Beverly Hills City Council
October 20, 2026

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: October 20, 2026
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Cindy Gordon, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Andre Sahakian, AICP, Project Manager
Subject: AMENDMENTS TO THE ONE BEVERLY HILLS OVERLAY SPECIFIC

PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AND BH LUXURY RESIDENCES AND

OASIS WEST REALTY LLC
Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2128 Exhibit 1. Conditions of Approval, as amended
Exhibit 2. Amendments to Chapters 4 and 6 of the One
Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan

2. Applicable General Plan Goals and Policies

3. Public Notice

4. Correspondence Received

5. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Addenda (web link)

6. Addendum #3 to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a public hearing to consider the requested amendments and;

2. Direct staff to prepare an ordinance and resolution implementing the Council’s direction.

Meeting Date: October 20, 2026

BACKGROUND
In 2021, the City Council adopted the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (OBHOSP), certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR), and approved a development agreement between the City of Beverly Hills and BH Luxury Residences, LLC and Oasis West Realty, LLC. These approvals, along with other related subsequent actions, allow for the construction of the One Beverly Hills project. The applicants have requested amendments to the OBHOSP as follows:
• Modify the list of permitted uses in the Promenade (Amenity Area) portion of the OBHOSP (Section 4.2 D.) to allow Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses and allow such uses to be open to the public, and amend the parking requirements (Section 4.3, Table C) to reflect this change; • Reduce minimum lease periods for residential condominiums to establish a Residences Rental Program (RRP) that would allow the owner of any condominium unit to place their unit into a pool that would allow rental of that unit for a minimum of one night, provided that no more than 44 units are rented on any given night. (Amendment to Section 6.2, and conditions 94 and 95.) Pursuant to the OBHOSP and the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), these amendments require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and final approval by the City Council. On August 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the amendments and adopted Resolution No. 2128, recommending that the City Council approve the amendments relating to Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses (Attachment 1). The Planning Commission could not, however, reach majority consensus on the request for the RRP amendments, and thus recommended against those amendments by default.

In addition to the OBHOSP amendments, the applicant has also proposed amendments to the development agreement as follows:
• Clarify that the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and a 5% Municipal Surcharge both apply to rentals of condominium units with stays between one and 30 days, and a 19% Municipal Surcharge applies to rentals of condominium units with stays of more than 30 days;
• Add a revenue sharing agreement based on the gross receipts generated from any Medical and/or Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses; • Increase the Environmental Mitigation and Sustainability (EMS) fee for certain units; and
• Allowance of a three-pronged approach to satisfying the project’s Fine Art Obligation.

In order to approve any proposed amendments to the development agreement, the City Council must first find that the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan.

Meeting Date: October 20, 2026

DISCUSSION
Medical Uses
The proposed medical uses are contemplated to be approximately 11,000 square feet in floor area and would be on Level P1 and Level 1 in areas that are below street level and do not front on any public streets. In case the location of these uses changes in the future, a condition of approval is recommended requiring such uses be located at least 50 feet from any public street-facing façade to preserve space for pedestrian-oriented uses and features. The location and relative size of the proposed uses ensure that they would not have a negative impact on pedestrian-oriented areas such as the Wilshire Boulevard, North Santa Monica Boulevard, or public botanical garden frontages, and would leave ample space for retail, dining, and other pedestrian-oriented uses throughout the plan area. Although the amenities in the Promenade (Amenity Area) were contemplated to only be accessible to OBHOSP residents, hotel guests, and club members and their guests, the proposed medical uses would be open to the public.

These uses would offer opportunities to provide high quality medical and wellness services to regional, national, and international customers due to their proximity to the Aman hotel and other luxury hotels in the surrounding area. These uses are also consistent with what has been permitted in registered medical buildings in other areas of the city. Additional conditions of approval have been recommended by staff to ensure that Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses and associated services do not extend into the hotels to preserve a clear separation of uses, and to ensure any private ambulance services provided by the operators do not conflict with Beverly Hills Fire Department or Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services emergency response policies.

The applicant has also proposed amending the OBHOSP to establish a parking ratio of

0.902 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area and 0.377 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for associated employee parking, which are the same ratios used for retail uses in the OBHOSP. For comparison, this parking requirement would be slightly higher than what is typically required for similar medical uses outside the OBHOSP area, thereby ensuring that adequate parking would be available for these newly proposed uses.

For these reasons, the Planning Commission unanimously made a finding that the addition of these uses in the Promenade (Amenity Area) along with the proposed parking ratio and recommended conditions of approval would further the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, and general welfare and that these amendments would be consistent with the General Plan.

Residences Rental Program
The applicant has proposed establishing the RRP, which would allow a maximum of 44 residential units in the OBHOSP to be rented for a minimum of one night. In this program, individual owners of residential units would have the ability to enroll their units in the RRP or opt out at any time, and at no point would more than 44 units be rented on any given night. The RRP would be administered by the Aman hotel, and all reservations would occur through the Aman. If the Council direction is to allow the requested RRP, staff recommends an additional condition of approval requiring a RRP Plan to be submitted to the Directors of Community Development and Finance for approval, with specifications on the way in which nightly rentals will be tracked and reported to the City Meeting Date: October 20, 2026

for purposes of collecting the required taxes and fees. TOT and Municipal Surcharges (as defined in the Development Agreement associated with the OBHOSP), as well as the City business tax for residential property renting and leasing (Classification E), would be applicable to rentals in the RRP based on the proposed amendments described below, although the residential units in the RRP would not be considered a hotel for the purposes of the OBHOSP. In order to provide transparency to potential buyers, staff recommends amending the conditions of approval relating to the covenants, conditions, and restrictions to require that they include a statement notifying buyers that these requirements and obligations would apply if they participated in the RRP.

As discussed at previous City Council meetings, one of the challenges with short-term rentals has been difficulty tracking and enforcing violations, especially in cases where property owners are not forthcoming with information. In the context of the RRP, shortterm rentals of the condominiums would be administered only by the Aman hotel, and units would not be listed or available for rent through any third-party rental platforms.

Conditions recommended by staff would require regular reporting of rentals and tracking of specific units within the RRP. Thus, the structure of the RRP allows for greater and more centralized oversight compared to short-term rentals more broadly, and as a result would not present the same types of enforcement challenges or create any strain on the city’s enforcement resources. The Council has also expressed concern about the impact on short-term rentals on the supply and cost of housing in the city. The RRP will not meaningfully affect these issues because they are designed and intended to be luxury units not otherwise available in the city at a price point substantially above typical market rate housing. Furthermore, even if several units are included in the RRP, they would still be considered additional housing units in the city’s housing stock and would count toward the city’s Housing Element obligations.

During its deliberations on the RRP-related amendments, the Planning Commission was evenly split 2-2 and thus recommended against these amendments by default. The two Commissioners who could make the findings in support of these amendments pointed to the unique nature of the OBHOSP area, and noted that Aman’s central role in managing the program would substantially reduce the likelihood of the impacts associated with short-term rentals elsewhere in the city. The two Commissioners who could not make the findings noted that the city has recently restricted short-term rentals in other zones, and the OBHOSP’s existing conditions of approval prohibit rentals of fewer than 180 days.

Development Agreement
In conjunction with these requests for amendments to the OBHOSP, the applicant has also proposed amendments to the associated development agreement. With respect to the additional medical uses, a revenue-sharing arrangement could be negotiated such that the city receives a portion of gross receipts from medical uses in the OBHOSP area to offset any additional costs to the city for providing emergency response services caused by these proposed uses. The City Manager will present preliminary ideas regarding the amount of this gross receipts charge at the October 20, 2026 meeting.

Relating to the RRP program, since the additional residential units could potentially be rented out on a nightly basis similar to a hotel use, applying the city’s TOT and previously negotiated Municipal Surcharge would be appropriate in order to ensure parity with the remaining hotel uses in the OBHOSP and elsewhere throughout the city.

Meeting Date: October 20, 2026

The following structure would ensure that all stays less than one year are subject to a total of 19% combination:

Stay Duration (Days) TOT Municipal Surcharge Total
1 through 30 14% 5% 19%
31 through 364 0% 19% 19%
Additionally, in order to efficiently administer the collection of business taxes, it is recommended that a provision be added to the development agreement requiring that the Aman hotel collect and remit the required Classification E business tax on behalf of participating unit owners concurrently with their monthly TOT and municipal surcharge filings.

Aside from the requested OBHOSP amendments, changes to the development agreement are also proposed to memorialize a prior commitment by the applicant to offset the city’s potential costs from the Community Facilities District that was previously approved by the City Council. These amendments would increase the required EMS fee for certain residential units to 3% for the first sale and 4% for subsequent sales. There would also be an increase to the EMS fee for non-residential sales to 3% for sales up to December 31, 2030 and 4% thereafter.

Finally, The Community Services Department’s Arts & Culture Division staff have also been working with the applicant regarding the project’s fine art obligation, which is valued at $8.5 million. Due to the size and scope of the project, the applicant is looking at fulfilling their fine art obligation through a few different avenues – approximately five permanent art installations, one rotating art installation, and a proposed performance space to be situated within the botanical garden in the project. At this time, the city’s Arts & Culture team is working with the applicant to determine whether these options meet the fine art criteria outlined in the Fine Art Ordinance. Once that determination is made, the applicant can move forward working with those artists and staff to present each of the proposed artworks and artists to the Arts & Culture Commission for approval. It is anticipated that additional amendments to the development agreement will be required to be brought forward to City Council once the applicant has further developed their concept for the performance space and rotating installation.

General Plan Consistency
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies relevant to the City Council’s review of the project. A full analysis of the OBHOSP’s consistency with the General Plan is provided in Table 4.7-2 in the Land Use and Planning Section (Section 4.7) of the Final SEIR (Attachment 5). Some of the policies relevant to the City Council’s review of the project are included in Attachment 2, and further consistency analysis for the proposed amendments is provided in the Land Use and Planning section of Addendum #3 to the Final SEIR (Attachment 6).

The medical uses that would be allowed by the proposed amendments would offer additional amenities for residents, hotel guests, and the general public without negatively impacting the pedestrian environment or open space areas in the OBHOSP. These uses would be limited to the Promenade and will be away from any street frontage, thereby preserving ample space for retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses throughout the remainder of the plan area. Parking will also be provided for these uses consistent with retail parking ratios established in the OBHOSP. Having these uses in such proximity to Meeting Date: October 20, 2026

the new residences and hotel amenities would also create a synergy for regional, national, and international customers looking for high quality medical services and recovery accommodations. Incorporating a revenue-sharing provision in the development agreement for these medical uses would offset any additional costs to the city resulting from increased emergency services.

The proposed modifications to the minimum rental term limits and the associated amendments to the development agreement would result in additional TOT and Municipal Surcharge from the 44 residential units that 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 through a closely regulated RRP, which would be subject to review and approval by the Directors of Community Development and Finance. Finally, the RRP will not meaningfully affect housing supply or costs in the city because the residential units are designed and marketed as luxury units at a price point substantially above typical market rate housing, and the new units in the RRP would still contribute toward the city’s Housing Element obligations.

For these reasons, the proposed amendments would not conflict with relevant goals and policies in the General Plan, and would further support the following policies:
• LU 7.2 – Amenities
• LU 9.2 – Uses for Diverse Customers
• LU 9.3 – Anchor Locations
• LU 15.2 – Priority Businesses
• ES 1.4 – Retain Existing Industries
• ES 2.1 – Marketing

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the city. The City Council adopted Resolution 21-R13348 on June 8, 2021, certifying a Final SEIR, which analyzes potential environmental impacts associated with development of the project consistent with the OBHOSP. The City Council will consider the Addendum #3 prepared for the proposed amendments, in conjunction with the certified Final SEIR for the OBHOSP project and related Addenda.

The Final SEIR for the OBHOSP project and all associated Addenda are available for review at www.beverlyhills.org/environmental. Addendum #3 to the Final SEIR is included as Attachment 6.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing was posted on the project site and mailed to property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 3), and published in the Beverly Hills Courier on Friday, September 25, 2026. Notice was also published in the Beverly Hills Weekly on Thursday, October 1, 2026. Further, courtesy emails were sent to all interested parties advising them of the public hearing date. All public correspondence received as of the publication of this report is included in Attachment 4.

Meeting Date: October 20, 2026

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed amendments to the OBHOSP are likely to have fiscal impacts on the city due to increased demand for public services. To offset those impacts, the applicant has proposed amendments to the development agreement associated with the project.

These amendments include applying the city’s TOT and a Municipal Surcharge to the RRP units; sharing revenue generated from the gross receipts from medical uses; increases to the EMS Fee; and modifications to the project’s fine art requirements. With these amendments to the development agreement, the proposed amendments to the OBHOSP will not result in a negative fiscal impact on the city.

Michael Forbes
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2128

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS RECOMMENDING THAT THE

CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONALLY APPROVE

AMENDMENTS TO THE ONE BEVERLY HILLS OVERLAY

SPECIFIC PLAN RELATING TO PERMITTED USES IN THE

PROMENADE (AMENITY AREA) IN CONNECTION WITH

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MIXED-USE PROJECT
LOCATED AT 9876, 9900, AND 9988 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
(ALSO KNOWN AS THE ONE BEVERLY HILLS PROJECT)

AND ADOPT AN ADDENDUM PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(PL2600082)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and determines as follows:

Section 1. BH Luxury Residences, LLC and OWR Hotel Owner, LLC (the property owners, and collectively referred to as the “Applicant”) submitted an application for amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (“OBHOSP”) for the properties located at 9876, 9900, and 9988 Wilshire Boulevard for construction pursuant to the OBHOSP. 1 The proposed amendments are provided in full in Exhibits 1 and 2 to this resolution, and summarized as follows (hereafter collectively referred to as the “Amendments”):

1. Modify the list of permitted uses in the Promenade (Amenity Area) portion of the OBHOSP, as set forth in paragraph D of Section 4.2 (Permitted Uses) of Chapter 4.0 (Development Standards and Guidelines) to allow Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses and allow such uses to be open to the public, and modify the parking 1 The OBHOSP also covers the property at 9850 Wilshire Boulevard, the Waldorf Astoria site, however the proposed amendments have no effect on that property,
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 2 ratios in Table C, as set forth in Section 4.3 (Parking) of the OBHOSP, to establish a parking ratio for such uses;

2. Establish, through amendment of OBHOSP Section 6.2 (Residential Buildings) of Chapter 6.0 (Operational Standards) and amendment of conditions of approval 94 and 95, a Residences Rental Program (“RRP”) that would allow the owner of any condominium unit to place their unit into a hotel-managed pool that would allow rental of that unit for a minimum of one night, provided that no more than 44 units are rented at any given night.

Section 2. On June 8, 2021, the Beverly Hills City Council conditionally approved the OBHOSP for a comprehensive and coordinated alternative redevelopment of the approximately 17.4-acre project site at the western gateway to the city including properties at 9850, 9876, 9900, and 9988 Wilshire Boulevard. The OBHOSP allows residential, retail and hotel, and open space uses, including 1,933,436 square feet (SF) of total building floor area; up to 340 residential units and 30 accessory spaces for 1,034,645 SF of residential floor area; up to 600 hotel rooms for 781,559 SF of hotel floor area; 117,232 SF of shared amenity area; 2,179 subterranean parking spaces; and 4.5 acres of public open space. To date, various subdivision, Administrative Modifications, and non-material modifications have been approved by the Director of Community Development and the Planning Commission pursuant to OBHOSP Section 5.6 (Amendments and Modifications to the Overlay Specific Plan). The Amendments that are the subject of this Resolution do not change any previously approved modifications, which shall remain in full force and effect in the event that the Amendments are approved. The property owner now seeks approval of certain amendments to the OBHOSP as specified in Exhibits 1 and 2 to this Resolution. If Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 3 approved, the conditions of approval established in conjunction with the June 8, 2021 approval of the OBHOSP shall remain in full force and effect, as amended.

Section 3. The City of Beverly Hills previously certified a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) for the OBHOSP Project on June 8, 2021 (City Council Resolution No. 21-R-13348). Subsequently, on June 13, 2024, the Planning Commission adopted Addendum #1 to the Final SEIR in conjunction with the approval of Resolution No. 2061 (approving a conditional use permit to allow temporary construction offices and other related uses on a different site), and Addendum #2 in conjunction with the approval of Resolution No. 2072 (allowing the installation of a retractable shade canopy structure on the rooftop of the Waldorf Astoria hotel). The requested Amendments have been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City has prepared Addendum #3 to the Final SEIR, which documents changes to the project that would not result in new, significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The Planning Commission considered the certified Final SEIR, the previously adopted Addenda, and Addendum #3 to the Final SEIR, and recommends that the City Council adopt Addendum #3.

Section 4. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on August 7, 2026 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property plus block-face and posted on the property. Additionally, notice of the Project and public hearing was published in two newspapers of local circulation, the Beverly Hills Courier and the Beverly Press on August 7, 2026 and August 13, 2026, respectively. On August 27, 2026, the Planning Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 4 Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at the meeting.

Section 5. In reviewing the request for the Amendments, the Planning Commission considered, based on the facts presented during the public hearings, whether the public interest, health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, or general welfare required the reclassification of the subject property with respect to the request for Amendments to the OBHSOP. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission finds, and recommends that the City Council find, as follows with respect to the Amendments:

1. Medical Uses in the Promenade. The proposed Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses are contemplated to be approximately 11,000 square feet in floor area and would be in the P1 and Level 1 levels of the project in areas that do not front on any public streets. The location and relative size of the proposed uses, as well as a condition of approval that requires such uses be located at least 50 feet from any public street-facing façade, ensures that they would not have a negative impact on pedestrianoriented areas such as the Wilshire Boulevard, North Santa Monica Boulevard, or public botanical garden frontages, and would leave ample space for retail, dining, and other pedestrian-oriented uses throughout the plan area. Although the Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses would be open to the public, they would be part of the Promenade, which is primarily intended to contain amenities that are only accessible to residents, luxury hotel guests, and AAP members and their guests. These uses would offer opportunities to provide high quality medical and wellness services to regional, national, and international customers due to their proximity to the Aman hotel and other luxury hotels in the surrounding area. Additional conditions of approval have been included to Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 5 ensure that Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses and associated services are not extended into the hotels in the plan area to preserve a clear separation of uses. For these reasons, the addition of these as permitted uses in the Promenade (Amenity Area) of the OBHOSP will further the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, and general welfare. The retail parking ratio that is proposed to be used for the Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses in the OBHOSP is higher than what would otherwise be required elsewhere in the city before applying adjustment factors for the OBHOSP site, such as parking demand variability by time, internal capture, and modal split. Therefore, the proposed parking ratio for Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses will provide the necessary parking supply, supporting peace, comfort, and general welfare.

2. Residences Rental Program. The Planning Commission was unable to reach a majority consensus regarding the proposed amendments to Chapter 6.2 of the OBHOSP as shown in Exhibit 2 that would establish the RRP, and the proposed amendments to conditions of approval 94 and 95 as shown in Exhibit 1. Vice Chair Ross and Commissioner Kaplan indicated that they could make the required findings based on the unique characteristics of the OBHOSP as opposed to short-term rentals Citywide. Namely, they noted that the RRP would be monitored by the hotel operator, which in this case would be the Aman hotel. Transient Occupancy Tax (“TOT”) and Municipal Surcharges (as defined in the Development Agreement associated with the OBHOSP) would be applicable to rentals in the RRP, although the residential units in the RRP would not be considered a “hotel” for the purposes of the OBHOSP. In the proposed RRP, short-term rentals of the condominiums in the One Beverly Hills project would be administered by the Aman hotel, Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 6 with conditions of approval requiring regular reporting of rentals and tracking of specific units within the RRP as part of a RRP Plan that would be required subject to the review and approval of the Director of Community Development prior to the commencement of any rentals under the RRP. Thus, the structure of the RRP allows for greater and more centralized oversight as compared to short-term rentals more broadly, and as a result would not present the same types of enforcement challenges or create as much strain on the City’s enforcement resources as independent short-term rentals dispersed throughout the city. The application of TOT and Municipal Surcharge to these 44 potential short-term rental units would generate substantial revenue for the City and would offer a unique type of luxury accommodation that is not otherwise available in the city. For these reasons, Vice Chair Ross and Commissioner Kaplan concluded that the establishment of the RRP would further the public interest, safety, convenience, and general welfare.

Chair Milkowski and Commissioner Wolfe, however, could not make the finding that the RRP would further public interest, safety, convenience, and general welfare because the existing OBHOSP limits rental terms to a minimum of 180 days, and allowing short-term rental uses was incompatible with recent City Council policy decisions restricting short-term rentals citywide, with which they agreed. Commissioner Wolfe noted that the City Council, in its authority to consider changes to the Development Agreement associated with the OBHOSP, may determine that additional public benefits as may be agreed upon between the Applicant and the City Council justify the RRP amendments.

Section 6. In reviewing the request for the Amendments, the Planning Commission considered, based on the facts presented during the public hearing, whether the Amendments are consistent with the General Plan. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 7 Commission finds, and hereby recommends that the City Council find, as follows with respect to the Amendments:

1. Medical Uses in the Promenade. 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 pedestrian environment or open space areas in the OBHOSP. These uses would be limited to the Promenade and will be away from any street frontage, thereby preserving ample space for retail and other pedestrian-oriented uses throughout the remainer of the plan area. Parking will also be provided for the Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses consistent with retail parking ratios established in the OBHOSP. 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.

2. Residences Rental Program. The proposed modifications to the minimum rental term limits to establish a RRP would result in additional TOT 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 through a closely regulated by a RRP managed by the Aman hotel and that is subject to review and approval by the City’s Director of Community Development. For these reasons, the Amendments do not conflict with relevant goals and policies in the General Plan, and would further support the following policies: LU 7.2 Amenities; LU 9.2 Uses for Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 8 Diverse Customers; LU 9.3 Anchor Locations; LU 15.2 Priority Businesses; ES 1.4 Retain Existing Industries; ES 2.1 Marketing.

Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve a resolution amending the OBHOSP to allow for Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses in the Promenade (Amenity Area) and identifying parking requirements for such uses as shown in Exhibit 2, with the addition of condition of approval 101 as shown in Exhibit 1. The Commission makes no recommendation as to the RRP and related amendments to Section 6.2 of the OBHOSP as shown in Exhibit 2 and conditions of approval 94 and 95 as shown in Exhibit 1. ///
///
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 9 Section 8. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission.

Adopted: August 27, 2026
Lou Milkowski
Chair of the Planning Commission of
the City of Beverly Hills, California
Attest:

Cindy Gordon, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
Approved As To Form: Approved As To Content:

David M. Snow Cindy Gordon, AICP
Assistant City Attorney Assistant Director/City Planner Community Development Department
EXHIBITS:

1. Conditions of Approval, as amended

2. Amendments to Ch. 4 and Ch. 6 of the OBHOSP
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE Exhibit 1: Conditions of Approval, as amended
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 1 Community Development/Planning Project Conditions

1. Compliance with Plans. The Project shall be built in substantial compliance with the approved plans dated June 8, 2021 (“Approved Plans”). The Approved Plans shall be revised based upon the materials depicting redesigned public access to the publicly accessible gardens from North Santa Monica Boulevard dated June 8,2021. The final form of the revised Approved Plans is subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development to ensure compliance with the City Council’s direction regarding the redesign of the public entrance from North Santa Monica Boulevard. These Approved Plans shall be kept on file with the City Clerk’s Office and the Department of Community Development, Planning Division, and subject to additional conditions as may be imposed by the Architectural Commission.

2. Minor Amendments. Minor Amendments to the Conditions of Approval may be approved by the Director of Community Development and shall not require an amendment to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (“Overlay Specific Plan” or “Plan”). Notwithstanding the amendments procedures in Overlay Specific Plan Section 5.6, any Conditions of Approval amendment deemed not to be minor by the Director of Community Development requires review and approval by the Planning Commission, and is appealable to the City Council, subject to the appeal and review procedures of Title 1, Article 4 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. Any material alteration to the Project, including but not limited to the design or appearance of the proposed buildings or landscaping will not be deemed to be a minor amendment, and shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission following the applicant review process of Title 1, Article 36 (Minor Accommodation) of the BHMC.

3. Number of Residential Units. In no case shall the Project include more than 340 residential units and 30 accessory spaces in accordance with the Approved Plans and Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 2 details contained in the approved One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan. The total floor area of the residential uses shall not exceed 1,034,645 square feet. Minor amendments to the total amount of residential floor area may be authorized by the Director pursuant to the amendment provisions in Section 5.6 of the Overlay Specific Plan as long as the total plan area floor area does not exceed 1,934,000 square feet.

4. Promenade (Shared Amenity Area). The total floor area of the shared amenities within the Promenade structure shall not exceed 117,232 square feet, in accordance with the Approved Plans. The amenities may be used by One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan area residents and their guests, Wilshire Building hotel guests, and Amenity Access Program (AAP) licensees and their guests, and may include uses identified in Section 4.2.D of the Overlay Specific Plan. Minor amendments to the total amount of shared amenity floor area may be authorized by the Director pursuant to the amendment provisions in Section 5.6 of the Overlay Specific Plan as long as the total plan area floor area does not exceed 1,934,000 square feet.

5. Hotel Rooms. In no case shall the Plan area include more than 600 hotel rooms in accordance with the Approved Plans and details contained in the approved One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan. The total floor area of the hotel rooms (exclusive of any Plan area retail, dining, bar, meeting room ancillary amenities, and back of house) shall not exceed 394,899 square feet. Notwithstanding to foregoing, minor changes to the total amount of hotel room floor area and number of hotel rooms may be authorized by the Director, who may refer such modification to the Planning Commission or City Council, pursuant to the amendment provisions in Section 5.6 of the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan as long as the total plan area floor area does not exceed 1,934,000 square feet and the number of hotel rooms do not exceed 630 (i.e. 5% above the allowed 600 hotel rooms per the Overlay Specific Plan). If Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 3 fractional ownership as a part of a Private Residence Club use is not approved by the Council as set forth in Condition of Approval 99, the maximum can be adjusted upward by up to 37 hotel rooms in the Wilshire Building. The Wilshire Building shall not have less than 42 hotel rooms.

6. Hotel, Retail, Dining, Bar, Meeting Rooms, and Ancillary Amenities. The Plan area shall include a maximum floor area of 67,224 square feet of ballroom, conference and meeting room facilities; 7,990 square feet of hotel shops; 35,236 square feet of North Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent public retail/food and beverage venue uses; 25,020 square feet of hotel restaurants and bar facilities (including restaurant and bar back of house facilities). The Plan area shall also include a maximum floor area of 244,128 square feet of hotel support facilities, and 7,062 square feet of hotel offices. Minor changes to the total amount of hotel room floor area may be authorized by the Director, who may refer such modification to the Planning Commission or City Council, pursuant to the amendment provisions in Section 5.6 of the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan as long as the total plan area floor area does not exceed 1,934,000 square feet.

7. Open Air Dining. Open Air Dining within the Plan area is limited to the locations identified on Overlay Specific Plan Figure 21. The Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills Hotel may maintain all existing Open Air Dining areas in existence at the time the Overlay Specific Plan is adopted. Future accessory and appurtenant food serving uses located within the Botanical Garden that have been authorized by the non-profit Conservancy overseeing the operation and maintenance of this publicly accessible area are subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development. If deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, review of future accessory and appurtenant food serving uses located within the Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 4 Botanical Garden may be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Director and/or Planning Commission decision is appealable to the City Council, subject to the appeal and review procedures of Title 1, Article 4 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.

8. Publicly Accessible Botanical and Sculpture Gardens. The location of the publicly accessible garden areas is identified on Figure 6A of the Overlay Specific Plan.

Public use of the 4.5-acres of publicly accessible garden areas and related ancillary facilities (such as public restrooms) shall be accessible to the public between dawn and dusk. Public access may be closed intermittently for maintenance and repairs, improvement work, and emergencies. The 4.5-acres of publicly accessible gardens cannot be used for private events except as authorized by the Specific Plan.

9. Botanical and Sculpture Gardens Recorded Public Access Document. A document memorializing permanent public access to the 4.5-acres of publicly accessible open space identified on Overlay Specific Plan Figure 6A shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Register-Recorder. This document shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and City Attorney.

10. Operation of the publicly accessible Botanical and Sculpture Gardens. The

4.5-acres of publicly accessible gardens shall be operated in accordance with Operating and Maintenance Standards established by a non-profit Conservancy and approved by the Director.

In addition to Conservancy Board members with a direct interest in the Plan area, the Board shall also include members not directly associated with the Plan area, such as Beverly Hills community member(s) not residing within the Plan area and City of Beverly Hills representation. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the Project, for the purpose of ensuring the Botanical Gardens remain publicly accessible and that the Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 5 Conservancy fulfills its adopted mission, the Beverly Hills City Council shall review and approve the Conservancy’s governing documents, including the by-laws, and amendments to the governing documents. The Plan area hotels are responsible for providing the non-profit Conservancy sufficient financial resources for the continued operation and maintenance of the publicly accessible garden, including future improvements and capital costs.

11. Operation of the privately accessible Reserved Gardens. The location of the privately accessible Reserved Garden is identified on Figure 6A of the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan. Access to the Reserved Gardens is limited to plan area residents and their guests, Wilshire Building hotel guests, and AAP members and their guests. The Reserved Gardens may be accessed by the identified user groups between 6:00 AM and midnight, seven days a week.

12. Restaurant and Open Air Dining Areas hours of operation. Restaurants/Food and Beverage Venues located within Plan area Hotels and the Beverly Hilton Enhancement Building may operate between the hours of 6:00 AM and 2:00 AM. Open air dining facilities identified on Specific Plan Figure 21 that abut plan area Hotels and the Beverly Hilton Enhancement Building may operate between the hours of 6:00 AM and 2:00 AM. Food service to hotel rooms and residential condominiums may be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Indoor Food and Beverage Venues located within the Promenade may operate between the hours of 6:00 AM to 2:00 AM. Open air dining located within the Reserved Gardens (identified on Specific Plan Figure 21) may operate between the hours of 6:00 AM and 12:00 AM. Food and beverage venues (both indoor and open air dining) located within the publicly accessible Botanical and Sculpture Gardens may operate between dawn and dusk.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 6 13. Restaurant and Open Air Dining Noise. Any noise generated by Plan area restaurants and open air dining areas must be consistent with the City’s noise regulations (BHMC Title 5, Chapter 1). In addition, any amplified music or live music/entertainment originating from indoor and outdoor dining areas located within the Plan area shall not be noticeably audible beyond the north side of Wilshire Boulevard or the north side of South Santa Monica Boulevard. Special Events Permit events are exempt from the requirement that amplified music or live music/entertainment not be noticeably audible beyond the north side of Wilshire Boulevard or the north side of South Santa Monica Boulevard.

14. General Parking Requirements. The Plan area shall have not lessthan 2,146 parking spaces for residents, residents’ guests, hotel guests and visitors, retail customers, amenity access program members, employees, and visitors of the public garden areas, as shown in the Approved Plans. Parking spaces are inclusive of both striped and unstriped spaces identified on the Approved Plans. The number of parking spaces may be modified pursuant to the parking requirement ratios identified in Section 4.3B, Table C, of the Overlay Specific Plan if any changes to plan area components are authorized by the Planning Commission and City Council or by the Director of Community Development, as allowed by Section 5.6 of the Overlay Specific Plan.

15. Residential Parking. A total of not less than 669 residential parking spaces shall be provided for the residential uses within the plan area within the new three level parking structure. Parking spaces are inclusive of both striped and unstriped spaces identified on the Approved Plans. Parking spaces for residential units shall be used solely for the parking of the personal vehicles of residents, their guests, and employees associated with the condominium units. Valet parking must be permanently provided at all times to all plan area residents and Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 7 shall operate pursuant to an approved Parking Management Plan required by Condition 26 below.

16. Hotel and Commercial Uses Parking. A total of not less than 1,477 parking spaces shall be provided for hotel, dining/bar, hotel ancillary, meeting room/ballroom uses, retail, publically accessible garden users, and AAP program members. 314 of these spaces are located within the existing parking structure associated with the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills hotel. 1,163 spaces are located within the new three level parking structure. Parking spaces are inclusive of both striped and unstriped spaces identified on the Approved Plans. On-site valet parking services shall be provided at all times and shall operate pursuant to an approved Parking Management Plan required by Condition 26 below.

17. Publicly Accessible Botanical Garden Parking. Visitors of the publicly accessible Botanical Garden shall receive 2 hours of free parking within the new three level parking structure, after which market rates for parking may be imposed. All leases or sales agreements for hotel or commercial space within the Plan area shall contain provisions to implement this requirement.

18. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Ready Parking Structure. Infrastructure must be installed within the new three level parking structure that will allow for EV charging to be provided to all parking locations within the new parking structure. The adequacy of the proposed infrastructure is subject to review and approval by the Building Official prior to the issuance of building permits for the new parking structure.

19. Limousine, Rideshare, Taxi, and Car Service Operations. A designated Rideshare staging area shall be provided on level P1 of the new parking structure. Site access to the project components for limousines, taxis and car service must be addressed in the Parking Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 8 Management Plan required by Condition 26 below. No limousine, Rideshare, taxi, or car service vehicles shall be staged or queue along adjacent streets or residential areas, including but not limited to Santa Monica Boulevard, Merv Griffin Way, or Whittier Drive. Short-term staging of limousine, taxi or car service vehicles may occur in the existing marked short-term loading area located on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard, adjacent to the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

20. Parking Accessibility. Each parking stall designated to meet the numeric requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) shall meet all ADA requirements for an accessible parking space.

21. Employee Parking. The Project shall not be required to provide free employee parking. However, the owner(s) and operator(s) of the hotels and commercial components of the Project and homeowner association(s) within the plan area shall conduct an annual survey of employee parking which shall be provided to the Community Development Department. If it is determined that employee parking is occurring in residential neighborhoods within the City, then the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to require the owner(s) and operator(s) of the hotels and commercial components of the Project and homeowner association(s) to provide free on-site parking at all times to employees who drive to the Project site to work. An employee shall be defined as a person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be performed.

22. Signage. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy permit for the Project, the Developer shall submit a Unified Sign Plan required by Section 4.7 of the Specific Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 9 Plan for review and approval. Said Unified Sign Plan shall include allsignage primarily viewed from public rights of way as well as way-finding signage required by Condition 23, parking signage required by Condition 24, and pedestrian signage required by Condition 25. All Project signage shall conform to the approved Unified Sign Plan. Previously approved signage shall be deemed approved unless such signage is materially modified, as determined by the Director, in which case any such materially modified sign(s) shall comply with the Unified Sign Plan.

23. Publicly Accessible Gardens Way-Finding Signage. Prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the Project a way-finding signage program shall be developed to direct park users to the three entrances from the public right-of-way identified on Specific Plan Figure 6B and through the Project site to the publicly accessible gardens, and from the new parking structure to the publicly accessible gardens. The way-finding signage program shall be incorporated into the unified sign plan and is subject to the review and approval by the Director of Community Development.

24. Parking Signage. As part of the unified sign plan, the Developer shall submit a program for the provision of appropriate signage and precautionary devices inside the parking garage. The City’s Transportation Engineer shall review this program prior to incorporation into the unified sign program, which is subject to review and approval by the Director of Community Development.

25. Pedestrian Signage. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit for the Project, the Developer shall install sufficient signage or other warning devices, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer, on both the interior and exterior of the parking garage to protect pedestrians from drivers entering/exiting all access points of the new parking structure.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 10 26. Parking Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, the Developer shall prepare and shall have received approval from the Director of Community Development and Director of Public Works of a final version of the Parking Management Plan stipulating operations for all uses on the site, including hotel, commercial, publicly accessible gardens, and residential parking operations. The requirement for a Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the residential uses.

The hotel parking management plan shall include information on the number of valet attendants that will be on duty at any given time, the standard operating procedures for staging of limousines, ride share vehicles, car service vehicles, and taxis, and any other information deemed necessary by the Community Development Department.

27. Residential Access Road Entrances. Prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits and subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and Directors of Community Development and Public Works, the Developer shall install signage at the southern end of the Project’s residential access road along the western Project site boundary indicating that left turns onto eastbound Santa Monica Boulevard are prohibited.

28. Loading Operations. Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits and subject to the review and approval of the Directors of Community Development and Public Works, the Developer shall provide a Loading Management Plan to minimize loading-related impacts from the Project on adjacent land uses.

29. In addition to the authority reserved in Condition 82 and elsewhere in these conditions or related entitlements, the City hereby retains the authority to impose additional conditions on the Project to address loading, delivery and parking issues. The Developer shall comply with the approved Loading and Parking Management Plans and any additional Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 11 conditions imposed, pursuant to Condition 87, after adoption of this Resolution and after adoption of the Loading and Parking Management Plans, in order to address parking, loading and delivery issues. No loading shall occur on Wilshire Boulevard or Santa Monica Boulevard, with the exception of short-term passenger vehicle staging and short-term delivery vehicle use (from delivery vehicles not exceeding a Class 4 size classification) within the existing vehicle loading area located on Wilshire Boulevard directly adjacent to the Beverly Hilton Hotel.

30. Safety/Technology. The Developer shall install state-of-the-art devices or equipment as approved by the City’s Police and Fire Departments to ensure that wireless telecommunication reception in the parking garage and in throughout the Project is adequate for police, fire and other emergency responders and the health and safety of residents and visitors. The system shall include an In-Building Bi-Directional Amplification System that will (a) provide City Emergency services personnel the ability to communicate reliably and efficiently by supported City radio systems, within any occupiable spaces inside the respective buildings; and (b) contain back-up / emergency power to ensure on-going, uninterrupted functionality in the event of any power failures or interruptions. Further, the System shall be tested on a regular basis to ensure reliable performance at all times, and the building owner or future homeowners association shall work cooperatively with the City to design, build, maintain, and update the system as conditions require.

31. Public and Common Areas. All public and common areas and facilities shall be clearly depicted, described, or both in the final plansreviewed by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any building permit.

32. Rooftop Uses. Rooftop uses identified on the Approved Plans include green-roofs and landscaping, photovoltaic panels, MEP equipment, and building maintenance equipment.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 12 The Director of Community Development may approve communications equipment and roof-top amenities and other similar uses if the Director determines the features are consistent with the goals, development standards and guidelines, and operational standards of the Overlay Specific Plan.

33. Green Building Design. New buildings shall be constructed to meet or exceed LEED® Gold certification or equivalent. A green building plan shall be submitted as part of the application for a building permit. The green building plan shall indicate which LEED® checklist items that the project will utilize, and indicate where compliance with each selected point is shown on the plans. The Developer shall be required to implement all points shown in the final green building plan. The Building Official or his designee shall verify compliance with each selected point prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. The Building Official may conduct other inspections as needed to ensure compliance with this condition.

The Developer may request amendment of the green building plan and such amendment may be approved by the Building Official.

34. Reclaimed Water System Requirement. The Developer shall include a reclaimed water system that includes both a greywater system and a storm water capture system to reduce overall potable water demands as required by Section 3.4F of the Overlay Specific Plan, including sufficient plumbing features to allow gray water to be used for landscaped areas on the property. All plumbing requirements shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s Building and Safety Division.

35. Non-Potable Water Usage Requirement. The Developer shall install a non-potable water system to manage urban runoff or shallow groundwater that is encountered on-site. The Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 13 Developer shall implement all plumbing, health and safety code requirements by the City’s Building and Safety Division and Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

36. Architectural Commission Review. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials and finishes of the building, and proposed landscaping shall be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Commission. The Developer shall submit to the Architectural Commission final landscape, lighting and irrigation plans that include, but is not limited to, comprehensive information regarding the design and planting plans for the publicly accessible Botanical Garden and Reserved Garden, the green roof-tops of the Beverly Hilton Enhancement Building and Conference Center Building, and vertical landscaping located on the Project’s residential buildings and Wilshire Building. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect.

37. Final Building Plans. Final building plans shall be consistent with the preliminary plans approved by this Resolution and shall be prepared by a licensed professional.

38. On-site Construction Manager. The on-site Construction Manager/Supervisor shall assure that no employees, subcontractors of any tier, material suppliers or consultants have direct contact with students from the Beverly Hills Unified School District during the performance of their duties, unless required within the scope of their duties and with the knowledge or approval of the Construction Manager/Supervisor and prior approval from the School District. Compliance with this provision shall be verified by the Environmental Compliance Monitor.

39. Traffic Signal at Merv Griffin Way/Santa Monica Boulevard. The Developer shall install a traffic light at the Merv Griffin Way/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection. Installation and plans for the traffic light are subject to review and approval by the City’s Traffic Engineer Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 14 and Building Official. The traffic light shall be installed and operational prior to the re-opening of Merv Griffin Way to public vehicular traffic. The City reserves the right to make any modifications to the traffic signal operations, such as implementing a right turn arrow for vehicles turning right from Merv Griffin Way onto westbound Santa Monica Boulevard. Any costs for modifications to the traffic signal operations shall be fully borne by the Developer.

40. Merv Griffin and Wilshire Boulevard Intersection Improvements. The north bound configuration of the Merv Griffin Way portion of the southern leg of the intersection of Merv Griffin Way and Wilshire Boulevard shall be modified to provide one left-turn lane, one through lane, and one right-turn lane. The improvements shall be completed prior to the reopening of Merv Griffin Way to public vehicular traffic.

41. North Santa Monica Boulevard Roadway Improvements. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the Developer shall provide the right-of-way modifications to the City as shown on the approved plans and subject to review and approval by the City’s Director of Public Works. This includes modifying the roadway width to provide 73 feet from curb to curb to match the existing roadway width located on the frontage of the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills Hotel. As approved by the Director of Public Works, the Developer shall install and pay for improvements to the Santa Monica Boulevard right-of-way adjacent to the Project as shown on the Approved Plans and off-site improvements plan, including but not limited to landscaping and street improvements. The lane configuration included in the final design shall be substantially compliant with Overlay Specific Plan Figure 7a. The final design of the North Santa Monica Boulevard bicycle path roadway improvements, including whether such bicycle path shall be buffered or protected, is subject to review and approval by the Director of Public Works and the City Council.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 15 42. North Santa Monica Reconstruction. The Developer shall make good faith efforts to obtain any necessary approvals from relevant agencies and/or property owners to re-construct the portions of street, curb, and sidewalk, or drainage or other roadside facility preventing a uniform street width, located in the City of Los Angeles and along the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent to the western project site boundary near the Los Angeles Country Club. If all necessary approvals are granted, the Developer shall re-construct the street, curb, and sidewalk or other facility such that the street, curb, and sidewalk are brought into alignment with the street, curb, and sidewalk along the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard located in the City of Beverly Hills, resulting in uniform street width in both Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. If all necessary approvals cannot be obtained, compliance with this condition shall be demonstrated by furnishing correspondence with the relevant agencies and/or property owners confirming that the Developer made good faith efforts and correspondence from the relevant agencies and/or property owner confirming denial of the request.

Landscaping and Irrigation

43. Prior to final building inspection, the Developer shall install all proposed irrigation and landscaping, including irrigation controllers, staking, and mulching, in accordance with the Architectural Commission’s approval of the final project design.

44. Prior to occupancy, the Developer shall submit a letter from the Project landscape architect certifying that all landscape material and irrigation has been installed and is functioning according to the approved landscape plans.

45. The property owners and successors in interest including, but not limited to, any homeowners association and hotel ownership, shall be responsible for the maintenance of the site drainage system, sidewalks, parkways, street trees and other landscaping, including Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 16 irrigation, within and along the adjacent public right-of-way and all public and private open areas on the site, including the Reserved Garden and publicly accessible Botanical Garden.

The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions applicable to the residential components of this project shall specifically reflect this obligation.

Other City Departments’ Requirements

46. The Developer shall comply with all applicable conditions and permits required from the Public Works Department and Community Services-Recreation and Parks Department attached as Exhibit A. The Developer shall secure all necessary permits from the Engineering Division of Public Works prior to commencement of any demolition or Project related work.

47. The Project shall comply with all applicable conditions from the Fire Department as may be identified through the plan check process.

Construction Management

48. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall submit a Construction Management Plan satisfactory to the Director of Community Development and the Building Official. The Construction Management Plan shall include noise attenuating construction requirements. The Construction Management Plan shall incorporate the Construction Traffic Management Plan (MM-TRAF-5) and the Construction Workers Parking Plan (MM-TRAF-6) as described in the attached Mitigation Measures for the project. The Construction Management Plan shall also include, at a minimum, the following requirements:
a. Prior to start of construction phases that could extend into 2023, the Developer shall obtain a schedule of tournament events from the Los Angeles Country Club for the 2023 US Open. The Developer shall submit a construction schedule for review and approval by the Director of Community Development and Environmental Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 17 Compliance Monitor that ensures that no construction activity generating the highest noise levels (e.g. simultaneous demolition, grading, and building construction) is undertaken during the 2023 US Open and that all reasonable efforts are taken to reduce construction noise that may disrupt tournament play to the maximum extent feasible. The Building Official shall have the authority to enforce noise attenuating construction requirements.
b. A map identifying routes and the locations of off-site construction worker parking lots to be utilized shall be provided to the City and include written certification from the owner(s) of the parking lots proposed to be used that such parking will be available to the Developer for the duration of the construction period that off-site parking is necessary.
c. A plan for the proposed construction staging for the Project to determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for hauling, material deliveries etc., to the subject site shall be included in the Construction Management Plan. The times of day of heavy hauling truck traffic shall be scheduled to reflect the City’s direction to shift as much of the heavy hauling truck traffic as possible to night-time hours outside of peak traffic periods.

The construction haul route shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer and the Director of Community Development. The approved haul route is subject to change if the haul route creates unanticipated traffic congestion or noise impacts.
d. All final construction mitigation measures from the Final Environmental Impact Report and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 18 e. A construction phasing and timing plan for the Project, and implementation plan for each phase of construction (demolition, excavation, concrete, superstructure, etc.).
f. Specification that construction hauling shall be restricted to Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards to/from Interstate 405; any deviations from this requirement first shall be reviewed by the School District and approved by the Director of Community Development.
g. Specification that hauling of debris and/or soil from the site shall be allowed to take place at night and/or weekends as approved by the Director of Community Development in accordance with an after-hours work permit (BHMC Section 5-1206).
h. Measures to protect the artificial turf field and associated drainage system on El Rodeo School’s campus from construction dirt and debris. i. Requirements for measures such as a sign-in/sign-out requirement for all persons accessing and leaving the site, defined separations between public and construction areas, fencing and/or landscape barriers, active surveillance, privacy screening, and other similar measures to prevent unauthorized access between such areas. j. Information clearly identifying the usage of cranes and other heavy equipment. k. A provision prohibiting construction trucks from queuing on Santa Monica Boulevard or Wilshire Boulevard during all aspects of construction. l. A provision specifying that lane closures on Wilshire Boulevard and/or North Santa Monica Boulevard are not allowed unless approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer.

Roadway closures or closure of all lanes in one direction of travel on Wilshire Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 19 Boulevard or North Santa Monica Boulevard are not allowed unless approved by the City Council.
m. A provision requiring that all construction equipment is Tier 4 and all tower cranes are electric-powered.

49. A copy of the Construction Management Plan shall be provided to the designated Beverly Hills Unified School District representative, and shall be available at El Rodeo School at all times. Further, an up-to-date copy of the Construction Management Plan shall be made available to the general public on the Project’s publicly accessible web page.

50. The Beverly Hills Unified School District shall be given a 14 calendar day period in which to review and comment on the Construction Management Plan before the City approves it.

51. The Construction Management Plan shall be updated, as deemed necessary by the City, throughout all phases of the construction process. Further, the Developer shall invite School District representatives and the City’s representatives including but not limited to the Building Official or designee and Environmental Compliance Monitor to attend and participate in regular construction progress meetings.

52. Requests for after-hours construction permits shall be reviewed by the City’s Building Official in accordance with BHMC Section 5-1-206. The Building Official shall confer with the Environmental Compliance Monitor and revise any afterhours permits as necessary to mitigate noise to residential neighbors of the project.

53. The Developer shall maintain a current construction schedule on a publicly accessible project web page and shall provide the web page address on construction signage Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 20 placed on the boundary of the property or in a location visible to the public as determined by the Environmental Compliance Monitor.

54. A cash deposit of $25,000 shall be deposited with the City to ensure compliance with the conditions of this Resolution regarding construction activities. The $25,000 deposit shall be replenished as deemed necessary by the City’s Building Official. Such deposit shall be returned to Developer upon completion of all construction activities and in the event that no more than two violations of such conditions or the Beverly Hills Municipal Code occur. In the event that three or more such violations occur, the City may: (a) retain the deposit to cover costs of enforcement; (b) notify the Developer that the Developer may request a hearing before the City within ten days of the notice; and (c) issue a stop work notice until such time that an additional deposit of $25,000 is deposited with the City to cover the costs associated with subsequent violations. Work shall not resume for a minimum of two days after the day that the additional deposit is received by the City. If the Developer timely requests a hearing, said deposit will not be forfeited until after such time that the Developer has been provided an opportunity to appear and offer evidence to the City, and the City determines that substantial evidence supports forfeiture. Any subsequent violation will trigger forfeiture of the additional deposit, the issuance of a stop work notice and the deposit of an additional $25,000, pursuant to the procedure set forth herein above. All amounts deposited with the City shall be deposited in an interest bearing account. The Developer shall be reimbursed all interest accruing on monies deposited. The requirements of this condition are in addition to any other remedy that the City may have in law or equity and shall not be the sole remedy of the City in the event of a violation of the conditions of this Resolution or the Beverly Hills Municipal Code.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 21 55. During construction, the Developer shall install a minimum twelve-foot (12’) construction fence to reduce noise and dust impacts on neighboring properties. The final height of the fence shall be approved by the Director of Community Development in consultation with design professionals knowledgeable in the fields of noise and dust mitigation. The design of the construction fence shall be subject to Architectural Commission review and approval.

The Developer shall provide temporary aesthetic improvements, which may include landscaping, to improve the appearance of the site around the fence during the construction period.

56. The Developer shall maintain the site in an orderly condition prior to commencement of and during construction, including but not limited to, maintenance of the orderly appearance of existing structures and landscaping on the site, dustsuppression for areas cleared by demolition, maintenance of safety barriers and adjacent public sidewalks.

57. The Developer shall designate a Construction Relations Officer. The Construction Relations Officer shall be directly accessible to the public by telephone in the event that the public has any concerns regarding the maintenance of the site. The name and telephone number of the Construction Relations Officer shall be transmitted to the Director of Community Development, the City’s Building Official, and the Beverly Hills Unified School District Superintendent and Principal at El Rodeo School. In addition, the Developer shall post the name and telephone number of the Construction Relations Officer on the site in a location readily visible to the general public as approved by the Director of Community Development and on the Project’s publicly accessible webpage. Said signs and website posting shall also include the name and number of a City contact from the Community Development Department.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 22 The Developer representative’s telephone number provided shall be manned during construction hours.

58. Within three working days after approval of this Resolution, the Developer shall remit to the City a cashier’s check payable to the County Clerk and inclusive of the County Clerk posting fee, for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements in addition to the Department of Fish and Game filing fee imposed pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4.

59. Property Maintenance. The property owners and successors in interest, including but not limited to any homeowners’ association(s) shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the private sewer connection to the public sewer in the public right-of-way, the site drainage system, the maintenance of the common areas and facilities, the exterior of the building, and any costs or corrections due to building or property maintenance code enforcement actions. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for this project shall specifically reflect this obligation.

Environmental Compliance Monitor

60. The Developer shall deposit funds sufficient to pay for the Environmental Compliance Monitor who shall be hired by and work for the City. The Environmental Compliance Monitor shall be selected from a list of individuals deemed qualified by the Director of Community Development and shall be mutually agreed upon by the City of Beverly Hills and the Beverly Hills Unified School District. If the District does not agree with the City on a Monitor within a 14 calendar day period after being presented with the list of qualified monitors, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to select the Monitor.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 23 61. The Environmental Compliance Monitor shall maintain a daily log and provide monthly reports to the City and School District and post these documents to the Project’s publicly accessible webpage.

62. The Environmental Compliance Monitor shall immediately report any violations of the construction mitigation measures to the City.

63. City staff shall have the authority to immediately stop construction upon verification of any violation of the Construction Management Plan. Work shall not be allowed to restart until the problem is abated and/or corrective actions are taken to mitigate the violation.

64. The Environmental Compliance Monitor shall conduct a weekly meeting with the project construction manager(s) and shall invite City and School District representatives to attend such meetings.

65. During construction, the Developer shall install and maintain at least four (4) remotely controlled cameras made accessible via the internet to City staff and the Environmental Compliance Monitor for mitigation monitoring purposes. The cameras are to be placed at a height and location so that 100% of the project site is visible at all times. Cameras shall be maintained regularly and accessible at all times and shall be equipped with microphones.

66. During construction, Environmental Compliance Monitor or the specialty testing consultants shall have the authority to require additional measures deemed necessary to address unanticipated issues that may arise due to construction of the Project. The Developer shall fund any and all such recommended measures regardless of the cost.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 24 67. Any lighting associated with permitted night-time construction shall be shielded, directed downward, and directed to face west or south, as approved by the Environmental Compliance Monitor.

Specialty Testing

68. Specialty consultants (noise and air quality) shall be hired to provide testing and monitoring and provide recommendations as described in the Air Quality and Noise mitigation measures of the Final Supplemental EIR, and imposed by these conditions of approval. The Developer shall deposit funds sufficient to pay for the specialty consultants who shall be hired by and work for the City.

69. The Environmental Compliance Monitor shall provide assistance in the selection of these specialists.

70. Consultants hired to provide specialty testing services shall be selected from a list of individuals or firms deemed qualified by the Director of Community Development, and shall be mutually agreed upon by the City of Beverly Hills and the Beverly Hills Unified School District. If the District does not agree with the City on specialty testing consultants within a 14 calendar day period after being presented with the list of qualified specialty testing consultants, the Director of Community Development shall have the authority to select the specialty testing consultants.

71. All test results shall be maintained on file with the Environmental Compliance Monitor and included in monthly reports submitted to the City and School District.

72. Construction noise and vibration shall be monitored at El Rodeo School, after the school is reopened for academic use, as part of the Construction Management Plan.

Construction activities and/or measures may be modified to correct any excesses in the event acceptable thresholds are exceeded.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 25 73. After the reopening of El Rodeo school, the Environmental Compliance Monitor shall initiate, and the Developer shall pay for a traffic study to be undertaken within 45 days after the beginning of each school year during construction of the Project to measure the then existing conditions and to determine whether unanticipated impacts resulting from the Project construction are occurring. Additional measures as may be identified by any such study that address impacts from the Project shall be implemented by the developer.

74. After the reopening of El Rodeo school, construction traffic shall be monitored at the site so that the frequency of construction to/from the project site during periods when most schoolchildren are arriving/departing to/from schools will be reduced in the event that construction traffic exceeds thresholds that shall be identified in the Construction Management Plan.

General Conditions

75. All electrical transformers and other such mechanical equipment shall be clearly depicted, described, or both, in the final plans reviewed by the Planning Division of the Department of Community Development Department, prior to issuance of a building permit.

Screening and/or relocation may be required if the proposed locations have the potential to adversely affect the appearance of the building from the public right-of-way.

76. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R’s) for this Project shall reflect the fact that, as this Project is located on Wilshire Boulevard, the maintenance of public improvements (street payment, sidewalk, curb, gutter, water and sewer lines) is usually performed at night.

77. The Project shall comply with the applicable conditions and shall obtain all necessary permits, including those from the Public Works/Engineering Department. The Conditions List is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 26 78. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the Street Tree Mitigation Plan of the Recreation and Parks Department, attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference.

79. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project.

80. The City reserves the right to make modifications and/or impose additional conditions which may become necessary to enable implementation of the specific conditions set forth in this Resolution, and the Developer shall comply with allsuch modified or additional conditions.

81. Prior to the earlier of either the issuance of any occupancy permit or the sale or lease of any residential unit in the Project, a subdivision map shall be approved by the City and the final map for such subdivision shall have been recorded with the County of Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder and the condominium plan filed with the Department of Real Estate.

82. Prior to the approval of any final map, the Developer shall prepare and submit CC&R’s for review and approval by the Director of Community Development and the City Attorney. The CC&R’s shall include the provisions in these conditions of approval relating to the Parking Management Plan, Property Maintenance, and reflecting that the performance of public improvement along Wilshire Boulevard is usually performed at night. The CC&R’s shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the approval of any final map.

83. Prior to any amendments to the CC&R provisions required by these conditions of approval or the Municipal Code, the amendments shall first be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 27 84. Prior to the recordation of any final subdivision map, the Developer shall record a reciprocal parking and access agreement for the site in form and content satisfactory to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney.

85. Unanticipated Traffic, Loading, or Parking Impacts. In the event that the Director of Community Development determines that operation of the project is having unanticipated traffic, loading, or parking impacts, the Director shall require the owner, hotels, or homeowners association(s) to provide an analysis of the traffic, loading, or parking impacts. After review of the additional analysis, the Director may recommend the implementation of additional conditions to mitigate the impacts or schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission concerning the unanticipated traffic, loading, or parking impacts being created by the Project.

At least twenty days prior to such hearing, notice shall be posted on the site; mailed to all property owners and residential occupants within 1,000’ of the project site, plus blockface, including all property owners and residential occupants along Whittier Drive, Trenton Drive, and Walden Drive between Wilshire Boulevard and Sunset Boulevard, and Carmelita Avenue between Wilshire Boulevard and Walden Drive, as well as the President of the Beverly Hills North Homeowners’ Association or successor organization; and shall be published in two newspapers of local circulation. Additionally, the owner(s), hotel operator(s), and any site area homeowners association(s) shall receive at least twenty days’ notice of such hearing. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission may impose additional conditions upon the Project as necessary to mitigate any unanticipated traffic, loading, or parking impacts caused by the Project, and the owner(s), hotel operator(s), or homeowners association(s) shall forthwith comply with any such additional conditions at their sole expense. However, the owner(s), hotel operator(s), or homeowners association(s) may appeal the decision of the Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 28 Planning Commission to the City Council pursuant to the provisions of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code and any decision of the Planning Commission shall be stayed pending a decision by the City Council on appeal.

86. An air cleaning/filtering system shall be installed in the condominium buildings subject to the review and approval of the Building Official to assist in the removal of pollutants emanating from the adjacent streets.

87. The provisions of the Overlay Specific Plan shall not become effective, and no development or implementation of the Overlay Specific Plan shall be permitted until a) the ordinance approving the development agreement has become effective, b) the development agreement is executed and recorded, and c) collective election of the property owners to proceed under the Overlay Specific Plan occurs and notice of said election is provided to the City as set forth in Sections 5.3 and 5.4 of the Overlay Specific Plan.

88. Work at the site shall be accelerated during the summer months and while school is not in session to the fullest extent that is approved by the City.

89. Developer shall provide the Beverly Hills Unified School District with a full set of construction plans and specifications before the start of construction. The Developer shall also provide the Beverly Hills Unified School District with a copy of the detailed construction schedule prior to commencement of construction.

Other Measures

90. The Owner(s), including any successor(s) in interest, shall not close public access to Merv Griffin Way without prior approval from the Director of Community Development.

After Certificate of Occupancy is received for all buildings approved as part of the Overlay Specific Plan, public access to Merv Griffin Way may not be closed for more than 3 consecutive days or more than a total of 15 days per calendar year without approval of the Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 29 City Council. Notwithstanding the limitations on the proceeding sentence, the closure of public access to Merv Griffin Way for the annual Golden Globes Awards and Milken Institute Conference may be approved by the Director of Community Development for more than 3 consecutive days.

91. The developer of the Project shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted for the Project, which is attached to this Specific Plan, including all mitigation measure set forth therein.

92. Recordation. The resolution approving the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan 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 shall include a copy of the resolution as an exhibit. The Developer shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development. At the time that the Developer delivers the covenant to the City, the Developer shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder.

93. No commercial uses (except as permitted under Municipal Code Sections 10-3-4301 and 10-3-4303, or any successor code sections) shall be permitted in any residential unit.

94. Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence rental and ownership restrictions.

No residential unit located in the Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence Buildings may be rented for a period of less than 180 consecutive days except as provided in the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program and no residential unit(s) within those buildings may be included in any timeshare, fractional interest, private residence club, vacation Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 30 ownership or similar program. No rental program may be established for residential units located in the Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence in connection with the hotel and no residential unit may be offered or made available for rental (for any term) through the hotel’s reservation system. The Wilshire Building hotel may not provide any services to any Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence residential units and or occupants unless the occupant is the owner, the owner’s non-paying guest or a tenant pursuant to a valid lease longer than 180 consecutive days or such tenant’s non-paying guest. The homeowners association for the project (the “Association”) (or its manager) shall use commercially reasonable efforts to provide an annual report to the City (including a register of occupants other than those in the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program) verifying compliance with the foregoing provisions. A plan for the implementation of the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program (the “Residences Rental Program Plan”) consistent with the requirements of the Overlay Specific Plan shall be submitted to the Director of Community Development for approval prior to the commencement of any rentals under the program. At a minimum, the Residences Rental Program Plan shall specify the way in which nightly rentals will be tracked and reported to the City for purposes of collecting Transient Occupancy Tax and Municipal Surcharge fees. The Residences Rental Program Plan may be amended from time to time with prior approval of the Director of Community Development.

95. Subject to the approval of the California Bureau of Real Estate and to the extent permitted by applicable law, the CC&Rs applicable to residential units located in the Garden Residence and Santa Monica Residence buildings shall include a provision (or provisions) that include the following restrictions:
• No residential unit (or portion thereof) may be leased for less than 180 consecutive Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 31 days except for the lease of entire residential units as provided in the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program. (For purposes herein, “lease” includes any rental or use of the residential unit (or portion thereof) by a tenant or short term user including transient or short term occupancy arranged by or through online rental services or by any other means.) • No fractional ownership of residential units is permitted (including, but not limited, to timeshare, vacation ownership program, or other similar joint ownership/use program). • Except as permitted under Municipal Code Sections 10-3-4301 and 10-3-4303 (or any successor code sections), no commercial uses shall be permitted within the residential units.
• All leases shall be pursuant to a written lease or rental agreement and shall provide that there is no right of assignment or sublease for less than 180 consecutive days except as provided in the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program. • All tenants (except under the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program) shall be required to carry “renter’s insurance” and provide proof thereof to the Association. • No owner may lease a portion of a residential unit or separately lease any exclusive use common area associated with the residential unit. The hotel operating the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program also shall be prohibited from leasing a portion of a residential unit or separately leasing any exclusive use common area associated with any residential unit.
• Any lease (except under the Overlay Specific Plan Residences Rental Program) shall require Association review and approval prior to tenant’s occupancy to ensure compliance with the CC&Rs.
• Any violation of the rental foregoing lease provisions shall result in a fine imposed by the Association which shall equal two (2) times any lease rental income received in Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 32 violation of the provisions or the maximum amount allowed by law, whichever is less. • The rental foregoing lease restrictions shall be broadly construed to satisfy their intent (ie., a limitation on short-term rentals) and the Association shall have broad authority to investigate and determine that an owner is taking actions which are designed to circumvent such rules. Such determination by the Association shall be deemed to be a violation of the rules.
• The Developer shall not be exempt from the foregoing restrictions. • No amendment to ease the foregoing restrictions may be adopted without the approval of (a) a supermajority (75%) of the owners of residential units in the project, (b) a supermajority (75%) of lenders (standard mortgagee protection language) and (c) the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council where the public has been provided an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment. • The City shall have rights to enforce the foregoing provisions. • Any person or entity in the City who pays TOT to the City shall be a third-party beneficiary with a right to enforce the foregoing provisions against the Association and/or the unit owners if the City or the Association fails to do so, but only after providing notice to the Association and the City of their alleged failure to enforce the foregoing restrictions and provided that any action against the Association shall be limited to a specific performance action to order the Association to enforce the foregoing provisions.
• Nothing herein shall limit the Developer from including more restrictive language in the CC&Rs.

The foregoing restrictions shall continue in effect for as long as Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence buildings exist on the property notwithstanding any termination or Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 33 expiration of the development agreement or other project approval.

96. The interview materials required to satisfy Final SEIR MM-CR-7 shall also be provided to the Cultural Heritage Commission’s Secretary for distribution to that Commission.

97. Merv Griffin Way Lane Configuration. Bicycle lane(s) and publicly accessible sidewalks shall be installed on Merv Griffin Way. Merv Griffin Way shall be improved to a width of 58 feet and the final lane configuration shall be consistent with Overlay Specific Plan Figure 7b. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, prior to the issuance of building permits associated with the construction of Merv Griffin Way, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a study for City Council review that evaluates whether the design of Merv Griffin Way may be optimized to improve circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and if approved by the City Council upon review of the study, the Council may approve an amended lane configuration provided such configuration stays within the 58 foot street width noted above. All pavement markings and signs shall be designed and installed in conformance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, latest edition. Additionally, illumination for the covered portions of Merv Griffin Way shall be developed based on the Illuminating Engineering Society’s guidance in the “American National Standard Practice for Design and Maintenance of Roadway and Parking Facility Lighting” publication in order to provide industry standard visibility to cyclists traversing the Project site.

98. Merv Griffin Way Recorded Public Access Document. A document memorializing permanent public access to the Merv Griffin Way private roadway shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Register-Recorder. This document shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and City Attorney. The document shall identify that permanent public access will remain open to passenger and delivery vehicles and bicycles.

99. Private Residence Club Approval. Prior to the implementation of any Private Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 34 Residence Club consisting of fractional ownership of condominium units, the applicant shall submit detailed program plans for review and approval by the City Council. The detailed program plans shall include, at a minimum, the following:
(a) program participation is limited only to a maximum of 37 condominium units located in the Wilshire Building, and shall be prohibited in all other buildings within the Project;
(b) the maximum number of ownership fractions in any participating condominium unit shall not exceed twelve (12);
(c) the location within the Wilshire Building in which the participating condominium units will be located;
(d) detailed information regarding reservation systems for the participating condominium units and information regarding program exchanges in which participating condominium units may be offered through an exchange to users of partner programs to the Private Residence Club; and,
(e) prohibition on renting participating condominium units as hotel accommodations or in any way including the participating condominium units in any pool of hotel accommodations.

In the event that the City Council does not approve the Private Residence Club program, no fractional ownership of condominium units shall be permitted within the Project and the floor area that would have been dedicated to the Private Residence Club may be used as condominiums or hotel rooms consistent with the Project approvals. 100. Bicycle Parking. Project bicycle parking (including but not limited to the location, design, and quantity of bicycle parking facilities) for residents, employees, and visitors shall be presented for City Council review and approval in conjunction with review of the final Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 35 design of the bicycle lanes on North Santa Monica Boulevard as provided in Condition of Approval 41. Any changes to the current plans and details as may be approved by the City Council shall be incorporated into the final Approved Plans, subject to review and approval of the Director of Community Development to ensure compliance with the City Council’s direction.
101. Medical and Ambulatory Surgical Center Uses. Operation of any Medical uses and Ambulatory Surgical Care (Outpatient Only) uses shall comply with all of the following requirements and restrictions at all times:
(a) These uses shall be limited to the Promenade (Amenity Area) of the Overlay Specific Plan and shall not be located at the ground level within 50 feet of any public street-facing façade of any building.
(b) Ambulatory Surgical Care (Outpatient Only) uses shall not exceed 11,000 square feet of floor area, inclusive of any associated office, reception area, operating rooms, storage, and any other related back of house areas. (c) Ambulatory Surgical Care (Outpatient Only) uses shall not include general surgery, life-saving procedures, or procedures requiring overnight stays. All immediate post-operative recovery monitoring shall be performed at the facility. No pre- or post-operative care shall be provided at any of the hotels in the Overlay Specific Plan area.
(d) Licensed physicians, nurses, and clinical staff shall be present at all times during surgical procedures and post-operative care.
(e) In the event that the operator(s) of Ambulatory Surgical Care (outpatient only) uses seek to make arrangements with private ambulance services to provide response, treatment, and/or transport to local hospitals, in accordance with the Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 36 Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency policy, an operational plan detailing the scope of these services shall be submitted to the Beverly Hills Fire Department and City Attorney for their review and approval prior to implementing any such arrangement.
///
///
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE Exhibit 2: Amendments to Ch. 4 and Ch. 6 of the OBHOSP
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 20 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 CHAPTER 4.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

4.1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Overlay Specific Plan is a comprehensive policy and regulatory document and all development within the Overlay Specific Plan Area shall be governed by the Overlay Specific Plan in accordance with the development standards and guidelines contained herein upon the Election. This chapter addresses (a) the location, distribution, and extent of land uses within the Overlay Specific Plan Area, and (b) the location, distribution, and extent of essential facilities serving the Overlay Specific Plan Area.

4.2 PERMITTED USES
Only the uses set forth below are permitted uses within the Overlay Specific Plan Area. The foregoing notwithstanding:
(i) Uses not specifically listed that the City’s Community Development Director (Director) determines are compatible with the purpose and intent of the Overlay Specific Plan pursuant to Section 5.5 of this Overlay Specific Plan may also be permitted; (ii) Other uses may be approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 38 of the Municipal Code, or any successor provision. The Planning Commission may conditionally approve such otherwise prohibited uses if the Commission determines that such uses do not materially alter the distribution, location and extent of the uses of land as set forth in the Overlay Specific Plan and the uses fulfill the intent of this Overlay Specific Plan as described in Section 1 .3 (Goals and Objectives); and (iii) Uses that must be permitted pursuant to State or Federal law shall be deemed permitted uses, and shall comply with any and all provisions of the Municipal Code regarding such uses.

The following uses are permitted uses in the Overlay Specific Plan Area.

A. Residential Buildings
Residential Buildings refers to the Garden Residences, the Santa Monica Residences and the residential portion of the Wilshire Building (Luxury Hotel & Residences). Permitted uses in Residential Buildings shall include condominiums, private residence club16 (Wilshire Building only), Accessory Spaces (Garden Residences and Santa Monica Residences only), and the usual and customary accessory and appurtenant uses thereto, including, without limitation:
 Dining;
16 A Private Residence Club (“PRC”) is deeded real estate with the potential for appreciation. It is real property that can be willed or sold, and it offers the same tax benefits as a second home. A Private Residence Club use consisting of fractional ownership of condominium units shall be permitted within the Wilshire Building upon approval of program plans by the City Council as specified in Project Condition of Approval 99, and subject to the limitations contained therein and other conditions of program approval as may be determined by the City Council. Absent approval of the City Council pursuant to Condition of Approval 99, neither the PRC nor any other type of fractional interest in the condominiums for the Wilshire Building shall be allowed.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 21 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021  Dry cleaning and Laundry Services (drop-off/pick-up);  Fitness and Wellness amenities;
 Food and beverage venues (indoor and open-air dining) including but not limited to bakeries, cafes, delicatessen, gourmet beer and wine shops, ice cream parlors, restaurants (full service), bars, kiosks and specialty food venues;
 Game rooms;
 Hospitality uses included but not limited to butler service, housekeeping/maid service, laundry, and room service;
 Lounge area;
 Pools and Jacuzzis;
 Screening rooms;
 Storage uses including wine storage; and
 Other similar uses determined by the Director of Community Development to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Overlay Specific Plan.

B. Hotels and Retail Building
Hotels refers to the existing Beverly Hilton, Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills, and the hotel portion of the Wilshire Building (Luxury Hotel & Residences)17. Retail Building refers to the Beverly Hilton Enhancement. Permitted uses in Hotels and Retail Building shall include hotel rooms, retail uses, and the usual and customary accessory and appurtenant uses thereto, including, without limitation:
 Airline ticket office;
 Alcohol sales and on-site consumption in conjunction with food and beverage venues and catered events subject to issuance of a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control license;  Amenity Access Program (AAP):
 Art shop or gallery;
 Assembly spaces such as ballrooms, meeting rooms, etc.;  Barber shop;
 Beauty salon;
 Bowling lanes;
 Business Services Center including workspaces and related supporting services;  Cabanas ancillary to pools;
 Car rental office;
 Clothing sales;
17 Hotel rooms is not an allowable use in the Garden Residences or Santa Monica Residences.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 22 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021  Conference Center and related supporting services;
 Dry cleaning and Laundry Services (drop-off/pick-up);  Day spa and/or Medi-spa;
 Decorating or interior design shop or store;
 Florist;
 Fitness and Wellness amenities;
 Food and beverage venues (indoor and open-air dining) including but not limited to bakeries, cafes, delicatessen, gourmet beer and wine shops, ice cream parlors, restaurants (full service), bars, kiosks and specialty food venues;
 Game rooms;
 Golf and sports simulators;
 Gift/Novelties/Sundry shop;
 Jewelry store;
 Live entertainment, conducted indoors or outdoors, including, but not limited to, live music;  Newsstand, bookstore, and other literary supplies;
 Office supply, stationery, and gift stores;
 Optical/eyewear including optometry and opticians;
 Outdoor live entertainment subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance;  Outdoor dining;
 Photography shop or gallery;
 Pools and Jacuzzis;
 Retail stores and shops;
 Screening rooms;
 Shoe repair shop;
 Tailor; and
 Other similar uses determined by the Director of Community Development to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Overlay Specific Plan.

C. Garden Areas
Publicly accessible and private gardens, and the usual and customary accessory and appurtenant uses thereto, including without limitation:
 Alcohol sales and on-site consumption in conjunction with food and beverage venues and catered events subject to issuance of a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control license; Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 23 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021  Amenity Access Program (AAP);
 Educational uses;
 Fitness and recreational amenities including walking/running pathways  Florist;
 Food and Beverage venues (indoor and open-air dining) including but not limited to bakeries, cafes, delicatessen, gourmet beer and wine shops, ice cream parlors, restaurants (full service), bars, kiosks and specialty food venues;
 Live entertainment, conducted indoors or outdoors, including, but not limited to, live music and amplified sound or music;
 Maintenance and storage uses;
 Newsstand;
 Nursery (plants);
 Outdoor live entertainment subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance;  Pools (Reserved Gardens only);
 Water Features; and
 Other similar uses determined by the Director of Community Development to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Overlay Specific Plan.

The making or kindling of any fire shall be prohibited in the Botanical Gardens.

D. Promenade (Amenity Area)
Promenade refers to a multi-level, mostly below park level amenity area that connects the luxury hotel to the residential buildings and the Beverly Hilton Enhancement building. Amenities may include but are not limited to restaurants, other food and beverage venues, spa, fitness facility, gaming rooms, and other support and ancillary uses for use of the Overlay Specific Plan’s residents, luxury hotel guests, and AAP licensees and their guests. Accessory Spaces may also be located in the Promenade.  Airline ticket office;
 Alcohol sales and on-site consumption in conjunction with food and beverage venues and catered events subject to issuance of a Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control license;  Ambulatory surgical care (outpatient only);
 Amenity Access Program (AAP);
 Art shop or gallery;
 Assembly spaces such as ballrooms, meeting rooms, etc.;  Barber shop;
 Beauty salon;
 Bowling lanes;
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 24 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021  Business Services Center including workspaces and related supporting services;  Cabanas ancillary to pools;
 Car rental office;
 Clothing sales;
 Dry cleaning and Laundry Services (drop-off/pick-up);  Day spa and/or Medi-spa;
 Decorating or interior design shop or store;
 Florist;
 Fitness and Wellness amenities;
 Food and Beverage venues (indoor and open-air dining) including but not limited to bakeries, cafes, delicatessen, gourmet beer and wine shops, ice cream parlors, restaurants (full service), bars, kiosks and specialty food venues;
 Game rooms;
 Golf and Sports simulators;
 Gift/Novelties/Sundry shop;
 Jewelry store;
 Live entertainment, conducted indoors or outdoors, including, but not limited to, live music;  Medical uses;
 Newsstand, bookstore, and other literary supplies;
 Office supply, stationery, and gift stores;
 Optical/eyewear including optometry and opticians;
 Outdoor live entertainment subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance;  Outdoor dining;
 Photography shop or gallery;
 Pools;
 Retail stores and shops;
 Screening rooms;
 Shoe repair shop;
 Tailor; and
 Other similar uses determined by the Director of Community Development to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Overlay Specific Plan.

E. Parking Areas
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 25 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021  Car Wash;
 Central Plant (MEP-FP) facilities;
 Dry cleaning and laundry services (drop-off/pick-up);  Greywater Treatment facilities;
 Maintenance and storage uses;
 Transportation Network Companies (drop-off/pick-up);
 Vehicle parking and storage; and
 Other similar uses determined by the Director of Community Development to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Overlay Specific Plan.

In addition to the Permitted Uses listed above, Ancillary Uses shall be permitted in all areas. For the purposes of this Overlay Specific Plan, Ancillary Uses shall include but not be limited to ATMs, accessory lobby lounge, common areas, libraries, outdoor living areas, parking, personal storage, security offices, training rooms, back-of-house (“BOH”) kitchen, BOH laundry, BOH service facilities, and other amenities associated with luxury residential condominiums and luxury hotels.

4.3 PARKING
A. General Parking Provisions
All hotel-related parking shall be designated and separated from the parking for residents and their guests. Valet parking shall be available for residents and guests, as well for all hotel-related users, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development pursuant to a parking management plan. If any building is modified in terms of number of residences, square footages or similar characteristics, the required parking capacity may be adjusted consistent with the ratios shown in Table C upon the submittal and City approval of a new parking analysis that provides substantial evidence supporting the parking capacity.

The required parking capacity within the Overlay Specific Plan Area shall be provided using a variety of methods including but not limited to individual spaces, tandem spaces, valet and attendant parking, and autonomous parking. Valet and attendant operations may be provided at the residences, hotels or retail building. A Parking Management Plan (“PMP”) for the Overlay Specific Plan Area shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Community Development.

B. Parking Requirements
A parking demand analysis was prepared in connection with consideration of the Overlay Specific Plan. That study analyzed parking demand based on a variety of factors as shown in Table C and concluded that a total capacity for parking 2,146 private vehicles will be required to meet the Project Site’s parking demand. If the number of residential dwelling units, bedrooms, or hotel rooms is modified or the amount of non-residential floor area modified, then the parking requirement shall be adjusted, lower or higher, consistent with the ratios as shown in Table C.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 26 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 Table C: Estimated Parking Demand and Parking Ratios
Land Use
Project Data
Weekend Weekend
Pkg Ratio
Base
Ratio
Driving
Adj
NonCaptive
Ratio
Project
Ratio Unit
Peak Hr
Adj
Peak Mo
Adj Estimated
Parking
Demand Quantity Unit 8 PM May
Retail 37,465 sf GLA 3.20 70% 86% 1.93 ksf GLA 65% 72% 34 0.902 per ksf *Employee 0.80 77% 100% 0.61 ksf GLA 75% 82% 14 0.377 per ksf Fine/Casual Dining 18,222 sf GLA 15.25 70% 81% 8.68 ksf GLA 100% 99% 156 8.556 per ksf Conference Center 7,326 sf GLA 16.25 70% 81% 8.68 ksf GLA 100% 99% Dining Pavilion 8,253 sf GLA 17.25 70% 81% 8.68 ksf GLA 100% 99% Luxury Hotel 2,643 sf GLA 15.25 70% 81% 8.68 ksf GLA 100% 99% *Employee 2.50 77% 100% 1.92 100% 100% 35 1.918 per ksf Public Park/Destination
Open Space
*Employee

4.5 acre 5.00 100% 50% 2.50 acre 100% 100% 12 2.500 per acre

0.50 77% 100% 0.38 acre 100% 100% 2 0.384 per acre
Hotel
Hotel-Ultra Luxury
*Hotel Employees
Meeting Space
Banquet Space
*Meeting/Banquet
Employees
388 keys 1.00 65% 100% 0.65 keys 80% 100% 202 0.520 per key 42 keys 1.00 50% 100% 0.50 keys 90% 100% 19 0.450 per key 430 keys 0.60 77% 100% 0.46 keys 40% 100% 79 0.184 per key 31,856 sf GLA 15.18 68% 80% 8.26 ksf GLA 100% 100% 263 8.260 per ksf 31,451 sf GLA 15.18 68% 80% 8.26 ksf GLA 100% 100% 260 8.260 per ksf 63,307 sf GLA 1.26 77% 100% 0.97 ksf GLA 100% 100% 62 0.970 per ksf Residential 100%
Accessory Spaces 30 units 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 units 65% 100% 1 Bedroom 116 units 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 units 65% 100%
2 Bedrooms 122 units 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 units 65% 100% 3+ Bedrooms 102 units 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 units 65% 100% res
Reserved 100% res spaces 1.58 100% 100% 1.58 spaces 100% 100% 587 1.584 per Resi unit *Visitor/Employee 370 units 0.15 100% 100% 0.15 units 100% 100% 56 0.150 per Resi unit Amenities Access Program 250 licensees 0.10 90% 100% 0.09 member 100% 100% 23 0.090 per member *Employee 0.01 77% 100% 0.01 100% 100% 2 0.008 per member Medical Use / Ambulatory
Surgical Care (Promenade) 11,000 sf GLA 3.20 70% 86% 1.93 ksf GLA 65% 72% 10 0.902 per ksf *Employee 0.80 77% 100% 0.61 ksf GLA 75% 82% 4 0.377 per ksf Luxury Residence Employees 340 units 0.00 100% 100% 0.00 units 0% 100% *Employee 0.10 77% 100% 0.08 100% 100% 26 0.077 per Resi unit Subtotal 1,846
Waldorf Astoria BH 314
Total 2,160
C. Parking Geometry
Tables D and E provide the parking space dimensions and aisle widths/slopes, respectively, for the Overlay Specific Plan Area.

Table D: Parking Space Dimensions
Stall Type Width Length
Standard 9’-0” 19’-0”
Tandem (standard) 9’-0” 17’-0”
Compact* 7’-6” 17’-0”
Tandem (compact) 7’-6” 17’-0”
*Up to 30% of the total required parking spaces and 100% of the non-required parking spaces may be compact.

Table E: Aisle/Ramp Widths and Slopes
Aisle/Ramp Width Slope
Drive Aisles 24’-0” 5% (max)
Parking Ramp 24’-0” 5% (max)
Speed Ramp 24’-0” 16.7% (max)
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 27 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 Table E: Aisle/Ramp Widths and Slopes
Aisle/Ramp Width Slope
Drive Aisles 24’-0” 5% (max)
Parking Ramp 24’-0” 5% (max)
Speed Ramp 24’-0” 16.7% (max)
D. Loading Areas
A master loading dock, located below grade on Level P-3 of the new parking garage (Figure 16a through 16e) will serve as the primary loading area for the Project Site. The master loading dock will accommodate WB-67 trucks (53 feet trailer) and will have 14 loading bays (excluding hammerhead turnaround area). The existing loading dock located on Santa Monica Boulevard, which currently serves the Beverly Hilton and Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills and has 4 loading bays, will be retained and will share an access drive located on Santa Monica Boulevard with the master loading dock. In addition, the existing short-term loading area on Wilshire Boulevard shall be retained. Final location, size and related signage for the short-term loading area shall be approved by the City of Beverly Hills Transportation Department and/or Public Works Department.

4.4 FLOOR AREA RATIO
The maximum floor area ratio (“FAR”) for the entire Overlay Specific Plan Area shall be 2.55:1, upon full buildout. Table F summarizes the floor areas by use within the Overlay Specific Plan Area.

Table F: Project Floor Areas
Santa Monica
Residence
Garden
Residence
Promenade Wilshire
Building
The Beverly Hilton
Enhancement Conference
Center Subtotal
Existing Retained Area
Subtotal Project Total
(New + Retained) Guestrooms Santa Monica
Retail
The Beverly
Hilton Waldorf Astoria
Residential Residential Units 499,806 424,266 0 100,481 0 0 0 1,024,553 0 0 0 1,024,553 Accessory Space 0 0 10,092 0 0 0 0 10,092 0 0 0 10,092
Amenities 0 0 117,232 0 0 0 0 117,232 0 0 0 117,232
Subtotal 499,806 424,266 127,324 100,481 0 0 0 1,151,877 0 0 0 1,151,877 Hotel Hotel Support 0 0 0 60,329 21,703 0 13,413 95,445 96,403 52,280 148,683 244,128 Hotel Retail 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,061 1,061 1,168 5,761 6,929 7,990 Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,995 1,067 7,062 7,062
Restaurant 0 0 0 2,643 0 0 7,326 9,969 8,253 6,798 15,051 25,020 Fitness Center 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Guest Rooms 0 0 0 50,513 15,758 0 0 66,271 191,425 137,203 328,628 394,899 Meeting Rooms 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,762 15,762 47,545 3,917 51,462 67,224 Subtotal 0 0 0 113,485 37,461 0 37,562 188,508 350,789 207,026 557,815 746,323 Retail 0 0 0 0 0 35,236 0 35,236 0 0 0 35,236
Total 499,806 424,266 127,324 213,966 37,461 35,236 37,562 1,375,621 350,789 207,026 557,815 1,933,436

4.5 BUILDING HEIGHT
Table G provides the maximum heights for each building, as measured from the project datum of 301 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Figure 17 depicts building heights.

Table G: Maximum Building Heights1
Building Height (feet)2
Garden Residences 369
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 28 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 Table G: Maximum Building Heights1
Building Height (feet)2
Santa Monica Residences 410
Wilshire Building 124
Promenade 5
Park Pavilion 20
Beverly Hilton Conference Center 31
Beverly Hilton Enhancement 19.5
Waldorf Astoria 124
Beverly Hilton 79

1. As measured from project datum of 301 feet amsl.

2. Excludes unoccupied architectural features, vertical circulation spaces, and mechanical penthouse(s).

4.6 RESIDENTIAL OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE
The residential dwellings in the Overlay Specific Plan Area may include outdoor living space or balconies. Design considerations shall be taken to provide privacy between outdoor living spaces or balconies of adjacent (side to side or above/below) dwellings. Uses permitted for outdoor living spaces or balconies shall include the usual and customary accessory and appurtenant uses associated with such spaces including but not limited to:
 Fire pits and fireplaces;
 Fitness and Wellness amenities;
 Landscaping;
 Outdoor dining;
 Pools and Jacuzzis;
 Seating/Lounge;
 Storage; and
 Other similar uses determined by the Director of Community Development to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Overlay Specific Plan.

4.7 SIGN STANDARDS
A unified sign plan, satisfactory to the Director of Community Development (the “Unified Sign Plan”), shall be prepared for the Overlay Specific Plan Area. The Unified Sign Plan shall encompass all signage primarily viewed from public rights-of-way, including both permanent and temporary signs, the exception being existing signage which shall be deemed approved unless such signage is materially modified in which case any such materially modified sign(s) shall comply with the Unified Sign Plan.

The Director of Community Development shall have the authority to approve or conditionally approve the Unified Sign Plan, and that decision shall be appealable to the Planning Commission. After approval of the Unified Sign Plan, all signs that, in the determination of the Director of Community Development, are consistent with the approved Unified Sign Plan shall be issued a building permit Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 29 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 without further discretionary review. The provisions of Title 10, Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code are not applicable to the Unified Sign Program.

4.8 OUTDOOR LIGHTING
A unified lighting plan satisfactory to the Director of Community Development (the “Unified Lighting Plan” or “ULP”), shall be prepared for the Overlay Specific Plan Area. The ULP shall encompass all exterior lighting, including both permanent and temporary site, landscape, signage and exterior building lighting. The Director of Community Development shall have the authority to approve or conditionally approve the ULP, and that decision shall be appealable to the Planning Commission.

After approval of the ULP, all lighting that, in the determination of the Director, are consistent with the approved ULP shall be issued a building permit without further discretionary review.

4.9 ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
A. Beverly Hilton, Conference Center and Beverly Hilton Enhancement The Beverly Hilton shall retain its existing design. A new covered porte-cochere at the hotel’s lobby entrance will replace the existing motor court. The Conference Center is similarly set into the landscaped gardens and employs organic, curvilinear balconies and façade treatments to reflect the natural forms and geometry of the Botanical Gardens. In this way, the architecture of the Conference Center complements rather than competes with the architecture of the Beverly Hilton. The Beverly Hilton Enhancement creates an improved pedestrian experience along Santa Monica Boulevard through the use of floor to ceiling undulating storefront glazing, pedestrian level landscaping, and an open, landscaped roof-top dining pavilion that connects to the Botanical Gardens.

B. Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills
The Certificate of Occupancy for the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills was issued July 17, 2017. No modifications to the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills are authorized under the Overlay Specific Plan.

C. Wilshire Building
The Wilshire Building sits near the Project Site’s northwesterly corner and fronts onto Wilshire Boulevard. A mid-rise structure, the Wilshire Building elevations are characterized by open balconies with landscaped curvilinear edges, while strategically placed screens preserve hotel guest’s and resident’s privacy. Natural materials and finishes complement the extensive gardens that encircle the building. The roof will be designed to accommodate photovoltaics and/or a green roof in keeping with the Overlay Specific Plan’s sustainability principles.

D. Garden Residences
The Garden Residences building is centrally located along the Overlay Specific Plan’s westerly boundary. The footprint and subsequent floors of the buildings are oval in shape, with landscaped balconies where the line between indoors and outdoors is blended. These landscaped balconies maximize passive heating and cooling opportunities, while strategically placed screens preserve resident privacy. The roof will be designed to accommodate photovoltaic and/or a green roof in keeping with the Overlay Specific Plan’s sustainability principles.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 30 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 E. Santa Monica Residences
The Santa Monica Residences building is located at the Overlay Specific Plan Area’s westerly corner, near Santa Monica Boulevard and closest to Century City. As with the Garden Residence, its footprint and subsequent floors of the buildings are oval in shape, with landscaped balconies where the line between indoors and outdoors is blended. These landscaped balconies maximize passive heating and cooling opportunities, while strategically placed screens preserve resident privacy. The roof will be designed to accommodate photovoltaic and/or a green roof in keeping with the Overlay Specific Plan’s sustainability principles.

F. Botanical Gardens & Reserved Gardens
The central portion of the Project Site shall be composed of approximately 8 acres of gardens (Figure 6). Approximately 4.5 acres will form the publicly accessible Botanical Gardens and Sculpture Garden.

These 4.5 acres will offer an expansive open area for the public and will include educational opportunities, environmental benefits and a sense of wellness for visitors. Approximately 1 mile of pathways will wind through distinct curated gardens that feature native and cultured California species. Approximately 75 percent of plantings shall be water-smart species, and all irrigation shall be with greywater. The remaining 3.5 acres of gardens will be reserved for Project Site residents, luxury hotel guests and AAP licensees. These reserved gardens shall also be planted with native and cultured California species, irrigation shall use greywater, and will feature approximately 1 mile of private pathways for use by Project Site residents, luxury hotel guests and AAP licensees.

G. Architectural Review
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials and finishes of all the buildings, site landscaping, and balcony landscaping at the Garden Residences, Santa Monica Residences and Wilshire Building shall be subject to the final review and approval of the Architectural Commission based on the design reflected on Exhibit 1 and shall be generally consistent with the Overlay Specific Plan Application plan set approved by Beverly Hills City Council on June 8, 2021 (Plan Set)18 and the building elevations as shown in Figures 18 through 20. The Architectural Commission shall ensure that the building architecture substantially complies with the building elevations of the Project as shown on the Overlay Specific Plan Application plan set approved by Beverly Hills City Council on June 8, 2021(Plan Set) and the building elevations as shown in Figures 18 through 20. After Architectural Commission approval, all development that, in the determination of the Director, is in substantial conformance with the Overlay Specific Plan shall be issued a building permit without further discretionary or architectural review. Any future construction and modification to the exterior of the structures within the Overlay Specific Plan Area that is not in substantial conformance with the Overlay Specific Plan shall be subject to architectural review pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article 30 of Chapter 3 of Title 10 of the Municipal Code. 18 Inclusive of revisions based upon the materials depicting redesigned public access to the publicly accessible gardens from North Santa Monica Boulevard dated June 8, 2021, as specified in Project Condition of Approval 1.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE 31 ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021

4.10 SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES
The Overlay Specific Plan incorporates a series of sustainable and climate-conscious design features.

The site, elevations, building materials, and systems are complementary to Beverly Hills’ location, weather, and climatic trends. The following sustainable design strategies have been identified for the Overlay Specific Plan Area.
1 Centralized mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) system, resulting in greater efficiency and minimal duplicity.
2 Low embodied carbon materials.
3 Rainwater management including collection, storage, filtration, distribution, and reuse. 4 Greywaterstorage, treatment, and reuse.
5 Climate control irrigation.
6 Native and cultivated, water smart landscape.
7 Minimize evaporation via landscape and structure shading. 8 Elevation/façade design to include shading, natural ventilation, thermal massing, and shading/ sun exposure.
9 Efficient HVAC, lighting, energy recovery, and smart metering. 10 Pedestrian/vehicular traffic segregation for increased safety, and reduced noise and exposure to emissions.
11 EV stations and charging.
12 Low-toxicity materials.
13 Meet or exceed LEED Gold and Well certifications.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE

ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 42 CHAPTER 6.0 OPERATIONAL STANDARDS

6.1 HOTELS AND CONFERENCE CENTER
The following operational standards shall apply to the Beverly Hilton, Waldorf Astoria, Conference Center, Wilshire Building (hotel portion), and the Beverly Hilton Enhancement.  Recreational Facilities. Except as provided below, for the Fitness Center and the Spa, all indoor and outdoor recreational facilities shall serve Overlay Specific Plan Area’s residents, hotel guests and licensees of the Amenity Access Program and their guests.  Fitness Center. The Fitness Center shall serve Overlay Specific Plan Area’s residents, hotel guests and licensees of the Amenity Access Program and their guests.  Spa. The Spa may be open to the public and may include outdoor areas.  Restaurants/Bars. The operating hours of the hotels’ restaurants and bars shall be permitted from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. Food service to the hotel rooms and the residential condominiums may be provided 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week.

6.2 RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
The following operational standards shall apply to the Garden Residence, Santa Monica Residence, and Wilshire Building (residential portion).
 Outdoor Living Areas. Outdoor living areas such as balconies shall not be used to store personal property in a manner that is visible from the public or private right-of-way or the urban gardens/ public open space, nor shall such outdoor areas be used to hang laundry. All outdoor living areas, including balcony landscaping, shall be maintained in a safe, clean, and orderly condition.

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded with respect to the Overlay Specific Plan shall include these standards.
 Residences Rental Program. A maximum of 44 residential units may be rented for a minimum of one night. Residential owners may enroll their units into this program and may opt out at any time; however, at no point will more than 44 units be rented through this Residences Rental Program, which shall be monitored and reported by the hotel operator. TOT and Municipal Surcharges from this Residences Rental Program shall be collected and reported by the hotel operator. However, notwithstanding any other provision of the BHMC, the residential units in the Residences Rental Program would not be considered a “hotel”.

6.3 GARDENS
The publicly accessible Botanical Gardens and Sculpture Garden (“Botanical Gardens”) shall be operated in accordance with Operating and Maintenance Standards to be established by a non-profit Conservancy, whose Board shall include Project property owners including hotel operators, community members and city representatives. For the purpose of ensuring the Botanical Gardens remain publicly accessible and that the Conservancy fulfills its adopted mission, the Beverly Hills City Councilshall review and approve the Conservancy’s governing documents, including the by-laws, and Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE

ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 43 amendments to the governing documents. In general, the Botanical Gardens and Sculpture Garden, and any ancillary facilities such as public restrooms, will be accessible to the public from dawn to dusk, provided that the Botanical Gardens and portions of the Sculpture Garden may be closed to the public from time to time for maintenance and repairs, improvement work, and emergencies. The Botanical Gardens will not be used for private events hosted by the hotels or Conference Center. No private events shall be hosted in the Gardens, except for events hosted by the non-profit Conservancy. On an annual basis the non-profit Conservancy shall submit a Calendar of Events to the City Council for review and determination that the proposed events in the Botanical Gardens are consistent with the adopted mission of the non-profit Conservancy. The non-profit Conservancy may host no more than 6 private events in the Botanical Gardens per calendar year, unless any additional event is authorized by the City Council.

The Reserved Gardens shall be operated in accordance with Operating Standards to be established by the Property Owners Association (or Homeowners Association). In general, the Reserved Gardens will be accessible to the Project residents, Wilshire Building hotel guests, and AAP licensees from 6 a.m. to 12 a.m., seven days per week.

6.4 PROMENADE (AMENITY AREA)
All indoor and outdoor amenities, including fitness and recreational amenities, retail, dining, and other permitted uses, shall serve only the Overlay Specific Plan Area’s residents, hotel guests and licensees of the Amenity Access Program and their guests, except that the Spa may be open to the public. The following operational standards shall apply to the Promenade (Amenity Area). Except as otherwise provided below, the permitted operating hours of the Promenade (Amenity Area) shall be 6 a.m. to 2 a.m.

6.5 AMENITY ACCESS PROGRAM
The Amenity Access Program (“AAP”) will permit non-residents and non-hotel guests (“licensees”) and their guests access to the amenities located within the Promenade. A private entrance and host desk will provide for licensee check-in. An AAP Rules and Regulations plan shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted for approval by the Director of Community Development. The AAP Rules and Regulations shall allow 250 non-resident licenses. Any increase in the maximum number of AAP nonresident licenses above 250 requires approval by the City Council.

6.6 OPEN-AIR DINING
All open-air dining (Figures 21) within the Overlay Specific Plan Area shall comply with the following standards:
 The design and colors used for chairs, tables, lighting and other fixtures shall generally be consistent with the architectural style and colors used on the related building façade;  Lights may only illuminate the open-air dining area; they cannot emit spillover light on the adjacent sidewalk. No alcoholic beverages shall be served or consumed in the open-air dining area without the required license and approval from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverages Control;
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE

ONE BE V E R L Y HI L L S OV E R L AY SP E C I FI C PL AN BE V E R L Y HI L L S , CAL I FOR NI A REV I S ED 06. 08 . 2021 44  No umbrellas or other overhead furniture or fixtures shall have a clearance of lessthan seven feet and no such articles shall extend beyond the seating area;  Portable heatersshall be located a minimum of three feet from any combustible material and shall be located entirely within the seating area; and
 The seating area and any adjacent pedestrian travel aisle shall be maintained in a clean and orderly state at all times.
 Live entertainment and amplified sound or music shall comply with applicable noise standards;
 The open-air dining area shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Beverly Hills Building Code, including, but not limited to, maintaining proper building ingress and egress at all times, observing maximum seating capacities, providing proper circulation and providing appropriate handicapped access.

Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE

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. 2128 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on August 27, 2026, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of four (4) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:

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

KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Docusign Envelope ID: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 83F5466F-DD6D-8D5B-81F9-5B20BD3353EE Status: Completed Subject: Please Complete with Docusign: PC Reso 2128 - One BH.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 63 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: 198.245.189.154
Record Tracking
Status: Original
9/10/2026 11:04:27 AM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Lou Milkowski
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 172.89.232.151
Sent: 9/10/2026 11:11:15 AM
Viewed: 9/12/2026 3:46:29 PM
Signed: 9/12/2026 3:46:41 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
Signed using mobile
Sent: 9/12/2026 3:46:43 PM
Viewed: 9/13/2026 3:08:15 PM
Signed: 9/13/2026 3:09:42 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Michael Forbes for
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 104.33.206.247
Signed using mobile
Sent: 9/13/2026 3:09:45 PM
Viewed: 9/14/2026 7:37:25 AM
Signed: 9/14/2026 7:37:45 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: 198.245.189.181
Sent: 9/14/2026 7:37:48 AM
Viewed: 9/14/2026 8:32:00 AM
Signed: 9/14/2026 8:42:47 AM
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 9/10/2026 11:11:15 AM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 9/14/2026 8:32:00 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 9/14/2026 8:42:47 AM
Completed Security Checked 9/14/2026 8:42:47 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 2
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies relevant to the City Council’s review of the project. A full analysis of the OBHOSP’s consistency with the General Plan is provided in Table

4.7-2 in the Land Use and Planning Section (Section 4.7) of the Final SEIR (Attachment 5).

Further consistency analysis specific to the Amendments is provided in the Land Use and Planning section of Addendum #3 to the Final SEIR (Attachment 6). A select number of particularly relevant General Plan Policies for the City Council’s consideration are listed below:
• 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, 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, 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.

ATTACHMENT 3
City Clerk's Office

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its regular meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 20, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING THE ONE

BEVERLY HILLS OVERLAY SPECIFIC PLAN AND AN ORDINANCE OF

THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AND BH LUXURY

RESIDENCES AND OASIS WEST REALTY LLC
A request has been made for amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan to allow medical and ambulatory surgical care (outpatient only) uses in the Promenade (Amenity Area) and allow those uses to the open to the public; and to create a Residences Rental Program that would allow a minimum stay of one night for up to 44 residential units in the project. On August 27, 2026, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the amendments to allow medical and ambulatory surgical care (outpatient only) uses, however they did not make a recommendation on the Residences Rental Program due to a lack of consensus.

Additionally, amendments are proposed to the development agreement associated with the project related to the developer's public benefit and fine art obligations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to §15164 of the CEQA Guidelines an Addendum was prepared to the previously certified One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020090048), which concludes that the proposed Amendments do not result in any new or greater environmental impacts than were previously analyzed, disclosed, and mitigated. None of the conditions in g 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines are present and no additional environmental review is required. As a result, staff recommends the City Council adopt the Addendum in its consideration of the Amendments.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please be advised that pre-entry metal detector screening requirements are now in place at City Hall. Members of the public are requested to plan visits accordingly. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meeting through live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings are broadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms. Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed.

These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.

Public Comment Participation:

Oral Comment/Listen only: (310) 288-2288
Email: [email protected]
- Video (during public comment only): http://beverlyhills.org/comment - To Watch Video Live: http://beverlyhills.org/live or
On-Demand: http://beverlyhills.org/citycouncilmeetings
In-Person: Submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk at the meeting How to Submit Public Comment (Email/Video):

It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk's office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council/Parking Authority. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only the first three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a large number of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the City Clerk's Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part of the record.

If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Public comment via video conference will be no longer than three (3) minutes per each individual comment, subject to City Council discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting. Inperson speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk directly during the meeting.

Any interested person may participate in the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the City Council. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.

City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t(310) 285-2400 ft(310) 385-0862 BeverlyHills.org In Person Participation:

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the above information on the location and time of this meeting.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Andre Sahakian, Project Manager in the Community Development Department at (310) 285-1121 or by email at [email protected]. Please also contact us to add your email to the interested parties list for this ordinance, so that important updates and notifications may be sent to you.

HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-2400 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible.

The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired.

City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t(310) 285-2400 ft310) 385-0862 BeverlyHills.org ATTACHMENT 4
October 15, 2026
Dear Mayor Corman, Vice Mayor Wells, Councilmember Friedman, Councilmember Nazarian, and Councilmember Pynoos,
I am writing to express my strong support for the two proposed modifications to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan. Beverly Hills and the entertainment industry have a longstanding relationship, built over generations of cultural moments that have reached audiences around the world. As President of the Golden Globes, I have seen how important a sense of place is to the events and institutions that define Los Angeles on the international stage. Beverly Hills is not simply a backdrop for these occasions; it is part of what makes them distinctive.

Maintaining that position requires continued investment and a willingness to evolve. One Beverly Hills is an ambitious addition to the City, bringing together hospitality, residences, retail, gardens, and wellness in a way that reflects the expectations of an increasingly international audience. The proposed modifications would allow the project to respond more fully to the needs of its future guests and residents.

In particular, the ability for a limited number of Aman Residences to participate in the hotel’s reservation system would give visitors another way to experience Beverly Hills through an established luxury hospitality brand. These accommodations would be operated through Aman’s hotel platform, not as independently managed short-term rentals. The proposed enhancement to the Wellness Center would also introduce a specialized outpatient orthopedic surgery program, adding a new dimension to the project.

The most successful destinations are those that protect what makes them special while continuing to create reasons for people to come, return, and invest in their future. I believe One Beverly Hills can contribute to that vision, and I encourage the City Council to support the proposed modifications.

Best,
Helen Hoehne
President, Golden Globes
11355 West Olympic Boulevard | Los Angeles, CA 90064
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important ⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Outlook
FW: Support for One Beverly Hills
From Huma Ahmed <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/15/2026 3:15 PM
To Andre Sahakian <[email protected]>
Cc City Clerk <[email protected]>
Huma Ahmed, CMC
City Clerk
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive, Suite 290
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Ph: 310-285-2400
From: Encore Pharmacy
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2026 3:15 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support for One Beverly Hills
Dear Honorable Beverly Hills City Council Members,
My wife and I own Encore Pharmacy on Roxbury Drive. We understand what it takes to build and sustain a small business in Beverly Hills. We opened our pharmacy in 2018, and since then, we have worked hard to establish ourselves in the community and earn the trust of the customers we serve. Like many small business owners, we know that a healthy local economy and a steady flow of customers are essential to our success.

Independent businesses like ours benefit when Beverly Hills attracts new visitors, welcomes new residents, and continues to invest in its future. A successful Aman Hotel and residences can bring additional people into the city who will dine at local restaurants, shop at neighborhood stores, and use the services offered by businesses throughout Beverly Hills. For a small business, that additional activity can make a meaningful difference. In addition, we want to pass along our support for the orthopedic surgery center on-site. As a pharmacy, we absolutely support more access to care for our aging population. This feels like an obvious benefit.
10/15/26, 3:47 PM FW: Support for One Beverly Hills - Andre Sahakian - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane51 1/2
For these reasons, we are writing to express our support for the proposed modifications in front of you today. The success of One Beverly Hills and the many small businesses that call Beverly Hills home can all benefit from this approval.

Sincerely,
Ben & Sanam Kadkhoda
Owners, Encore Pharmacy
465 Roxbury Drive
10/15/26, 3:47 PM FW: Support for One Beverly Hills - Andre Sahakian - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane51 2/2
October 15,2026
To the City Council of Beverly Hills,
I am wri9ng to express my support for the proposed modifica9ons to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan. Beverly Hills’ con9nued success as a global luxury des9na9on depends on thoughEul investment that strengthens the visitor experience and supports the businesses that contribute to the City’s interna9onal reputa9on.

The city’s collabora9on with the hotels, restaurants, bou9ques, and other des9na9ons is unique. It has helped Beverly Hills become a global brand, envied by many. One Beverly Hills will supercharge the established ecosystem by bringing together hospitality, retail, dining, gardens, and wellness in a new des9na9on that gives visitors addi9onal reasons to spend 9me in the City.

I support the proposed residen9al modifica9on to allow a select number of Aman residences to par9cipate in the Aman reserva9on system. My support is informed by my retail experience in our luxury market. Those luxury travelers coming to Beverly Hills to shop and dine oJen need larger hotel accommoda9ons than are available. And not just unavailable here, but across the west side of Los Angeles. Having hospitality offerings with mul9ple bedrooms, Aman services and the exclusivity of One Beverly Hills has enormous poten9al for our retail landscape. It becomes another dis9nc9on to Beverly Hills. These residences would be operated as hotel rooms, with applicable transient occupancy tax, not private rentals and would have all the needed controls, security and screening a luxury hotel provides.

I also support the proposed enhancement to the Wellness Center to include a limited outpa9ent orthopedic surgery program. This addi9on would broaden the services available at One Beverly Hills and further contribute to the City’s posi9on as a des9na9on for excep9onal hospitality, wellness, and specialized medical services.

In order for Beverly Hills to maintain its dis9nc9ve posi9on we must always innovate and expand. These modifica9ons offer a pathway that has no impact on the surrounding community and significant upside to the city as a whole. I believe these modifica9ons represent a posi9ve opportunity to build on Beverly Hills’ strengths and support the con9nued vitality of its business community.

Thank you for your considera9on.

Kathy Gohari
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important ⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Outlook
FW: Dion Jackson`s support for One Beverly Hills Project and Proposed Amendments From Denise Garcia <[email protected]>
Date Thu 10/15/2026 1:43 PM
To Andre Sahakian <[email protected]>
Hello,
Please see the email below.

Thank you,
Denise Garcia
Executive Assistant to the City Council
Policy and Management
City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Office (310) 285-1013
[email protected]
From: Dion Jackson
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2026 1:00 PM
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL <[email protected]> Subject: Dion Jackson`s support for One Beverly Hills Project and Proposed Amendments Dear Mayor and Members of the Beverly Hills City Council, I am writing to express my support for the One Beverly Hills Project and the two proposed amendments scheduled for consideration on October 20.

I have spent many years working alongside Beverly Hills residents, businesses, civic leaders, and charitable organizations. I have witnessed firsthand the importance of 10/15/26, 2:50 PM FW: Dion Jackson`s support for One Beverly Hills Project and Proposed Amendments - Andre Sahakian - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane47 1/2
community partnerships, thoughtful development, and maintaining Beverly Hills as a world-class destination.

I believe One Beverly Hills represents an exciting opportunity for our city's future, combining luxury hospitality, residential living, business opportunities, and beautiful public garden spaces.

From my perspective as a fitness and wellness professional, I particularly appreciate the proposed addition of outpatient medical and surgical services for Aman guests and residents, provided appropriate medical and safety standards are maintained. I also support the proposed Aman-managed residential rental program as a way to provide additional flexibility within this unique development.

I appreciate the Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce for keeping our business community informed and engaged in these important discussions.

Thank you for your continued service and consideration. I look forward to seeing One Beverly Hills become an important part of our city's next chapter.

Warm regards,
Dion Jackson
Founder, All Seasons Fitness Media
Charity Fitness Tour
AFAA Certified Personal & Group Fitness Trainer
www.allseasonsfitnessmedia.com
www.dionjackson.com
“Until There's a Cure, We're on Tour.”
10/15/26, 2:50 PM FW: Dion Jackson`s support for One Beverly Hills Project and Proposed Amendments - Andre Sahakian - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane47 2/2
10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: +1.424.653.5500 Fax: +1.424.653.5501
www.lw.com

FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Chicago Paris
Dubai Riyadh
Düsseldorf San Diego
Frankfurt San Francisco
Hamburg Seoul
Hong Kong Silicon Valley
Houston Singapore
London Tel Aviv
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.

October 14, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Beverly Hills City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Proposed Modifications/Amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan and Development Agreement
Dear Honorable Councilmembers:

We look forward to the City Council’s hearing on October 20, 2026, regarding our client’s requested modifications/amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan and related conditions of approval and the Development Agreement. We are in receipt of the letter from the Peninsula’s counsel requesting that the City Council not take any final action on the requested amendments at that October 20 hearing and leave the public hearing and record open through to the next City Council hearing on November 10.

On behalf of our client, we confirm that the applicant has no objection to the City Council, after having the hearing and discussing the actions on October 20, keeping the hearing and record open through to the next City Council hearing on November 10.

Sincerely,
George J. Mihlsten
cc: Ryan Gohlich, City Manager
Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
Victor De la Cruz, Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Larry Green, Managing Director, Cain Development

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
Direct Dial: (310) 312-4305
[email protected]
October 13, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Mayor Corman and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Your October 20, 2026, City Council Hearing on the Proposed Amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan and Development Agreement Dear Mayor Corman and Honorable Councilmembers:

As you know, this firm represents The Belvedere Hotel Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”). On behalf of the Peninsula, we respectfully request that you not take any final action on the requested amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan and Development Agreement between the City and BH Luxury Residences and Oasis West Realty LLC (together, the “Amendments”), at your hearing of October 20, 2026, and instead leave the public hearing and record open on the aforementioned items through to the next City Council hearing where the Amendments may be considered (we understand expected to be your November 10, 2026, City Council meeting).

The Peninsula and Cain are engaged in discussions regarding the Amendments, and providing this additional time will hopefully allow the parties to arrive at an amicable resolution.

We appreciate your consideration of this request.

Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Ryan Gohlich, City Manager
Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
George Mihlsten, Latham & Watkins, LLP
1 October 12, 2026
Honorable Mayor Craig Corman and Beverly Hills City Council City Council
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Mayor Corman and Members of the Beverly Hills City Council:

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 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 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.

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 three decades. 2 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
Outlook
Fw: One Beverly Hills
From Michael Forbes <[email protected]>
Date Wed 9/9/2026 10:09 AM
To Andre Sahakian <[email protected]>
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Jacobs < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 6:53 PM
To: WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL <[email protected]> Cc: Editor Beverly Press <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: One Beverly Hills
[You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Dear Mayor Corman and Members of the City Council
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal by the developer of the Beverly Hills One project to permit short term rentals for 44 of the residential condominiums to be built as part of the project. We are long term residents of Beverly Hills - my wife grew up here, and we have lived in our current house in Beverly Hills since 1978.

In my opinion, what the developers are requesting is a bad idea and is not in the best interests of Beverly Hills and its residents. Obviously, I understand why One Beverly Hills wants this concession, as it believes that allowing short term rentals will drive sales and pricing for the units.

I do understand that higher unit pricing for the units could marginally benefit the City through higher property taxes. But in my opinion, this slight potential benefit does not outweigh the detriments to the City and its residents..
- The Courier points out that when One Beverly Hills was first approved in 2021, short term rentals were expressly prohibited. The developers should not now go back to the well to seek a more advantageous position for the project than the developers agreed to and the City initially approved. Ths is not the first time the developers have sought to improve its entitlements beyond what was initially agreed. I know of two instances (there may be more):
- the developers sought to change the height and density of the project - it took a referendum of the citizens to defeat that effort.
- the developer sought, and the City unfortunately approved, a City sponsored bond issue to lower the project’s interest expense - although this change was ‘sold' on the basis of it not costing Beverly Hills anything, analysis (as I pointed out to the City Council when I opposed that change) demonstrates that the City and the Beverly Hills Unified School District 9/9/26, 12:08 PM Fw: One Beverly Hills - Andre Sahakian - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane29 1/2
will find that their property tax collections will be significantly reduced as a result.

The developers should live with the bargain that they made, and if a change is to be made, the City should require that it clearly and incontrovertibly would benefit the City - this proposed change does the opposite.
- The argument that having condominium units available for short term rental would increase high end visitation to the City does not hold water. What is the evidence that there is a shortage of luxury accommodations in the City? There is no shortage. It is far more likely that these short term rental condominiums will, if anything, displace demand from our existing luxury properties. - The City has spent a lot of effort developing a ban on short-term rentals. That measure, which makes sense to me, will inevitably be compromised if the developers’ proposal is approved. While I read the developers’ ‘position’ that this exception is somehow ‘different’ from what the City adopted because there is a hotel involved, I do not think that is persuasive. There is, I believe, already litigation challenging the City’s ban; approving the developers’ proposal will only add fuel to that fire, generating non-frivolous arguments that unequal treatment is being provided to the developers. Approval of this proposal will necessarily complicate the City’s defense of its general short term rental ban, leading to increased litigation expense and increasing the likelihood of the City losing the case and having its carefully constructed policy declared invalid. Apart from unequal treatment not being fair, why should the City jeopardize its public policy in order to benefit the developers? I think that would be very imprudent on the part of the City Council and that the residents would be very angry should that occur. Does the City Council want to take that chance? Thank you for considering my comments.

When the matter is taken up by the Council, kindly include this letter in the official record of the proceedings Very truly yours.

Gary N Jacobs
9/9/26, 12:08 PM Fw: One Beverly Hills - Andre Sahakian - Outlook about:blank?windowId=SecondaryReadingPane29 2/2
+1 310.228.9555 | 360 North Crescent Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210 | platinumequity.com Tom Gores
Chaiman & CEO
August 27th, 2026
Dear Chairman Milkowski, Vice-Chair Ross, and Commissioners Kaplan and Wolfe:

I am writing in support of the applications concerning the Aman Hotel and Wellness Center at One Beverly Hills.

As a founder and business owner headquartering in Beverly Hills for the last three decades, I believe the hotel request is a practical one. One Beverly Hills is a multi-billion-dollar project that the city spent 20 years planning. For projects of this scale to succeed, it needs to retain operational flexibility to meet actual demand. Allowing Aman to use a defined portion of its residences as hotel inventory is a carefully calculated adjustment that materially improves its ability to operate successfully. This is in the city's direct financial interest because the revenue projections the city is counting on depend on that performance. Aman is also a highly respected brand whose reputation rests on meticulously managing its property’s occupants.

My support for the Wellness Center is more personal. The Orthopedic Center would be established in partnership with Dr. Neal ElAttrache, a renowned LA surgeon that I have known and respected throughout the years. He is the first call by LA’s professional athletes and performers and, more importantly, a truly wonderful person and pillar within the community who embodies the very best of the vision behind One Beverly Hills. Being an owner of a professional sports team for the past 15 years, I have seen firsthand the impact of access to exceptional orthopedic care and recovery in a controlled environment and am confident that a partnership with Dr. ElAttrache would be a true asset to the success of this property.

As a local business owner, I respectfully encourage your approval of these applications. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Tom Gores
Chairman and CEO
⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Outlook
4 hours of not getting to the point
From Sharon Carz CCIM <[email protected]>
Date Thu 8/27/2026 6:05 PM
To CommentPC <[email protected]>
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
OK - why would the Peninsula enter into a private agreement with the "operator" of 1 BH without City over site?
This entire argument is about equal treatment of long-term rentals??? Been watching this site since the Wanda days.

Sorry if I am late to comment.

Sharon Carz, CCIM
Executive Vice President
RPM Commercial Real Estate
Investment Sales-Leasing-Management
525 S. Douglas Street, Suite 270
El Segundo, CA 90245
310-985-9154 cell
424-281-3704 direct
[email protected]
CA DRE#01362078
www.rpmres.com
What is a CCIM?
8/28/26, 10:36 AM Mail - Andre Sahakian - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ABqRJV432kU6DB84HKlpK0AAD8J2r0wAA?nativeVersi… 1/2 The information contained herein was obtained from sources believed reliable. However, RPM Commercial Real Estate makes no guaranties, warranties, or representations as to the completeness or accuracy thereof.

The presentation of this information submitted is subject to errors, omissions, and/or changes without notice.

This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be protected by legal privilege.

If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of this e-mail or any attachment is prohibited.

If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete this copy from your system. 8/28/26, 10:36 AM Mail - Andre Sahakian - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAkALgAAAAAAHYQDEapmEc2byACqAC%2FEWg0ABqRJV432kU6DB84HKlpK0AAD8J2r0wAA?nativeVersi… 2/2 10250 Constellation Blvd., Suite 1100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Tel: +1.424.653.5500 Fax: +1.424.653.5501
www.lw.com

FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Chicago Paris
Dubai Riyadh
Düsseldorf San Diego
Frankfurt San Francisco
Hamburg Seoul
Hong Kong Silicon Valley
Houston Singapore
London Tel Aviv
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.

August 25, 2026

VIA EMAIL
City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: August 27, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Item 2 – One Beverly Hills/Amendments to One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Honorable Commissioners:

The Belvedere Hotel Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills has objected to the requested amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan scheduled for consideration by your Commission on August 27, 2026, asserting various misstatements. On behalf of the applicant, this letter addresses those misstatements.

1. There Is No Binding Agreement Between the Peninsula and Cain. The Peninsula’s letter repeatedly asserts that Cain is bound by a “binding settlement agreement” and that the City and Cain are “legally prohibited” from pursuing the amendments related to the Residences Rental Program due to this purported agreement. Peninsula’s assertions are plainly false. No settlement agreement of any kind exists between Cain and the Peninsula or otherwise affects the One Beverly Hills development.

Peninsula’s own letter concedes that the restrictions were between the Peninsula and the prior project owner and developer. That was Wanda Beverly Hills Properties, LLC. Cain was not a party to that agreement. Moreover, to the extent there was any agreement, that agreement was not recorded against the property. It has no legal effect. The mere acquisition of property that was previously owned by Wanda does not bind Cain or the One Beverly Hills property in any way to any such agreement. Whatever the agreement was between the Peninsula and Wanda, it is no longer relevant as the One Beverly Hills project is governed by separate and subsequent planning approvals.

Accordingly, the Peninsula’s assertions regarding a purported 2016 Wanda “settlement agreement” have absolutely no bearing on the requested Specific Plan amendments.

2. The CC&Rs Do Not Limit the City’s Authority to Modify the Specific Plan and Conditions of Approval. The One Beverly Hills project is regulated by the approved Specific Plan and applicable Conditions of Approval (“COAs”) for the project. Cain is pursuing the appropriate City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission
August 25, 2026

and lawful process to modify the Specific Plan and applicable COAs, and nothing prevents the City from exercising its legislative authority to do so.

Moreover, the CC&Rs have not yet been finalized or recorded, and therefore no changes to the CC&Rs are required nor can the Peninsula claim any enforcement rights under CC&Rs that are merely in draft form. The CC&Rs will be reviewed by Planning, the City Attorney, and the California Department of Real Estate for compliance with applicable requirements, and then recorded, all in a manner consistent with the Specific Plan, as amended. The Peninsula’s arguments regarding supermajority amendment procedures and the survivability of restrictions beyond project approvals are inapplicable.

3. The Requested Amendments to the Specific Plan and COAs Do Not Contradict City’s Short Term Rental Ordinance. City Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 (the “STR Ordinance”) amended short-term rental prohibitions in various areas of the City, including in standard residential zones (such as the R-1, R-1.5, R-3, and R-4 zones), but it did not amend the Specific Plan. Uses within the plan area are authorized exclusively “as authorized by and in conformance with the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan.” (BHMC § 10-3-1591.) The Council, in adopting the STR Ordinance, specifically provided it did not apply to the Specific Plan.

The Peninsula’s characterization of the Residences Rental Program as “exactly the disfavored activity the STR Ordinance was designed to prohibit” ignores the fundamental differences between the two. The STR Ordinance targets unregulated, dispersed short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods—uses that, as City staff stated, present significant enforcement challenges. The Residences Rental Program, by contrast, would allow a maximum of 44 units on any given night to be rented under the oversight and management of the Aman hotel, subject to City-approved operational standards, and with transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) and Municipal Surcharge collection and reporting requirements. This is not the type of unregulated transient use the STR Ordinance was designed to address. These units are on a site that have other hotel uses and would not present the “party house” or change in neighborhood character concerns raised by some during the City’s consideration of the STR Ordinance.

The Peninsula’s enforcement concerns are also unfounded. The Residences Rental Program would require mandatory TOT reporting, HOA annual compliance reporting, doubleincome fines for violations, and independent City enforcement rights under the CC&Rs. (Specific Plan Ch. 6.2; Conditions of Approval 94–95.)

4. Prior Modifications to the Specific Plan Do Not Constitute Piecemealing. The Peninsula’s characterization of the previously approved modifications for setbacks and height as secretive or improperly “piecemealed” is factually and legally incorrect. The Specific Plan’s modification process is set forth in plain language in the adopted Specific Plan. (Specific Plan §

5.6.) The Peninsula never objected to this process.

The Peninsula’s CEQA argument distorts the piecemealing doctrine. The piecemealing doctrine does not prohibit a public agency from issuing subsequent approvals to implement and/or modify an approved project that has already been analyzed in a certified EIR. The One Beverly Hills project has already been fully analyzed in the certified One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission
August 25, 2026

Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”). (See Resolution No. 21-R13348.) Following the City Council’s adoption of the Specific Plan and certification of the Final SEIR in 2021, the Director approved several “non-material” and administrative modifications.

The modifications referenced by the Peninsula were approved as “non material” modifications on January 23, 2026, as the Director determined that they “will not result in a material increase in height; will not increase parking demand or otherwise materially alter the distribution, location, extent, or density of the uses and buildings permitted in the Specific Plan; and do not materially alter the approved architectural style, modulation or height of the buildings or the size or location of the gardens/open space or other project features.” (Specific Plan Non-Material Modification Approval Letter, Jan. 23, 2026, p. 4.) The non-material modifications did not involve any conditions that would have required the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and Guidelines Section 15162.

5. The Continued Utility Work in South Santa Monica Does Not Constitute Piecemealing.

Separate from the requested amendments, the One Beverly Hills Project is proceeding with implementation of new electrical (SCE) conduit in Santa Monica Boulevard South. In connection with the permit issued by the City for the electrical conduit work, the City prepared an Addendum to the City’s previously certified SEIR. Peninsula, in a separate process, has appealed the permit issued by the City and it is not the subject of or related to the requested amendments. Nonetheless, the Peninsula is attempting to delay or modify the location of that required electrical infrastructure.

Its arguments are without merit and certainly have nothing to do with the at-issue, requested amendments.

In any event, the use of an Addendum in connection with the requested amendments is proper in this circumstance. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15164.) Furthermore, CEQA does not prohibit the use of multiple addenda to accommodate project changes that arise during implementation of an approved project. The Peninsula cites no authority to the contrary. In fact, this is routine practice. For example, in Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 788, 802, the court rejected arguments that amendments to an airport master plan constituted “a new project,” upholding the City’s use of an eighth addendum to the prior EIR and SEIR, and concluding that the amendments did not require subsequent CEQA review.

6. The Proposed Changes to the Specific Plan and COAs Do Not Require an Amendment to the Development Agreement. Peninsula’s argument that the Development Agreement must be amended is baseless. The Development Agreement repeatedly provides that the Developer’s vested rights and obligations track the Project Approvals “as they may be lawfully amended from time to time, other than by initiative.” (Development Agreement §§ 4, 7, 8(a), 8(c)). These provisions would be rendered superfluous if every amendment to the Specific Plan required an amendment of the Development Agreement.

Further, the Peninsula does not have standing to enforce the Development Agreement.

Section 20 provides that “[t]here are no third-party beneficiaries and this Agreement is not intended and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any other person whatsoever City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission
August 25, 2026

other than the successors in interest of the signatories.” Only the City and the Developer may enforce the Development Agreement’s terms. The Peninsula is not a party to the Development Agreement and lacks standing to compel an amendment.

7. The Peninsula’s Speculation Regarding Noncompliance with the Conditions of Approval is Incorrect. In a June 18, 2026 letter to City staff, the Peninsula incorrectly speculated that the developer had failed to record a covenant accepting the Project’s COAs, as required by Condition 92, and therefore questioned the effectiveness of the Project’s approvals. As the City Attorney explained in a June 30, 2026 response, this assertion was unfounded. The Covenant and Agreement accepting the One Beverly Hills Project’s COAs was duly recorded on March 29, 2024.

Accordingly, there is no basis to question the validity of the Project’s approvals.

The Peninsula’s various objections are inaccurate and meritless. We respectfully request that you recommend approval of Agenda Item 2, the requested amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan and applicable COAs.

Sincerely,
George J. Mihlsten
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
cc: Larry Green, Managing Director, Cain Development LP Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
David Snow, Assistant City Attorney
Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development
Andre Sahakian, Project Manager – Major Projects Planning

President
Golden Globes
11355 West Olympic Boulevard | Los Angeles, CA 90064
August 24, 2026
Dear Planning Commission,
On behalf of the Golden Globes, I am writing to express our strong support for the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

The Golden Globes has a longstanding connection to Beverly Hills, and we understand firsthand the importance of the city’s ability to continue evolving as a world-class destination for hospitality, entertainment and global events. One Beverly Hills represents an important investment in that future.

The proposed modifications will further strengthen the project’s hospitality oLering by allowing a limited number of Aman Residences to participate in the hotel’s reservation system. This is a proven model across leading hospitality-led developments and will create greater flexibility to accommodate the high-profile guests and international visitors who come to Beverly Hills for major events and experiences.

We also strongly support the proposed limited outpatient surgical program within the Wellness Center. The integration of world-class wellness and specialized medical services is consistent with the evolution of Beverly Hills as a destination that increasingly brings together hospitality, health and exceptional experiences.

These are thoughtful, targeted enhancements that will help One Beverly Hills deliver on its vision while further strengthening Beverly Hills’ position on the global stage. We understand that City staL has reviewed the modifications and determined that they do not alter the project’s previously studied traLic, noise or parking impacts.

We strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve these modifications and believe they will be a meaningful benefit to One Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills and the broader community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Helen Hoehne
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 August 24, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: One Beverly Hills Project (PL2600082) – Request to Continue August 27 Hearing and Correct Misleading Public Advertisement
Dear Honorable Commissioners:

This firm represents The Belvedere Hotel Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”). We write regarding Cain International’s (“Cain”) pending request to amend the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (the “OSP”) and related conditions of approval to establish a short-term rental program allowing up to 44 residential condominium units to be rented for stays as short as one night (the “Proposed Short-Term Rental Program”). The matter is presently scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission on August 27, 2026.

Cain recently published a full-page advertisement in the Beverly Hills Courier urging the public to support the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program. (See Exhibit A.) In describing the existing Project approvals, the advertisement states:
“The approved Overlay Specific Plan already provides for additional hotel rooms at the property, allowing a limited number of privately owned residences to participate in Aman’s hotel reservation system.”
This statement is misleading and materially mischaracterizes the existing Project approvals in a manner intended to mislead the public. Although the OSP authorizes hotel rooms in designated portions of the Project, it does not authorize the Garden Residences or Santa Monica Residences to participate in a short-term rental program of any kind or to be offered through a hotel reservation system. Rather, the existing approvals expressly prohibit both forms of use.

The distinction between the Project’s residential and hotel inventory is explicit in the OSP. The Garden Residences and Santa Monica Residences are designated as residential August 24, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 buildings, while the OSP separately defines the Project’s hotel uses. Most importantly, the OSP expressly states that “[h]otel rooms is not an allowable use in the Garden Residences or Santa Monica Residences.” Existing Condition of Approval 94 is even more specific: “[n]o rental program may be established for residential units located in the Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence in connection with the hotel,” and “no residential unit may be offered or made available for rental (for any term) through the hotel’s reservation system.” Condition 94 also prohibits rental of those residences for fewer than 180 consecutive days.

The existing approvals expressly prohibit the hotel-connected residential rental program that the advertisement suggests is already permitted. Cain is asking the City to amend those restrictions to allow participating residential units to be rented for stays as short as one night through a hotel-managed rental program or reservation system. The City’s own Staff Report confirms that the application seeks a material change to the existing restrictions: it describes the application as a request to “reduce minimum lease periods for residential condominiums to establish a Residences Rental Program” and identifies the existing 180-day minimum rental restriction.

The mischaracterization is material to the public process. Cain directed its advertisement to Beverly Hills residents immediately before the August 27 hearing and presented the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program as though it follows from hotel uses already authorized under the OSP. A reasonable reader could therefore understand the advertisement to mean that the existing OSP already authorizes substantially the same use and that the pending application merely adjusts how previously authorized hotel inventory may be operated. That is materially different from the action actually before the Commission, which would amend express restrictions governing residential units to permit a hotel-connected rental program prohibited by the Project approvals.

The material misrepresentation at issue is clearly intended to directly affect public perception and public participation. Residents deciding whether to review the agenda materials, submit comments, or attend the hearing are entitled to an accurate understanding of the change the Commission is being asked to recommend. A resident who understands that substantially the same use is already authorized may reasonably conclude that the pending application does not warrant participation. Correcting the misstatement for the first time at the August 27 hearing would not adequately address that concern because residents deterred from participating would not necessarily be present to hear the correction.

Under these circumstances, the Peninsula respectfully requests that the Commission continue the August 27 hearing to a later date so that the public can receive an accurate description of the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program before the Commission considers the application. The Peninsula further requests that Cain publish a correction in the Beverly Hills Courier of the same size and placement stating that, contrary to its previous public statement, the existing OSP does not authorize the Garden Residences or Santa Monica Residences to participate in a hotel reservation system and that the pending application seeks to amend existing August 24, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 restrictions governing those residential units. If the Commission nevertheless elects to proceed on August 27, the Peninsula requests, at minimum, that City Staff correct the record at the outset of the hearing by correcting this misrepresentation and accurately stating the existing restrictions and the amendments Cain is seeking.

A public hearing on an amendment to the OSP should proceed on an accurate understanding of what the City previously approved and what Cain is now asking the City to change. The Peninsula respectfully requests that the Commission continue the matter and require that the public record be corrected accordingly.

Very truly yours,
Victor De la Cruz
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
cc: Ryan Gohlich, City Manager
Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
Andre Sahakian, Project Manager – Major Projects, Planning Ara Retchian, Associate Project Manager, Public Works
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

EXHIBIT A
Beverly Hills Courier Advertisement
[see attached]

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 August 26, 2026

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: One Beverly Hills Project – Opposition to Proposed Condominium ShortTerm Rental Program (PL2600082) Dear Honorable Commissioners:

This firm represents The Belvedere Hotel Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula Beverly Hills”). We write regarding Cain International’s (“Cain”) request to amend the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (the “OSP”) and related conditions of approval to establish a short-term rental program allowing up to 44 residential condominium units to be rented for stays as short as one night (the “Proposed Short-Term Rental Program”). The One Beverly Hills development is referred to herein as the “Project,” and the conditions of approval adopted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 21-R-13350 are referred to as the “Conditions of Approval.”
The Peninsula Beverly Hills strongly opposes the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program and respectfully requests that the Planning Commission continue the subject hearing until Cain corrects its August 20, 2026, misrepresentation in The Beverly Hills Courier for the reasons set forth in our correspondence of August 24, 2026. In the alternative, we respectfully request that the Commission decline to recommend approval of the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program.

As set forth in our letter of May 12, 2026, the City may not legally approve the Short-Term Rental Program, and to-date, Cain has not provided you with a response to our detailed objections.

This letter supplements our May 12, 2026 correspondence with additional procedural and policy-based objections to the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program. The City approved the Project subject to detailed restrictions specifically designed to ensure that the Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence would function as genuine residential buildings rather than transient lodging. Cain now asks the City to eliminate those protections by authorizing up to 44 of those residential units to operate in a hotel-managed rental pool with stays as short as one August 26, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 night, something which no condominium building in the City is allowed to do and which flagrantly violates City policy as made clear through the City Council’s recent adoption of a short-term rental ordinance and a decision this month to not make a single exception for the 2028 Olympics. If the City approves short-term rentals for these condominiums, then every other condominium in the City will request the same exception through specific plans, defeating the very policy intent of the City’s ban.

The record does not support the finding the Planning Commission must make to recommend an amendment to the OSP. Under Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) section 10-3-3908, the Commission may recommend a specific plan amendment only if the facts establish that the “public interest, health, safety, morals, peace, comfort, convenience, or general welfare requires” the requested reclassification. The Staff Report relies principally on centralized administration of the Short-Term Rental Program, anticipated transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) revenue, and the availability of a new form of luxury accommodation to support that finding. As discussed below, the record does not substantiate those asserted public benefits and leaves material inconsistencies in the proposed entitlement unresolved.

It is also not realistic to believe that all of the problems that short-term rentals have historically created in the City as a whole will not be created at the subject site. People who choose to live in their multi-million dollar, ultra-luxury condominiums will not take kindly to transient lodging of the unit next door, or even worse, for the massive condominium next door being used for an unauthorized party or other commercial use. All of the enforcement issues that have been created elsewhere would occur here: ultra wealthy homeowners will pursue multiple administrative and legal appeals against the City for short-term rental violations and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to police which units are legally operating pursuant to the Aman residences program and which are taking place completely separate from it. The Planning Commission, in supporting the short-term rental ordinance, was crystal clear about not wanting exceptions to swallow the rule, or otherwise create enforcement complications. The Proposed Short-Term Rental Program would do precisely that.

The Peninsula’s comments below focus on the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program. Nothing in this letter should be construed as a waiver of the Peninsula’s objections to the other requested Project amendments or its previously asserted rights and remedies.

I. The Proposed Short-Term Rental Program Would Eliminate Deliberate and Material Protections Governing the Project’s Residential Component The existing 180-day rental restriction in the Project approvals is not an incidental operating condition. Conditions of Approval 94 and 95 establish a detailed framework expressly designed to prevent the Project’s residential component from functioning as transient lodging. In addition to being required pursuant to the settlement agreement with The Peninsula Beverly Hills, as laid out in detail in our correspondence of May 12, 2026, it has long been City policy to prohibit short-term rentals of condominium units and this was affirmed as recently as August 11, August 26, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 2026, by the City Council at a study session where it decided not to make a single exception on the short-term rental prohibition for the 2028 Olympics. All of the policy reasons for not making exceptions apply to Cain. Cain seeks special treatment because it is subject to a specific plan, but when the Planning Commission and City Council allowed for specific plan exceptions in adopting the short-term rental ordinance, they did so to acknowledge the AKA Beverly Hills Suites’ grandfathered rights and to ensure it could continue operating in its current fashion. It was never meant to encourage prospective one-off exceptions for developers who want to skirt the law and its intent. Indeed, recently the Saks Fifth Avenue project, which has a hotel and condominium component, was approved with a specific plan but the City did not approve any short-term rentals of its condominium units and, in fact, expressly barred them in conditions of approval. There is no reason why such an exception should be approved for Cain.

Existing Condition No. 94 prohibits rental of a Santa Monica Residence or Garden Residence unit for a period of less than 180 consecutive days; prohibits timeshare, fractionalinterest, private-residence-club, vacation-ownership and similar programs; prohibits a residential rental program connected with the hotel; prohibits offering the residences through the hotel reservation system; and restricts hotel services to owners, non-paying guests and qualifying longterm tenants. Existing Condition No. 95 requires that the Project’s residential CC&Rs implement detailed restrictions governing residential occupancy and leasing. Among other things, the CC&Rs are required to prohibit leases shorter than 180 consecutive days; broadly define “lease” to include transient occupancy arranged through online rental services or any other means; prohibit partial-unit leasing; require Association review and approval before tenant occupancy; impose fines for violations; broadly construe the restrictions to prevent circumvention; and provide that the developer is not exempt from those restrictions. Condition No. 95 further provides that no amendment easing those restrictions may be adopted absent approval by supermajorities of owners and lenders and approval by the City Council at a noticed public meeting. Most importantly, Condition No. 95 unequivocally states that the restrictions remain operative for so long as the Santa Monica Residence and Garden Residence buildings exist on the property, notwithstanding any termination or expiration of the development agreement or other Project approval. These conditions were recorded against the property and Cain had actual notice when it purchased the property.

In other words, the City Council was quite clear about the importance of this issue. It is unprecedented for the City Council to require a condition requiring the recordation of CC&Rs that outlast any Project approval (e.g., prevent a Specific Plan Amendment as a workaround like Cain now seeks to do). As The Peninsula Beverly Hills explained in a June 18, 2026, letter to City Attorney Laurence Wiener and Community Development Director Michael Forbes, Cain acquired the property with knowledge of the above framework, and neither Cain nor the City eliminated the restrictions when the new OSP was approved in 2021. The Peninsula Beverly Hills was induced to rely on that framework in not challenging the Project’s approvals.

Through a Public Records Act request to the California Department of Real Estate (the “DRE”), we have recently discovered that Cain has violated Condition No. 95 because the August 26, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 CC&Rs submitted by Cain to the DRE completely disregard the above requirements. They do not contain any operative provision expressly implementing the mandatory 180-day minimum lease restriction required by Conditions 94 and 95, nor do they implement the broader protective framework required by those Conditions, including the express prohibitions on transient occupancy arrangements, anti-circumvention provisions, Association enforcement requirements, and related occupancy restrictions mandated by the Project approvals. This is highly significant because future condominium owners, who the City Council intended to protect through the CC&Rs, are being deprived of their protections from short-term rentals. Again, Condition No. 95 provides that no amendment easing those restrictions may be adopted absent approval by supermajorities of owners and lenders. Cain cannot shirk its obligations and the intent of Conditions 94 and 95 by submitting clearly inadequate CC&Rs to the DRE as it did.

In its letter of June 18, 2026, The Peninsula Beverly Hills advised the City that draft CC&Rs submitted to the DRE in connection with the public report process did not contain any operative provisions expressly implementing the mandatory 180-day minimum lease restriction required by Conditions 94 and 95. On June 30, City Attorney Larry Wiener responded that the City was “currently reviewing the draft CC&R’s,” had “not yet provided its comments,” and was aware of Conditions 94 and 95. To date, we do not understand why the City has not required recordation of the required CC&Rs to protect against precisely what Cain now seeks to do.

The recordation of accurate CC&Rs is of fundamental importance because they provided that they would remain in place “notwithstanding any termination or expiration of the development agreement or other Project approval” and could only be amended by a supermajority vote of the Project’s homeowners. By not submitting the CC&Rs that were legally required by the Project entitlements, Cain is attempting to circumvent the specific protections that were provided to The Peninsula Beverly Hills, condominium homeowners, and the general public. The City must comply with its legal obligations and require that the correct CC&Rs be submitted to DRE and recorded before any amendment of the OSP dealing with short-term rentals is considered.

II. Staff’s Claimed “Substantial” TOT Benefit Is Not Supported by the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program or the City’s Own Tax Rules The Staff Report relies expressly on projected TOT revenue to support the required public-interest finding. It states that “[t]he application of TOT and Municipal Surcharge to these additional 44 units would generate substantial revenue for the city” and relies on that asserted benefit in concluding that the Short-Term Rental Program would further the public interest, safety, convenience and general welfare. The draft Planning Commission resolution incorporates the same premise. However, this premise is illogical given that the City Council has already made clear it does not want TOT from short-term rentals. Why is every other project approved by the City, like the Saks Fifth Avenue project, which presumably could generate TOT in the same fashion, expressly barred from having short-term rentals? August 26, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 Moreover, the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program contains no maximum stay, even though the duration of occupancy determines whether the City receives TOT. Proposed section

6.2 permits a minimum stay of one night, but nothing in the proposed text limits a Short-Term Rental occupant to 30 days or otherwise requires an occupant to vacate and re-rent the unit before the City’s TOT threshold is exceeded.

That omission has a direct fiscal consequence under the City’s TOT ordinance. BHMC section 3-1-302 defines a “transient” as a person entitled to occupancy for 30 consecutive calendar days or less and further provides that an occupant is treated as transient only until the 30-day period expires unless a written agreement provides for a longer period from the outset. BHMC section 3-1-303 imposes the City’s 14-percent TOT on a “transient” occupying a “hotel.”
The City Council addressed this issue directly at its August 11, 2026, study session concerning a potential temporary short-term rental program during the 2028 Olympics. When asked whether TOT would apply to a hypothetical 60-day stay, City staff answered that it would not, explaining that “there isn’t a TOT that can be collected” for such an extended stay and that the occupancy would instead be treated as a residential rental. This is consistent with the structure of the City’s TOT ordinance.

The Council also discussed a practice under which certain conventional hotels check guests out and back in after 30 days so that the stays remain transient and TOT continues to be collected. City Manager Ryan Gohlich explained that this specific practice can only be enforced because hotels are generally located in commercial zones where residential uses are not permitted (i.e., the hotels have no choice but to comply).

That distinction is important here because, according to Mr. Gohlich’s analysis, enforcement would not be possible in the OSP. The Short-Term Rental units are not conventional hotel rooms. They are expressly residential units located within OSP section 6.2, entitled “Residential Buildings,” and proposed section 6.2 affirmatively provides that they will not be considered a “hotel.” Nothing in the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program requires an occupant of a Short-Term Rental unit to terminate occupancy at or before day 30.

Staff therefore cannot necessarily categorically equate authorization of 44 additional nightly rental units with “substantial” additional TOT revenue without accounting for the duration of the stays those units are authorized to accommodate. In fact, as the City Council made clear at its recent study session on short-term rentals during the 2028 Olympic Games, without clear controls preventing these units from becoming residential stays, they are more likely to have the effect of decreasing TOT because long-term stays would not be checked in and out to provide for TOT as they do in conventional hotels. In short, the Propose Short-Term Rental Program is likely to shift occupancy from taxable hotel rooms to residential units whose extended occupancy does not generate TOT. Accordingly, the present record does not support Staff’s unqualified characterization of the Short-Term Rental Program as generating August 26, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 “substantial” additional City revenue without evaluating both the duration and potential displacement effects of the stays the program permits.

Second, the actual proposed section 6.2 creates an additional massive loophole for Cain that would prevent the City from collecting any TOT from condominium units—even for onenight stays. The Staff Report states that the Short-Term Rental Program units “would not be considered a hotel for the purposes of the OBHOSP.” The proposed operative language is materially broader; it states that, “notwithstanding any other provision of the BHMC,” the residential units participating in the Short-Term Rental Program “would not be considered a ‘hotel.’”
That difference is substantive, not semantic. The Staff Report describes the “not a hotel” provision as limited to the OSP, while the proposed text purports to apply “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of the BHMC.” That distinction matters because the City’s TOT ordinance is itself part of the BHMC and imposes TOT on a transient’s occupancy “in any hotel.” (BHMC § 3-1-303.) If the City intends the “not a hotel” provision to apply only for purposes of the OSP’s land use classifications, as the Staff Report states, the operative amendment should say so. The Commission should not rely on anticipated TOT as a justification for the amendment while recommending operative language that would likely result in a massive decrease of TOT.

III. The Proposed Short-Term Rental Program Departs From the City’s Policy Against Transient Residential Use
The Proposed Short-Term Rental Program also departs from the City’s policy concerning transient use of residential property.

In 2025, the City adopted Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 (the “STR Ordinance”), substantially strengthening its regulation of transient residential use. Among other things, the City’s home-occupation provisions now expressly prohibit “[a]ny hotel use or any other transient lodging use for compensation or benefit of any kind” and separately prohibit single-family and multi-family transient uses in residential zones. BHMC § 10-3-4302.

The Peninsula recognizes that the OSP is a project-specific entitlement and does not contend that the generally applicable STR Ordinance automatically resolves the application before the Commission. The STR Ordinance is nevertheless directly relevant to the policy determination the Commission must make. Cain is not attempting to preserve an existing shortterm-rental entitlement, which was why the exception was created—for the benefit of the AKA Beverly Hills Suites. It is requesting a new one by amending conditions that currently prohibit transient occupancy, which runs contrary to the City’s policy and law.

The City Council’s August 11 discussion makes the policy conflict even more germane. The Council considered whether to relax the City’s short-term-rental restrictions temporarily during the 2028 Olympics. Councilmembers expressly discussed the potential economic opportunity but also the effects on residents from enforcement complications, noise, August 26, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 traffic, and neighborhood disruption. The Council ultimately reached consensus not to move forward with a short-term-rental exemption for the Olympics.

The Commission is now being asked, less than three weeks later, to recommend what the Council declined to authorize even temporarily. And unlike the Olympics proposal, the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program is not temporary – it would create a permanent, projectspecific entitlement for nightly rentals in buildings expressly approved as residences. Administration by Aman may provide more centralized reporting than dispersed illegal rentals elsewhere in the City, but it does not in any way justify the requested exception or eliminate the underlying policy issue in that the units remain residences yet would be available for occupancy for as little as a single night. If centralized reporting was acceptable to the City Council, it would not have banned hotels from pursuing short-term rentals in affiliated condominiums, but it did. For that reason, it is surprising that Staff would couch “centralized reporting” as a benefit to support the required finding for approval when the City Council has already made clear that it does not want hotels operating short-term rentals in condominium units. The Project is authorized to build more hotel units, as Cain points out, but those are hotel units that must be built and operated in the hotel building—not in condominiums.

The record therefore does not explain how the public interest “requires” creation of this project-specific transient-rental entitlement immediately after the City Council declined to relax the City’s residential short-term rental restrictions even temporarily.

IV. The Proposed Short-Term Rental Program Cannot Be Reconciled With the Project’s Continuing Prohibition on Commercial Uses Within Residential Units
The Proposed Short-Term Rental Program would violate Condition of Approval No. 93, which is not being proposed for amendment. Condition of Approval 93 provides, without qualification related to the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program, that: “No commercial uses (except as permitted under Municipal Code Sections 10-3-4301 and 10-3-4303, or any successor code sections) shall be permitted in any residential unit.” Condition 93 is not proposed for amendment. Condition 95 likewise retains the requirement that, except as permitted under those same BHMC provisions, “no commercial uses shall be permitted within the residential units.”
The provisions referenced by Condition No. 93 are part of the City’s home-occupation framework. BHMC section 10-3-4303 requires permitted home occupations to remain incidental to residential use and prohibits them from changing the principal character or use of the dwelling. The same regulatory framework expressly prohibits hotel, and other transient lodging uses for compensation. (BHMC § 10-3-4302.) Against that regulatory backdrop, the Staff Report does not even attempt to explain how the newly authorized hotel-operated rental program August 26, 2026

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel: 310.312.4000 Fax: 310.312.4224 is reconciled with Condition 93’s unchanged prohibition on commercial uses within residential units.

That omission is particularly notable given how the proposed program is structured. Owners would place residential units into a hotel-managed pool; the Aman hotel would administer, monitor and report the rentals; the “hotel operator” would purportedly collect and report TOT (although this is questionable for the reasons previously stated). Yet those same units expressly remain non-hotel residential units under proposed section 6.2.

As the proposed Short-Term Rental Program cannot be reconciled with Condition 93’s continuing prohibition, it cannot be recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.

V. The Required Findings Cannot Be Made on the Present Record The Staff Report asks the Commission to find that the public interest, safety, convenience and general welfare justify replacing long-standing residential occupancy restrictions with a program allowing nightly rentals. The “factual” predicates that Staff has offered do not support that finding.

The deficiencies identified above go directly to the factual premises on which Staff relies to support the required finding. The existing approvals deliberately restrict transient occupancy; the status and implementation of those restrictions in the governing CC&Rs remain unresolved; the proposal has not been reconciled with continuing Condition 93; Staff’s claimed “substantial” TOT benefit does not account for stays exceeding the transient-occupancy period and rests alongside operative language declaring Proposed Short-Term Rental Program units not to be “hotels” notwithstanding other provisions of the BHMC; and the proposal would establish permanent nightly rentals in residential buildings immediately after the City Council declined to relax the City’s residential short-term rental policy even temporarily.

On this record, the facts do not establish that the public interest, health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare “requires” the requested amendment, as BHMC section 10-3- 3908 demands.

For these reasons, and the detailed legal objections raised in our earlier letter of May 12, 2026, the Peninsula respectfully requests that the Planning Commission decline to recommend approval of the Proposed Short-Term Rental Program.

August 26, 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: Ryan Gohlich, Assistant City Manager
Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
Andre Sahakian, Project Manager – Major Projects, Planning 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
08/26/26
Dear Chairman Milkowski, Vice-Chair Ross, Commissioner Kaplan, and Commissioner Wolfe,
My name is David Mirharooni. I'm a resident, business, and property owner here in Beverly Hills.

One Beverly Hills is now a roughly ten billion dollar project, which is over double the original budget. Imagine if the team had stood before this Commission at the start and said they would commit to investing five billion dollars more than planned, but needed flexibility on club memberships, an outpatient facility in their wellness center, and a reservation program for some of the residences. I believe we would have agreed, as each of these requests stands on its own merits.

Lifting the membership club license cap adds no square footage to the building envelope, and capacity and safety limits remain exactly as approved. It simply gives Aman the flexibility to manage the flow of members and avoid an empty club due to membership caps.

The outpatient facility will serve Aman’s own guests and residents. That makes it an amenity of the hotel and a complementary use inside their wellness center. Wellness is the future of hospitality, and we should embrace this direction.

Regarding the residential reservation program, it only applies to residences after they have been sold to private owners (so city benefits on a sale remain). Every stay is booked and managed directly through the Aman hotel operation. While the city has been rightly cautious about short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods due to accountability concerns, the hotel is fully accountable here. Every guest is held to the same high standards and passes through the same front desk as any other hotel guest.

Together, these refinements are projected to bring the city roughly 20 million dollars a year in net new revenue through increased TOT and other benefits, without changing the building structures or the previously approved plan. Please approve these modifications to keep One Beverly Hills relevant for our city's future.

Thank you for your consideration,
David Mirharooni
August 19, 2026
Chair Lou Milkowski
Beverly Hills Planning Commission
455 N. Rexford Drive, Room 280A
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Chair Milkowski, Vice-Chair Ross, and Commissioners Kaplan and Wolfe; I've spent the last decade planning events across this city and devoting countless hours to volunteer efforts which improve the quality of life for Beverly Hills residents. It is apparent to anyone who knows me that I care deeply about what gets built here in Beverly Hills and how it affects the community I know so well.

I'm writing to ask you to approve the requested modifications to One Beverly Hills.

The success of One Beverly Hills is the future success of the City. These modifications bring meaningful new revenue on top of the substantial revenue already projected for the project.

As someone who has built a great career hosting and producing events for A-level clientele, I can tell you that expanding the Aman hotel to include some of the residences fills a gap in the marketplace. There is nothing like it currently available in the luxury hospitality market in Southern California. Aman is the most acclaimed luxury brand in the world, and that reputation is exactly why residents shouldn't worry about security, privacy, or quality on this property. Aman protects its brand fiercely; none of their properties anywhere in the world operate as “party houses,” and the residences available through their exclusive reservation system are no exception.

The Wellness Center's addition of a surgery center, overseen by one of the top orthopedic surgeons in the country, is exactly the kind of thoughtful, holistic addition that fits the Aman philosophy and the broader One Beverly Hills campus.

City staff recommend approval and having followed this project closely from the sidelines of local politics, I hope the Commission will vote to recommend approval as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Tiffany Davis
Tiffany Davis

To the Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
As a Beverly Hills resident, I am writing in strong support of the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

One Beverly Hills is a significant investment in the future of our city, and I believe these refinements will make an already exceptional project even stronger. Bringing Aman’s hospitality services to a limited number of residences and expanding the Wellness Center will further elevate the caliber of experiences available in Beverly Hills.

These modifications have been reviewed by City staff and will not alter the project’s previously studied traffic, noise or parking impacts. They are thoughtful enhancements that align with the city’s position as a global leader in luxury hospitality, wellness and residential living.

I strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve these requests.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Elliot Shahery
Mountain Drive
Dear Planning Commission,
I am a longtime Beverly Hills resident and am pleased to support the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

The project represents an important investment in the continued evolution of Beverly Hills, and I believe these refinements will enhance the experience and offerings of the development. The ability for a limited number of residences to access Aman’s hotel services is particularly compelling, as is the addition of a specialized wellness component.

I understand that the proposed modifications have been reviewed by City staff and will not change the project’s previously studied traffic, noise or parking impacts.

I hope you will support these requests and allow One Beverly Hills to continue moving forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Eli Esagoff
Walden Drive

From: Adam Asherson
To: Andre Sahakian
Cc: CommentPC
Subject: Re: LEt"S SUPPORT MAYBERRY
Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 11:49:13 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

I support the overlay plan and feel the units should be available for hotel like occupancy as it will increase revenue from both higher sales prices and more money coming into the city as opposed to unoccupied units. Surgery and medical centers are also encouraged such as the orthopedic surgery center. I am also in support of more hotels and upcoming transit corridors in the hopes top thwart runaway SB79 development off the corridors. La Cienega, Robertson, Doheny and Beverly should allow for large scale projects along with Wilshire Sant monic Blvd and Olympic...
> On Aug 24, 2026, at 11:31 AM, Andre Sahakian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello Adam,
>
> Thank you for your email. Just to clarify, is this regarding the application for Amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan? I ask because in your comments, you referenced the Mayberry, which is not associated with that project.
>
> Regards,
Learn why this is
> --
> Andre Sahakian, AICP
> Project Manager – Major Projects
> City of Beverly Hills
> (310) 285-1121From: Adam Asherson <>
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2026 10:58 AM
> To: CommentPC <[email protected]>
> Subject: LEt'S SUPPORT MAYBERRY
> [Some people who received this message don't often get email from important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] >
> CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
> Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
> Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners,
>
> I both live and work in Beverly Hills and want the best for our amazing city. The Aman Hotel is a great success story and we need to ensure it is supported with the tools they need and keep their momentum going. I want to encourage you to support the Mayberry which will undoubtably be a World class beautiful hotel. Let’s help them and help the community as they will bring much needed tax benefit to our city and ensure that the business community sees Beverly Hills as a viable place to invest in. I have no concerns with the residences being in the hotel system or the addition of an orthopedic surgery center. These uses will ensure that we have life int he towers and a flow of revenue beyond just property tax. London and New York have too many vacant luxury properties and this development needs as many residents and daily visitors as possible. >
> Thank you for being a part of what makes our city so great. >
> Best,
> Adam
>
> Adam Asherson
> Coldwell Banker Beverly Hills
> BRE# 01928065
> www.getresidential.com
> 310 490-4334
>
>
>
>
>
> The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.

Adam Asherson
Coldwell Banker Beverly Hills
BRE# 01928065
www.getresidential.com
310 490-4334
Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing in support of the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills. As someone who works in the Beverly Hills community, I see the value in strengthening the project’s hospitality component and the contribution it can make to the city’s continued position as a leading destination for luxury travel and business.

Expanding Aman’s hotel reservation program to a limited number of residences is particularly compelling. It will further integrate the residential and hospitality components of One Beverly Hills and create an offering that is unique to the market.

I understand that City staff has reviewed the proposed modifications and determined that they do not alter the project’s previously studied traffic, noise or parking impacts.

I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve the requests.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Peter Xiao
Post Investment Group
Beverly Boulevard

President
Golden Globes
11355 West Olympic Boulevard | Los Angeles, CA 90064
August 24, 2026
Dear Planning Commission,
On behalf of the Golden Globes, I am writing to express our strong support for the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

The Golden Globes has a longstanding connection to Beverly Hills, and we understand firsthand the importance of the city’s ability to continue evolving as a world-class destination for hospitality, entertainment and global events. One Beverly Hills represents an important investment in that future.

The proposed modifications will further strengthen the project’s hospitality oLering by allowing a limited number of Aman Residences to participate in the hotel’s reservation system. This is a proven model across leading hospitality-led developments and will create greater flexibility to accommodate the high-profile guests and international visitors who come to Beverly Hills for major events and experiences.

We also strongly support the proposed limited outpatient surgical program within the Wellness Center. The integration of world-class wellness and specialized medical services is consistent with the evolution of Beverly Hills as a destination that increasingly brings together hospitality, health and exceptional experiences.

These are thoughtful, targeted enhancements that will help One Beverly Hills deliver on its vision while further strengthening Beverly Hills’ position on the global stage. We understand that City staL has reviewed the modifications and determined that they do not alter the project’s previously studied traLic, noise or parking impacts.

We strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve these modifications and believe they will be a meaningful benefit to One Beverly Hills, Beverly Hills and the broader community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Helen Hoehne

190 N. Canon Drive, Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
P 310.275.8222 F 310.275.8223
www.cagre.com LIC. 01876070
August 24, 2026
To the Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
I am pleased to express my support for the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

As a professional working in Beverly Hills, I believe projects of this caliber play an important role in reinforcing the city’s reputation as a leading global destination.

The proposed enhancements to One Beverly Hills are measured and beneficial. Providing Aman hospitality services to a limited number of residences and expanding the Wellness Center will add value to the project while complementing the high level of service and wellness that visitors and the local business community have come to expect in Beverly Hills.

I understand that City staff have reviewed these modifications and that they will not alter the project’s previously studied traffic, noise or parking impacts. Given that, I believe the proposed changes are appropriate and deserving of approval.

Thank you for considering my support.

Best,
David Ickovics
Principal
Commercial Asset Group, Inc.
190 N. Canon Dr., Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

August 20, 2026
Dear Planning Commission,
I am pleased to lend my support to the proposed modifications at One Beverly Hills.

Beverly Hills has earned its international reputation by continually investing in exceptional hospitality, services and experiences. Allowing a limited number of Aman Residences to participate in Aman’s reservation system is consistent with that tradition and adds another distinctive offering to the city.

I also support the proposed outpatient component of the Wellness Center and believe it complements the project’s overall direction.

I hope you will support these requests so this important investment in our future can be further enhanced.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Gretty & Roy Hasson
Beverly Hills Resident — Burton Way
Dear Planning Commission,
As Beverly Hills residents, we are pleased to support the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

We see these changes as thoughtful refinements to a project that will bring a significant new hospitality and lifestyle offering to the city. Aman’s involvement, in particular, will add a level of service and experience that is consistent with Beverly Hills’ reputation.

We also support the proposed Wellness Center program. It is small and contained within the property. It will not affect the neighboring homes and community.

We respectfully ask the Planning Commission to approve the modifications.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Robin and Lauren Saghian
S. Bedford Dr
190 N. Canon Drive, Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
P 310.275.8222 F 310.275.8223
www.cagre.com LIC. 01876070
August 24, 2026
To the Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
I am writing in strong support of the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills. As someone who works in Beverly Hills, I recognize how projects that bring exceptional hospitality, wellness and residential offerings can contribute to the city’s continued success.

The proposed changes are particularly well aligned with Beverly Hills. Extending Aman’s hospitality services to a limited number of residences and increasing the size of the Wellness Center will elevate the experience offered at One Beverly Hills while reinforcing the city’s leadership in luxury and wellness.

I also understand that the modifications have been reviewed by City staff and do not result in changes to the project’s previously studied traffic, noise or parking impacts.

These enhancements therefore strike an appropriate balance between improving the project and maintaining the commitments already evaluated by the City.

I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed modifications.

Best,
Sheela Shouhed
Director
Commercial Asset Group, Inc.
190 N. Canon Dr., Suite 300
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
August 20, 2026
To the honorable Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
We are writing as Beverly Hills residents to express our support for the proposed changes to One Beverly Hills.

One Beverly Hills represents an important investment in the future of our city, and we believe these modifications will make the project stronger. The opportunity to extend Aman’s hotel services to a limited number of residences is especially compelling and will further enhance the project’s hospitality offering.

We understand that City staff has reviewed the requests and found no changes to the previously studied traffic, noise or parking impacts.

We encourage the Commission to approve the proposed modifications.

Thank you,
Leon and Ruth Hasson
N. Beverly Drive

Dear Planning Commission,
As a longtime Beverly Hills resident and local real estate investor, I am pleased to support the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

One Beverly Hills represents the kind of investment that helps keep Beverly Hills forwardlooking. I fully support the opportunity to further integrate Aman’s hospitality offering and expand the project’s wellness component. These additions are well suited to the direction of the city and the expectations of those who live, work and invest here.

I respectfully ask the Planning Commission to recommend approval for the proposed modifications.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jason Taban
Tower Road
Beverly Hills Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: One Beverly Hills Application for Modifications
Dear Chairman Milkowski, Vice-Chair Ross, and Commissioners Kaplan and Wolfe:

I write in support of the application to allow the Aman Hotel at One Beverly Hills to make a defined portion of its residences available for hotel stays. By way of disclosure, Newmark, where I am an Executive Vice Chairman, has served as a strategic advisor to One Beverly Hills and I have provided retail advisory work in that capacity. I am writing because I have data on this question, and I want the Commission to have it.

I have spent thirty years leasing the Golden Triangle. Rodeo Drive rents are sustained by a very specific customer: the ultra-high-net-worth visitor who treats Beverly Hills as a base rather than a stop. That customer shops and dines over several days with their family, and they generate multiples of what a conventional hotel guest generates. Every luxury retailer I represent underwrites to that customer.

Aman’s ability to offer residences, actual homes to this clientele provides Beverly Hills with a significant competitive edge. We are losing families who want three bedrooms and full service, Europe, to the Middle East, or increasingly to Miami — not because they prefer those markets but because we cannot offer them a suitable accommodation. I have watched this specific demand leave the city, repeatedly, for lack of flexible branded-residence inventory. Approving this application creates that inventory without a single additional square foot of construction.

I would also address the short-term rental concern directly, because I hear it from landlords too. This is not that. These are Aman-operated stays, booked through Aman's system, at Aman rates, with Aman staffing and screening. The economics alone rule out the use the community is worried about.

City staff has found no impacts and recommends approval. From a retail and market standpoint, this application protects the tax base that Beverly Hills depends on. I hope you will approve it.

Sincerely,
Jay Luchs
Newmark Pacific

COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
Jay Luchs
Executive Vice Chairman
Newmark Pacific
1900 Avenue of the Stars
16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
O 310.407.6585
M 310.489.5000
www.jayluchs.com
To the Planning Commission,
I am happy to lend my support to the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

Beverly Hills has long been a leader in health, wellness and innovation. As someone who works in the health industry, I'm encouraged to see that legacy reflected in the plans for One Beverly Hills. Expanding the capabilities of the Wellness Center, including the addition of a limited outpatient program, reflects the kind of thoughtful, high-quality care that residents and visitors expect from a project of this stature. I believe these enhancements will only add to the value One Beverly Hills brings to our community.

I hope the Planning Commission will support these modifications and allow One Beverly Hills to continue moving forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Afton Vechery
CEO, Women’s Health Platform
Era Women’s Health
Era Health
To the Planning Commission –
My family has lived and invested in Beverly Hills for decades. We have participated in the growth of the Triangle and the city’s reputation for excellence with pride. Now comes One Beverly Hills, an unparalleled development that will further elevate our global presence.

We should do everything we can to help One Beverly Hills maximize its potential because the benefits it creates flow back to the city and the residents. The modifications being requested have been studied by staff and recommended for approval. They are the experts and we should trust them.

I urge you to approve the two modifications before you. They do not impact the quality of life for anyone outside of the property. And they deliver even more revenue to support the needs of our community.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,
Houman Mahboubi
Summit Drive

JJBH BEVERLY WILSHIRE
HOTEL
9500 WILSHIRE BLVD
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90212
310.385.3970

JBH TOYKO
1F PLAZA G8 8-5-1

GINZA CHUO-KU
TOKYO, 104-0061, JAPAN
+81 3.3572.1077

JBH COSMOPOLITAN
HOTEL
3708 LAS VEGAS BLVD
LAS VEGAS, NV 89109
702.698.7655

JBH CORPORATE
310.777.7551
[email protected]

JBH MIAMI DESIGN

DISTRICT
140 NE 39TH STREET
STE. #124 MIAMI, FL 33137
786.838.0557

JBH CHARLOTTE

RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL
201 E. TRADE STREET
CHARLOTTE, NC 28202
704.972.4368
August 26, 2026
City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
RE: SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO ONE BEVERLY HILLS Dear Chairman Milkowski, Vice-Chair Ross, and Commissioners Kaplan and Wolfe:

For the past 28 years, we have hosted the annual Milken Institute Global Conference at the Beverly Hilton and, in more recent years, the Waldorf Astoria Beverly Hills. The Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank focused on accelerating measurable progress on the path to a meaningful life, and Global Conference is our flagship event.

Each spring, we welcome more than 5,000 leaders to Beverly Hills from over 60 nations, including CEOs, international investors representing more than $100 trillion in investable assets, members of Congress and the Administration, heads of state, distinguished scientists and health professionals, major philanthropists, and educators. Our experience hosting these guests gives us a firsthand perspective on the importance of both world-class accommodations and access to health and wellness services in Beverly Hills. It is from that perspective that I write in support of the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

Each year our participants occupy most of Beverly Hills’ hotels, and one of our greatest challenges is simply finding enough rooms. We have long encouraged our hotel partners to find ways to provide greater flexibility during periods of peak demand. Global Conference is constrained by capacity, not by demand, and we would hope to host more events in Beverly Hills if we could accommodate them.

The economic benefits to Beverly Hills extend well beyond the rooms our participants occupy during Global Conference. Local retailers and restaurants have told us that week is among their busiest of the year. Hotel operators tell us that many participants who first experience Beverly Hills as our guests return throughout the year.

This is why I strongly support providing greater flexibility for One Beverly Hills to make additional accommodations available. We depend on our hotel partners to provide the exceptional service, privacy, security, and professionalism our guests expect. Over decades, that experience has given us great confidence in Beverly Hills as a destination and in the organizations investing in its future. We would welcome the opportunity to host more guests at One Beverly Hills.

I also support the proposed enhancement of the One Beverly Hills wellness offering through a limited outpatient orthopedic facility. Health and medical research have been central to my work and to the Milken Institute since its founding. We have long believed that investments in health 2 generate returns far beyond the individual patient: healthier people can participate more fully in their families, workplaces, and communities, while advances in prevention, treatment, and recovery strengthen society as a whole. Integrating medical care, physical therapy, rehabilitation, and longevity services into a broader wellness environment is consistent with that philosophy and with the vision for One Beverly Hills. I believe it would also be a valuable addition to the health and wellness resources available in Beverly Hills.

One Beverly Hills represents a significant investment in the future of a community that has been so important to my life and central to the Milken Institute’s mission. These modifications address important needs we understand firsthand and reflect the kind of forward-looking investment Beverly Hills deserves. I’m glad to lend my support, and I encourage the Commission to approve them.

Sincerely,
Michael Milken
Chairman, Milken Institute

151 S. El Camino Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212 tel: 310-887-6400 fax: 310-887-3410 www.kennedywilson.com August 26, 2026
To the Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
-
-looking investments
-
-
,
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: CommentPC
Subject: Comment on PC Agenda Item 2
Date: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 8:27:36 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Please read at the August 27 Planning Commission meeting when considering Agenda Item 2 for the One Beverly Hills requested exemption from the short term rental ban.

Thanks.

Darian
To Our Planning Commission:

Instead of the One Beverly Hills developer being honest about what is being requested—an exception to the short term rental ban for its condominiums—the developer has advertised very misleadingly only that it wants "the city to allow the Aman Residences to participate in the hotel’s reservation system.” I suppose the developer will also round up a lot of support from its employees and those who have a financial interest in the One Beverly Hills project, or people who do not even know about the short term rental ban and do not even know why One Beverly Hills should have to seek permission to “use a reservation system”. So please ignore those self-interested comments and only pay attention to comments which are supported by sound reasoning.

The rational for what is actually being proposed is that it would create a “unique ultra-luxury hospitality offering and significant new revenue for the City”.

However, there are many luxurious homes in the city in which short term stays would create unique ultra-luxury hospitality offerings and would result in revenue for the City; yet they are not exempt from the short term rental ban.

And even when the Planning Commission should have approved an exception to the short term rental ban for the guesthouses of historic properties, so people could stay at them and enjoy an exceptional historical cultural offering, and historic property owners could help defray higher maintenance costs, two of you voted against it.

Jeff Wolfe indicated that he was against the rental ban entirely, but the City Council wanted it so he was honoring that. Teri Kaplan went along with Myra Demeter saying that it was unfair to allow any exceptions even though Teri Kaplan spoke of the spectacular experience of being able to stay at historic properties. I believe the dissenters also claimed that it was not fair for the short term rental ban not to apply to every property in the city.

And now, after the City Council has declined to grant an exception to the short term rental ban during upcoming Olympics, you are being ask to grant special privileges for very wealthy One Beverly Hills condominium owners.

But why would a very wealthy condominium owner need to rent out for one night? And would other condominium owners there like to have neighbors who are renting out to others for one night and short term stays? The One Beverly Hills developer should honor the terms of the agreed upon development which was approved, instead of coming back for more and more, first for the city to get intertwined with a bond issue, and now for permission to ignore the city’s short term rental ban.

If there are to be any exceptions to the short term rental ban, they should be made intelligently and fairly, for instance for the benefit of those who need to come to the city for less than a year such as for short term internships and to incentivize property owners to register their historic properties.

So the unfair, misleading request of One Beverly Hills for special treatment should be denied in the absence of a proposal for a number of sensible categories of exceptions to the short term rental ban being considered, in which event each exception should be weighed on its own.

Darian Bojeaux
=
Dear Planning Commission,
As a longtime business owner in Beverly Hills, I am pleased to express my support for the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills.

I have seen firsthand the importance of maintaining Beverly Hills as a destination where exceptional businesses, hospitality and experiences can thrive. I believe these refinements will further strengthen the project and contribute to the continued vitality and appeal of our city.

I am supportive of expanding Aman’s hospitality offering to a limited number of privately owned residences, as well as the proposed specialized outpatient program within the Wellness Center. Both additions complement the high level of service and experiences that Beverly Hills is known for.

I understand that City staff has reviewed the proposed modifications and determined that they do not alter the project’s previously studied traffic, noise or parking impacts.

I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve the proposed modifications.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Ani Khachikian
Owner, Coco Kay Nails
Beverly Hills Business Owner
Dear Planning Commission,
As someone who works in Beverly Hills, I am writing in support of the proposed modifications to One Beverly Hills. I believe these enhancements will further strengthen the project and contribute to the city’s continued growth and success.

I understand that City staff has reviewed the proposed modifications and determined that they do not alter the project’s previously studied impacts.

I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve the requests.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Lily Burrill
Dear Members of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission;
One Beverly Hills represents the future. Everything about it, the architecture, gardens, Aman hotel and revitalized Beverly Hilton will make our city even more remarkable. The developer is making a huge investment in us. The modifications they are asking for are limited to their very secure property and won’t be noticed by neighbors. It is hard to understand why there would be any question about approving.

I hope you will follow the staff’s recommendations. Approval will be good for the city and our future.

Thank you for your work on behalf of all of us.

Sincerely,
Yasmin Goertzen
N. Palm Drive

IN SUPPORT OF THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE ONE BEVERLY

HILLS OVERLAY SPECIFIC PLAN
We have been following the progress of One Beverly Hills and write in support of its request to modify the Overlay Specific Plan.

These proposed refinements are beneficial to the City of Beverly Hills. They will generate significant additional revenue, further elevate Beverly Hills as a premier international destination, and remain limited to the One Beverly Hills property without changing City ordinances or impacting quality of life beyond the project’s boundaries.

Extending the hotel’s offerings to a limited number of residences will provide Beverly Hills with a unique hospitality offering. The integration of branded residences with a hotel’s reservation platform is a proven model across leading hospitality-led developments around the world and is consistent with how many of the world’s leading luxury hospitality projects operate. Additionally, a discreet, world-class Wellness Center offering a limited outpatient orthopedic and/or dental surgery program will further enhance the project’s exceptional hospitality and wellness offerings and complement the caliber of Beverly Hills.

We respectfully urge the City to approve these proposed modifications. They represent a win-win-win for One Beverly Hills, the City and the community.

Sincerely,
Natasha Shabani, North Roxbury Drive
Tiffany Davis, N. Palm Drive
Lee Bowling, N. Canon Drive
Monique Manoukian, Trenton Drive
Mark Schwartz, Foothill Road
Lisa Schwartz, Foothill Road
Donna Black, North Crescent Drive
Jacinta Hewitt, San Ysidro Drive
Andrew Hewitt, San Ysidro Drive
Arnie Berghoff, N. Willaman Drive
Linda Berghoff, N. Willaman Drive
Larry Post, Tower Road
Sandy Post, Tower Road
August 17, 2026
Hi
I’m Bennett Ross, N. Whittier Drive. I live just down the street from the Gateway Project, One Beverly Hills.

I wanted to attend this meeting. Unfortunately, I am out of town.

A “Notice of Public Hearing” appeared in the Courier on 8-7-26, announcing proposed changes to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan. Mail notification was made only to homes within 500 ft. of the project.

This project effects all residents (and non-residents). I think there should have been a city-wide notice given of the possible changes.

There are two proposed changes to be discussed. Input was requested. I wonder how many residents are aware of these potential changes. I wonder how much input has been received. I wonder how many residents (who are not professionally involved) will be attending this meeting.

I have no idea if the proposed changes are ones that are:
• in the best interests of the city,
• in my best interest,
• only in the best interests of the developers,
• going to have a positive impact or will have a negative impact, • and I certainly have no idea what the possible unintended consequences might be.

I do not understand the proposed changes. I need to know:
• are you seeking to approve Airbnb-like rentals for up to 44 condo’s per night? Airbnb occupants at times create significant problems. Single night rentals are not allowed in Beverly Hills. They would be a significant change to the Overlay Specific Plan and NOT consistent with City code/policy regarding single night rentals (BHMC 10-3-508).
• will there be medical clinics? Will they be designed to promote international medical tourism? Is this related to the one-night apartment 2-85
rentals? What impact will that have on Beverly Hills and especially the homes nearby.

We have been assured in the past that there are and will be strict limits and enforcement for all provisions of the Overlay Specific Plan. I am not reassured by that.
• There are currently restrictions on limos staging in residential areas. Yet I regularly see limos parked throughout the streets north of Wilshire. • The plan currently restricts all parking on the south side of Wilshire from the country club to Santa Monica boulevard. Yet, trucks have parked all day along Wilshire to the west of the construction. And at times the stretch of Wilshire from the Hilton to Santa Monica boulevard is blocked by vehicles related to the construction or the hotels events. • There is no parking and two-hour parking on the residential streets adjacent to BH1. This is NEVER enforced. Thus, there is no reason to expect the city will enforce any other parking restrictions going forward.

I am not reassured that any new conditions will be properly and fully enforced.

These proposed changes might be in the best interests of the city and its residents. Or they may be neutral and thus should certainly be allowed to help the developers with their project. These changes may provide additional income to the city which would be beneficial. Or they could make incremental negative impacts which will lead to undesired changes to our community’s quality of life.

Additionally, changes to AAP licenses have been proposed, opening the amenities of the Promenade to significantly more people. What does that mean? Will this create more foot traffic in and around my neighborhood? Will we be creating a mini-Century City mall? Will this increase tourist foot traffic? Will there be an increase in street parking? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I remind you of two major events in the past decade.
• The original Robinson’s/May hotel project was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The voting public in Beverly Hills then through a special election rescinded that approval.
2-86
• The Louie Vuitton Hotel development plan was granted approval, again by the Planning Commission and the City Council. After the approval, Beverly hills residents again vetoed the project through a special election.

These are incidents where the community was not fully aware of the implications of a project. Both the planning commission and the city council misread the desires of the voters whom they represent. When residents became aware, the projects were nixed.

Let’s not do that again. Let’s make sure these proposed changes are understood and are wanted by our residents. Let’s be mindful that this project was originally approved by our community WITHOUT these additions. Let us not allow “mission creep” to take place AFTER THE FACT and without their implications clear to residents who have NOT agreed to these changes. Their impact must be seen as positive by the commission AND the community before they are approved. All residents must be made aware of the changes so that they are agreed to by the residents, not just the planning commission and the city council.

I encourage you to be thoughtful and inclusive when considering these changes.

Thank you for your time.
2-87
2-88
May 20, 2026
Hi
I’m Bennett Ross, N. Whittier Drive. I live just down the block from the Gateway Project, One Beverly Hills.

I happened to see a “Notice of Public Hearing” some weeks ago in the Courier.

It announced proposed changes to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan.

This was the only notice I saw for this meeting. It was a notice that was placed for legal reasons, and not the sort of thing most people would have noticed.

Upon investigation, I found that mail notification of the proposed changes was only made to homes within 500 ft. of the project. I find this curious. I’m probably within 1,000 feet. During that same week I received a “program notice” from Beverly hills that went out to ALL residents. I also received a Project Quarterly Newsletter from the developers which also went to all residents. Both the city and the developers wanted all residents to be aware of the info in the two postings. But neither the city or the developers were invested in making sure all residents were aware of possible changes to the project.

I went to the meeting to share my thoughts. A note on the door said the meeting was cancelled. In order to find out when the meeting will be held I had to go searching on the city’s website.

This is a project that effects all residents (and non-residents). I think there should be city-wide notice given of the possible changes.

There are a number of proposed changes to be discussed. Input was requested. I wonder how much input has been received. I wonder how many residents (who are not professionally involved) will be attending this meeting.

I for one have no idea if the proposed changes are ones that are • in my best interest,
• in the best interests of the city,
• only in the best interests of the developers;
• will have a positive impact or will have a negative impact. 2-89
• And I certainly have no idea what the possible unintended consequences might be.

I do not understand the proposed changes. I need to know:
• Are you seeking to approve Airbnb like rentals for up to 44 condo’s per night? From everything I’ve heard, Airbnb occupants at times create significant problems.
• There may be changes to AAP licenses, opening the amenities of the Promenade to significantly more people. What does that mean? Will this create more foot traffic in and around my neighborhood? Will we be creating a mini-century city mall? Will this increase tourist foot traffic? Will there be an increase in street parking? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
• There will be medical clinics? Will they be designed to promote international medical tourism? Is this related to the one-night apartment rentals? What impact will that have on Beverly Hills and especially the homes nearby.

We have been assured in the past that there are and will be strict limits and enforcement for all provisions of the Overlay Specific Plan. I am not reassured by that.
• There are currently restrictions on limos staging in residential areas. Yet I regularly see limos parked throughout the streets north of Wilshire. • The plan currently restricts all parking on the south side of Wilshire from the country club to Santa Monica boulevard. Yet, trucks have parked all day along Wilshire to the west of the construction. And often the stretch of Wilshire from the Hilton to Santa Monica boulevard is blocked by vehicles related to the construction or the hotels events. • There is no parking (on Trenton and other streets) and two-hour parking (on Whittier and other streets). This is NEVER enforced. Thus, there is no reason to expect the city will enforce any other restrictions going forward.

I am not reassured that any new conditions will be properly and fully enforced.

These proposed changes might be in the best interests of the city. Or they may be neutral for the city and thus should certainly be allowed to help the developers 2-90
with their project. These changes may provide additional income to the city which would be beneficial. Or they could make incremental negative impacts which will lead to undesired changes to our community’s quality of life.

I remind you of two major events in the past decade.
• The original Robinson’s/May project was approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The voting public in Beverly Hills then through a special election rescinded that approval.
• Then the Louie Vuitton development was granted approval, again by the Planning Commission and the City Council. They would have built a hotel between Beverly Drive and Rodeo. After the approval, Beverly hills residents again vetoed the project.

These are incidents where the community was not fully aware of the implications of a project. We had no prior understanding of the impact. Obviously, both the planning commission and the city council misread the desires of the voters who they represent. When residents became aware, the projects were nixed.

Let’s not do that again. Let’s make sure these proposed changes are understood and are wanted by our residents. Their implications must be clear. Their impact seen as positive by the commission. And all residents must be made aware of the changes so that they are agreed to by the residents, not just the planning commission and the city council.

I encourage you to be thoughtful and inclusive when considering these changes.

Thank you for your time.
2-91

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 12, 2026

VIA EMAIL

Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Cain International’s Proposed Amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan
Dear Honorable Commissioners:

This firm represents The Belvedere Hotel Partnership dba The Peninsula Beverly Hills (the “Peninsula”). We write on behalf of the Peninsula to respectfully object to Cain International’s (“Cain”) requested amendments to the One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan (“OSP”), which are scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2026.

At the outset, we must emphasize that the Peninsula is extremely disappointed that it has been put in a position where it must defend itself on matters related to the One Beverly Hills Project (the “Project”). Please note we do not object to this Project and have worked together with the City and the prior and current owners to support this development.

However, because Cain now seeks to renege on previously agreed upon matters, some of which are even covered in binding settlement agreements with the Peninsula, we are obligated to assert our positions and protect our interests. Cain’s requested modification to allow short-term residential rentals in the Project’s condominiums is particularly disconcerting because the City and Cain are legally prohibited from allowing such rentals due to a binding settlement agreement with the Peninsula and existing CC&R requirements that override Project entitlements. The existing prohibition on short-term rentals was negotiated by the Peninsula in connection with the first version of the Project in 2016, and the City subsequently carried that prohibition forward in the second version of the Project in 2021 – all as required by a settlement agreement and recorded conditions of approval providing that Project CC&Rs banning short-term rentals would outlast any City development agreement or entitlement. As such, Cain’s attempt to tortiously induce the City to amend the OSP and breach legally binding obligations now that the Project is well under construction and the Peninsula has relied on its settlement agreement, is unacceptable. 2-92
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 Cain’s other requests too are not minor administrative clean-ups. Instead, Cain is seeking significant and material changes to the OSP in the form of a massive expansion to its Amenity Access Program (“AAP”) and private club structure, as well as the introduction of new and impactful medical-related uses (collectively with the short-term rental modification, the “Proposed Amendments”), none of which are necessary for the Project to be successful.1 Moreover, the Proposed Amendments to the OSP are such that they cannot be approved absent an amendment to the Project’s existing development agreement, yet Cain, in its rush to amend the OSP, has neglected this basic requirement.

And as if this was not enough, at the same time, Cain is also pursuing previously undisclosed off-site electrical infrastructure work for the Project within the South Santa Monica Boulevard public right-of-way that was not analyzed in the certified One Beverly Hills Overlay Specific Plan Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“SEIR”) and requires modification of the Project’s conditions of approval.

The previously undisclosed utility work on South Santa Monica Boulevard cannot be severed from the Proposed Amendments, which are part of the same implementation program for the Project. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section §§ 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) requires the City to evaluate the environmental impacts caused by the whole of the action, rather than segment a project into separate, isolated components or administrative approvals, which distorts the environmental analysis by creating the illusion of minimal impacts. The Planning Commission therefore should not recommend approval of the Proposed Amendments unless and until the City evaluates the full scope of Cain’s proposed modifications together and completes all supplemental environmental review required under CEQA.

In short, in addition to the fundamental requirement not to piecemeal environmental review, the request to permit short-term rentals must be withdrawn because no amount of CEQA review could make such an amendment to the OSP legal; Cain must seek an amendment to its existing development agreement; and Cain must be transparent about all modifications to the Project and submit them to the Planning Commission for review. Until Cain refiles its application, the Planning Commission should not send the current mess of an application to the City Council.
1 Although your staff report states that after the issuance of the public notice for the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant revised its application to remove the AAP request, the same report then states the applicant now intends to follow a separate process for this that does not involve the Planning Commission and to make a separate request to the City Council. As will be explained in this letter, this eleventh-hour change appears to be part of Cain’s attempt to try to obscure the overall scope of changes to the Project to hide the true scope of total Project modifications from the general public and to piecemeal environmental review in violation of CEQA. Moreover, there is no separate legal process for the AAP request – an amendment to the OSP is still required and any amendment necessarily requires Planning Commission review.
2-93
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 I. The Planning Commission Cannot Consider the Proposed Specific Plan Amendments in Isolation From the Project’s Previously Undisclosed Utility Work and Multiple Other Project Modifications That Are Being Pursued Or Have Been Obtained Behind Closed Doors
Cain’s current request to amend the OSP must be understood and evaluated within the broader Project implementation context. Yet, you likely do not know that just a few months ago Cain sought and obtained separate approvals from the Community Development Department to decrease setbacks and increase height. For example, in one letter to the Community Development Department about the proposed OSP Amendments dated January 12, 2025, Cain stated:

In September 2025, Cain submitted a request to make minor adjustments to the Project setbacks, and in October 2025 Cain submitted a request to permit a minor increase in the building height of the Aman Beverly Hills (Wilshire Building) to accommodate Aman and code-required amenities at the roof top level, and in December 2025 Cain submitted a similar request to permit a minor increase in the building height of the Santa Monica Residences and Garden Residences.

Approval of these requests are pending. (See Exhibit A.) This January 12, 2025, letter, which was about new modifications to the Project (the OSP Amendments before you now) legally required a pause on separate approval of the requested setback and height adjustments – no matter how small – because CEQA does not allow the piecemealing of reasonably foreseeable approvals, and here they were not just foreseeable, but explicitly stated and known. As will be discussed, these modifications are just the tip of the iceberg, and the full scope of modifications to the Project is most definitely not clear to the general public, City Staff, or the Planning Commission. As such, we strongly urge that no action be taken by the Planning Commission until, at a minimum, clarity about all the Project modifications and compliance with CEQA is obtained.

Also, among the many piecemealed approvals that Cain is seeking separate and apart from the OSP Amendments – and concerningly, behind closed doors and without any CEQA review – is a pending permit amendment that would allow Cain to conduct significant excavation, trenching and related off-site electrical infrastructure work within the South Santa Monica Boulevard public right-of-way. As set forth in the Peninsula’s separate correspondence to the City dated May 6, 2026, regarding this proposed electrical line installation, this significant off-site utility work was not identified or analyzed in the SEIR. A copy of that correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Among other relevant omissions, the SEIR fails to disclose or analyze the alignment, duration, lane closures, construction staging, access impacts, noise, vibration, or other operational impacts caused by the Project’s potential trenching within South Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent to the Peninsula.
2-94
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 That omission is significant. The proposed electrical infrastructure is not independent utility work. It is required and is only being performed in order to primarily serve the One Beverly Hills project and therefore constitutes part of the Project for purposes of CEQA. The City may not treat the Proposed Amendments as one action and the South Santa Monica Boulevard utility trenching as another when both components are reasonably foreseeable, functionally interdependent elements of implementing the same project.

Cain is also seeking a massive increase in AAP licenses but has inexplicably elected, at the eleventh hour, to pursue this increase through a separate process that attempts to circumvent any Planning Commission review, rather than through the OSP amendment process as originally proposed. This last-minute about face is particularly concerning given that Cain had previously consulted with City Staff on the appropriate approval process in connection with a pre-filing letter, Cain expressly identified the AAP modification as an element of its application for the Proposed Amendments, and the City’s recently issued public hearing notice even identified the AAP modification as a Proposed Amendment.

This last-minute change in direction might be understandable if there was indeed a separate process by which to pursue a modification on AAP licenses, but contrary to the statement in the Staff Report on this point, Chapter 6.5 of the OSP, on which Cain is attempting to rely to avoid Planning Commission review of the AAP expansion, does not identify any particular process for the City Council to act when considering an increase in the maximum number of AAP licenses. Instead of establishing a specific procedural carve-out to allow increases in the AAP outside of the formal OSP amendment process, the single sentence in Chapter 6.5 that mentions City Council approval appears to have been added to the OSP merely to distinguish from the process of Director of Community Development approval of the AAP Rules and Regulations plan (i.e., ironically, to in fact require an OSP amendment). Cain must not be allowed to exploit this language in the OSP to obtain an illegal, procedural shortcut.

The setback modifications, the height modifications, the short-term rental modifications, the AAP license modification, the surgical center modification, the South Santa Monica utility modification, and who knows what else, are being chopped into discrete pieces and shopped around with different decision-makers. CEQA requires the City to evaluate the whole of the action. (Pub. Resources Code § 21065; CEQA Guidelines § 15378.) An agency may not avoid environmental review by dividing a project into discrete components and then reviewing each in isolation. Here, Cain’s approach would do precisely that. For example, the Planning Commission is being asked to consider revisions to the OSP while a separate and previously undisclosed infrastructure component, which is necessary to serve the Project and is inextricably linked to development of the Project, remains unreviewed. That approach deprives the Planning Commission, the public, and affected neighboring property owners of a complete understanding of the Project’s actual impacts.

CEQA prohibits this type of segmentation. Separately advancing the Proposed Amendments while independently pursuing approval for project-serving utility infrastructure 2-95
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 (not to mention setback and height adjustments) through a parallel process constitutes impermissible piecemealing. (See, e.g., Paulek v. Dept. of Water Resources (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 35, 45 [CEQA prohibits “chopping a large project into many little ones…which cumulatively may have disastrous consequences”].)
This is particularly problematic because the proposed utility work should only be allowed upon the formal modification of the Project’s existing conditions of approval. Specifically, 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 Cain to underground utilities for the Project in “adjacent streets and alleys.” Likewise, Condition No. 18 of the 2021 resolution (Resolution No. 21-R-13350, Exhibit D), which provides an alternate development path, also requires Cain to underground utilities in “adjacent streets and alleys.” Thus, the City reviewed multiple development scenarios for the Project site and repeatedly determined that the only appropriate and allowable locations for the underground utilities were within the adjacent rights-of-way.

However, South Santa Monica Boulevard is not adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is bounded by Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard and is bisected by Merv Griffin Way; 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. To the extent that Cain is relying on either Condition No. 8 or Condition No. 18 as authorization for the Project’s utility work within the South Santa Monica Boulevard right-ofway, that condition must be amended. And if such an amendment is required, the City must evaluate the environmental consequences of that amendment before approving the work or related project modifications.

For that reason alone, the Planning Commission lacks a lawful basis to act on the Proposed Amendments. The City cannot proceed with piecemeal approvals while an essential component of the Project’s required infrastructure remains unresolved and separate from the current proceedings. And Cain cannot pretend that an OSP amendment is not required for the AAP licenses to make the Planning Commission believe that the overall scope of modifications is less than it really is. CEQA requires, and the City’s stakeholders deserve, an evaluation of the whole of the action, not merely segmented approvals that obscure the full scope and consequences of the proposed modifications to the Project.

II. Cain’s Short-Term Rental Proposal Violates Binding Project Restrictions Incorporated Into the City’s Approval and Relied Upon by the Peninsula Cain’s proposal to introduce short-term residential rentals to the Project directly contradicts the governing framework under which the Project was approved and violates commitments on which the Peninsula and other community stakeholders reasonably relied in connection with the One Beverly Hills project approvals. 2-96
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 Project was only approved by the City subject to strict limitations on leasing and occupancy expressly designed to prohibit transient or short-term rental use. Those restrictions were first memorialized in a settlement agreement, dated November 21, 2016, between the Peninsula and the prior project owner and developer, and were twice subsequently incorporated into the City’s approval of the Project through the adopting resolution, recorded covenants, and the Project’s CC&Rs.

Those restrictions were fundamental to the Peninsula’s decision not to oppose the Project.

They were intended to ensure that the Project’s residential component would only function as a genuine long-term residential use rather than transient lodging, and they were understood by all parties – including the City – to be essential to mitigating impacts on the Peninsula.

Cain now seeks, while the Project is already under construction, to unwind those protections by asking the City to allow stays as short as one night for all residential units. 2 Cain
acknowledges that this would require revisions to Conditions of Approval 94 and 95, which embody the Project’s existing minimum lease term and CC&R requirements. However, those revisions are not minor operational adjustments – they constitute a fundamental change to the approved Project that the CC&Rs under Conditions 94 and 95 prohibit.

Simply stated, the governing restrictions foreclose Cain’s requests, and no Specific Plan Amendment can undo the Project’s short-term rental restrictions. As incorporated into the City’s approval, which required these restrictions to be recorded against the property, residential units may not be leased for shorter than 180 consecutive days, and the approvals broadly define “lease” to include any and all legal forms of short-term or transient occupancy. The restrictions must be interpreted broadly to prevent their circumvention and expressly provide that the Project owner cannot be exempted from their application. Further, the CC&Rs are to prohibit amendments to permit short-term rentals absent approval by supermajorities of owners and lenders and approval by the City Council at a noticed public meeting. Finally, they are to remain in effect for so long as the condominium project exists, notwithstanding any termination or expiration of any development agreement or other project approval. (Emphasis added.) In other words, Cain may not amend the Project’s entitlements to avoid the short-term rental restriction because the short-term rental restriction was intended to survive the termination of any project approval, such as the OSP and the conditions that Cain now seeks to amend.

These provisions are unambiguously binding on Cain, as they were required to be recorded against the property and to bind successors and assigns, including subsequent owners, condominium purchasers, and tenants. When Cain acquired the property, it knew that 2 While Cain’s application states that short-term rentals would be limited to 44 residential units per night, the fact remains that all units would be available for short-term rental under the program. And the claimed limitation of 44 is illusory because City staff previously stated in public hearings for the recentlyadopted short term rental ordinance that once the door is opened on some short-term rentals, it is impossible to police violations because distinguishing between legal and illegal short-term rentals is too difficult.
2-97
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 development and operation of the Project would be subject to this clear regulatory framework.

Cain cannot now be allowed to selectively disregard those previously negotiated restrictions while retaining the benefits of the Project approvals.

In addition, the restrictions confer independent enforcement rights that are directly applicable here. Specifically, they expressly designate any person within the City who pays transient occupancy tax as a third-party beneficiary with the right to enforce the short-term rental limitations in the event of non-enforcement by the City or the Project’s homeowner’s association. The Peninsula, as a long-standing hotel operator within the City that remits transient occupancy tax, falls squarely within this class of intended third-party beneficiaries and shall be compelled to pursue all legal remedies available to it in this regard should the City and Cain renege on their obligations.

Even setting aside the existing substantive prohibition on short-term rentals at the Project, the procedural mechanism Cain relies upon to amend these restrictions cannot be satisfied on the current record. The governing provisions require approval by supermajorities of unit owners and lenders. At this stage, however, the residential component of the Project has not been fully conveyed to individual owners, and any purported “vote” would be controlled by Cain itself rather than by a body of independent stakeholders. Under these circumstances, the amendment process cannot be equitably implemented in the manner contemplated by the governing restrictions that were imposed by the City as a condition of the original Project approval.

The restrictions collectively eliminate any basis for the requested amendment. They are not merely private contractual terms between the parties; they are embedded in the City’s approval of the Project, run with the land, bind successors, confer enforceable third-party rights, and expressly survive modification or termination of Project approvals. Cain’s proposal would require the City to disregard or materially amend those binding requirements.

The limited OSP amendment proceedings pending before the Planning Commission do not provide a lawful mechanism to effectuate those modifications. At a minimum, any such change would require compliance with the amendment procedures set forth in the underlying governing documents, including supermajority approvals and City Council action following public notice and hearing. The Planning Commission therefore lacks any lawful basis to recommend approval of an amendment that is facially inconsistent with the Project’s binding and enforceable conditions.

III. Cain’s Proposed Short-Term Residential Rental Amendment Directly Conflicts With the City’s Recently Adopted Short-Term Rental Ordinance In addition to the numerous concerns raised above, Cain’s proposal to allow short-term residential rentals at the Project fundamentally contradicts the letter and intent of the City’s recently adopted ordinance governing transient use of residential property. 2-98
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 As reflected in the City Council’s adoption of Ordinance No. 25-O-2918 (the “STR Ordinance”), the City recently made a clear policy determination that transient residential use – precisely the use Cain now seeks to incorporate into the Project – is incompatible with the City’s land use framework. (STR Ordinance, Section 4.) The STR Ordinance broadly defines “multifamily transient use” to include any rental, lease, sublease, or similar arrangement for occupancy of a multi-family dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for less than twelve consecutive months, including use of accessory structures or other portions of the property. (Beverly Hills Municipal Code “BHMC” § 10-3-100.)
The STR Ordinance’s enforcement provisions underscore the strength of the City Council’s desire to prohibit short-term rentals. For example, transient residential use is deemed a public nuisance and is subject to significant remedies, including disgorgement of rental proceeds, recovery of transient occupancy taxes, and civil or criminal enforcement by the City. (BHMC § 10-3-205.) The STR Ordinance also authorizes private enforcement, allowing any person who remits transient occupancy tax within the City to seek injunctive relief and recover damages and attorney’s fees for violations. (BHMC § 10-3-206.) These provisions reflect a deliberate legislative judgment that such uses create adverse impacts for the City and its diverse stakeholders, including increased turnover, operational disruption, and erosion of the character of neighborhoods and the housing stock.

Cain’s proposal for the Project is exactly the disfavored activity the STR Ordinance was designed to prohibit. The requested amendment would authorize residential occupancy for stays as short as one night – activity that constitutes transient use under the STR Ordinance’s definitions and directly implicates the policy concerns the City has just acted to address. The staff report admits that “[o]ne of the challenges with short-term rentals had been difficulty tracking and enforcing violations,” which is why a wholesale ban was enacted, but tries to justify an exception here on the grounds that “shortterm rentals of the condominiums would be administered by the Aman hotel, with additional conditions recommended by staff requiring regular reporting of rentals and tracking of specific units within the RRP. Thus, the structure of the RRP allows for greater and more centralized oversight as compared to short-term rentals more broadly, and as a result would not present the same types of enforcement challenges or create as much strain on the City’s enforcement resources.” This statement completely disregards the simple fact that a homeowner would be able to cheat the system by conducting short-term rentals separate and apart from Aman – how would Aman know and enforce what homeowners are doing with their units, especially when those condominiums are in a building completely separate from the Aman hotel building? And who is to say that future non-renting owners of condominiums in the Project will not object to short-term rentals and the massive parties that would likely occur in the massive condominium just a floor away? Simply stated, short-term rentals at the Project will create the same sort of undesirable impacts as they would elsewhere in the City.

Cain may contend that specific plan areas are not automatically subject to the STR Ordinance. Yet, that point does not support the requested OSP amendment. The STR 2-99
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 Ordinance’s silence on specific plan areas reflects a decision not to retroactively disturb existing approvals (at least that is what City staff said at the hearings on the STR) – it is not a blanket authorization to create new transient-use entitlements in the City going forward. Here, Cain is not preserving an existing entitlement; it seeks to amend the Project’s governing conditions to introduce a use the City has now determined should be prohibited. Approving that request would create a project-specific exception without any reasonable policy justification, undermine the STR Ordinance, expose the City and project stakeholders to the very enforcement risks the STR Ordinance was designed to address, and mark the beginning of a very slippery slope to exception upon exception from the STR.

IV. The Planning Commission Cannot Lawfully Act on the Proposed Amendments For all the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission cannot lawfully recommend approval of the Proposed Amendments. While the Peninsula objects to the surgical center amendment as well, we decline to address such amendment at this point in time because Cain’s entire application must go back to the drawing board to properly conduct CEQA review and only request that which it is legally entitled to request (i.e., not short-term rentals). At a threshold level, we note that the Addendum prepared for the Specific Plan Amendments is highly deficient even if fundamental piecemealing concerns did not render it useless as an informational document. Cain’s OSP Amendment application was deemed complete on April 20, 2026, and the City’s CEQA Addendum was completed on May 6, 2026, meaning that in 2.5 weeks the City purportedly handled not just the application review and staff report, but prepared a CEQA document! The incredible, virtually unprecedented rush on a project of this scale, is obviously suspect in that it implies the CEQA determination was predetermined. And indeed, a mere skim of the document quickly confirms that no legitimate CEQA review was conducted. For example, the Transportation and Traffic Section only addresses the OSP licenses – the one thing that is no longer before the Planning Commission. The change of use from residential to hotel-equivalent units, the change of use to allow surgical center, etc., are not discussed or analyzed at all. The omissions throughout the document are staggering.

Finally, the Specific Plan Amendments require an amendment to the 2021 Development Agreement (the “DA”) approved for the Project in connection with the City’s adoption of the OSP. Specifically, the following DA provisions expressly contemplate that the Project will strictly comply with the limitations imposed in connection with the 2021 OSP and related approvals. As these provisions are silent as to subsequent modifications to the 2021 approvals, an amendment to the DA is also required for Cain’s requested Specific Plan Amendments and proposed AAP expansion.
• Section 2(b) of the DA provides that “the permitted uses, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, parking requirements, setbacks, and development standards, provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and location of public improvements, and the design, improvement, construction and other guidelines, standards and specifications applicable to the 2-100
May 12, 2026