Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 development of the Property shall be those set forth in the Project Approvals, the Applicable Rules and this Agreement, including the Conditions of Approval.” • Section 9(a) of the DA states that “[t]he adoption of any Subsequent Land Use Regulations after the Effective Date of this Agreement, or any change in, or addition to, the Applicable Rules (other than changes in Processing Fees and taxes), including, without limitation, any changes in the General Plan or the Zoning Regulations (including any regulation relating to the timing, sequencing, or phasing of the Project or construction of all or any part of the Project), and any changes in Developer Fees (which expression “changes in Developer Fees” includes under this Agreement new or additional Development Fees), adopted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any such change by means of ordinance, initiative, resolution, motion, policy, order or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by any board, agency, commission or department of the City, or by the electorate, as the case may be, which would, absent this Agreement, otherwise be applicable to the Project shall not be applied to the Project during the term of this Agreement unless such changes represent an exercise of the City's Reserved Powers.” 3 • Section 10(a) requires that “Developer shall comply with the Conditions of Approval,” which include without limitation Condition Nos. 94 and 95.
The DA does allow for some limited deviation from the Applicable Rules and the Conditions of Approval without a DA amendment. Specifically, DA Section 27 (ii) provides that “no amendment of this Agreement shall be required in connection with any Subsequent Project Approval except a Subsequent Project Approval proposed by initiative.” However, “Subsequent Project Approvals” are defined as “Discretionary Actions or Discretionary Approvals, Ministerial Permits and Ministerial Approvals required to carry out the Project as approved on June 8, 2021, including, without limitation, any tentative subdivision map, whether vesting or non-vesting.” (Emphasis added.) Here, Cain’s requested Specific Plan Amendments and AAP expansion are neither (i) Discretionary Actions or Discretionary Approvals, or (ii) Ministerial Permits and Ministerial Approvals, as those terms are defined.4 Instead, they are squarely 3 ““Subsequent Land Use Regulations” means any change in or addition to the Applicable Rules adopted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulation, including, without limitation. any such change by means of an ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever by the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission or any other board, agency, commission or department of City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate, as the case may be, which would, absent this Agreement, otherwise be applicable to the Project.” (DA Section 1(oo); emphasis added.)
4 “”Discretionary Action(s)” or “Discretionary Approval(s)” means an action which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation or discretion on the part of the City, including any board, agency, commission or department and any officer or employee thereof, in the process of approving or disapproving a 2-101
May 12, 2026
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 legislative acts – formulating rather than merely applying policy – and therefore fall outside the DA’s exception from an amendment requirement for a Subsequent Project Approval.
Collectively, the requested modifications alter the Project’s land uses, operational characteristics, and supporting infrastructure in ways not previously evaluated as part of the Project’s CEQA review and entitlement approvals. As set forth above, the proposed short-term rental program conflicts with binding restrictions imposed as part of the Project approvals that are independently enforceable by affected parties, while also directly contravening the City’s STR Ordinance.
At the same time, Cain is pursuing piecemeal approval of off-site utility infrastructure work through a parallel process from the Proposed Amendments request. The City cannot evaluate the Proposed Amendments based on a partial or incomplete project description when assessing whether the proposed changes are permissible or what level of environmental review is legally required under CEQA.
Under these circumstances, the Planning Commission lacks a lawful basis to recommend approval of the Proposed Amendments. Any action taken without evaluating the full scope of proposed changes – and without resolving the conflicts with binding project restrictions and applicable City policy – would be legally vulnerable and inconsistent with the City’s obligations under CEQA and its own approval framework.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission should continue the item and require Cain’s submission of a complete, integrated proposal encompassing all project-serving infrastructure and all requested amendments to the OSP and Conditions of Approval. Absent a complete project description and appropriate CEQA review, the City lacks any lawful basis to act on the requested amendments.
The Peninsula respectfully requests that the Planning Commission decline the advancement of the Proposed Amendments until at least such time that Cain submits a complete and integrated proposal for the Project that is followed by appropriate environmental review. particular activity, as distinguished from a Ministerial Permit or Ministerial Approval (as hereafter defined).” (DA Section 1(n).) ““Ministerial Permit(s),” or “Ministerial Approval(s)” means a permit or approval, including, but not limited to, building permits, grading permits, zone clearances, and certificates of occupancy, which requires the City, including any board, agency, commission or department or any officer or employee thereof, to determine whether there has been compliance with applicable rules, statutes, ordinances, conditions of approval, and/or regulations, as distinguished from an activity which is included in the definition of Discretionary Action or Discretionary Approval.” DA Section 1(y).) 2-102
May 12, 2026
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 The Peninsula reserves all rights and remedies and waives none.
Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Nancy Hunt-Coffey, City Manager
Ryan Gohlich, Assistant City Manager
Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
Andre Sahakian, Project Manager – Major Projects, Planning Ara Retchian, Associate Project Manager, Public Works
Offer Nissenbaum, Managing Director, Peninsula Beverly Hills Michael Tenner, General Counsel, Peninsula Beverly Hills C.J. Laffer, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Payam Mostafavi, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Ben LaZebnik, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
2-103
EXHIBIT A
2-104
2-105
2-106
2-107
2-108
2-109
2-110
2-111
2-112
2-113
2-114
2-115
2-116
2-117
2-118
2-119
2-120
2-121
2-122
2-123
2-124
2-125
2-126
EXHIBIT B
2-127
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 May 6, 2026
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Proposed Permit for Off-Site Electrical Infrastructure – One Beverly Hills Project
Dear Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council:
This firm represents The Belvedere Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”). We write on behalf of the Peninsula regarding Cain International’s anticipated request for a permit authorizing trenching and installation of off-site electrical infrastructure within the public right-of-way along South Santa Monica Boulevard in connection with their One Beverly Hills project (the “Proposed Work”).
The Proposed Work requires issuance of a permit under Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) Chapter 8-2, which governs excavation and construction activity within the public right-of-way. Approval of the permit amendment1 that would be needed for the Proposed Work would require the City to evaluate project-specific impacts and impose conditions as necessary to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. In this case, the significant period of time that South Santa Monica Boulevard would be subject to lane closures, coupled with the degree of construction activity that would be anticipated adjacent to the Peninsula, necessitates that the Proposed Work be rerouted to a different street that would not create such significant noise, dust, vibration, traffic, and ingress and egress impacts to a sensitive receptor such as the Peninsula.
As currently conceptualized, the Proposed Work is also especially concerning given that it has the potential to cause immense reputational damage to the Peninsula.
My client has spent considerable time reviewing, researching, and discussing the Proposed Work with its own team of experts and Cain International. In doing so, the Peninsula has concluded that the Proposed Work could reasonably be rerouted to North Santa Monica Boulevard, which has already been used for other sections of the utility work for the One Beverly Hills project. This matter is of such immense importance to the Peninsula that it has offered to pay Cain International for any extra costs related to this rerouting. 1 Permit No. PW2500328 has already been issued for utility work on Wilshire, while the work on South Santa Monica remains pending, such that the existing permit would need to be amended to allow the Proposed Work to proceed.
2-128
Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council
May 6, 2026
The Proposed Work is not independent utility activity. The contemplated infrastructure is required to predominantly serve the One Beverly Hills development and, as such, constitutes a component of that project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The City therefore may not lawfully approve a permit amendment authorizing the Proposed Work without first conducting the necessary additional environmental review to address its sitespecific impacts. The prior certification of the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (the “SEIR”) does not satisfy the City’s obligations under CEQA, as it does not analyze the impacts associated with the Proposed Work.
As explained below, the permit approval constitutes a discretionary action under the BHMC and is therefore subject to CEQA. And even if Cain International were to contend otherwise, the permitting framework for the Proposed Work allows the City to shape the work in response to environmental concerns, which separately renders the permit amendment for the Proposed Work discretionary under controlling case law. Finally, even if the approval were purely ministerial – which it is not – the Proposed Work was not analyzed under the SEIR and cannot be segmented from the One Beverly Hills project, and CEQA would still require supplemental environmental review.
I. The City’s Permitting Framework Confirms the Work is Not Routine The City’s own permitting framework confirms that the Proposed Work is not routine utility activity. The City’s annual blanket utility permits, which are intended to authorize limited, low-impact work, explicitly do not extend to project-specific infrastructure involving new service lines, excavation within the public right-of-way, or construction activity that disrupts traffic circulation along certain expressly listed major commercial corridors, including South Santa Monica Boulevard.
The Proposed Work involves installation of a new electrical service line to serve the One Beverly Hills project, excavation within the public right-of-way, and lane closures along South Santa Monica Boulevard. As such, the Proposed Work exceeds the scope of the City’s annual blanket utility permits and, accordingly, requires approval of a separate utility permit, which involves project-specific review, including traffic control measures and construction methodology.
Because the City must evaluate the scope and impacts of the Proposed Work before authorizing it, the permit amendment cannot be characterized as purely ministerial.
II. The Permit Amendment Is Discretionary Under CEQA
CEQA applies to discretionary projects. (Public Resources Code §§ 21065, 21080.) Here, the required permit amendment cannot be approved without an amendment to the One Beverly Hills project’s entitlements, which is discretionary. Secondly, even if the One Beverly 2-129
Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council
May 6, 2026
Hills project’s entitlements did not need to be amended, the permit amendment itself is discretionary.
A. The Permit Amendment Requires an Amendment to the One Beverly Hills Project’s Entitlements.
Condition No. 8, adopted as part of the City Council’s approval of the Amended and Restated 9900 Wilshire Specific Plan (Resolution No. 16-R-13118, Exhibit C), requires the Applicant to underground utilities in “adjacent streets and alleys.” By its terms, the condition is limited to streets directly adjoining the project site and does not authorize utility work beyond that geographic scope.
South Santa Monica Boulevard is not adjacent to the One Beverly Hills project site. The site is bounded by Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard and is bisected by Merv Griffin Way, which together constitute the streets directly adjoining the site and forming the basis of the project’s circulation and infrastructure analysis in the SEIR. South Santa Monica Boulevard is physically separated from the project site and is not identified as a project frontage or adjacent street in the project approvals or environmental review. Accordingly, to the extent Cain International would like to conduct the Proposed Work on South Santa Monica Boulevard, it must seek a modification of Condition No. 8 and the City must analyze the significant environmental impacts of such a modification in a new EIR.
B. The Permit Amendment is Itself Discretionary and Triggers CEQA Review.
Separate and apart from the One Beverly Hills entitlements needing to be modified, the permit amendment is itself discretionary. This is confirmed by the BHMC, which expressly deems excavation permits discretionary. Decisions under Chapter 8-2 to grant an excavation permit are subject to appeal to the City Council pursuant to title 1, chapter 4 of the BHMC.
BHMC section 1-4-101(B), in turn, provides that “[n]o right of appeal to the council from any administrative decision made by an official of the city pursuant to any of the provisions of this code shall exist when such decision is ministerial and thus does not involve the exercise of administrative discretion or personal judgment exercised pursuant to any of the provisions of this code.” The fact that the BHMC expressly allows excavation permits to be appealed to the Council pursuant to this section reflects that the City’s determination involves the exercise of administrative discretion and personal judgment rather than the mechanical application of fixed standards. Accordingly, the permit amendment is itself discretionary and triggers CEQA.
It should be noted that the discretion inherent in City excavation permits is functionally clear and would not have required explicit confirmation from the BHMC. A permit is discretionary when the governing agency retains authority to condition or shape the project in response to environmental concerns. In Protecting Our Water & Environmental Resources v.
County of Stanislaus (2020) 10 Cal.5th 479, 499, the California Supreme Court clarified that if 2-130
Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council
May 6, 2026
an agency is empowered to disapprove or condition approval of a project based on environmental concerns that might be uncovered during CEQA review, the project is discretionary and CEQA applies.
That standard is satisfied here. Under BHMC Chapter 8-2, the City must evaluate the impacts of proposed excavation and construction activity and determine the conditions under which the work may proceed to protect public health, welfare, and safety. That process necessarily involves the exercise of judgment in response to project-specific impacts, including traffic disruptions, construction impacts, safety considerations, and effects on surrounding properties such as the Peninsula. Because the City retains authority to condition the permit based on these impact-based considerations, issuance of the excavation permit constitutes a discretionary approval subject to CEQA. (See Protecting Our Water, supra.) Finally, even if Cain International were to contend that issuance of the permit is ministerial and therefore not subject to CEQA review, applicable case law would still require CEQA review because the City clearly retains authority to shape how the work is carried out in response to site-specific impacts. (See Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 259, 267; Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 117.)
Nevertheless, even if the approval were purely ministerial, the Proposed Work was not analyzed under the SEIR and cannot be segmented from the One Beverly Hills project for purposes of environmental review under CEQA, as further discussed below.
III. The Proposed Work Was Not Analyzed in the SEIR and Cannot Be Approved Without Supplemental Environmental Review
Because the permit approval is discretionary, CEQA requires that the environmental impacts of the Proposed Work be analyzed before the City may authorize it. However, neither the project approvals nor the supporting environmental review identifies or authorizes off-site electrical infrastructure within the South Santa Monica Boulevard right-of-way, including any trenching along that corridor. Reflecting that omission, the SEIR contains no analysis of the Proposed Work or its resulting impacts, including lane closures, disruptions to access and circulation affecting adjacent properties such as the Peninsula, or construction noise and vibration.
The SEIR’s discussion of temporary lane and sidewalk closures is limited to identified project features, including driveway construction and internal circulation improvements, and does not extend to utility trenching along South Santa Monica Boulevard. Although the SEIR acknowledges that electrical service may require modifications to the distribution system, it contains no disclosure of the location, scope, duration, or impacts of such work. The omission is 2-131
Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council
May 6, 2026
therefore not a matter of detail, but the wholesale absence of analysis for a discrete category of project-related impacts affecting a major public corridor and adjacent sensitive uses.
This is not a collateral challenge to the SEIR. Rather, the issue is whether the City may approve a permit authorizing a distinct component of the project – off-site electrical trenching within the public right-of-way – that was not analyzed in that document. Where a subsequent approval authorizes activity that may result in environmental impacts not previously evaluated, CEQA requires additional environmental review before the agency may proceed. (Pub.
Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162–15163.) The City’s treatment of comparable projects further underscores this point. In connection with the 9600 Wilshire Boulevard Specific Plan (e.g., the Saks Fifth Avenue project), for example, the City’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (“9600 Wilshire Specific Plan DEIR”) expressly identified utility relocation as a discrete construction phase and analyzed the impacts associated with that work in detail. The 9600 Wilshire Specific Plan DEIR explains that construction noise levels would be highest during early phases of construction, including utility relocation, demolition, and excavation, and models those impacts accordingly. (9600 Wilshire Blvd Specific Plan DEIR, p. 380.) That analysis did not rely on generalized construction assumptions, but instead recognized that utility-related activities present distinct and potentially more intensive impacts that require specific evaluation.
The 9600 Wilshire Blvd Specific Plan DEIR likewise identified the physical scope of utility work and its interaction with the surrounding public right-of-way. It disclosed that the project would involve removal and relocation of electric utility lines and identified specific roadways where construction-related encroachments and lane closures would occur, including Wilshire Boulevard and surrounding streets. (Id. at p. 317, 498.) That level of specificity reflects a CEQA approach in which utility construction impacts, particularly those affecting circulation and nearby sensitive receptors, are expressly disclosed and evaluated.
By contrast, the SEIR contains no comparable analysis. While it acknowledges that electrical service may require modifications to the distribution system, it does not identify any off-site trenching, does not disclose lane closures or construction activity along South Santa Monica Boulevard, and does not evaluate the resulting impacts to traffic, access, or nearby uses such as the Peninsula. Nor does it include a site-specific noise analysis addressing utility-related construction activity in that location.
This contrast is significant. The 9600 Wilshire Boulevard DEIR demonstrates that where utility relocation or similar infrastructure work is reasonably foreseeable, the City’s practice is to analyze those impacts explicitly, including their construction-phase characteristics and effects on surrounding streets and sensitive receptors. The absence of such analysis in the SEIR confirms that the impacts associated with the Proposed Work were not previously evaluated and that additional CEQA review is required.
2-132
Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council
May 6, 2026
Because the SEIR does not analyze the site-specific impacts associated with the Proposed Work, the City cannot rely on that document to support approval of the permit. Instead, the City must undertake supplemental environmental review prior to approving a permit to authorize the Proposed Work. The City cannot avoid that obligation by treating the Proposed Work as a separate or ministerial activity.
IV. CEQA Prohibits Segmenting Project Infrastructure Into Separate Ministerial Components
Even apart from the discretionary nature of the permit approval, CEQA prohibits the City from segmenting the Proposed Work from the One Beverly Hills project. CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the “whole of the action,” including all components of a project that are reasonably foreseeable and necessary to its implementation. (Pub. Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378.) An agency may not segment a project into separate components in order to avoid environmental review, even where those components might appear ministerial in isolation. (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209; Plan for Arcadia, Inc. v. Arcadia City Council (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 712.) The electrical infrastructure at issue is integral to providing service to the One Beverly Hills development and is therefore part of the project as a matter of law. The fact that the work will be carried out within the public right-of-way or implemented through a utility provider does not transform it into independent utility activity. Cain International cannot lawfully treat this work as separate in order to avoid CEQA review.
Approving a permit authorizing the Proposed Work without environmental review would constitute impermissible piecemealing. (See City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1337 [“construction of the roadway and utilities cannot be considered in isolation from the development it presages.”].) It would isolate a component of the One Beverly Hills project that will result in a substantial amount of reasonably foreseeable impacts – including traffic disruption along a primary access corridor, interference with ingress and egress to surrounding properties, construction noise and vibration affecting sensitive receptors, and pedestrian circulation impacts – and remove those impacts from environmental analysis. CEQA does not permit such an approach.
V. The Proposed Work Will Result in Significant Environmental Impacts and Requires Supplemental Environmental Review
The significance of any failure to analyze the excavation permit under CEQA is underscored by the nature and magnitude of the impacts associated with the Proposed Work.
The proposed trenching and construction activities will occur immediately adjacent to not just an operating hotel, the Peninsula, which constitutes both a sensitive receptor and a significant commercial use within the City, but multiple long-term residential receptors. 2-133
Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council
May 6, 2026
Notably, the Proposed Work will involve extended excavation and construction operations within the public right-of-way, significant lane closures affecting traffic circulation and emergency access, pedestrian circulation disruptions, and construction noise and vibration.
It will also require construction staging and material storage within the public right-of-way.
These impacts are well-recognized environmental considerations under CEQA and are hardly speculative. They are inherent in the nature of the work and will directly affect a primary access corridor serving the Peninsula. Because these impacts were not analyzed in the SEIR, they must be evaluated through supplemental environmental review prior to approval. (Pub. Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15162–15163.)
VI. Issuing a Permit Amendment to Authorize the Proposed Work Without CEQA Compliance Would Expose the City to Legal Challenge
If Cain International were to obtain a permit amendment authorizing the Proposed Work without undertaking the necessary and applicable CEQA review, the resulting approval would be subject to judicial challenge and invalidation of the permit under Public Resources Code section 21168.5. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City refrain from issuing any permit amendment authorizing the proposed trenching and off-site electrical infrastructure until the City has completed the CEQA review required for this discretionary approval.
We remain available to meet with the City to discuss these issues and to provide additional information regarding the potential impacts of the Proposed Work on the Peninsula and its operations, as well as surrounding properties. And as my client relayed to you yesterday, we are still in discussions with Cain International and hope they will take this matter seriously and instead pursue their utility work entirely on North Santa Monica Boulevard.
The issues identified in this letter are based on currently available information and are not intended to be exhaustive. The Peninsula reserves all rights and remedies and waives none.
Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Beverly Hills Planning Commission
Nancy Hunt-Coffey, City Manager
Ryan Gohlich, Assistant City Manager
Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
Andre Sahakian, Project Manager – Major Projects, Planning 2-134
Honorable Mayor Corman and City Council
May 6, 2026
Ara Retchian, Associate Project Manager, Public Works
Offer Nissenbaum, Managing Director, Peninsula Beverly Hills Michael Tenner, General Counsel, Peninsula Beverly Hills 2-135
EXHIBIT C
2-136
2-137
2-138
EXHIBIT D
2-139
2-140
2-141
1 April 21, 2026
Honorable Chair Jeff Wolfe and Beverly Hills Planning Commissioners Beverly Hills Planning Commission
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Chair Wolfe and Members of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission:
The Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce writes to you in support of the One Beverly Hills (OBH) Project and specifically, their request for administrative modifications to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (OSP).
In particular, the Chamber supports the request for modification of permitted uses to allow outpatient medical and surgical procedures for Aman hotel guests and residents which will support the health and wellness offerings at the site. The Chamber also supports lifting the current cap of 250 non-resident non-guest licenses for the Aman Hotel’s Amenity Access Program for the Aman Global Club. Due to the current Aman Global Club membership structure, we understand this change will allow more efficient use of the Program while still adhering to all capacity and safety requirements at the hotel.
Last, the Chamber also supports an Aman Residential Rental Program which would allow a number of residents to participate in an Aman Managed luxury rental program at the hotel. The Chamber understands that the program will be available up to 44 residences (approximately 25% of the total number of units available). The Chamber also supports this request with the understanding that only units that have been sold to a private third party (as opposed to units still belonging to the Aman or another corporate entity) can participate in the Program. 2-142
2 If approved, these refinements are projected to generate approximately $10 million annually and $100 million in additional revenue over the next decade. They will also drive meaningful incremental spending at Beverly Hills restaurants, retail, and service businesses. Overall, One Beverly Hills represents a significant economic catalyst for the City, generating over 2,700 jobs and over $44 billion in total economic impact over the next 3 decades.
The OBH team have been good partners to the City and community and are bringing an important project to Beverly Hills. We ask that you support their request.
Sincerely,
Todd Johnson
President and CEO
Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
2-143
ATTACHMENT 5
Certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 202090048)
Addendum #1
Addendum #2
Addendum #3
Addendum #4
Available for download at www.beverlyhills.org/environmental Hard copies are also available for viewing at:
Beverly Hills City Hall – 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Beverly Hills Public Library – 444 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 For questions, please contact:
Andre Sahakian, AICP, Project Manager
Phone: (310) 285-1121
Email: [email protected]
ATTACHMENT 6
1 ADDENDUM #3 TO THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE ONE BEVERLY HILLS OVERLAY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
AS CERTIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS (State Clearinghouse No. 2020090048)
Prepared by the City of Beverly Hills in its capacity as the Lead Agency SITE: 9850, 9876, 9900, and 9988 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, CA 90210
PROJECT TITLE: One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project PROJECT APPLICANT: BH Luxury Residences, LLC and Oasis West Realty EXHIBITS: 1. City Council Resolution No. 21-R-13348
2. Addendum #1 to the Final SEIR for the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project (without exhibits)
3. Addendum #2 to the Final SEIR for the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (without exhibits)
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (“Specific Plan” or “Approved Project”) sets forth land use and development standards for the properties located at 98501, 9876, 9900, and 9988 Wilshire Boulevard (“Project site”) in the City of Beverly Hills (“City”). The Specific Plan was approved by the City Council in 2021 through the adoption of Resolution 21-R-13349 amending the General Plan; Resolution 21-R-13350 adopting the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan; Ordinance 21-O-0238 amending the Zoning Code; and Ordinance 21-O-2839 approving a Development Agreement. As part of the project approvals, the City also certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report2(“SEIR”, State Clearinghouse No. 2020090048), adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations through the adoption of City Council Resolution No. 21-R-13348.
The proposed project consists of the following amendments to the Specific Plan (collectively, the “Proposed Project”):
1. Allow Medical uses and Ambulatory Surgical Care (Outpatient Only) uses in the Promenade (Amenity Area) portion and allow such uses to be open to the public;
2. Modify the Amenity Access Program (“AAP”) and related conditions of approval to remove the 250 limit on AAP licensees and revise parking requirements for AAP uses; 3 and
3. Modify conditions of approval establish a Residences Rental Program (“RRP”) that allows the owner of any condominium unit to place their unit into a pool that would allow rental for a minimum of one night, provided that no more than 44 condominiums are rented at any given night.
1 Although the 9850 Wilshire Boulevard (Waldorf Astoria) property is part of the OBHOSP, it is not affected by or subject to the proposed Amendments.
2 The Final SEIR and Addenda are available online at www.beverlyhills.org/environmental 3 The request to increase the number of allowed licenses will be reviewed by the City Council, whereas the other amendments will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council. All amendments, however, are analyzed comprehensively in this addendum.
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
2 The foregoing amendments are hereafter referred to collectively as the “Amendments.” The Amendments would not require any new or expanded structures, would not increase the allowable floor area, would not increase the permitted heights of any buildings, and would not increase the intensity of buildings or uses permitted in the Specific Plan area.
PURPOSE: This Addendum to the SEIR is being prepared pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines which allows for a lead agency to prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for the project unless, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following is determined:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
3 FINDINGS CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT:
(1) The Approved Project consists of the comprehensive development of the 17.4-acre Project Site, and includes the following:
• New 162 residential unit, 499,706 SF, 32-story, 410’ tall residential building (Santa Monica Residences);
• New 141 residential unit, 424,266 SF, 28-story, 369’ tall residential building (Garden Residences);
• New 37 residential unit and 42 hotel room, 213,966 SF, 11-story, 124’ tall hotel/residential building (Wilshire Building);
• New 127,324 SF structure containing amenities and support areas, including accessory spaces that could be used for staff housing (Promenade); • Replacement of the 37,562 SF, 31’ tall conference center for the Beverly Hilton Hotel;
• Replacement of the 72,697 SF, 20’ tall hotel restaurant, retail, 36 hotel room, and support area structure (Beverly Hilton Enhancement); and • 12.7 acres of open space, including an 8-acre botanical garden The Approved Project was reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”), and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000, et seq.). The City prepared a Final SEIR and, based on the information contained in the SEIR, determined that the Approved Project would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts after the implementation of mitigation measures. As a result, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in conjunction with approval of the Specific Plan.
Based on the analysis contained in the SEIR, the Approved Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts with mitigation, and what is contemplated in the Amendments does not change any of the conclusions reached for these topics since it does not result in an increase in floor area or building height, does not affect construction duration or methods, nor would it change operations in a way that would materially change the analysis and impact conclusions in the SEIR and prior addenda:
• Cultural Resources (impacts to historical resources)
• Noise (cumulative constriction-related noise)
Based on the analysis contained in the SEIR, the Approved Project was found to result in the following significant impacts that were mitigated to less than significant levels, and what is contemplated in the Amendments does not change any of the conclusions reached for these topics since it does not result in an increase in floor area or building height, does not affect construction duration or methods, nor would they change operations in a way that would materially change the analysis and impact conclusions in the SEIR and prior addenda:
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
4 • Aesthetics (ambient night-time light levels)
• Air Quality (temporary emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction) • Biological Resources (nesting birds and bat habitats) • Cultural Resources (archaeological resources and human remains) • Energy (long-term operations)
• Geology and Soils (seismic ground shaking)
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials (release of hazardous materials into the environment)
• Hydrology and Water Quality (construction and operational water quality impacts) • Land Use and Planning (consistency with local and regional planning policies) • Noise (construction)
• Public Services (emergency response access)
• Transportation and Traffic (conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies or disrupt local public transit, active transportation, and roadway systems; site access and hazardous traffic conditions; cumulative construction traffic) • Tribal Cultural Resources (impacts to tribal cultural resources resulting from ground disturbing activities during construction)
• Utilities and Service Systems (fire flow facilities)
• Wastewater Treatment (discharge of fats, oils, and grease) The Approved Project was found to result in less than significant impacts or no impacts in the following topic areas, and what is contemplated in the Amendments does not change any of the conclusions reached for these topics since it does not result in an increase in floor area or building height, does not affect construction duration or methods, nor change operations in a way that would materially change the analysis and impact conclusions in the SEIR and prior addenda (as described below):
• Air Quality (consistency with AQMP, temporary localized emissions of criteria air pollutants during construction, long-term emissions of criteria air pollutants during operation, localized CO and TAC emissions)
• Biological Resources (sensitive habitats, riparian habitats, state or federally protected wetlands; conflict with local policies protecting biological resources; conflict with an adopted conservation plan)
• Geology and Soils (earthquake fault rupture)
• Greenhouse Gas (generate GHG emissions or conflict with an applicable plan policy, or regulation adopted for reducing GHG emissions) • Noise (operational, traffic noise, and construction vibration) • Transportation and Traffic (vehicle miles traveled)
• Utilities and Service Systems (water demand)
(2) On June 8, 2021, the City Council certified the SEIR and approved the Approved Project. In addition, the Final SEIR identified certain mitigation measures that were necessary to Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
5 mitigate potential impacts of the Approved Project to less than significant levels. The mitigation measures were adopted by the City Council and made binding on the Approved Project. The findings of fact made in certifying the SEIR, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, are provided for reference as Exhibit 1 (City Council Resolution No. 21-R-13348). (3) On June 13, 2024, the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills adopted Addendum #1 (Exhibit 2) to the Final SEIR in conjunction with the approval of Resolution No. 2061 approving an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to re-located temporary construction offices and staging uses related to the Specific Plan buildout to a different site, located at 9900 N. Santa Monica Boulevard.
(4) On October 15, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Addendum #2 (Exhibit 3) to the Final SEIR in conjunction with the approval of Resolution No. 2072 approving an Administrative Modification of the Specific Plan to allow the installation of a retractable shade canopy structure on the rooftop of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel located at 9850 Wilshire Boulevard.
(5) Thereafter, an application for amendments to the Specific Plan (the “Proposed Project” under consideration for this analysis) was submitted to the City on March 30, 2026, to allow the modifications outlined in the Project Description.
(6) Staff analyzed the Proposed Project to determine if any new impacts, or substantial increase in the severity of impacts, would result from the proposed modifications. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, neither a subsequent nor supplemental EIR is required for the modifications contemplated by the Proposed Project because:
(A) The Approved Project consisted of the comprehensive development of a 17.4-acre site located at 9850, 9876, 9900, and 9988 Wilshire Boulevard, including up to 340 residential condominiums, an Amenity Access Program, and a Promenade (Amenity Area). The Proposed Project intends to amend various provisions of the Specific Plan relating to allowed uses, operation of the AAP, and rental terms of the residential units. No new buildings, construction, excavation, or other physical changes, including any expansion of parking areas or increased demand for parking, are proposed. Since the Proposed Project is limited to operational changes, there are no construction-related impacts to the Approved Project. Additional analysis of the Proposed Project and impact study areas is provided as follows:
Aesthetics. Aesthetic impacts of the Approved Project were screened out pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21099(d) due to the Project Site being in a Transit Priority Area (“TPA”). However, previous environmental documentation analyzed aesthetic impacts based on potential increases to ambient night-time light levels. A mitigation measure was imposed to shield light sources and direct them downward when intended to illuminate Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
6 walking or working surfaces and focused on the project site to prevent light spillover onto adjacent properties or roadways. The Amendments would allow indoor Medical uses at ground level and below, increase the number of memberships to the private club associated with the approved luxury hotel and residences, and allow shorter term rentals of the previously approved residences.
These are primarily operational changes that would not create any new light sources or result in any changes to project aesthetics. Previously required mitigation measures would still be applicable. Accordingly, the Amendments would not result in any new aesthetics impacts, nor would they increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Air Quality. The SEIR for the Approved Project identified construction-related emission impacts resulting from use of heavy-duty construction equipment, fugitive dust mobilized by export of demolition debris and soil export, and the evaporation of VOCs from architectural coatings, which were mitigated to a less than significant level. The Amendments primarily involve operational changes to previously approved buildings, and the new Medical uses would occupy portions of the building that were previously contemplated and analyzed as part of the Approved Project. Thus, the overall construction period for the Proposed Project will be the same as was analyzed for the Approved Project. The Amendments do not involve any excavation, soil export, or application of architectural coatings beyond what was studied for the Approved Project.
The proposed amendments would also not result in any additional or more severe operational air quality impacts from mobile source emissions. Based on Trip Generation Estimates from Table 4 in Appendix G of the Final SEIR, the Approved Project estimated 1,314 daily trips from 370 condominium units and 326 daily trips from 42 hotel rooms in the Aman Hotel, for a total of 1,640 daily trips. The Proposed Project would generate 472 daily trips from 133 condominium units, 341 trips from 44 RRP units (using the hotel trip generation rate), and 590 trips from 76 hotel rooms in the Aman Hotel, for a total of 1,403 daily trips, resulting in a net reduction of 237 daily trips. Thus, the changes to minimum rental terms of the condominium units would not generate substantially increased mobile source emissions.
Removing the limit on AAP licenses would not generate significantly more mobile source emissions, since the amenities would continue to largely be available only to AAP licensees and not the general public. The addition of Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) as permitted uses in the Promenade would replace other traditional commercial uses such as retail and restaurant and would typically operate on an appointment-only basis, further reducing the potential for increased mobile source emissions. Furthermore, the mitigation measures applicable to the Approved Project would continue to apply to the Proposed Project, thereby further limiting any potential emissions. Accordingly, Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
7 the Amendments would not result in any new air quality impacts, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Biological Resources. The SEIR identified potentially significant impacts to locally important wildlife species, specifically nesting birds and roosting bats. The analysis found that certain trees located on the Los Angeles Country Club site would have high potential to support nesting birds and raptors, and the building on the gas station site at 9988 Wilshire Boulevard could also have potential for nesting birds as well as roosting bats. The SEIR imposed mitigation measures requiring demolition, construction, ground disturbance, and vegetation clearing activities in such a way as to avoid protected nesting birds by not initiating these activities during avian breeding and nesting season without a pre-construction survey conducted by a qualified biologist for active bird nests covering the construction footprint plus a buffer of 500 feet. Another mitigation measure was imposed requiring a clearance survey to determine if bats are roosting in the Spanish tile roof of the gas station located at 9988 Wilshire Boulevard. Since construction of the Approved Project has commenced, demolition of the gas station has been completed, and additional demolition and ground disturbance activities have commenced in compliance with all required mitigation measures.
No bat roosts were found, and buffers were implemented around identified bird nests on the construction site pursuant to the recommendations of a qualified biologist. The Amendments would not result in any new structures or demolition of any other structures that were previously analyzed as part of the Approved Project. Therefore, there are no existing structures that could serve as suitable bat habitat would be disturbed. Furthermore, no additional demolition, ground disturbance, or tree removals are required for the Proposed Project, and mitigation measures requiring nesting bird surveys would still be applicable to prevent impacts to any nesting birds. Accordingly, the Amendments would not result in any new impacts to biological resources, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Cultural Resources. The SEIR for the Approved Project identified significant and unavoidable impacts to the Beverly Hilton Hotel property, which is a historical resource. Mitigation measures were imposed, and a statement of overriding considerations was adopted. The Proposed Project consists primarily of operational and land use changes, does not consist of constructing any new structures, and the Amendments do not involve any additional demolition or otherwise impact the historical resources identified at the Beverly Hilton Hotel property. Furthermore, the Amendments do not necessitate any additional demolition, ground disturbance, or tree removals . No new cultural resources exist at the Proposed Project site, and the Amendments would not result in any new impacts on any historical resources, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
8 Energy. Energy impacts of the Approved Project were identified in prior environmental documentation and were based on a requirement for permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas service to power internal and exterior building lighting and heating and cooling systems for long-term operation.
These impacts were mitigated to less than significant levels by requiring compliance with energy conservation requirements of the California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code, as well as additional mitigation measures. Although the Amendments would introduce some new uses, including Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses, it would not require any building expansion or additional floor area. The proposed modifications to minimum rental terms and removal of the limit on AAP licensees would not result in any physical changes to the residential units or amenity areas. Thus, the Proposed Project would have similar energy demands as compared to the Approved Project, since the Amendments do not represent a significant change or increase in the size or scale of uses, light fixtures, or other energy intensive features. Both Approved and Proposed Projects would also be subject to California Energy Code and Green Building Standards Code requirements, and conditions of approval requiring LEED Gold certification would continue to apply.
Therefore, the Amendments would not result in any new energy impacts, nor would they increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Geology and Soils. Geology and soils impacts of the Approved Project related to seismically induced ground shaking that could damage structures and infrastructure, resulting in loss of property or risk to human safety. Both the Approved Project and the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) and California Building Code, as well as a mitigation measure that requires completion of a final geotechnical investigation, including an estimation of both vertical and horizontal anticipated peak ground accelerations and seismic design parameters, and ensuring that the recommendations of this investigation be incorporated into final structural design plans prior to issuance of a building permit. With adherence to the applicable code requirements and mitigation measures, the Amendments would not result in any new geology or soils impacts, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the Approved Project were focused on the removal of the gas station located at 9988 Wilshire Boulevard, which had gas pumps and a canopy structure, three underground storage tanks, and a convenience store, as well as other buildings at the Approved Project Site which may have contained asbestos, lead-based paints, and/or PCB’s that would be demolished as part of the Approved Project. Since construction of the Approved Project commenced, all structures at the gas station site, including underground storage tanks, have been removed in compliance with all applicable mitigation measures. Other building demolition at the Approved Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
9 Project site has also been completed in compliance with all applicable mitigation measures. The Proposed Project would be located on the same site with no remaining structures that have been identified to contain hazardous materials. No additional ground disturbance or tree removals are contemplated by the Amendments. Further, the proposed Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses would be required to comply with all applicable laws related to hazardous materials, including but not limited to medical waste, pharmaceutical waste, and hazardous chemicals. As discussed in the Final SEIR Section 4.6, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, “[t]he management of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes is regulated at the federal, state, and local levels through programs administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; agencies within the California Environmental Protection Agency, such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the State Water Resources Control Board; federal and state occupational safety agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Division of Occupational safety and Health; and locally by the Los Angeles County Fire Department Health and Hazardous Materials Division. Accordingly, with compliance with existing regulations relating to the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, including any medical waste, the Amendments would not result in any new impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Hydrology and Water Quality. Water quality impacts of the Approved Project were identified in prior environmental documentation and were based on demolition and construction related water quality impacts as well as parking lot/garage generated pollutants and runoff from landscaped areas. Mitigation measures were imposed requiring preparation of a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with State requirements, as well as submittal of a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan in accordance with Los Angeles County requirements. With these mitigation measures, impacts were found to be less than significant. The Proposed Project would be subject to the same mitigation measures and the Amendments would not require any increased landscape area. Accordingly, the Amendments would not result in any new impacts to hydrology or water quality, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Land Use and Planning. The Approved Project was found to be consistent with applicable local and regional planning policies, regulations, and standards with implementation of various mitigation measures throughout the SEIR, and as a result, impacts were found to be less than significant. The Project Site is located in the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan zone and is governed by the land use regulations and development standards contained in the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan. The Amendments do not result in any increase in floor area or building height compared to the Approved Project. Therefore, it is consistent Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
10 with the applicable development standards. The Amendments include changes to allowable land uses, namely the addition of Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses and includes changes to other provisions related to AAP licensees and minimum rental terms for residential units. Therefore, the Proposed Project will require amendments to the Specific Plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for recommendation and ultimately approved by the City Council.
Section 5.2 of the Specific Plan identifies General Plan goals and policies that would be advanced by the Approved Project. The Proposed Project and Amendments would not conflict with any of the goals and policies listed therein, and would further support the following policies:
• 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.
• LU 9.2 Uses for Diverse Customers: Accommodate retail, office, entertainment, dining, hotel, and visitor-serving uses that support the needs of local residents, attract customers from the region, and provide a quality experience for national and international tourists. • LU 9.3 Anchor Locations: It is recommended that certain anchor locations be set aside to permit development of a higher intensity type of development which is not otherwise provided in the community. These areas should be located so as to be accessible from the City’s major shopping areas and close to the City’s major streets. These anchor locations should include those large parcels that are located at the gateways of the City, such as the site at 9850, 9876, 9900, and 9988 Wilshire boulevard where additional building height is appropriate. A variety of land uses such as commercial, hotel, residential, and mixed use should be considered for the gateway locations. A change in use from commercial to residential, hotel or mixed use should be allowed only if such change provides an adequate transition to adjacent single-family neighborhoods.
• LU 15.2 Priority Businesses: Retain and build upon the key business sectors contributing to the City’s identity, economy and revenue for resident services, such as entertainment-related Class-A offices, high end retail and fashion, restaurant, hotel, technology and supporting uses. • ES 1.4 Retain Existing Industries: Consistent with future economic sustainability plans, encourage industries such as luxury retail, tourism, Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
11 hoteling, finance, entertainment and media businesses and remain and expand within the City.
• ES 2.1 Marketing. Market the City’s unique tenant base and flagship status in the region to maintain and enhance commercial, lodging, retail, entertainment, media and office businesses in the Triangle and other locations throughout the City.
The Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses that would be allowed by the Amendments would offer additional amenities for residents, hotel guests, and the general public without reducing or otherwise impacting the Approved Project’s public or private open space areas. These uses would be limited to the Promenade and will be away from any ground floor street frontage, thereby preserving ample space for retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses throughout the remainer of the Project Site. Parking will also be provided for the Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses consistent with retail parking ratios established in the OBHOSP, ensuring there will be sufficient parking supply for these uses. Having these uses in such close proximity to the new residences and hotel amenities of the Approved Project would also create a synergy for regional, national, and international customers looking for high quality medical services. The proposed modifications to the AAP licensing limits would enhance the viability of the new luxury hotel, thereby supporting a key industry that is identified as a priority business for the City. The proposed modifications to the minimum rental term limits would result in additional Transient Occupancy Tax and Municipal Surcharge from the 44 residential units that concurrently could be rented for a minimum of one night, further supporting the City’s economic priorities. In contrast to short-term rentals in single-family homes and more typical multi-family buildings, the one-night minimum rentals in the proposed Amendments would be administered by the Aman hotel and closely regulated by a RRP that is subject to review and approval by the City’s Director of Community Development.
Approval of the Amendments by the City Council would make the Proposed Project consistent with local planning policies, regulations, and standards, and all mitigation measures required in the SEIR for the Approved Project would continue to apply to the Proposed Project. Accordingly, the Proposed Project would not result in any new land use and planning impacts, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Noise. Potentially significant noise impacts related to Approved Project construction and significant and unavoidable noise impacts related to cumulative construction noise were identified in the SEIR. Specifically, the impacts resulted Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
12 from exceedance of 5 dBA above ambient noise levels before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. With implementation of numerous mitigation measures, impacts related to Approved Project construction were reduced to less than significant, however cumulative construction noise impacts remained significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City Council in its approval of the Approved Project. The Amendments do not consist of any new floor area or building expansion and thus would not consist of any additional or prolonged construction activity at the project site beyond what was already studied for the Approved Project. Any construction activity before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. would still require an after-hours permit is issued by the Community Development Department.
The proposed amendments would also not result in any additional or more severe operational noise impacts. With respect to the RRP units, minimum rental terms of one night would make up to 44 condominium units operate substantially as hotel uses for purposes of trip generation. Based on Trip Generation Estimates from Table 4 in Appendix G of the Final SEIR, the Approved Project estimated 1,314 daily trips from 370 condominium units and 326 daily trips from 42 hotel rooms in the Aman Hotel, for a total of 1,640 daily trips. The Proposed Project would generate 472 daily trips from 133 condominium units, 341 trips from 44 RRP units (using the hotel trip generation rate), and 590 trips from 76 hotel rooms in the Aman Hotel, for a total of 1,403 daily trips, resulting in a net reduction of 237 daily trips. Thus, the changes to minimum rental terms of the condominium units would not generate substantially increased vehicular traffic noise.
Removing the limit on AAP licenses would not generate significantly more noise from vehicular traffic, since the amenities would continue to largely be available only to AAP licensees and not the general public. The addition of Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) as permitted uses in the Promenade would replace other traditional commercial uses such as retail and restaurant and would typically operate on an appointment-only basis, further reducing the potential for increased vehicular traffic noise. No other new noise sources are anticipated from the Proposed Project that were not studied in the SEIR, and the Proposed Project would operate within the same hours as the Approved Project.
All noise-related mitigation measures would continue to apply to the Proposed Project, further reducing the potential for construction noise impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any new noise impacts, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Public Services. Public services impacts of the Approved Project were identified in prior environmental documentation and were based on statements from the Beverly Hills Fire Department that the proposed traffic signal at the intersection of Merv Griffin Way and Santa Monica Boulevard could potentially slow emergency response times and inhibit access to the site, but that impacts would be less than Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
13 significant with implementation of a mitigation measure requiring certain technical changes to the proposed traffic signal. The Proposed Project does not involve any changes to the proposed traffic signal contemplated in the Approved Project, and the mitigation measure would continue to apply. Additionally, the inclusion of Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses would not include emergency medical services, and the types of surgical care services offered would be limited by nature of being outpatient care. Thus, these new uses are not expected to require a significant change to the frequency or type of emergency services being provided to the Specific Plan area. Accordingly, the Amendments would not result in any new impacts to public services, nor would they increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Transportation and Traffic. Transportation and traffic impacts of the Approved Project were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The Proposed Project would not increase the overall floor area in the project site and thus would not generate substantially more operational traffic than was already analyzed as part of the SEIR for the Approved Project. While the SEIR trip estimates were based on a maximum of 250 AAP licensees, any increase in trips resulting from the changes to the number of AAP licenses would have no effect on the project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) analysis because the SEIR determined that the project site is located within a TPA, thereby satisfying Screening Criteria 4 of the City’s adopted VMT impact thresholds. Construction-related trips for the Proposed Project would not change, as the Proposed Project does not involve any building expansion or additional floor area. All mitigation measures from the Approved Project would continue to apply to the Proposed Project. Accordingly, the Amendments would not result in any new transportation or traffic impacts, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Tribal Cultural Resources. Impacts to tribal cultural resources for the Approved Project were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The SEIR required monitoring by two consulted tribal organizations during construction that would involve ground disturbing activities such as grading and surface excavation, which would have the potential to unearth or adversely affect previously unidentified significant tribal cultural resources. The Proposed Project primarily consists of changes to land uses and operations of buildings that were previously approved and does not involve any new excavation or other ground disturbing activities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have the potential to unearth or adversely affect tribal cultural resources. Nonetheless, all mitigation measures from the Approved Project would continue to apply to the Proposed Project.
Accordingly, the Amendments would not result in any new impacts tribal cultural resources, nor would it increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
14 Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts to utilities and service systems for the Approved Project were determined to be less than significant with mitigation. The SEIR analyzed the impact of additional population, building height, and development area to the Approved Project site as compared to existing conditions, as well as the impact of increased water demand. Mitigation measures were imposed requiring review of fire flow requirements and a hydraulic analysis to determine the need for upgrades to City water mains.
The SEIR calculated projected water demand by land use for the Approved Project (Table 4.11-3). The Proposed Project would not result in any increase in floor area or a substantial increase in the intensity of use. The amount of area proposed to be converted to Medical and/or Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) use is approximately 11,000 square feet, which is approximately 10% of the shared amenity area. The water demands of the Medical uses would be similar to those assumed for the non-restaurant/retail amenities in the SEIR. Using the same methodology as the SEIR, the water demand for 11,000 square feet of Medical use would be 3,437.5 gallons per day, compared to 2,062.5 gallons per day for nonresidential/retail amenity uses. This represents an increase of 1,365 gallons per day, which is less than 0.5% of the overall project water demand estimate for the project, which was 283,627 gallons per day. It is noted that this also does not account for prior reductions made to the project that would offset this increase, such as a decrease in total residential unit counts from 340 to 177. The proposed reductions in minimum rental terms for the residential condominiums would not change the physical design of the residential units, nor would they require additional fixtures generating greater water demand. Therefore, the conclusions of the SEIR with respect to water demand would not change with implementation of the Amendments.
Since water demands are based on wastewater generation factors, the analysis above would be the same for changes in wastewater generation. Additionally, wastewater treatment impacts of the Approved Project were identified in prior environmental documentation and were based on the potential for the restaurant use in the Approved Project to generate heavier discharge of fats, oils, and grease, which was considered a potentially significant impact that was mitigated to less than significant. The Amendments would not increase the total floor area of restaurants or other uses that would generate fats, oils, or grease, however mitigation measures would continue to apply to the Proposed Project.
Solid waste generation, electrical demand, and natural gas demand rates for the Medical use areas are generally the same or slightly lower than that for the nonrestaurant/retail amenities space they would be replacing. Finally, the Proposed Project’s amendments to AAP licensee limits and minimal rental terms for residential units do not require any additional floor area or fixtures as compared to the Approved Project and therefore would not result in any additional utility Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
15 demands. Accordingly, the Amendments would not result in any new impacts to utilities and service systems, nor would they increase the severity of previously identified significant impacts.
(B) There are no changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified impact. Since approval of the Approved Project, the City of Beverly Hills has not approved any new significant development projects within the vicinity of the Project site. Further, the Amendments will not result in any cumulatively considerable change in the Approved Project impacts. Accordingly, no cumulative impacts from the construction and/or operation of the Proposed Project are anticipated. Consequently, the circumstances under which the Proposed Project would be undertaken have not changed when compared to the circumstances in place during approval of the Approved Project.
Staff has identified no new information of substantial importance to suggest that (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration; (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternative.
All mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the Original Project continue to be imposed on the Proposed Project and are provided for reference in Exhibit 1 to this Addendum.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has prepared this Addendum #3 to the Final SEIR, which documents that the Amendments would not result in any of the conditions described in Section 15162, including that the changes would not result in new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Prior to taking any action on the Proposed Project, the decision-making body will consider this Addendum along with the previously certified Final SEIR and Addenda (Exhibits 1 through 3).
For any questions regarding this matter, please contact Andre Sahakian, AICP, Project Manager in the Beverly Hills Community Development Department at (310) 285-1121.
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
16 By:
Andre Sahakian, AICP, Project Manager
Date: May 6, 2026
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
EXHIBIT 1
Certified Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No. 2020090048)
(available at www.beverlyhills.org/environmental)
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
EXHIBIT 2
Addendum #1 to the Final SEIR for the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project (available at www.beverlyhills.org/environmental)
Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project
EXHIBIT 3
Addendum #2 to the Final SEIR for the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Project (available at www.beverlyhills.org/environmental)