#("(
J977K-''%'#(
H."&!' "# -''!&..-(( $'%,%#( LMNOPQRSTSUVWMXVYLZ[\][^_^`abcd`a[^^ea\fgbaf\^fdf_b\hi]

!"
#
$
%&'()'*
+'
,##!'!-./!##%-01%/2'/'-

'
'3%#
%-0/"
%!/%4
'#%.'-
%!.'&'2/'-
1%
%-
'%//'.%!
'&%%-%
4(

2
2'
!
%-#!
'2
2#'.5!#
'

21%'"2%'.4#!
2!-'#!-./'!-%!
'6"%2/'-
()'
'%#!2'-.%-0
'6"'#

!/"
%!/%4
'#%.'-
%!2
+'
!
'.!
7

!"
#
$
%&'5'##
!-8,
/
'2
+'
#%
'()'2
+'
%#4'

'
'&%'1'.
4
'*!--%-09//%##%-!-.&'
!22%-0-#

"
%-!
%&%
%'#!
'-
!-
%%2!
'.(
9-#

"
%-
'2
+'
1"."
&'
8:/-
#2'

'!22%!-
(;-4-#

"
%-
%/2!
#"

%-0-2
+'
#%
'1".'
'/2
!
4!-.1"./241%

'9%
4
<'&'
4=%#
%#'
.%-!-'()'
'
'5
'*
+'
1%-
!.&'
#'4%/2!
'3%#
%-0

!-
%%2!
'..'&'2/'-
%-
'&%%-%
4!-.1%2
/
'!
/-%"#.'&'2/'-

'!
'!(
8()'*
+'
%#
'#%.'-
%!%--!
"
'!-..'#-
%-".'//'
%!"#'#(
(;#-
'.%-
'9!##8:9!
'0
%!>3'/2
%-?'2

5
'*
+'
%#
#
''-'."

/2
&%.%-0!

!%!-!4#%#2'

'9%
4,#!.2
'.@'%'A%'#
)
!&''.B@A)C

'#.#!-.!

!-#2

!
%-!##'##/'-

'6"%
'/'-
#!#%
%#
!
'.1%
%-!1&'%'/%'

!&''.B@A)C

!%!-!4#%#D-'
!
%#2
'#"/'.

0'-'
!
'!

!.!%4@A)2'
!2%
!
!
%#7E2'
'-
'##
!-
'!#'%-''&'

'

'0%-(F-!..%
%-5%
%##
''-'."
!!

!-#2

!
%-!-!4#%#BG);C'!"#'
'
*
+'
%#'1
'HI.1'%-0"-%

'#.(*'.'#

%!-!'##

'*
+'
#%
'1%'
2 &%.'.

!"
#
$
%&'&%!

''58,HJ
E,J1%.'1!1!4#()'*
+'

1%/.%4'3%#
%-0&'%'!'##

'#%
'51%%#"

'-
42
&%.'.&%!!.
%&'1!4

!/2!-0

!"
#
$
%&'()'-'1&'%"!
!'##1%'2
&%.'.&%!
'!'4
KLMNOPQRSRTUVLWUXKYZ[\Z]^]_`abc_`Z]]d`[efa`e[]ece^a[gh\

!"#$
$ ! ! $%&!'(%$)

$$

' %') )*

$

+*!
%%+,-
.%%)'/
'!

+!&)/%
!/.+)'% 0123&
4/ !

./$&%$$

+'$%%+'/!! .)&%
)%+
! %
!/%')
,-
5"#$.%% $ +
0 $ %+!/

$
)'$
5

$

+*!
5'!
/$%$
%$
5'!

+*!
,
6,7
! '$! 0 %+

'/!! "0'
8

9$ 5

'$
$%%+''
!!
0
&
! &
:
0
&& ! 0
!/%') 5"#$.%% (!) %'&(%$%5
+50 %
.%
,
9$ ;,< /. 0=&

>8")5?+?& $%$
!!
.$&%!)3
%%. 0
! 0@
,-''
%
$)'(%. (+

$' !
$%

&& ! 0!/%') ,
9$ A,7
!
0 05?+?& $%(+
!
!!)

%%.
.
'$>8")@
,-"#$''

.%3.+
5
.$

&(#$ >8
"),-..%3.+
5) .%3.+ !
& .%3.+5%%.!
(+0 !&0!
+( &
./,-.%3.+
&(#$>8")
BC
;D .! !%$!
''+,<.%%'/! 0

&( '3 0%/%
(%. !$)'%) % !
$' 0%)

,F +
)&%
)%+(&%! 0
/$ +
&.%3.+

+!,-
5
GHIJKLMNONPQRHSQTGUVWXVYZY[\]^_[\VYY`\Wab]\aWYa_aZ]WcdX

! !
"

#

"$ !

% !
&&"$"'
$
(

" )
*

"+),!-.

"

$"

! !
& ! #"$

" "
$" !
/%"0"("
" 1& #2
3/0124-&

5
&

/$
*

"
6+++

7)84 !
*
/0129&$
"
3/%"/$
%5
'& "4,
:4*

"
;+++

7)84"$ !

"("
"
'& "% !
/ #),!
/ #/&"
!
(

$ !

/<60=
"

$% !
-.

4"$

$" ! "#%"$ ! !

7&

=
%/012&&" *

";<<6% !
/0129&$
"
)2/<6/
'

0=
"

!

" &
"%"%$
(

" .

),!

%
4 !
/ #
/&"
!

#%"$ !
-.

=
%%& !

(
&"$
/012)
*

")>
$&" !

($
"

" "
$" !

$" !
4"
&$"'
!

"#" !
%%
4"$ !
%"$"'
% !!

"4 !
/ #/&"
!

#

.

!

4"$(
!

7&

$?
(

" -"5
(
"$?
" #>"&
-

$ ! !

" &
" !
"

'! #& %#
$
"
&$"'
-.

"$&.&$
"
#

$"
!>
(
#@"$A2"'

!

6
&" &$

" &

$">
(
#@"$:+&" &$

" &

$"A2"'

"$
"5:-

$ !"$$ "B#4 :6C !DB!& ?( 4&
.

!

%"'
"$ "%(E
-.

%
/"$ "
),!
/ #/&"
!

#(
!

7&

$
"

"%"
$$ "B#"$
$&
"""&&" F
4"$(
%""

"

&$"'!
'! 4
$&
""%"

B4
$&
""
&& (
$

B4"$

$&
""& $("'

)2 % !

B#3<GHI ;G+I$ !8

JKLMNOPQRQSTUKVTWJXYZ[Y\]\^_`ab^_Y\\c_Zde`_dZ\dbd]`Zfg[

!
"#

$%&#%'(#%)$

*)+

&#%'(#%)
%%&,
)*&-,#%"%&

&#%'(#%)%%&./
$
01
$&$-$-&
,2#

!
,
%''*34,5-%

%&
*$-&
%&"678,5-%

%
#*$-&
01

%'
+

!

,
%''*93:;"#
!
<!'-,

,
%,
%

01

&
,
*%!(,
%''*8:6;01

%'
!-$-'%
,,
*%!(,
%''*9:6;01

%'-
'&+,%!,
%''*"44=>0
?
&%'')"

!
$-,
$%&
%&%$&$-$
9%(&+,%!,@

-&
,
'!%
#

&A')B'',C&
-
)%&,%%(&+,%!,$-,
*%''!%

%*'
-,&+-&
,&

,%$$%&&%&%
%,

)%%''!%

$%(

%

-,&+-&
,0
01
,%%',

,'%&,,-*$

D
)D-&!'&E-&4"
68"%!)
#
!
,
%''*$%&
%&&

D
)'%&&&+F,&0 !

'$&
,
%''*!&,,
&
#

,-!
'%&,"<!
%,

#,,!
&

,
!&
&,
%%'0
70 G&%$&$&
,

'%&,,
%''*,-* !

%%'*)

F!

D$$-&
)F'$&

H
,,+&0?,+&
!%&
!
%&+

%
!
,
%''*,-* !

'%&&&+D$$,,&#0D&,
-!
&,
%''*&
!&
$%&!#

'%&,%
&%,$
*)

'%&&&+D$$,,&
F!

D$$-&
)F'$&

H
,,+&0
/0 !
'%&,%,-* !

!$'%&!#

%''%'!%*'2&&+
+-'%
&,"<!
%,$%)*<,,')$

&0 !
'%&,,
%''*,-* !

%!$'
DD$'%&!##
&*-'&+'%&,%,-*$

'%&!
!(0
D$'%&!#

%''%'!%*'G-&!%'D,,5-

,,-%&!
%
IJKLMNOPQPRSTJUSVIWXYZX[\[]^_`a]^X[[b^Ycd_^cY[cac\_YefZ

!"
#

$ #
%
&'
( )#*(&
+, #*

-)
) & #
))*(
&.
*
& &

*))
.&
# #
/(
*0&
* #
)
(& &)&.*

&1*

.&

*+)(#
& &

)#*
))
!
2!%
&
& #
))*(
&.

)$ #

)$*

*)$*.)#&.
#
**)(*
)#*
)'
( & #
0 +3)*
(#
(
*

1
,

&(
))!
4!5*)(*
)#*
* *
.&
#
.
&. #
%
&'
( )) * *
(&
*(
, # #
*)(*

*(
#
*

&1

*)!6+&.(* & &
*)(*
)#*
)'
( &

1
,**

&1*+ #
0& +7
1 &

( &
&
#)8#

)

.&
*(&))
(+

* &, # #
&
**

&1*!
9!%
&'
( (&)
( &)#** *
)
(&
*(
, #(
*(&

)

&# #
)
&.

)
*)

).&
(&)
( &1
#(

*
:*
&

* &)$
;(

*)*+

;
( +* #&
<
+*

))
+ #
0 +!
=!>#
%
&'
( )#*&

*
* *
)**

* &
)

)
)+

*)&&.# )$&)
$*( 1
)$
*
:$&
& #

*( &)!
?!>#
%
&'
( )#*
&

*
*)*

+*)#** **
&.&
@&

&&A,
*&
@ ,&

&&A,

)*
.&
&((
*(++1

+&,(&
#&)
#&)*&
@ ,&

&&A
,

)*
.&
&((
*(++*&,(&
#&)
#&, # #
0 +&.
B
1 +C)!>#
0 +&.B
1 +C)&
)
)

)#*

)
&)
.&

*)

#
)
)!6..&
* +&. #
)
)+)*#&)
#&))#*

*
*

.&
*&.22+
*
)*)'
( &*

(&

*..&
* +

)
( &
DEFGHIJKLKMNOEPNQDRSTUSVWVXYZ[\XYSVV]YT^_ZY^TV^\^WZT`aU

!!"!#$%&'()*$(&"+!$,
-
$

!! $$
$(
.(/%011'!$ %''!"!*$ "2"" $!$ "$" 3 $%&$
0$$
$
$%$$%$'1!$%"3'%
4
$ "$
5!"
$"$"$3"3'$*
'#!%
%'" "'#
!%
%'" (6
'#!"'#!%
%'" ""&'(
)*$(&"+!$
..7-(
"$%&'81$$9
4"&
$

8*'1$1*" 1! "$4"3'% 4! $ (/%!*$
"2 $!$ $%"3'%
4 %''3!$1"$' $

(
(0!'

%
44$#%!%!'
" 1* "$
$4$%:
$ $%&$
; !'

%
4:
$ %''3
11*"3
$%!$
4"!$
$$
<"!"" "" $!$4 $
$%11$
1$
!$%4"43
'"41$<#%!%*! $(
=(/%!!
1$ $%$%"3'%
4
$#$%$%&$

>*'
9'' %''%*$% !! $$%!$! <! <" $ $%!!
1$ $%?$$%
4
$ (@
$%<$%"3'%
4

$ %''%*$%
3"$
111'! $%"3'%
4

$ (
A(/%BC!$ %''1$$''$ !1'!#$%D !1'&"
:
$ 4
'$(
(013'!"#4'4%$
$ %''3 $''"$$%44
$
"C!$$''
"$
* 3'$
5$4*%!' "$#''

EFGHIJKLMLNOPFQORESTUVTWXWYZ[\]YZTWW^ZU_`[Z_UW_]_X[UabV

!"
#$
#%
&#!""'
%"(
&!
)

"!#*#
+,-%!

%
##!""
'
."
&
./

!
0*1#.%'"!)*,
,2!

#&

""
#
#""%
#+%#
"%&
. #
!#
#
%#

!
!
)
##'"
.3
#.
#!#'

)!&
#

4%"*%#

565#.
7!

+%#
"
4%#!!
%#
!

##'"

.3
#.

!

!
'%"&
)!4%"
#565.3

##
&
!#
4%
#
&%#
!
565#.
,
8,5##!)

!
."
#

)
&
&..
&'*!
0*0%
"
9%

:7;<;7"
#;7;8=#4%

"#
&
#&

*#.
#"
&
!

%!
&!"#!
>/
#!""'
+

&!
"
!
>/
,2!

#&

*#.
#
#&

&

#
!
" '"
#.
!

#&

"
%
#
!
>/
,5
*
4%
##
+

&%
!
"
!

"#
&

#&

*#.
#!""
4%
.. "'*!
>"

0++##
,
:,5"".3
#.
#"
&
?

"*@""##!""'
. &
&
##

#%%
!#.'"
. &
+
+%+A

";!

"

!"
#,
B,2!
>/
#
7
&""%%

#&

#!
&)
""
%
#"
&
!

7#!""'

"'"
..

!
0*1#.

".3
.+

!.3
.+,
C,5""
."
+

%

%"
#%
&
-
")
.."'"
!

>/
7
"%&
'%
"+
&!
!#
%#"
&
"
'

#,
0
#%
D
"
&0
&
#
EFGHIJKLMLNOPFQORESTUVTWXWYZ[\]YZTWW^ZU_`[Z_UW_]_X[UabV

!"#

#$%&
" '(!#")$"
(!) **
+ ! ,&!"-
!"("
'(&&$!
"./0
(
&!"/
)"&!"*())0
1 !2#$'(!#")$"
(!) **

+ ! ,&!"-
!#

)(02%."'
".3#) **
4!,
!)
)
()"(
##$ !(*
2&(

"
(!()%$

2 !,
)&
"'(!#")$"
(!+ ! ,&!"-
!#($
2%)0
12 !2
$"()
52%."'
".(*6(#!,
#"(!#$)(!#
#"!.'(!#")$"
(!
+ ! ,&!"-
!#

!
$27 " &
!
&$&"*(

(1
!,8
9)
""!
!*()& "
(! %($""(!#")$"
(!
):
!, )) !,&!"#
!2 $

!, "
0 "
# "2
**)!"#" ,#(*2&(

"
(! !2(!#")$"
(!"(%
)0
12 !2

)(02%."4!,
!)
!,/
0 #
(!(*-$%

9():# !2"
;$

2 !,<= *"./
)"&!"
%>!*()& "
(!), )2
!," !"

"2!$&%)(*1():)#7"

( "
(!(*
):
!,1
")#
""(#2$
#(*"2&(

"
(! !2(!#")$"
(!

)
(27" )) !,&!"#(*2

0)
#7 $

!, "
0 "
#7"
!,"(*"
&(*
(
) "
(!72#
,! "
(!(*(!#")$"
(!#" ,
!, ) !2(")
)"
!
!,
!*()& "
(!
), )2
!,(!#")$"
(!)
"2") **

)(
(#22&(

"
(!(!#")$"
(!#" ,
!,*()"
#-)(?""(
2")&
!" &($!"7

)(
)
")($"# !2"
&(*2 .(* 0. $

!,")$:
") **
!## ).*()2&(

"
(!72

0)
#7"7"("#$%?"#
"

!"#

(%"
!"

)(
)
"
)&
"#*)(&"'(&&$!
".
/0
(
&!"/
)"&!" !2"-$%

9():#/
)"&!"*()"

&!"(*
(!#")$"
(! !(

#7*!#7"7*()"(!#")$"
(!(* !.
&
)(0&!"#
!"

)
,"(*1 .7 !2*()$#(*"
$%

)
,"(*1 .*()#" ,
!, !2@()
$

!,)"
!A$

&!" !2& ")

#)
"2"("-)(?"
BCDEFGHIJIKLMCNLOBPQRSQTUTVWXYZVWQTT[WR\]XW\RT\Z\UXR^_S

#$!
!%#%
!%&
!"'%#&!(#&&)
!*
+,
#& !+%!& !'#%!

& !#'
# "!%)
!
#
#
"-'
"-!
-'#%!

# "!%)
!
# #' *
&%#,& !"
!)$

%
.!#'/*- 0'#%)"#'!)$

%
.!#'/*'#%"!.
. 01#%)

.
%!
2)
& ! 0&!%

"%
!0!#!
3%#4
!

#"!! &" 0!
# )&$%"#'!/#

# "!%)
!
# %%" !!
,"'#%!3%#4
! 0(
!*
# !
!#

# "!%)
!
# '

"
. "# )&$%""

$& 0!

!
&"0)%
.
# "!%)
!
# #)%"
53%
#%!#!
"")
#'$)

0 .%&
!-

$
3%6 07
%!
#
8 !
"9"%2)
%0$*!:)

(#0"

$
0
;

%&#, 0%

"
0/
6"")%%#) 0
.
!3%#4
!"
!!!%% 0%00'
!
,"%")
!#'3%#4
!
# "!%)
!
# -"0!%&
0
$*!(
!*< .
%
=

%&#, 0%

)%$" 0.)!!%"")%%#) 0
.
!%#4
!"
!!!%% 0%00'
!
,"%")
!#'3%#4
!
# "!%)
!
# -"0!%&
0
$*!(
!*< .
%
>

%#!
!

9
"!
."!%!!%"04
!!#!")$4
!
"
!0)%
.
# "!%)
!
# #'!3%#4
!<,%*''#%!"

$&0!#%!
&!)%"!%!
!%"?#"!%!!%"-

)0
.!#""!%!!%"0"
. !0# !%

&
%*
"-"

$%&#,0 01#%%
#
!0)
""/%
!! %#,
'%#&!3)$

@#%6"+%!& !
0!(
!*< .
%A#%
"1%0"
. B
"'
%"!#$!
0
7&#,
01#%%

& !#' *"!%!!%""

#!
#&&
)
""
0) !

!"%#,
00!(
!*/
!
&%#,& !"
)%
!*!# ")%!
CDEFGHIJKJLMNDOMPCQRSTRUVUWXYZ[WXRUU\XS]^YX]SU][]VYS_`T

!"#$""%#$""&'
#("!
(
)
$"

$!
*"#" +(#,"-."
/
"$0
12
$

"
%%"3$!
*"#" 4

(
!*3%

&
5&'
6%%#

"
3
$"#
"(#
!7
0
%"3

%(#"0
)!$
0$$("
0#
"(#
%"
%" "
$(
$"
!
%"
($!
4!&
58&4
"(#
"$"%(#

(
0#3
""#$

%"$)
9::&
&
$;9::%&
&$!
$!%%"3$ "#
"(#
(

")%%"3$!
4!<=
"'"
%"
>
0
"&
?:&4
$

"
@A64
$" "0"
B(%

$"

"!)"2
#("$"
&
?&'
6%%#

%"3$
0"(
$)"$#
"0"
$"
&60"(
$)"$#
"0
(
3%"
.C+*>=1 "

D0
,"
E(!4
"F"$&4

#
"
$"

##
%
$

"
%%"3$!
4!>
0
"
$
G6
04(
!*%"

+(#,"-&
C#
#
"$$#
"0

!(" #)%"
$&
?5&'
6%%#

%"3$ "(! #2
#($
0#"#
"
"
""B("$ ""3#
%"%$"(#(".12
$

+"H#
&C(#

))$

!#!"0
)!&
??&'
6%%#

(
$"0"(
$2
#"!2
(
$H#

"
$!%""B("

(!#
%
!
$
4!&
?I&'
6%%#

-#

#

4!<
"!)"!

"(0

7
0#

#
3
(H#2(

")%%"3$
JKLMNOPQRQSTUKVTWJXYZ[Y\]\^_`ab^_Y\\c_Zde`_dZ\dbd]`Zfg[

!" ##$ $$#% #"&%'

%'
()*%'""'(

+$
!"
%"" '$',!-'.%&+#%'

%'
"" ##
"$'
"#'(/$$#%
)
01)*/$$#%
" ##2 3%'

%'
'4"& ""2'+

5"

& ",%%'

%'
+
#""'&" $$',!

)*
"67$7
!#'% '
'(& ",%2
" ## '
&## #"'8+ $$', #
('2

)*%'""'(
+$
!"
%"" '$',!-'.%&
+#%'

%'
"" ##"$'
"#'(/$$#%
)
09)/
"""+'+
!

-'.%" ! 2
! " "+#'(-'.%
%'
"+%'
" ##$ ,!
!"' '
'%
#
)
0:)/##"+,2'
+2
"7"#
"7
!+
!
'+
!+#"7
!

5"

'(("2$',2
" ((%!%'
"+%'
" ##" #"!
%%'!

'"
! !"7
!" ##$ !('/$$#%
);'$, #'&
!
"+%+"'2$',2
" $2!&
$+#%
'(& &'+

%' %2
$2)
<
! !'
!'
"
0=)>
?>@/*A?;)*""'#+'
$$',

"@,#'$2
-#

>,&
!@
"B'
+"-2" ##
'%'2((%,+
#'&
'(-'.%
"%'!" %',

7" "( %'
('2
!%'

'/'
7 %%$

%'
!'
"'( $$', #"('
""'#+'
)*%',

" ##
%#+! %'$'(
""'#+'
"
5)*/$$#%
" ##!#,5%+!%',

'
@$ 2
'('22+
@,#'$2
&
=C! "'('+
%#!%"'
)/
2 /$$#%
!#,"%',

'7/$$#%
" ## #"'
DEFGHIJKLKMNOEPNQDRSTUSVWVXYZ[\XYSVV]YT^_ZY^TV^\^WZT`aU

!""#$%&$$!
&

&'(%

'%
)&*
+#

,"&!%
#!"$
"

-&'
&%!%

.'/0!$1

$
$"'
%!%2!3"(%
4"!%) !%3%$
5%'$4(
$
!""6%'""
!%!%#%#'

##&
*7

$
!%%2

#2%21

3&
#

(('%
3"(%
(!1'%!

%.'$
6

,"&!%
1$'6(

-!
%#

/0!12!%
!

% !#(

/0!
("(

#!#%(

!%/0!$#1!

.'$
1

3&

(%$

!6%%$'6$
!%
!"&
!%2$
!%#!"1$
!
"&!""!

!
'"
!##&

48&
*)2!"$$#

("%$$
#

$&%
%1%%%
$
!""
!6'"%2(
6$$'

&!
%#

&%!%
*
9:*;<4+),=+>7*3"(%
4"!%) !%3%$
5%'$4(
?=

-&$#2

$2!%
%$'&
!!"$$
!""6&((%&

@9A!$!#

!
#!!"#

$$"'
%1!$#%5BC
D/9E*,*1'%"$$

$-
%*
F*G+>H,=+>7>I
>73+=+>7J?,"!
%#!%#

$&%
%$#
!!"(!$'"
%%#&(%
!&
%6

'%
"$'&
"!
%$!6!

%

"(%
2!%

%$K'$'!%

J&
%/9L0#

5BC
1
$
$'&&$$2'"!
%*,""&$
$%&'6

!$!$'"
#!6!
(%
#!"!
%
%

$
!""6(6'$6

!
%6!&
#

$$"'
%*
F/*,44)>G,H)M7JN+=BH,73*=
$&%
%$$
!""'%

"!%
!%$
!""(!%%#'""#&#

'!
%#

"##

48&
*
F*+73;C7+I+
,=+>7>I=B;
+=O*+%(%
13'

3#%!%
>6"2!
%
4!P'2(%
$!%3#%$
$
$1+%&"'%2,

%$QI$1+%&'6
RSTUVWXYZY[\]S^\_R`abcadedfghijfgaddkgblmhglbdljlehbnoc

!"#!$%"$&"$'"%&!"$($!)'##&# $ (%% !#&(%% )#&'
(#&*(+")#&!,"#&!"$(#!,"##)*",!# "$
"$" (")! ()#")((%(%% !#- ( *./"$'"#01%)('!"$ !,!"#!" !'#&$!'!,#&! ("#& !+##(%! ("#&!2#+#&#+#& )( $",#&(###&
3+$,'"#& (##&!"$4
"##-" +$",&2(+'!("&!()"#5%#() (+) (##1"!"'!"")!)#",(+(%()" $"((+" 5#! ("#&#!

)(*!
!"$(+" 5#! ("#&)!$"'"#&()5#"*)("'"!)*2 )(%

!"#!
!!"$#!#%!"3+$,'"&!2!)$()$ )!'!6 )"$)$!,!"#()()/"$'"#"!"#+ #+&! ("&()(),!

)( $",
#!
)('
"(%

!"(%!" !'&! ("&()

)( $",!"$#!)!#("!6 ((
)!"$%"#/%%!#(
)!#("!6 ((
)!"$%"#&

!"#!"()!%)6)#
("#6(
$%"$&"$'"%&()($!)'##()/"$'"# #!!*
),(# (+"#(%# (

!"#!)'6+)#&!"$()
/"$'"#&%()!"!"$!,!4
"##!"$ (##" +))$6! (%'"
("" (")2()""%() ","$'")" )(*$$7(","#
("$("#!6 ("#)+$()8+)

!"("$'"%/"$'"#%()!"
!'!)#",%)('#(",," ()2%+'# ("$+ (%/"$'"#/" *"#+ !,!! ("#%$ !",",5#$)'"!("#)"() ##+!" (%!

)(*!&#!#'!#4
"##%(),!("

!"#!$
(##!$!'(+"2()&!$# )("(%&")"( !"!,)'"2(
!#+ 4
"##!#6 ('$+

9:;<=>?@A@BCD:ECF9GHIJHKLKMNOPQMNHKKRNISTONSIKSQSLOIUVJ

!"#$
%!!"&
%'(&
$"$!)%'$
%!!%)$

$"$!)%'
""&%*"'
+#&,$!)$&
)!&
$

-'('.

/-,01-,
1-2-,3-145$ 6
7% "&
&+8"! /!!$4
%!&"%

-

9
.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;9-<=

/>7--/796
!"#

-55,0?96-
0@0,7.

-55,0?96-
001
91 .
<->,919
A3919,
-"
1-1B/>1
0@@9B
7%%C"

DEFGHIJKLKMNOEPNQDRSTUSVWVXYZ[\XYSVV]YT^_ZY^TV^\^WZT`aU Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 4AC45B52-F702-4559-A81F-8A5808BFA36C Status: Sent Subject: Complete with Docusign: CLEAN FINAL Resolution - 412 N. Oakhurst Appeal.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 22 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
7/30/2025 8:50:20 AM
Holder: Evelin Welch
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Dave Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 72.219.162.164
Sent: 7/30/2025 8:53:44 AM
Viewed: 7/30/2025 10:56:10 AM
Signed: 7/30/2025 10:57:00 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Mandy Jiang
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Sent: 7/30/2025 10:57:01 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
Sharona R. Nazarian
[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
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 7/30/2025 8:53:44 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 6
December 12, 2024
Planning Commission Staff Report
(without attachments)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1141 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Resolution
B. Required Findings
C. General Plan Policies
D. Public Notices
E. State Statutes
F. Class 32 Exemption Report
G. Applicant-Provided Incentives/Waivers Narrative
H. City of Los Angeles Letter of Compliance
I. Replacement Unit Determination Letter
J. Public Comments
K. Architectural Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment) Report Author and Contact Information:

Minjee Hahm, AICP, Associate Planner
(310) 285-1136
[email protected]
Meeting Date: December 12, 2024
Subject: 412 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE
Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, and R-4
Permit (PL2200529)
Request for a Development Plan Review to allow for the construction of a new eight-story, 52-unit multi-family residential building on a double jurisdictional property located in both Beverly Hills and Los Angeles where 12 units would be constructed in Beverly Hills and 40 units would be constructed in Los Angeles, a Density Bonus Permit to allow an 88.75% density bonus in addition to certain incentives/concessions and waivers from development standards to provide three affordable housing units, and a R-4 Permit to allow for an additional walkway. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Project Applicant: Oakhurst Skyline LLC
Project Representative: Stephen Webb
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving the Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, and R-4 Permit, and finding the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
The project involves a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR), a Density Bonus Permit, and a R-4 Permit to construct a new eight-story (86’-11”), 52-unit residential development at the property located at 412 North Oakhurst Drive (“the project site”). The subject property is dual Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 2 of 17 ends

jurisdictional and located in both Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, where 12 units would be constructed in Beverly Hills and 40 units would be constructed in Los Angeles.

This report provides a detailed description of the project and provides analysis of key issues related to the findings for the requested entitlements. Specifically, this report analyzes the project’s scale and massing, potential impacts to the surrounding neighborhood, and public welfare. Based on this analysis, the recommendation in this report is for project approval with conditions specified in the draft resolution (Attachment A).

BACKGROUND
File Date 11/30/22
Application Complete 5/28/24
Subdivision Deadline N/A
CEQA Recommendation Class 32 Categorical Exemption
CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination
Permit Streamlining 60 days from Determination of CEQA Exemption Applicant(s) Oakhurst Skyline LLC
Owner(s) Oakhurst Skyline LLC
Representative(s) Stephen Webb
Registered Legislative Advocate(s)1 None
Prior Planning Commission Action None
Prior City Council Action None

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Address 412 North Oakhurst Drive
Assessor’s ID No. 4335-006-043/044
Zoning District R-4 Multiple Residential Zone
General Plan Multi-Family Residential – High Density
Existing Land Use(s) Three-story multi-family residential building Lot Area 15,394 SF (Beverly Hills: 4,370SF/Los Angeles: 11,024SF) Year Built 1974
Historic Resource A Historic Resources Assessment Report was prepared by the City’s consultant to evaluate the property and is
provided as Appendix D to the Class 32 Categorical
1 Registered advocate search conducted on November 19, 2024.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 3 of 17 ends

Exemption Report (Attachment E). The report concludes
that the subject property does not meet any historic
eligibility criteria.

Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North
South
East
West
R-4 – Multiple-Family Residential Zone
R-4 – Multiple-Family Residential Zone
City of Los Angeles – Multiple Residential Zone (R4)
R-4 – Multiple-Family Residential Zone
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) North Oakhurst Drive
Adjacent Alleys 20’ wide alley (one-way) to the rear of the property Parkways & Sidewalks North Oakhurst Drive – 16’ from face of curb to property line Parking Restrictions 2-Hour Parking, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday to Saturday, No overnight parking, Permit “AB” Exempt
Nearest Intersection North Oakhurst Drive and Beverly Boulevard Circulation Element North Oakhurst Drive – Local
Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is located mid-block on the eastern side of the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive, between Beverly Boulevard to the north and Alden Drive to the south and within the City’s R-4 (Multiple Residential) Zone. As the site is double jurisdictional, the first 42’ of the property is located in Beverly Hills, while the remaining 107’ of the property is located in Los Angeles. The project site is approximately 15,394 SF in size and currently developed with a three-story, 15-unit multi-family residential apartment building that would be demolished as part of the project. A twoway, 20’ wide alley is at the rear of the project site. Development along both North Oakhurst Drive (Beverly Hills) and North Doheny Drive (Los Angeles) consists primarily of multifamily residential buildings, that range from two to ten stories and two to six stories, respectively. An aerial image of the project site and its surrounding neighborhood is provided in Figure 1.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 4 of 17 ends

Figure 1. Aerial Image of Project Site
Source: City of Beverly Hills GIS

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project involves the construction of a new eight-story (86’-11”), 52-unit multi-family residential building. The new building would include 12 residential units within the city of Beverly Hills and 40 units within the city of Los Angeles. Parking would be provided in two levels of subterranean parking and a surface level parking area. The two subterranean parking levels would accommodate 66 parking spaces (18 spaces within Beverly Hills; 48 spaces within Los Angeles).

Nine parking spaces would be located in the surface level parking area, which is located in the Los Angeles portion of the project site, for a total of 75 parking spaces.

The project would provide primary pedestrian access from North Oakhurst Drive via three walkways and primary vehicular access from the rear alley accessed via Alden Drive or Beverly Boulevard. A total of 1,727 SF of outdoor living space would be provided through a combination of private and common outdoor areas. Per the BHMC definition of building height, the proposed building would measure 86’-11” in height and would include a rooftop level that would be occupied by mechanical equipment and solar panels only; a stair shaft providing access to the rooftop is exempt from overall height calculation. The proposed front setback from North Oakhurst Drive is 15’. The side setbacks will be 9’ each, for a cumulative side setback of 18’. The 9’ side setbacks are to match the side setbacks on the Los Angeles portion of the project. In addition, the project does not propose any rear setback. As the rear portion of the property is not located in the city of Beverly Hills, the rear setback would be regulated by the City of Los Angeles. Figure 2 provides the proposed site plan and Figure 4 provides the proposed rendering.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 5 of 17 ends

Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan
Source: SPF:architects
Figure 3. Proposed Rendering (Beverly Hills View)
Source: SPF:architects
Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 6 of 17 ends

City of Los Angeles Review
Based on the letter of compliance regarding the project (Attachment H), dated November 22, 2023, the project was reviewed under the 'On-Menu Density Bonus Ministerial Review' process.

The city of Los Angeles determined that as a Density Bonus Housing Project that presumably will satisfy all of the objective planning standards of LAMC Section 12.22-A.25(g)(3) and California Government Code Section 65915, the project is Statutorily Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a ministerial project.

City of Beverly Hills Review
The project requires discretionary approval from the Planning Commission for the construction of the proposed building and the requested density bonus, and one of the three proposed walkways.

Of the 12 units proposed, three units would be proposed to be affordable, with two units designated for very low-income households and one unit designated to a low-income household in accordance with local inclusionary requirements, and state density bonus provisions2 . The
affordable units are proposed to be located on first through third floors and are comparable in size to other one-bedroom or two-bedroom units in the project. Table 1 provides a summary of the allowed/required development standards for density bonus projects as compared to the project:
2 Pursuant to Cal. Govt. Code §65589.5, a multi-family residential project may qualify for a density bonus provided that at least at least 5% of the housing units are restricted to very low income residents, or at least 10% of the housing units are restricted to lower income residents, or at least 10% of the housing units in a for-sale common interest development are restricted to moderate income residents for a period of 55 years as determined annually by regulation of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, based upon median income regulations adopted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

TABLE 1. PROJECT SUMMARY (ALLOWED/REQUIRED & PROPOSED)
Development
Standard
Allowed/Required per
BHMC, General Plan, or State Law Proposed with Density Bonus Density1 6 Units 12 Units2
Minimum Floor
Area per Dwelling
Unit 3
Efficiency Unit: 600 SF N/A
One Bedroom: 1,000 SF One Bedrooms: 671 SF – 788 SF
Two Bedrooms: 1,300 SF Two Bedrooms: 1,035 SF - 1,538 SF Three+ Bedrooms: 1,500 SF Three Bedroom: 2,030 SF
Parking 17 spaces 18 spaces
Building Height4 60’-0” 86’-11”
Front Setback5 25’ 15’
Rear Setback6 N/A N/A
Side Setback7 23’ cumulative; 9’ minimum 18’ cumulative; 9’ minimum Outdoor Living
Space8
200 SF/ Unit
2,400 SF
1,591 SF (Private Open Space)
+ 136 SF (Common Open Space)
2,202 SF total
Modulation 702.4 SF 725 SF
Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 7 of 17 ends

Density Bonus / Project Density Calculation
Pursuant to California Government Code §65915, local agencies are required to allow a certain number of additional units beyond the base density to be constructed on site, along with certain incentives/waivers from development standards to accommodate the provision of affordable housing units depending on the number and level of affordable housing units included in the proposal.

Under State Density Bonus Law, applicants of residential projects of five or more units are entitled to a density bonus if the project provides a certain level of affordable housing units. The amount of the density bonus is determined pursuant to State law based on the number of affordable units provided and the level of affordability of those units. Eligible projects may also be entitled to receive a limited number of development concessions, depending on the proportion of affordable units and level of income targeted. Additionally, project applicants may request a waiver of, or reduction in, local development standards (waivers) if the development standard would have the effect of physically precluding development of the project with the density bonus units and requested concessions.

The project would demolish the existing three-story, 15-unit multi-family residential building that is located across the city of Los Angeles and city of Beverly Hills boundary. The proposal would replace the existing building with a total of 52 residential units, 12 of which are located within the city of Beverly Hills. Out of the 12 units in Beverly Hills, three units would be deed-restricted affordable units. Two units would be designated for very low-income households and one unit would be designated for a low-income household, to satisfy the replacement unit determination (Attachment I) for the existing 15 units on site that would be demolished as part of the project3 .

The project site’s land use designation is High Density Multi-Family Residential, as identified on the City’s General Plan Land Use map, which allows for a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre.

The Beverly Hills portion of the project site has a lot size of approximately 4,370.24 SF (0.1 acres), this results in a base density of six units (0.100326 x 50 = 5.0163 = 6 units). 3 Based on information provided by the Los Angeles Housing Department and the available Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data for the city, a total of ten deed-restricted affordable units would be required in the proposed 52-unit housing development, with seven deed-restricted lower income units in Los Angeles and three deed-restricted lower income units in Beverly Hills.

TABLE 1. PROJECT SUMMARY (ALLOWED/REQUIRED & PROPOSED)
Development
Standard
Allowed/Required per
BHMC, General Plan, or State Law Proposed with Density Bonus 1 Maximum density per the General Plan Land Use Map: 50 dwelling units/acre. 2 Includes 50% density bonus (3 units) pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 (f)(1) for providing 15% VLI units. Includes

38.75% additional density bonus (2.3 units rounded up to 3 units) pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(v)(2) for providing 10% VLI units. Total density bonus is 88.75% and equals 6 units (rounded up from 5.3 units). 3 The applicant is requesting a concession for a reduction in minimum unit sizes. 4 The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow an additional height of 26’-11” above the 60’ General Plan height limit for Multi-Family High Density property for a total building height of 86’-11”. 5 The applicant is requesting a waiver to reduce the required front yard setback. 6 The project is not subject to rear setback requirements in the city of Beverly Hills. The project complies with the city of Los Angeles rear setback requirement and will be providing 20’, including half of the alley pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22.C.10. 7 The applicant is requesting a waiver for a reduction in the cumulative side yard setback. 8 The applicant is requesting a waiver to decrease the outdoor living space requirement.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 8 of 17 ends

The project includes a Density Bonus, which allows a 50% density bonus for providing a percentage of very low-income units. Effective in 2024, State Density Bonus Law also provides for an additional 38.75% density bonus for providing additional affordable units at the very lowincome level, resulting in a total density bonus of 88.75%. This additional bonus has been informally referred to as “stacked” density bonus. The affordable housing units required under the City’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance also count as affordable housing units to qualify for a density bonus under state law. The project density calculation is provided in Table 3.

TABLE 2. PROJECT DENSITY CALCULATION
Density Calculation Proposed
Base Density 50 dwelling units/acre 0.100326 acres x 50 = 6 Base Dwelling Units
Affordable Units pursuant
to Density Bonus
50% Density Bonus
(for 15% Very Low-Income Units)
1 Very Low-Income Unit
(1 / 6 = 16.67% of Base Density)
Affordable Units pursuant
to Stacked Density Bonus

38.75% Density Bonus
(for 10% Very Low-Income Units)
1 Very Low-Income Unit
(1 / 6 = 16.67% of Base Density)
Maximum Total Units 12 Units
(6 Base Density + 3 Density Bonus + 3 Stacked Density Bonus) 1 Note: All figures approximate.
1 The proposed number of dwelling units is consistent with state density bonus regulations, pursuant to California Government Code §65915(f)(2), which allows for a 50% density bonus on top of the base density and for an additional 38.75% stacked density bonus for providing additional affordable units. This section also states that “Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number”.

Concessions and Waivers
Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, local municipalities are required to provide one or more “incentives” or “concessions” (as noted above, referred to herein collectively as “concessions”) to each project that qualifies for a density bonus. These are intended to result in cost reductions for the project to be able to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. These concessions are defined under California Government Code § 65915(k) as:
• A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements, such as a reduction in setback or minimum square footage requirements; or
• Approval of mixed-use zoning; or
• Other regulatory incentives or concessions which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions.

The number of concessions to which a mixed-income project may be entitled ranges from one to four. Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, development projects with at least 16% of the base units designated for very low-income households are eligible to request four development concessions.

Separately, an applicant may also request a waiver from any development standard that has the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions allowed by State Density Bonus Law, unless such a request would cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or would be contrary to state or Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 9 of 17 ends

federal law. A waiver does not count as a concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted, provided the wavier criteria are met.

In the case of the project, two units (33% of the base units) are designated for very low-income households, which qualifies the project to receive four development concessions. The applicant is requesting two concessions and four waivers from development standards and has submitted a narrative regarding the requests (Attachment G). The concessions and waivers requested by the applicant are as follows:

Requested Concessions:
• Minimum Unit Size: BHMC §10-3-2802 establishes a minimum floor area for dwelling units within a multi-family residential development as follows:
o One Bedroom: Minimum floor area of 1,000 SF.
o Two Bedrooms: Minimum floor area of 1,300 SF.
o Three or more-bedrooms: Minimum floor area of 1,500 SF.

In lieu of these requirements, the applicant is requesting a concession for the minimum unit sizes as outlined below:
o One bedroom units (two proposed): 671 SF and 788 SF
o Two bedroom units: 1,035 SF - 1,538 SF
 8 of the 9 proposed two-bedroom units requires the concession and are 1,035 SF to 1,045 SF in size, while the remaining two-bedroom unit would meet the minimum unit size requirement and 1,538 SF in size. • Paving of Setbacks/Walkways: BHMC §10-3-2813.B specifies that no portion of any front yard within a multiple-family residential 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. The project includes a by-right walkway and an R-4 Permit request for a second walkway. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a concession for a third paved walkway in the front yard of the property to have continuous path to/from secondary access located on the south side of the proposed building.

Requested Waivers:
• Building Height: The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density and the maximum allowable height is 60’. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow an additional height of 26’-11” for a total maximum building height of 86’-11”.
• Side Setbacks: BHMC §10-3-2807.C. establishes the cumulative side yard setback of 23’ for buildings that have four or more stories or are greater than 45’ in height. In the case of the project, the applicant is requesting a waiver for a reduction of the cumulative setback to 18’.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 10 of 17 ends

• Front Setback: The residential street setback map of the city of Beverly Hills establishes the front setback for the property to be 25’. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduction of the front setback to 15’. • Outdoor Living Space: BHMC §10-3-2803 establishes the usable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit to be at least 200 square feet. The applicant is requesting a reduction in outdoor living space to a total of 1,727 SF, where 2,400 SF would be required.

Concession Considerations:

Per state law, the City is limited in its ability to deny density bonus concession requests and is required to grant the requested incentive or concession unless it can make certain findings established by the state (Attachment E) that the concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for (1) affordable housing costs, or (2) rents for the targeted units to be set as the affordability levels specified in the density bonus proposal. However, a concession could be denied if it would have a specific, adverse impact upon either (a) public health and safety or (b) any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (c) would be contrary to state or federal law.

Pursuant to California Government Code §65915(d)(4), the City has the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.

Waiver Considerations:

Per state law, the City is limited in its ability to deny requested density bonus waivers of development standards that have the effect of physically precluding construction of the project and cannot apply such development standards unless it finds that the waiver would either (1) have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of §65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact; (2) would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or (3) would be contrary to state or federal law (Attachment E).

Parking
Standard parking requirements set forth in the BHMC are based on the number of bedrooms in each unit; however, State Density Bonus Law provides that parking requirements set forth in the density bonus statute prevail over local requirements, if the applicant chooses to invoke the density bonus parking standards. The applicant has opted to utilize the state density bonus parking requirements per California Government Code §65915 (p), which are as follows:
• Studio/One-bedroom Unit: 1 parking space
• Two- to Three-Bedroom Unit: 1.5 parking spaces
• Four-Bedroom Unit: 2.5 parking spaces
State density bonus parking requirements also allow a development to provide onsite parking through tandem or uncovered parking.4
The proposed project has a minimum parking requirement
4 Govt. Code § 65915(p)(4).

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 11 of 17 ends

of 17 parking spaces and the applicant is providing 18 parking spaces. These include 16 standard spaces and two spaces designated for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. All 18 of the spaces required for the 12 units located in the Beverly Hills portion of the site are located in the two subterranean parking levels. The required and proposed parking spaces is summarized in Table 3.

TABLE 3. PARKING SUMMARY
Unit Type Number of
Units
Density Bonus
Parking Requirement Proposed Parking
1 Bedroom 2 2 (1 space per unit) = 2
18 spaces
2 Bedroom 9
10 (1.5 spaces per unit) = 15 3 Bedroom 1
TOTAL 12 17 spaces
As proposed, the parking spaces, including those designated for accessible parking, would be assigned to specific units. Pursuant to California Building Code (CBC) §1109A.3., designated accessible parking for a dwelling unit shall be provided on request of residents with disabilities. Staff recommends adding a condition of approval that the residential rental leases for all units must include a provision that states if use of either of the two accessible parking spaces has been assigned to a tenant who does not qualify to use of an ADA space, that tenant must relinquish the use of the accessible parking space to another tenant in the building who qualifies for ADA parking access and has requested use of the ADA space. This proposed condition is included in the draft resolution as Condition No. 15.

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
As proposed, the amended project requires the following entitlements to be constructed:
• Development Plan Review. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-3100.A. and C., a Development Plan Review is required to construct a new residential development at the project site and for all projects constructed pursuant to a Density Bonus Permit.
• Density Bonus Permit. Pursuant to §65915 of the California Government Code, a Density Bonus permit is required to allow an additional number of units that may be constructed on site in addition to certain concessions and/or waivers from development standards to accommodate the provision of three proposed affordable housing units5 .
5 Based on information provided by the Los Angeles Housing Department and the available Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data for the city, a total of ten deed-restricted affordable units would be required in the proposed 52-unit housing development, with seven deed-restricted lower income units in Los Angeles and three deed-restricted lower income units in Beverly Hills.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 12 of 17 ends

• R-4 Permit. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-2813.E., a R4 Permit may be granted to allow one five foot (5') wide walkway in the front yard per fifty feet (50') of frontage along the front lot line of the subject site. The project proposes three walkways. The first walkway would be permitted by-right and the second walkway would be subject to an R-4 Permit. The third walkway is proposed as a concession request.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES6
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project are included as Attachment C.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines7 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. As part of this review, a categorical exemption report has been prepared by Michael Baker International (MBI) to assess whether the project qualifies for an exemption from CEQA as an in-fill development project (Attachment E). Based on this assessment, the project does appear to qualify for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that this exemption is applicable when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.”
6 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1065/General-Plan 7 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 13 of 17 ends

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The notice for this project, summarized in Table 4, was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in BHMC 10-3-2.5, et seq.

TABLE 4. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Notice Type Notice Date
Notice of Pending Application
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 5/31/24 • Mailed Notice (100’ radius; via tracked courier) Not required • On-site Posted Notice 5/31/24
Notice of Public Hearing
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 11/22/24 • On-site Posted Notice 11/22/24
• Newspaper Notice Not required
Public Comment
Staff has received general inquiries from the public requesting project-related information. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has received two pieces of written correspondence regarding the project. The public comments can be found under Attachment J.

Applicant Outreach Efforts
No known outreach efforts.

ANALYSIS8
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary applications requested by the applicant. This section is intended to provide a detailed analysis of the project to assist the Planning Commission’s deliberation of the project.

The specific findings that must be made to approve the project are provided as Attachment B to this report.

Development Plan Review. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3104, the Planning Commission’s review of a Development Plan Review application is based on the following findings:
• The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

As discussed on Page 29 of the Class 32 Report (Attachment E), the project is consistent with various goals and policies of the City’s General Plan. Specifically, the applicable provisions of the land use and housing elements of the General Plan.

Additionally, the proposed height and density of the project are based on the allowable base heights and densities of the General Plan, taking into account concessions and waivers pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, which would render certain standards 8 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 14 of 17 ends

inapplicable to this project. A summary of applicable General Plan goals and policies for the Commission to consider are provided in Attachment C. Furthermore, the project is not located within any specific plans adopted for the area. • The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

The project site is located mid-block on the eastern side of the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive, between Beverly Boulevard to the north and Alden Drive to the south and within the City’s R-4 (Multiple Residential) Zone. As the site is double jurisdictional, the first 42’ of the property is located in Beverly Hills, while the remaining 107’ of the property is located in Los Angeles. A two-way, 20’ wide alley is at the rear of the project site. Existing development within the vicinity consists of multi-family residential buildings with varying heights between two to ten stories. Properties within the vicinity to the north, south, and west are zoned R-4 and are developed with multi-family buildings.

The project includes demolishing the existing three-story, 15-unit multi-family apartment building. A new eight story building with a height of 86’-11” would replace the existing building and would continue to be consistent with the development pattern on the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive. The project’s scale and massing would complement the existing multi-family residential development within the immediate vicinity. No rooftop operations are proposed, as the rooftop would be occupied by solar panels and mechanical equipment.

There is a pending request for a multi-family residential project located at 401 North Oakhurst Drive, less than 300’ from the project site. The project is yet to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and overlapping construction activities are not anticipated. Construction of the project would occur over 32 months per the applicant.

Any construction impacts occurring on project site would be temporary and would comply with the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the project would not adversely impact existing development in the vicinity and promote harmonious development of the area.
• The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

The project proposal involves the construction of a new multi-family residential building and does not include any commercial development. As a result, this finding is not applicable.
• The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

As discussed on Page 48 in the Class 32 Report (Attachment E), the project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a low vehicle mile traveled (VMT)-traffic analysis zone that is presumed to generate a total daily VMT per capita Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 15 of 17 ends

that is 15 percent less than the baseline level for the region. In addition, it is screened out of a local transportation analysis (LTA) because the project is presumed to have less than 50 peak hour trips and below the 87 dwelling unit threshold by providing a total of 52 residential units with 40 units in Los Angeles and 12 units in Beverly Hills.

Pedestrian access to the project site would be provided off North Oakhurst Drive via three, 3’-8” to 5’-0” wide walkways. The project would modify existing vehicle access to the site, which is currently provided via a driveway ramp along North Oakhurst Drive.

The new vehicular access would be provided via the 20’ alley to the rear (east) of the project site. A typical condition of approval for similar projects includes installing a parabolic mirror at the parking access point to help minimize traffic safety hazards in the alley. As the alley is located in the city of Los Angeles, the city of Beverly Hills cannot require such condition. However, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to install the parabolic mirror to minimize traffic safety hazards, which is included as Draft Condition No. 14. This would improve pedestrian safety due to the removal of the driveway ramp along North Oakhurst Drive and is consistent with vehicular access typically provided in new multi-family residential developments. These improvements would result in a project that does not create hazardous traffic conditions due to site design or trip generation.
• The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Based on the preceding analysis, specifically the project design features and the nature of the existing surrounding development, the project is not anticipated to have any significant or long-lasting detrimental effects on public health, safety, or general welfare.

R-4 Permit. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2850, the Planning Commission’s review of a R-4 application is based on the following findings:
• The proposal is compatible with the nearby streetscape and the scale of the surrounding development.

The project proposes three walkways, one of which is subject to an R-4 Permit. The two other walkways, the main walkway and the southern walkway, are allowed by right and through a density bonus waiver.

The walkway subject to the R-4 Permit is 3’-8” in width and located to the north of the property. It would provide ingress/egress to the subterranean parking levels below and complement the landscaping elements on site. Many multi-family buildings in the vicinity feature walkways in the front yard. Therefore, the proposal would be compatible with the nearby streetscape and the scale of the surrounding development.

Additional Considerations. While not specifically required for project approval, staff has provided additional information that the Planning Commission may take into account in consideration of the project.

Planning Commission Report
412 North Oakhurst Drive
December 12, 2024

Page 16 of 17 ends

Regional Housing Needs Assessment.

The construction of the project would result in twelve housing units within the city that would count towards the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation for the current housing cycle. The proposed three affordable housing units would count toward meeting the 1,008 very-low-income housing units and 680 low-income housing units required for this housing cycle, with the remaining nine housing units counted towards the 814 units required in the above-moderate income category.

State Housing Laws.

As discussed on page 7 of this report, certain aspects of State Density Bonus Law are a state mandate, meaning that an applicant is entitled to take advantage of the benefits afforded by that law and the city has limited ability to deny the request. For example, the developer is entitled to the additional density, the incentives/concessions, and the waivers because it is a density bonus project.

Pursuant to Government Code §65905.5(a), the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. To retain sufficient public hearings for Architectural Review and any potential City Council review, it is recommended that the Planning Commission complete their review of this project in two meetings or less. Finally, pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, the City’s ability to deny a housing development project is constrained, and to do so specific findings would need to be made. Pursuant to the HAA, only objective standards can be the basis for project denial, although there is some authority to impose conditions on a project to further compliance with subjective standards, provided that the conditions don’t have the effect of reducing density or making the project infeasible.

Analysis Summary
Based on the above analysis, it appears that the necessary findings can be made in support of the project. Accordingly, the recommendation in this report is to conditionally approve the project, subject to the conditions in the attached draft resolution.

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving the Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, and R-4 Permit, and finding the project exempt from CEQA.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:

1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions of approval.

2. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on revised findings.

3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines.

Report Reviewed By:

Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT 7
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2077
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2077

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, DENSITY BONUS PERMIT,
AND R-4 PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW EIGHT STORY, 52-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, IN WHICH 12 UNITS ARE
LOCATED IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AND 40 UNITS

ARE LOCATED IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 412 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE
(PL2200529)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:

Section 1. Stephen Webb, on behalf of the property owner, Oakhurst Skyline LLC (collectively, the “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Development Plan Review to allow the construction of a new eight story (86’-11”), 52-unit multi-family residential building in which 12 units are located in Beverly Hills and 40 units are located in Los Angeles, a Density Bonus Permit to allow an 88.75% density bonus in addition to certain concessions and waivers from development standards to provide three affordable housing units within the Beverly Hills portion of the project, and a R-4 Permit to allow for an additional walkway within the required front yard area. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §§10-3-3100.A and C., Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit are required to construct the new multifamily residential building in accordance with Section 65915 of the California Government Code.

In addition, pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-2813.E., an R-4 Permit is required to allow one five foot (5') wide walkway in the front yard per fifty feet (50') of frontage along the front lot line of the subject site.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 2 Section 2. The Project involves the construction of a new eight-story (86’-11”), 52-unit multi-family residential building. The new building will include 12 residential units within the city of Beverly Hills and 40 units within the city of Los Angeles. Parking will be provided in two levels of subterranean parking and surface level parking spaces. The two subterranean parking levels will accommodate 66 parking spaces (18 spaces located in Beverly Hills; 48 spaces located in Los Angeles). Total parking spaces, including parking at grade located in the city of Los Angeles, will be 75. The Project will provide primary pedestrian access from North Oakhurst Drive via three walkways and primary vehicular access from the rear alley accessed via Alden Drive or Beverly Boulevard. A total of 1,727 SF of outdoor living space will be provided. The proposed building will provide a 15’ front setback, a 9’ north side setback, and a 9’ south side setback for a cumulative side setback of 18’.

The Project will demolish the existing three-story, 15-unit multi-family residential building and replace it with a total of 52 units, 12 of which are in the city of Beverly Hills. Out of the 12 units, three units will be affordable housing units. Based on information provided by the Los Angeles Housing Department and the available Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data for the city, a total of ten deed-restricted affordable units would be required in the proposed 52-unit housing development, with seven deed-restricted lower income units in Los Angeles and three deed-restricted lower income units in Beverly Hills. Two units will be designated for very low-income households and one unit will be designated for a low-income household in Beverly Hills to satisfy the replacement unit determination and in accordance with state Density Bonus Law provisions.

The Project also includes the following components as it pertains to density bonus laws:

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 3 Density Bonus: State density bonus standards allow for a certain percentage increase in density, which is based on the proportion of units of the site’s base density (i.e., the maximum number of units allowed under General Plan density standards without the inclusion of bonus units) that are designated as affordable housing units. In the case of the Project, the number of base units that may be built under the City’s General Plan is six units and the number of affordable housing units proposed are two very low-income units and one low-income unit. The density bonus standards state that whenever 15% or more of a Project’s base density is designated as affordable to very low-income households, a 50% increase in density shall be provided. An additional 38.75% increase in density shall be provided if an additional 10% or more of a Project’s base density is designated as affordable to very low-income households. All density calculations are required to be rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, the approval of the Density Bonus Permit, with the inclusion of three affordable housing units, will allow for a maximum density of 12 units.

Development Concessions: Pursuant to state density bonus law, development Projects where at least 16% of the base units are affordable to very low-income households are entitled to four development incentives/concessions (hereafter referred to as concessions), which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. Separately, an Applicant may also request waivers from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities or with the concessions allowed by Density Bonus Law, unless such a request will cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or will be contrary to state or federal law. A waiver does not count as a concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted, provided the waiver criteria are met. Accordingly, the concessions and waivers requested by the Applicant are as follows:

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 4 Concessions

1. Minimum Unit Size: BHMC §10-3-2802 establishes a minimum floor area for dwelling units within a multi-family residential development as follows:
• One Bedroom: Minimum floor area of 1,000 SF.
• Two Bedrooms: Minimum floor area of 1,300 SF.
• Three or more-bedrooms: Minimum floor area of 1,500 SF.

In lieu of these requirements, the Applicant is requesting a concession for the minimum unit sizes as outlined below:
• One bedroom units (two proposed): 671 SF and 788 SF
• Two bedroom units: 1,035 SF – 1,538 SF
o 8 of the 9 proposed two-bedroom units requires the concession and are 1,035 SF to 1,045 SF in size, while the remaining two-bedroom unit will meet the minimum unit size requirement and 1,538 SF in size.

2. Paving of Setbacks/Walkways: BHMC §10-3-2813.B specifies that no portion of any front yard within a multiple-family residential 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. The project includes a by-right walkway and an R-4 Permit request for a second walkway. The Applicant is requesting a concession for a third paved walkway in the front yard of the property to have continuous path to/from secondary access located on the south side of the proposed building.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 5 Waivers

3. Building Height: The subject property has a General Plan land use designation of MultiFamily Residential – High Density and the maximum allowable height is 60’. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow an additional height of 26’-11” for a total maximum building height of 86’-11”.

4. Side Setbacks: BHMC §10-3-2807.C. establishes the cumulative side yard setback of 23’ for buildings that have four or more stories or are greater than 45’ in height. The Applicant is requesting a waiver for a reduction of the cumulative setback to 18’.

5. Front Setback: The residential street setback map of the city of Beverly Hills establishes the front setback for the property to be 25’. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduction of the front setback to 15’.

6. Outdoor Living Space: BHMC §10-3-2803 establishes the usable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit to be at least 200 square feet. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduction in outdoor living space to a total of 1,727 SF, where 2,400 SF will be required.

Parking: Standard parking requirements set forth in the BHMC are based on the number of bedrooms in each unit; however, state density bonus law provides that parking requirements set forth in the density bonus statute prevail over local requirements, at the Applicant’s election. The Applicant is utilizing state density bonus parking requirements, which require:
• Studio/One-bedroom Unit: 1 parking space
• Two- to Three-Bedroom Unit: 1.5 parking spaces
• Four-Bedroom Unit: 2.5 parking spaces
Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 6 State density bonus parking requirements also allow a development to provide onsite parking through tandem or uncovered parking. The Project has a minimum parking requirement of 17 parking spaces and the Applicant is providing 18 parking spaces. These include 16 standard spaces and two spaces designated for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) access. All 18 of the spaces required for the 12 units located in the Beverly Hills portion of the site are located in the two subterranean parking levels.

Section 3. The Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The Planning Commission has reviewed the Class 32 Exemption report prepared for the Project, and based on that analysis finds that the request is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines.

A Class 32 Categorical Exemption is applicable to the construction of in-fill development Projects.

Therefore, the Planning Commission finds the Project exempt from further review under the provisions of CEQA.

Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on November 22, 2024, to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, extended to the block-face. On-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on November 22, 2024. On December 12, 2024, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 7 Section 5. In reviewing the request for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit, the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings:

1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area;

2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area;

3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property;

4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards; and

5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit:

1. The Project, as authorized by the State Density Bonus Statute, is consistent with various goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, and specifically, the land use and housing elements of the General Plan. Additionally, the proposed height and density of the Project are based on the allowable base heights and densities of the General Plan, taking into account waivers pursuant to state density bonus law, which will render certain Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 8 standards inapplicable to this Project. Furthermore, the Project is not located within any specific plans adopted for the area.

2. The project site is located mid-block on the eastern side of the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive, between Beverly Boulevard to the north and Alden Drive to the south and within the City’s R-4 (Multiple Residential) Zone. As the site is double jurisdictional, the first 42’ of the property is located in Beverly Hills, while the remaining 107’ of the property is located in Los Angeles. A two-way, 20’ wide alley is at the rear of the project site. Existing development within the vicinity consists of multi-family residential buildings with varying heights between two to ten stories. Properties within the vicinity to the north, south, and west are zoned R-4 and are developed with multi-family buildings. The Project includes demolishing the existing three-story, 15-unit multi-family apartment building. A new eight story building with a height of 86’-11” will replace the existing building and will continue to be consistent with the development pattern on the 400 block of North Oakhurst Drive. The Project’s scale and massing will complement the existing multi-family residential development within the immediate vicinity. No rooftop operations are proposed, as the rooftop will be occupied by solar panels and mechanical equipment. There is a pending request for a multi-family residential project located at 401 North Oakhurst Drive, less than 300’ from the project site. The project is yet to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and overlapping construction activities are not anticipated.

Construction of the project would occur over 32 months per the applicant. Any construction impacts occurring on project site would be temporary and would comply with the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance. Therefore, the Project will not adversely impact existing Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 9 or anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

3. The Project is residential in nature and does not include commercial uses.

4. As noted in the Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report, the Project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds and local transportation assessment requirements as it is located within a low vehicle mile traveled (VMT)-traffic analysis zone that is presumed to generate a total daily VMT per capita that is 15 percent less than the baseline level for the region. In addition, it is screened out of a local transportation analysis (LTA) because the Project is below the 87 dwelling unit threshold. Pedestrian access to the Project site will be provided off North Oakhurst Drive via three, 3’-8” to 5’-0” wide walkways. The Project will modify existing vehicle access to the site, which is currently provided via a driveway ramp along North Oakhurst Drive. The new vehicular access will be provided via the alley to the rear (east) of the site and the Project is conditioned to include a parabolic mirror at this access point to help minimize traffic safety hazards in the alley. This will improve pedestrian safety due to the removal of the driveway ramp along North Oakhurst Drive and is consistent with vehicular access typically provided in new multi-family residential developments. Therefore, the Project will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

5. Based on the preceding analysis provided in Paragraphs 1-4 of this Section, specifically the proposed design features and the nature of the existing surrounding development, the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 10 Section 7. In reviewing the request for a R-4 Permit, the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings:

1. The proposal is compatible with the nearby streetscape and the scale of the surrounding development.

Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the R-4 Permit:

1. The project proposes three walkways, one of which is subject to an R-4 Permit. The two other walkways, the main walkway and the southern walkway, are allowed by right and through a density bonus waiver. The walkway subject to the R-4 Permit is 3’- 8” in width and located to the north of the property. It will provide ingress/egress to the subterranean parking levels below and complement the landscaping elements on site. Many multi-family buildings in the vicinity feature walkways in the front yard. Therefore, the proposal will be compatible with the nearby streetscape and the scale of the surrounding development.

Section 9. The Planning Commission finds that the Project is entitled to the requested concessions as each will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents for the targeted unit to be set as affordable to very low income and low-income households. Further, the Planning Commission finds that the Project is entitled to the requested development standard waivers because application of each standard will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development with the densities allowed pursuant to Density Bonus Law or with the requested concessions.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 11 Section 10. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, and R-4 Permit, subject to the following conditions:

Project Specific Conditions

1. The Planning Commission hereby approves the requested concessions for an additional walkway and reduction in minimum unit size, and waivers for an increase in building height, reduction in front setback, reduction in cumulative side setback, and reduction in outdoor living space. A total of three walkways (3’-8” to 5’-0” width) will be provided for the Project, with the main walkway permitted by right, the southern walkway approved per a density bonus waiver, and the northern walkway approved per an R-4 Permit. The minimum unit size within the Project shall be 671 square feet for a onebedroom unit and 1,035 square feet for a two-bedroom unit. The total height of the Project shall be 86’-11”, which excludes the stair shaft. The front setback shall be 15’-0”. The total cumulative side setback shall be 18’-0”. The total outdoor living space shall be 1,727 SF.

Additionally, the Project must maintain a minimum of 18 parking spaces (for the 12 units located within Beverly Hills) in perpetuity and said parking spaces must be allocated to the affordable housing units in the same manner and ratio as they are allocated to the marketrate housing units.

2. This approval is for those plans submitted to the Planning Commission on December 12, 2024, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the Community Development Department. Project construction shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 12 3. Minor amendments to the approved Project shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. A significant change to the approved Project, as determined by the Director, shall be subject to Planning Commission Review.

4. Project plans are subject to compliance with all applicable zoning regulations, except as may be expressly modified herein. Project plans shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are submitted for plan check.

Compliance with all applicable Municipal Codes is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Further, the Project shall comply with all prerequisites to the issuance of a demolition permit as set forth in the Municipal Code and these conditions of approval before any such demolition permit shall be issued.

5. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials, and finish of the building and landscaping shall be subject to the City’s architectural review process.

6. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or his/her designee for a consistency determination with the original approval.

7. Project construction shall at all times be in compliance with municipal code requirements prohibiting the use of residential streets for construction vehicle parking and operations, except as may be explicitly authorized by a permit issued by the City.

8. The Project shall operate at all times in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking, or other actions.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 13 9. The Project shall be operated as a rental property and shall maintain a minimum of one (one-bedroom) dwelling unit and one (two-bedroom) dwelling unit designated for occupancy by very low-income households and one (two-bedroom) dwelling unit designated for occupancy by a low-income household within the City of Beverly Hills. The City of Beverly Hills or its designee shall be responsible for administering these units. Affordability of these units by said households shall be guaranteed for a minimum of 55 years and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for a minimum of 55 years in accordance with Cal. Govt. Code Section 65915 or its successor statute.

10. The Applicant shall record covenants and/or deed restrictions as determined by the City Attorney to ensure that the rental price of the affordable housing units do not exceed an amount determined to be affordable to very low-income households and lowincome households. Very low-income and low-income households are defined in Cal.

Govt. Code Section 50079.5 and the California Department of Housing and Community Development provides a process for determining affordable housing costs. The covenants and/or restrictions on the affordable housing shall be in effect for a period of at least 55 years.

11. An inclusionary housing agreement which includes provisions and terms for meeting the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements shall be approved by the city manager and city attorney, and recorded as a deed restriction against the property prior to issuance of either a grading or building permit, whichever comes first.

12. The occupants of the three affordable housing unit within the City of Beverly Hills shall have the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 14 amenities as the occupants of the market-rate housing units. Further, the affordable housing units shall have the same number and type of appliances as the non-affordable housing units.

13. The Project shall operate at all times in compliance with Municipal Code requirements for noise regulation.

14. A parabolic mirror and warning light system shall be installed at the garage entry adjacent to an alley in order to ensure visibility for exiting vehicles and to warn alley traffic of exiting vehicles; no sound shall be utilized for the warning light system. Such features shall not be placed in or project into the City’s public right-of-way.

15. The residential rental leases for all units must include a provision that states if use of either of the two accessible parking spaces has been assigned to a tenant who does not qualify to use of an ADA space, that tenant must relinquish the use of the accessible parking space to another tenant in the building who qualifies for ADA parking access and has requested use of the ADA space.

16. As shown on the plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on December 12, 2024, at least 2,264 square feet of enclosed residential amenity spaces located on the fourth and fifth floors of the Project shall be maintained for the life of the Project. The residential amenity space is considered an extension of the livable space of the residential units in the Project. Any requests to remove or reduce the floor area of the enclosed residential amenity space shall require approval by the Planning Commission.

17. All parking spaces located in Beverly Hills shall be provided access to infrastructure that is capable of providing a minimum of Level 2 charging for electric vehicles.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 15 18. The Project site, and all future residents of the dwelling units located thereon, shall be ineligible to participate in the City’s preferential parking program or overnight parking program.

19. All replacement unit regulations under State law are applicable to the Project, including but not limited to the right of first refusal and relocation benefits.

Construction-Related Conditions

20. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and such Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a demolition or building permit. The Construction Management Plan should be reviewed and authorized by the City of Los Angeles to ensure consistency. The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum the following:
a. Written information about the construction parking arrangements, and hauling activities at different stages of construction to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works and the Building & Safety Division. b. Information regarding the anticipated number of workers, the location of parking with respect to schedules of the construction period, the arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of operation, designation of construction staging area and other pertaining information regarding construction related traffic.
c. The proposed demolition construction staging for this Project to determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for demolition, deliveries, etc., to the subject site.

Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 16 21. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the Community Development Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.

22. The Applicant shall post the names and telephone numbers of two construction representatives for the Project and a City contact on all construction fence signs. The phone numbers shall be manned at all times during construction hours.

23. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid.

24. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks surrounding the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

25. The Applicant shall remove and replace all curbs and gutters surrounding the project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

26. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or his/her designee) is first obtained.

27. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security to ensure the Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 17 establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by the Director of Public Works (or his/her designee), and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Development.

28. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations performed under any permits issued by the City.

29. Construction-related trips such as hauling activities shall be restricted to the period between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. daily on days approved for construction unless otherwise approved by the City’s Senior Transportation Engineer.

30. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.

31. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

No concentrated discharges onto the alley surfaces will be permitted.

32. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the Project site. No such installations will be allowed in any city right-of-way.

33. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets and alleys per requirements of the utility company and the City.

34. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system through the existing connections available to the subject site, unless otherwise approved Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 18 by the City Engineer and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

35. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s water system through the existing water service connection unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter installation will also require approval from the City Engineer. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

36. Any streets surrounding Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restoration to centerline.

37. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards, and shall be paid for by the Applicant. No privately-owned structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

Standard Conditions

38. APPEAL. The decision of the Planning Commission regarding the Development Plan Review may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk’s office and an appeal fee is required.

39. RECORDATION. This resolution shall not become effective until the owner of the project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 19 shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180-day period, grant a written extension of the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state, or local law that will affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant.

40. EXPIRATION. The exercise of rights granted in this resolution shall be commenced within three (3) years of adoption of such resolution unless otherwise extended in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-3-207 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.

41. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in a termination of the entitlements granted herein.

42. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND: These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. //
Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A 20 Section 11. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.

Adopted: December 12, 2024
Theresa M. Kaplan
Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
Attest:

Masa Alkire, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:
_________________________________
David M. Snow
Assistant City Attorney
Masa Alkire, AICP
Assistant Director/City Planner
Community Development Department
Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2077 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on December 12, 2024, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:

AYES: Commissioners Ross, Demeter, Vice Chair Wolfe, Chair Kaplan NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Commissioner Milkowski
________________________________

KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Docusign Envelope ID: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 937D200B-10C9-4CE0-90F9-9B07D706577A Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: PC Reso 2077 - 412 N Oakhurst.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 21 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Karen Myron
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
12/19/2024 6:37:35 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Theresa M. Kaplan
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 75.85.175.170
Signed using mobile
Sent: 12/19/2024 6:41:38 PM
Viewed: 12/19/2024 9:01:01 PM
Signed: 12/19/2024 9:01:23 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
David M. Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 72.219.162.164
Sent: 12/19/2024 9:01:24 PM
Resent: 2/10/2025 6:25:09 PM
Viewed: 2/10/2025 11:48:47 PM
Signed: 2/10/2025 11:49:29 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Masa Alkire
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 2/10/2025 11:49:31 PM
Resent: 2/25/2025 7:54:19 AM
Viewed: 2/25/2025 8:11:57 AM
Signed: 2/25/2025 8:20:42 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Karen Myron
[email protected]

COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,

CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 2/25/2025 8:20:43 AM
Viewed: 2/26/2025 5:34:44 PM
Signed: 2/26/2025 5:38:24 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/19/2024 6:41:38 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 2/26/2025 5:34:44 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 2/26/2025 5:38:24 PM
Completed Security Checked 2/26/2025 5:38:24 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 8
Required Findings
10-3-2813: PAVING OF SETBACKS; MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES:

A. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no portion of any front yard within a multiple-family residential 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.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, more than one walkway of up to five feet (5') in width may be paved in a front yard to provide equivalent access to a building in accordance with the requirements of local, state, and federal handicapped accessibility laws provided that such additional walkways are necessary because handicapped accessibility requirements cannot reasonably be met without the provision of such additional walkways.

C. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a reviewing authority may permit more than one walkway of up to five feet (5') in width to be paved within a front yard pursuant to an R-4 permit as provided in article 28.5 of this chapter if: 1) the walkway provides direct access to the primary entryway of an individual unit within a building, and 2) the reviewing authority finds that the proposal would not significantly and adversely affect the streetscape, including opportunities for landscaping.

D. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a reviewing authority may grant the equivalent of one five foot (5') wide walkway in the front yard per fifty feet (50') of frontage along the front lot line of the subject site pursuant to an R-4 permit as provided in article 28.5 of this chapter if the reviewing authority finds that the proposal is compatible with the nearby streetscape and the scale of the surrounding development. For the purposes of this subsection, any fraction in excess of a multiple of fifty feet (50') of frontage shall be rounded down. Not more than one walkway shall exceed a width of five feet (5'), and such walkway shall not exceed a width of fifteen feet (15').

E. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, the planning commission may grant the equivalent of one 5-foot wide walkway in the front yard per fifty feet (50') of frontage along the front lot line of the subject site, in any configuration, pursuant to an R-4 permit as provided in article 28.5 of this chapter, if the planning commission finds that the proposal is compatible with the nearby streetscape and the scale of the surrounding development. For the purposes of this subsection, any fraction in excess of a multiple of fifty feet (50') of frontage shall be rounded down. (Ord. 95-O-2239, eff. 7-7-1995; amd.

Ord. 96-O-2266, eff. 10-18-1996)
10-3-3104: STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS:

Except as provided in this section for development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the reviewing authority shall approve a development plan review application only if it makes all of the following findings:

A. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

B. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

For those proposed plans to be located in the C-5 Zone that are reviewed by the Planning Commission, the commission shall consider the factors set forth in section 10-3-2021 of this chapter as part of the commission's determination regarding whether a project will promote harmonious development of the area.

C. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

D. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

E. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

In approving a development plan application, the reviewing authority may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.

With regard to development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and to be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the review of the Director shall be ministerial and limited to whether such building conforms to the requirements of the C-5 Zone. (Ord. 11-O-2615, eff. 12-16-2011) (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. (2) The applicant shall receive the following number of incentives or concessions:
(A) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least IO percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 5 percent for very low income households, or at least 10 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(B) Two incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 17 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 10 percent for very low income households, or at least 20 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(C) Three incentives or concessions for projects that include at least 24 percent of the total units for lower income households, at least 15 percent for very low income households, or at least 30 percent for persons and families of moderate income in a development in which the units are for sale.
(D) Four incentives or concessions for a project meeting the criteria of subparagraph (G) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). If the project is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, the applicant shall also receive a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet.
(E) One incentive or concession for projects that include at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income students in a student housing development. (3) The applicant may initiate judicial proceedings if the city, county, or city and county refuses to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession. If a court The following findings do not need to be made by the Commission in order to approve the Project. Rather, they are provided to the Commission for information purposes and the Commission would be required to make such findings in order to deny the requested incentives/concessions associated with the project.

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65915
( d) (1) An applicant for a density bonus pursuant to subdivision (b) may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the specific incentives or concessions that the applicant requests pursuant to this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. The city, county, or city and county shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the applicant unless the city, county, or city and county makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c ). (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) ofsubdivision (d) ofSection 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register ofHistorical Resources and for which there is nofeasiblemethod to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.
finds that the refusal to grant a requested density bonus, incentive, or concession is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney's fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be inte1preted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that has a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be inte1preted to require a local government to grant an incentive or concession that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The city, county, or city and county shall establish procedures for canying out this section that shall include legislative body approval of the means of compliance with this section.
( 4) The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.I
The following findings do not need to be made by the Commission in order to approve the Project. Rather, they are provided to the Commission for information purposes and the Commission would be required to make such findings in order to deny the requested waivers associated with the project.

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65915
(e) (1) In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.
(2) A proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards pursuant to this subdivision shall neither reduce nor increase the number of incentives or concessions to which the applicant is entitled pursuant to subdivision (d). (3) A housing development that receives a waiver from any maximum controls on density pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) shall only be eligible for a waiver or reduction of development standards as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) and clause (ii) of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (f), unless the city, county, or city and county agrees to additional waivers or reductions of development standards. 2-27
ATTACHMENT 9
General Plan Policies

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the city. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project include the following:

Land Use Element – Goals and Policies
• Policy LU 3.2 - Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs. Meet State requirements to accommodate the City’s fair share of regional housing needs, contingent upon the ability to maintain the qualities that distinguish and contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City’s fiscal resources.
• Policy LU 5.2 - Infill and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form, and scale.
• Policy LU 5.5 - Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks, parkways, street trees, and landscaping in residential neighborhoods to promote walking as an enjoyable and healthy activity and an alternative to automobile use.
• Policy LU 7.1 - Character and Design. Require that multi-family dwellings and properties be designed to reflect the high level of architectural and landscape quality that distinguishes existing neighborhoods.
• Policy LU 7.2 - Amenities. Encourage new multi-family development to provide amenities for residents such as on-site recreational facilities, community meeting spaces, and require useable private open space, public open space, or both. • Policy LU 16.10 - Affordable Housing. Support the development of affordable housing as required by state law.

Housing Element – Goals and Policies
• Goal H2 - Housing Supply and Diversity. Provide a variety of housing types and adequate affordable housing supply to meet the existing and future needs of the community.
• Policy H2.1 - Affordable Housing Incentives. Offer incentives, including density bonuses, where feasible, to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing.

Proactively seek out new approaches in the provision of affordable housing. • Policy H2.2. - Inclusionary Housing. Continue to implement an inclusionary housing program to integrate affordable units within market rate developments and increase the availability of affordable housing throughout the community. • Goal H4 - Reducing Constraints. Mitigate potential governmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, while maintaining community character.
• Policy H4.2. - Development Standards. Evaluate and modify development standards as appropriate to better facilitate the provision of affordable housing.

ATTACHMENT 10
State Statutes
State Statues – California Government Code
California Government Code §65589(j)(1): When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

California Government Code §65915(d)(4): The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive.

California Government Code §65915(e)(1): In no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section. Subject to paragraph (3), an applicant may submit to a city, county, or city and county a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted under this section, and may request a meeting with the city, county, or city and county. If a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. This subdivision shall not be interpreted to require a local government to waive or reduce development standards that would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or to grant any waiver or reduction that would be contrary to state or federal law.

California Government Code §65915(f)(2): For the purposes of this chapter, “density bonus” means a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable gross residential density as of the date of application by the applicant to the city, county, or city and county, or, if elected by the applicant, a lesser percentage of density increase, including, but not limited to, no increase in density. The amount of density increase to which the applicant is entitled shall vary according to the amount by which the percentage of affordable housing units exceeds the percentage established in subdivision (b).
(2) For housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), the density bonus shall be calculated as follows:

Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
California Government Code §65915(k): For the purposes of this chapter, concession or incentive means any of the following:
(1) A reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions, to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses are compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing project will be located.
(3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c).

California Government Code §65915(p)(1): Except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4), upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, of a development meeting the criteria of subdivisions (b) and (c), that exceeds the following ratios:
(A) Zero to one bedroom: one onsite parking space.
(B) Two to three bedrooms: one and one-half onsite parking spaces. (C) Four and more bedrooms: two and one-half parking spaces.

California Government Code §65915(p)(2): Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes at least 20 percent low-income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) or at least 11 percent very low income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per unit. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), if a development includes at least 40 percent moderate-income units for housing developments meeting the criteria of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), is located within onehalf mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and the residents of the development have unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of parking for persons with a disability and guests, that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom.

California Government Code §65915(q): Each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. The Legislature finds and declares that this provision is declaratory of existing law.

Section 65863.2 is added to the Government Code, to read: (a) (1) In a county with a population of 600,000 or more, a public agency shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforce a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the parcel is located within one-half mile of public transit. A development shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the development have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the development are farther than one-half mile from the stop.
(2) In a county with a population of less than 600,000:
(A) In a city with a population of 75,000 or more, a public agency shall not impose a minimum automobile parking requirement, or enforce a minimum automobile parking requirement, on residential, commercial, or other development if the project is located within one-quarter mile of public transit. A development shall be considered to be within one-quarter mile of a major transit stop if all parcels within the development have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-quarter mile from the stop and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the development are farther than one-quarter mile from the stop. (B) A city with a population of less than 75,000, or a county with a population of less than 600,000, may adopt an ordinance or resolution that applies the prohibitions of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) or paragraph (1) within its boundaries. This authority is in addition to any other authority provided by law for a city or county to reduce automobile parking requirements within its jurisdiction.
(b) When a project provides parking voluntarily, a public agency may impose requirements on that voluntary parking to require spaces for car share vehicles, require spaces to be shared with the public, or require parking owners to charge for parking. (c) Subdivision (a) shall not reduce, eliminate, or preclude the enforcement of any requirement imposed on a new multifamily residential or nonresidential development to provide electric vehicle supply equipment installed parking spaces or parking spaces that are accessible to persons with disabilities that would have otherwise applied to the development if this section did not apply. (d) (1) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to commercial parking requirements if it conflicts with an existing contractual agreement of the public agency that was executed before January 1, 2022, provided that all of the required commercial parking is shared with the public. This subdivision shall apply to an existing contractual agreement that is amended after January 1, 2022, provided that the amendments do not increase commercial parking requirements. (2) A project may voluntarily build additional parking that is not shared with the public. (e) For purposes of this section:
(1) “Public agency” means the state or any state agency, board, or commission, any city, county, city and county, or special district, or any agency, board, or commission of the city, county, city and county, special district, joint powers authority, or other political subdivision. (2) “Public transit” means a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, except that it also includes a major transit stop that is included in an applicable regional transportation plan.
(f) The Legislature finds and declares that reducing the negative environmental and social effects associated with required parking minimums; the provision of adequate housing, in light of the severe shortage of housing at all income levels in this state; and the need to support infill development, are matters of statewide concern and are not municipal affairs as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

California Government Code §65915(v)(1): Provided that the resulting housing development would not restrict more than 50 percent of the total units to moderate-income, lower income, or very low income households, a city, county, or city and county shall grant an additional density bonus calculated pursuant to paragraph (2) when an applicant proposes to construct a housing development that conforms to the requirements of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), agrees to include additional rental or for-sale units affordable to very low income households or moderate income households, and meets any of the following requirements:
(A) The housing development conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and provides 24 percent of the total units to lower income households.
(B) The housing development conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and provides 15 percent of the total units to very low income households.
(C) The housing development conforms to the requirements of subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) and provides 44 percent of the total units to moderateincome households. (2) A city, county, or city and county shall grant an additional density bonus for a housing development that meets the requirements of paragraph (1), calculated as follows:

Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 23.75
7 27.5
8 31.25
9 35
10 38.75
Percentage Moderate-Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
(3) The increase required by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be in addition to any increase in density granted by subdivision (b).
(4) The additional density bonus required under this subdivision shall be calculated using the number of units excluding any density bonus awarded by this section. (Amended by Stats. 2023, Ch. 784, Sec. 1.3. (SB 713) Effective January 1, 2024.) State Statues – Public Resource Code
Public Resource Source Code §21099(a)(7): “Transit priority area” means an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program or applicable regional transportation plan.

Public Resource Code §21099(d)(1): Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Public Resources Code §21155: (a) This chapter applies only to a transit priority project that is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, a transit priority project shall (1) contain at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage and, if the project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75; (2) provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; and (3) be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.

ATTACHMENT 11
Class 32 Exemption Report
Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32
Categorical Exemption Report
Lead Agency:

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Contact: Minjee Hahm, AICP
[email protected]
310.285.1136
Prepared by:

MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Contact: Kristen Bogue
[email protected]
949.855.5747
November 18, 2024
JN 199941
This document is designed for double-sided printing to conserve natural resources.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 i City of Beverly Hills

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1 II. Project Location And Setting.........................................................................................1 Project Location ...................................................................................................................................1 Existing Site Conditions......................................................................................................................4 III. Project Description ........................................................................................................6 IV. Class 32 Exemption Criteria Analysis..........................................................................27 Criterion (a).........................................................................................................................................27 Criterion (b).........................................................................................................................................46 Criterion (c).........................................................................................................................................46 Criterion (d).........................................................................................................................................47 A. Traffic................................................................................................................................47 B. Noise..................................................................................................................................50 C. Air Quality ........................................................................................................................65 D. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..........................................................................................82 E. Water Quality ...................................................................................................................96 Criterion (e).........................................................................................................................................97 V. Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Analysis .......................................................101 VI. Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 105 VII. References .................................................................................................................. 106 List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Vicinity...............................................................................................................................2 Exhibit 2 Site Vicinity........................................................................................................................................3 Exhibit 3 Existing On-Site Conditions...........................................................................................................5 Exhibit 4 Site Plan .............................................................................................................................................7 Exhibit 5a Floor Plan – Ground Floor...........................................................................................................8 Exhibit 5b Floor Plan – Second Floor ...........................................................................................................9 Exhibit 5c Floor Plan – Third Floor.............................................................................................................10 Exhibit 5d Floor Plan – Fourth Floor..........................................................................................................11 Exhibit 5e Floor Plan – Fifth Floor..............................................................................................................12 Exhibit 5f Floor Plan – Sixth Floor..............................................................................................................13 Exhibit 5g Floor Plan – Seventh Floor.........................................................................................................14 Exhibit 5h Floor Plan – Eight Floor.............................................................................................................15 Exhibit 5i Floor Plan – Roof..........................................................................................................................16 Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 ii City of Beverly Hills
Exhibit 5j Floor Plan – First Level Basement .............................................................................................17 Exhibit 5k Floor Plan – Second Level Basement .......................................................................................18 Exhibit 6a Building Elevations - North........................................................................................................19 Exhibit 6b Building Elevations - East ..........................................................................................................20 Exhibit 6c Building Elevations - South ........................................................................................................21 Exhibit 6d Building Elevations - West .........................................................................................................22 Exhibit 7a Conceptual Landscape Plan - Overall .......................................................................................25 Exhibit 7b Conceptual Landscape Plan – Western Perimeter..................................................................26 List of Tables
Table 1 Existing and Proposed Building Square Footages..................................................................23 Table 2 Beverly Hills General Plan Project Consistency Analysis......................................................29 Table 3 Wilshire Community Plan Project Consistency Analysis ......................................................37 Table 4 Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels...................................................................................52 Table 5 Long-Term Noise Measurement...............................................................................................53 Table 6 Short-Term Noise Measurements.............................................................................................54 Table 7 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors........................................56 Table 8 Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Religious Receptor.............................................58 Table 9 Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.........................................................64 Table 10 South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds...............................68 Table 11 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions................................................................................73 Table 12 Maximum Operational Emissions............................................................................................76 Table 13 Localized Significance of Construction Emissions................................................................80 Table 14 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions....................................................................................83 Table 15 Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.............................................................................86 Table 16 Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan .................................................................................91 Table 17 Consistency with Applicable Goals and Policies of the Beverly Hills General Plan and Sustainable City Plan ..................................................................................................93 Table 18 Consistency with Applicable Goals and Policies of the City of Los Angeles General Plan.................................................................................................................................95 Table 19 Current and Future Projected Water Use ................................................................................98 Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 iii City of Beverly Hills
Appendices
Appendix A Noise Assessment
Appendix B Air Quality Assessment
Appendix C GHG Memorandum
Appendix D Historical Assessment
Appendix E Will Serve Letters
Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 1 City of Beverly Hills

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION REPORT
This report serves as the technical documentation of an environmental analysis performed by Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) for the Oakhurst Apartments (project) in the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. The intent of the analysis is to document whether the project is eligible for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332. The report provides an introduction, project description, and evaluation of the project’s consistency with the requirements for a Class 32 CE. 1 I. INTRODUCTION
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a Class 32 CE is allowed when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

II. PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING

PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located at 412 North Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills, within the municipal boundaries of both the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. Regionally, the project site is located in the western portion of Los Angeles County (County), approximately six miles west of Downtown Los Angeles; refer to Exhibit 1, Regional Vicinity. Surrounding communities include Hollywood to the north, Silverlake-Echo Park and Westlake to the east, South Central Los Angeles and West Adams-LeimertBaldwin Hills to the south, and West Los Angeles to the west. The City of Beverly Hills is roughly 5.7 square miles and located in the southwestern portion of the County. Surrounding jurisdictions of Beverly Hills include the City of Los Angeles along all sides and the City of West Hollywood to the east.

The project site consists of an approximately 0.35-acre property (0.1003-acre or approximately 0.10- acre within Beverly Hills and approximately 0.2531-acre or 0.25-acre within Los Angeles), bordered to the west by North Oakhurst Drive; refer to Exhibit 2, Site Vicinity. Land uses surrounding the project site include residential uses on all sides. Regional access to the site is provided via State Route 1 It should be noted that the portion of the project within the City of Los Angeles was deemed statutorily exempt from CEQA (i.e., classified as a ministerial project) pursuant to the Letter of Compliance – Miinsterial [Ministerial] On-Menu Density Bonus, prepared by the City of Los Angeles, dated November 22, 2023.

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 1
Regional Vicinity NOT TO SCALE
08/2024 • JN 199941

P A C I F I C

O C E A N
Pyramid
Lake
Lake
Piru
Castaic
Lake
101
101
1 1
2 1
5 5
5 126
118 118
241
142
134
261
133
138
138
138
405
405
605
710
110
110
10 10
210
210
210
10 405
23 2
14 14
18 23
23 27
55 91
90 90
57 60
60 30
71 22
Upland
Pomona
Chino
Palmdale
Lancaster
Pasadena
Alhambra
Monterey Park
Pico
Rivera
Downey
South
Gate
Compton
Carson
Hawthorne
Inglewood
Culver
City
Santa
Monica
Sherman
Oaks
Van
Nuys
Hollywood
Bellflower
Lakewood
Arcadia
Monrovia Azuza
Claremont
San
Dimas
West
Covina
La Habra
Heights
Brea
Walnut
Covina Baldwin
Park
Whittier
La
Mirada
Burbank
Pacoima
Glendale
Los
Angeles
Torrance
San
Pedro
Long
Beach
Huntington
Beach
Newport Beach
Santa
Ana
Costa
Mesa
Garden
Grove
Anaheim
Tustin
Orange
Fullerton
Yorba
Linda
Irvine
Lake
Forest
Fillmore Piru
Moorpark
Thousand
Oaks
Simi
Valley
Castaic
Gorman
Lebec
Santa
Clarita
Sylmar
Agoura Hills Woodland
Hills
Canoga
Park
Chatsworth
Westlake
Village
Calabasas
Malibu
Palos
Verdes
Estates
Redondo Beach
Manhattan Beach
El Segundo
Playa Del Rey
Marina
Del Rey
Beverly
Hills
ORANGE
COUNTY

VENTURA
COUNTY

LOS ANGELES
COUNTY

KERN COUNTY
Project Site

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 2
Site Vicinity
Source: Google Earth Pro, March 2024

NOT TO SCALE
08/2024 • JN 199941

N PALM DR

OAKHURST DR

N DOHENY DR

BEVERLY BLVD

PROJECT SITE
Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 4 City of Beverly Hills
2 (SR-2; Santa Monica Boulevard), Interstate 10 (I-10), State Route 187 (SR-187; Venice Boulevard), and Interstate 405 (I-405). Local access to the site is provided via Beverly Boulevard, Burton Way, South Doheny Drive, and North Oakhurst Drive.

EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is currently developed with an existing occupied multi-family residential building located at 412 North Oakhurst Drive. The western portion of the lot is located within the municipal boundary of Beverly Hills (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 4335-006-043) and the eastern portion of the lot is located within the municipal boundary of Los Angeles (APN 4335-006-044). The existing residential building is approximately 32,400-gross square feet and includes 15 residential units that are a maximum of three stories (approximately 32 feet in height).2 Constructed in 1974, the building, called the “Oakhurst Royale Apartments,” exhibits the typical features of the ubiquitous podium style Stucco Box multi-family typology, a popular building form of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s.

The building consists of 15 units arranged around a small, interior landscaped courtyard area with a cutaway along its south (side) elevation. With a “C” shaped plan, the three-story building is slightly raised from grade and sits above a subterranean garage (with 30 parking spaces). The building fronts west onto North Oakhurst Drive and its front (primary) façade features a centrally placed entry driveway into the garage and an offset pedestrian entry approached from the public sidewalk via a paved walkway, low-rise steps, and landing with integrated brick planters. Access into the building is through aluminum-framed glazed double doors that lead to the lobby and elevator; refer to Exhibit 3, Existing On-Site Conditions.

According to the General Plan Land Use Designations – City of Beverly Hills (Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Map) and General Plan Land Use Map, Wilshire Community Plan (Los Angeles General Plan Land Use Map), the project site is currently designated Multi-Family Residential, High Density (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills) and High Medium Residential (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles).3,4 The on-site designations allow for a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) on the City of Beverly Hills portion of the lot and between 55 and 109 du/acre on the City of Los Angeles portion of the lot. Additionally, the City of Beverly Hills portion of the lot allows for a 60-foot maximum building height.5 The City of Los
2 “Gross” (square feet) is used to describe the total area of enclosed space measured from the exterior walls of a building, including unusable spaces (e.g., areas between walls, structural columns, or shafts); “net” (square feet) is used to describe the total area of enclosed space measured from the inside finished surface of surrounding walls that is available for furnishing, equipment, and personnel and excludes any unusable spaces. 3 City of Beverly Hills, General Plan Land Use Designations – City of Beverly Hills, https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/1807037749744115284/Landuse_11x17_20220125.pdf, accessed February 22, 2024.
4 City of Los Angeles, General Plan Land Use Map, Wilshire Community Map, https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/2ec22248-3c1e-4354-b5d1-096cdf9845ab/wilplanmap.pdf, accessed February 22, 2024.
5 City of Beverly Hills, General Plan Land Use Designations – City of Beverly Hills, https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/1807037749744115284/Landuse_11x17_20220125.pdf, accessed February 22, 2024.

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 3
Existing On-Site Conditions Source: Ostashay & Associates Consultants (OAC) 09/2024 • JN 199941
Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 6 City of Beverly Hills
Angeles portion of the lot does not designate a maximum building height.6The City of Beverly Hills portion of the lot is zoned Multiple Residential Zone (R-4) and the City of Los Angeles portion of the lot is zoned Qualified Classification, Multiple Dwelling Zone, Height District No. 1, Oil Drilling District ([Q]R4-1-O).

Surrounding uses adjacent to the project site include residential land uses. The project site is located within walking distance of single-family homes, condominiums, and apartments, as well as offices, retail stores, restaurants, and other commercial businesses along Beverly Boulevard.

III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing 15-unit multi-family residential building and associated parking garage and constructing a new multi-family residential (apartment) building (up to eight stories in height), landscaping, open space, and two levels of basement parking; refer to Exhibit 4, Site Plan. Table 1, Existing and Proposed Building Square Footages, details the existing and proposed building square footages. The building would include 52 residential units (12 residential units within the City of Beverly Hills and 40 units within the City of Los Angeles). The residential unit options would include studios through three-bedroom units. Within the City of Beverly Hills, the building would include: two one-bedroom units consisting of 671 square feet and 788 square feet; nine two-bedroom units ranging from 1,035 to 1,538 square feet; and one three-bedroom unit consisting of 2,030 square feet. Within the City of Los Angeles, the building would include four studio units each consisting of 627 square feet; seven one-bedroom units each consisting of 667 square feet; and 29 two-bedroom units ranging from 950 square feet to 1,068 square feet; refer to Exhibit 5a, Floor Plan – Ground Floor through Exhibit 5k, Floor Plan – Second Level Basement. The proposed building would include common open space amenities including: a trash room, recycling room, mail room, and longterm bicycle storage room located on the first floor; a bicycle parking/maintenance room and a landscaped outdoor courtyard located on the second floor; a recreation room located on the third floor; a gym located on the fourth floor; and common space located on the fifth floor. It is acknowledged that an outdoor living space waiver would be requested to adjust (decrease) the required square footage of outdoor living space from 2,400 square feet to 1,727 square feet. Additionally, a density bonus incentive would be requested to adjust (decrease) the required square footage per residential unit within the City of Beverly Hills: 1,035 square feet for two-bedroom units (in lieu of 1,300 square feet); and 671 square feet for one-bedroom units (in lieu of 1,000 square feet). The rooftop would include screened mechanical equipment and an area reserved for future solar panel use.

Ancillary facilities, such as an elevator lobby, elevators, and stairs are also proposed.

The proposed building would be constructed up to a height of eight stories (or 86 feet, 11 inches), including rooftop appurtenances; refer to Exhibit 6a, Building Elevations – North through Exhibit 6d, Building Elevations - West. It is acknowledged that a waiver is requested for the additional height (26 feet, 11 inches) above the permitted building height. Additionally, the proposed building would include a nine-foot side yard setback along the northern and southern boundaries, and a 15-foot front yard setback along the western boundary of the project site. No rear yard setback is proposed along the 6 City of Los Angeles, Wilshire Community Plan, 2001, https://planning.lacity.gov/plans-policies/community-planarea/wilshire, accessed February 23, 2024.

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 4
Site Plan
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
DN
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
PROPOSED 8-STORY

MULTIFAMILY BUILDING W/ TWO

LEVELS SUBTERRANEAN PARKING CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

JURISDICTION

PUBLIC RIGHT OF
WAY

PROJECT SITE

CL OF ALLEY

TRANSFORMER
PL (102'-7 3/4")
PL (149' - 11 1/2")
PL (102'-7 3/4")
PL (149' - 11 1/2")
BASEMENT PARKINGDRIVEWAYENTRANCE + EXIT
BH LA
BH LA

LOS ANGELES

OUTLINE OF EXISTING

BUILDING TO BE

DEMOLISHED
OAKHURST DR.

PAVING

PLANTING - SEE

LANDSCAPE DWGS

PLANTED PARKWAY

TO REMAIN
LEGEND
LEVEL 01 PARKINGENTRANCE + EXIT
5'-0" OFFSET LINE

FROM BUILDING
100.25' LOWEST ADJ.

GRADE WITHIN 5' OF

BUILDING LINE

FDC SIAMESE CONNECTION
(E) STREET TREE TO REMAIN (4)

SIDEWALK TO BE REMOVED

AND REPLACED PER CITY

STANDARDS

PLANTED PARKWAY TO REMAIN

DRIVEWAY CURB CUT TO BE

REMOVED AND REPLACED

WITH PLANTING

PUBLIC RIGHT
OF WAY

PROJECT SITE

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 7" 107' - 5"

BEVERLY HILLS
42' - 7"

CITY OF LA
107' - 5"

SETBACK
9' - 0" 84' - 8"

SETBACK
9' - 0"

PLANTER WALL PER

LANDSCAPE - SHALL COMPLY
WITH 10-3-2814, PLASTER

FINISH ON BOTH SIDES,

TYPICAL

EGRESS PATH
3' - 8" 70' - 2" 5' - 0" 19' - 7"

EGRESS PATH
3' - 8"

PLANTING TO PROVIDE
PRIVATE DECK SCREENING.

SEE LANDSCAPE ELEVATION

PLANTING TO PROVIDE
PRIVATE DECK SCREENING.

SEE LANDSCAPE ELEVATION

THIRD PAVED WALKWAY

TO EGRESS STAIRS

BUILDING ENTRY
(WALKWAY 1)

EGRESS PATH
(WALKWAY 2)

EGRESS PATH
(WALKWAY 3)
6' - 0"
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
6"
6"

TREES PER LANDSCAPE

TREES PER LANDSCAPE
REV. ISSUE
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO

CHECKED BY
SCALE:

SHEET NO:

HALF SC
NORTH
A 1

OAKHURST APARTMENTS

SITE PLAN
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SITE PLAN - BH
1 SB330 SUBMITTA
2 SB330 RESUBMI
3 SB330 RESUBMI
4 SB330 RESUBMI
5 SB330 RESUBMI
6 SB330 RESUBMI
7 SB330 RESUBMI
8 SB330 RESUBMI

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5a
Floor Plan - Ground Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
UP
DN
DN
UP
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301
BH LA
BH LA
2 - LA 1 - LA
4 - LA 5 - LA 6 - LA 7 - LA
8 - LA 9 - LA
3 - LA

TRASH RECYCLING

RAMP DN
MECH.

ROOM.

ELEV 1 ELEV 2 MECH
SHAFT
H.C.V.

H.C.V.

LIVING

DINING KITCHEN
B1 B2

LONG TERM

BIKE STORAGE
CLO. W/D BA2
BA1

MAIL/PACKAGES
ELEV. LOBBY
LOBBY
621 SF
UNIT 103

TRANSFORMER
UNIT 101
1-BED
788 SF
UNIT 102
1-BED
671 SF

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

PLANTER WALLS IN THE FRONT

SETBACK SHALL COMPLY WITH
BHMC 10-3-2814, TYP.
42" GUARDRAIL SHALL COMPLY
WITH BHMC 10-3-2814, TYP.
9' - 8 3/8" 17' - 4 3/8"

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8"

EGRESS PATH
3' - 8" 4' - 9" 14' - 10" 5' - 0" 18' - 5 5/8" 13' - 0" 5' - 0 1/2" 13' - 0" 15' - 3 3/4" 5' - 4"

EGRESS PATH
3' - 8"
DECK
68 SF
DECK
68 SF
K
L
B
CL BA
K
L
B
BA
6' - 0"
6' - 0"

FDC SIAMESE CONNECTION
19' - 10"
102.A
102.B

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300

GROUND LEVEL

PARKING
(9 SPACES)

SECURITY GATE TO SIDE YARD
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 01 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5b
Floor Plan - Second Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
DN
UP
UP
DN
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"

SETBACK
9' - 6" 10' - 9" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"
BH LA
BH LA
B2 B1
CLO.

CLO.

BA2
BA1

LIVING DINING

KITCHEN
B1
W/D
COAT
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
BA1 W/D
COAT
B2 BA2
CLO.

CLO.

DECK B2
BA2 B1
BA1
CLO. DECK

KITCHEN

DINING LIVING
COAT
COAT

DINING LIVING

KITCHEN
CLO. DECK
BA2
B2 BA1
B1
COAT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
B1
BA
W/D
W/D
CLO.

CLO.

CLO. W/D
DECK
UNIT 203
UNIT 204

BIKE PARKING/
MAINT.

UNIT 205
UNIT 206
UNIT 207

OPEN SPACE -

COURTYARD
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
TRASH
MECH
SHAFT
UNIT 202
2-BED
1,045 SF
UNIT 201
2-BED
1,035 SF
(N) TREE, TYP. OF 8

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
K
L
B
PR CL
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
L
B
PR
CL
W/D
W/D k
13' - 0"
6' - 0"
DECK
68 SF
DECK
68 SF
202.C
202.B
201.B
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300
6' - 0"
202.A 201.A
13' - 0"
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 02 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5c
Floor Plan - Third Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
08/2024 • JN 199941
DN UP
UP
DN
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"
BH LA
BH LA
B2 B1
CLO.

CLO.

BA2
BA1

LIVING DINING

KITCHEN
B1
W/D
COAT
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
BA1 W/D
COAT
B2 BA2
CLO.

CLO.

DECK B2
BA2 B1
BA1
CLO. DECK

KITCHEN

DINING LIVING
COAT
COAT

DINING LIVING

KITCHEN
CLO. DECK
BA2
B2 BA1
B1
COAT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
B1
BA
W/D
W/D
CLO.

CLO.

CLO. W/D
DECK
UNIT 303
UNIT 304
UNIT 305
UNIT 306
UNIT 307
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
TRASH
MECH
SHAFT
REC. ROOM
6' - 0"
UNIT 301
2-BED
1,035 SF
UNIT 302
2-BED
1,045 SF

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

SETBACK
9' - 0" 11' - 3" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
K
L

B PR CL
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
L
B
PR
CL
W/D
W/D k
DECK
68 SF
DECK
68 SF
302.B 301.C 302.A
301.A
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300
302.C
13' - 0"
6' - 0"
13' - 0"
6' - 0"
301.B
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 03 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5d
Floor Plan - Fourth Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
08/2024 • JN 199941
UP
DN
DN UP
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"
BH LA
BH LA
UNIT 402
UNIT 403 UTILITIES
UNIT 404
UNIT 405
UNIT 406
B2 B1
CLO.

CLO.

BA2
BA1

LIVING DINING

KITCHEN
B1
W/D
COAT
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
BA1 W/D
COAT
B2 BA2
CLO.

CLO.

DECK B2
BA2 B1
BA1
CLO. DECK

KITCHEN

DINING LIVING
COAT
COAT

DINING LIVING

KITCHEN
CLO. DECK
BA2
B2 BA1
B1
COAT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
B1
BA
W/D
W/D
CLO.

CLO.

CLO. W/D
DECK
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
TRASH
MECH
SHAFT
6' - 0"

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION
11' - 3" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"
401.D
401.C 401.E 401.B 401.A
DECK
68 SF
DECK
68 SF
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300

AMENITY
1,132 SF
UNIT 401
2-BED
1,035 SF
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
K
L

B PR CL
W/D
DECK
68 SF
13' - 0"
6' - 0"
13' - 0"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
6' - 0"
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 04 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5e
Floor Plan - Fifth Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
UP
DN
DN UP
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"
BH LA
BH LA
UNIT 502
UNIT 503 UNIT 504
UNIT 505
UNIT 506
UNIT 507
6' - 0"

AMENITY
1,132 SF
B2 B1
CLO.

CLO.

BA2
BA1

LIVING DINING

KITCHEN
B1
W/D
COAT
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
BA1 W/D
COAT
B2 BA2
CLO.

CLO.

DECK
BA CLO.

LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
DECK B2
BA2 B1
BA1
CLO. DECK

KITCHEN

DINING LIVING
COAT
COAT

DINING LIVING

KITCHEN
CLO. DECK
BA2
B2 BA1
B1
COAT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
B1
BA
W/D
W/D
CLO.

CLO.

CLO. W/D
DECK
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
TRASH
MECH
SHAFT

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION
11' - 3" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"
501.F
501.E 501.D 501.C
501.A
DECK
68 SF
DECK
68 SF
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300
UNIT 501
2-BED
1,035 SF
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
K
L

B PR CL
W/D
DECK
68 SF
13' - 0"
6' - 0"
13' - 0"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
6' - 0"
501.B
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 05 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5f
Floor Plan - Sixth Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
UP
DN
DN UP
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"
BH LA
BH LA
B2 B1
CLO.

CLO.

BA2
BA1

LIVING DINING

KITCHEN
B1
W/D
COAT
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
BA1 W/D
COAT
B2 BA2
CLO.

CLO.

DECK
BA CLO.

LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
DECK B2
BA2 B1
BA1
CLO. DECK

KITCHEN

DINING LIVING
COAT
COAT

DINING LIVING

KITCHEN
CLO. DECK
BA2
B2 BA1
B1
COAT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
B1
BA
W/D
W/D
CLO.

CLO.

CLO. W/D
DECK
UNIT 603
UNIT 604 UNIT 605
UNIT 606
UNIT 607
UNIT 608
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
TRASH
MECH
SHAFT
UNIT 601
2-BED
1,035 SF
UNIT 602
2-BED
1,045 SF

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

SETBACK
9' - 0" 11' - 3" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"
602.C
602.B 602.A 601.B 601.A
DECK
68 SF
DECK
68 SF
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
K
L

B PR CL
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

BA
L
B
CL PR
W/D
W/D
K
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300
13' - 0"
6' - 0"
13' - 0"
6' - 0"
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 06 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5g
Floor Plan - Seventh Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
UP
DN
DN UP
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"
BH LA
BH LA
B2 B1
CLO.

CLO.

BA2
BA1

LIVING DINING

KITCHEN
B1
W/D
COAT
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
BA1 W/D
COAT
B2 BA2
CLO.

CLO.

DECK
BA CLO.

LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
DECK B2
BA2 B1
BA1
CLO. DECK

KITCHEN

DINING LIVING
COAT
COAT

DINING LIVING

KITCHEN
CLO. DECK
BA2
B2 BA1
B1
COAT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
B1
BA
W/D
W/D
CLO.

CLO.

CLO. W/D
DECK
UNIT 702
UNIT 703 UNIT 704
UNIT 705
UNIT 706
UNIT 707
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
TRASH
MECH
SHAFT
UNIT 701
3-BED
2,030 SF

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

SETBACK
9' - 0" 11' - 3" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300
DECK
186 SF
701.E
701.C
701.A
701.F
6' - 0"
701.B
31' - 0"
K
L
D
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

B 01
BA
DEN PR
BA
W/D
STO
CL CL
B 02
BA
CL
701.D
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 07 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5h
Floor Plan - Eighth Floor
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
UP
DN
DN
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"
BH LA
BH LA
B2 B1
CLO.

CLO.

BA2
BA1

LIVING DINING

KITCHEN
B1
W/D
COAT
LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
BA1 W/D
COAT
B2 BA2
CLO.

CLO.

DECK
BA CLO.

LIVING
DINING

KITCHEN
DECK B2
BA2 B1
BA1
CLO. DECK

KITCHEN

DINING LIVING
COAT
COAT

DINING LIVING

KITCHEN
CLO. DECK
BA2
B2 BA1
B1
COAT

KITCHEN
DINING
LIVING
B1
BA
W/D
W/D
CLO.

CLO.

CLO. W/D
DECK
UNIT 802
UNIT 803 UNIT 804
UNIT 805
UNIT 806
UNIT 807
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
TRASH
MECH
SHAFT
6' - 0"6' - 0"

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

SETBACK
9' - 0" 11' - 3" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300
801.D
801.C 801.B 801.A
UNIT 801
2-BED
1,538 SF
M.B
M.BA
W.I.C.

B 01
BA
L K
DEN PR
BA
W/D
STO

PRIVATE DECK
725 SF
D
CL CL
26' - 3"
27' - 7"
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 08 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5i
Floor Plan - Roof
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 BH LA A-301
BH LA

ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNITS

AREA ALLOCATED FOR PV ARRAY

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

SETBACK
9' - 0" 11' - 3" 31' - 0 7/8" 31' - 0 7/8" 11' - 3"

SETBACK
9' - 0"
102' - 7 3/4"

ROOFTOP
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300

MECHANICAL AREA

SETBACK
15' - 0" 27' - 6 7/8" 97' - 4 5/8"

SETBACK
10' - 0"
149' - 11 1/2"

GLASS GUARDRAIL

OPEN TO PRIVATE DECK BELOW
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

ROOF PLAN BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5j
Floor Plan - First Level Basement
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
UP
DN
UP
DN
DN
1 A-403
____
1 A-401
____
1 A-400
____
1 A-402
____
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 BH LA A-301
BH LA
2 - BH 1 - BH 4 - LA 3 - LA 2 - LA 1 - LA
9 - BH 5 - LA
8 7
6 5
4 3
24 - LA 23 - LA 22 - LA
6 - LA 7 - LA 8 - LA 9 - LA
10 12
14 16
18 11
13 15
17 19
21 20
H.C.

BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA

ELECTRICAL ROOM
BIKE

STORAGE
ELEV 1 ELEV 2
MECH
SHAFT
DOWN
DOWN
DOWN
DOWN
DOWN
SPOTS
BELOW
24 L.A. PARKING SPACES

9. B.H. PARKING SPACES
33 PARKING SPACES TOTAL
-6' - 3"
19' - 0"
4' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 1' - 7 3/4" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 2' - 6" 19' - 0"

RAMP ABOVE
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN.
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN. R20' - 0"

90.00°

90.00°
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN.
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN.

R20' - 0"

90.00°

90.00°
10' - 0"
10' - 0"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION
7' - 7" 9' - 0" 9' - 0"
10' - 0" 9' - 0" 7' - 0"

SEE MANEUVERING
DIAGRAMS ON G 400
& G 401
98' - 7 3/4"

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"
1 A 301
1 A 403
____
1 A 402
____
1 A 401
____
1 A 400
____
1 A 300
CLR. BACKUP
27' - 2"
3' - 0" 3' - 0" 3' - 0"2' - 6"
(8) BIKE PARKING STALLS
4' - 0"
3' - 0"
4' - 2"
19' - 0"
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT P1 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 5k
Floor Plan - Second Level Basement
Source: SPF:architects, June 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
UP
UP
1 A-300
2 A
E
1 6
C
3 4 5
D
8 B
1 A-301
149' - 11 1/2"
BH LA
2 - BH 1 - BH 4 - LA 3 - LA 2 - LA 1 - LA
9 - BH 5 - LA
8 7
6 5
4 3
24 - LA 23 - LA 22 - LA
6 - LA 7 - LA 8 - LA 9 - LA
10 12
14 16
18 11
13 15
17 19
21 20
H.C.

BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA

STORAGE STORAGE
ELEV 1 ELEV 2 MECH
SHAFT
DOWN
DOWN
DOWN
DOWN
DOWN
24 L.A. PARKING SPACES

9. B.H. PARKING SPACES
33 PARKING SPACES TOTAL

PARKING
BH LA
19' - 0"
2' - 6" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 1' - 7 3/4" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 0" 4' - 0" 19' - 0"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN.
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN. R20' - 0"

90.00°

90.00°
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN.
10' - 0" MIN.
12' - 0" MIN.

R20' - 0"

90.00°

90.00°
10' - 0"
10' - 0"

RAMP ABOVE
7' - 7" 9' - 0" 9' - 0"
10' - 0" 9' - 0" 7' - 0"
98' - 7 3/4"

SEE MANEUVERING
DIAGRAMS ON G 400
& G 401

BEVELY HILLS
42' - 7"

LOS ANGELES
107' - 5"
1 A 301
1 A 300
CLR. BACKUP
27' - 2"
4' - 2"
3' - 0"
4' - 0"
19' - 0"
NORTH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN - BASEMENT P2 BH

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 6a
Building Elevations – North
Source: SPF:architects, September 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
9' - 0"
ROOF
86' - 11"
LEVEL 03
20' - 0"
LEVEL 04
31' - 0"
LEVEL 05
42' - 0"
LEVEL 06
53' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 11"
6854321
1 A-301
1 A 301
LA BH
LA BH

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

CL OF ALLEYPROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK
10' - 0"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
97' - 4 5/8"

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
27' - 6 7/8"

SETBACK
15' - 0"
9' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 10' - 11" 12' - 0" 86' - 11"
20' - 0"
3' - 6"

PLASTER, WHITE

ANODIZED ALUMINUM

MULLION

STUCCO, DARK GREY

CLEAR GLASS

BACK-PAINTED GLASS

REVEAL - STUCCO,

DARK GREY

SECURITY GATE
1' - 4"
3' - 0"
6"
4' - 0" 3' - 0"
6"
TYP.
6" REVEAL
12" ENCROAHMENT

CLEAR GLASS
REV. ISSUE
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO:

HALF SCAL
@
A 40
OAKHURST APARTMENTS 412 N. OAKHURST DR.

ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

NORTH ELEVATION - BH
1 SB330 SUBMITTAL
2 SB330 RESUBMITTA
3 SB330 RESUBMITTA
4 SB330 RESUBMITTA
5 SB330 RESUBMITTA
6 SB330 RESUBMITTA
7 SB330 RESUBMITTA
8 SB330 RESUBMITTA

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 6b
Building Elevations – East
Source: SPF:architects, September 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
9' - 0"
1 A-300
ROOF
86' - 11"
LEVEL 03
20' - 0"
LEVEL 04
31' - 0"
LEVEL 05
42' - 0"
LEVEL 06
53' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 11"

E D C B A

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
11' - 0" 9' - 8"
12' - 0" 10' - 11" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 9' - 0" 9' - 9" 86' - 11"

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

GROUND LEVEL PARKING ENTRANCE BASEMENT PARKING RAMP
1 A 300
REV. ISSUE
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO:

HALF SCALE @
@ 2
20 A
A 40
OAKHURST APARTMENTS 412 N. OAKHURST DR. BEVERLY HILLS AND LOS ANGELES CA 90210
Che

ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

EAST ELEVATION - BH
1 SB330 SUBMITTAL
2 SB330 RESUBMITTAL
3 SB330 RESUBMITTAL
4 SB330 RESUBMITTAL
5 SB330 RESUBMITTAL
6 SB330 RESUBMITTAL
7 SB330 RESUBMITTAL
8 SB330 RESUBMITTAL

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 6c
Building Elevations – South
Source: SPF:architects, September 2024

NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941
LEVEL 01
0' - 0"
LEVEL 02
9' - 0"
ROOF
86' - 11"
LEVEL 03
20' - 0"
LEVEL 04
31' - 0"
LEVEL 05
42' - 0"
LEVEL 06
53' - 0"
LEVEL 07
64' - 0"
LEVEL 08
74' - 11"
1 2 3 4 5 68 1
A 301

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

JURISDICTION

PROPERTY LINECL OF ALLEY
12' - 0" 10' - 11" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 9' - 0" 86' - 11"
BH LA
BH LA

PROPERTY LINE
20' - 0"

CLEAR GLASS

SETBACK
15' - 0"

GLASS GUARDRAIL
BEYOND

SECURITY GATE

BACK-PAINTED
GLASS
CHAMPAGNECOLORED ANODIZED

ALUMINUM PANEL

PLASTER, WHITE

ANODIZED

ALUMINUM MULLION

STUCCO, DARK GREY
CHAMPAGNECOLORED ANODIZED

ALUMINUM PANEL

CLEAR GLASS

CLEAR GLASS
BEYOND

REVEAL - STUCCO,

DARK GREY
CHAMPAGNECOLORED ANODIZED

ALUMINUM PANEL
2' - 9"
1' - 7"
2' - 4"

WHITE PLASTER

PLANTER WALL
12" ENCROAHMENT
1' - 10 7/8"
5' - 0"
6"
3' - 0"
3' - 0"
6"
4' - 0"
6"
3' - 0"
1" REVEAL,
TYP.

BACK-PAINTED

GLASS BEYOND
1" REVEAL,
TYP.
7' - 10" 3' - 3"
6' - 0" 2' - 0" 8' - 0"
TYP.
6" REVEAL
1" REVEAL,
TYP.
1" REVEAL,
TYP.
9' - 7"

PLANTER

PER LANDSCAPE
3' - 6"

BACK-PAINTED
GLASS, TYP.

PRIVATE DECK BEYOND
REV
D
PR
C
SC
SH
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

SOUTH ELEVATION - BH
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 6d
Building Elevations – West
Source: SPF:architects, September 2024

A B C D E

PROPERTY LINE

SETBACK
9' - 0"
12' - 0" 10' - 11" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0" 9' - 0" 86' - 11"

WHITE PLASTER-FINISHED

PLANTER WALL AND

PLANTING FOR SCREENING

PRIVATE PATIO
6' - 6" H SECURITY GATE

AND FENCE TO SIDE YARD
7' - 0" H SECURITY GATE

AND FENCE TO SIDE YARD
1 A 300

SETBACK
9' - 0"

GLASS GUARDRAIL
3' - 6"

BACK-PAINTED GLASS

CHAMPAGNE-COLORED

ANODIZED ALUMINUM PANEL

CHAMPAGNE-COLORED

ANODIZED ALUMINUM PANEL

PLASTER, WHITE

ANODIZED ALUMINUM

MULLION

STUCCO, DARK GREY

STUCCO, DARK GREY
DECK BEYOND, TYP.

CLEAR GLASS

DECK BEYOND

REVEAL - STUCCO,

DARK GREY

FROSTED GLASS
5' - 0" 3' - 6" 2' - 6"
2' - 6" 3' - 6" 4' - 0" 3' - 6" 2' - 6"
3' - 0"
6"
4' - 0"
6"
3' - 0"
TYP.
5 5/8" REVEAL
6' - 0"
3' - 0"
2' - 9"2' - 9"
2' - 4"
1' - 4"
1' - 7"
6' - 6"
7' - 0"
1" REVEAL,
TYP.
9" ENCROAHMENT 9" ENCROACHMENT
LOBBY ENTRANCE 6'-6" H LOUVERED

PATIO SCREENING

OPEN TO

DECK BEYOND
6'-6" H LOUVERED

PATIO SCREENING

OPEN TO

DECK BEYOND

PRIVATE DECK BEYOND
REV. ISSUE DATE
DRAWN BY:

PROJECT NO:

CHECKED BY:

SCALE:

SHEET NO:

ZOLTAN E. PALI, FAIA
HALF SCALE @ 11x17"
@ 22x34"
20-007
Author
A 400 OAKHURST APARTMENTS 412 N. OAKHURST DR. BEVERLY HILLS AND LOS ANGELES, CA 90210 Checker

ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

WEST ELEVATION - BH
1 SB330 SUBMITTAL 12/20/2022
2 SB330 RESUBMITTAL 02/03/2023
3 SB330 RESUBMITTAL 06/12/2023
4 SB330 RESUBMITTAL 08/09/2023
5 SB330 RESUBMITTAL 11/20/2023
6 SB330 RESUBMITTAL 12/21/2023
7 SB330 RESUBMITTAL 04/17/2024
8 SB330 RESUBMITTAL 05/21/2024
Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 23 City of Beverly Hills
eastern boundary of the project site. A setback waiver is requested to reduce the required side yard setbacks along the northern and southern boundaries from a total of 23 feet to a total of 18 feet.

Further, a setback waiver is requested to reduce the required front yard setback along the western boundary along North Oakhurst Drive from 25 feet to 15 feet. The project Applicant also requests a Density Bonus Permit to allow a 50 percent density bonus for projects that include an amount of very low income units equal to 15 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]); and an additional 38.75 percent density bonus for projects that include an additional amount of very low income units equal to 10 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]).7,8 Within the City of Beverly Hills, the proposed project would include two very low income units; one low income unit; and nine market-rate units.

Table 1
Existing and Proposed Building Square Footages
Floor Area
City of Beverly Hills City of Los Angeles
Square Feet Square Feet
Existing Condition
Occupied Structure: 412 North Oakhurst Drive 3,885 20,409 Total Floor Area – Existing Condition 3,885 20,409
Proposed Project (Building Floor Area)
Ground Floor 2,216 1,462
Second Floor 2,216 4,712
Third Floor 2,216 5,355
Fourth Floor 2,216 4,706
Fifth Floor 2,216 5,333
Sixth Floor 2,216 5,336
Seventh Floor 2,216 5,336
Eighth Floor 1,538 5,329
Total Floor Area – Proposed Project1 17,050 37,569
Total Change in Square Footage 13,165 17,160
Other Proposed Square Footages
Rooftop 0 0
Basement (First Level) 4,002 9,703
Basement (Second Level) 4,002 9,544
Outdoor Living Space Provided (Private and Common) 1,727 3,344 Note: Basement parking and penthouse roof area are exempt from the total floor area calculation based on the BHMC Section 10-3-100. 7 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include one very low income unit (within the City of Beverly Hills intended to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units (i.e., six base units) and thus, would adequately set-aside at least 15 percent of the total base units for very low income units.

Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus increase (i.e., three additional units) over the total base units.
8 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(v)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include a second very low income unit (to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units for very low income units and thus, would adequately set-aside at least an additional 10 percent (over the at least 15 percent set-aside to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for an additional 38.75 percent stacked density bonus increase (i.e., approximately 2.325 units rounded to three units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[q]) over the total base units. Overall, the proposed project qualifies for an 88.75 percent density bonus increase over the total base units, resulting in 12 total residential units (six total base units added with three density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[f][2] and three stacked density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]).

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 24 City of Beverly Hills
The proposed residential building architecture is contemporary with exterior building materials consisting of plaster, stucco, anodized aluminum panels, anodized aluminum mullion, back-painted glass, glass railing, among others. Approximately 1,762 square feet of ornamental landscaping would be planted throughout the project site, particularly along the western perimeter of the ground-level and within the second-floor courtyard; refer to Exhibit 7a, Conceptual Landscape Plan - Overall and Exhibit 7b, Conceptual Landscape Plan – Western Perimeter. Planting materials would feature a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, all of which would be contained in raised planters or at ground level.

Tree varieties may include shoestring acacia. The four existing jacaranda along the western perimeter of the site would be protected in-place. Shrubs and perennial landscaping may include Bruce’s dwarf euphorbia, little ollie, dwarf strawberry tree, blue grama grass, wild rye, blue-eyed grass, silver torch, and creeping myoporum. Further, lighting is proposed along pedestrian walkways for security purposes.

The two basement parking levels would accommodate 66 standard parking spaces (18 standard spaces within the City of Beverly Hills and 48 standard spaces within the City of Los Angeles). Bicycle parking/storage, various utility related rooms (i.e., mechanical and electrical), and storage facilities would also be located on the basement levels. Total parking spaces, including parking at grade within the City of Los Angeles, would be 75.

Access to the building would be provided via a paved pathway leading to the main pedestrian entrance along North Oakhurst Drive and access to the basement parking would be provided via a paved pathway leading to the alley behind the building, accessible by Beverly Boulevard and Alden Drive. It is acknowledged that a paved walkway incentive would be requested to allow a third paved pathway (along the southern boundary), which would allow egress from the project site in the event of an emergency.

Project demolition, grading, and construction would occur over approximately 32 months, anticipated to begin in October 2025 and end in April 2028. Construction of the project would include the following phases: demolition, grading, building construction, and architectural coating. The proposed earthwork would result in approximately 19,000 cubic yards of cut and export. The project also proposes implementation of a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP);refer to Appendix A.

The CNMP would implementation construction noise reducing features (i.e., noise mufflers, adhering to applicable hours of construction, orienting construction staging grounds away from receptors, and including a noise disturbance coordinator).

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 7a
Conceptual Landscape Plan – Overall NOT TO SCALE
09/2024 • JN 199941

#.3465 6

6
6 5
5663.666#33
56

!6"! $%"&"!'
!6(
)*+$'6,$
36!6(-/016,16 6 5
5 23
(-/01

OAKHURST APARTMENTS
CEQA CLASS 32 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
Exhibit 7b
Conceptual Landscape Plan – Western Perimeter NOT TO SCALE 09/2024 • JN 199941

#'+()*+

+ +
( (+
+#+++
##
+

*
( #+
+

!+"!+$+%( ($&

!

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 27 City of Beverly Hills
Overall, the proposed project would require City of Beverly Hills discretionary approval of a Development Plan Review for the construction of a new multi-family residential building, a Density Bonus Permit for additional residential units, and an R-4 Permit for a second walkway (third, southern, walkway covered under incentive request). Additionally, the proposed project would require City of Beverly Hills approval of unit size and paved walkway incentives, height, outdoor living space, and front and side setback waivers. It should be noted that the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles would seek approval of incentives and waivers for proposed replacement units in their respective jurisdictions. For units situated on dual-jurisdiction (i.e., within the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles) properties (particularly along North Oakhurst Drive), the following replacement methodology would apply when determining the replacement responsibility of each jurisdiction: 1) if an existing unit is located fully in the City of Beverly Hills, the unit shall be replaced by the City of Beverly Hills; 2) if an existing unit is located fully in the City of Los Angeles, the unit shall be replaced by the City of Los Angeles; 3) if an existing unit is located in both the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, and the property fronts a public street in the City of Beverly Hills, the unit shall be replaced by the City of Beverly Hills; and 4) if an existing unit is located in both the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, and the property fronts a public street in the City of Los Angeles, the unit shall be replaced by the City of Los Angeles.9,10 Based on the aforementioned methodology, the City of Beverly Hills would have a replacement obligations of six units (with three of those units being deed-restricted lower income units) and the City of Los Angeles would have a replacement obligations of nine units (with seven of those units being deed-restricted lower income units).

IV. CLASS 32 EXEMPTION CRITERIA ANALYSIS

GENERAL PLAN AND MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY
CRITERION (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

As part of the proposed project, the Applicant is seeking density bonuses pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Within the City of Beverly Hills, the project Applicant requests a Density Bonus Permit to allow a 50 percent density bonus for projects that include an amount of very low income units equal to 15 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]); and an additional 38.75 percent density bonus for projects that include an amount of very low income units equal to 10 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 9 City of Beverly Hills, Dual-jurisdictional Properties Replacement Unit Determination, August 25, 2023. 10 This replacement methodology was established as part of an agreement between the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles intended to avoid the potential alternative that could result in a housing developer being required to provide two deed-restricted affordable units for each protected units that may be located partially in each jurisdiction. This replacement methodology satisfies the replacement requirements pursuant to California Government Code Section 66300.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 28 City of Beverly Hills
65915[v][2]).11,12 Within the City of Los Angeles, the project Applicant requests a 35 percent density bonus for projects that include an amount of very low income units equal to 11 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]).13 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1), “in no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of [California Government Code Section 65915] subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.”14,15 Additionally, according to Wolmer v. City of Berkeley, for the purposes of the Class 32 CE, “development standards that physically preclude construction of a density-bonus qualifying project [are] inapplicable in order to allow the density bonus[.]”16 As such, for the purposes of this analysis, development standards for the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles are inapplicable if they preclude the construction of the proposed project (pursuant to State Density Bonus Law). 11 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include one very low income unit (within the City of Beverly Hills intended to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units (i.e., six base units) and thus, would adequately set-aside at least 15 percent of the total base units for very low income units.

Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus increase (i.e., three additional units) over the total base units.
12 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(v)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include a second very low income unit (to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units for very low income units and thus, would adequately set-aside at least an additional 10 percent (over the at least 15 percent set-aside to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for an additional 38.75 percent stacked density bonus increase (i.e., approximately 2.325 units rounded to three units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[q]) over the total base units. Overall, the proposed project qualifies for an 88.75 percent density bonus increase over the total base units, resulting in 12 total residential units (six total base units added with three density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[f][2] and three stacked density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]. 13 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project’s five very low income units (within the City of Los Angeles) would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units (i.e., 31 base units) and thus, would adequately set-aside at least 11 percent of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for a 35 percent density bonus increase over the total base units. With a maximum of 35 percent density increase over the total units, the proposed project would be eligible for 42 maximum total residential units (31 total base units added with 10.85 density bonus units [rounded to 11 density bonus units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(q)]). The proposed project would result in 40 total residential units and thus, would be within the 42 maximum total base units. 14 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(o)(1) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), “Development standard” includes a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. 15 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(f)(5) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), all density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
16 See Wolmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th, 1329, 1350–1352, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 781.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 29 City of Beverly Hills

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
A project is considered consistent with the provisions and general policies of applicable land use plans and regulations if it is consistent with the overall intent of the plan or regulation and would not preclude the attainment of its primary goals.17 As mentioned above, the project site is located within the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. Thus, for the purposes of this criterion, a general plan consistency analysis for both jurisdictions is provided below.

Table 2, Beverly Hills General Plan Project Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable City of Beverly Hills General Plan (Beverly Hills General Plan) land use policies.

Table 2
Beverly Hills General Plan Project Consistency Analysis Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis LU 2: Community Character and Quality. A built environment that is distinguished by its high level of site planning, architecture, landscape design, and sensitivity to its natural setting and history.

LU 2.1 City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and
Corridors. Maintain and enhance the character,
distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City’s distinctive residential neighborhoods,
business districts, corridors, and open spaces.

No Conflict: The project is located on North Oakhurst Drive, a local street in the immediate vicinity of Beverly Boulevard, a major arterial within Beverly Hills. The proposed residential building architecture would be contemporary with exterior building materials consisting of plaster, stucco, anodized aluminum panels, anodized aluminum mullion, back-painted glass, glass railing, among others. The proposed building would include a nine-foot side yard setback along the northern and southern boundaries, and a 15-foot front yard setback along the western boundary of the project site.

The proposed building would be constructed up to a height of eight stories (or 86 feet, 11 inches) including rooftop appurtenances. It is acknowledged that a waiver is requested for the additional height (26 feet, 11 inches) above the permitted building height. Overall, although the proposed building design would change the existing visual character, form, scale, and aesthetics of other existing multifamily residential buildings along North Oakhurst Drive and in the project area, the proposed project would obtain necessary waivers/incentives and thus, comply with State Density Bonus Law and BHMC Article 15.2. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, these objective development standards are not applicable to the proposed project, and are not a basis to find the project inconsistent with the Beverly Hills General Plan.
17 See Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th, 704, 719 (to be “consistent” with a plan, the project must be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the applicable plan,” meaning that a project must be in “agreement or harmony” with the applicable land use plan to be consistent with that plan.)
Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 30 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis LU 2.2 Public Streetscapes and Landscape. Maintain
and enhance the quality and health of the “green
infrastructure” that contributes to the City's identity and quality of life, including its street trees, landscaped medians and parkways, parks, and open spaces, while
seeking to conserve water resources.

No Conflict: The proposed project would incorporate ornamental landscaping throughout the project site, particularly along the western perimeter of the ground-level (along the frontage facing North Oakhurst Drive); refer to Exhibit 7a, Conceptual Landscape Plan - Overall. The four existing jacaranda along the western perimeter of the site would be protected in-place.

LU 2.4 Architectural and Site Design. Require that
new construction and renovation of existing buildings
and properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and construction practices,
landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City’s distinctive image and complement existing
development.

No Conflict: The following analysis provides a discussion on subjective standards. The project proposes new construction with a high level of architectural design, building materials, and landscaping, as well as use of sustainable design and construction practices. Refer to Policy LU 2.1 regarding the project’s proposed architectural design features and building materials. Ornamental landscaping would be planted throughout the project site, particularly along the western perimeter of the ground-level (along the frontage facing North Oakhurst Drive); refer to Exhibit 7a. Planting materials would feature a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, all of which would be contained in raised planters or at ground level. Tree varieties may include shoestring acacia. The four existing jacaranda along the western perimeter of the site would be protected in-place.

Shrubs and perennial landscaping may include Bruce’s dwarf euphorbia, little ollie, dwarf strawberry tree, blue grama grass, wild rye, blue-eyed grass, silver torch, and creeping myoporum. Overall, the proposed project would provide a high level of excellence in architectural design, site design, building materials, landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City of Beverly Hills’ distinctive image and complement existing development.

LU 2.5 Design Review. Consider design review for new
construction and renovation projects that focuses on
achieving appropriate form, function, and use of
materials to promote creativity, innovation, and design quality.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.4.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 31 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis LU 2.6 City History. Acknowledge the City’s history of
places and buildings, preserving historic sites, buildings, and districts that contribute to the City’s identity while accommodating renovations of existing buildings to
maintain their economic viability, provided the new
construction contextually “fits” and complements the site or building.

No Conflict: According to the Historical Resources AssessmentCEQA Compliance: 412 North Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills Letter Report (Historical Report), prepared by Ostashay and Associates Consulting (dated February 21, 2024), the project site is currently developed with an existing multi-family residential building (constructed in 1974). As analyzed in the Historical Report, pursuant to the eligibility criteria established in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32, Historic Preservation (City of Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance), the existing multi-family residential building is ineligible for individual listing at the federal, State, and local level. Furthermore, because of the varied development patterns, architectural styles, and infill with new construction, no potential historic district pursuant to the criteria established under the City of Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance was identified for potential landmarking in the immediate area. As such, the proposed project would not impact a historical resource as defined by CEQA; refer to Criterion (f) Historical Resources.

LU 2.9 Public Safety. Require that development be
located and designed to promote public safety by
providing street-fronting uses, lighting, sightlines, and features that enhance community safety.

No Conflict: Similar to existing adjacent multi-family buildings, the proposed building would front and maintain pedestrian sidewalks along North Oakhurst Drive so as to promote pedestrian activity. The project proposes large glass windows and glass railing throughout the building with decks overlooking the adjacent roadways.

Proposed nighttime lighting consists of lighting along pedestrian walkways for security purposes. As such, the proposed lighting would contribute to community safety.

LU 3: Managed Change. Managed change that respects and is complementary to the qualities that distinguish the City as a community, is orderly and well-planned, provides for the needs of existing and future residents and businesses, ensures the effective and equitable provision of public services, and makes efficient use of land and infrastructure.

LU 3.1 Conservation. Conserve existing residential
neighborhoods, and non-residential areas where new
development builds on and enhances the viability of
existing business sectors that are the City's strengths, promotes transit accessibility, is phased to coincide with infrastructure funding and construction, and designed to assure transitions and compatibility with adjoining
residential neighborhoods.

No Conflict: The following analysis provides a discussion on subjective standards. Refer to Policy LU 2.1 and Policy LU 2.4 regarding the project’s architectural and site design. Similar to existing conditions in the project area (i.e., an existing residential community), the proposed project would consist of residential uses.

Additionally, similar to existing adjacent multi-family buildings, the proposed building would front and maintain pedestrian sidewalks along North Oakhurst Drive so as to promote pedestrian activity. The project proposes large glass windows and glass railing throughout the building with decks overlooking the adjacent roadways.

Proposed nighttime lighting consists of lighting along pedestrian walkways for security purposes. Additionally, the project site is located within 0.28-mile of a bus stop (i.e., the Burton Way/South Doheny Drive bus stop) operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) and within 0.86- mile of a major transit stop that is currently under construction as part of LA Metro’s Purple (D) Line extension.

Although the proposed project would change the overall form and scale of the existing residential neighborhood (along North Oakhurst Drive and in the project area), the proposed project would obtain necessary waivers/incentives and thus, comply with State Density Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 32 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis Bonus Law and BHMC Article 15.2. For the purposes of this analysis, these objective development standards are not applicable to the proposed project, and are not a basis to find the project inconsistent with the Beverly Hills General Plan.

LU 3.2 Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs. Meet
State requirements to accommodate the City’s fair
share of regional housing needs, contingent upon the
ability to maintain the qualities that distinguish and
contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City’s fiscal resources.

No Conflict: The proposed project would include two very low income units; one low income unit; and nine market-rate units within the Beverly Hills municipal boundaries. The proposed affordable housing units (two very low income units and one low income unit) would aid the City of Beverly Hills in meeting the State’s requirements for regional housing needs. Thus, the proposed project would contribute to the City of Beverly Hills’ housing stock and enable the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation without contributing an undue burden to the City’s fiscal resources.

LU 5: Complete, Livable, and Quality Neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that in the aggregate provide a variety of housing types, densities, forms and designs and a mix of uses and services that support the needs of residents.

LU 5.1 Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the
uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City’s residential neighborhoods, recognizing their
contribution to the City’s identity, economic value, and quality of life.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.1 regarding compliance with State Density Bonus Law and BHMC Article 15.2. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, these objective development standards are not applicable to the proposed project, and are not a basis to find the project inconsistent with the Beverly Hills General Plan.

LU 5.2 Infill and Replacement Housing.

Accommodate new and renovated housing within
existing neighborhoods that is consistent with
contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form and scale.

No Conflict: The following analysis provides a discussion on subjective standards.

Built Form and Scale – The proposed residential building architecture is contemporary with exterior building materials consisting of plaster, stucco, anodized aluminum panels, anodized aluminum mullion, back-painted glass, glass railing, among others.

The following provides a discussion on objective development standards. It should be noted that for the purposes of this analysis, objective development standards are not applicable to the proposed project:
• Parcel sizes – The site encompasses approximately 0.35- gross acres which is compatible with the parcel size of surrounding properties (ranging from 0.10-acre to 0.35- acre).
• Densities – The Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Map designation for the project site allows for a maximum
density of 50 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for MultiFamily Residential, High Density (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills). Based on these regulations, the project site has a base density of
approximately five units (i.e., 5.015 units) (50 du/ac), rounded up to six with a Density Bonus.1 With the inclusion of three affordable units (two very low income units and one low income unit), the proposed project qualifies for a

88.75 percent (50 percent pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65915[f][2] and an additional

38.75 percent pursuant to 65915[v][2]) density bonus
resulting in 12 total residential units.2,3 Surrounding Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 33 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis properties’ land use designations (i.e., Multi-Family
Residential, High Density) allow for a maximum density of 50 du/acre in the City of Beverly Hills and up to 109 du/ac in the City of Los Angeles. Thus, the proposed on-site
density is compatible with the densities of surrounding properties when Density Bonus Law is taken in account.
• Built Form and Scale – The proposed building would be constructed up to a height of eight stories (or 86 feet, 11 inches), including rooftop appurtenances. A waiver is
requested for the additional height (26 feet, 11 inches) above the permitted building height pursuant to State
Density Bonus Law. Additionally, the proposed building
would include a nine-foot side yard setback along the
northern and southern boundaries, and a 15-foot front yard setback along the western boundary of the project site.

The surrounding buildings range from approximately three stories to five stories in height.

Overall, the proposed project would obtain necessary
waivers/incentives and thus, comply with State Density Bonus Law and BHMC Article 15.2. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, these objective development standards are not applicable to the proposed project, and are not a basis to find the project inconsistent with the Beverly Hills General Plan.

LU 5.4 Complete Neighborhoods. Maintain, improve,
and, where necessary, expand parklands and
community facilities to serve the City's neighborhoods.

No Conflict: Although the project does not propose any public parklands and community facilities, the proposed project would include 1,727 square feet of outdoor living space (private and common) throughout the residential building in the City of Beverly Hills. The project would also have 3,344 net square feet of open space in the City of Los Angeles. Additionally, the proposed building would include common open space outdoor and indoor amenities including: a lobby located on the first floor; a gym located on the fourth floor; and common space located on the fifth floor.

LU 5.5 Walkable Neighborhoods. Maintain sidewalks,
parkways, street trees, and landscaping in residential
neighborhoods to promote walking as an enjoyable and
healthy activity and an alternative to automobile use.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.4 and Policy LU 2.9.

LU 5.6 Alleys. Maintain existing neighborhood alleys as alternative, safe, well maintained access points to
homes that also reduce curb cuts, driveways, and
associated pedestrian-automobile conflicts.

No Conflict: The proposed project would not remove access to the existing neighborhood alley behind the existing building. Rather, similar to existing conditions, access to the basement parking would be provided via the alley behind the building, accessible by Beverly Boulevard and Alden Drive. It should be noted that the alley is located within the City of Los Angeles’ jurisdiction.

LU 5.8 Encroachment of Incompatible Land Uses.

Protect residential neighborhoods from the
encroachment of incompatible nonresidential uses and
disruptive traffic, to the extent possible. Zoning and
design review should assure that compatibility issues
are fully addressed when nonresidential development is
proposed near or within residential areas.

No Conflict: The proposed apartment (multi-family residence) is a permitted use in accordance with the R-4 zoning. Therefore, the project would not introduce a nonresidential use to the project area and would not conflict with the allowed types and patterns of land use envisioned for the area. The project would not conflict with the General Plan upon the City of Beverly Hills approval of the required permits, incentives, and waivers.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 34 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis LU 7: Multi-Family Residential Neighborhoods. Multi-family residential neighborhoods providing ownership and rental units that are well-designed, exhibit architectural characteristics and qualities representative of the City, and that provide amenities for their residents.

LU 7.1 Character and Design. Require that multifamily dwellings and properties be designed to reflect the high level of architectural and landscape quality that distinguishes existing neighborhoods. These may
provide for:
(a) Building facades and entrances that directly
address the street, including the use of
stoops, porches, and recessed entries;
(b) Modulation of building volume and masses,
avoiding the effect of blank continuous walls;
and
(c) Setback of the ground floor from the sidewalk
to provide privacy, a sense of security, and to
leave room for landscaping while being open
and contributing to a quality pedestrian
environment.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.1, Policy LU 2.4, and Policy LU

5.2. LU 7.2 Amenities. Encourage new multi-family
development to provide amenities for residents such as
on-site recreational facilities, community meeting
spaces, and require useable private open space, public
open space, or both.

No Conflict: In addition to the amenities provided in the City of Los Angeles, the proposed project would include 1,727 square feet of outdoor living space (private and common) throughout the City of Beverly Hills portion of the residential building. The proposed building would also include common open space amenities including: a lobby located on the first floor; a gym located on the fourth floor; and common space located on the fifth floor.

LU 14: Environmental Sustainability and Carbon Footprint. Land uses and built urban form that are environmentally sustainable by minimizing consumption of scarce resources, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, wastes, and exposure of residents and visitors to toxics and hazards.

LU 14.1 City Form. Accommodate a balanced mix of
land uses and encourage development to be located
and designed to enable residents access by walking,
bicycling, or taking public transit to jobs, shopping,
entertainment, services, and recreation, thereby
reducing automobile use, energy consumption, air
pollution, and greenhouse gases.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.9, Policy LU 3.1, Policy LU 5.8, and Policy LU 7.2.

LU 14.2 Site Development. Require that sites and
buildings be planned and designed to meet applicable
environmental sustainability objectives by: (a)
facilitating pedestrian access between properties and
access to public transit; (b) providing solar access; (c) assuring natural ventilation; (d) enabling capture and reuse of stormwater and graywater on-site while reducing discharge into the stormwater system; and (e) using
techniques consistent with the City’s sustainability
programs such as the City’s Green Building Ordinance.

No Conflict: The proposed building would include large glass windows and glass railing, which would allow natural lighting and ventilation into the building’s eight levels. Natural ventilation would also be provided on the open rooftop. Additionally, the project site is located within 0.28-mile of a bus stop (i.e., the Burton Way/South Doheny Drive bus stop) operated by LA Metro and within 0.86-mile of a major transit stop that is currently under construction as part of LA Metro’s Purple (D) Line extension.

The City of Beverly Hills also adopted the California Green Building Standards Code as BHMC Section 9-1-1101, Adoption of California Green Building Standards Code, which requires new buildings to implement sustainability techniques related to site development, indoor/outdoor water use, material conservation, etc. Further, as detailed in Table 18, Consistency with Applicable Goals and Policies of the Beverly Hills General Plan and Sustainable City Plan, the Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 35 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis project would be consistent with the City of Beverly Hills’ Sustainable City Plan.

LU 14.4 New Construction of Private Buildings.

Require that new and substantially renovated buildings
be designed and constructed in accordance with the
City's sustainability programs such as the City's Green Building Ordinance or comparable criteria to reduce
energy, water, and natural resource consumption,
minimize construction wastes, use recycled materials,
and avoid the use of toxics and hazardous materials.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.4 and Policy LU 14.2.

LU 14.5 Heat Island Effect. Reduce "urban heat island"
effect by requiring that new construction and substantial renovation of buildings use techniques to reduce the
amount of heat that buildings, outdoor spaces, and
parking lots absorb from sunlight.

No Conflict: As discussed above, the color scheme for the proposed building would be white, orange/beige, and light grey, which would reduce the amount of heat absorbed by the building’s exterior. The proposed parking garage would be entirely underground and thus, would not generate a heat island effect. The proposed landscaping includes a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, all of which would be contained in raised planters or at ground level. Tree varieties may include shoestring acacia. Shrubs and perennial landscaping may include Bruce’s dwarf euphorbia, little ollie, dwarf strawberry tree, blue grama grass, wild rye, blue-eyed grass, silver torch, and creeping myoporum. Overall, the proposed greenery and color scheme would reduce the amount of heat absorbed or released to the surrounding area by the proposed project.

LU 14.7 Public Streetscapes. Design and improve
public streetscapes to enhance their attractiveness for walking as an alternative to automobile use and as a
demonstration of the City’s commitment to
environmental sustainability by using techniques such
as: (a) maintaining and enhancing the City’s street trees and installing light-colored hardscapes to reduce heat; (b) selecting tree and plant species and irrigation
systems that minimize water consumption (c) exploring
the use of recycled water for irrigation;(d) phasing in pedestrian-oriented energy-efficient lighting that does not result in excessive glare (e) strategically locating benches and other street furniture that is constructed of recycled materials to provide resting spots and to
demonstrate the use of alternative building materials;
and (f) other comparable environmentally friendly
streetscape improvements.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.2 and Policy LU 2.9.

LU 14.8 Private Development Landscaping Material
and Irrigation. Require the use of landscaping
materials and irrigation systems that minimize water use and runoff onto public streets and drainage systems.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 2.1 and Policy LU 2.4.

LU 16: Social Sustainability and Equity. Land uses and built urban form that provide diverse social and cultural opportunities, life-long learning opportunities, safe access to schools, a healthy environment, and high quality of life.

LU 16.9 Healthy Buildings. Required that private and
public building be designed to promote public health by prohibiting the use of toxic building materials and highVOC paints, providing adequate ventilation and access to natural lighting, and using “green building” techniques as required by the City’s sustainability programs such
as the Green Building Ordinance.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 14.2 and Policy LU 14.5.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 36 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable General Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis LU 16.10 Affordable Housing. Support the
development of affordable housing as required by state
law.

No Conflict: The proposed project would feature three affordable housing units (two very low income units and one low income unit) within the City of Beverly Hills municipal boundaries in addition to the five very low income units and two low income units in the City of Los Angeles. Thus, the proposed project would support the development of affordable housing.

Notes:

1. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(q) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. Accordingly, the allowed 5.015 base density units have been rounded to six base density units.

2. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(f)(2), the proposed project would include one very low income unit (to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units (i.e., six base units) and thus, would adequately set-aside at least 15 percent of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus increase (i.e., three additional units) over the total base units.

3. In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(v)(2), the proposed project would include a second very low income unit (to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units for very low income units and thus, would adequately set-aside at least an additional 10 percent (over the at least 15 percent set-aside to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for an additional 38.75 percent stacked density bonus increase (i.e., approximately 2.325 units rounded to three units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[q]) over the total base units. Overall, the proposed project qualifies for an 88.75 percent density bonus increase over the total base units, resulting in 12 total residential units (six total base units added with three density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[f][2] and three stacked density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]).

Source: City of Beverly Hills, City of Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Element, April 30, 2010.

The City of Los Angeles maintains 35 community plans. The community plans establish neighborhood-specific goals and implementation strategies to achieve the broad objectives laid out in the City of Los Angeles General Plan (Los Angeles General Plan). Together, the 35 community plans make up the Land Use Element of the Los Angeles General Plan, which plays an important role in providing the land use framework for housing and job growth, open space and natural resources conservation, and balancing various neighborhood needs.

The project site is located in the Wilshire Community Plan (Community Plan) which encompasses the neighborhoods of Beverly Grove, Carthay, Country Club Park, Hancock Park, Koreatown, Larchmont, Mid-City, Miracle Mile, Pico-Robertson, Wilshire Center, Wilshire Park, Windsor Square, and Windsor Village, among others. The Community Plan area is generally bounded by Melrose Avenue and Rosewood Avenue to the north; Hoover Street to the east; 18th Street, Venice Boulevard, and Pico Boulevard to the south; and the cities of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills to the west. The project site is located at the western end of the Community Plan area in Beverly Grove, which is predominately characterized by residential and commercial uses. Table 3, Wilshire Community Plan Project Consistency Analysis, evaluates the project’s consistency with applicable Community Plan land use policies.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 37 City of Beverly Hills
Table 3
Wilshire Community Plan Project Consistency Analysis
Applicable Community Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis Goal 1: Provide a safe, secure, and high quality residential environment for all economic, age, and ethnic segments of the Wilshire community.

LU 1-1.2. Promote neighborhood preservation in all
stable residential neighborhoods.

No Conflict: The following analysis provides a discussion on subjective standards. The proposed residential building architecture would be contemporary with exterior building materials consisting of plaster, stucco, anodized aluminum panels, anodized aluminum mullion, back-painted glass, glass railing, among others. The color scheme for the proposed building would be white, orange/beige, and light grey.

The proposed building would include a nine-foot side yard setback along the northern and southern boundaries. It is acknowledged that a setback waiver is requested to reduce the required side yard setbacks along the northern boundary from 11 feet to eight feet, eight inches, in the City of Los Angeles. Overall, although the proposed building design would change the existing visual character, form, scale, and aesthetics of other existing multi-family residential buildings in the project area, the proposed project would obtain necessary waivers/incentives and thus, comply with State Density Bonus Law. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, these objective development standards are not applicable to the proposed project, and are not a basis to find the project inconsistent with the Los Angeles General Plan.

LU 1-1.3. Provide for adequate Multiple Family
residential development.

No Conflict: Refer to response to Policy LU 1-1.2 regarding the project’s proposed architectural design features and building materials. Ornamental landscaping would be planted throughout the project site, particularly along the northern and southern perimeter of the ground-level and within the second-floor courtyard; refer to Exhibit 7a, Conceptual Landscape Plan - Overall. Planting materials would feature a mixture of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, all of which would be contained in raised planters or at ground level. Tree varieties may include Japanese maple. Shrubs and perennial landscaping may include little river wattle, scarlet monkeyflower, spider’s web Japanese aralia, California polypody, variegated dwarf mat rush, highlight olive green mat rush, ray of light foxtail agave, yerba buena, and Yunnan bauhinia. The project would include large windows along the building facade facing the rear alley. The proposed project would also include 3,344 square feet of outdoor living space (private and common) throughout the residential building. Additionally, the proposed building would include common open space amenities including: a trash room, recycling room, mail room, and long-term bicycle storage room located on the first floor; a bicycle parking/maintenance room and a landscaped outdoor courtyard located on the second floor; and a recreation room located on the third floor. The portion of the project within the City of Los Angeles would allow 40 residential units in lieu of 31 base units and therefore, the project site would provide adequate multi-family residential development.

LU 1-2.1. Encourage higher density residential uses
near major public transportation centers.

No Conflict: The project site is located within 0.28-mile of a bus stop (i.e., the Burton Way/South Doheny Drive bus stop) operated by the Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 38 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable Community Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) and within 0.86-mile of a major transit stop that is currently under construction as part of LA Metro’s Purple (D) Line extension.

LU 1-3.1. Promote architectural compatibility and
landscaping for new Multiple Family residential
development to protect the character and scale of
existing residential neighborhoods.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 1-1.2 and Policy LU 1-1.3.

LU 1-3.2. Support historic preservation goals in
neighborhoods of architectural merit and/or historic
significance.

LU 1-3.3. Promote the preservation and rehabilitation of individual residential buildings of historic significance.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 1-3.2.

LU 1-3.4. Monitor the impact of new development on
residential streets. Locate access to major development projects so as not to encourage spillover traffic on local residential streets.

No Conflict. Similar to existing conditions, the proposed project would provide access to the basement parking via the alley behind the building, accessible by Beverly Boulevard and Alden Drive. The existing alley queuing length would reduce the potential for spillover traffic on local residential streets, including Alden Drive and North Oakhurst Drive.

LU 1-4.1. Promote greater individual choice in type,
quality, price and location of housing.

No Conflict. Refer to Policy LU 1-1.2. The project would include market rate, low, and very low income restricted housing in a variety of unit sizes and types.

LU 1-4.2. Ensure that new housing opportunities
minimize displacement of residents.

No Conflict: The proposed project would demolish an existing multifamily residential building (consisting of nine residential units in the City of Los Angeles) and construct a new multi-family residential development that includes 40 residential units in the City of Los Angeles, resulting in a net increase of 31 residential units in the City of Los Angeles. Of the proposed units, seven units are proposed as affordable units (five very low income units and two low income units) within the City of Los Angeles’ municipal boundaries, which would aid the City of Los Angeles in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation.

Goal 8: Continue to provide the Wilshire community with adequate police facilities and services to protect its residents from criminal activity, reduce the incidence of crime, and provide other necessary law enforcement services.

LU 8-2.2. Provide adequate lighting around residential, commercial and industrial buildings, and park, school,
and recreational areas to improve security.

No Conflict: Lighting is proposed along pedestrian walkways for security purposes.

LU 8-2.3. Ensure that landscaping around buildings
does not impede visibility and provide hidden places
which could foster criminal activity.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 1-1.3 and Policy LU 8-2.2.

Goal 11: Encourage a system of safe, efficient and attractive bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

LU 11-1.4. Support the provision of bicycle facilities in all new development.

No Conflict: The proposed project would include a long-term bicycle storage room on the first floor and a bicycle parking/maintenance room on the second floor.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 39 City of Beverly Hills
Applicable Community Plan Land Use Policies Consistency Analysis Goal 17: Preserve and restore cultural resources, neighborhoods and landmarks which have historical and/or cultural significance.

LU 17-1.1. Encourage the preservation, maintenance,
enhancement and reuse of existing historic buildings
and the restoration of original facades.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 1-3.2.

LU 17-2.1. Continue to identify and document Wilshire
Community Plan Area Cultural and Historical
Monuments.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 1-3.2. The project would not have any impact on its ability to identify and document Wilshire Community Plan Area Cultural and Historical Monuments.

LU 17-3.1. Assist private owners of historic resources to maintain and enhance their properties in a manner that
will preserve the integrity of such resources.

No Conflict: Refer to Policy LU 1-3.2.

Source: City of Los Angeles, Wilshire Community Plan, September 19, 2001.

MUNICIPAL CODE CONSISTENCY
City of Beverly Hills
Multiple Residential Zone (R-4)
The project site is located within the R-4 residential zone, as described in Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 12, Multiple Residential Zone (R-4), of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC). Provisions within BHMC Article 12 and BMHC Article 28, Multiple-Family Residential Development Standards, include specific requirements related to permitted uses, floor area ratio, density, building height, parking, setbacks, and outdoor living space within areas zoned R-4.

Permitted Uses
The Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills) as Multi-Family Residential, High Density and the Beverly Hills Zoning Map zones the project site as R-4. Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-1202, Uses and Buildings Permitted, the R-4 zone permits public libraries, single-family dwellings, and multiple-family dwellings.

Therefore, the proposed multi-family residential (apartment) building is a permitted use in accordance with the R-4 zoning.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Article 12 of Title 10, Chapter 3 of the BHMC does not specify requirements for FAR. However, BHMC Article 28, Multiple-Family Residential Development Standards, provides minimum floor area requirements for dwelling units within a multiple-family residential development. Specifically, BHMC Section 10-3-2802, Minimum Floor Area for Dwelling Units, requires a minimum floor area of 1,000 square feet for one-bedroom units, 1,300 square feet for two-bedroom units, and 1,500 square feet for threebedroom or more units. The proposed project would include 12 residential units in the City of Beverly Hills: two one-bedroom units consisting of 671 square feet and 788 square feet; nine two-bedroom units ranging from 1,035 to 1,538 square feet; and one three-bedroom unit consisting of 2,030 square Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 40 City of Beverly Hills
feet. A density bonus incentive is requested to adjust (decrease) the required square footage per residential unit within the City of Beverly Hills: 1,035 square feet for two-bedroom units (in lieu of 1,300 square feet); and 671 square feet for one-bedroom units (in lieu of 1,000 square feet).

Maximum Density
The Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Map designation for the project site allows for a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre (du/acre) for Multi-Family Residential, High Density (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills). Based on these regulations, the project site has a base density of approximately five units (i.e., 5.015 units) (50 du/ac), rounded up to six with a Density Bonus.18 With the inclusion of three affordable units (two very low income units and one low income unit) within the City of Beverly Hills municipal boundaries, the proposed project qualifies for a 88.75 percent (50 percent pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[f][2] and an additional

38.75 percent pursuant to 65915[v][2]) density bonus resulting in 12 total residential units.19,20 Further, the three affordable housing units would meet the required replacement obligations of three deedrestricted lower income units in the City of Beverly Hills (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) (Assembly Bills 2222 [2014] and 2556 [2016]).21 Overall, the proposed project would include 12 total residential units and thus, would be consistent with the allowed maximum density under State law.

Building Height
According to the General Plan Land Use Map, the maximum building height allowed for Multi-Family Residential, High Density (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills) is 60 feet.22 The project currently proposes a building with up to eight stories (or 86 feet, 11 inches) in height, 18 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(q) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. Accordingly, the allowed 5.015 base density units have been rounded to six base density units. 19 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include one very low income unit (within the City of Beverly Hills intended to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units (i.e., six base units) and thus, would adequately set-aside at least 15 percent of the total base units for very low income units.

Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus increase (i.e., three additional units) over the total base units.
20 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(v)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include a second very low income unit (to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units for very low income units and thus, would adequately set-aside at least an additional 10 percent (over the at least 15 percent set-aside to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for an additional 38.75 percent stacked density bonus increase (i.e., approximately 2.325 units rounded to three units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[q]) over the total base units. Overall, the proposed project qualifies for an 88.75 percent density bonus increase over the total base units, resulting in 12 total residential units (six total base units added with three density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[f][2] and three stacked density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]). 21 City of Los Angeles, Letter of Compliance – Miinsterial [Ministerial] On-Menu Density Bonus, November 22, 2023. 22 City of Beverly Hills, General Plan Land Use Designations – City of Beverly Hills, https://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfiles/storage/files/1807037749744115284/Landuse_11x17_20220125.pdf, accessed February 22, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 41 City of Beverly Hills
including rooftop appurtenances (i.e., screened mechanical equipment). A waiver, pursuant to Density Bonus Law, is requested for the additional height (26 feet, 11 inches) above the permitted building height. Thus, with approval of a waiver for the additional height, the project would be consistent with building height requirements.

Parking
BHMC Section 10-3-2816, Parking Requirements; Number of Spaces Required, requires that two parking spaces be provided for each one-bedroom unit, two and one-half parking spaces for each twobedroom unit, and three parking spaces for each three- or four-bedroom units. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(p)(1), however, the maximum parking ratio that may be required of a qualifying density bonus project is one on-site parking space for each zero to one bedroom unit, one and one-half on-site parking spaces for each two- to three-bedroom unit, and two and one-half parking spaces for each four or more bedroom unit. Within the City of Beverly Hills, the building would include: two one-bedroom units; nine two-bedroom units; and one three-bedroom unit. As such, 17 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. The proposed project would accommodate two basement parking levels, including 18 standard parking spaces in the City of Beverly Hills. In conclusion, the project would satisfy the required 17 parking spaces and provide sufficient parking for the project.

Setbacks
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2806, Multiple-Family Residential Zones; Front Setbacks and Modulation Requirements, front yard setbacks are depicted in the “residential street setback map of the city of Beverly Hills” (Setback Map) on file at the Beverly Hills Department of Building and Safety. As depicted in the Setback Map, the required front yard setback along North Oakhurst Drive is 25 feet.

The proposed project would include a front yard setback of 15 feet. It is acknowledged that a setback waiver is requested to reduce the required front yard setback along the western boundary along North Oakhurst Drive from 25 feet to 15 feet. Thus, with approval of a setback waiver for a reduction in the required front yard setback, the project would be consistent with the applicable setback requirements.

Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-2807, Multiple-Family Residential Zones; Side Setbacks, for sites occupied by buildings of more than four stories or by buildings of greater than 45 feet in height, the sum of the side yard setbacks from the two longest side lot lines must be at least 23 feet. Additionally, each side yard setback must be at least nine feet. The proposed side yard setbacks would be nine feet along the northern and southern boundaries. It is acknowledged that a setback waiver is requested to reduce the required side yard setbacks along the northern and southern boundaries from a total of 23 feet to a total of 18 feet. Thus, with approval of a setback waiver for a reduction in the required total sum of the side yard setbacks, the project would be consistent with the applicable setback requirements.

Outdoor Living Space
Pursuant to BHMC Section 10-3-1886, Outdoor Living Space Required, at least 200 square feet of useable outdoor living space is required for each dwelling unit. As such, the project would be required to Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 42 City of Beverly Hills
provide a total of 2,400 square feet of usable outdoor living space for the 12 dwelling units. The proposed development would provide a total of 1,727 square feet of private and common outdoor living space in the City of Beverly Hills. It is acknowledged that an outdoor living space waiver would be requested to adjust (decrease) the required square footage of outdoor living space from 2,400 square feet to 1,727 square feet. Thus, with approval of an outdoor living space waiver for the reduction in required square footage, the project would be consistent with outdoor living space requirements.

City of Los Angeles
Oil Drilling (O) District
The project site (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) is located within an Oil Drilling (O) District of the City of Los Angeles.23 Pursuant to the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC), the purpose of the O District is to establish regulations for oil drilling activities within the City of Los Angeles. On December 2, 2022, the Los Angeles City Council adopted Ordinance No. 187,709 (effective January 18, 2023), which deemed all existing drill sites and oil/gas wells a legally nonconforming use.24 The project site is not located on an active oil drilling site nor does the project propose oil drilling activities. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the proposed project’s consistency with the LAMC is considered in the following analysis.

Height District No. 1
Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.04.C, height district designations are established to regulate and restrict height and floor area of buildings and structures. The project site (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) is located within Height District No. 1 of the City of Los Angeles.25 Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.21.1, Height of Building or Structures, the total floor area contained in all the main buildings on a lot in Height District No. 1 shall not exceed three times the buildable area of the lot (i.e., FAR of 3.0). The project site contains a total buildable area of 9,486.43 square feet and as such, the project would be permitted to have a maximum of 28,459.29 square feet (i.e., FAR of 3.0).

As described in LAMC Section 12.22.25(e)(1), projects that provide 15 percent or more of very low income units are eligible for three incentives. Accordingly, an on-menu incentive is requested to increase the allowed FAR on-site by a maximum of 35 percent (pursuant to LAMC Section

12.22.25[f][4][i]) from a FAR of 3.0 to 4.05. Thus, with approval of an on-menu incentive for an increase in FAR, the project would not exceed the maximum FAR of 4.05 permitted for the project site. The LAMC does not include height restrictions for lots within the R4 residential zone within Height District No. 1.
23 City of Los Angeles, ZIMAS, https://zimas.lacity.org/, accessed August 1, 2024. 24 City of Los Angeles, Oil and Gas Drilling Ordinance, https://planning.lacity.gov/plans-policies/oil-and-gas-drillingordinance#:~:text=On%20December%202%2C%202022%2C%20the,wells%20a%20legally%20nonconforming%20us e., accessed August 1, 2024.
25 City of Los Angeles, ZIMAS, https://zimas.lacity.org/, accessed August 1, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 43 City of Beverly Hills
Multiple Residential Zone (R4)
The project site (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) is located within the R4 residential zone, as described in Chapter 1, Article 2, Section 12.11, “R4” Multiple Dwelling Zone, of the LAMC. Provisions within BHMC Article 12 include specific requirements related to permitted uses, floor area ratio, density, lot area, setbacks, outdoor living space, parking, and recycling rooms within areas zoned R4. The R4 zone does not have requirements regarding building height.

Permitted Uses
The Los Angeles General Plan Land Use Map designates the project site (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) as High Medium Residential and the Los Angeles Zoning Map zones the project site as (Q)R4-1-O (within the R4 zone). Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.11.A, Use, the R4 zone permits uses permitted in the Limited Multiple Residence (R3) zone (e.g., one-family dwellings through multiple dwellings, apartment buildings, boarding houses, rooming houses, light housekeeping rooms, senior and assisted living housing, and accessory structures/buildings, among others), churches, child care facilities, nursery schools, fraternity and sorority houses and dormitories, schools (elementary and high school), museums, libraries, and retirement hotels. Therefore, the proposed multi-family residential (apartment) building is a permitted use in accordance with the R4 zoning.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The portion of the project site within the City of Los Angeles allows for a maximum FAR of 3.0.26 The proposed project would construct 37,659 square feet of residential uses (i.e., ground floor to the eighth floor). The buildable lot area is 9,486.43 square feet and as such, the project would have a FAR of 3.97. As described in LAMC Section 12.22.25(e)(1), projects that provide 15 percent or more of very low income units are eligible for three incentives. Accordingly, an on-menu incentive is requested to increase the allowed FAR on-site by a maximum of 35 percent (pursuant to LAMC Section

12.22.25[f][4][i]) from a FAR of 3.0 to 4.05. Thus, with approval of an on-menu incentive for an increase in FAR, the project would not exceed the maximum FAR of 4.05 permitted for the project site.

Maximum Density
The Los Angeles General Plan Land Use Map designation for the project site (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) allows for a maximum density between 55 and 109 du/ac for High Medium Residential (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles). Based 26 City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning Generalized Summary of Zoning Regulations, https://planning.lacity.gov/odocument/eadcb225-a16b-4ce6-bc94-c915408c2b04/Zoning_Code_Summary.pdf, updated March 2024, accessed August 1, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 44 City of Beverly Hills
on these regulations, the project site has a base density of 31 units (i.e., 30.128 units).27,28 The project proposes a base density of 31 units. With the inclusion of seven affordable units (five very low income units and two low income units) within the City of Los Angeles, the proposed project qualifies for a 35 percent (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) density bonus resulting in a maximum of 42 total residential units.29 Further, the seven affordable housing units would meet the required replacement obligations of seven deed-restricted lower income units in the City of Los Angeles (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) (Assembly Bills 2222 [2014] and 2556 [2016]).30 Overall, the proposed project would include 40 total residential units and thus, would be consistent with the allowed maximum density under State law.

Lot Area
Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.11.C.4, Lot Area, lots must have a minimum width of 50 feet and a minimum area of 5,000 square feet. The project (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) meets the lot area requirements as the lot is at least 50 feet wide with a lot area exceeding 5,000 square feet.

Setbacks
Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.11.C, Area, side yard setbacks must not be less than five feet.

Additionally, buildings of more than two stories in height must add one foot for each additional story above the second story. The proposed project (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) would be up to eight stories in height; and thus, requires 11-foot side yard setbacks. The proposed side yard setbacks, within the portion of the project site within the City of Los Angeles, would be nine feet along the northern boundary and 11 feet along the southern boundary. An onmenu incentive is requested to reduce the required side yard setbacks along the northern boundary by 20 percent (pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22.25[f][1]) from 11 feet to eight feet, eight-inches. No setback waiver is requested for the southern boundary. Thus, the project would be consistent with the applicable setback requirements.

Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.11.C.3, rear yard setbacks must not be less than 15 feet. Additionally, buildings of more than three stories in height must add one foot for each additional story above the third story. The proposed project would be up to eight stories in height; and thus, requires a 20-foot 27 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(q) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. Accordingly, the allowed 30.128 base density units have been rounded to 31 base density units. 28 City of Los Angeles, Letter of Compliance – Miinsterial [Ministerial] On-Menu Density Bonus, November 22, 2023. 29 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project’s five very low income units (within the City of Los Angeles) would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units (i.e., 31 base units) and thus, would adequately set-aside at least 11 percent of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for a 35 percent density bonus increase over the total base units. With a maximum of 35 percent density increase over the total units, the proposed project would be eligible for 42 maximum total residential units (31 total base units added with 10.85 density bonus units [rounded to 11 density bonus units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(q)]). The proposed project would result in 40 total residential units and thus, would be within the 42 maximum total base units. 30 Ibid.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 45 City of Beverly Hills
rear yard setback. The proposed project would include a rear yard setback (along the alley [accessible by Beverly Boulevard and Alden Drive]) of 20 feet. It should be noted that the rear yard setback would include one-half the width of the alley (i.e., 10 feet) in accordance with LAMC Section 12.22.C.10, Rear Yard – Includes One-Half Alley. Thus, the project would be consistent with the applicable setback requirements.

Outdoor Living Space
Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.21.G.2, Regulations, new construction (resulting in additional floor area and additional units) of a building or group of buildings containing six or more dwelling units on a lot must provide a minimum of the following: 100 square feet for each dwelling unit having less than three habitable rooms; 125 square feet for each dwelling unit having three habitable rooms; and 175 square feet for each dwelling unit having more than three habitable rooms. As such, the project (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) would be required to provide a total of 4,000 square feet of outdoor living space (i.e., private and/or common) for the 40 dwelling units (ranging from studios to two-bedroom units). The proposed project would include 3,344 square feet of outdoor living space in the City of Los Angeles. An on-menu incentive would be requested to adjust (decrease) the required square footage of outdoor living space by 20 percent (pursuant to LAMC Section

12.22.25[f][6]) from 4,000 square feet to 3,200 square feet. Thus, with approval of an outdoor living space incentive for the reduction in required square footage, the project would be consistent with outdoor living space requirements.

Parking
LAMC Section 12.22.25(d), Parking in a Housing Development Project, provides two options regarding parking requirements for density bonus projects. Specifically, LAMC Section 12.22.25(d)(1), Parking Option 1, requires that one parking spaces be provided for each zero to one bedroom unit, two parking spaces for each two or three-bedroom units, and two and one-half parking spaces for each four or more bedroom unit. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5(p)(1), however, the maximum parking ratio that may be required of a qualifying density bonus project is one on-site parking space for each zero to one bedroom unit, one and one-half on-site parking spaces for each two- to three-bedroom unit, and two and one-half parking spaces for each four or more bedroom unit. Within the City of Los Angeles, the building would include: four studio units; seven one-bedroom units; and 29 two-bedroom units. As such, 55 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. The proposed project would accommodate two levels of basement parking levels and parking at grade, including 57 parking spaces. In conclusion, the project would satisfy the required 55 parking spaces and provide sufficient parking for the project.

LAMC Section 12.21.16(a)(1)(i), Dwelling Units, requires all residential buildings containing more than three dwelling units to provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking in accordance with LAMC Table 12.21 A.16.(A)(1)(i), Required Short-term and Long-term Bicycle Parking Spaces by Residential Dwelling Unit. Specifically, LAMC Section 12.21.16(a)(1)(i) requires residential buildings to provide short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces for each marginal increment of dwelling units as follows: 1) providing between one and 25 dwelling units to include one space per 10 units for short-term bicycle Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 46 City of Beverly Hills
parking and one space per one unit for long-term parking; and providing between 26 and 100 dwelling units to include one space per 15 units for short-term bicycle parking and one space per 1.5 units for long-term parking. As such, 39 bicycle parking spaces (four short-term and 35 long-term) would be required for the proposed project. The proposed project would accommodate four short-term and 35 long-term bicycle parking spaces. In conclusion, the project would satisfy the required 39 bicycle parking spaces and provide sufficient bicycle parking for the project.

Recycling Areas/Rooms
Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.21.19(c), Requirements for Recycling Areas or Rooms in a Development Project, multi-family residential development projects of four or more units where the addition of floor area is 25 percent or more, and all other existing development projects where the addition of floor area is 30 percent or more, must provide a recycling area or recycling room. The proposed building (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) would include a recycling room on the first floor. As such, the proposed project would meet this requirement.

CRITERION (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The project site is approximately 0.35-acre (approximately 0.10-acre within Beverly Hills and approximately 0.25-acre within Los Angeles), or 15,246 square feet (approximately 4,356 square feet within Beverly Hills and approximately 10,890 square feet in Los Angeles), and is located in an urbanized area of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. The site is bordered to the west by North Oakhurst Drive and is surrounded by residential uses on all sides within built out and urbanized areas of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. The site is located within the city limits of the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. Accordingly, the project would meet Criterion (b) requirements.

CRITERION (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

As stated, the project site is in an urbanized area of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles and is surrounded by residential and commercial uses. The site is currently developed with an existing multi-family residential building and associated parking garages with minimal ornamental landscaping on all sides of the building. No vegetation exists within the project site or surrounding areas that could provide habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. Thus, the proposed project would meet Criterion (c) requirements.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 47 City of Beverly Hills
CRITERION (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

A. TRAFFIC

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, the City of Beverly Hills adopted the City of Beverly Hills California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Thresholds of Significance (CEQA Transportation Thresholds) in October 2019. The adopted thresholds analyze a project’s potential to result in significant transportation impacts utilizing a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) methodology. While the CEQA Transportation Thresholds provides a Technical Advisory on implementing VMT metric, the City of Beverly Hills would be required to make its own specific decisions regarding VMT methodology, thresholds, and mitigation. The City of Beverly Hills also adopted the Transportation Analysis Updates in Beverly Hills (Transportation Analysis Report) on October 2, 2019.

Certain projects may be screened out of VMT analysis based on the following criteria reproduced from the City of Beverly Hills CEQA Transportation Thresholds Table 2, VMT Screening Options for Land Use Projects:

1. Project Type Screening: Local serving retail projects (defined as less than 50,000 square feet in size) and projects that generate less than 110 average daily trips.

2. Low VMT Area Screening: Residential projects located in low VMT-generating traffic analysis zones (TAZs). These TAZs generate total daily VMT per capita that is 15 percent less than the baseline level for the region.

3. Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening: Projects located in the commercial zone of TPAs (defined as within 0.5-mile of a Metro Rapid bus stop) and does not have the following characteristics:
o FAR less than 0.75;
o More parking than required by the City of Beverly Hills, unless additional parking is being provided for design feasibility, such as completing the floor of a subterranean or structured parking facility, or if additional parking is located within the project site to serve adjacent uses; or
o Inconsistent with the applicable Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

To determine whether the project could be screened out of VMT analysis, the project’s location was analyzed to determine if the proposed residential project would be located within a low VMT Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 48 City of Beverly Hills
generating area that could be presumed to have a less than significant impact (absent substantial evidence to the contrary).

The project is anticipated to generate more than 110 average daily trips. As such, VMT transportation threshold No. 1 would not apply. For VMT CEQA Transportation Threshold No. 3, the project is not located in a commercial zone of a Transit Priority Area (TPA); and thus, transportation threshold No. 3 (TPA Screening) would not apply. However, Threshold No. 2 would apply to the proposed project, as discussed in the following analysis.

Low VMT areas for residential projects are defined as individual traffic analysis zones (TAZs) that generate VMT on a per capita basis that is at least 15 percent lower than the regional average. As illustrated in the Transportation Analysis Report Figure 1, Low VMT Area Screening – Residential, the majority of the City of Beverly Hills, including the project site, is located in a low VMT generating TAZ. It should be noted that the portion of the project within the City of Los Angeles is classified as a ministerial project and is not subject to a transportation specific plan and thus, would not subject to City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG) Section 2.0, CEQA Analysis of Transportation Impacts, TAG Section 3.0, Non-CEQA Transportation Analysis, and TAG Section 3.4, Project Construction; refer to TAG Section 1.6, Ministerial projects not requiring CEQA review.
31,32 Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, it is anticipated that the entire project site, as currently developed, is accounted for in the low VMT generating TAZ of the City of Beverly’s Transportation Analysis Report. As such, transportation threshold No. 2 (Low VMT Area Screening) would apply and the proposed project would screen out of further VMT analysis.

Therefore, given the project screens out of further VMT, based on VMT transportation threshold No. 2, Low VMT Area Screening, the proposed project would result in less than significant VMT impacts.

SITE ACCESS
Pedestrian access to the building would be provided via a main entrance along North Oakhurst Drive. Vehicular access to the basement parking would be provided via an ingress/egress driveway accessible from the public alley in the eastern portion of the project site, accessed from Beverly Boulevard and Alden Drive. It should be noted that the proposed vehicular ingress/egress points would be located within the City of Los Angeles and thus, would not be subject to the City of Beverly Hills site access requirements identified in BHMC Title 8, Chapter 4, Parkways, Streets, Sidewalks, and Driveways and BHMC Section 8-2-3, Types of Permits. As such, impacts regarding site access would be less than significant.
31 It should be noted that the portion of the project within the City of Los Angeles was deemed statutorily exempt from CEQA (i.e., classified as a ministerial project) pursuant to the Letter of Compliance – Miinsterial [Ministerial] On-Menu Density Bonus, prepared by the City of Los Angeles, dated November 22, 2023. 32 City of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG), June 2020.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 49 City of Beverly Hills

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
Construction traffic impacts on roadway facilities would be significant if the construction of a project creates a prolonged impact due to lane closure, limitations on emergency vehicle access, traffic hazards to bicycles and/or pedestrians, truck traffic on roadways not assigned as truck routes, and other similar impediments to circulation. The project would not result in significant construction traffic effects, based on the following proposed construction schedule and activities and City of Beverly Hills requirements:
• Construction activities would be temporary in nature, occurring over a 32-month period.

Construction activities would primarily occur on-site with partial lane closures, if necessary, occurring on streets directly adjacent to the project site. All anticipated lane closures and construction activities would occur between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., unless otherwise authorized as part of an after-hours construction permit. As a standard requirement for building permits per BHMC Section 9-1-109[C], Permit Issuance, the project would also be required to implement a construction management plan (CMP). As part of the CMP, any lane closures would require a traffic control plan to minimize construction conflicts with access/circulation and would also set forth construction inspection milestones to ensure the timely completion of all construction activities. Further, a Class A Permit is required to allow the use of public property in conjunction with construction activity occurring on abutting private premises, including the standing or parking of trucks or equipment, loading and unloading materials, and other related construction activities which impose a minor and temporary burden on public property per BHMC Section 8-2- 3, Types of Permits. Additionally, a standard condition of approval required by the City of Beverly Hills Senior Transportation Engineer would restrict construction-related trips to occur outside of peak hours. Thus, with approval of the CMP and issuance of a Class A Permit, the project’s temporary construction-related traffic would not significantly impair the flow of traffic on adjacent roadways.
• As detailed in BHMC Section 7-2-203, Streets Designated for Heavy Vehicle Usage, the City of Beverly Hills has designated truck routes within Beverly Hills, which include Beverly Boulevard, South Doheny Drive, and Alden Drive. However, per BHMC 7-2-202, Emergency Or Necessary Use Of Restricted Street, vehicles may use a street other than those designated in BHMC Section 7-2-203 for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, remodeling, or construction of any building or structure for which a building permit has been previously obtained. This would allow the use of streets that are expressly allowed for heavy truck hauling as well as streets that are not expressly allowed.

The project would comply with the designated truck routes as illustrated on Beverly Hills General Plan Map CIR3, Truck Routes, as well as the regulations set forth in the BHMC Section 7-2-203.
• Per BHMC Section 5-1-205, Restrictions on Construction Activity, construction work is only allowed to occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 50 City of Beverly Hills
and would likely be staggered throughout the day. Additionally, a standard condition of approval required by the City of Beverly Hills Senior Transportation Engineer would restrict construction-related trips to occur outside of peak hours.

Based on the temporary duration of project construction, project implementation would not significantly contribute to local traffic during construction upon compliance with the applicable regulations as outline above. Impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

B. NOISE
The following analysis is based on the Oakhurst Apartments Project – Noise and Vibration Assessment (Noise Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker, dated September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix A, Noise Assessment.

FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals of Sound and Noise
Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves in a compressible medium such as air, and is characterized by both its amplitude and frequency (or pitch). The human ear does not hear all frequencies equally. In particular, the ear deemphasizes low and very high frequencies. To better approximate the sensitivity of human hearing, the A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) has been developed. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound ten dBA higher than another is perceived to be twice as loud and 20 dBA higher is perceived to be four times as loud, and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). On this scale, the human range of hearing extends from approximately three dBA to around 140 dBA.

Noise is generally defined as unwanted or excessive sound, which can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing; therefore, a logarithmic scale, known as the decibel scale (dB), is used to quantify sound intensity. Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites, machinery, and industrial operations. Noise generated by mobile sources typically attenuates (is reduced) at a rate between three dBA and 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. The rate depends on the ground surface and the number or type of objects between the noise source and the receiver. Hard and flat surfaces, such as concrete or asphalt, have an attenuation rate of three dBA per doubling of distance. Soft surfaces, such as uneven or vegetated terrain, have an attenuation rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise generated by stationary sources typically attenuates at a rate between six dBA and about 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 51 City of Beverly Hills
There are several metrics used to characterize community noise exposure, which fluctuate constantly over time. One such metric, the equivalent sound level (Leq), represents a constant sound that, over the specified period, has the same sound energy as the time-varying sound. This is commonly used to describe the “average” noise levels within the environment. Noise exposure over a longer period is often evaluated based on the Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn). This is a measure of 24-hour noise levels that incorporates a 10-dBA penalty (or an additional 10 dBA) for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. when sounds seem to be louder. The penalty is intended to reflect the increased human sensitivity to noises occurring during nighttime hours, particularly at times when people are sleeping and there are lower ambient (background) noise conditions. Typical Ldn noise levels for light- and medium-density residential areas range from 55 dBA to 65 dBA. Similarly, Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a measure of 24-hour noise levels, not an actual sound level heard at any time, that incorporates a 5-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. and a 10-dBA penalty for sounds occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively.

Fundamental of Environmental Groundborne Vibration
Ground vibration consists of oscillatory (i.e., rapidly fluctuating) motions or waves with an average motion of zero (i.e., no net movement of the vibration element). Sources of earth-borne vibrations include natural phenomena (earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides, etc.) or manmade causes (explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment, etc.). Vibration sources may be continuous (e.g., factory machinery) or transient (e.g., explosions).

Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the peak particle velocity (PPV); another is the root mean square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Vibration decibels (VdB) is commonly used to measure the RMS vibration velocity level. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes are used to evaluate human response to vibration.

Table 4, Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels, displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings produced by continuous vibration levels. The annoyance levels shown in the table should be interpreted with care since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those listed, depending on the level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be annoying. Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage.

Ground vibration can be a concern in instances where buildings shake, and substantial rumblings occur. However, it is unusual for vibration from typical urban sources such as buses and heavy trucks to be perceptible. Common sources for groundborne vibration are planes, trains, and construction activities such as pile driving and vibratory compacting activities which require the Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 52 City of Beverly Hills
use of heavy-duty earth moving equipment. For the purposes of this analysis, a PPV descriptor with units of inches per section (in/sec) is used to evaluate construction-generated vibration for building damage and human complaints.

Table 4
Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibration Levels
Peak Particle
Velocity
(inches/second)
Approximate
Vibration Velocity
Level (VdB)
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings

0.006–0.019 64–74 Range of threshold of perception. Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type.

0.08 87 Vibrations readily perceptible.

Recommended upper level to which
ruins and ancient monuments should
be subjected.

0.1 92
Level at which continuous vibrations may
begin to annoy people, particularly those
involved in vibration sensitive activities.

Virtually no risk of architectural
damage to normal buildings.

0.2 94 Vibrations may begin to annoy people in
buildings.

Threshold at which there is a risk of
architectural damage to normal
dwellings.

0.4–0.6 98–104
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous vibrations
and unacceptable to some people
walking on bridges.

Architectural damage and possibly
minor structural damage.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Noise and Vibration Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix A.

EXISTING SETTINGS
Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Potentially sensitive land uses in Beverly Hills include residences (including residences for the elderly), schools, churches, and libraries.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing multi-family residential uses located approximately 15 feet to the north and south, and multi-family residential uses located approximately 25 feet to the east. Specifically, the multi-family residential uses to the north and south are located within the jurisdiction of both the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. The multi-family residential use to the east is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles.

For informational purposes, the closest single-family residential use is located approximately 400 feet to the south. The closest religious use (Young Israel of North, within the City of Beverly Hills) is located approximately 1,150 feet west of the project site.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 53 City of Beverly Hills
Stationary Sources
The project site is in an urbanized area with the land uses consisting of residential uses. The primary sources of stationary noise in the project vicinity are urban-related activities (i.e., mechanical equipment). The noise associated with these sources may represent a single-event noise occurrence, short-term, or long-term/continuous noise.

Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To determine the typical noise level at the surrounding residential sensitive receptors, one longterm noise measurement was conducted within the project site from July 9, 2024 to July 10, 2024, for a period of 24-hours. The long-term measurement is considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day and night at the project site and the nearest sensitive receptors to the south; refer to Table 5, Long-Term Noise Measurement. Noise monitoring equipment used for the long-term noise survey consisted of a Larson & Davis SoundExpert Sound Level Meter Series 821ENV. The monitoring equipment complies with applicable requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for Type I (precision) sound level meters.

Table 5
Long-Term Noise Measurement
Measurement Location
Number Location
Average Measured Noise Levels
Ldn
(dBA)
LDay
(dBA)
LNight
(dBA)
LT – 1 Noise meter was placed along the southern
project site boundary 65.4 67.0 49.6
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Ldn = Average 24-Hour Sound Level; LDay = Average Daytime Sound Level (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.); Lnight = Average Nighttime Sound Level (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Noise and Vibration Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix A.

To quantify existing ambient noise levels in the project area, Michael Baker conducted four shortterm noise measurements in the project vicinity on July 9, 2024. The noise measurement locations are representative of typical existing noise exposure at the nearest sensitive receptors. The 10- minute measurements were taken between 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Short-term (Leq) measurements are considered representative of the noise levels throughout the day. The noise measurements were taken during “off-peak” (9:00 a.m. through 3:00 p.m.) traffic noise hours as this provides a more conservative baseline. During rush hour traffic, vehicle speeds and heavy truck volumes are often low. Free-flowing traffic conditions just before or after rush hour often yield higher noise levels. The noise levels measured near the project site is identified in Table 6, Short-Term Noise Measurements.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 54 City of Beverly Hills
Table 6
Short-Term Noise Measurements
Site No. Location Leq
(dBA)
Lmin
(dBA)
Lmax
(dBA) Start Time
NM-1 In front of 411 North Oakhurst Drive 54.6 44.0 70.2 11:49 a.m.

NM-2 East of the project site (between 412 North Oakhurst Drive and 131 South Doheny Drive); along the alley 52.1 46.8 71.9 11:14 a.m.

NM-3 In front of 348 North Oakhurst Drive 54.1 42.6 70.4 11:34 a.m.

NM-4 In front of 401 North Maple Drive 63.1 48.1 86.2 12:09 p.m.

Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = Average Sound Level; Lmin = Lowest time-weighted sound level measured; Lmax = Highest timeweighted sound level measured Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Noise and Vibration Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix A.

METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Methodology
Noise levels from construction equipment and activities were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM). Project construction equipment are based on the Oakhurst Apartment Project Air Quality Assessment prepared by Michael Baker, dated September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Assessment.

City of Beverly Hills Construction Noise
Based on the discussion with the City of Beverly Hills, construction noise would be significant if:
1) construction activities occurring on the project site generate a noise increase of five dBA or more outside the hours permitted by BHMC Title 5, Chapter 1, Noise Regulations (City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance) at the project site (i.e., between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, or at any time on Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday); or 2) construction activities occurring on a project site generate a noise increase of five dBA or more during daytime hours at uses identified in Section 5-1-206 of the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance, which include schools, hospitals, churches, or institutes of learning.

City of Beverly Hills Operational Noise
According to the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance, it is unlawful for any stationary source such as mechanical equipment (air condition and heating units) to increase the ambient noise levels at the property line by five dBA. However, the City of Beverly Hills does not have a threshold of significance for other operational noise sources (traffic noise, parking lot noise, crowd noise, etc.).

As a conservative analysis, these operational noise sources would utilize the threshold of significance used for stationary sources. As such, a significance increase in noise level would occur if operational noise sources would increase the ambient noise levels by five dBA.

City of Los Angeles Construction Noise
According to LAMC Section 112.03, Construction Noise, construction-related noise levels are governed by LAMC Section 41.40, Noise due to Construction, Excavation Work – When Prohibited.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 55 City of Beverly Hills
According to LAMC Section 41.40, construction would be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. Additionally, pursuant of LAMC Section 112.05, Maximum Noise Level of Powered Equipment or Powered Hand Tools, construction and industrial equipment should not exceed a maximum of 75 dBA at a distance of 50 feet in a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential zone, except where compliance is technically infeasible.

City of Los Angeles Operational Noise
LAMC, Section 111.02, Sound Level Measurement Procedure and Criteria, provides procedures and criteria for the measurement of the sound level of “offending” noise sources. According to the LAMC, a noise level increase of five dBA over the existing average ambient noise level at an adjacent property line is considered a noise violation. As such, a significance increase in noise level would occur if operational noise sources would increase the ambient noise levels by five dBA.

NOISE IMPACTS
Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts
As the project site is located within the jurisdiction of both the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, the analysis below would compare the project’s noise impact to the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles noise thresholds. Both the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles Noise Elements establishes guidelines for controlling construction and operational noise within their jurisdiction.

Ground-borne noise and other types of construction-related noise impacts typically occur during the initial demolition and grading phases, which has the potential to create the highest levels of noise. Construction equipment produce maximum noise levels when equipment is operating under full power conditions (i.e., the equipment engine at maximum speed). However, equipment used on construction sites typically operate under less than full power conditions, or part power. To more accurately characterize construction-period noise levels, the average (Leq) noise level associated with each construction stage is calculated based on the quantity, type, and usage factors for each type of equipment that would be used during each construction stage. These noise levels are typically associated with multiple pieces of equipment simultaneously operating on part power.

LAMC Section 112.05 prohibits the use of construction and industrial equipment if the maximum noise levels exceed 75 dBA at 50 feet within a residential zone. Additionally, it should be noted that a portion of the project site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Beverly Hills. As stated above, construction noise in the City of Beverly Hills would be significant if: 1) construction activities occurring on the project site generate a noise increase of five dBA or more outside the hours permitted by the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance at the project site (i.e., between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, or at any time on Saturday, Sunday, or a public holiday); or 2) construction activities occurring on a project site generate a noise increase of five dBA or more during daytime hours at uses identified in Section 5-1-206 of the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance, which include schools, hospitals, churches, or institutes of learning. For the purposes of this analysis, a construction noise impact would occur at the multi-family residential uses if construction noise generated from mobile construction equipment exceeds 75 dBA at 50 feet Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 56 City of Beverly Hills
pursuant to the LAMC. Additionally, a significant impact would occur if construction occurring outside the permitted hours result in a five dBA increase or if construction would result in a five dBA increase at schools, hospitals, churches, or institutes of learning pursuant of the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance.

The estimated construction noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors are presented in Table 7, Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors. Noise levels from construction equipment and activities were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration’s RCNM. To present a conservative impact analysis, the estimated noise levels were calculated for a scenario in which all heavy construction equipment were assumed to operate simultaneously.

The nearest sensitive uses (multi-family residential uses) are located approximately 15 feet from the project site to the north and south. However, construction activities would occur throughout the project site, and it should also be noted that construction noise levels would intermittently occur for a few days when construction equipment is operating closest to the nearest sensitive uses. The remainder of the time, the construction noise levels would be much lower because the equipment would be working in an area farther away from the existing sensitive uses. The General Noise Assessment methodology prescribed in the Federal Transit Authority’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, recommends evaluating construction noise from the center of the site, stating under the variable distance in its construction noise calculation to “assume that all equipment operates at the center of the project.” As such, the construction noise levels shown in Table 7 are estimated using the distance from the center of the project site to the property line of the existing sensitive receptors, which is approximately 45 feet from the closest sensitive receptor to the north and south.

Table 7
Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Residential Receptors Phase Estimated Exterior Construction Noise Level at 45 feet (Center of the Site to Residential Uses to the North and South) (dBA Leq)1
Demolition 87.8
Grading 85.5
Building Construction 88.5
Architectural Coating 74.6
Notes:

1. These noise levels conservatively assume the simultaneous operation of all heavy construction equipment at the same precise location.

Modeled heavy construction equipment include tractors, dozer, concrete saw, and excavator during the demolition phase, grader, dozer, and tractors during the grading phase, crane, forklift, generator, tractor, air compressor, generator, welders, concrete saw, and cement mixer during the building construction phase, and air compressor during the architectural coating phase.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Noise and Vibration Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix A.

As shown in Table 7, construction-generated noise levels would range from 74.6 dBA Leq to 88.5 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor (multi-family residences) property boundary located approximately 45 feet to the north and south from the geographic center of the project site.

Additionally, it should be noted that modeling of construction noise levels in Table 7 assumes that construction equipment would operate simultaneously and represents a worse-case scenario.

According to LAMC Section 112.05, construction and industrial equipment should not exceed a Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 57 City of Beverly Hills
maximum noise level of 75 dBA at 50 feet in a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential zone, except where compliance is technically infeasible. As shown in Table 7, noise levels during each phase (except for architectural coating) would have an average construction noise level that exceeds the 75 dBA threshold. As part of the proposed project and in accordance with the LAMC Section 112.05, a Construction Noise Management Plan (CNMP) would be implemented, which would reduce the overall construction noise levels;refer to Appendix A. According to the CNMP, the project would use construction equipment with properly operating and maintained mufflers, locate stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from the nearest noise sensitive receptors, and limit construction hours to be consistent with the LAMC and City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance. The features proposed as part of the CNMP, in accordance with LAMC Section 112.05, would reduce noise levels by approximately 5 dBA, resulting in construction-generated noise levels ranging from 69.4 to 83.5 dBA Leq. It should be noted that the implementation of a temporary noise barrier, in accordance with LAMC Section 112.05, would further reduce construction noise levels; however, this feature was considered and determined to be infeasible as the project is surrounded by multi-story buildings which would require noise barriers as tall as three stories to block the line-of-sight. As such, the project would comply with LAMC requirements.

According to LAMC Section 41.40, construction would be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. Pursuant of the Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance, construction would be prohibited between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. on any day and construction shall not occur on Sunday or a public holiday. As such, to comply with both the LAMC and City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance, noise generated from project construction activities would only occur during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and would not occur on a Sunday or public holiday. Additionally, because the project site is located within a residential zone, project construction would not occur on Saturday pursuant to the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance. It should be noted that construction activities would be exempt from the City of Beverly Hills noise standards per Noise Ordinance Section 5-1-205 within the permitted construction hours in recognition that construction activities undertaken during daytime hours are a typical part of living in an urban environment and do not cause a significant disruption.

Furthermore, the project site is not located near any school, hospital, or institute of learning and daytime construction activities at the project site would not result in a significant impact at these receptors. The nearest school (Hawthorne Elementary School) is located approximately 0.75-mile to the west of the project site and the nearest hospital use (Cedars Sinai Medical Center) is approximately 0.5-mile to the east. Therefore, on-site construction noise would attenuate over long distances such that construction activities would not be audible at these receptors.

It should be noted that the nearest religious use (Young Israel of North, within the City of Beverly Hills) is located approximately 1,150 feet to the west (0.20-mile). The estimated construction noise levels at the nearest religious use receptors are presented in Table 8, Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Religious Receptor.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 58 City of Beverly Hills
Table 8
Construction Noise Levels at the Nearest Religious Receptor Phase Estimated Exterior Construction Noise Level at 1,150 feet (Center of the Site to Religious Uses to the West) (dBA Leq)1
Demolition 59.7
Grading 57.3
Building Construction 60.3
Architectural Coating 46.5
Notes:

1. These noise levels conservatively assume the simultaneous operation of all heavy construction equipment at the same precise location.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Noise and Vibration Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix A.

As indicated in Table 8, construction of the proposed project would result in noise levels ranging from 46.5 to 60.3 dBA Leq at the nearest religious use. A short-term noise measurement was conducted near the closest religious use and indicates that the existing ambient noise level is approximately 63.1 dBA; refer to Table 6. As such, construction of the proposed project would not result in a five dBA increase over the existing ambient noise levels as identified in Section 5- 1-206 of the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance. Thus, noise impacts from construction activities would be less than significant in this regard.

Construction Trips Noise Impacts
Construction activities would also cause increased noise along access routes along the Beverly Boulevard, Alden Drive, and North Oakhurst Drive due to movement of equipment and workers, as well as haul trips. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), a doubling of traffic (100 percent increase) on a roadway would result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels (three dBA). As such, a significant impact would occur if construction-related trips double existing traffic volumes.

According to the Air Quality Assessment, it is anticipated that project construction would generate a maximum of 18 hauling trips per day, 100 worker trips per day, and 22 vendor trips per day. The existing average daily trips (ADT) along Beverly Boulevard is 14,100 for eastbound traffic and 16,500 for westbound traffic. Per 24-hour traffic counts conducted in 1999 as part of the City of Beverly Hills General Plan EIR, North Oakhurst Drive experiences approximately 2,397 ADT.33 While this data is outdated, the 24-hour traffic volume counts from 1999 is used as a conservative analysis as current traffic volumes are significantly higher than 1999. Specifically, the City of Beverly Hills Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol utilizes a growth factor of

0.8433 percent per year when factoring traffic volumes up to 2005 where applicable. As such, it would be appropriate to assume that traffic volumes factored to the year 2024 would be greater 33 City of Beverly Hills, General Plan Technical Background Report, Appendices, https://www.beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/5516/General-Plan-Technical-Background-Report--- Appendices-PDF, accessed August 6, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 59 City of Beverly Hills
than 2,397 ADT. Nevertheless, as a conservative analysis, the lower 2,397 ADT along North Oakhurst Drive from 1999 is utilized. Based on the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center West Tower Project, Appendix E, Traffic Impact Study, Alden Drive between Swall Drive and Clark Drive experiences approximately 3,468 ADT. 34 While this roadway segment is not directly located within the proximity of the proposed project, it would be appropriate to assume that ADT along this roadway would be similar. The combined total of project-related construction trips (140 trips) would not result in a doubling of existing traffic volumes along North Oakhurst Drive or Alden Drive.

Similarly, construction trips from the proposed project would not double existing traffic volumes for eastbound and westbound traffic along Beverly Boulevard. As the construction-related trips would not double existing traffic volumes, there would not be a perceptible increase (three dBA) in traffic noise. Additionally, mobile traffic noise from construction trips would be temporary and would cease upon project completion. Thus, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Long-Term Operational Noise Impacts
Off-Site Mobile Noise
Future development generated by the proposed project would result in some additional traffic on adjacent roadways, thereby potentially increasing vehicular noise in the vicinity of existing and proposed land uses. The most prominent source of mobile traffic noise in the project vicinity is along Beverly Boulevard, Alden Drive, and North Oakhurst Drive. The proposed development would also include a private alleyway located directly east of the project site.

According to the Air Quality Assessment, the project would generate approximately 283 ADT on weekdays, 255 ADT on Saturday, and 213 ADT on Sunday based on the proposed land use types.

As a conservative analysis, the largest number of trips (i.e., 283 ADT) would be compared to existing traffic volumes. It should be noted that traffic from existing uses on site was not considered, which results in a more conservative analysis. According to Caltrans, a doubling of traffic (100 percent increase) on a roadway would result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise levels (three dBA).

As discussed above, the existing ADT along Beverly Boulevard is 14,100 for eastbound traffic and 16,500 for westbound traffic. 35 24-hour traffic counts conducted in 1999 states that North Oakhurst Drive experienced around 2,397 ADT.36 Alden Drive experiences traffic volumes of approximately 3,468.37 As such, the project’s 283 ADT would not double existing traffic volumes 34 City of Los Angeles, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center West Tower Project, Appendix E, Traffic Impact Study, https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/CedarSinia/FEIR/Appendices/Appendix%20E%20%E2%80%93Traffic%20Impact%2 0Study.pdf, accessed September 26, 2024.
35 City of Beverly Hills Traffic Engineering, Traffic Flow Data, https://www.beverlyhills.org/950/Traffic-Engineering, accessed July 11, 2024.
36 City of Beverly Hills, General Plan Technical Background Report, Appendices, https://www.beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/5516/General-Plan-Technical-Background-Report--- Appendices-PDF, accessed August 6, 2024. 37 City of Los Angeles, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center West Tower Project, Appendix E, Traffic Impact Study https://planning.lacity.gov/eir/CedarSinia/FEIR/Appendices/Appendix%20E%20%E2%80%93Traffic%20Impact%2 0Study.pdf, accessed September 26, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 60 City of Beverly Hills
along Beverly Boulevard (14,100 ADT for eastbound traffic and 16,500 ADT for westbound traffic), North Oakhurst Drive (2,397 ADT), and Alden Drive (3,468 ADT). Thus, the project would not result in a perceptible increase traffic noise level (three dBA) as the project’s operational trip would not double existing traffic volumes. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

It should be noted that the project would use the alleyway for vehicular ingress and egress to the underground parking lot. The alleyway is already used under existing conditions by surrounding residential development for vehicular movement into parking stalls or underground parking garages. Additionally, as previously discussed above, the estimated daily trips from the proposed project would represent a nominal increase in daily traffic compared to existing traffic conditions along Beverly Boulevard and Alden Drive which connect to the private alleyway. As such, the project would not result in a doubling of traffic at the alleyway. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources associated with the project would include the operation of mechanical equipment, parking lot activities, and outdoor gathering areas.

Mechanical Equipment Noise
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units would be installed on the roof of the proposed building. Typically, mechanical equipment noise is approximately 66 dBA at three feet from the source. Based upon the Inverse Square Law, sound levels decrease by six dBA for each doubling of distance from the source. The mechanical equipment (i.e., HVAC units) would be located within a screened mechanical zone located along the northwestern portion of the roof of the proposed structure. The nearest sensitive receptor to the project site is the multi-family residence located approximately 24 feet to the north of the proposed mechanical units (15 feet from the project boundary plus a 9-foot setback). At this distance, the noise levels from a single HVAC unit would be approximately 48 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptor. This analysis assumes approximately 15 five-ton HVAC units (one single five-ton HVAC unit for every 2,500 square feet), which would generate a combined noise level of approximately 60 dBA when operating simultaneously. However, the proposed HVAC units would be shielded by a parapet wall, which would completely shield the HVAC units and break the line-of-sight between the HVAC units and the sensitive receptors to the north. As such, the parapet wall would further attenuate operational noise from the HVAC units by approximately eight dBA. As such, noise levels from the proposed HVAC units would be approximately 52 dBA and would not increase noise levels by more than five dBA over ambient daytime and nighttime noise levels (refer to Table 5, 67.0 LDay and 49.6 dBA LNight). Furthermore, HVAC units currently exist on-site and would not represent a new noise source.

Therefore, the proposed HVAC units would not generate noise levels in excess of five dBA over existing ambient daytime and nighttime noise level in the project vicinity in compliance with Section 5-1-202 of the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance and LAMC Section 111.02. Thus, Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 61 City of Beverly Hills
the proposed project would not result in significant noise impacts from HVAC units to the nearest sensitive receptor, and stationary noise levels from the proposed HVAC units would comply with the City of Beverly Hills Noise Ordinance and LAMC. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Outdoor Gathering Area Noise
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(e)(1), “in no case may a city, county, or city and county apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of [California Government Code Section 65915] subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by this section.”38,39 Additionally, according to Wolmer v. City of Berkeley, for the purposes of the Class 32 CE, “development standards that physically preclude construction of a density-bonus qualifying project [are] inapplicable in order to allow the density bonus[.]”40 As such, for the purposes of this analysis, development standards for the City of Beverly Hills are inapplicable if they preclude the construction of the proposed project (pursuant to State Density Bonus Law). Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court of California ruling in the Make UC a Good Neighbor v. the Regents of the University of California, it was determined that “social noise” (noise created by humans) was not an environmental impact required by CEQA to be analyzed for residential projects. As such, Assembly Bill 1307 was signed into law in September 2023. Assembly Bill 1307 added Public Resources Code Section 21085 which states “For the purposes of this division, for residential projects, the effects of noise generated by the project occupants and their guest on human beings is not a significant effect on the environment”. As such, the analysis shown above was only included for informational purposes.

The project would include an open-air courtyard located centrally on the project site. The openair courtyard is located centrally on the second floor and would be surrounded on all sides by the proposed building. The courtyard has the potential to be accessed by groups of people intermittently for various occasions (e.g., events, other social gatherings, etc.). Noise generated by groups of people (i.e., crowds) is dependent on several factors including vocal effort, impulsiveness, and the random orientation of the crowd members. Crowd noise is estimated at 60 dBA at one meter (3.28 feet) away for raised normal speaking. This noise level would have a +5 dBA adjustment for the impulsiveness of the noise source, and a -3 dBA adjustment for the random orientation of the crowd members. Therefore, crowd noise would be approximately 62 dBA at one meter from the source (i.e., open-air courtyard). 38 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(o)(1) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), “Development standard” includes a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open-space requirement, or a parking ratio that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation. 39 Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(f)(5) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), all density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number. The granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.
40 See Wolmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th, 1329, 1350–1352, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 781.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 62 City of Beverly Hills
At approximately 45 feet (center of the project site to the nearest receptor), crowd noise levels would be approximately 37 dBA. As such, crowd noise from the proposed project would not increase noise levels more than five dBA over ambient daytime and nighttime noise levels (refer to Table 5, 67.0 LDay and 49.6 dBA LNight). As such, noise from crowds gathering at the open-air courtyard would not be audible to the nearby sensitive receptors.

Cumulative Operational
Off-Site Mobile Noise
As discussed above, the project’s potential traffic redistribution noise levels would not exceed the established significance criteria (i.e., three dBA increase and exceedance of 65 dBA CNEL). As discussed above, the proposed project would not double existing traffic volumes along surrounding roadways and was determined to have a less than significant impact. The closest related project is the 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project which would remodel the existing sixunit residential building for the construction a taller multi-family residential development with more dwelling units. The 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project currently on file would construct a total of 25 dwelling units. As the proposed project would construct a total of 52 units, it can be assumed that the 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project would result in a traffic generation ranging from 107 to 142 ADT (approximately half of the proposed project). Even with the addition of the 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project’s projected ADT to the proposed project’s traffic generation, the combined total would not double existing traffic volumes along North Oakhurst Drive, Alden Drive, and Beverly Boulevard. Therefore, the proposed project, in combination with cumulative traffic noise levels, would result in less than significant impacts.

Stationary Noise
Although the proposed multi-family residential building may occur in proximity to other future developments, the proposed development would not involve stationary noise sources that are capable to produce substantial noise above existing ambient noise levels and was determined to result in a less than significant impact. Stationary noise sources associated with the project would include the operation of mechanical equipment (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) and outdoor gathering areas, all of which are typical noise sources that are currently present in any urban setting. Additionally, as noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts from stationary sources would be limited to each of the respective sites and their vicinities. As discussed above, the closest related project is the 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project. It should be noted that the 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project currently on file proposes an 11-story tall structure. As such, HVAC units of the related project would be located further above the existing surrounding buildings, which would help minimize noise. Nevertheless, the 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project would be subjected to BHMC Section 5-1-202, requiring HVAC units’ noise not to exceed five dBA over existing ambient noise level. Thus, compliance with BHMC Section 5-1-202 would ensure that the project and any cumulative development in the project vicinity would not be anticipated to result in a significant cumulative impact. A less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 63 City of Beverly Hills

GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION IMPACTS
Project construction can generate varying degrees of groundborne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and the construction equipment used. Operation of construction equipment generates vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located in the vicinity of the construction site often varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s). The results from vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibration at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Groundborne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures.

The Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual identifies various vibration damage criteria for different building classes. This evaluation uses the Caltrans architectural damage criterion for continuous vibrations at historic and some old buildings of 0.25 inch-per-second (inch/second) PPV. The nearest structure to the project site is 416 North Oakhurst Drive to the north. This structure was built in 1965 and may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources due to the structure being more than 50 years in age. While a historical resources survey has not been prepared for 416 North Oakhurst Drive, as a conservative analysis, 416 North Oakhurst Drive is assumed to be an older building and thus, the threshold of 0.25 inch/second PPV for historic buildings and other old buildings is used. The types of construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance is assessed based on levels of perception, with a PPV of 0.08 inch/second being considered “readily perceptible,” 0.1 inch/second being perceptible and may begin to annoy receptors, 0.2 inch/second being perceptible and may annoy people within buildings, and 0.4 to 0.6 inch/second as “unpleasant”; refer to Table 4. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of human perception for extended periods of time. Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 32 months and would include demolition, grading, building construction, and architectural coatings. Typical vibration produced by construction equipment is illustrated in Table 9, Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.

As indicated in Table 9, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operation would range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch/second PPV at 25 feet from the source of activity. The nearest structure to the project site occupied by sensitive receptors is the existing multi-family residential building (416 North Oakhurst Drive) located approximately 15 feet to the north when measured from the project site property line to the sensitive receptor’s building façade (approximately 15 feet setback). Vibration level during the operation of construction equipment would be approximately 0.0065 inch/second PPV to 0.1915 inch/second PPV at 15 feet; refer to Table 9. As a result, construction groundborne vibration would not be capable of exceeding the

0.25 inch/second PPV significance threshold for vibration to the historic buildings and other old buildings and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 64 City of Beverly Hills
Table 9
Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment Approximate peak particle velocity at 25 feet (inch/second)
Approximate peak particle velocity at 15 feet
(inch/second)1
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.1915
Loaded trucks 0.076 0.1635
Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0065
Notes:

1. Calculated using the following formula:

PPV equip = PPV ref x (25/D)1.1
where: PPV equip = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV ref = the reference vibration level in in/sec from Table 7-4 of the Federal Transit Authority’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines
D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Noise and Vibration Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix A.

It should be noted that the closest structure to the project site (416 North Oakhurst Drive) would not experience vibration velocities that exceed the 0.25 inch/second PPV significance threshold for vibration at historic buildings and other old buildings. Other potential historic buildings in the project vicinity are located further from the project site than 416 North Oakhurst Drive and therefore would be subject to lower vibration levels from construction of the project. As the threshold of 0.25 inch/second PPV for historic buildings would not be exceeded at the nearest structure, a less than significant impact would occur regarding other potential historic buildings nearby.

As indicated in Table 9, vibration velocities from heavy construction equipment operation would be below the 0.2 inch/second factor for human annoyance within buildings. As discussed above,

0.2 inch/second factor is the threshold in which receptors within buildings may begin to experience annoyance due to vibration velocities. However, it should be noted that vibration velocities would only occur when construction equipment are operational closer to the sensitive receptor and would diminish as they move away. Additionally, construction equipment would only be operational for short periods of time, further limiting the overall vibration velocities felt by nearby sensitive receptors. As such, equipment would not be operational at peak vibration velocities for extended periods of time and impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Long-Term Operational Vibration Impacts
The project would involve construction of a multi-family residential building and would not generate groundborne vibration during its operation that could be felt by surrounding uses. The project operation would not involve railroads or substantial heavy truck operations, and therefore would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. Thus, no impact would occur in this regard.

AIRPORT NOISE IMPACTS
The nearest public use airport to the project site is the Santa Monica Municipal Airport which lies approximately 5.2 miles to the southwest of the project site. According to Exhibit 3-4, Year 2018 Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 65 City of Beverly Hills
CNEL Contours Santa Monica Airport, of the City’s Calendar Year 2018 CNEL Contours Santa Monica Municipal Airport, the project site is not located within the Santa Monica Municipal Airport CNEL contours. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact related to airport land use compatibility would occur.

C. AIR QUALITY
The following analysis is based on the Oakhurst Apartments Project – Air Quality Assessment (Air Quality Assessment), prepared by Michael Baker on September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix B, Air Quality Assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Criteria Air Pollutants
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is an odorless, colorless toxic gas that is emitted by mobile and stationary sources as a result of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons or other carbon-based fuels. In cities, automobile exhaust can cause as much as 95 percent of all CO emissions. CO replaces oxygen in the body’s red blood cells. Individuals with a deficient blood supply to the heart, patients with diseases involving heart and blood vessels, fetuses (unborn babies), and patients with chronic hypoxemia (oxygen deficiency) as seen in high altitudes are most susceptible to the adverse effects of CO exposure. People with heart disease are also more susceptible to developing chest pains when exposed to low levels of CO.

Ozone (O3). O3 occurs in two layers of the atmosphere. The layer surrounding the earth’s surface is the troposphere. The troposphere extends approximately 10 miles above ground level, where it meets the second layer, the stratosphere. The stratospheric (the “good” O3 layer) extends upward from about 10 to 30 miles and protects life on earth from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. “Bad” O3 is a photochemical pollutant, and needs volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sunlight to form; therefore, VOCs and NOX are O3 precursors. To reduce O3 concentrations, it is necessary to control the emissions of these O3 precursors. Significant O3 formation generally requires an adequate amount of precursors in the atmosphere and a period of several hours in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight. High O3 concentrations can form over large regions when emissions from motor vehicles and stationary sources are carried hundreds of miles from their origins.

While O3 in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) protects the earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation, high concentrations of ground-level O3 (in the troposphere) can adversely affect the human respiratory system and other tissues. O3 is a strong irritant that can constrict the airways, forcing the respiratory system to work hard to deliver oxygen. Individuals exercising outdoors, children, and people with pre-existing lung disease such as asthma and chronic pulmonary lung disease are considered to be the most susceptible to the health effects of O3. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at elevated levels can result in aggravated respiratory diseases such as emphysema, bronchitis and asthma, shortness of breath, increased susceptibility to infections, Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 66 City of Beverly Hills
inflammation of the lung tissue, increased fatigue, as well as chest pain, dry throat, headache, and nausea.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NOX are a family of highly reactive gases that are a primary precursor to the formation of ground-level O3 and react in the atmosphere to form acid rain. NO2 (often used interchangeably with NOX) is a reddish-brown gas that can cause breathing difficulties at elevated levels. Peak readings of NO2 occur in areas that have a high concentration of combustion sources (e.g., motor vehicle engines, power plants, refineries, and other industrial operations). NO2 can irritate and damage the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory infections such as influenza.

The health effects of short-term exposure are still unclear. However, continued or frequent exposure to NO2 concentrations that are typically much higher than those normally found in the ambient air may increase acute respiratory illnesses in children and increase the incidence of chronic bronchitis and lung irritation. Chronic exposure to NO2 may aggravate eyes and mucus membranes and cause pulmonary dysfunction.

Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter, which is smaller than ten microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations, and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 19, 2003, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted amendments to the statewide 24-hour particulate matter standards based upon requirements set forth in the Children’s Environmental Health Protection Act (SB 25). Exposure to PM10 would result in particles being deposited on the lung surface, causing tissue damage, lung inflammation, and impacting respiratory and cardiovascular health.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with pre-existing cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the EPA, the United States Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the EPA’s new standards.

On January 5, 2005, the EPA published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that designates the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) as a nonattainment area for Federal PM2.5 standards. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted amendments for statewide annual ambient particulate matter air quality standards. These standards were revised/established due to increasing concerns by CARB that previous standards were inadequate, as almost everyone in California is exposed to levels at or above the current State standards during some parts of the year, and the statewide potential for significant health impacts associated with particulate matter exposure was determined to be large and wide-ranging. On July 8, 2016, EPA made a finding that the Basin has attained the 1997 24- hour and annual PM2.5 standards based on 2011-2013 data. However, the Basin remains in nonattainment as the EPA has not determined that California has met the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements for redesignating the Basin nonattainment area to attainment.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 67 City of Beverly Hills
Due to the size of PM2.5, these particles are more likely to be inhaled and deposited in the deeper parts of the lungs. Short-term exposure (up to 24 hours) would result in chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, respiratory symptoms, and premature mortality.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is a colorless, irritating gas with a rotten egg smell; it is formed primarily by the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. Sulfur dioxide is often used interchangeably with SOX. Exposure of a few minutes to low levels of SO2 can result in airway constriction in some asthmatics.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC). VOCs are hydrocarbon compounds (any compound containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms) that exist in the ambient air.

VOCs contribute to the formation of smog through atmospheric photochemical reactions and/or may be toxic. Compounds of carbon (also known as organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; that is, they do not react at the same speed or do not form O3 to the same extent when exposed to photochemical processes. VOCs often have an odor, and some examples include gasoline, alcohol, and the solvents used in paints. Exceptions to the VOC designation include carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate. VOC is not considered a criteria pollutant; however, it is a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant. Due to the role VOC plays in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) uses the terms VOC and ROG (see below) interchangeably. Exposure to VOC vapors would result in eyes, nose, and throat irritation, nausea, headaches, and damage to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system.

Reactive Organic Gases (ROG). Similar to VOCs, ROGs are also precursors in forming O3 and consist of compounds containing methane, ethane, propane, butane, and longer chain hydrocarbons, which are typically the result of some type of combustion/decomposition process.

Smog is formed when ROG and nitrogen oxides react in the presence of sunlight. ROGs are not considered a criteria pollutant; however, they are a precursor to O3, which is a criteria pollutant.

The SCAQMD uses the terms ROG and VOC (see above) interchangeably. Exposure to ROGs would result in the same adverse health effects as VOCs.

South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Thresholds Under CEQA, SCAQMD is an expert agency on air quality within its jurisdiction or impacting its jurisdiction. Under the FCAA, the SCAQMD has adopted Federal attainment plans for ozone (O3) and particulate matter ten microns in diameter or less (PM10). The SCAQMD reviews projects to ensure that they would not: 1) cause or contribute to any new violation of any air quality standard; 2) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any air quality standard; or 3) delay timely attainment of any air quality standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones of any Federal attainment plan.

The CEQA Air Quality Handbook also provides significance thresholds for both construction and operation of projects within the SCAQMD jurisdictional boundaries. If the SCAQMD thresholds are exceeded, a potentially significant impact could result. However, ultimately the lead agency Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 68 City of Beverly Hills
determines the thresholds of significance for impacts. If a project proposes development in excess of the established thresholds, as outlined in Table 10, South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds, a significant air quality impact may occur, and additional analysis is warranted to fully assess the significance of impacts.

Table 10
South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Phase
Pollutant (pounds/day)
ROG/VOC NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55
Operational 55 55 550 150 150 55
ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SOX = sulfur oxides; PM10 = particulate matter up to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter up to 2.5 microns; lbs = pounds Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Air Quality Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix B.

Localized Significance Thresholds
Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, dated July 2008, for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific level proposed projects. The SCAQMD provides the LST lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The SCAQMD recommends that any project over five acres should perform air quality dispersion modeling to assess impacts to nearby sensitive receptors.

Cumulative Emissions Thresholds
The SCAQMD’s 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) was prepared to accommodate growth, meet State and Federal air quality standards, and minimize the fiscal impact that pollution control measures have on the local economy. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, project-related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary. If a project exceeds these emission thresholds, the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook states that the significance of a project’s contribution to cumulative impacts should be determined based on whether the rate of growth in average daily trips exceeds the rate of growth in population.

AIR QUALITY PLAN CONSISTENCY
The City is located within the Basin, which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountains to the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 69 City of Beverly Hills
SCAQMD has jurisdiction in the Basin, which has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both State and Federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of the air pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.

On December 2, 2022, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the 2022 AQMP. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including the latest applicable growth assumptions, updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories. Additionally, the 2022 AQMP utilized information and data from SCAG and its 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020-2045 RTP/SCS). According to the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects must be analyzed for consistency with two main criteria, as discussed below.

Criterion 1:

With respect to the first criterion, SCAQMD methodologies require that an air quality analysis for a project include forecasts of project emissions in relation to contributing to air quality violations and delay of attainment.
a) Would the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations? Since the consistency criteria identified under the first criterion pertain to pollutant concentrations, rather than to total regional emissions, an analysis of a project’s pollutant emissions relative to localized pollutant concentrations is used as the basis for evaluating project consistency. As detailed below, the project’s short-term construction emissions, longterm operational emissions, and localized concentrations of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would result in less than significant impacts during project construction and operations; refer to Table 11, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, and Table 12, Maximum Operational Emissions.

Therefore, the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations. It is noted that because VOCs are not a criteria pollutant, there is no ambient standard or localized threshold for VOCs; due to the role VOC plays in O3 formation, it is classified as a precursor pollutant and only a regional emissions threshold has been established. In conclusion, the project would not cause or contribute to localized air quality violations or delay the attainment of air quality standard or interim emissions reductions specified in the 2022 AQMP.
b) Would the project cause or contribute to new air quality violations? As discussed below in ‘Short-term Construction Emissions Impacts’ and ‘Long-Term Operational Emissions Impacts’, the proposed project would result in emissions that would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds for regional and localized emissions; refer to Table 11 and Table 12. Therefore, the proposed project would not have the potential to cause or affect a violation of the ambient air quality standards.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 70 City of Beverly Hills
c) Would the project delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP?
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts with regard to localized concentrations during project construction and operation. As such, the proposed project would not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or 2022 AQMP emissions reductions.

Criterion 2:

With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with SCAQMD and SCAG air quality policies, it is important to recognize that air quality planning within the Basin focuses on attainment of ambient air quality standards at the earliest feasible date. Projections for achieving air quality goals are based on assumptions regarding population, housing, and growth trends. Thus, the SCAQMD’s second criterion for determining project consistency focuses on whether the project exceeds the assumptions utilized in preparing the forecasts presented in the 2022 AQMP.

Determining whether a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the 2022 AQMP involves the evaluation of the following criteria.
a) Would the project be consistent with the population, housing, and employment growth projections utilized in the preparation of the AQMP?
A project is consistent with the 2022 AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in the development of the 2022 AQMP. In the case of the 2022 AQMP, four sources of data form the basis for the projections of air pollutant emissions: the City of Beverly Hills General Plan, the City of Los Angeles General Plan, SCAG’s regional growth forecast, and the SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. The 2020-2045 RTP/SCS also provides socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population growth.

The project site is zoned R-4 (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills) and (Q)R4-1-O (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles), and the Beverly Hills General Plan Land Use Map and Los Angeles General Plan Land Use Map currently designate the project site as Multi-Family Residential, High Density (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills) and High Medium Residential (within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles). The on-site designations allow for a maximum density of 50 du/acre on the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills and between 55 and 109 du/acre on the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles.

Additionally, the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills allows for a 60-foot maximum building height, and the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles does not designate a maximum building height. The proposed project would involve demolishing the existing residential building and constructing a 52-unit (12 residential units within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills and 40 units within the portion of the lot located in the City of Los Angeles) residential building with common open space amenities and two levels of basement parking on an approximately 0.35-acre (0.10-acre within the portion of the lot located in the City of Beverly Hills and 0.25-acre within the portion of the Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 71 City of Beverly Hills
lot located in the City of Los Angeles) site. The proposed building would be constructed up to a height of eight stories (or 86 feet, 11 inches), including rooftop appurtenances.

The project seek a Density Bonus Permit within the City of Beverly Hills to allow a 50 percent density bonus for projects that include an amount of very low income units equal to 15 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]); and an additional 38.75 percent density bonus for projects that include an amount of very low income units equal to 10 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]).41,42 Within the City of Los Angeles, the project Applicant requests a 35 percent density bonus for projects that include an amount of very low income units equal to 11 percent of the total base density (pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]). Within the City of Beverly Hills, the proposed project would include two very low-income units; one low income unit; and nine market-rate units. With the approval of the requested waiver and Density Bonus Permit, the project would be consistent with the General Plan and R-4 zoning requirements.

The population estimate as of January 1, 2024, is 31,806 persons in the City of Beverly Hills and 3,814,318 persons in the City of Los Angeles. The project would induce population growth directly through the construction of 52 residential units. Based on California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) default value, the project would result in a direct population increase of approximately 154 persons. Based on the population forecast provided in the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS, the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles are estimated to have approximately 35,800 residents and 4,771,300 residents, respectively, by 2045 (the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS horizon year). Therefore, between 2024 and 2045, the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles are expected to have an estimate population growth of 3,994 residents and 956,982 residents, respectively. The project’s 154 residents would represent approximately 3.9 percent or 0.02 percent of the anticipated growth in the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, respectively. Thus, the project would be consistent with the projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. It should be noted that the analysis above is a conservative analysis as the project’s estimated population growth of 154 persons does not take into account the existing residents on the project site. Since SCAQMD has incorporated the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS projections 41 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(f)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include one very low income unit (within the City of Beverly Hills intended to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units (i.e., six base units) and thus, would adequately set-aside at least 15 percent of the total base units for very low income units.

Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for a 50 percent density bonus increase (i.e., three additional units) over the total base units.
42 In accordance with California Government Code Section 65915(v)(2) (Assembly Bill 1287 [2023]), the proposed project would include a second very low income unit (to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]) that would account for approximately 17 percent of the total base units for very low income units and thus, would adequately set-aside at least an additional 10 percent (over the at least 15 percent set-aside to satisfy the criteria for California Government Code Section 65915[f][2]) of the total base units for very low income units. Accordingly, the proposed project is eligible for an additional 38.75 percent stacked density bonus increase (i.e., approximately 2.325 units rounded to three units pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915[q]) over the total base units. Overall, the proposed project qualifies for an 88.75 percent density bonus increase over the total base units, resulting in 12 total residential units (six total base units added with three density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[f][2] and three stacked density bonus units in accordance with California Government Code Section 65915[v][2]).

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 72 City of Beverly Hills
into the 2022 AQMP, it can be concluded that the project would also be consistent with the 2022 AQMP.

Therefore, the project is consistent with the types, intensity, and patterns of land use envisioned for the site vicinity and would be considered consistent with the General Plans upon the approvals on the required waivers and permits. Further, the population, and housing, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Council, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. As the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the 2022 AQMP, it can be concluded that the proposed project would be consistent with the projections.
b) Would the project implement all feasible air quality mitigation measures? As analyzed below under ‘Short-Term Construction Emissions Impacts’ and ‘Long-term Operational Emissions Impacts’, the proposed project would not require mitigation and would result in less than significant air quality impacts. In addition, the project would comply with all applicable SCAQMD rules and regulations, including Rule 403 that requires control of excessive fugitive dust emissions by regular watering or other dust prevention measures, and Rule 1113 that regulates the ROG content of paint. In conclusion, the proposed project meets this AQMP consistency criterion.
c) Would the project be consistent with the land use planning strategies set forth in the AQMP? Land use planning strategies set forth in the 2022 AQMP are primarily based on the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS. The project is located approximately 0.28-mile from multiple bus stops located along Santa Monica Boulevard and Burton Way operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro). Further, the project would provide electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and bicycle parking on-site to promote alternative transportation options. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the actions and strategies of the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS to reduce VMT and related mobile source emissions.

In conclusion, the determination of 2022 AQMP consistency is primarily concerned with the longterm influence of a project on air quality in the Basin. The proposed project would not result in a long-term impact on the region’s ability to meet State and Federal air quality. Also, the proposed project would be consistent with the goals and policies of the 2022 AQMP for control of fugitive dust. As discussed above, the proposed project’s long-term influence would also be consistent with the SCAQMD and SCAG’s goals and policies and is, therefore, considered consistent with the 2022 AQMP.

EMISSIONS IMPACTS
Short-Term Construction Emissions Impacts
The project involves construction activities associated with demolition, grading, building construction, and architectural coating applications. The project would be constructed over approximately 32 months, beginning in approximately October 2025 and ending April 2028.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 73 City of Beverly Hills
Exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment are based on the CalEEMod program defaults. Variables factored into estimating the total construction emissions include the level of activity, length of construction period, number of pieces and types of equipment in use, site characteristics, weather conditions, number of construction personnel, and the amount of materials to be transported on- or off-site. The analysis of daily construction emissions has been prepared using CalEEMod. Refer to Appendix A of the Air Quality Assessment, for the CalEEMod outputs and results. Table 11 presents the anticipated maximum daily short-term construction emissions.

Table 11
Maximum Daily Construction Emissions
Scenario Pollutant (pounds/day) 1,2
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2025) Construction Emissions 1.13 11.3 10.9 0.02 2.21 1.20 Year 2 (2026) Construction Emissions 1.35 10.5 16.1 0.02 2.16 1.16 Year 3 (2027) Construction Emissions 1.29 10.2 15.9 0.02 1.04 0.46 Year 4 (2028) Construction Emissions 8.09 9.77 15.2 0.02 1.01 0.42 Maximum Daily Emissions 8.09 11.3 16.1 0.02 2.21 1.20
SCAQMD Significance Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod version 2022.1. Higher emissions between winter and summer are presented as a conservative analysis.

2. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Air Quality Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix B.

Fugitive Dust Emissions
Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the project area. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, cut-and-fill, and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Fugitive dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, specific operations, and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from demolition, site preparation, and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease upon project completion. It should be noted that most of this material is inert silicates, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health.

Dust (larger than ten microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. PM10 poses a serious health hazard alone or in combination with other pollutants. PM2.5 is mostly produced by mechanical processes. These include automobile tire wear, industrial processes such as cutting and grinding, and re-suspension of particles from the ground or road surfaces by wind and human activities such as construction or agriculture. PM2.5 is mostly derived from combustion sources, such as automobiles, trucks, and Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 74 City of Beverly Hills
other vehicle exhaust, as well as from stationary sources. These particles are either directly emitted or are formed in the atmosphere from the combustion of gases such as NOX and sulfur oxides (SOX) combining with ammonia. PM2.5 components from material in the earth’s crust, such as dust, are also present, with the amount varying in different locations.

Construction activities would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits fugitive dust from creating a nuisance off-site, and Rule 403, which requires that excessive fugitive dust emissions be controlled by regular watering or other dust prevention measures. Adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 would greatly reduce PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations. It should be noted that these estimated reductions were applied in CalEEMod. As depicted in Table 11, total PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds during construction. Thus, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.

Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust
Exhaust emissions (e.g., NOx and CO) from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the project site, emissions produced onsite as the equipment is used, and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site.

As depicted in Table 11, construction equipment and worker vehicle exhaust emissions would be below the established SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, air quality impacts from equipment and vehicle exhaust emissions would be less than significant.

ROG Emissions
In addition to gaseous and particulate emissions, the application of asphalt and surface coatings creates ROG emissions, which are O3 precursors. As required, all architectural coatings for the proposed project structures would comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113. Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices as well as regulates the ROG content of paint. ROG emissions associated with the proposed project would be less than significant; refer to Table 11.

Total Daily Construction Emissions
In accordance with the SCAQMD Guidelines, CalEEMod was utilized to model construction emissions for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5. As indicated in Table 11, criteria pollutant emissions during construction of the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Thus, total construction related air emissions would be less than significant.

Asbestos
Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are human health hazards when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by State, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by CARB in 1986.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 75 City of Beverly Hills
Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Asbestos can be released from serpentinite and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and increase the risk of asbestos-related diseases and cancer (i.e., scarring of lungs [asbestosis], pleural disease, lung cancer, and mesothelioma).. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. According to the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos Report (August 2000), serpentinite and ultramafic rocks are not known to occur within the project area. As such, the project is not subject to naturally occurring asbestos.

Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs). It is possible that the existing on-site structure contains asbestos, otherwise known as asbestos-containing materials (ACMs). According to SCAQMD Rule 1403 requirements, prior to the start of demolition activities, the existing structure must be surveyed for the presence of ACMs by a specialist that is certified by California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) for ACM surveys. If ACMs are determined to be present, Rule 1403 requires that the SCAQMD be notified a minimum of ten days before any demolition activities begin with specific details of all asbestos to be removed, start and completion dates of demolition, work practices and engineering controls to be used to contain the asbestos emissions, estimates on the amount of asbestos to be removed, the name of the waste disposal site where the asbestos would be taken, and the names and addresses of all contractors and transporters that would be involved in the asbestos removal process. Therefore, through adherence to the ACMs removal requirements, detailed in SCAQMD Rule 1403, a less than significant impact pertaining to potential ACMs would result during demolition activities.

Long-Term Operational Emissions Impacts
Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from projectrelated traffic, and emissions from stationary area and energy sources. Emissions associated with each of these sources were calculated and are discussed below. As a conservative analysis, the existing operation emissions are not deducted from the proposed emissions. Operational emissions generated by the proposed project were calculated with CalEEMod and are detailed in Table 12.

Mobile Source Emissions
Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions.

Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, SOX, PM10, and PM2.5 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 [photochemical smog], and wind Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 76 City of Beverly Hills
currents readily transport SOX, PM10, and PM2.5). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Table 12
Maximum Operational Emissions
Scenario Emissions (pounds per day)1
ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Project Summer Emissions
Mobile Source 0.85 0.60 7.15 0.02 1.70 0.44
Energy Source 3.18 1.02 17.3 0.05 1.89 1.82
Area Source 0.01 0.13 0.06 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Total Project Maximum Daily Emissions2 4.04 1.75 24.5 0.07 3.60 2.27 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Project Winter Emissions
Mobile Source 0.84 0.66 6.60 0.02 1.70 0.44
Energy Source 2.71 0.98 13.1 0.05 1.88 1.81
Area Source 0.01 0.13 0.06 <0.01 0.01 0.01
Total Project Maximum Daily Emission2 3.56 1.77 19.7 0.06 3.59 2.26 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Notes:

1. Emissions were calculated using CalEEMod, version 2022.1.

2. The numbers may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Air Quality Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix B.

Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod. Based on CalEEMod defaults, the proposed project would generate approximately 283 daily trips during weekdays, 255 trips on Saturdays, and 213 trips on Sundays. As shown in Table 12, emissions generated by vehicle traffic associated with the project would not exceed established SCAQMD thresholds.

Area Source Emissions
Area source emissions would be generated from consumer products, architectural coating, and landscaping. As shown in Table 12, area source emissions from the proposed project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5.

Energy Source Emissions
The primary use of electricity by the project would be for space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, landscaping equipment, and electronics. Criteria air pollutant emissions from electricity use were not quantified since criteria pollutants emissions occur at the site of the power plant, which is off-site. The project would install high efficiency lighting, appliances, and solar ready roofs. However, as a conservative analysis, these project design features were not accounted for in the modeling. The project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 77 City of Beverly Hills
minimal and not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, SOX, PM10, or PM2.5.; refer to Table 12.

Total Operational Emissions
As shown in Table 12, the total operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Air Quality Health Impacts
Adverse health effects induced by criteria pollutant emissions are highly dependent on a multitude of interconnected variables (e.g., cumulative concentrations, local meteorology and atmospheric conditions, and the number and character of exposed individual [e.g., age, gender]). In particular, ozone precursors, VOCs and NOx, affect air quality on a regional scale. Health effects related to ozone are therefore the product of emissions generated by numerous sources throughout a region.

Existing models have limited sensitivity to small changes in criteria pollutant concentrations, and, as such, translating project-generated criteria pollutants to specific health effects or additional days of nonattainment would produce meaningless results. In other words, the project’s less than significant increases in regional air pollution from criteria air pollutants would have nominal or negligible impacts on human health.

As noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the SCAQMD in Sierra Club et al. v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, the SCAQMD acknowledged it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to quantify health impacts of criteria pollutants for various reasons including modeling both limitations and where in the atmosphere air pollutants interact and form. Further, as noted in the Brief of Amicus Curiae by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) for the same case, SJVAPCD has acknowledged that currently available modeling tools are not equipped to provide a meaningful analysis of the correlation between an individual development project’s air emissions and specific human health impacts.

The SCAQMD acknowledges that health effects quantification from ozone, as an example is correlated with the increases in ambient level of ozone in the air (concentration) that an individual person breathes. SCAQMD’s Brief of Amicus Curiae states that it would take a large amount of additional emissions to cause a modeled increase in ambient ozone levels over the entire region.

The SCAQMD states that based on their own modeling in the SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan, a reduction of 432 tons (864,000 pounds) per day of NOX and a reduction of 187 tons (374,000 pounds) per day of VOCs would reduce ozone levels at highest monitored site by only nine parts per billion. Accordingly, the SCAQMD concludes that it is not currently possible to accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or VOC emissions from relatively small projects (defined as projects with regional scope) due to photochemistry and regional model limitations. Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, since the project would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operational air emissions, the project would have a less than significant impact for air quality health impacts as well.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 78 City of Beverly Hills
Cumulative Impacts
With respect to the proposed project’s construction-related air quality emissions and cumulative Basin-wide conditions, the SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the 2022 AQMP pursuant to FCAA mandates. As such, the proposed project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements and the adopted 2022 AQMP emissions control measures. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with the best available control measures in order to reduce dust so that it does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the proposed project. Per SCAQMD rules and mandates, as well as the CEQA requirement that significant impacts be mitigated to the extent feasible, these same requirements (i.e., Rule 403 compliance, the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, and compliance with adopted 2022 AQMP emissions control measures) would also be imposed on construction projects throughout the Basin, which would include related projects.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, project-related emissions that fall below the established construction and operational thresholds should be considered less than significant unless there is pertinent information to the contrary. As discussed previously, the proposed project would not result in short- or long-term air quality impacts, as emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD adopted construction or operational thresholds. Additionally, adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions on a project-by-project basis. As a result, the proposed project would not contribute a cumulatively considerable net increase of any nonattainment criteria pollutant. Therefore, the project’s incremental construction and operational impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable and impacts are less than significant in this regard.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Sensitive receptors are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. CARB has identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, athletes, and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis.

The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing multi-family residential uses located approximately 15 feet to the north and south, and multi-family residential uses located approximately 25 feet to the east. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction and operations impacts (area sources only). The CO hotspot analysis following the LST analysis addresses localized mobile source impacts.

Localized Significance Thresholds
LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards’ I-4. The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance.

The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized air quality impacts. The Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 79 City of Beverly Hills
SCAQMD provides the LST screening lookup tables for one-, two-, and five-acre projects emitting CO, NOX, PM2.5, or PM10. The LST methodology and associated mass rates are not designed to evaluate localized impacts from mobile sources traveling over the roadways. The project is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 2, Northwest Los Angeles County Coastal.

Construction
The SCAQMD guidance on applying CalEEMod to LSTs specifies the number of acres a particular piece of equipment would likely disturb per day.43 SCAQMD provides LST thresholds for one-, two-, and five-acre site disturbance areas; SCAQMD does not provide LST thresholds for projects over five acres. The project would actively disturb approximately one acre per day during the grading phase of construction. Therefore, the LST thresholds for one-acre were utilized for the construction LST analysis. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the existing multi-family residential uses adjacent to the north and south, approximately 15 feet away. While there are receptors to the east and west that are slightly further away, the following analysis would analyze the impacts on the nearest sensitive receptors to the north and south of the project site as a conservative analysis. These sensitive land uses may be potentially affected by air pollutant emissions generated during on-site construction activities. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. As the nearest sensitive uses are located approximately 15 feet from the project site, the LST values for 25 meters (82 feet) were used. It should be noted that the following analysis would also address localized air quality impacts for receptors to the east and west as they are located within 25 meters (82 feet) of the project site.

Table 13, Localized Significance of Construction Emissions, shows the localized construction-related emissions. It is noted that the localized emissions presented in Table 13 are less than those in Table 11 because localized emissions include only on-site emissions (i.e., from construction equipment and fugitive dust), and do not include off-site emissions (i.e., from worker, vendor, and hauling trips). As seen in Table 13, emissions would not exceed the LSTs for SRA 2. Construction LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard. 43 The number of acres represent the total acres traversed by grading equipment. To properly grade a piece of land, multiple passes with equipment may be required. The disturbance acreage is based on the equipment list and days of the grading phase according to the anticipated maximum number of acres a given piece of equipment can pass over in an 8-hour workday.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 80 City of Beverly Hills
Table 13
Localized Significance of Construction Emissions
Construction Year Emissions (pounds per day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 (2025)1 10.1 10.0 1.84 1.10
Year 2 (2026)2 9.95 12.7 1.80 1.06
Year 3 (2027)3 9.59 12.7 0.30 0.27
Year 4 (2028)3 9.23 12.7 0.26 0.24
Maximum Daily Emissions4 10.1 12.7 1.84 1.10
Localized Significance Threshold5 103.0 562.0 4.0 3.0
Thresholds Exceeded? No No No No
Notes:

1. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during grading phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 1 (2025).

2. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for NOx and CO, and during grading phase for PM10 and PM2.5 in Year 2 (2026).

3. Maximum on-site daily emissions occur during building construction phase for NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 in Year 3 (2027) and Year 4 (2028).

4. Modeling assumptions include compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 which requires the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly; water exposed surfaces three times daily; cover stockpiles with tarps; water all haul roads twice daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

5. The Localized Significance Threshold Mass Rate Screening Criteria was determined using Appendix C of the SCAQMD Final Localized Significant Threshold Methodology guidance document for pollutants NOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Localized Significance Threshold was based on the anticipated daily acreage disturbance for construction (approximately one acre; therefore, the one-acre threshold was used) and Source Receptor Area 2.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Air Quality Assessment, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix B.

Operations
According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to operational activities if the project includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend extended periods queuing and idling at the site (i.e., warehouse or transfer facilities). The proposed residential development does not include such uses. Thus, due to the lack of such emissions, no long-term LST analysis is needed. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
CO emissions are a function of vehicle idling time, meteorological conditions, and traffic flow.

Under certain extreme meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near a congested roadway or intersection may reach unhealthful levels (e.g., adversely affecting residents, school children, hospital patients, and the elderly).

The Basin is designated as an attainment/maintenance area for the federal CO standards and an attainment area under State standards. There has been a decline in CO emissions even though VMT on U.S. urban and rural roads have increased; estimated anthropogenic CO emissions have decreased 68 percent between 1990 and 2014. In 2014, mobile sources accounted for 82 percent of the nation’s total anthropogenic CO emissions. Three major control programs have contributed to the reduced per-vehicle CO emissions, including exhaust standards, cleaner burning fuels, and motor vehicle inspection/maintenance programs.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 81 City of Beverly Hills
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, a potential CO hotspot may occur at any location where the background CO concentration already exceeds 9.0 parts per million (ppm), which is the 8-hour California ambient air quality standard. As previously discussed, the site is in SRA 2. Communities within SRAs are expected to have similar climatology and ambient air pollutant concentrations. The monitoring station closest to the project site is the West Los Angeles-VA Hospital Monitoring Station located at Wilshire Boulevard and Sawtelle, Los Angeles CA 90025, which is located approximately 1.34 miles southeast of the site. The CO measurements collected by this monitoring station is representative of the background CO concentration due to its close proximity to the project. The maximum CO concentration at West Los Angeles-VA Hospital Monitoring station was measured at 1.672 ppm in 2022. Given that the background CO concentration does not currently exceed 9.0 ppm, a CO hotspot would not occur at the project site.

Additionally, a detailed CO analysis was conducted in the Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide (CO Plan) for the SCAQMD’s 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, which is the most recent AQMP that addresses CO concentrations. The locations selected for microscale modeling in the CO Plan are worst-case intersections in the Basin and would likely experience the highest CO concentrations. Thus, CO analysis within the CO Plan is utilized in a comparison to the proposed project since it represents a worst-case scenario with heavy traffic volumes within the Basin.

Of these locations, the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection in Los Angeles experienced the highest CO concentration (4.6 ppm), which is well below the 35-ppm 1-hr CO federal standard. The Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection is one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily trip (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day. The Beverly Boulevard/Oakhurst intersection currently has traffic volumes ranging from 14,100 to 16,500 ADT. Even with the addition of the project’s traffic generation ranging from 213 to 283 ADT, Beverly Boulevard would not experience traffic volumes exceeding 100,000 vehicles per day. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard/Veteran Avenue intersection, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections near the project site due to the comparatively low volume of traffic that would occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, CO hotspot impacts would not be experienced in the project’s vicinity and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

OBJECTIONABLE ODORS
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors. As such, operation of the proposed project would not generate odors that would impact nearby receptors and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 82 City of Beverly Hills
However, certain odors may emanate from construction operations if diesel-powered construction equipment during the construction period for the project. These odors would be limited to the construction period and would disperse quickly; therefore, these odors would not be considered a significant impact. Construction activities associated with the project may generate detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust and architectural coatings. However, constructionrelated odors would be short-term in nature and cease upon project completion. In addition, the project would be required to comply with the California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485, which minimizes the idling time of construction equipment either by shutting it off when not in use or by reducing the time of idling to no more than five minutes. This would further reduce the detectable odors from heavy-duty equipment exhaust. The project would also comply with the SCAQMD Regulation XI, Rule 1113 – Architectural Coating, which would minimize odor impacts from ROG emissions during architectural coating. Any impacts to existing adjacent land uses would be short-term and less than significant in this regard.

D. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The following analysis is based on the Oakhurst Apartments Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum (GHG Memorandum), prepared by Michael Baker, dated September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix C, GHG Memorandum.

California is a substantial contributor of global greenhouse gases (GHGs), emitting over 369.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2020. Methane (CH4) is also an important GHG that potentially contributes to global climate change. GHGs are global in their effect, which is to increase the earth’s ability to absorb heat in the atmosphere. As primary GHGs have a long lifetime in the atmosphere, accumulate over time, and are generally well-mixed, their impact on the atmosphere is mostly independent of the point of emission. Every nation emits GHGs and as a result makes an incremental cumulative contribution to global climate change; therefore, global cooperation will be required to reduce the rate of GHG emissions enough to slow or stop the human-caused increase in average global temperatures and associated changes in climatic conditions.

The cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles have not adopted numerical significance thresholds for assessing impacts related to GHG emissions. Similarly, the SCAQMD, CARB, or any other State or regional agency have not yet adopted a numerical significance threshold for assessing GHG emissions that is applicable to the project. Since there is no applicable adopted or accepted numerical threshold of significance for GHG emissions, the methodology for evaluating the project’s impacts related to GHG emissions focuses on its consistency with statewide, regional, and local plans adopted for the purpose of reducing and/or mitigating GHG emissions. This evaluation of consistency with such plans is the sole basis for determining the significance of the project’s GHG-related impacts on the environment.

Notwithstanding, for informational purposes, the analysis also calculates the amount of GHG emissions that would be attributable to the project using recommended air quality models, as described below. The primary purpose of quantifying the project’s GHG emissions is to satisfy State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), which calls for a good-faith effort to describe and calculate emissions. The estimated emissions inventory is also used to determine if there would be Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 83 City of Beverly Hills
a reduction in the project’s incremental contribution of GHG emissions as a result of compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

GHG EMISSIONS IMPACTS
The proposed project would result in direct and indirect GHG emissions. Direct project-related GHG emissions would include emissions from construction activities, area sources, mobile sources, and refrigerants, while indirect sources would include emission from energy consumption, water demand, and solid waste generation. The most recent version of the CalEEMod, version 2022.1 was used to calculate project-related GHG emissions. Project construction would consist of demolition, grading, building construction, and architectural coating and would occur during a single phase over a period of 32 months, starting in October 2025 and concluding in April 2028.

The project would require approximately 19,000 cubic yards of earthwork export. It should be noted that, as a conservative analysis, operational emissions associated with the existing uses are not deducted from project emissions. Table 14, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions, presents the estimated GHG emissions of the proposed project. CalEEMod outputs are contained within Appendix A of the GHG Memorandum.

Table 14
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Source
CO2 CH4 N2O Refrigerants CO2e
Metric Tons/year1
Direct Emissions
Construction (amortized over 30 years) 28.60 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 28.96 Area Source 16.16 0.02 <0.01 0.00 16.58
Mobile Source 276.41 0.01 0.01 0.34 280.57
Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06
Total Direct Emissions2 321.16 0.03 0.01 0.42 326.17
Indirect Emissions
Energy 115.54 0.01 <0.01 0.00 116.03
Water Demand 4.76 0.06 <0.01 0.00 6.80
Solid Waste 3.43 0.34 <0.01 0.00 12.01
Total Indirect Emissions2 123.73 0.42 <0.01 <0.01 134.84 Total Project-Related Emissions2 461.01 MTCO2e/year Notes:

1. Emissions calculated using California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2022.1 (CalEEMod) computer model.

2. Totals may be slightly off due to rounding.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix C.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 84 City of Beverly Hills
Direct Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
Construction Emissions
Construction GHG emissions are amortized (i.e., total construction emissions divided by the lifetime of the project, assumed to be 30 years),44 then added to the operational emissions. As seen in Table 14, construction of the proposed project would result in a total of 28.96 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 30 years. This would represent a total of approximately 869 MTCO2e from all construction activities.

Area Source
Area source emissions were calculated using CalEEMod and project-specific land use data.

Project-related area sources include exhaust emissions from landscape maintenance equipment, such as lawnmowers, shedders/grinders, blowers, trimmers, chain saws, and hedge trimmers used to maintain the landscaping of the site. As noted in Table 14, the proposed project would result in 16.58 MTCO2e per year of area source GHG emissions.

Mobile Source Emissions
Based on CalEEMod defaults, the project would generate approximately 283 daily trips during weekdays, 255 trips on Saturdays, and 213 trips on Sundays, which equates to approximately 280.57 MTCO2e per year of mobile source-generated GHG emissions as modeled in CalEEMod; refer to Table 14.

Refrigerants
Refrigerants are substances used in equipment for air conditioning and refrigeration. Most of the refrigerants used today are hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HFCs) or blends thereof, which can have high global warming potential (GWP) values. All equipment that uses refrigerants has a charge size (i.e., quantity of refrigerant the equipment contains), and an operational refrigerant leak rate, and each refrigerant has a GWP that is specific to that refrigerant. CalEEMod quantifies refrigerant emissions from leaks during regular operation and routine servicing over the equipment lifetime, and then derives average annual emissions from the lifetime estimate. Project’s operation primarily includes air conditioning and refrigeration on-site. The project would directly result in

0.06 MTCO2e per year from refrigerants; refer to Table 14. 44 In accordance with the SCAQMD guidance, projected GHGs from construction have been quantified and amortized over 30 years, which is the number of years considered to represent the life of the project. The amortized construction emissions are added to the annual average operational emissions.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 85 City of Beverly Hills
Indirect Project-Related Source of Greenhouse Gases
Energy Consumption
Energy consumption emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod model and project-specific land use data. Electricity and natural gas would be provided to the project site via the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). The project would install high efficiency lighting, appliances, and solar ready roofs. However, as a conservative analysis, these project design features were not accounted for in the modeling. The project would indirectly result in 116.03 MTCO2e per year of GHG emissions due to energy consumption; refer to Table 14.

Water Demand
The proposed project’s operations would result in a demand of approximately 1.95 million gallons of water per year; refer to Appendix A of the GHG Memorandum. Emissions from indirect energy impacts due to water supply would result in 6.80 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 14.

Solid Waste
Solid waste associated with operations of the proposed project would result in 12.01 MTCO2e per year; refer to Table 14.

Total Project-Related Sources of Greenhouse Gases
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4(a), and as shown in Table 14, the total amount of proposed project-related GHG emissions from direct and indirect sources combined would total 461.01 MTCO2e per year. The analysis below provides a discussion of the project’s compliance with regulations and requirements adopted to implement plans for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions.

GHG PLAN CONSISTENCY
SCAG 2020-2045 RTP/SCS Consistency
The latest 2024-2050 RTP/SCS was adopted on April 4, 2024. However, CARB concluded that the technical methodology SCAG used to quantify the GHG emission reductions for the 2024- 2050 RTP/SCS does not operate accurately. SCAG resubmitted the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Submittal Package for CARB’s review in June 2024. CARB will have 60 business days to evaluate it and make its determination. Review by CARB is limited to acceptance or rejection of SCAG’s determination that its SCS would, if implemented, achieve the region’s GHG emission reduction target. If CARB rejects SCAG’s determination of meeting the GHG emission target, SCAG would need to revise the SCS or adopt an alternative planning strategy demonstrating the ability to achieve the target. As such, until CARB makes the decision, 2024- Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 86 City of Beverly Hills
2050 RTP/SCS is not a fully adopted document and is potentially subject to further updates, especially from the GHG reduction perspective of the methods and assumptions of the calculation of Auto Operating Costs (AOC), induced travel, electric vehicle incentives, job center parking and parking deregulation, off-model strategy assumptions, and emissions factors. As CARB has not made the decision at the time of preparation of this document, the consistency analysis relies upon the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. Table 15¸ Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS shows the project’s consistency with these five strategies found within the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with the GHG emission reduction strategies contained in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS.

Table 15
Consistency with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
Focus Growth Near Destinations and Mobility Options
• Emphasize land use patterns that
facilitate multimodal access to work,
educational and other destinations.

Center
Focused
Placemaking,
Priority
Growth Areas
(PGA), Job
Centers, High
Quality
Transit Areas
(HQTAs),
Transit
Priority Areas
(TPA),
Neighborhood
Mobility Areas
(NMAs),
Livable
Corridors,
Spheres of
Influence
(SOIs), Green
Region, Urban
Greening.

Consistent. The proposed project would construct a multi-family residential development near existing residential and commercial developments.

Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) are defined in the 0.5-mile radius around an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a High-Quality Transit Corridor (HQTC). A HQTC is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service frequency of 15 minutes (or less) during peak commute hours. The project is located within an HQTC and TPA.
1,2 Specifically, the closest bus
stop is the Burton/Doheny bus stop, approximately 1,500 feet to the south. As such, the project site is within an area that is adequately serviced by public transit. The project would also include short- and long-term bicycle parking which would encourage residents and visitors to utilize biking as an alternative mode of transportation.

Further, the project site would be a pedestrian friendly development as it is located within walking distances to existing grocery stores (Ralphs and Bristol Farm) which are less than 0.1 miles to the northeast, and existing commercial retails (Beverly Center Shopping Mall) less than 0.7 miles to the east. As such, the project would be consistent with this strategy.
• Focus on a regional jobs/housing
balance to reduce commute times and
distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along
center-focused main streets.

Consistent. The proposed project is a residential development that would replace the existing 15-unit multi-family residential building with a new residential building comprising of 52 dwelling units (12 units in the City of Beverly Hills and 40 units in the City of Los Angeles). As such, the proposed project would increase the overall regional housing availability. The project is not a retail or commercial development and as such, would not directly Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 87 City of Beverly Hills
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
generate new job opportunities. Nevertheless, residents of the proposed project would be located near Beverly Boulevard, a major street in the City of Beverly Hills. As such, the project would be in close proximity to job opportunities that may be available from developments near this major street, and is consistent with this strategy.
• Plan for growth near transit
investments and support
implementation of first/last mile
strategies.

Consistent. As discussed, the proposed project is located within a TPA and HQTC. Specifically, the closest bus stop is the Burton/Doheny bus stop, approximately 1,500 feet to the south.

Additionally, the proposed project would include bicycle parking along Oakhurst Drive. This would encourage cycling as another mode of transportation. Additionally, the project is located within walking distances to existing destinations. The close proximity to existing destinations and the project’s features (reduced parking, proximity to public transit, and bicycle parking) would encourage residents and guests to use public transportation. As such, the project is consistent with this strategy.
• Promote the redevelopment of
underperforming retail developments
and other outmoded nonresidential
uses.

Not Applicable. The proposed project is not a retail or nonresidential development and as such, this strategy would not be applicable.
• Prioritize infill and redevelopment of
underutilized land to accommodate
new growth, increase amenities and
connectivity in existing
neighborhoods.

Consistent. The proposed project would replace the existing multi-family residential building comprising of 15 dwelling units with a new residential building comprising of 52 dwelling units (12 units in the City of Beverly Hills and 40 units in the City of Los Angeles). As such, the proposed project would redevelop the land to accommodate new population growth within both cities. As such, the project is consistent with this strategy.
• Encourage design and transportation
options that reduce the reliance on
and number of solo car trips (this
could include mixed uses or locating
and orienting close to existing
destinations).

Consistent. As discussed in the “right size” parking requirements consistency analysis below, the project would be subjected to California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1) which would require fewer parking spaces compared to the parking
requirements in the City of Beverly Hills and City of Los Angeles.

The reduction in parking spaces would reduce the overall number of solo car trips and promote the use of alternative modes of transportation. Specifically, the proposed project would include short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces which would encourage residents and visitors to utilize biking as an alternative mode of transportation. Additionally, the project is also located less than one mile from multiple bus stops serviced by the Los Angeles Metro. The project site is also located within walking distances to existing destinations such as grocery stores (Ralphs and Bristol Farms) located less than 0.1 miles to the northeast and the Beverly Center Shopping Mall less than 0.7 miles to the east. As such, the proposed project would include features that would reduce solo car trips and would be located near existing Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 88 City of Beverly Hills
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
destinations (food, retail, and commercial destinations, and is consistent with this strategy.
• Identify ways to “right size” parking
requirements and promote alternative
parking strategies (e.g. shared
parking or smart parking).

Consistent. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1), the maximum parking ratio that may be required of a qualifying density bonus project is one on-site parking space for each zero to one bedroom unit, one and one-half on-site parking spaces for each two- to three-bedroom unit, and two and one-half parking spaces for each four- or more bedroom unit. Within the City of Beverly Hills, the building would include: two one-bedroom units; nine two-bedroom units; and one three-bedroom unit. As such, 17 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. The proposed project would accommodate two basement parking levels, including 18 standard parking spaces in the City of Beverly Hills.

Similarly, the portion of the project within the City of Los Angeles is subjected to California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1).

Within the City of Los Angeles, the building would include: four studio units; seven one-bedroom units; and 29 two-bedroom units. As such, 55 parking spaces would be required for the proposed project. The proposed project would accommodate two levels of basement parking levels and parking at grade
comprising of 57 parking spaces. As such, the project would be consistent with parking requirements in the City of Beverly Hills and City of Los Angeles.

Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate affordable
housing and prevent displacement.

PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, NMA,
TPAs, Livable
Corridors,
Green Region,
Urban
Greening.

Not Applicable. The proposed project would not displace existing affordable housing. As such, this strategy is not applicable.

However, it should be noted that the proposed project would increase the regional housing supply and affordable housing availability. Under Senate Bill 330, cities are not permitted to replace existing residential dwelling units unless a proposed project would replace each demolished unit with a one-to-one ratio. Additionally, replacement units must be included in the proposed housing development. The proposed project would replace the existing 15-unit multi-family building with a new residential building comprising of 52 dwelling units (12 units in the City of Beverly Hills and 40 units in the City of Los Angeles). As such, the project is consistent with Senate Bill 330. Additionally, of the 52 proposed dwelling units, the proposed project would feature three affordable housing units (two very low income units and one low income unit) within the City of Beverly Hills and five very low income units and two low income units in the City of Los Angeles.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 89 City of Beverly Hills
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
• Identify funding opportunities for new
workforce and affordable housing
development.

Not Applicable. This strategy only pertains to governmental agencies and would not be applicable to development projects.

As such, this strategy would not be applicable.
• Create incentives and reduce
regulatory barriers for building context
sensitive accessory dwelling units to
increase housing supply.

Not Applicable. The proposed project does not include accessory dwelling units. As such, this strategy is not applicable.

Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission technologies
such as neighborhood electric
vehicles, shared rides hailing, car
sharing, bike sharing and scooters by
providing supportive and safe
infrastructure such as dedicated
lanes, charging and parking/drop-off
space.

HQTA, TPAs,
NMA, Livable
Corridors.

Consistent. The proposed project would include low emission features such as the installation of EV chargers, bicycle parking, and reduced parking. Incorporation of the features and
technology would reduce overall GHG emissions from
transportation related emissions. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with this strategy.
• Improve access to services through
technology—such as telework and
telemedicine as well as other
incentives such as a “mobility wallet,”
an app-based system for storing
transit and other multi-modal
payments.

Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support on technology which may reduce VMT or allow for easier access to transportation options.
• Identify ways to incorporate “micropower grids” in communities, for example solar energy, hydrogen fuel
cell power storage and power
generation
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support on promoting “micro-power grids”.

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to
support local sustainable
development implementation projects
that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions
Center
Focused
Placemaking,
PGA, Job
Centers,
HQTAs, TPA,
NMAs, Livable
Corridors,
SOIs, Green
Region, Urban
Greening.

Not Applicable. While this strategy is focused on local governments, agencies, and organizations’ actions to support the implementation of sustainability policies and would not apply to the project specifically, it is acknowledged that the project would participate in opportunities provided by these agencies that would support sustainability. For example, the proposed project may participate in programs and rebates provided by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power that promotes sustainability. As such, the project is consistent with this strategy.
• Support statewide legislation that
reduces barriers to new construction
and that incentivizes development
near transit corridors and stations
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support on statewide legislation.
• Support local jurisdictions in the
establishment of Enhanced
Infrastructure Financing Districts
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support on statewide legislation.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 90 City of Beverly Hills
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
(EIFDs), Community Revitalization
and Investment Authorities (CRIAs),
or other tax increment or value
capture tools to finance sustainable
infrastructure and development
projects, including parks and open
space
• Work with local jurisdictions/
communities to identify opportunities
and assess barriers to implement
sustainability strategies
Consistent. The project would work alongside the City of Beverly Hills, City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in implementing required sustainability programs and/or optional rebate programs. As such, the project is consistent with this strategy.
• Enhance partnerships with other
planning organizations to promote
resources and best practices in the
SCAG region
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support with local planning organizations.
• Continue to support long range
planning efforts by local jurisdictions
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support with local planning organizations.

Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local climate
adaptation and hazard mitigation
plans, as well as project
implementation that improves
community resiliency to climate
change and natural hazards
Green Region,
Urban
Greening,
Greenbelts
and
Community
Separators.

Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s support with local planning organizations.
• Support local policies for renewable
energy production, reduction of urban
heat islands and carbon sequestration
Consistent. As discussed above, the proposed project would have a solar ready roof for the future installation of photovoltaic panels for on-site renewable energy production. Additionally, the proposed project would include landscaping along the perimeter of the project site which would reduce the urban heat island effect.

Specifically, the project would also incorporate 1,762 square feet of landscaping, including trees and shrubs. As such, the project is consistent with this strategy
• Integrate local food production into the
regional landscape
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on incorporation of food production (community gardens).
• Promote more resource efficient
development focused on
conservation, recycling and
reclamation
Consistent. As discussed, the proposed project would incorporate a variety of project design features focused on sustainability and conservation such as low flow water fixtures, high efficiency lighting, and energy efficient appliances. The project would also comply with local and regional regulations for recycling and composting; refer to Table 3. As such, the project is consistent with this strategy.
• Preserve, enhance and restore
regional wildlife connectivity
Not Applicable. The project is located within an urbanized and built environment.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 91 City of Beverly Hills
Reduction Strategy
Applicable
Land Use
Tools
Project Consistency Analysis
• Reduce consumption of resource
areas, including agricultural land
Not Applicable. The project is located within an urbanized and built environment. Project development would not remove any agricultural land.
• Identify ways to improve access to
public park space
Not Applicable. This strategy focuses on SCAG’s cooperation with local agencies in supporting accessibility public parks.

Note:

1. Southern California Association of Governments, High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) 2045 – SCAG Region, https://gisdatascag.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/43e6fef395d041c09deaeb369a513ca1/explore?location=34.066267%2C-118.377301%2C13.89, accessed August 2, 2024.

2. Southern California Association of Governments, 2045 Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) – SCAG Region, https://hub.scag.ca.gov/datasets/c6b4717526c247528d868c2fc046894d/explore?location=34.078422%2C-118.386281%2C16.00, accessed August 2, 2024.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix C.

Consistency with the 2022 California Air Resource Board Scoping Plan The CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan identifies reduction measures necessary to achieve the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 or earlier. Actions that reduce GHG emissions are identified for each Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 [AB 32 (2006)]) inventory sector. Provided in Table 16, Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan, is an evaluation of applicable reduction actions/strategies by emissions source category to determine how the project would be consistent with or exceed reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan.

Table 16
Consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Smart Growth / Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT)
Reduce VMT per capita to 25% below
2019 levels by 2030, and 30% below
2019 levels by 2045
Consistent. The project would include various design features that would promote the reduction of overall VMT generated from the proposed development. Such features include the installation of bicycle parking, reduced parking, close proximity to existing destinations, and proximity to public transportation. As discussed above, the proposed project is located within a TPA and HQTC. As such, the bus stops near the project site are adequately serviced and would be a reliable and consistent mode of transportation. Additionally, the project would be a qualifying density bonus project and pursuant of California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1), would have reduced parking requirements compared to the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. The reduction in parking spots would encourage carpooling which would lower overall VMT. The project would also install short- and long-term bicycle parking spots which would encourage residents and guests to utilize cycling as an alternative mode of transportation. Lastly, the project is located within walking distances to existing destinations that residents may potentially visit, such as grocery stores (Ralphs and Bristol Farms) located less than 0.1-mile to the northeast and commercial and retail destinations (Beverly Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 92 City of Beverly Hills
Actions and Strategies Project Consistency Analysis
Center Shopping Mall) located less than 0.7-mile to the east. As such, the project’s close proximity to existing public transit and destinations and design features (reduced parking and bicycle facilities)would reduce overall VMT. As such, the project would be consistent with this action.

New Residential and Commercial Buildings
All electric appliances beginning 2026
(residential) and 2029 (commercial),
contributing to 6 million heat pumps
installed statewide by 2030
Not Applicable. The project is expected to consist of natural gas heating and/or cooking on-site. It should be noted that the project’s building permit would be applied before 2026 and as such, is before the date required by this action. Thus, this action would not be applicable to the proposed project.

Additionally, the City of Beverly Hills has not adopted an ordinance or program limiting the use of natural gas for on-site cooking and/or heating. Additionally, the City of Beverly Hills also does not have any policy that requires an all electric development. However, if such policies are adopted in the future, the project would comply with the applicable goals or policies limiting the use of natural gas equipment in the future and/or requiring all electric developments. Furthermore, the project would install high efficiency lighting which would reduce energy consumption. As such, the project would be consistent with this action.

Construction Equipment
Achieve 25% of energy demand
electrified by 2030 and 75% electrified by
2045
Not Applicable. It should be noted that project construction would be completed prior to 2030. As such, the project would not be required to have 25 percent of construction equipment energy demand electrified. Additionally,, the City of Beverly Hills has not adopted an ordinance or program requiring electricitypowered construction equipment which would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan. However, if such programs or ordinance is adopted in the future, the project would be required to comply with the applicable goals or policies requiring the use of electric construction equipment in the future.

Non-combustion Methane Emissions
Divert 75% of organic waste from landfills
by 2025
Consistent. Senate Bill 1383 (SB 1383) establishes targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste to a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law establishes an additional target that not less than 20 percent of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. The project would comply with local and regional regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025 pursuant to SB 1383. As such, the project would be consistent with this action Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix C.

Beverly Hills General Plan and Sustainable City Plan Consistency The City of Beverly Hills adopted the Beverly Hills Sustainable City Plan (SCP), which contains goals intended to support sustainable development within the City. Implementation of the SCP would contribute to a reduction in the City’s overall GHG emissions. Furthermore, the General Plan contains several goals related to GHG emission reduction. Table 17, Consistency with Applicable Goals and Policies of the Beverly Hills General Plan and Sustainable City Plan, compares the proposed project to applicable policies from the City of Beverly Hills General Plan and SCP.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 93 City of Beverly Hills
Table 17
Consistency with Applicable Goals and Policies
of the Beverly Hills General Plan and Sustainable City Plan Goal/Policy Project Consistency
City of Beverly Hills General Plan
Land Use Element
Goal LU 14 - Environmental Sustainability and Carbon
Footprint: Land uses and built form that are
environmentally sustainable by minimizing consumption of scarce resources, pollution, greenhouse gas emissions,
wastes, and exposure of residents and visitors to toxics and hazards.

Consistent. The City of Beverly Hills adopted the CALGreen Code as BHMC Section 9-1-1101, Adoption of the California Green Building Standards Code, which requires new buildings to implement sustainability techniques related to site development, indoor/outdoor water use, material conservation, etc. As such, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in
accordance with the sustainability techniques as outlined in the CALGreen Code and BHMC, in addition to those outlined in the 2022 Title 24 Standards. The project would also install energy efficient lighting and appliances, and have an area on the rooftop reserved for future solar panel use. Additionally, pursuant to Senate Bill 1383, the project would comply with local and regional regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025.

As such, the project would be consistent with the goal.

Open Space Element
Goal OS 7 (Improved Air Quality): Improved health and
sustainability of the community through improved regional air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions that
contribute to climate change.

Objective OS 7.9: Work with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) and the SCAQMD to comply
with statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals as
established in AB 32 and other subsequent legislation.

Consistent. Refer to Table 16 for a project consistency analysis with the 2022 Scoping Plan, as well as the discussion under Land Use Element Goal LU-14, above. Additionally, the project would incorporate features which encourages conservation and
sustainability such as low flow fixtures, high efficiency lighting, and energy efficient appliances. The utilization of these features would reduce GHG emissions (production of electricity off-site and less energy used to obtain water off-site).. As such, the project would be consistent with the goal.

City of Beverly Hills Sustainable City Plan
Climate Change and Air Quality
Goal 2: Combat climate change and improve air quality.

Objective 2: Reduce and encourage the reduction of
air emissions in City operations and Citywide.

Policy 2.2: Minimize mobile source emissions
from on and off-road (construction) vehicles.

Consistent. Pursuant of the BHMC Section 10-3-2816, two parking spaces be provided for each one-bedroom unit, two and one-half parking spaces for each two-bedroom unit, and three parking spaces for each three- or four-bedroom units. However, as the project is a qualifying density bonus project, the maximum parking ratios that may be required is one on-site parking space for each zero to one bedroom unit, one and one-half on-site parking spaces for each two- to three-bedroom unit, and two and one-half parking spaces for each four or more bedroom unit pursuant of California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1). The vehicular parking ratio pursuant of California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1) would result in reduced parking than what is required by the City of Beverly Hills. As such, the reduced parking would encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and would reduce vehicular trips. The proposed project’s close proximity to existing transit stops and potential destinations (grocery stores, retail, and commercial destinations) and installation of bicycle parking would encourage residents and guests to utilize alternative modes of transportation (public transit, walking, cycling). As such, the project would be consistent with the goal.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 94 City of Beverly Hills
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
Energy
Goal 3: Encourage the use of energy in a clean and efficient manner and the use of renewable energy sources.

Objective 3: Reduce the use of non-renewable fuels
through efficiency and an increase in use of renewable
energy.

Policy 3.2: Maximize the use of renewable energy
generating systems and other energy efficient
technologies on City, other agency, residential,
and commercial buildings.

Policy 3.3: Minimize the use of nonrenewable,
polluting transportation fuels.

Consistent. The proposed project would comply with the 2022 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and construct environmentally-sensitive architecture and building systems. The project would include energy-efficient lighting and appliances. The project would also provide bicycle parking and electrical vehicle charging spaces that would promote alternative modes of transportation that do not rely on non-renewable polluting transportation fuels. The project would be consistent with the goal.

Land Use, Transportation, and Open Space
Goal 5: Foster an energy-efficient, walkable community that provides ample goods, services, and benefits to all
residents while respecting the local environment.

Objective 5: Encourage buildings, infrastructure, parks and open space that better the quality of life for all who live, work and play in the City.

Policy 5.1: Implement land-use and transportation
programs that encourage new buildings, re-use of
buildings, infrastructure, parks and open space
that improve the quality of life for all who live, work and play in the City.

Policy 5.2: Promote a diversity of buildings,
infrastructure, parks, open space and uses to
support a variety of businesses and improve the
quality-of-life for residents at all income levels.

Policy 5.3: Reduce traffic congestion while
improving the pedestrian experience on roadways
and encourage alternative forms of travel,
especially to parks.

Consistent. The proposed infill residential development is in an urbanized area within close proximity to existing bus stops operated by LA Metro. As discussed above, the project is located within a TPA and HQTC. Thus, the project would be adequately served by public transit and would represent a reliable and consistent mode of transportation. Additionally, the project site is located within walking distance to existing destinations such as grocery stores, retail, and commercial uses. Additionally, the project would provide bicycle storage spaces which would encourage cycling as an alternative modes of travel. Lastly, the reduce parking requirement pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1) compared to what is required by the City of Beverly Hills would encourage residents to utilize the modes of transportation listed above. Residents of the proposed project would be able to reach numerous destinations via various modes of transportation, including biking, walking, and taking public transit. The proposed project would also provide landscaped courtyard on the second floor. As such, the project would foster an energy-efficient, walkable community and would be consistent with the goal.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix C.

Los Angeles General Plan Consistency
The City of Los Angeles General Plan contains several goals related to GHG emission reduction.

L.A.’s Green New Deal contains a series of targets and strategies across different city sectors and departments to reduce GHG emissions. It should be noted that all strategies included in L.A.’s Green New Deal are at the city level and do not apply to individual development projects, and therefore the project’s consistency with L.A.’s Green New Deal is not analyzed. Table 18, Consistency with Applicable Goals and Policies of the City of Los Angeles General Plan, compares the proposed project to applicable policies from the City of Los Angeles General Plan. It should be noted that the City of Beverly Hill’s decision on approving the proposed project is based on its consistency with the City of Beverly Hill’s General Plan, Sustainable City Plan, and applicable ordinances. The project’s consistency to the City of Los Angeles General Plan is provided for informational purposes only.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 95 City of Beverly Hills
Table 18
Consistency with Applicable Goals and Policies
of the City of Los Angeles General Plan
Goal/Policy Project Consistency
City of Los Angeles General Plan
Air Quality Element
Goal 2: Less reliance on single-occupant vehicles with fewer commute and non-work trips.

Objective 2.2: It is the objective of the City of Los Angeles to increase vehicle occupancy for non-work trips by creating disincentives for single passenger vehicles, and incentives for high occupancy vehicles.

Policy 2.2.1: Discourage single-occupant vehicle use
through a variety of measures such as market incentive
strategies, mode-shift incentives, trip reduction plans and ridesharing subsidies.

Policy 2.2.2: Encourage multi-occupant vehicle travel
and discourage single-occupant vehicle travel by
instituting parking management practices.

Consistent. Pursuant to LAMC Section 12.22.25(d), two options are provided regarding parking requirements for density bonus projects. Option 1 requires that one parking spaces be provided for each zero to one bedroom unit, two parking spaces for each two or three-bedroom units, and two and one-half parking spaces for each four- or more bedroom unit. However, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65915(p)(1) the maximum parking ratio that may be required of a qualifying density bonus project is one on-site parking space for each zero to one bedroom unit, one and one-half on-site parking spaces for each two- to three-bedroom unit, and two and one-half parking spaces for each four- or more bedroom unit. As such, the proposed project would have less parking than what is required in the LAMC. The reduction in parking would discourage single-occupant vehicle travel. As previously discussed, the project is located within a TPA and HQTC, which would encourage public transit travel. As such, the project would be consistent with the goal.

Air Quality Element
Goal 4: Minimal impact of existing land use patterns and future land use development on air quality by addressing the
relationship between land use, transportation, and air quality.

Objective 4.2: It is the objective of the City of Los Angeles to reduce vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled associated with land use patterns.

Policy 4.2.3: Ensure that new development is compatible with pedestrians, bicycles, transit, and alternative fuel vehicles.

Policy 4.2.5: Emphasize trip reduction, alternative transit and congestion management measures for discretionary
projects.

Consistent. The project would include electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, EV capable spaces, and bicycle parking spaces.

The project is also located less than one mile from multiple bus stops serviced by the LA Metro. As such, the project is in close proximity to public transit and includes features that would promote alternative modes of transportation that would reduce vehicle trips and VMT. As such, the project would be consistent with the goal.

Air Quality Element
Goal 5: Energy efficiency through land use and transportation planning, the use of renewable resources and less polluting fuels, and the implementation of conservation measures including passive methods such as site orientation and tree planting.

Objective 5.1: It is the objective of the City of Los Angeles to increase energy efficiency of City facilities and private developments.

Policy 5.1.2: Effect a reduction in energy consumption and shift to non-polluting sources of energy in its buildings and operations.

Policy 5.1.4: Reduce energy consumption and associated
air emissions by encouraging waste reduction and
recycling.

Consistent. The City of Los Angeles adopted the CalGreen Code as Los Angeles Green Building Code (LAGBC), which requires new buildings to implement sustainability techniques related to site development, indoor/outdoor water use, material conservation, etc.

As such, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the sustainability techniques as outlined in the CALGreen Code and LAGBC, in addition to those outlined in the 2022 Title 24 Standards. The project would also install energy efficient lighting and appliances, and have an area on the rooftop reserved for future solar panel use. The project would also comply with local and regional regulations and recycle or compost 75 percent of waste by 2025 pursuant to Senate Bill 1383. As such, the project would be consistent with the goal.

Source: Michael Baker International, Oakhurst Apartments Project – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Memorandum, September 27, 2024; refer to Appendix C.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 96 City of Beverly Hills
Conclusion
In summary, the plan consistency analysis provided above demonstrates that the proposed project complies with or exceeds the plans, policies, regulations and GHG reduction actions/strategies outlined in the SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS, CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, City of Beverly Hills General Plan, City of Beverly Hills Sustainable City Plan, and City of Los Angeles General Plan.

Therefore, the project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing emissions of GHGs, and project-specific impacts regarding GHG emissions would be less than significant.

E. WATER QUALITY
As part of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has established regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, including those generated during construction activities. The SWRCB works in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore water quality. The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles RWQCB. The Los Angeles RWQCB addresses the obligation to implement the CWA by periodically issuing permits for the County and its incorporated cities, including the cities of Beverly Hills and Los Angeles (i.e., neighborhood of Beverly Grove).

In July 2021, the Los Angeles RWQCB reissued the Regional Phase 1 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit (Regional Phase 1 MS4 Permit) as Order R4-2021-0105 (NPDES Permit No. CAS004004), Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties.
45 The City Beverly Hills and City of Los Angeles are both permittees in the Regional Phase 1 MS4 Permit and also requires adherence to the CWA requirements.

The project site is developed with an existing multi-family residential building and associated parking garages, and contains limited pervious surfaces (i.e., landscaping). Excess stormwater runoff currently drains to existing drainage facilities within the City of Beverly Hills (to the east) and City of Los Angeles (to the west). Development of the proposed project could change the permeability or hydrology of the site. As discussed in Class 32 Exemption Criteria Analysis’ Criterion (a), above, the proposed project would include ornamental landscaping, particularly 45 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, Regional Phase 1 MS4 NPDES Permit, Order No.

R4-2021-0105, NPDES Permit No. CAS004004, Waste Discharge Requirements And National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, July 23, 2021,
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/public_docs/2022/1_Ord er(ACC-RPSignature).pdf, accessed February 28, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 97 City of Beverly Hills
along the western perimeter of the building and within the second-floor courtyard with a variety of ornamental species consisting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover, all of which would be contained in raised planters or at ground level. However, given the existing site is mostly impervious surfaces (underlain by two levels of impervious basement parking), the proposed project would drain excess stormwater runoff to existing drainage facilities within the City of Beverly Hills and City of Los Angeles (similar to existing conditions). Therefore, the project would be similar to existing development in regard to stormwater management.

Nevertheless, the proposed project would be subject to the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requirements. Specifically, the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requirements are incorporated into BHMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 5, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control. Specifically, Section 9-4-508, Planning and Land Development Program Requirements for New Development and Redevelopment; Low Impact Development, requires redevelopment projects, such as the proposed project, to control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing impervious surface areas and/or controlling runoff through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit.

Compliance with the City’s Low Impact Development Ordinance would be required as a condition of approval and would ensure water quality standards are met during project construction and operations. In conclusion, the project would not result in any significant effects relating to water quality.

CRITERION (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The proposed project would demolish an approximately 32,400-gross square foot multi-family residential building and construct an approximately 54,619-gross square foot (17,050 square feet within the City of Beverly Hills and 37,569 square feet within the City of Los Angeles) multi-family residential (apartment) building (up to eight stories in height), landscaping, open space, and two levels of basement parking. Thus, the proposed project would proportionally increase demand for public services and utilities. However, the existing residential building is already served and connected to all utilities (e.g., water, sewer, storm drain, and solid waste) and public services (e.g., fire and police services) and the project is consistent with the site’s existing land use designation and zoning. Thus, payment of standard utilities connection fees and ongoing user fees would offset the project’s impacts on existing water, sewer, stormwater, dry utilities, and solid waste collection services.

Water
Based on the GHG Memorandum, the proposed project’s operations would result in a demand of approximately 1.95 million gallons of water per year (or approximately 5.98 acre-foot of water per year). As shown in Table 19, Current and Future Projected Water Use, the City of Beverly Hill’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan predicts a water use increase of 476 acre-foot of water consumption (by 2030 [i.e., closest date to the project’s competition date]) from the baseline 2,034 acre-foot of water consumption (in 2020) to the projected 2,510 acre-foot of water consumption (in 2030) for multifamily residential land uses. It should be noted that the entire project site is located within the City of Beverly Hills water service area. The existing on-site development is currently being serviced by the Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 98 City of Beverly Hills
City. Thus, since these existing on-site residential uses would be replaced, it can be presumed that the proposed water demand has been adequately accounted for in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan; refer to City of Beverly Hills Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Part 2, Figure ES-1: Water Service Area.

Thus, the project would represent approximately one percent of the projected increase in water demand. As discussed in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the City of Beverly Hills would be capable of meeting the projected water demands through 2030. As the project would only be one percent of the total water demand increases assumed, the proposed project would not generate excessive water demands and would be adequately served. Further, the City of Beverly Hills Public Works Department would continue to provide water services to the site; refer to Appendix E, Will Serve Letters.

Table 19
Current and Future Projected Water Use
Use Type Additional
Description
Actual1 Annual Projected Water Use1
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Single-Family 5,135 5,913 6,002 6,096 6,187 6,255
Multi-Family 2,034 2,483 2,510 2,540 2,580 2,623
Commercial
CII (Commercial/
Institutional,
Industrial) and fire
hydrant
2,104 2,940 3,012 3,086 3,185 3,251
Losses2 292 597 607 618 630 639
TOTAL 9,585 11,933 12,131 12,340 12,582 12,768
Notes:

1. Water demand units are in acre-foot (AF) per year which represents the volume of water that would cover one acre to a depth of one foot. This is equivalent to 325,851 gallons.

2. Losses are assumed equal to 5 percent of supply based on the fire year average of historical Water Loss Audit data (2015 to 2019).

Source: City of Beverly Hills, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, July 2021 Stormwater
Stormwater runoff currently drains to the City of Beverly Hills existing drainage facilities. Per the City of Beverly Hills Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Part 2, page 59, the project site is served by a 24- inch storm drain main along Beverly Boulevard and a 24-inch storm drain main along Alden Drive. 46 As previously discussed, the proposed project could change the permeability or hydrology through the incorporation of ornamental landscaping, particularly along the western perimeter of the building and within the second-floor courtyard. However, given the existing site is mostly impervious surfaces (underlain by two levels of impervious basement parking), the proposed project would drain excess stormwater runoff to existing drainage facilities within the City of Beverly Hills and City of Los Angeles (similar to existing conditions). Nonetheless, the project would be required to comply with the Los Angeles County MS4 permit requirements, specifically the Los Angeles County MS4 permit 46 City of Beverly Hills, Comprehensive public-facing interactive map of Beverly Hills, CA, https://gis.beverlyhills.org/VBH/Main/, accessed July 24, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 99 City of Beverly Hills
requirement incorporated into BHMC Title 9, Chapter 4, Article 5. The BHMC would require the project to control pollutants and runoff volume from the project site by minimizing impervious surface areas and/or controlling runoff through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use, in accordance with the standards set forth in the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit. As such, compliance with the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, the BHMC, and the City of Beverly Hills Low Impact Development Ordinance would ensure stormwater runoff pollutants from the project site is reduced compared to the existing condition. Overall, runoff from the proposed project is anticipated to be of similar quantities as the existing condition and would be able to be served by existing storm drain utilities. Impacts to off-site stormwater infrastructure would be less than significant.

Sewer
According to the City of Beverly Hills Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Part 2, page 55, the project site is currently served by a 15-inch sewer main along North Oakhurst Drive. The project site maintains a City of Beverly Hills address (i.e., has no assigned City of Los Angeles address) and fronts on a public street in the City of Beverly Hills. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, it is anticipated that the entire project site, as currently developed, is accounted for in the sewer service area of the City of Beverly Hills Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Part 2, Section 1.4.2, Sewer System. Additionally, the City of Beverly Hills Integrated Water Resources Master Plan Part 2, Section 3.2.1.1 Wastewater Flow Generation Coefficients, states that the City of Beverly Hills has experienced a sewer flow reduction of approximately 45 percent in the year 2019, compared to 2009 flows. As such, the City of Beverly Hills has an adequate sewer system that effectively manages wastewater flow. Thus, with the reduced wastewater flow in sewer systems, the project’s contribution to wastewater would not overwhelm the City of Beverly Hills ability to effectively manage wastewater.

Dry Utilities
Natural gas services are provided by the SoCalGas and electricity services are provided by Southern California Edison (SCE). The proposed project would connect with existing dry utilities for natural gas and electricity. Further, payment of standard utility connection fees and ongoing user fees would be required to ensure project impacts to existing utility services are adequately offset. As such, impacts from connecting to existing dry utilities would be less than significant in this regard.

Fire Services
As the project site fronts on a public street in the City of Beverly Hills, the City of Beverly Hills Fire Department is considered the first responder for 24-hour fire, rescue, and emergency medical services to the project site.47 Currently, three fire stations serve the City. The closest fire station to the project site is Fire Station 1: Rexford Drive, which is located approximately 0.51-mile southwest of the project site at 445 North Rexford Drive. As a multi-family development, the project would result in population increase; however, the anticipated population increase would be nominal and not exceed the anticipated growth projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As such, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the City’s projected population growth, and is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in service calls nor require the construction of new or physically altered fire 47 City of Beverly Hills, Dual-jurisdictional Properties Replacement Unit Determination, August 25, 2023.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 100 City of Beverly Hills
facilities. Nonetheless, the project would be subjected to BHMC 9-2, Fire Code (Fire Code), which adopts by reference the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code, as well as City of Beverly Hills provided to create a more stringent process. Furthermore, this nominal population increase would not result in a substantial increase in service calls necessitating 24-hour fire, rescue, and emergency medical services from the Los Angeles Fire Department.

As currently designed, the proposed project would include features such as fire-resistant construction materials, fire alarm/sprinkler systems, and adequate fire access for emergency vehicles. Additionally, the project would be required to undergo plan checks by the City of Beverly Hills Fire Department to ensure compliance with the Fire Code and BHMC. Upon approval of the plan check by the Fire Prevention Division, impacts concerning fire protection services would be less than significant.

Police Protection
As the project site fronts on a public street in the City of Beverly Hills, the Beverly Hills Police Department is considered the first responder for law enforcement services to the project site.48 The Beverly Hills Police Department headquarters is located approximately 0.51-mile southwest of the project site at 464 North Rexford Drive. Construction activities associated with the proposed project may create a temporary increase in demand for police protection services at the project site, such as potential security needs for staging areas on-site. However, construction activities would be subject to compliance with BHMC Article 2, California Building Code, which adopts by reference the California Building Code. Chapter 33, Safeguards During Construction, of the California Building Code includes emergency access requirements which would minimize site safety hazards and potential constructionrelated impacts to police services. Examples to minimize construction-related impacts to police services includes ensuring construction materials are properly secured overnight. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts on police services during construction are less than significant.

During operation of the project, police services would also be provided by the Beverly Hills Police Department. As a multi-family development, the project would result in population increase; however, the anticipated population increase would be nominal and not exceed the anticipated growth projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As such, the project would not result in a substantial increase in the City of Beverly Hill’s projected population growth, which would require the construction of new or physically altered police facilities and is not anticipated to result in a substantial increase in service calls. Furthermore, this nominal population increase would not result in a substantial increase in service calls necessitating police services from the Los Angeles Police Department or Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Schools and Libraries
The City of Beverly Hills is served by the Beverly Hills Unified School District. The schools serving the project site include Beverly Vista Middle School located at 200 South Elm Drive and Hawthorne Elementary School located at 624 North Rexford Drive. As discussed, the proposed project would generate a population increase that does not exceed the anticipated growth projection for the City in 48 Ibid.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 101 City of Beverly Hills
the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As such, the Beverly Hills Unified School District would be capable of accommodating potential students generated by this residential project. Nonetheless, pursuant to Government Code Section 65996, the project’s demands on school services would be fully offset through collection of school fees imposed through the Education Code. As such, less than significant impacts would occur in this regard.

The nearest public library to the project site is the Beverly Hills Public Library, located approximately

0.51-mile southwest of the project site at 444 North Rexford Drive. As previously discussed, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant population increase that exceeds the anticipated growth projections in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS. As such, the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in use of the Beverly Hills Public Library. Furthermore, this nominal population increase would not result in a substantial increase in use of Los Angeles public libraries. Thus, impacts in this regard would be less than significant.

Conclusion
The proposed project is consistent with land uses in the area. Although the proposed project would result in nominal direct net population growth, the proposed residential uses would not induce substantial unplanned population growth beyond the site’s current residential use. Additionally, this nominal direct net population growth would not require the expansion of the Beverly Hills Police and Fire Departments service area or substantially increase calls for service. The project would not result in excessive demands for services such as water, wastewater, dry utilities, schools, and libraries.

Overall, the site would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services and the project would meet Criterion (e).

V. EXCEPTIONS TO CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS ANALYSIS
CRITERION (a) LOCATION State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 states that categorical exemption “Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.”
The project is proposing a categorical exemption under Class 32. Therefore, Exception Criterion (a) would not apply to the project.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 102 City of Beverly Hills
CRITERION (b) CUMULATIVE IMPACT State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 states that all categorical exemptions “are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” The project proposes demolishing an existing multi-family building and associated parking garage and constructing a new multi-family building with two levels of basement parking. The following cumulative projects (mixed-use, residential, and commercial projects), which are either approved or pending approval by the City of Beverly Hills or City of Los Angeles, are situated in the general project area. Nearby projects include:

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS
Mixed-Use Projects
• 8800 Burton Way: The pending 8800 Burton Way project, located approximately 0.47-mile southeast of the project site, includes a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit to construct a new six-story mixed-use building with 25 dwelling units. • 8844 Burton Way: The pending 8844 Burton Way project, located approximately 0.44-mile southeast of the project site, includes a Development Plan Review to construct a new 20-story mixed-use building with 200 dwelling units.

Residential Projects
• 346 North Maple Drive: The pending 346 North Maple Drive project, located approximately

0.16-mile southwest of the project site, includes a Development Plan Review to construct a new 12-story, multi-family residential building with 65 dwelling unit. • 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project: The pending 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project, located approximately 0.05-mile southwest of the project site, includes a Development Plan Review to construct a new 11-story multi-family building with 25 dwelling units. • 277-231 Swall Drive: The pending 277-231 Swall Drive project, located approximately 0.50- mile southeast of the project site, includes a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to construct a new six-story condominium building with 18 dwelling units.
• 333 North Palm Drive: The pending 333 North Palm Drive project, located approximately

0.19-mile southwest of the project site, includes a R-4 Permit and Development Plan Review to construct rooftop bathrooms on an existing multi-family residential building.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 103 City of Beverly Hills
Commercial Projects
• 351 Foothill Road: The pending 351 Foothill Road project, located approximately 0.32-mile southwest of the project site, includes a Conditional Use Permit to expand/renovate a veterinary hospital use.
• 9220 North Santa Monica Boulevard: The pending 9220 North Santa Monica Boulevard project, located approximately 0.24-mile northwest of the project site, includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Vesting Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Agreement to construct 11 creative office buildings.
• 9388 South Santa Monica Boulevard: The pending 9388 South Santa Monica Boulevard project, located approximately 0.57-mile southwest of the project site, includes a Development Plan Review to amend a previously approved entitlement associated with a restaurant use.

Other Project
• 512 Sierra Drive: The approved 512 Sierra Drive project, located approximately 0.33-mile north of the project site, includes a Minor Accommodation to extend a legally nonconforming side yard setback.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Mixed-Use Projects
• 400 San Vicente: The pending 400 San Vicente project, located approximately 0.89-mile southeast of the project site, includes Conditional Use Permits, a Density Bonus, and Site Plan Review to construct a new eight-story mixed-use building with 126 dwelling units and 11,615 square feet of commercial uses.
• 1050 La Cienega Boulevard Project: The pending 1050 La Cienega Boulevard Project, located approximately 1.57 miles southeast of the project site, includes Site Plan Review to construct a new 28-story mixed-use building with 290 dwelling units and 7,500 square feet of commercial uses.

These nearby projects are not successive projects of the same type and same place so that these would not be a cumulative impact for purposes of qualification for a Class 32 CE report (i.e., infill development), other than the 401 North Oakhurst Drive Project. As discussed, the project is consistent with applicable General Plan land use policies and with approval of requested waivers and incentives pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law, meets applicable R-4 and (Q)R4-1-O development standards. As discussed in this Class 32 CE report, resulting air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, noise, transportation, water quality, and public services and utilities impacts from construction and operations of the proposed project would not be significant. Further, as disclosed in ‘Cumulative Operational’ of Criterion B. Noise, the proposed project, combined with the 401 North Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 104 City of Beverly Hills
Oakhurst Drive Project, would not result in cumulatively considerable significant impacts. As such, these impacts are not cumulatively considerable and Exception Criterion (b) would not apply to preclude reliance on a Class 32 CE report.

CRITERION (c) SIGNIFICANT EFFECT State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.”
The project would not result in any significant effects on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Historically, the project site has always been utilized for multi-family residential uses; therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change of use. The site is not located within a sensitive resource area and no site-specific environmental constraints. The project is a permitted use under the site’s Multi-Family Residential, High Density land use designation and would meet all applicable development standards under the R-4 zoning district upon approval of the proposed Density Bonus and associated waivers and incentives.

CRITERION (d) SCENIC HIGHWAYS State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.”
Based on Caltrans’ California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are no scenic highways near the project site.49 The closest officially designated or eligible State scenic highway is State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) located approximately 6.68 miles to the southwest. Given the distance of the project site to Pacific Coast Highway, the project would not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. Thus, the proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within an eligible State scenic highway and Exception Criterion (d) would not apply.

CRITERION (e) HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.” Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the Department of Toxic Substance Control and State Water Resources Control Board to compile and update a regulatory sites listing (per the criteria of the Section). The California Department of Health Services is also required to compile and update, as appropriate, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic 49 California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa, accessed February 29, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 105 City of Beverly Hills
contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 116395. Section 65962.5 requires the local enforcement agency, as designated pursuant to Section 18051 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, to compile, as appropriate, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste.

The project site is not listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List). 50 Therefore, Exception Criterion (e) would not apply to the project.

CRITERION (f) HISTORICAL RESOURCES State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15300.2 states that a categorical exemption “shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” According to the Historical Resources Assessment-CEQA Compliance: 412 North Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills Letter Report (Historical Report), prepared by Ostashay and Associates Consulting (dated February 21, 2024), the property is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources, and has not been designated as a local City of Beverly Hills landmark; refer to Appendix D, Historical Assessment. As analyzed in the Historical Report, pursuant to the eligibility criteria established in the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and BHMC Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 32, Historic Preservation (City of Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance), the existing multi-family residential building is ineligible for individual listing at the federal, State, and local level. Furthermore, because of the varied development patterns, architectural styles, and infill with new construction, no potential historic district pursuant to the criteria established under the City of Beverly Hills Historic Preservation Ordinance was identified for potential landmarking in the immediate area. As such, the proposed project would not impact a historical resource as defined by CEQA and Exception Criterion (f) would not apply.

VI. CONCLUSION
Based on this analysis, the proposed Oakhurst Apartments meets all criteria for a Class 32 CE pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. Further, none of the exceptions, listed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, apply to the proposed project. 50 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed February 29, 2024.

Oakhurst Apartments
CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption
November 2024 106 City of Beverly Hills
VII. REFERENCES
California Court of Appeals, Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Association v. City of Oakland, 1993.

California Court of Appeals, Wolmer v. City of Berkeley, 2011.

California Department of Transportation, California Scenic Highway Mapping System, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aa caa, accessed February 29, 2024.

California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed February 29, 2024.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Los Angeles Region, Regional Phase 1 MS4 NPDES Permit, Order No. R4-2021-0105, NPDES Permit No. CAS004004, Waste Discharge Requirements And National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Discharges within the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, July 23, 2021, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/stormwater/municipal/pu blic_docs/2022/1_Order(ACC-RPSignature).pdf, accessed February 28, 2024.

Beverly Hills City CouncilAugust 5, 2025

Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025