c)LU z00 - Granicus

-J

D0LUI-.

0

zwLUc)LU

<H

z00LU

0

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

AMANDA MACLACHLAN

Andre Sahakian

From: Amanda MacLachlan <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:38 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Save Oakhurst

Hello,

live at 343 N Oakhurst Dr Apt C, 90210, and am against the new construction on my street. I’ve lived here for 9 yearsand this new building will change the character of the street, and add to the existing traffic and fast drivers that speedby endangering the pedestrians and current residents. I cannot make the town hail meeting, but I’d like to submit myvote not to allow construction.

Thankyou,Amanda MacLachlan7323198181

oc

ow

O zo

m pa

z

Andre Sahakian

From: CK Racketmall <chariesjkapian@rocketmaiLcom>Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2016 1223 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Oakhurst new proposal

To whom it may concern,

We are resident/owners at the neighboring property to this proposed structure. After looking at the plans/renderings1we are concerned and angered at the size and scale of this ‘new’ design. ft was clearly not taken to heart that anything

above 2 stories (at worst 3)is massively disproportionate far the street/neighborhood and the character of the area and

violates the existing atmosphere and presents significant and unacceptable overshadowing and loss of light and loss of

privacy issues.

We support no taller than 2 stories. Moreover we find its a tragedy to tear dawn a historically significant andappropriately designed structure to build such a modem and Inappropriately-sized structure for the historical street.

On a practical note the street parking/visiting traffic far existing residents Is already a problem. This Inappropriately

sized, scaled and dense imposing and out-of-character structure of course, significantly worsens that Issue and hurts the

neighborhood and surrounding properties.

The plans in their current state do not respect the local context and street pattern, in particular the scale andproportions of surrounding buildings, in Its proposed state, the massive building would still be entirely out of character

of the area, to the detriment of the local environment. It does not integrate with or complement the neighboringbuildings due to its lack of architectural character and its inappropriate size, density and scale. It would significantlyexacerbate and complicate existing access issues and parking fat current and future neighborhood residents and traffic

due to its massive, disproportionate scale.

The height, density and design of this proposed structure Impose a loss of light, overshadowing issues, loss of privacy

issues, traffic/parking Issues and potential ground stability and drainage Issues.

Good design should contribute positively to making places better far people. Design which is Inappropriate for Itscontext fails to do this and should not get approved. This proposed building does not respect the density, size, height

and character of the local area.

Sincerely,Amy Gordon/Charles Kaplan

I


FROM APPLICANT

Andre Sahakian

From: Terty Moore <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 4:07 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: RE: 332-336 N. Oakhurst - Request for Continuance

Andre,

Yes this will confirm our request to reschedule our Planning Commission Hearing originally set for July l4’. Thank youfor accommodating our request. We had some scheduling issues with our consultants and some of our boards were notgoing to be ready for the 14th•

Thank you for your understanding.

Terry MooreManaging Member Oakhurst 90210 LLC

From: Andre Sahakian Fmailto:[email protected]: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 9:58 AMTo: ‘Terry Moore’ <[email protected]>Subject: 332-336 N. Oakhurst - Request for Continuance

Hi Terry,

This email serves to memorialize our telephone conversation yesterday, in which you requested that the 332-336 N.Oakhurst item, which is currently scheduled for the July 14, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, be continued to theAugust 25, 2016 Planning Commission meeting.

Please reply to this email confirming that this is correct.

Regards,

Andre SahakianAssociate Planner I City of Beverly Hills310.285.1127

The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. Mi retained E-mails will betreated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant tothe terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.

1

Match 5, 2015

Mr. Jae Kim

Department of City Planning

200 N. Spring Street

Los Angeles CA 90012

RE: 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive Los AneIes/Beuerlv Hills CA 90048

Dear Mr. Kim,

We are the owners of the apartment building at 328 N. Oakhurst Drive at the south east cornet ofOakhurst Drive and West 3tU street. (Just south of the subject property.)

We are very impressed with the proposed new 31 unit condominium building and fully support the newproject. This will be a great addition to the street.

Currently, this portion of Oakhurst Drive is very run down, with old nondescript buildings. The onlyinteresting feature on the street is the street trees which the developer Is keeping.

There are multiple 5, 6 and 7 story buildings in the immediate area which is zoned for high density.

We look forward to seeing this new building on our street and welcome new homeowners to ourneighborhood. Please approve the project.

Yours sincerely,

Lahijani Real Estate Group LLC

By Alexander Lahijani

Submilled at the PIaonngCommission njeet of:

By: Ii

Febru&y 13,2014

To: Mid Cir West Comnumity Council

Re: 332436 N. Oakhwst Drive

i o t /-c i tEdUId like to give my support for thenew proj to be built at 332-336 N. Oalthwst Drive Beverly Hills. I think it would addto the e7dsthg charm of the neighbathooi I reviewnd the renderings and think thedesign elements incorporated show high quality.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Address: i(o( caiil UoiiTc Vlvo(. M CA

Phone: S55

February l3 2014

To: Mid City West CommunIty Council

Re: 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive

I /4/o. - would like to give my support for thene tat 33 - 6 N. Oakhurst Drive Beverly Hills. I think it would addto the existing chami ofthe neighborhood. I reviewed the renderings and think thedesign elements incorporated show high quality.

Thank yot

Sincerely,

Name: (4/ i’?&M’ir7(

Address31 4.) Pdn4 /)t

Phone: L)J fJ/

March72014

To: Mid City West Community Council

Re: 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive

i ç 7c1rcQ ( would like to give my support for thenew project to be built at 332-336’N. Oakhurst Drive Beverly Hills. I think it would addto the existing chaim ofthe neighborhood. I reviewed the renderings and think thedesign elements incorporated show high quality.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Name: (f’ r’ i

Phone:


CHRIS HAMMOND

(d-

Karen Myron

From: Andre SahakianSent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 2:24 AMTo: Ryan Gohlich; Michele McGrathCc: Karen Myron; Cindy GordonSubject: Fwd: 332-336 North Oakhurst Dr. projectAttachments: Behar etter re - Oakhurst developmentpdf Afl0000Lhtm

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Chris Hammond <chammondrun@’earthlink.net>Date: October 8, 2015 at 4:55:23 PM GMT+13To: <[email protected]>Cc: <[email protected]>Subject: 332-336 North Oakhurst Dr. project

Dear Mr. Sahakian,

Mrs. Isabelle Behar has asked me to forward her e-mail to you on her behalf as she Is unable to do so atthis time.

Attached is her signed letter and below is a copy of the text, both for your records and presentation tothe Planning Committee.

Sincerely,

C. Hammond Submitted at the PlanningCommission rreeig of:

To: Andre Sahakian ([email protected]) BySubject: 332-336 North Oakhurst Dr. emi,eiuL

Dear Mr. Sahakian,

I am writing this e-mail to voice my objection to the proposed construction at 332-336North Oakhurst Drive.

As an Owner and resident on the 300 N Oakhurst Dr. block for over 40 years, I amhaving a very difficult time understanding why a project of such scope and magnitudewould be allowed in a neighborhood that contains relatively smaller buildings and has itsunique charm and character.

I understand and realize that progress can and will take place, however, I am hopingthat the Planning Commission is cognizant of the fact that they will be selling aprecedence and open the doors to other developers on the same block that will attempt

1

to maximize aD zoning ordinances and codes as this one and change the entire feet andlandscape of our neighborhood.

If this project is approved in its same form and content, the environmental and economicimpact to our neighborhood will be substantial and most Landlords such as myself willsuffer as a result

Sincerely,

Isabetle L. Behar

2

To: Andre Sahakian fasahakian©beveriyhifls.org)Subject: 332-336 North Oakhurst Dr.

Dear Mr. Sahakian,

I am writing this e-mail to voice my objection to the proposed construction at 332-336North Oakhurst Drive,

As an Owner and resident on the 300 N Oakhurst Dr. block for over 40 years, I amhaving a very difficult time understanding why a project of such scope and magnitudewould be allowed in a neighborhood that contains relatively smaHer buildings and has itsunique charm and character.

I understand and realize that progress can and will take place, however, I am hopingthat the Planning Commission is cognizant of the fact that they will be setting aprecedence and open the doors to other developers on the same block that will attemptto maximize all zoning ordinances and codes as this one and change the entire feel andlandscape of our neighborhood.

If this project is approved in its same form and content, the environmental and economicimpact to our neighborhood wiLl be substantial and most Landlords such as myself willsuffer as a result.

Sincerely,.

itd&1 %i4d)lsabelle L. Behar


CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF BEVERLY HILLSAND NORTH OAKHURST

Karen Myron

Subject FW For Mr. Sahakian - Regarding 332-336 North Oakhurst

From: Save Oalthn <redacted>Date: September 16,2016 at 6:58:21 PM PDTTo: “Mahakia4beverivbiiiaoru” <$sahaMan(ThbeverlyMllLorg>Subject: For Mr. Sahakian - Regarding 332-336 North OakhuntReplyeTo: Save OakhuM <saveoskhnrsUjvahoo.com>

Dear Mr. Sahakian,

I am writing on behalf of a group of longtime Beverly Hills residents and concernedneighbors who live on Oakhurst street on the block In question. We Implore you -

please DO NOT approve the construction of this MONSTROUS building @332-336 NOakhurst.

For starters, there really is no adequate staging area for them to put their bulldozers andother machinery, not to mention a lath of adequate disposal areas. The already busyalley certainly isn’t an option, and they can’t park their bulldozers on Oakhurst - thatlicreate a traffic nightmare. Not to mention the lath of adequate parking that alreadyexists and the fact that this building will create a traffic nightmare in the alley and onOakhurst. Guests of The Four Seasons already dog up our block, taking up all of ourparkIng spots. Imagine adding another huge building full of people with cam, and theirspouse’s and other family member’s cars. People generally park on the street out ofconvenience, rather than in their garage. This will be a nightmare. So between theparking issues and the lath of proper staging areas, this Is a no go.

Besides those huge issues, there is the fact that the proposed building is totally andcompletely incongruous with the rest of the block. Four or five stories high, even on the“LA side” (a few feet back) is absolutely insane given the height of the rest of the 24story structures on the block. To call their proposal an eyesore is an understatement Itwill forever (negatively) change the character of the block and will stick out in the worstway.

Instead of demolishing the beautiful, charming, historically significant buildings that existthere now (built by LA’s first female architect), why not have the developers simplyREDEVELOP the buildings as they currently exist? They can gut the Insides and makethem even more beautiful, while keeping the character on the exterior of the buildingsintact, in their current form.

The attention this prospective construction has gotten from The Beverly Hula Courier(dozens of articles), from various online websftes, as well as from hundreds ofconcerned citizens makes it your cMc duty to listen to our voices. Please, please do notapprove this project. Simply have them redevelop the interior of the existing property

1

and leave the exterior as is. Help us keep one of the last blocks in Beverly Hills frombecoming another victim of massive overdevelopment.

Thank you for your time and consideration In this mailer Mr. Sahaklan.

SIncerelyConcerned Residents of Beverly Hills and North Oakhurst

2


JOSEPH SYSESKEY

9135 West 3rd StreetLos Angeles, California 90048(310) 274-0542

September 14, 2016

Andre SahakianAssociate PlannerDepartment of Community DevelopmentCity of Beverly Hills455 North RexfordBeverly Hills, California 90210

RE: 332436 North OakhurstIProposed Project 31-Unit Condominium]

Deer Mr. Sahakian:

‘What is this dreck?’

That was my first impression of the redesign, but not my last.

The redesign of the proposed condominium is not better for me, butworse.

I have owned end resided in the property adjacent to the proposed project,since 1968. My home is a single-story, two-bedroom stucco cottagelbungalow,situated on a 45 by 50 foot lot. My home faces West 3rd Street and has a 12 by45 foot backyard I patio in back. My backyard area is used for gardening, dining,entertaining, and!or relaxing.

Any hopes of privacy are now gone.

While the relative number of windows are the same, the type of windowshave changed. Before, they were designed for entry light. Now, their purpose isto be able to view the world.

Before, there were no balconies; now there are nine on the Los Angelesportion of the property on the South Elevation, all of which can oversee aN threeproperties on Third Street.

Mr. Andre SahakianDepartment of Community DevelopmentCity of Beverly HillsSeptember 14. 2016Page2.

There are no mitigation measures that can be employed to protect myandlor my neighbors’ privacy, without decreasing the marketability of theredesigned condominiums.

I am also concerned about additional balconies being Incorporated whenfinalizing the design andlor being erected either during the construction.

Based upon the track record of the developer on this property alone, Ihave no faith that he will honor any conditions imposed by the City of BeverlyHills.

Lastly, the concerns relative to sunlshade and air circulation are evenmore heightened.

I urge the City of Beverly Hills to reject the revised design in total, and notto allow this proposal to be continued.

We have been living in uncertainty for too long; it is time to send the finalmessage to the developer that this proposed project does not work for the site.

I will not be able to attend the hearing, due to my advanced age of 87years young; I would like to say that i am too busy because I will be gardening aunatural in my back yard, but the image of that might cause heart attacks! Let’sjust say, instead, I am a young of heart and mind and just wish to live my life inpeace.

Sincerely,

Enclosures:

(7) Side Perspective Revised Design

1;T

1L

LI

11iL

flU

I.O

J‘fi

_______

,


Qctober5, 2015

Andre SahakianAssociate PlannerCity of Beverly Hills455 North Rexford DriveBeverly Hills, California 90210

RE: 332-336 Oakhurst Street[Proposed 31-Unit Condominium Project)

Dear Mr. Sahakian:

I own the property adjacent to the proposed project. I have owned theproperty since 1969. It is identified as lot 494 on the tract map

My property is a single-story, two-bedroom stucco coftagelbungalow,situated on a 45 by 50 foot lot. The house faces onto West 3rd Street and has a12 by 45 foot backyard I patio. This backyard area is used for my pleasure,including gardening, dining, entertaining, andlor relaxing.

The existing contiguous property at 332 Oakhurst Drive is a two-storyapartment.

To erect a five-story condominium next to my property is ludicrous.

The ways this proposed project will affect my property and others (andhave not been addressed in the application) include:

. Infringement on ,,rivacy — Currently the contiguous property is atwo-story 1930’s apartment building. None of the windows ofadjacent property stare out upon my backyard area through theexisting fence.

The proposed project allows any and all to look into the backyard.No accommodation has been made for protection from prying eyes.

the PlanningcommIssetfneebflg of:

?‘CAk.

Mr. Andre SahakianDivision of PlanningCity of Beverly HillsOctober 5, 2015Page 2.

• — the current residential dwellings are standalone with detached garages. The areas between the structuresare courtyards. Air moves naturally between and through thestructures

The proposed project has made no accommodation for maintainingthe current levels of air flow.

• increased heat — a monolithic five-story building will attract heatthat then radiates to the neighboring properties.

The proposed project has made no accommodation for heatreduction upon adjoining properties.

• - during construction, tremendousamounts of dust and particulate mailer will be generated by theproposed project. The period of construction is especiallydeleterious for those with respiratory problems, such as myself.

The proposed project has no proposed mitigation of dust orparticulate matter generated during construction, in the LosAngeles portion of the site.

Reportedly, the developer’s representative has no interest inconstructing an 18’ temporary fence (fronted by trees) similar tothat at the construction site for the new development at the SWcorner of West 3rd Street and Wetherly.

• Qestruction of alley — The alley is in very poor condition.

A parade of earth removal trucks and the subsequent heavyconstruction trucks will destroy the few remaining portions of goodasphalt.

Reportedly, the developer’s representative has no interest in fixingthe destruction of the alley, by replacing the entire alley, while atthe same time coordinating the replacement of a deterioratingwater main (that runs the center of the alley).

Mr. Andre SahakianDivision of PlanningCity of Beverly HillsOctober 5, 2015Page 3.

it is galling that the developer of a $65 million project is being sochintzy, especially since a restored alley would be a selling feature.

Increased Traffic - It is beyond comprehension that an increase inthe garaging of 17 cars to 82 cars did not register either with thetraffic surveyor and the environmental evaluator.

Also, a dated traffic survey is clearly useless today. Theincrease in traffic on West 3rd Street during morning rush hour hasrisen substantially in the past three years. It is not unusual for a cartrying to exit from the alley to West 3rd Street to wait severalminutes. A similar problem exists during evening rush hour,

Increasing the frequency of cars in the alley by four times is beyondthe tipping point.

I am 86 years old, suffering from COPD, asthma, congestive heart failure,and a whole host of other age-related illnesses.

The proposed mitigated measures relative to air quality (AIR-I) areinsufficient.

The proposed mitigation measures relative to geology (GEO 1-4) fail toincorporate the effect upon my property and the property of my immediateneighborhood Yumin Yu.

Both of us have suffered from recent exceedingly minor earthquakes interms of broken pipes and settling of patios. We are both very concerned thatthe subterranean excavation may affect our properties, for which there is noallowance for compensation for us in the mitigation measures.

Another point that is especially troublesome is the developer is allowed tohire his own consultants and licensed experts. The developer has demonstrateda horrible track record to date, such as boarding-up windows with tenants stillresiding in the building. All consultants and licensed experts should be hired bythe City, and paid for by the developer.

Mr. Andre SahakianDivision of PlanningCity of Beverly HillsOctober 5, 2015Page4.

Lastly, the proposed project is completely out of character for the block,where the largest structure is three stories at the opposite end of the block.Moreover, mixing condominiums with apartments further destroys the characterof the immediate area.

A proposed project shoutd have no negative effects upon adjoiningproperties.

Until the applicant accommodates and mitigates all potential impacts, theproposed project cannot go forward.

Sincerely,

Joseph W. Syseskey


KAROL POZNIAK

Andre Sahakian

From: thepozniaks@aohcomSent Thursday, April 14, 2016 2:04 AMTo: Andre SahakianSubject 332336 N. Oakhurst Drive

After reviewing the revised plans for the above mentioned condominium proposal, as a resident of this block for over 30years, I find the overail design and concept undesirable as well as environmentally far too high in structure. I have noobjections to a condo on this black, however, I feel the current budlng should be left as a historical site with renovationmerely in the inside of the building. A building of this stature and concept does not fit Into the current aesthetics of theneighborhood. Also I am deeply concerned about the traffic congestion this will bring as wail as on site street parking,which currently is filled throughout the day

Thank you far your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Karol A. Pozniak (resident)

343 N. Oakhurst Drive #DBeverly Hills, CA 90210

31 05006244

1


LAURA

Andre Sahakian

From: Em Zili <[email protected]>Sent Monday, Apr11 11, 2016 8:07 AMTo: Andre SahakianSubject 332-336 N Oakhurst (Tuesday)Attachments: To Submit-Construction in approx radiuspng

Dear Andre,In hopes this email reached you.

This note is in reference to 332-336 N. Oakhurst (revisions)

Below are my comments

1) The design is still out of proportion for the area.2) It should be no higher than three stories /30’.3) Appurtenant-buildIngs attached seem to be about 60 ft tall.

My opinion is leave the building alone as it brings character to what’s left of the history of Beverly Hillsand its unique architecture.

This decision will set precedent and wIN Impact aN the surrounding areas.Why because if someone Isallowed to build a 40-60 ft building every new developer will think It Is permissIble because others wereallowed in the same area.

I believe the buIlding should stay as It Is.If the city of Beverly Hills would like to generate more money/funds then allow for a tour of all thehistorical buildings/homes People who come from all over the world want to see the hIstory not theplasticity,

I am attaching a visual/map of where there is current construction/planned construction or underconstruction In our 3 block vicinity. All are suppose to be new condos however chances are great they willjust be new rentals for the www.AirBnB.com website and more as it seems some already are.

As a resident we just begin to imagine 7 new monstrosities with this so called “design” and It’s not ok.

Thank you for your tIme and the work you spend on this issue.

Respectfully,

Laura

**Ths email Is the property of the sender and the assigned recipIent Any forwarding, copying, disclosureof the information or email addresses Is prohlbltedJf the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient destroy all copies of this email, fax, and aN attachments.***

2


LISA YOUNGMAN

Andre Sahakian

From: Lisa Youngman <[email protected]>Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:49 AMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Re: Automatic reply: Planning Commission Meeting 9/19/16 re: 332-336 N Oakhurst

Drive

Good Morning Andre,

I strongly oppose the destructionlrebuilding of 332-336 N Oakhurst Drive, re today’s hearing on the proposal togo ahead with new development.

Lisa Youngman9122W 3rd,Beverly Hills, 90210

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Andre Sahakian <asahalcian()beverlyhills.org> wrote:

Thank you for your email. I am currently out of the office, and will return on Monday, September 19th. I will reply to your messageas soon as possible.

The City keeps a copy of all F-malls sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will betreated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant tothe terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.

Lisa V. Youngman, Ph.D., Psy.D.Licensed Marriage Family TherapistPsychotherapy and Psychoanalyst

12401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 306Los Angeles, CA 90025Phone: (310) 393-3350Fax: (424) 335-0364Email: lisavyoungman(ä) gmail.com

1

Andre Sahakian

From: Andre SahakianSent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 8:31 AMTo: Karen MyronCc: Masa Alkire; Ryan Gohlich; RWG DavidSnowSubject: Fwd: Planning Commission Meeting 9)19/16 ret 332-336 N Oakhurst Drive

FYI

Sent from my iPhone


From: Lisa Youngman <gyyouggggflc2rn>Date: September 17, 2016 at 11:38:08 AM PDTTo: <eveilyhi1lspg>Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 9/19/16 re: 332-336 N Oakhurst Drive

Hello Mr. Sahaldan and To Whom It May Concern:

I am a resident of 328 N. Oalthurst Drive, unit 9122. As you know, this building is 77 years old,built in 1939, and is a charming, historical example of Deco-classical Beverly Hillsarchitecture. The same is true of several remaining old buildings in this North Beverly Hillsneighborhood, Including, as you know and appreciate, 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive. Thesebuildings could easily be “modernized” by remodeling them from the inside out while allowingtheir original ground footprint to remain intact, or expanding it slightly. This would keep theflow of traffic and congestion relatively consistent with current levels and, most importantly,would retain the historic charm of Oakhurst Drive and the surrounding neighborhood.

I am writing to you because I am a psychoanalyst with a full private practice and will not be ableto attend the hearing on Monday, September 19th about 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive. However, Ihope you will accept this email as my strong “no” vote.

On another note, I deeply appreciate your efforts and persistence in protecting our neighborhoodand keeping us residents informed of pending threats, including that to the building I live in at328 N. Oakhurst Drive. Similarly, I appreciate and applaud the efforts of Steve Mayer and askyou to passon my gratitude to him.

Thank you again for your care and concern,

Lisa V Youngman

Lisa V. Youngman, Ph.D., Psy.D.Licensed Marriage Family Therapist

1

Psychotherapy and Psychoanalyst

12401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 306Los Angeles, CA 90025Phone: (310) 393-3350Fax: (424) 335-0364Email: lisavoungman(gmail.com

2


MEME RHEE

Karen Myron

Subject: FW: Planning Commission Meeting 9/19/16 re: 332-333 Oakhurst

Original MessageFrom: Meme Rhee [redacted)Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 12:03 AMTo: Andre Sahakian <asahakianbeverlyhills.org>Subject: Planning Commission Meeting 9/19/16 ret 332-333 Oakhurst

Hello Mr. Sahakian and To Whom It May Concern:

am a resident of 9124W. 3rd St which is a rare 1930’s building. (One of the units address is 328 N, Oakhurst)

I will not be able to attend the hearing on Monday, September 19th about 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive, however, I voteto reject the proposed redesign of a 31 unit condo building.

Thank you,

Meme Rhee


MIA SEWELL

Karen Myron

Subject: FW: Five story apartment building on North Oakhurst Drive

From: Ryan GohllchSent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 9:08 AMTo: Karen MyronCc: Michele McGrath; andy Gordon; Andre SahaklanSubject: PN: Five story apartment building on North Oakhurst Drive

From: Andre SahakianSent: Monday, October 05, 2015 3:12 PMTo: Michele McGrath; Ryan Gohitch; Cindy GordonSubject: Fwd: Five story apartment building on North Oakhurst Drive

FYI

Sent from my iPhone


From: Mia Sewell <[email protected]>Date: October 5, 2015 at 3:09:02 PM PDTTo: “[email protected]” <asahakianbever1vhil1s.org>Subject: Five story apartment building on North Oakhurst DriveReply-To: Mia Sewel1 <miasewell(yahoo.com>

To whom it may concern,

I am a resident on North Oakhurst Drive, and am a neighbor of the proposed location for the new fivestory apartment building on 332-336 North Oakhurst. I love our neighborhood because It Is unique,beautiful and quiet.

When I found out about the proposed construction, I was disappointed to say the least. To put ahomogenized apartment building in our neighborhood seems wrong for a variety of reasons. First, you arereplacing unique homes that have been standing for decades with a cookie-cutter, five story building thatwill crowd our street, take away our parking, and create noise for residents. Second, the years ofconstruction that will ensue would tempt anyone to move. I myself will not be able to stay in an apartmentthat is next to a construction site. It is a huge disturbance for the neighborhood, not to mention the factthat no one wants these apartments to be built in the first place.

Our neighborhood is charming because we DON’T have apartment buildings like the one that is beingproposed. Overbuilding on our street and capitalizing on the profit that may come from ft is wrong, and itis disrespectful to residents who have lived in our neighborhood for years. If an overwhelming majority ofresidents do not want this building to be built, it should not be built. It is as simple as that. Do not risktaking away the charm and quiet of our neighborhood to turn a profit

Thank you for your consideration, Submitted at the PlanningCommission jneiigot:

Mia SewellBy: ff’

1 Ptcbt


ROBERT BLOCK

54.9E4 FF5 STORY PROPERTY PROPOSED STRUCTURE1544I.OT WIDTh IAPPROX.304C) TALLERTHAN ALLEY

23175 FVLOT AREA frEl6HBORING BUILDINGS

__________

—---—

-

/

336 ELOAKHURSTDRIVE7,420 Fl’ 2 STORY PROPERTY

Sr4LOT WIDTH7,725 Fl’ LOTAREA

334 N. OAKHUT DRIVE7.455 Fl’ 2 STORY PROPERTY

S1’-VLOTWIDlH7,725 Fl’ LOT AREA

EXISTING CONDITIONVIEW FROM INTERSECTION OF 3RD AND N. OAKHURST COOKING NORTH EAST

PROPOSED CONDITIONVIEW FROM INTERSECTiON OF 3RD AND N. OAKHURST LOOKING NORTH EAST

4N0.TREE5 INFRONTOFPROPOSEDSflE. APPROX 30.35 TALL 20111DIAMETER WITh SPARSE FOURGE

—— ---i-- --

PROPOSED SITE TOP OF UEDINGAPPROX 30-40 ThLIIR ThANNEIGHBORING 2 STORY IUItDINGS

__L___ —

EXISTING CONDITIONWEST STREEt ELEVATION - FACING N. OAKHURST DRIVE

PaoPosDsIm83 PROPOSED R5IDENTIALPMBGNG SPACES,8 PROPOEDGUESTB%RXt4G5PACESIPARIONG EXIThTtI AUF

PARKING EXITS 1W FROM 3RD S1RWTANDIS 130’FROM 1475 OCHENY

WITH BOTH GARAGES EXIliNG INTO ALLEV130

‘ ThE POTENTIAL FOR A BACK-UP INTOTHE AFt IS INEVflPBLE DURING PEAKMORNING HOURS.

147 S. DOtNYl I ‘40 DUSflNG RE5IDEN11AL PARKING SPAE5t 1DDGSflNGGUE5PARIQNGSpLE5

_J \:‘_ tPARIWIG DO15TD AaE3o FROM 3RpSt)I

— ALLVflOE5DaTtJGAU.EY1 — — — — — — - .*:

r_ “ -

t 3RD STREET HEAWVOLUMETRAFFIC:7AM -9OAMPEAKflMES

4 WAY STOP SIGN AT STOP LIGHT AT 3RD & DOHENY3RD & N. OAKHURST APPROX 80 FEET FROM ALLEY

POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONDITION

343N.0PJQIURSTDg.APROX10A00FT25TORY

PROPEfiTY51’41.O?WWTH

7,723 Pt’ WTAMEA

33aN.oAIOwrwt.5,421 FT’2STOKY

PROPERTY51 ‘4LDT WiDTH

7,725 Fl’ LOTAWiA

336N.OA33IURST DR.7,426 Fl’ 2 STORY

5V4’ LOT WIDTH7,725 FT’LOtAREA

334 N. 0630033cr PR7,456 Fl’S STORY

PROPERTY5l4LmWlDTh

7.725 fl’LOTAREA

332 FL DA30IURSTOR.5,036 FT’ZSTORY

PROPERTY5e4L0rWWTN

7,725 FPLOTA&A

330 N. OAiDiDRSTDR.2406 FV2STORY

PROPERlYSl’4WTWVTH

7.725 Fl’ LOTAREA

EXISTING CONDITIONWE5T ELEVATION

t I -j110 33 f . ‘I

IJ

PROPOSED CONDITIONWEST ELEVATION

340 N. OREHURSTOR. 336 N. OAXNURST DRIVE 334 N. OAXHURSTDRIVE 332 N. OAKHURSTDRIVE 330N. OAICHURST DR.APPROX 10,300 Fl’ 2 STORY 331N. OAJU4URSTOR. 7.420 Fl’ 2 StORY PROPERTY 7,456FF 2 STORY PROPERTY 5,036 FF2 STORY PROPERtY 2,506 Fl’ 2 STORY PROPERTYPROPERTY 5,42IFV2STORYPROPERTY SI’.61.OTWIDfl4 51’4COTWIDTh S1’E’LOTWIDTH 514LOtWTH514 LOT WIDtH S7’4L01 WIDTH 7725 Fl’ LOT AREA 7,725 PT’ LOT AREA 7.725 REA 7,725 Fl’ LOT AREA1,725 Fl’ COTAREA 7,725FF LOTAREA

/ U-.

t__1 n:

rzzEXISTING CONDITION

VIEW FROM N. OAKHURST LOOKING SOUTh EAST

340 N OAKHURST DR. 330 N OARHURST DR.

APPROX 10,600 FF2 STORY 330 N.OARHUMT 00. 2,606 Fl’ 2 STORY

PROPERTY 5.421 FP2STORYPROPERTY 04,904 FtS STORY PROPERTY PROPOSED SITE TOP OF BUILDING PROPERTY 4N0.TREES IN FRONT or PROPOSED

51’.6’LOT WIDtH 51 ‘4WTWIDTH 154’-6C0T WIDTH APPROS 30 .40TALLERTHAN 51 -BlOT WIDTH 5111, APPROX 3035 TALL 20 IN

7.725 PT’ LOT AREA 7,725FF I.OtAp.EA 23,175 fl’ LOt AREA NEIGHBORING 2 STORY 931 WINGS 7,725 FT’LDT AREA DIAMETER WITH SPARSE FOLIAGE

PROPOSED CONDITIONVIEW FROM N. OAKHURST LOOKING SOUTh EAST

Andre Sahakian

From: Robert Block <rbiock34@yahoocom>Sent Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:05 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject 332336 N.Oakhurst Drive

Dear Mr. Sahakian,Thank you for sending to me the latest pack of the developers plans, We would greatly appreciate any updates on thepacket the Planning Staff will be presenting to the Commission.The purpose of this email, is to state that weH, property owners and residents of the 300 block of N. Oakhurst Dr., arenot affiliated with Mr. Steve Mayer or his group, Concerned Citizens of Beverly Hills/Beverly Grove. We bring this to yourattention to ensure that the Commissioners understand this and allow us the time necessary for our presentation andcomments separate and apart from Mr. Mayer and his group.Should you have any questions In this regard, please contact me.Thank you in advance,Respectfully,Robert BlockChris HammondP.S. I would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you briefly to further explain the nature of our presentation.

1

Andre Sahakian

From: Robert Block <[email protected]>Sent Tuesday, July 05, 2016 10:03 AMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Re; 332-336 N. Oakhurst - July 14 Planning Commission Meeting

Dear Mr. Sahakian,On behalf of the stakeholders, we respectfully request a continuance In order to properly prepare for this importantmeeting. Due to the extended 4-day July 4th holIday weekend, the notice regarding the Planning CommissIon meetinghas not been received by many who were away and several who are still on vacation, thereby not allowing us sufficienttime to prepare our presentation or to rearrange our schedules.In view of the fact that the Developer had been afforded continuances, we think ft would be withIn reason andequatable to be afforded the same consideration. We greatly appreciate your understanding In this matter..Thank you,Robert BlockChris Hammond

On FrI, 7/1/16, Andre Sahakian casanakIanbeverlvhilIs.orc wrote:

Subject: 332-336 N. Oakhurst - July 14 PlannIng Commission MeetingTo: “rblpck34yphop.com” <[email protected]>, Hwwdark13wnall.com <wwclark13gmaiL corn>,‘mavertlname.com” <maverIiname.com>, “theoozniaksaoLcom” <thenozniaksaoI.com>,‘nIbarthix.netcom.com” <nlbarthIx.netcom.com>Cc: °Masa Alkire” <mpIkitebeverIvhiiis.orR>, “Ryan Gohllch” <raohIIchbevedvFdIs.or>Date: Friday, July 1, 2016, 10:59 AM

Dear stakeholders,

This is to inform you thatthe applicants for the 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive have submitted a revised set of plans, and the application has beenscheduled to return to the Planning Commission on its July 14th Regular Meeting.

A copy of the publicnotice for the meeting is attached to this email for reference. Also attached, please find a digital version of the revisedplan set.

if you have any questions,or would like to review any other documents related to this project, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Andre SahakianAssociate Planner I Cityof Beverly Hills310.285,1127

The City keeps a copy of all E-malls sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-malls will be treated as aPublic Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, andsubject to the exemptions, of that Act.

2

It.I C

-.•

itte

Pb

wø

mscI(D

f

ui,

jw1ed

fftni

Jt

,.—,1s

i

-

LI


SANDRA ADAMS

Karen Myron

Subject FW: Proposed Condo Development at 332-335 North Oakhurst Drive

-——Original Message——From: Cindy GordonSent: Tuesday1 October 06, 2015 5:06 PMTo: Karen MyronCc: Ryan GohilchSubject: FW: Proposed Condo Development at 332-336 North Oakhurst Drive

From: Oakhurst Apartments [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:09 PMTo: Michele McGrathSubject: Propo5ed Condo Development at 332-336 North Oakhurst Drive

Dear Michele McGrath,

For 47 years I have owned the properties located at 343 and 345 North Oakhurst Drive, Beverly Hills, California. Thelovely jacaranda lined street and neighborhood with its rows of harmonious sized buildings is about to undergo a drasticchange with the proposed condo development at 332-336 North Oakhurst Drive. I don’t believe It is a positIve change.

My objections to this development are two-fold: environmental and economic.Environmentally the light, air and space on Oakhurst will be affected by the massive proposed design that will dwarf allother buIldings. The developers should focus on building smaller, more In keeping with the character of the street. Theairiness and brightness of the street will be replaced with darkness and shadows. If this project goes through as Is, It willset a precedent that will turn the area into another Century city, modem and Impersonal in nature. The Identity of aBeverly Hills neighborhood will be gone forever.

Economically, it will have a long term distressed impact on me. Rents will be driven down and tenants will move due tothe inability to find parking spaces. The condo parking for guests won’t be enough, so they will park on the street.There will be excessive traffic on Oakhurst and Third Street, which is already difficult to maneuver. Affordable housingand apartment living for the average person will be replaced with expensive condo ownership.

I appeal to the City of Beverly Hills to curb this project so that it conforms to the fine standards that Beverly Hills isidentified with.

Sincerely,

Sandra A. Adams(818-500-9522)

SLmnl .. ianning1 ‘i.eti of:

——

t-hitc ueiRec’d.

PBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

SCOU SCHREIBER

Karen Myron

Subject FW: 332-336 N Oakhurst Dr. Project

-----Original Message—From: Cindy GordonSent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 5:06 PMTo: Karen MyronCc: Ryan GohlichSubject: FW: 332-336 N Oakhurst Dr. Project

CINDY GORDON, AICPAssociate Planner I City of Beverly Hills 310.285.1191

Original Message—From: Michele McGrathSent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 4:51 PMTo: Ryan GohlichCc: Cindy GordonSubject: FW: 332-336 N Oakhurst Dr. Project

From: Scott Schrelber [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 2:44 PM Submitted at the PIanmllgTo: Michele McGrath Commi$SiOfl ingofSubject: 332-33 6 N Oakhurst Dr. Project —

Hi Michele,By.

ui L Siu t± t?eC6.

Hope everything is going well for you. I tried to write Andre Sahakian, but came across his auto-response for being out ofoffice.

I just wanted to express some of my thoughts related to the development project directly across from my residence. Asa direct stakeholder in the process, I think its important to be involved where possible. Unfortunately, I can not attendthe meeting in person on Thursday due to work, so I reached out via -email.

1 The proposed project will demolish a true historic building and one of the few remaining original spanish-styleapartment developments in my neighborhood. These types of buildings are irreplaceable and show the charm of oldBeverly Hills. These types of buildings are becoming increasingly rare and should be fought for.

2) I’m concerned about the construction noise that will be incurred for years to come. One of the main reasons I chosethis location for my residence is for the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. Myself, my neighbors with small children,and those with pets, deeply appreciate the serenity of our block as it is.

3) I’m concerned of the impact this development will have on the parking available in my neighborhood, especially asthe project is directly across from me. The parking is already quite limited. Especially during the construction phase ofthe project, I am sure there will be severe impacts to the parking due to construction trucks and workers visiting the site

1

Please let me know your thoughts as well as the Uevelopers thoughts on these issues, I hope you and your team makethoughtful considerations in your decision process.

Thanks again, and I hope to hear from you soon, Scott Schreiber

httQs://wwwJinkedincom/pub/scott-schreiber-cDa/35/341f8a5

2


SOHAM PATEL

Andre Sahakian

From: Soham Patel <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:38 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: 332-336 N. Oakhurst Dr. Proposal

HiAndre,

My name is Soham Patel -- I wanted to speak at today’s council meeting in favor of the proposal todevelop 332-336 N. Oakhurst, however I had a conflicting meeting at 3pm so I would like to officiallysubmit this email to you and whom ever you feel comfortable forwarding it to:

I live and work in the neighborhood, Third & Foothill and Alden & Oakhurst, respectively. My wife andI have rented a I bedroom apartment at 9152 Alden for four years and we love the neighborhood andwe love living in Beverly Hills. My wife and I are young professionals, I work at GooglelYouTube inour Beverly Hills office and enjoy walking to work every day. We would love nothing mote but to find abeautiful, new 3bedroom condominium to grow a family into within the Beverly Hills community in anaccessible price range (<$2MM), but after scouring the market for the last I 2months have come torealize that it will not happen unless the city of Beverly Hills endorses developers to construct multifamily residence such as the one in discussion today.

Jennifer and I are upwardly mobile individuals who give back to our community in the form ofvolunteer work, participation on boards, and we make use of the wonderful perks BH offers likeSummer tennis classes at BHHS. We adore and are grateful for the work you and the City do for yourcitizens, but we feel forced to move to towns like West LA, Playa Vista, and Mar Vista that haveavailable housing inventory, which is sad for us and should be sad for BH -- a community we want tolive in and give back to.

I also want to state that the current property at 332-334 N. Oakhurst is quite an eye-sore withboarded-up windows and a lack of interesting landscaping or architecture, and the proposeddevelopment is a much needed addition to a street that will literally age and fall apart without newconstruction.

Thanks for listening, and I hope the City will do what it can to keep me and Jennifer loyal communitymembers of Beverly Hills.

Soham

Soham Patel sohampatel(qooqle.com m: +1 630 781 2376

1


STEVE MAYER

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR & COMMISSIONERSPLANMNG COMMISSIONCITY Of BEVERLY ifiLLS

FROM: STEVE MAYER

DATE: OCTOBER 12, 2016

RE: ITEM 2: 332-336 NORTH OAKHURST

Please excuse the delay in submitting this memorandum. The reasons for thedelay were expressed on Monday

Such delays were further exacerbated by a last minute submittal by the Applicant.

I know your time is extremely limited in light of the One Beverly Hillsresolutions.

To the point, it is difficult to believe that the revised plans (either set) will beapproved. It seems obvious that the proposed project does not work for either the site orthe block. The request of the local community is to not to continue the Application.

As opposed to providing an alternative “Staff Report,” please permit thismemorandum to focus on a few key areas.

HEIGHT / SCALE / MASS

There is comparatively little visual change from the last iteration.

The original direction of the Commission in the September 19th meeting was toeliminate the fifth floor and for the Applicant to meet code with a four-story 45 feet highstructure.

The Applicant requested a 49 feet high structure, as the existing plans clearlyshowed the fourth level topping-out at 49 feet. The Commission acceded to that request.

The Applicant originally returned with a 52 feet high structure, with elevator andstairwells being another 3-5 feet.

To summarize:

Code 45’

Commission Acceded to 49’

Applicant Re-Design 52’

PLANNING COMMISSION I MAYEROctober 12, 2016Page 2.

The structure is still far too big, even at 52 feet high. It is more than double thesize compared to the adjacent properties. This illustration compares, from page 9 of there-submitted drawings the relative size of 330 North Oakhurst to its proposed next doorneighbor:

Additionally, the rhythm and flow of either alternatives of the proposed projectis not consistent with the land use policies as has been previously pointed out by severalof the current Commissioners.

In addition, you may remember the some of the schematics as submitted to you byChris Hammond and Robert Block during the September 19th hearing. They providedthe full impact and better perspective on of how massive this proposed project is incomparison to the existing structures, and are included again as Exhibit B.

PLANNING COMMISSION I MAYEROctober 12, 2016Page3.

Lastly, while all buildings codes and modulations have been met, it does notnecessarily mean that the project will meet all the standards of compatibffitv and flowof the neighborhood.

NEIGHBORHOOD

Both Staff and the Applicant continue to insist that the neighborhood is both sidesof North Oakhurst from Burton Way to Beverly Boulevard.

That is incorrect.

The neighborhood is only between Third Street and Alden Drive, which wasfirmly established in the October 8’ 2016 hearing. The representations of the Applicant’sLegislative Advocate were patently false.

The Legislative Advocate was relying upon a report commissioned by theApplicant, whose consultant is not qualified to perform such work in the Cities ofBeverly Hills and Los Angeles.

This is the last remaining undeveloped block in the area bounded by Burton Way,Doheny, Beverly Boulevard, and Santa Monica Boulevard, and may be one of the lastremaining untouched blocks in the City of Beverly Hills.

TRAFFIC I PARKING

The traffic assessment is two years old.

It did not take into account the properties at 9100 Alden, 328 North Oakhurst,344-348 North Oakhurst and 325 North Maple.

9100 Alden is at the end of the alley, and has been approved for 35 apartmentsand 70 parking spaces, replacing 8 garden style apartments and 8 parking spaces.

328 North Oakhurst is located on the Southeast corner of Third and Oakhurst, andhas had a “Concept Review” in the City of Beverly Hills, for 14 condominium unitsand 32 parking spaces, to replace 6 apartment units.


344-348 North Oakhurst had previously contemplated a 77-unit condominiumproject, replacing 12 garden style apartments.

325 North Maple is the Post Office Renovation that could see up to 700 workers,in what previously housed approximately 50 workers.

The traffic assessment (which was not a survey, and involved no traffic counts)also did not take into account the proposed Townscape project at Third and Foothill, northe 12-story 60-unit condominium project a block away at Third and Wetherly.

As to parking, it is a very difficult issue.

The Resolution specifically states that it will not allow the issuance of overnightpermits for all of units, not just those in the City of Los Angeles.

That will relieve some of the overnight parking issues, but it does not address thedaytime parking. Residents and guests will use the street during the day. That is to beexpected.

The existing 17-units were occupied not by families, but by singles and couples.There will be a substantial increase in daytime street parking if this project is approved,due to the intensification and change of demographics.

HISTORIC ASPECTS

To begin, these three properties are part of a “Potential Historic District”

As part of the periodic historic municipal surveys, the area from Burton Way toBeverly Boulevard was examined on both sides of Oakhurst Drive by both cities.

By coincidence, the consultants for the City of Beverly Hills and the City of LosAngeles performed their surveys almost concurrently, but independently.

They found that the neighborhood was not from Burton Way to BeverlyBoulevard, but only between Third Street and Alden Drive.

PLANNING COMIflSSION I MAYEROctober 12, 2016Page 5.

These two independent historic consultants reached near identical conclusionsthat the nine properties on the east side ofNorth Oakhurst Drive between Third Streetand Alden Drive comprise the Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District(Exhibit A)

Four of the nine properties were designed by Master Architects Paul Smith andEdith Northman.

Edith Northman was the architect for 334 and 336 North Oakhurst Drive, has astoried history, and is worthy of the Master Architect designation, independent of hergender.

In the City of Los Angeles, she is affiliated with five properties on the nationalregistry properties, including the Sephardic Hebrew Center at Hoover and 55th Street, asynagogue and community center, in 1934

In 1937, she was also the architect for a Danish Lutheran Church at 3rd Avenueand 43rd Street, also a Historical Cultural Monument.

In the 1930’s she was one of the most prolific architects of apartments in theLos Angeles Area. In 1936 and 1937, she was listed as the architect on 10 apartmentproperties alone according to the Los Angeles Times

In City of the Beverly Hills, she is listed as the architect of six properties,including the home of actor Jean Hersholt property at 602 North Rodeo.

Mr. Hersholt was an accomplished actor. He was also president of the Academyof Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences from 1945 to 1949.

The Academy’s “Humanitarian Award” was also named after him, and a recentrecipient was Sidney Poitier, another long-time Beverly Hills resident.

Pertaining to a different aspect of the historical assessment of these properties, theApplicant hired his own consultant to assess the historical significance.

Unfortunately, the consultant is not qualified under the requirements of either theCity of Beverly Hills and City of Los Angeles to perform such work. Therefore suchwork should be viewed as null and void.

Lastly, the question has arisen as to why the neighborhood has not pursued anational registry designation for the Potential Historic District.


Under national standards, the Secretary of the Interior requires approval of 75%of the owners. Since the Applicant owns three of the nine properties, an applicationwould be a fruitless and expensive exercise.

RESOLUTION I MITIGATION MEASURES

Just as the City of Los Angeles cannot impose its ordinances upon the City ofBeverly Hills, neither can the City of Beverly Hills cannot impose it ordinances on theunits located in the City of Los Angeles.

The residents in the City of Los Angeles do not have to comply with City ofBeverly Hills ordinances, unless the City of Los Angeles cedes its authority. The onlyway that occurs if the City of Los Angeles approves what the City of Beverly Hillsdeems.

Then, the City of Beverly Hills must approve whatever other changes the City ofLos Angeles might make.

This conundrum was identified in the September 19th meeting where if theApplicant, had there been an approval in the City of Beverly Hills, would have had toreturn to the City of Los Angeles for a variance on floor area, approval of reduced guestparking, and not meeting minimum open space requirements.

If the City of Beverly Hills was the Lead Agency, this issue could be managed.

LEGISLATWE ADVOCATE

The Applicant’s Legislative Advocate told many miscegenation’s and falsestatements on September 19th.

The first was that the Los Angeles City Council had unanimously voted on thismatter, as though they held a hearing, deliberated with both sides being heard, andreached a conclusion in favor of the Applicant.

That is completely a outrageous distortion and prevision of what occurred.

There was no hearing, there was no deliberation, there was no individual vote onthe matter.

PLANNDTG COMMISSION / MAYEROctober 12, 2016Page 7.

It was part of the “Consent” calendar, and the Council voted simultaneously on aslew of 10 or 15 matters before them. There was no individual roll call.

I submitted a written request to speak, and my right was denied, violating thatCouncil’s own rules.

Most anything that the Legislative Advocate stated on September 19th needs to bechallenged.

The problem is that would take another 100 pages to fully correct the record ofthe Applicant’s Legislative Advocate.

The first issue to resolve is why the Legislative Advocate purposely deceived thepublic. The “Employer” was listed as “Color Image Apparel.” (Exhibit C)

STALKING HORSE

There is apparent fear andlor threat of the property being built only in the City ofLos Angeles.

If the project could be constructed solely in the City of Los Angeles, the front ofthe property would be on the alley. The assumption that it would be automaticallyapproved is not realistic. Such an approval would be the first time in decades that aproperty fronted on an alley in the City of Los Angeles.

From a more practical basis, it is difficult for a project fronting on an alley to everbe economically viable.

Why would a buyer seek a condo on an alley for $1.5 million, when one blockeast on Doheny, a unit can be purchased for $500,000 to $1 million. Lastly, will a lenderever issue a construction loan on a Los Angeles-only property, fronting on an alley?

MND / DETERMINATION LETTER

The MND was originally prepared in 2012. The Determination Letter which wasissued in 2015, relied upon that original MND.

There were material errors in the MND, such as parking being available from adefunct downtown hospital.


Various mitigation measures were proposed by local residents for both theCities of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. None of them were incorporated.

BROWN ACT

The submittal of the alternative design is a clear violation of the Brown Act, atleast in terms of its dissemination to the public.

It arrived by email 45 hours before Thursday’s meeting, not the required 72 hours.

In closing, the sentiment of the neighborhood can be reflected in the words of alocal community member:

“We urge the commission to carefully consider the precedent-settingramUications ofapproving a development ofsuch massive proportions.Putting aside the severe damage it would do to the character ofthisparticular block, approving such a project would set a dangerous andirreversible precedent that would send a greenlight to other developersthat Beverly Hills is now welcome to massive overdevelopment and is aland where anything goes, no matter what the size or the scale orappropriateness ofthe project. Please, do not set this dangerousprecedent.”

EXHIBIT A

OAKHURST DRIVE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENITAL

HISTORIC DISTRICT

Wilshire

Historic Districts, Planning Districts and Multi-Property Resources — 01/26/15

Name: Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District

I

The Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District is a small multi-family historic district along the east side ofNorth Oakhurst Drive, at the boundary between Beverly Hills and Los Angeles (the primary façades of the buildings and thewest side of the street are in Beverly Hills). The residential district includes parcels along the east side of North OakhurstDrive, just south of Alden Drive to just north of West 3rd Street. The topography of the district is flat; it has a regular,rectilinear street grid pattern. Lot sizes are modest, and properties have uniform setbacks with front lawns, concretewalkways and detached garages. The detached garages are reached via an alley behind the properties. Historicallydeveloped as a single tract, the district has original sidewalks, curbs and mature jacaranda trees. All nine properties arecontributors to the district.

SurveyjIs. ASIW.. IASI.fl, *..we.. I.’..,

The dominant period of development for the district is 1930 to 1939. The district consists of two-story duplexes, fourplexesand apartment houses predominantly in the Spanish Colonial Revival or Minimal Traditional style with Monterey Revival andAmerican Colonial Revival style features.

Significance:

The Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District is significant as an excellent example of a 1930s multi-familyresidential neighborhood in the Wilshire CPA, and as an excellent concentration of Period Revival architecture. The districtretains original tract and automobile-related features, including concrete sidewalks and curb cuts, mature jacaranda treesand detached garages. Residences within the district retain their original plans, massing, scale and character-definingfeatures from the Spanish Colonial Revival or Minimal Traditional (with American Colonial Revival or Monterey Revivalfeatures) style. Of the Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District’s nine houses, 100% contribute to itssignificance.

The district was originally subdivided in 1922 by the Rodeo Land and Water Company. The eastern part of the tract is locatedin the City of Los Angeles, while the western part is located in the City of Beverly Hills. Initial development of the tract,including grading of the land, road paving and installation of sewer lines, was presumably carried out by Rodeo Land andWater; parcels were then sold to individual property owners to build on. Notable architect S. Charles Lee designed theresidence at 344 North Oakhurst Drive. No evidence was found regarding marketing of the subdivision. The period ofsignificance for the historic district is 1930 to 1939, which captures its major period of development and the time duringwhich all of its buildings were constructed.

ItaAAn.I,,

- Ocp,Itment

p IIItyPInin

I

h

Description:

Copy.4ght © 2011Page 383 of 1035

Wilshire

Historic Districts, Planning Districts and Multi-Property Resources — 01/26/15SurveyLst fl ttk —“ —

Context 1:

I0

0

__H__

ALDEN DR

I OakhurstL MuItiEarn.iIy I

Historic Di

0

0

0

_0 3

0

0

0

3RD ST

H lfl

• [nAneIe,• — —

I.!_____51 r city

S

Context: Architecture and Engineering, 1850-1980

Sub context: No Sub-context

Theme: Housing the Masses, 1880-1975

Sub theme: Period Revival Multi-Family Residential Neighborhoods, 1918-1942

Property type: Residential-Multi Family

Property sub type: Multi-Family District

Criteria: C/3/3

Status code: 3S;3C5;553

Reason: Excellent example of a Period Revival multi-family residential neighborhood in the area. Prominentstyles include Spanish Colonial Revival, Monterey Revival, and Minimal Traditional with AmericanColonial Revival influences.

Context 2:

Context: Residential Development and Suburbanization, 1850-1980

Sub context: Multi-Family Residential Development, 1910-1980

Theme: Multi-Family Residential, 1910-1980

Sub theme: Multi-Family Residential District, 1910-1980



Criteria: C/3/3

Copyright 2011Page 384 of 1035

Wilshire

Historic Districts, Planning Districts and Multi-Property Resources — 01/26/15Surveyj

[tus code: 3S;3CS;5S3

Reason: Excellent example of a 1930s multi-family residential district containing a mix of multi-family propertytypes, from triplexes to apartment houses.

Contributors/Non-Contributors:

Primary Address:

1 Type:

Year built:

Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:

Property type/sub type:

Architectural style:

Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



332 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1931

Residential-Multi Family; Fourplex

Spanish Colonial Revival

334 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1930

Residential-Multi Family; Courtyard Apartment

Spanish Colonial Revival; Monterey Revival

336 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1930



338 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1939

Residential-Multi Family; Triplex

Minimal Traditional; American Colonial Revival

340 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1930

Residential-M ulti Family; Apartment House


tnAn.I

I ttItyPInhq



Copy.igIt W11Page 385 of 1035

Wilshire

Historic Districts, Planning Districts and Multi-Property Resources — 01/26/15SurveyjLfl Afl.. MStStt fl.wtn Im

Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



342 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1939

Residential-Multi Family; Apartment House


344 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1937

Residential-M ulti Family; Courtyard Apartment


Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



348 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1936



Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



346 S OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1936



[AnIDcpiUncnL

I rcIyPbrnI

Coigh© 2011Page 386 of 1035

EXHIBIT B

SCHEMATICS

EXISTING CONDITIONVIEW FROM INTERSECTION OF 3RD AND N. OAKHURST LOOKING NORTH EAST

54,904 FV5 STORY PROPERTY PROPOSED STRUCTURE1543tDlWtDTh IAPPROL3D’40TAU.ERT14AN

23,175 FT’LOT AREA EIOHIORING IUILNG5

336 N. OAKNUPST DRIVE 334 N. OAKHURST DRIVE 332 N. OAICHURSTDRM7,420 Fr’ 2STORY PROPERTY 7,456 Fl’ 2 STORY PROPERTY 5,036 Fl’ 2STORY PROPERTY

51’4WT WIDTH 51’4L01 WIDTH 51’4”LOTWVTH7,725 Fl’ WTAHEA 7,725 Fr’ LOT ARM 7,725 Fr’ WI AREA

-

ALLEY

4N0.TEEES IN FRONT OF PROPOSEDSiTE. APPROX 303SIALL. SEEdDIAMETER WITHSPARSEFOLIAGE

PROPOSED SITE .1DP OF IURDINGAPPROX 3030’IAU.ERThANNEIGHIORING2STORYBUWINGS

WifH BOThGARAGES EXifiNG INTO ALLB730 N ThE P0TD4flALFORABACK-UP INTO

THE AU.EY IS INEVITABLE DUPING PEAKMORNt1G HOURS.

1475. bOtrNY40 DaSUNG RE9DENTIALMRJQNG SfCESIODaSflNGGUE5TPmONGSPMEStPA1GBUT51O AUL30ffiOU3pST.)

__

-— —llCLESOGTUHNGAUEY.4.. — _ — — — — — — —

-.-—-w-

—_______ —— --

t 3RD SWEET HEAW VOLUME TRAFFIC:7AM -9J)OAM PEAK11MES

4WAY STOP SIGN AT3RD & N. OAKHURST

POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONDITION

EXISTING CONDITIONWEST STREET ELEVATION - FACING N. OAKHURST DRIVE

13.PIGNG DU1S T6OFROM3RDSTTANDIS 130ffiOM 147 5.DOHENY

STOP LIGHT AT 3RD & DOHENY.APPROX 80 FEET FROM ALLEY

3N. QAIDII. 33sN.oAmwlTuR. 335 N. OAIGIURST DR. 3M N. OA1QWfT DR. 332I. OAIQIURST OIL 310 N. QAJWURSTOR.APIROX IOIFTa2STORT 5,431 FPZSTOAV 7A20F1’3 STORY 7.456 FP2STOAY 5,OSSFT’ZSTORY ZSORFV ZSTORY

PROMRTY PRO PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTYfl’4LOTWLTH 5VVLCThRTfl1 51’4’LOTWIOTH 51’.VLOTWIaTH 5V4L0T WIDTh S1’4WTWTh

725FVLUtAJA 7,flSFT’LOTARTR 7,fl5FT’LOTAREA 77lF1LO1AREA wsmar

EXISTING CONDITIONWEST ELEVATION

PROPOSED CONDITIONWEST ELEVATION

340 N. OAKHUMSTDR. 335 N. OAKHURST DRNEAPPROX i0,SOOFV2 S1ORY 331N.ORKHUROTOL 7420 Fr’ 2 STORY PROPERTY

I 5V4’LOT WIDTh 51’4’LOTW1OTH 7733 l’TAA

I popoiv

5A21

FV2STORYPROPERTY 51’4’LDT WIDTH

PT’ LOT RINk 7,725 Fr’ 1.0—

334 N.OAKNURSTERUVE 332 N. ORIWURTIDRIVE 310 N. OAKHURST OR.7,451FT’ZSOORY PROPERTY 5,036 Fl’ 2 STORY PROPERTY so6cv 2 STORY PROPERTY

51’4’WT WIDTH 51’4L0T WIDTh si’.rwT WIDTH7,723 Fl’ LOT AREA 7,725 Fl’ LOT 655* 7.725 Fl’ LOT NSA

EXISTING CONDITIONVIEW FROM N. OAKHURST LOOKING SOUTH EA5T

340 N. OAKHURST OR.A?PROX 30,306 fl’aSTORV 331N.OlUPROPERTY SA21FT’2STORYPROPERTY51’.6’LOT WIDTH SI .61.01 WIDTH

7,725 PT’ LOT AREA LOTARSA

34,904 FrssrORV PROPERTY PROPOSED SITE .TOPOFIUILDING154’41.OT WIDTH APPROX 3040’YMIXATIIAN23,175F1’LOT AREA NOGH$ORING2STORYIUIWINGS

330 N.OAKHURST DR.2506 FF2STORY

PROPERTY 4N0.1REES IN FRONT OF PROPOSED51 ‘4L0T WIDTH Slit. APPROX 30.35 ‘TALL. 20’ IN

7,725fl’LOTAREA AMERWIThSMR5EFOt’

PROPOSED CONDITIONVIEW FROM N. OAKHUR5T LOOKING SOUTH EAST

EXHIBIT C

LEGISLATiVE ADVOCATE REGISTRATION

City of Beverly HillsLegislative Advocate Fegistration

Contact Information for the Legislative Advocate

Name LAW OFFICES OF MURRAY D. FISCHER Phone 3102763600

Employer COLOR IMAGE APPAREL, INC. Email [email protected]

Business Address 433 N. CAMDEN DRIVE, SUITE 888 Webslte http://www.beverlyhills.org

Address LIne 2 433 N. CAMDEN DRIVE, SUITE 888 Fax

City BEVERLY HILLS

State CA Zip 90210

Client Information

Name OAKHURST 90210 (MR TERRY J MOORE) Phone 3102611599

Scific Business PROPERTY DEVELOPER Webse http //www beverlyhills org

Client Address 10680W. PICO BLVD., SUITE 300

Address Line 2 10680 W. PICO BLVD., SUITE 300

City LOS ANGELES

State CA Zip 90064

Description of Matter that Legislative Advocate is Attempting to InfluenceProject Name

Description of Municipal Legislation that is subject of Advocacy

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW.

Desired Outcome

PENDING.

Initial Date of Lobbying Engagement

2016/03/29

Sign and DateI declare under penalty of perjury that the information which has been included in this Registration Form is true and correct.

Signed MURRAY D. FISCHER Date 2016/03/29

EXHIBIT I)

PROPOSED AGENDA ITEM

(September 21, 2016)

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERSPLANNING COM1tUSSIONCITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

FROM: STEVE MAYER[310-275-8423]

DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2016

RE: PROPOSED AGENDA ITEM- SEPTEMBER 26, 2016

In reviewing the tape of Monday’s Planning Commission meeting, there mayhave been an oversight.

To communicate with the Applicant (as to whether they would be willing toresubmit a new design of four floors), the Public Hearing was re-opened.

After the answer was received, the Public Hearing was re-closed.

Had the Public Hearing remained opened, I, and others, would have made thesuggestion that, in addition to a 49’ four-story design being presented, a rendering of a39’ three-story desiiln also be submitted.

In such lihtg it is requested that an Agenda Item be added to the SpecialPlanning Commission meetin2 of September 26 2016 to discuss requestin2 of theApplicant that a 39’ three-story design also be submitted.

The reasons for such a request are:

(1) It is clear from the Applicant’s own plans that a 49’ four-story building isstill out of Mass / Scale.

In this illustration (an excerpt from page 10 of the plans), four floors isdouble the height of building immediately south of the property. Asimilar difference is shown on the north side of the property. A largerversion of this illustration is on the last page.

PLANNING COMMISSION / MAYERSeptember 21, 2016Page 2.

(2) A 39’ three-story concept might be more acceptable to the Community,but the only way for the Community to evaluate that is also through anadditional re-submitted design.

(3) There should not be undue difficulty in turning around another design.

During Monday’s hearing, Murray Fischer, the Applicant’s representative,proudly stated, “By engaging me with my help, we have redesigned thisbuilding.”

According to the Legislative Advocate form, Mr. Fischer was firstengaged on March 29, 2016.

Approximately, a week later, the revised plans were submitted, inpreparation for the April 10th Ad Hoc meeting.

We are aware of the timing, because on April 6th, the drawings were madeavailable to the members of the Community.

(4) The Agenda Item itself should not take much time to discuss andJordeliberate. This issue is quite simple; either the Commissioners favor sucha concept or they do not.

(5) Lastly, all re-submitted designs should include the properties north andsouth of the property, as exemplified on Pages 10 and 14 of the 06/30/16plans.

Naturally, I will happy to draft the Staff Report, if needed.

PL

AN

NIN

GC

OM

MIS

SIO

NIM

AY

ER

Sep

tem

ber

21,

2016

Pag

e3.

/

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERSPLANNING COMMISSIONCITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

FROM: STEVE MAYER[310-275-8423]


RE: PROPOSED AGENDA ITEM- SEPTEMBER 26,2016

In reviewing the tape of Monday’s Planning Commission meeting, there mayhave been an oversight.

To communicate with the Applicant (as to whether they would be willing toresubmit a new design of four floors), the Public Hearing was re-opened.

After the answer was received, the Public Hearing was re-closed.

Had the Public Hearing remained opened, I, and others, would have made thesuggestion that, in addition to a 49’ four-story design being presented, a rendering of a39’ three-stori desiRn also be submitted.

In such light, it is requested that an Agenda Item be added to the SpecialPlanning Commission meeting of September 26, 2016 to discuss requesting of theApplicant that a 39’ three-story design also be submitted.

The reasons for such a request are:

(1) It is clear from the Applicant’s own plans that a 49’ four-story building isstill out of Mass / Scale.

In this illustration (an excerpt from page 10 of the plans), four floors isdouble the height of building immediately south of the property. Asimilar difference is shown on the north side of the property. A largerversion of this illustration is on the last page.

PLANNING COMMISSION / MAYERSeptember 21, 2016Page 2.

(2) A 39’ three-story concept might be more acceptable to the Community,but the only way for the Community to evaluate that is also through anadditional re-submitted design.

(3) There should not be undue difficulty in turning around another design.

During Monday’s hearing, Murray Fischer, the Applicant’s representative,proudly stated, “By engaging me, with my help, we have redesigned thisbuilding.”

According to the Legislative Advocate form, Mr. Fischer was firstengaged on March 29, 2016.

Approximately, a week later, the revised plans were submitted, inpreparation for the April 10th Ad Hoc meeting.

We are aware of the timing, because on April 6th, the drawings were madeavailable to the members of the Community.

(4) The Agenda Item itself should not take much time to discuss and/ordeliberate. This issue is quite simple; either the Commissioners favor sucha concept or they do not.

(5) Lastly, all re-submitted designs should include the properties north andsouth of the property, as exemplified on Pages 10 and 14 of the 06/30/16plans.

Naturally, I will happy to draft the Staff Report, if needed.

PLANNING COMMISSION I MAYERSeptember 21, 2016Page 3.

f. J.;; :-i •

;ftP

J.

ii

TO: HONORABLE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERSPLANNING COMMISSIONCITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

FROM: STEVE MAYER[PH: 310-275-84231


RE: ITEM 2[Proposed 31-Unit Condominium at 332-33 6 North Oalthurstj

INTRODUCTION

Please permit this memorandum to address the issues of Parking, Mass / Scale,Open Space, Historical Issues, Discrepancies, and the Direction of the Commission.

While this filing seems voluminous, the majority of the submittal is due to theinclusion of the transcript of the October 8, 2015 hearing, The transcript includes anindex to the Commissioners’ questions and comments.

HIGHLIGHTS

gçj: Only 19 BH Parking Spaces (not 20)

Parking: Guest Parking Spaces Reduced from 14 to 8 andLA “Standard” parking spaces are smaller than BH

Mass I Scale: Redesigned Building Is Nearly The Same Size(59,563 SQFT vs 59,416 SQfT)

Mass / Scale: The height in LA is the same at 59’ 11”The height in BH was reduced from 40’ to 39’

Open Space: Apparent Encroachment Into Setbacks To Meet LARequirement

Qppgce: A 147 SQfT Terrace Is Used To Meet BH PrivateSpace Balcony Requirement

Historical: Edith Northman Granted Master Architect Status

Historical: LA Staff Did Not Reveal Existence Of 3rd Survey

PLANNING CQMMSSION/MA YER —09/17/16 PAGE 2

PARKING

While the number ofparking was increased, there was reduced capacity in otherforms.

Prior to discussing how the increase was achieved, the representation that thereare 20 spaces in Beverly Hills is not correct, Ijiccaeonh19sacesinB,verjJLffjllsr.(Exhibit B)

To achieve the increased capacity:

çakinSacesWereReyced in nM

Guest Parldn Spaces were decreased from jj,pg,c,es in the originallysubmitted plans to pçs in the revised plans.

The number of guest spaces in City of Los Angeles were reduced to .25cars per unit, fh.riremnt by the City of Los Angeles AdvisoryAgency Parking Policy AA 2000-I

In addition, the Applicant’s traffic engineer based his calculations on theCity of Los Angeles Guest Parking requirement of .5 cars per unit(Exhibit C).

Lastly, the MND predicated its approval on 14 guest spaces not 8.(Exhibit C)

LA Parkbig Spaces Were Reduced In Size

Standard-sized parking spaces in the Los Angeles portion were reduced insize to 8-1/2’ x 18’. Stated differently, the size oftheparking spaces inLos Angeles wilt be less than those in Beverly Hills.

In the originally submitted plans, all of the standard-sized parking spaceswere 9’ x 19’, the minimum requirement in the City of Beverly Hills.

* * * *

It should also be noted that the number of handicap parking spaces werereduced from 3 to 2.

It would seem that the only way for the Applicant to satisfy the parkingrequirements of both cities, under the re-designed submittal, is to add another floor ofsubterranean parking,

PLANNING COMMSSION/MA YER - 09/17/16 PAGE 3

Then, the issue of the unit owners in the City of Los Angeles using land in theCity of Beverly lUlls to satisfy City of Los Angeles parking requirements wouldbecome moot.

MASS I SCALE

In comparing the original and revised pians, the metrics are very similar.

Floor Area

In the originally submitted plans, the total “floor Area” is listed assquare feet.

In the revised plans, the “FtoorArea” is defined as 59,563 square feet.

jgt

Despite eliminating the lofts, the jght is the same, at 59’ll” in the City of LosAngeles.

The height in the City of Beverly Hills has been reduced from 40’ to 39’, with therequested modulation.

Adjustment Vs. Variance

Of major significance, the revised plans note that its floor area is calculatedthrough a “Habitable Area Allowed With 20% Modification.”

A 20% Modification (increase) to the “Habitable Area” constitutes a variance inthe City of Los Angeles. A request for a variance requires a far greater scrutiny and afurther degree of review by the Lead Agency, the City of Los Angeles.

The MND approved only a 10% “adjustment”, not a 20% “variance.”

Size

It would seem that the project is virtually the same size. The direction of theCommission on October 8, 2015, however, was to substantially reduce the project.

The South Elevation provides a perspective of the Mass / Scale:


- -.

H ri- (!_)E bL t

H I [V ‘1

:: z

Open Space — Los Anetes

In the Los Angeles portion of the property, the Applicant seems to be using theEncroachment into the setbacks to satisfy the open space requirement, for the North andSouth Courtyards (Exhibit D).

If the North and South courtyards actually extend into the setbacks, there is apublic safety issue. The 9’ to 10’ of concrete on the North and South side of the propertyis a potential defensive staging area for the fire department, in fighting a fire.

Open Space — Beverly Hills

In the originally submitted plans, Unit 20 had a Bedroom, a majority of the LivingRoom, and one (1) small balcony situated in the City of Beverly Hills.

•1

[ir:1T r:I; llr;

IJC)

OPEN SPACE

To satisfy the open space requirements, the revised plans raise issues:

PLANNING COMM$$ION/MA YER - 09/17/16 PAGES

In the revised plans, Unit 20 has a 147 sqft terrace is situated in the City ofBeverly Hills. There is no living space of the unit in the City of Beverly Hills. (ExhibitE).

for all intents and purposes, Unit 20 is a City of Los Angeles unit, which justhappens to have a terrace in the City of Beverly Hills.

The revised plans, however, use this unit to safisiS’ one third of the “PrivateBalcony” requirements in the City ofBeverly Hills. Six of the seven units in City ofBeverly Hills have “private balconies,” with three of the six being 60 sqft, and theremaining two being 78 sqft each.

HISTORICAL ISSUES

Master Architect

On October 14, 2015 the Cultural Heritage Commission recognized EdithNorthman as a Master Architect. Miss Northman designed two of the three buildings.

Third Historical Survey — Information Withheld

On August 1st, it was discovered that Planning Staff in the City of Los Angelesdid not reveal the existence of a third historic survey to the public and/or appointed andelected officials.

An article about the episode and a copy of the SurveyLA document are found inExhibits F & G.

Qualification of Applicant’s Historical Consultant

In last October’s Public Hearing, the Applicant’s attorney stated:

‘The National Park Service Secretary of lnteria?s qualifications for architecturalhistorians. thats the standard thats used by neatly every city and state in thiscountry.” (Page 40 of the Transcript)

The problem is that neither the Applicant’s firm, nor its consultant, possess theprofessional requirements to perform such expert work.

The qualifications to be listed by the City of Beverly Hills for HistoricPreservation Planning is vastly different from acting as an Historic Architect:ttp://www.beverlyhills.org/cbhfflesJstorageIfilesJ1 739258720898620354/B[ilIRAllDisciplines-ConsuhantListFNAL2-20 1 6.pdO


On the face of it, by the standards as set by the National Park Service Secretary ofthe Interior, Kaplan Chen Kaplan, and its consultant, a former mayor of Santa Monica, isnot qualified to consult upon Historic Preservation Planning in the City ofBeverly Hills.It should also be stated that the City of Los Angeles also follows ‘Wationat Park ServiceSecretaiy ofInterior qua1fications.”

A specialist in one area cannot be considered an expert in another specialty.

While the consultant clearly possesses some practical, professional experience,the biography for her current council position in the City of Santa Monica does not list agraduate degree in “history or closely related field” or “architectural history, art history,historic preservation, or closely related field.”

It can thus be posited that since two independent, qualfled consultants, actingalone, deem that the nine properties on the east side as a Potential Historic District, that,in fact, that might be the case.

DISCREPANCIES

There are issues that would seem to need to be resolved by the City of LosAngeles, even if the approval is made in the City of Beverly Hills.

Guest Parking reduction from 14 spaces to 8 spaces

Setback Encroachment for the North and South courtyards

“Habitable Area Allowed With 20% Modification” constituting a variance

DIRECTION OF COMMISSION

The direction by the Commission on October 9, 2015 was unambiguous.

Some excerpts by the Commissioners:

Commissioner Gordon “I must say that quite frankly I am very(Page 43) impressed with the unique nature of this

particularly block. There is really no otherblock in the general vicinity that I’ve drivenup and down that Ifeel has the nature ofthis particular block. When I look at theparticularfindings in terms of the tentativetract map whether the sIte physically issuitable for this type of development, I sayno; whether the site is physically suitable

PLANNiNG COMMSSION/MA YER - 09/17/16 PAGE 7

for the proposed density, Isay definitelyno.,,

Commissioner Corman “I think the project needs a major overhaul(Page 42) and not just minor adjustments, not just a

nip and tuck notjust what’s been donepreviously. It should hove a reduced heightnot just in Beverly Hills but in Los Angelesbecause that’s what we see from BeverlyHills.

“I’m not saying it has to be two stories allthe way through but certainly, its currentheight envelope is a nonstarter in myview.”

Vice Chair Shooshani “I think you have to reduce the height of it(Page 49) to something manageable or to keep it to

40 feet unifiedfor the entire thing. Otherthan that, he (Commissioner Corman) saideverything that had to be said.”

Chair Block “I think the character of the neighborhood(Page 49) is really important. I walk the street at

like Commissioner Craig Corman said everystructure on the east side of the streetexcept the corner at Alden is a two-storystructure. It has a unique character. I don’tknow if it’s a historical, cultural aspect ofthe project but if we didn’t have discretion

I you wouldn’t be required to come before: the planning commission. The fact that it’s

code compliant in Beverly Hills doesn’tmean it gets approved. We still have the

: discretion and I think the mass scale of thisbuilding is just too big.”

Ad Hoc Committee

As to the Ad Hoc Committee, while I was not in attendance, I was concerned as toa sufficient difference of opinion of what occurred to raise the is sue during Audience

PLANNING COUMSSION/MA YER -09/17/16 PAGE 8

Comments before the City Council on April 19, 2016, A script of such comments areseen in Exhibit H

The direction of Council was for the City Manager to provide a “briefmg” memoto the Council. it is not clear if that occurred.

It should also be pointed-out that the expectation of the Ad Hoc Committee wasfor the Applicant to meet first with the Committee, before submitting interim designs.That did not occur.

That the revised plans were submitted for the first meeting after CommissionerCorman’s term ended naturally raised suspicions. Commssioner Corman was explicit ofhis (and the Commission’s) expectations at last October’s hearing:

Commissioner Corman “ I don’t want you to spin your wheels, so I(Page 51) don’t want you to spend your money and

spin your wheels doing something whichwon’t satisfy me and if it won’t satisfy theother members of the commission then Idon ‘t see any point in doing that,”

Thus, if the Applicant attempts to raise the issue that he has spent considerablesums from October to now, it should be emphasized that he was forewarned multipletimes, and he could have returned multiple times to the Ad Hoc Committee.

CONCLUSION

While modulation was achieved in the front portion of the property, the redesignis basically same size, same number of units, virtually the same height in both cities.

There are significant discrepancies relative to parking and other land use issues.Such discrepancies are sufficient to raise the questions as to all aspects of the re-design.

In such light, since the re-design is inconsistent with the direction of theCommission of October 8, 2015, as community member Joe Syseskey (Exhibit A)requests:

u urge the City of Beverly Hills to reject the revised design in total,and not to allow this proposal to be continued.

PLANNING COMMSSION/MA YER -09/17/16 PAGE 9

ttWe have been living in uncertainty for too long: it is time to sendthe final message to the developer that this proposed project doesnot work for the site.”

Exhibits:

A Community Member Letter (9/15/16)

B Parking Diagrams

C Excerpt: Traffic Engineer Letter (1/29/14)Excerpt: Determination Letter (2/03/15)

D North and South Courtyards

E Unit 20

F SurveyLA

G Article: Beverly Hills Courier (8/12/16)Article: LA Business Journal (10/19/15)

H Audience Comments (4/19/16)

I Transcript: Public Hearing (10/8/15) [322-336 North Oakhumt]

EXHIBIT A

COMMUNITY MEMBER LETTER (9/14/16)


September 14, 2016

Andre SahakianAssociate PlannerDepartment of Community DevelopmentCity of Beverly Hills455 North RexfordBeverly Hills, California 90210

RE: 332-336 North Oakhurst[Proposed Project: 31-Unit Condominium]

Dear Mr. Sahakian:

“What is this dreckT

That was my first impression of the redesign, but not my last.

The redesign of the proposed condominium is not better for me, butworse.

I have owned and resided in the property adjacent to the proposed project,since 1968. My home is a single-story, two-bedroom stucco cottage/bungalow,situated on a 45 by 50 foot lot. My home faces West 3rd Street and has a 12 by45 foot backyard I patio in back. My backyard area is used for gardening, dining,entertaining, and/or relaxing.

Any hopes of privacy are now gone.

While the relative number of windows are the same, the type of windowshave changed. Before, they were designed for entry light. Now, their purpose isto be able to view the world.

Before, there were no balconies; now there are nine on the Los Angelesportion of the property on the South Elevation, all of which can oversee all threeproperties on Third Street.

Mr. Andre SahakianDepartment of Community DevelopmentCity of Beverly HillsSeptember 14, 2016Page 2.

There are no mitigation measures that can be employed to protect myand/or my neighbors’ privacy, without decreasing the marketability of theredesigned condominiums.

I am also concerned about additional balconies being incorporated whenfinalizing the design and/or being erected either during the construction.

Based upon the track record of the developer on this property alone, Ihave no faith that he will honor any conditions imposed by the City of BeverlyHills.

Lastly, the concerns relative to sunlshade and air circulation are evenmore heightened.

I urge the City of Beverly Hills to reject the revised design in total, and notto allow this proposal to be continued.

We have been living in uncertainty for too long; it is time to send the finalmessage to the developer that this proposed project does not work for the site.

I will not be able to attend the hearing, due to my advanced age of 87years young; I would like to say that I am too busy because I will be gardening aunatural in my back yard, but the image of that might cause heart attacks! Let’sjust say, instead, I am a young of heart and mind and just wish to live my life inpeace.

Sincerely,

Joseph W. Syseskey

Enclosures:

(I) Side Perspective — Revised Design

I•‘

_____

kç

rj

th

11j

fIlliL

4wLr1

‘r

4F

.—

r:itZ

1iii

i

‘p’;ELI

__

_

WI

EXHIBIT B

PARKING DIAGRAMS

ALLEY

OAKHURST DR

UPPER LEVEL PARKING. P2

Ua

3—

Ii-

-4

—,,

I-a)D

II

I..

I,9

-;;

aU

•d.4

a.

w_1-J

_i

=‘

.1

p-4

R

4.-

i-fr1

EMIIBIT C

EXCERPT: TRAFFIC ENGINEER LETTER (1/29/14)

EXCERPT: DETERMINATION LETTER (2/03/15)

ARTHUR L KAS$AJ%4 PE.Consulting Traffic Engineer

January 29, 2014

Mr. Ryan GolichAssociate PlannerCommunity DevelopmentCity of Beverly Hills455 N. Rexford DriveBeverly Hills, CA 90210

Subject: Proposed Residential Development332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive

Dear Mr. Golich:

At the request of Mr. Bijan Vaziri, Senior Transportation Engineer for the City, I haveprepared the following letter to provide you with information about the transportation andparking issues related to the proposed condominium development at the aboveaddress. The issues that I have addressed are those about which Mr. Vaziri expressedinterest.

Project Description and Setting

The proposed development will consist of 31 condominium dwelling units. It will replacebuildings with 17 apartment units already on the site.

The site of the proposed development is 0.53 acres in area and is located on the eastside of Oakhurst Drive, north of Third Street. A two-way alley forms the easternboundary of the site. Multiple-family houses are located immediately north and south ofthe site. The Beverly HilisILos Angeles City limit line runs north-south through the site,approximately 43 feet east of the Oakhurst Drive right-of-way line. Approximately 28%of the site area is within Beverly Hills, and 72% of the area is within Los Angeles.

Parking for the new development will be provided in two subterranean levels. A total of82 spaces are planned —68 spaces for residents, and 14 spaces for guests. Thosequantities will satisfy the Municipal Code requirements of both cities, as follows:

• City of Beverly Hills —7 units at 2 or 3 resident spaces per unit = 20 spaces7 units at 0.25 guest space per unit = ...spaces

22 spaces

• City of Los Angeles —24 units at 2 resident spaces per unit =48 spaces24 units at 0.50 guest space per unit = j spaces

60 spaces

Telephone 5105 Cimarron Lane FAX(310) 558.1)808 Culver City, CA 90230 (3 tO) 558-1829

VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70499-CN PAGE 27

any Specific Plan requirements, the proposed project will meet the height, sideyard setback, parking, garage, tree ratio, and articulation conditions specified Inthe ‘0. Moreover, the development will provide 68 parking spaces and 14 guestparking spaces in conformance with the L.A.M.C. Advisory Agency’s policy forresidential condominium projects. As conditioned the design and Improvementsof the proposed project are consistent with the applicable General and SpecificPlans. As conditioned, the design and improvements of the proposed project areconsistent with the applicable General and Specific Plans.

As prevIously mentioned, the property sits within the boundaries of the City ofBeverly Hills for a lot depth of approximately 46 feet. The portion within BeverlyHills Includes the primary frontage, together with the sidewalks and the adjoiningparkway, street trees, and skeet lights. The project’s design has been reviewedby the City of Beverly HIlls on at least t, occasions. In a letter dated September15, 20ff, planning staff for the City of Beverly Hills reviewed the ConceptualReview application for the originally proposed 37-unit project, discussing therequIred entitlements, fees to be paid, and provided a series of recommendationsto update the plans, by providing clarity on open space calculations, setbacks,and parking, to name a few. It also provided requirements Intended to addressstreet trees, fire, storm water, traffic, and building and safety Issues. Aside fromarchitectural review, development review and an R4 permit for parkIng andpaving, no other entitlements were listed as being required, and aside fromtraffic, no other Issues were raised by the City of Beverly Hills relative to projectimpacts. In a November 20, 2013 report to the Architectural Commission, BeverlyHills planning staff presented the project to Architectural Commission as “wellarticulated with appropriate massing, modulation, and fenestration”, providing uagood use of color variation and horizontal banding,” and requesting that theapplicant present a night rendering for purposes of understanding the“streetscape context of the building in both day and evening hours.”

The project meets the regulations of the underlying zone, land use designation,and the ‘0’ conditions relative to the development of the site. Moreover, whilepreliminary reviews of the design by the City of Beverly Hills are preliminarilyfavorable, a condition has been included herein requiring that the applicant seekthe necessary entitlements to satisfy the public improvements to develop withinthat portion within the jurisdiction of the City of Beverly Hills.

fc) THE SITE IS PHYSICALLY SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED TYPE OFDEVELOPMENT.

The site Is currently developed with three existing apartment buildings. The site isdesignated for High Medium Residential Density by the Wilshire Community Planwhich allows for a density of 400 square feet per dwelling unit The 23,165square-foot site would allow a maximum of 57 residential units. As proposed, the31-unit residential condominium project is well below the maximum permitteddensity. The development of this tract is an infihl of an otherwise multiple-familyneighborhood.

The site is level and is not located in a slope stability study area, high erosionhazard area, or a fault-rupture study zone.

EXHIBIT P

NORTH AND SOUTH COURTYARDS

H

IC11

SOtflNCOtF1VARD

4W SF

F

t I It

NORTh

sae SF

EXHIBIT?

UNIT 20

REVISED

ORIGINAL

EXHIBIT F

SURVEY LA

Wilshire

Historic Districts, Planning Districts and Multi-Property Resources— 01126/15

Name: Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District

Description:

The Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District is a small multi-family historic district along the east side ofNorth Oakhurst Drive, at the boundary between Beverly Hills and Los Angeles (the primary façades of the buildings and thewest side of the street are In Beverly Hills). The residential district includes parcels along the east side of North OakhurstDrive, just south of Alden Drive to just north of West 3rd Street. The topography of the district i5 flat; it has a regular,rectilinear Street grid pattern. Lot sizes are modest, and properties have uniform setbacks with front lawns, concretewalkways and detached garages. The detached garages are reached via an alley behind the properties. Historicallydeveloped as a single tract, the district has original sidewalks, curbs and mature jacaranda trees. All nine properties arecontributors to the district.

The dominant period of development for the district is 1930 to 1939. The district con5ists of two-story duplexes, fourplexesand apartment houses predominantly in the Spanish Colonial Revival or Minimal Traditional style with Monterey Revival andAmerican Colonial Revival style features.

Significance:

The Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District is significant as an excellent example of a 1930s multi-familyresidential neighborhood In the Wilshire CPA, and as an excellent concentration of Period Revival architecture. The districtretains original tract and automobile-related features, Including concrete sidewalks and curb cuts, mature jacaranda treesand detached garages. Residences within the district retain their original plans, massing, scale and character-definingfeatures from the Spanish Colonial Revival or Minimal Traditional (with American Colonial Revival or Monterey Revivalfeatures) style. Of the Oakhurst Drive Multi-Family Residential Historic District’s nine houses, 100% contribute to its

significance.

The district was originally subdivided in 1922 by the Rodeo Land and Water Company. The eastern part of the tract is locatedIn the City of Los Angeles, while the western part is located in the City of Beverly Hills. Initial development of the tract,including grading of the land, road paving and installation of sewer lines, was presumably carried out by Rodeo Land andWater; parcels were then sold to individual property owners to build on. Notable archfted S. Charles Lee designed theresidence at 344 North Oakhurst Drive. No evidence was found regarding marketing of the subdivision. The period ofsignificance for the historic district is 1930 to 1939, which captures its major period of development and the time duringwhich all of its buildings were constructed.

t,

UPnrnn

Page 383 of 1035 11

Wilshire

Historic Districts, Planning Districts and Multi-Property Resources— 01/26/15

_________

LA.U..

Context 1:

_H__

H HALDEN DR

I I —OakhurstL L MultiFarniIy

Historic Di

— 8

3RD ST

H1flContext: Architecture and Engineering, 1850-1980

Sub context: No Sub-context

Theme: Housing the Masses, 1880-1975

Sub theme: Period Revival Multi-family Residential Neighborhoods, 1918-1942



Criteria: q3/3Status code: 35;3C5;553

Reason: Excellent example of a Period Revival multi-family residential neighborhood in the area. Prominentstyles include Spanish Colonial Revival, Monterey Revival, and Minimal Traditional with AmericanColonial Revival influences.

Context 2:

Context: Residential Development and Suburbanizatlon, 1850-1980

Sub context: Multi-Family Residential Development, 1910-1980

Theme: Multi-Family Residential, 1910-1980

Sub theme: Multi-Family Residential District, 1910-1980



Criteria: C/3/3

tial

Page 384 of 1035 Copy.4ehI C WJ1

Wilshire


Status code: 3S;3CS;5S3

Reason: Excellent example of a 1930s multi-family residential district containing a mix of multi-family propertytypes, from triplexes to apartment houses.

Contributors/Non-Contributors:

Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



332NOAKHURSTDR

Contributor

1931



334 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1930



I 4.-

‘p

Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



336 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1930



Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



338 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1939

Residential-Multi Family; Triplex


Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



340 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1930



IL14$

Page 385 of 1035 Copy.ght C Zen

Wilshire


Primary Address:

Type:

Year built



342 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1939



-.

Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



344N OAKHURSTDR

Contributor

1937



Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



348 N OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1936



f:L

_______

F

Primary Address:

Type:

Year built:



346 S OAKHURST DR

Contributor

1936



tLL

cI

Page 386 of 1035 C

EXHIBIT G

ARTICLE: BEVERLY HILLS COURIER (8/12/16)

ARTICLE: LA BUSINESS JOURAL (10/19/15)

Opening Brief in 332-336 NorthOakhurst Drive CEQA LawsuitReveals LA. Planning Knew OfHistoric Significance

fly Victoria TaibotBrad The opening arguments in

Parks a California EnvironmentalBi. Quality Ad (CEQA) lawsuit for

three

buildings located in bothLos Angeles and Beverly Hillswere filed last week. The wasfiled last year to request aCEQA review to evaluate theproperty for its historical significance, among other issues.

Concerned Citizens ofBeverly Hills/Beverly Grovefiled the brief in support of aPetition for Writ of Mandamusunder the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act inthe California Superior Court

it the City of Losid to disclose, mit-

adequately analyze215 of its decision tothe proposed condo

project.Among the concerns is the

nature of the nine buildings onthe east side of North OakhurstDrive that may form a potentialHistoric District.

The buildings located at332-336 N. Oakhurst constitote one third of the historicdistrict.

The project proposal Is fora 31 unit, 5 story condominium project greenlit by LAwhen the Beverly Hills CityCouncil declined to file anappeal on Feb. 12 last yearbefore the Los AngelesPlanning Commission.

At that meeting, BeverlyHills Senior Planner RyanGohlich (now AssistantDirector of City Plannin& pmvided an Incomplete summaryof the project that minimized

City Sets August 24 Date ForParcels 12 & 13 MaintenanceMeeting At Library AuditoriumBy Maft Lopez

As the fallout from a treecutting incident on toxic,arsenic1aced soil on privately-owned Parteis 12 & 13 inBeverly Hills continues, thCity has announced a community meeling on Aug. 24.

The parcels are two stripsof land north of Civic CenterDrive, between the BeverlyHills Civic Center and the border of West Hollywood. Thepropelty has elevated levels ofarsenic.

The meeting comes on theheels of the land owner,Beverly Hills Land Company,announcing maintenance workas part of the company’scovenant and agreementregarding landscaping, fencingand maintenance of vacantproperties in the City.

dalewN wee hily Kite Farmers’ Market.

nPdeTharpdz.

rthe

—

• ‘‘ i ]I2,-. .:

________

2016 OlympIc Games Spotlight Zika Fears

n left):Mark Ms._n and

By Kate MacCaryThe Zika virus has been

challenging public health officials since 2015 as scientistsrace to find a vaccine. Thespotlight has been particularlystrong this past week with thestart of the 2016 SummerOlympics in Rio and news thatthe U.S. marked Its first Zikalinked death when a Texasnewborn died From microcephaly.

Carried by infected Aedesspecies mosquitoes, the virus isspread both from that Insectvector as well as from intimatehuman-to-human contact.

For Beverly Hills mother oftwo Romi Azevedo, who hasbeen enjoying this year’sOlympic games with her family in Brazil, fears surroundingZika have amplified In concertwith travelling to a region thathas been heavily affected bythe virus

“While we are less con

cerned here in Rio Fbecause it’s winter and notmosquito season, mycams are now aboutventing my children Ibitten in the U.S. asstill don’t know enotabout Zika dormancyits future impact,”said.

The Centers forDisease Control andPrevention CCDC) reportsonly mild symptoms inadults with 80 percentbein as m tomatlc For FAMILYunbo°rn c?iicfren however Marcos Azevedo enjoy theth ‘2Ol6SmmerOlympicainRlawiththair

taringe can e as- kfrse Core end Cab.

The CDC’s current guide- According to CDClines emphasize protective spokesperson Tom Skinner,measures for women who plan children who travel to affectedto give birth in the shortterm, areas are not expected to faceincluding recommendations future complications as a resultthat pregnant women whose of exposurepartners travel to affected “Based on the scienceregions use condoms for the available to us right now, weduration of the pregnancy. (i.e DCA pege 13

the concerns of the immediatecommunity that the propertyhad significant historic value,leaving council members baffled as to why they were calledto the special meeting in thefirst place. Then-mayor LillReese was not present at themeeting.

The property was built in1927 by Edith Northman,described in contemporaryaccounts as “Los Angeles’ onlyfemale architect,”

Currently listed amongBeverly Hills’ MasterArchitects, the City of WestHollywood and the NationalRegister of Historic Places inthe North Harper AvenueHistoric District have prominently recognized Northman’scontributions.

“The North OakhurstResidential Historic District issignificant as a notable concentration of Period Revivalstyle multi-family residencesfrom the 1 930s,” said a reportfrom the Historic ResourcesGroup for the City of BeverlyHills. “Various local architectsand builders contributed to thedistrict’s significance, makingthe North Oakhurst ResidentialHistoric District a cohesiverepresentation of PeriodRevival style multi family reeldences.”

Through the release ofover 3,000 pages in aCalifornia Public Records AdRequest, (PRA), it appears thatLos Angeles Planning officialsfailed to disclose a similarhistoric assessment prepared

(a ‘OAIWURSr page 50)Beverly Hills Staffers Get Stray Cat Hit By CarBack On His Feet; Seek Forever HomeBy Maft Lopez

A stray cat that found itsway to Beverly Hills City Hailon Friday is now looking for apermanent home

City Hall was just closingFriday when a customer raninside the building, announcing to the City’s permit deskthat the cat had been hit by acar on Rextord Drive.

A couple of Beverly HillsPolice Officers, some goodSamaritans, and City staffers,including Karen Myron, headed outside and found thescared kitty hiding inside somebushes.

After getting him in a box,the cat now named ‘LuckyFrank” - was taken to theAmanda Foundation to getchecked out. Tests revealedthat aside from some swellingon his head, there were no broken bones or any significantinternal injuries.

Lucky Frank is “eartipped”, which usuallydenotes that a feral cathas been sterilized, butBill Crowe of The PetCare Foundation, whovisited with LuckyFrank after theaccident, said he isdefinitely not feral.

“He’s rriendly andaffectionate. I had theopportunity to meetLucky Frank, and hecouldnt be cuter orsweeter. He purrs loudly, loves affection, andwould be a great campanion for anyone - the —

perfect Tuxedo Kitty” “ -

Several City honi after b.ki ii

employees chipped in Y Hallto cover the cost to get Lucky seeking a loving, forever home.Frank, who is approximately Anyone interested in10 months old, beck on his adopting Lucky Frank canfeet. He was scheduled to head email info@ihecatsmeowanito a foster home today, but is malrescue.wg

The work, which includestrash and debris removal, irrigation repair, tree and bushtrimming and fence repairs, isscheduled to take placebetween Aug.29 and Sept 23.This work, the City said in apress release, has beenapproved by the City in addition to the Department of ToxicSubstance Control (DTSQ.

The community meeting,which will include representatives from the City and DTSC,is set for Aug.24 at 7pm. inthe Beverly Hi115 LibraryAuditorium at 444 N RexfordDr.

Free parking is available inthe adjacent Civic Center parking garage. For more rnfomiation, visitwwwbeveriyhiils org/parcels I213.

back on the market Monday.There was no immediate comment

from either party involved in the negotiations.

Metropoulos, whose family ownsHostess Brands foods, lives next door tothe mansion on a property he boughtfrom Hefner in 2009 for $18 million.He was believed to have been planningto merge the two properties onceHefner’s tenancy ended.

Playboy Enterprises acquired the20,000-square-foot mansion, whichwas built In 1927, In 1971. Before thereported 5110 million figure wasagreed upon, the mansion had beenlisted far $200 million.

— City News Serv/ce

OAKHURSTlCeftn I9I

for the city by SurveyLA that could havesignificantly changed the response ofcity officials in both jurisdictions, andlikely bolsters the CEQA lawsuit claimthat the city failed to properly evaluatethe property.

As the lead agency on the project,the city of Los Angeles was expected tohead up a collaborative and transparentprocess to resolve issues between thetwo jurisdictions.

But the PItA reveals that SeniorPlanner Luci Ibarra and Deputy PlannerJae Kim failed to reveal the historicassessment to the LA Central AreaPlanning Commission Hearing, the LAPlanning and Land Use ManagementCommittee Hearing. LA CityCouncilman Paul Koretz’ office and theCity of Beverly Hills - though entailsshow they were aware of LA’s assessment of a duo jurisdictional potentialhistoric district as early as March 2014.

lbarra was notified by the projectapplicant’s agent, Matthew Hayden,who discovered the existence of thepotential historic district because lbarradirected him to the Office of HistoricResources (OHR) and Deputy ManagerJanet Hansen.

The City of Beverly Hills requestedthe historic assessment documents fromLA so they could have an opportunity tocompare it to the City’s own historic survey and review and comment on them,as Beverly Hills prepared its historicassessment.

On March 17, 2014, Gohlich wroteIbarra, “Thank you for confirming thatno action will be taken on the projectuntil a historic assessment is preparedfor the properties. Please keep me posted if anything else comes up in themeantime.”

On the same date, Matthew Haydenand Luci lbarra were cc’d on an emailfrom OHR’s janet Hansen that read:“Just as FYI the consultant is recordingthose addresses on Oakhurst as pad of apotential historic district which is thatblock. ..“

A series of emails in which lbarra,Beverly Hillt Planner Shena Rojemann —

who replaced Gohlith on the projectfollowing his promotion — and Haydendiscuss the potential historic district

prolonged requests for documentsresulted in an email from Goblidi onJune 14, 2014, to Ibarra that states,“Although ft Is articulated in Shena’slRojemannl lette I wsnted to be clearthat the City of Beverly Hills Is requesting that an EIR be prepared. . simplyadding a copy of our letter to the filewIll not achieve compliance withCEQA. At your earliest convenience,please confirm that the city of LosAngeles intends to prepare an EIR asrequired by CEQA.”

Several emails passed between thecities through Aug.2014 without resolving the issue. The city of Los Angeleshad completed its historic assessmenton jan. 26, 2015, but did not share itwith the City of Beverly Hills.

Emails from the PRA Indicate thatthere was no communication betweenthe cities for months prior to theissuance by the city of LA of the Letter ofDetermination on Feb. 2, 2015. Then,the City of Beverly Hills was informedthat the project had been taken off holdand was moving forward, and no EIRhad been prepared to address the historic issues.

The city of Los Angeles historic survey reads:

“The Oakhurst Drive Multi FamilyResidential Historic District is a smallmulti-family historic district along theeast side of North Oakhurst Drive at theboundary between Beverly Hills andLos Angeles,” reads the report. The dis -

trict, 9s significant as an excellentexample of a 1930s multi.family residential neighborhood. . . and as anexcellent concentration of PeriodRevivai architecture. . . Residenceswithin the district retain their originalplans, massing, scale and character.defining features from the SpanishColonial Revival or Minimal Traditionalstyle. Of the Oakhurst Drive Multi -

Family Residential District’s nine houses, 100-percent contchute to its signIficance.”

The Los Angeles and Beverly Hillshistoric assessments concur, but thatfact has only come to light as a resuTt ofa PItA by Concerned Citizens of BeverlyHills/Beverly Grove.

A response to the opening brief bythe developer is due by the end of themonth.

- BEVERLYHILLSC0URIERIAUGUSTI2,2Q16’

Z3.\/Efl Y H Pagalo

REALESTATh

__

The F,..,.. , .anhIan

Why The Playboy Mansion’s $110 MillionSale Fell Apart

A deal providing for a billionaire’sson to buy the Playboy Mansion in theHolmby Hills section of Los Angeles foraround $110 million has unraveled, itwas reported last week

Under the deal, Playboy founderHugh Hefner, 90, would have had theright to iive out his life at the mansion,even after the sale went through. Butthe prospective buye 32-year-oldDaren Metropoulos, wanted significantaccess to the property during Hefner’sremaining years, and Playboy felt hewas being unreasonable, the celebritynews website TMZ.com reported.

The parties haggled for weeb, andthe deal fell apart Thursday nIght,according to IMZ.

The mansion is now expected to go

THE AGENCY

$7’t ‘\i)ISPI 71]) 7

10 ItO

+ LK4DE]? 3175mi i ioiv IN REALVOLUVESCE2O12 ESTATE

ORDINARY IS NOT r- OUR WHEELHOUSECREATIVE COLLABORATIVE MAYBE TOO MUCH FUN

(‘ILL 11)1) 1 J TO 1 I.I) 017’ 4$TI IL’ I - itt E OF 10(1? iioi ii; LLI0N

II ()\lit) l( kIi Hl\O\ II / 11111 l)k l\

te,r,.,dS ,,,,,

310 552 8200

INVASION OF ThE H)EOUSCOt4SThUCTION SIGNS — Constructionsigns le these, pictured above and sight, erapoppIng up sit over Bevedy Hilts and Bet-Airand B you’re not paying close enough alienban, ft’s hard to figure out whether Its Streetgraffiti or an actisi meaningful sign Thesephotos were snapped by a Bet-Air resident,near the ongoing, seemingly naver.enthsg

at 360 Stone Canyon and being conalluded by developer M&A Gabsee (Mark &Aiman Gabay). II you see signs Bra the onespictured In your community, snap a photo and ra-mail ft to myopin1onbhceurier.com.

‘I 35.347.5w.

-

I. -

Homes on LineIn Sister CitiesREAL 5TATE Beverly FliDsbalks on LAS-approved condos.By HANNAH MIET sifi qir1r

6 c Le ct wi Qte, bi rpc prr[nDapr Trr Mft d a

Ifr! uu 5? ii’r. 2Q3 fur thE1

mL i1mi1 rehtdby th hwdcr iwi Iv Hk Lc.An. Mi hur piqcd drrç ihi 3336 N, ii

innJc1 31 ii i1o AkinI IrrIm Ht[ & ir ti

k L’s . r1ith ti tunit ud - zwiaim21v trre. ziL p rfl A tli ti cir.

flgLk icrr:ffy 1niirprwcIi th pft9t äni[ dibi yu —

iCTOll 2i’ LS ANGELES US.?*ESSS1O(.WNAL

Real Estate: Condo Conversion Tough to Line Up(tir.ifii I

Fnua. The e,e;I !-[dk Pnuin:Ccmiiitijii.un the cher kind. aa

it afici teoe ihntr hriui pht hear

in (k trte2± of az, czrchi&niaL llrrci. Lhe cii rl- n-.inteai u awain1ia

on the coiidiioii z Moines ream aotk itha uhe nmico I.’ draatica!Lv c ffi.wt Lie

p5. %i1lifl it diy-sn ci ee if aruFtate pcijet . th.ieieiL,uk! R3inGohlidL a niui phi, nci tiic Beer1 Hit.

The uh,, ot he r*d deqioii* heneen the czurs

ft’, a1 thotBeerh fUUc’ .,ai1Bc’.rt) HtSLs Pbn‘wf,cr I.nriGreene Geoa a the[).‘is4’.- hi.w,ni ii’,nsr’ fnv’: cit the inLc

it ida’ scss end t

ieni cii lr.

I..—’ AI. he’s.a in shai s:i Mtdsh

Bescr1 if ill -i d,srdicrir

Ie1 Hi1B Vicr ta%lr Julia %liz1dr.is h., i nit in the pLicin cioa. akit00, a shot ai hi, Lur neihhoi

tv. n’ek hn a hec3inuj ctr, ofçispreirc for pohied‘hi seaLflie I.i tteo L) eped e has as’ heath&,eii• Hill. llnaLC te k’ v.otc ngb: hx

For a. Los t)iaeemen, atiti PLnie id6ftri isipii.

‘ ii it3 sta ur.’.,td piojeci

tha metai eotirio ru Ir,cars’ tait C1iHantier t.uciraJi Iherru

Not the nomt

II thelC’S 511% C.ii ifl it this hrand f dicC 1% as,, ilK fli3an

in m peneil.-e isith the ch. soiu,hccn C’Jithtr. ‘ah’- qncit iaasLane-,. therri LiUa% a

ainde eh’ui the tuid.tcs: pruccss. dDasid P. WalIst in u’;cr at Ceatrun Cs

Co cti %khstion islici 4t’;t;ait ssiJ, (‘dii ‘sali Em r’nme,d.ZI (atea4z1. cc CEQA. u.s sui! “WILil, pi-i1is2

the O*iu,s’ p’ity

stooie.t& ,ft’lopcr ssa ‘l1&Udd‘C r!s(ie.iled ii ic rna. furthe, eLicit iii

he eiLrkmcca tcsi he ,iuiL “But .sci

£ ,ca Bi ii ihe d,a ii hswdFbchcern-çc.licrthn rnarth iizsLb Li-

eaa sorete in risi r.so.eity drama miwndIn

di ftfC’ffliA cscth Hils neiabuthid rruql. after

i3i1m hi it ipc.ea! uL apmiel øf thepccjcct. filed a CEQA tacsiit aainr Lo’aMeIc. isi cuprriiic Con, aflcue thefc-kd to zi,or’ irxeIze aaflT O dir pr imheiijt d hidoi1

simfl..ancc c’f the dilapidated liii Id ngcor,swjckai b Edith Muie,rsen

‘s.xiluzzan. esho hiatt ,eeerel aa sr.gicms timisioi tr,uuis ft s :s iii Ut, Aflg&-. iiHCYtii4 Hit’- di ring il i’l)c. acecwthng t

the Las jiiler Camcc-vanc swrbetcPie CEQ. ui is as besltilol ii> uIi, ml it

I lieThc sttiiat an meic ciint,ice t’catse lot

a thte-bItzk sleek-h the buniex iie, nea

rim dssn the iiiiidk f the Street het Ci5

thtouh th hind,. itia mmiii a 1iciue tiwie.r Ojk]iur4 is in ttcscct Hifl . tie thehick ice, Lii,

t.ihutd i.f Micie a CJeLNar-t pccpctiin LicasAngeks. sshcre 1 oldie iI mats am pmpased ftcmclheutqails cit the pmsns liissithici ietj ‘ikin. Lus Aattit. na. iwal

11w mnimi.il le%)C% 01’ dieptnpams under CEQA ftc rasksi liisl die

cm Onkhia’4 nere rexNusihiuaas Luihlln ott &a,Jeasi nn.etsed

no ,,lflde! ignar cm, tier d if the araee cita Bin the rminhcvd ,

Ciuicn, iii Be,ej1 IlllLJBosccl) Gwse tedb Slese Maccr (ciho has a pom citt-e bos

Ui cvtta Hill’ hue iztu) Inns in

Las Aneeksm arnued ihei ii h.ai tim poanatail I:

he one. Ccineenind Citizena :Jairia. the swI -smnJun erura w idept fed a’ t

hice cjct,ct’ irs the .,tne te..n fue the2t’t4 IDsttni Rccmrte’ Sunc

è’ce heen a ted’s) nec sari irea dcccir’per in I.oi ,ri -•‘—

and iCc tics-ar been fr jj just tl-.ns 11thcite (sL.rj elm —

Ia a uL4lbkinaka and I

neirhh.’urhisod iv” cc

tce of iucip3d ha 1ttmtt doe-n’t ma -p’

,et thu Inor!.. Lrsr,ee’ea4 Is! ‘pt c’,,

seal the -ciqtnm- bull i wVia’ condric. Thompson

“lhesc d’a,,..sfC 1101 husmar,cai the. .jst iiotpt’ ol-.L saidMi,ijre-. tutu ii-... au i -.s flfin Ttinmnpsitncif !Llar Nirseb’. Irnija-. Ci f&e,

‘flic are in cuaesatd5replr Tl’e are notuputiaele Tbe ldenlhgeecutlldstia?acInmpaint a.. then. and do a criu conset,’olt 6tt.ir.kt. he.cle,’. mel luetitres -.

I ‘s.’seas plzrien taidaabictorieal

mfvcinioor ol suhsirns.e w precenled b&seri. Hilt, while it w sfmg ite emiron

rseaal .aialvcis•‘Bci. Hiui’i neser nina no ici.-sxd ictie a

nuoli heabijti,. district .aid vie eeset ec4Ina

tie, tlKnrieaniarthncthe a;zuwn.- restwa’soe11w lantbepcscll, ruçr frwa s,liidi de!nlrr.tl) ktstufyee nctew-tstrpuc’pie dun niiutti hac tuised it s a tesJ,aasxu.flsea ctisL ‘So an

Sc.hg bockThe lastie iii historical eirarkinee was leer.

impcirtnni Us the lkezty I4iIs Ptmnin

Comw.tiswcs then the jeans, of ac-ale. Planeth:C,mr.ahawr Cra1 Cornmi. nttrn tfpan of the sth.osnmkise arkkg aith tbties ci Ioreviic the pnajeet. cc.n much mitreonccrnoi nith the density of die pwlccc

cinch he s,tsd 6 usistetti ‘sith the ino,ei.rsci stx,s ,,i3dia-c on the sunotindinp huiczs.

Eru ii the area Ia ncr in a histone th,inct.that skesut meau its chiunmer shonjd&i be

lie califCnctn.ii cenfM .slrc’, protal nuitid lease,,

be ward dunsi, tic-eli) heftxr ii can heheioN hick to the ..sinuitlt’iOuIi He dii n.spoaifv bun diastically. sayun tht r neededs;hecori’ ,ieai e,thrhalftk5iso has tnu-utors bilithis. ?sttrse

prrpcnlnp fnoroasses,n the f3ecerh Hills sideL ‘.. Ihaea ceal a m.jcr changes to the

pkaz thai na, i!rjl1a pOineed to Los Am,’ele‘.i.itj eesWe lbs panttcs see, non there. Ian

Me.,wac. ‘ilos’-e ala, has dorcinped 2futhue .,a’th urjais in Los jaelea. is .iithleg ha piopem ci ..ecr ss’ttite be near, is,treurl uli tIle ciebciineriec in scan redraf,ini

a mat heHe teed Lu e,Jnil’r.c!iisa‘it • ten gsine to he the tondo sa,nsenaIsa

thnl s\ti;cr senas bncai’n. nninwall) v.:reset oril,e di.r aeppru based no shai

tie pr:d ear die meete,. and the Iii theaituijilt,.’ a:e fu:iirih v-bwk’4e,’ he

we cars alter the pLo to eniiedting softerdee Ii in lLb m imruneeaJ minds -

He ifnfnt tsmh hots mares’ nodes or an Capralfa.use

The frd uteetme ne’t haepem neW aReaN’eenthef. tJd Gctdis’h. ik Beseil) thu.

Moca. fin,c sneer prqsatns men I get

ceinnul zaeuttm. filed .inder Lb Ellis Art in Apt,of Lat3 cai a.’ ccic’ saaaaLc horit the rena-cUr.ti-Ic-si isiltIIi..s .is pan a ,nnnin ee’memjcs,

Lb Itinee ChJ.lun’e insstrnisrelan&’u fees ted efl mevcab 4euui

Vjsl, it mr ieismmaa sou fiwe am.

sc5l tti-ii%ae; Is-till H u..-scac,ha th,sceeinlfe truce taco sein he saul a,ident ib.,.he rs -L keel a prcal acrixpliarS scih c-talca 5 a.ng males ciiitd lace mt.dsoppos

it.si ‘i seitculi cdli a ha. bin ncser 11n5.uul,,.kse I,. mr. Escr

Bord- CrosIn Ocaido ojct that straddles Bevrty HUla and Los Angeles.

EXHIBIT H

AUDIENCE COMMENTS (04/19/16)

HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS:

MY NAME IS STEVE MAYER, AND I WOULD LIKE TOADDRESS AN ISSUE REGARDING TIlE OAKHURST PROJECT AT332-336 NORTH OAKHUR$T.

LAST TUESDAY, THERE WAS A MEETING Of ASUBCOMMITTEE Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHEREINTHE APPLICANT SUBMITTED REVISED CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGSFOR A PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT.

THE MEETING WAS NOT TAPED, AND SINCE I WAS NOTABLE TO ATTEND, I CANNOT TELL YOU PRECISELY WHATOCCURRED.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THERE IS CONSIDERABLEDIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS TO WHAT HAPPENED AT THEMEETING.

SOME BELIEVE THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE EFFECTIVELYAPPROVED THE REVISED DESIGN, AND IT CAN BE SUBMITTEDTO THE FULL PLANNING COMMISSION.

OTHERS BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT WAS TOLD THATHE COULD RETURN TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AT THE OPTION OfTHE APPLICANT.

WHAT I WANT TO DO IS PREVENT IS A REPETITION OF THEL’ERMITAGE SITUATION AT LAST THURSDAY’S PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING.

MORE SPECIFICALLY I DON’T WANT THE APPLICANT TOHAVE ONE EXPECTATION, THAT HE HAD AN APPROVEDREVISED CONCEPT, AND SPENDS A LOT OF MONEY BASED ONTHAT.

PERHAPS I’M BEING PRESUMPTUOUS, BUT I DON’TBELIEVE THIS ITEM NEEDS TO BE AGENDIZED.

INSTEAD, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, I WISH TO SUBMIT ADRAFT OF A LETTER FOR THE APPLICANT TO THESUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR.

THAT RE CAN CRAFT TO HIS LIKING, TO PROVIDESPECIFIC CLARIFICATION TO THE APPLICANT AS TO WHAT WASDIRECTED AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.

THE LAST THING I WANT IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPEND$30,000 TO $50,000 ON A COMPLETE SET OF DRAWINGS ON ANINCORRECT INTERPRETATION, BELIEVING HE HAD APPROVALOf THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

IF THAT OCCURS, IT CREATES LIABILITY TO THE CITY ANDAN IMPLIED OBLIGATION UPON THE PLANNING COMMISSIONFOR THE MISINTERPRETATION.

IN ADDITION, I WANT THE LETTER TO MADE CLEAR THATBEFORE THE APPLICANT RETURNS TO EITHER STAFF, ORAPPEARS AGAIN BEFORE APPOINTED OFFICIALS, THAT TIlEPROPERTY HAS TO BE MAINTAINED TO THE CITY OF BEVERLYHILLS STANDARDS FOR UNOCCUPIED PROPERTIES.

IT IS A CESSPOOL ON THE ALLEY, AND IT IS OVERGROWNTO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS THREATENING THE STRUCTURES.

If YOU WISH TO TAKE CONTROL OVER THIS MATTER,PLEASE FEEL FREE If THAT IS YOUR INCLINATION.

BY HANDLING THIS MATTER IN MY SUGGESTEDINFORMAL MANNER, HOWEVER, HOPEFULLY TIME IS SAVEDFOR OTHER MATTERS.

EXHIBIT I

TRANSCRIPT: PUBLIC HEARING (10/8/15)

t322-336 NORTH OAKRURSTJ

INDEX

TRANSCRIPT: OCTOBER 8, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING - 332-336 North Oakhust

COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS OF STAFF REPORT

Alan Block 10-12

Lori Gordon 4-7

Craig Corman 7, 9

Joe Shooshani 7-10, 12

COMMISSIONER OUESTIONS OF APPLICANT

Alan Block 21,23

Lori Gordon 17-18, 21-23

Craig Corman 19, 20

Joe Shooshani 19, 21, 23

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Alan Block 49-50, 51, 52, 53, 54

Lori Gordon 4243, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54

Craig Corman 43-49. 50, 51. 52, 53, 54,

Joe Shooshani 49. 51, 52, 53, 54

Alan Block: Now we’ll go to agenda item number 2 which is the 332-336 North Oakhurst DriveVesting Tentative Map and Development Plan Review. I will ask our associateplanner Cindy Gordon for a ... First before I do that, I’m going to ask have therebeen anyex parte communications. I’ve asked commissioners to express if they’vehad any ex parte communications with any party regard to this.

Joe Shooshani: Yes, I had. I know about this project for a couple of years because of a friend ofmine has a house in (inaudible 00:00:34] but it doesn’t have any effect on it. Also, Ithink I met one applicant once for a few minutes and I had no information to giveor get so that’s what happened.

Craig Corman: Let me add that back in December I had a meeting with Steve Mayer and RobertBlock about the historic preservation ordinance provisions and during that meetingI was made aware that they had an interest in this project. We didn’t discuss thisproject at all and obviously, I made no conclusions or decisions about the project atthat meeting.

Alan Block: Okay, and Lori Gordon.

Con Gordon: No.

Alan Block: I had a conversation with Steve Mayer where he just asked if I would provide thetelephone number of the city attorney which I provided him and there was nofurther communication regarding the project.

Cindy Gordon, may we please have a staff report?

Cindy Gordon: Thank you, Chair Block and fellow commissioners. The project before you today islocated at 332 to 336 North Oakhurst Drive. The request includes a vestingtentative tract map and a development plan review permit for a new 31-unitcondominium project.

Up on the screen we have an aerial photograph of the neighborhood. You’ll see inred is the project site. It does consist of three separate properties and if you cansee the green line, that currently is the city limits that bisects the property. Thewestern third of the property is located within the City of Beverly Hilts and it isBeverly Hilts street frontage and the eastern two thirds of the property is locatedwithin the jurisdiction of Los Angeles.

For purposes of reviewing the project in the context of the neighborhood and asoutlined in the staff report, the immediate neighborhood has been determined tobe those blocks of North Oakhurst Drive bounded by Beverly Boulevard to thenorth and Burton Way to the south. These are the primary thoroughfares in thearea that bound the neighborhood and so they were natural boundary areas to

look at. Additionally, there are different height districts north of Beverly Boulevardand along Burton Way. As such, the outlined area provided a natural area or anatural neighborhood by which to analyze and review the project.

This streetscape photograph shows the existing ... of the three existing buildingsthat are proposed for demolition as part of the project. YouiI see there are threetwo-story apartment buildings. Then as ... just some notes, as a property line doesbisect the project it is subject to multi-jurisdictional processing though it should benoted that the Beverly Hills standards are only applied to those portions that are inLos ... or Beverly Hills, excuse me, and vice versa for Los Angeles. However, thePlanning Commission is required to make specific findings which may take intoconsideration the entire project, even those portions that are located in LosAngeles to the extent that those portions relate back to the required findings.

Regarding the CEQA review, the determination of a lead agency is based on whichcity undertook review of the project first and as a majority the project is locatedwithin the jurisdiction of Los Angeles. They were the first to undertake that review.Accordingly, the City of Los Angeles is the lead agency and is responsible forpreparing the environmental review document. In this case, it was a mitigatednegative declaration and Beverly Hills is therefore a responsible agency and mustuse the environmental document that was prepared by the lead agency in theirreview.

You’ll see that this project has been under review for a number of years beginningin January 2012 with the most recent decision coming in April of 2015 when anappeal was denied by the Los Angeles City Council. In addition to that projecttimeline, there is currently a pending lawsuit against the City of Los Angelesregarding those rendered decisions however Beverly Hills is obligated to continueprocessing the application until such a time that a stay or injunction is ordered.

Then here is a site plan of the existing property as it currently is today. You’ll seethe two properties on the left hand portion of the screen are 336 and 334. Theywere developed around the same time. Then we have 332 to the right. Then here isa site plan of a proposed project. The hatched portion indicates a portion of thebuilding that’s located in Beverly Hills and the highlighted portion is the fullproperty segment that’s in Beverly Hills.

Then here we have a table that outlines the allowed or required developmentstandards for Beverly Hills in the second column. The third and fourth indicate theproposed standards and as currently proposed, a project does comply with allapplicable standards for both Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. Then up on the screenwe have two streetscape renderings for you to look at, one without trees at the topand then one with trees at the bottom, and this is just to provide an idea of howthe building may fit into the existing neighborhood and the streetscape context ofNorth Oakhurst Drive.

Then as previously stated, the current proposal does include a vesting tentative

beverlyhills_b38e2237-alf7-4250-9bec-453a01 1d67f7 Page 2 of 54

tract map which is requited for all condo projects that have five or more units and adevelopment plan review permit which is required for all condominium projectslocated within the City of Beverly Hills. Staff analyzed a handful of areas in ouranalysis and review of the project. The first being general plan consistency andthere are various policies in the general plan that would support the project andthat it complies with all development standards and is generally consistent with thesurrounding area, streetscape and neighborhood.

Though it is larger scale than currently existing, it’s often a challenge for newprojects as the development standards as they stand today allow for greaterdevelopment than what’s currently existing.

Regarding urban design and neighborhood compatibility, the step back in highlymodulated front façade helped to reduce any potential impact that may result frombulk and mass. Additionally, there have been projects developed In a similar scalealong the 300 and 400 blocks of North Oakhurst Drive in that previously defineneighborhood area and that follows with a privacy which is also reviewed and thereare additional setbacks provided in various locations on property.

This is primarily for the required outdoor space and while this may present aprivacy concern depending on how those areas are used, various conditions havebeen proposed to mitigate any potential light or noise spillover that may result.Then as far as traffic and parking, as previously stated the project does fully complywith all required parking for both Beverly Hills and Los Angeles and there arecurrently no curb cuts along North Oakhurst Drive for these three properties andnone are currently proposed as all parking, both resident and guest will beaccessed from a single ramp at the alley.

Then also based on a traffic city that was repaired for their project, there are nosignificant impacts that are anticipated for North Oakhurst Drive or West ThirdStreet.

Based on staffs analysis of the project, the recommendation of the report is toconditionally approve the project. However, as noted previously, there are anumber of topics for the commission to consider and discuss and analyze duringthe course of the review as they relate to the findings required for making adecision.

I did also want to make a note that correspondence that had been received sincethe September meeting and up till the current agenda’s publishing date has beenincluded in your packet. Additional correspondence has since been received, bothin support and in opposition to the project, and this has been provided to thecommission. Copies are available at the back of the room for those that areinterested. That concludes the report but as always we’re available for questions.

Alan Block: Thank you. Commissioner Gordon, any questions?

beverlyhillsb3 8e2237-a 1 f7-4250-9bec-453a01 1 d67f7 Page 3 of 54

Lori Gordon: I do. Okay, a few things. Regarding parking, there are ... as I read there were 82parking spaces in the entire building, 20 of which are Beverly Hills and 62 of whichare part of the Los Angeles part but I’m presuming that when it comes to guestparking, people that live in any of the units can use any of the guest parking, is thatcorrect?

Cindy Gordon: Yes, that would be correct.

Lori Gordon: How is the guest parking accessed by the guests?

Cindy Gordon: It would be accessed fully from the alley, same as the resident parking.

Lori Gordon: Is it a locked entrance or gated entrance and if so, how would that work?

Cindy Gordon: I believe there, it’s a secured entrance and there would be some type of buzzfeature or notification feature that they’re arriving.

Lori Gordon: They could buzz the unit they were visiting and they would presumably let them in.

Cindy Gordon: Yeah. I would look to the applicant to confirm that (crosstalk 00:09:18].

Lori Gordon: Okay, I will ask that question. Okay. If there are basically 12 guest parking spacesfor 31 units, what happens when other guests arrive? I drove on that street theother day and I noticed it was in the middle of the day, there were no parkingspaces so what is presumed that ... you say that’s adequate parking for the city butwhat other alternative things would the guest be doing, just parking on the streetor?

Ryan Gohlich: The building provides required guest spaces under the Los Angeles Code or the LosAngeles portion and then guest spaces under the Beverly Hills Code. That is the 12spaces as you noted. Any overflow beyond that would generally be accommodatedby the street which is typical for most multifamily properties.

Lori Gordon: Okay. Was there any consideration given to the fact that I don’t know what the sizeof the units were for the existing buildings. I’m familiar with those kinds ofbuildings. I’m assuming they were one and two bedroom units presumably.

Many of these are three-bedroom units. Is there any consideration in terms ofparking codes or how we approach parking? If you have a three-bedroom unit youcould very well have three to four cars that would be appropriate for that unit.How was that considered in terms of determining whether the parking isappropriate?

Ryan Gohlich: The Beverly Hills parking standards are based on the number of bedrooms in theunit. A studio unit requires one parking space. One-bedroom requires two parkingspaces, two-bedroom is two and a half spaces and a three or four bedroom is threespaces.

beverlyhills_b3 8e223 7-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 4 of 54

The Los Angeles code requires two spaces per unit.

Lori Gordon: Okay, so in other words the Los Angeles Code is not as adequate as the Beverly HillsCode?

Ryan Gohlich: The Los Angeles Code requires, generally if you compare the two, it requires fewerspaces for the units themselves but the Los Angeles code actually requires a littlebit more guest parking than the Beverly Hills Code does.

On balance, it’s almost awash between the two when you talk about total parkingspaces within the building.

Lori Gordon: Are any of these spaces tandem spaces?

Ryan Gohlich: Yes, there are tandem spaces.

Lori Gordon: The Los Angeles units, I understand can be compact car spaces but the Beverlycannot, is that correct?

Ryan Gohlich: That’s correct. Beverly Hills does not allow for compact spaces with the exceptionof a certain percentage of guest spaces can be compact but the unit spacesthemselves cannot be compact.

Lori Gordon: Okay. Now another issue is regarding the actual construction of the project, whatkind of jurisdiction does Beverly Hills have over the regulations that are .,. or theallowable times that Los Angeles allows for construction? I read in the packet thatLos Angeles allows for Saturday construction. I read that they allow for constructioncommencing at 7 a.m. How will that impact the residents in the community inBeverly Hills?

Ryan Gohlich: That is correct There are different construction hours in Los Angeles than inBeverly Hills and generally, those hours would control the appropriate portions ofthe project depending on when they’re located so there would be and this is againone of the nuances between being split, portions of the project in Los Angeles.They could work on potentially outside the hours of when Beverly Hills allows workprovided that all of the work is kept to Los Angeles.

Lori Gordon: Who monitors that?

Ryan Gohlich: That is usually through the building inspection process and then also on an asreported basis.

Lori Gordon: In other words, if someone is coming in on Saturday and constructing the part ofthe property that is behind that 20% or whatever, they can stand on the easternside of the building and construct but if they work over the western side somebodycan actually stop them and there is somebody that actually would ... That seems

beverlyhillsb38e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 5 of 54

kind of unlikely.

Ryan Gohlich: It’s a challenge but if identified then yes, that would be a violation.

Ion Gordon: Okay. Next, as far as traffic is concerned, how will the traffic be impacted by theaddition of the, which we have approved, of the office building at 325 Maple? Thatwasn’t, I don’t think that was factored in into the study because the study was doneprior to that. Is there any additional impact upon traffic that we should beconsidering?

Ryan Gohlich: That was, and what you’re referring to is we would consider to be more of acumulative type analysis when you look at other projects in the area.

Lori Gordon: Only from the standpoint that when we approve the Maple Drive Project, we wereunder the understanding that there would be some increased traffic that wasnegligible on Third Street. However, because there was some increased traffic onThird Street now that has to obviously impact other projects that are coming downthe line. I’m just asking since we didn’t take that into consideration and the staffreport says that traffic would be negligible, it seems to me that maybe that isn’tnecessarily the case.

Ryan Gohlich: That specific analysis was not prepared in that level of detail. What I would tell youis that the number of new trips that were generated by the post office project andalso the number new trips that would be generated by this project, the volume ofthose trips is well below what the thresholds are for a significant impact underCEQA so this gets to some of the differences where CEQA sets a very technicalthreshold about what’s an impact and it’s based on numerics and how many trips,percentage increases.

Whereas the findings that are required to be made by the planning commission arenot necessarily tied to the CEQA thresholds of what an impact is but ratherwhether they would be detrimental effects on the neighborhood. Not based on asmuch of a numeric standard.

Lori Gordon: All right. Now here’s another question. As far as all the properties since they’redivided up between Beverly Hills and Los Angeles on that entire side of the block,are all the children that live in those buildings allow to go to Beverly Hills schools?

Ryan Gohlich: As far of our work on the project we did reach out to the district office for theBeverly Hills School District and when we did we were informed that that buildingwould be eligible for all units to attend the Beverly Hills schools. They would berequired to pay the Beverly Hills school fees for the entire building when it’sconstructed.

I will just say that that is the information we received when we contacted thedistrict. The city does not have a jurisdiction over deciding who is allowed to go tothe schools and who isn’t so that’s the best information we have at this time but

beverlyhills_b3 $e2237-aI t7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 6 of 54

that could be subject to change in the future.

Lori Gordon: How would the prop ... because the property taxes in Beverly Hills determinedbecause we’re a basic aid district, it determines the funding for the schools, howwould the property taxes be divided. Does the portion that’s Beverly Hills go toBeverly Hills and Los Angeles go to Los Angeles or how was that handled?

Ryan Gohlich: My understanding is it gets split depending on where the boundary is and that it’s aproportional distribution but the city again does not have involvement orjurisdiction as far as dispersement of moneys so I don’t know the details of howthey work all of it out.

Lori Gordon: Could the school district presumably say we’re not getting enough money to fundthis basic aid students and therefore decide that they’re not going to allow them toattend the BHUSD or?

Ryan Gohlich: I believe the district has the ability to designate where its boundary lines are andthat would in turn determine who’s allowed to attend and who isn’t.

Lori Gordon: In other words they could say today that they could and then ultimately they’d saywe’re not getting enough money so we are not allowing the students to attend.That’s kind of what’s happening?

Ryan Gohlich: Presumably so but I don’t know the specifics of how they make those decisions.

Lori Gordon: Let’s see. You know what I think I’m going to leave with that, thank you.

Ryan Gob lich: Commissioner Craig Corman?

Craig Corman: I have only a follow-up question to Commissioner Gordon’s question onconstruction hours. Could we impose a condition on the project, the entire projectthat it would be only be ... construction only occur during the week between 9 andor S and 5 or whatever our normal hours are in the basis that instruction impactsdon’t end it at the city line.

I mean if they do work on Saturday, the impacts are fett in Beverly Hills.

David Snow: Yes. Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Ithink to the extent that thiscommission felt that type of condition of approval was necessary in order to enableit to make the findings, the required findings to approve the permit, I think it wouldhave the authority to impose that, that type of condition.

Craig Corman: Okay, thank you.

Alan Block: Vice Chair Joe Shooshani.

Joe Shooshani: How many rental units are we losing in Beverly Hills and how many condos are we

beverlyhills_b38e2237-aI f7-4250-9bec-453a01 1 d67f7 Page 7 of 54

gaining?

Ryan Gohlich: It’s an excellent question. We’re looking real quick. We have the project, the newproject in total 1531 units of that number seven of the units are either locatedentirely or partially in Beverly Hills so any time even a fraction of a unit falls withinthe Beverly Hills limits, we have counted that against the allowable maximum unitsthat could be built in Beverly Hills so seven units in Beverly Hills within the project.

Joe Shooshani: Are we gaining or losing?

Ryan Gohlich: The existing building has a total of 17 units.

Joe Shooshani: Thank you so much. You must be gaining.

Ryan Gohlich: I believe we are having a slight gain directly within Beverly Hilts.

Joe Shooshani: I read somewhere that buildings were built in the ‘30s, are the existing building atI was [inaudible 00:19:01) and I saw when I went there. Are they based on code

or not? Are they ... build the entireties, have been they updated since they werebuilt or not?

Ryan Gohlich: I believe there’s been maintenance and maybe a few upgrades here and there doneover the years but largely the buildings I believe were in there, they’re mostlyoriginal condition especially on the exterior.

Joe Shooshani: If this project is not approved, what happens to that building, do they have torebuild them or bring them it up to code or what?

Ryan Gohlich: If the buildings were to be occupied, they would need to be brought up to astandard for habitability or the property could be left vacant and it would need tobe fenced and maintained in accordance with our vacant building and lotprovisions.

Joe Shooshani: I see. How long has been vacant and ... you don’t know?

Ryan Gohtich: I would defer to the applicant as they have overseen the leases of the tenants.

Joe Shooshani: As far as the 30% that we have in Beverly Hills, are they building it by tight, are theyasking anything extra from us or the portion that is in Beverly is up to code and thesetbacks are all correct?

Does it need any variances or anything, the Beverly Hills portion I’m talking about?

Ryan Gohlich: The portion in Beverly Hills is fully code compliant, it does not require anyvariances. It does however require the discretionary review that’s before you todaythat is the development plan review which is required for any new condominiumbuilding in Beverly Hilts and it also requires the vesting tentative tract map which is

beverlyhillsb3 8e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 8 of 54

for the purpose of creating the air space subdivision which creates the individualcondo units

Other than that It is a fully code compliant building.

Joe Shooshani: As far as the visual effect and mass, we can only affect the portion in Beverly Hillsor we can also have any right or any say as our commission for the Los Angelesside?

Ryan Gohlich: The portion that’s in Los Angeles as you’re aware has already been approved by theCity of Los Angeles, by their city council on appeal The planning commission inBeverly Hilts does not have direct jurisdiction over the development that occurs inLos Angeles.

However, there are certain findings that you have to make in order to approve theproject that is in Beverly Hills to the extent that the portions of the building in LosAngeles affect your ability to make findings for the Beverly Hills side such as theway that the Los Angeles portion interacts or intersects with the Beverly Hills sideand how that relates to the building’s mass and scale as viewed from Beverly Hills,then you do have some ability to impose conditions on that if that is required inorder to make the findings.

Joe Shooshani: You said about the mass and height that the height, our height is 40 feet and we gofrom 40 to 60, the 20 feet height unit, that’s what they’re building basically withthe loft. Do we have any say on that or can we ask them to reduce it down, bringthe mass and scale down a little bit and make it more palatable?

Ryan Gohlich: If the commission were to feel that that jump in height created a transition thathad adverse effects on the appearance of scale and mass in Beverly Hills and youfelt that changes were needed to make the findings for approval then yes youcould.

Joe Shooshani: Thank you.

Alan Block: Yes, Commissioner Craig Corman.

Craig Corman: I have a question. Just following up on something that you mentioned, Mr. Gohlich.My understanding, correct me if I’m wrong, is that yes, the Los Angeles PlanningCommission approved the portion in Los Angeles but their approval on the projectwas contingent on our approval to project expressly, am I wrong?

Ryan Gohllch: You are correct. Their approval is contingent on the applicant obtaining all of thenecessary sign offs from Beverly Hills, and that it comply with all of the applicablezoning regulations in Beverly Hills. Well some of the zoning regulations in BeverlyHills say that you have to get approval from the planning commission first to theproject so until that approval happens the LA approvals are essentially not validbased on the way the conditions are written.

bever1yhiI1s_b38e2237-a1f7425O-9bec-453aO1 1d67f7 Page 9 of 54

Craig Corman: Okay. Thank you.

Joe Shooshani: I have one more question.

Alan Block: Yes, Commissioner Joe Shooshani.

Joe Shooshani: Can somebody explain what the court case is about because there was nothing inthere explaining the court, what was the cause of the case and where is it rightnow?

David Snow: First of all the lawsuit is filed against the City of Los Angeles, the City of Beverly Hillsis not a party to it but I believe it was based on CEQA grounds and the challenges tothe City of Los Angeles is decision on the project. It’s a petition for writ of mandateand so at this point the City of Beverly Hills is not involved in that litigation, thankyou.

Alan Block: Any other questions? Okay, I have some questions. First with regard to the CEQAreview. I take it there has been no revisions to the project since the mitigatednegative dec was approved, correct?

Ryan Gohlich: That’s correct. There have been no project revisions.

Alan Block: Okay. With regards to the project description of our job today and ourresponsibility, it says to consider the mitigated negative dec, what do we mean byconsider the mitigated negative dec and that it’s already been approved?

Ryan Gahlich: Although the mitigated negative declaration has already been approved it doescontain information on the environmental impacts as assessed by Los Angeles andso when we say for the planning commission to consider the mitigated negativedeclaration it is to consider the content of that document and how the informationregarding the environmental impacts affects your ability to make findings for theproject.

Alan Block: But as far as our jurisdiction with regards to have been any vote on the mitigatednegative declaration, that boat has already sailed, correct?

Ryan Gohlich: The planning commission would still need to adopt the mitigated negativedeclaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan but as far as theactual content of the mitigated negative declaration that is final as adopted by LosAngeles and that would be the content that the Beverly Hills Planning Commissionwould need to rely on.

David Snow: Mr. Chair if I can just maybe add a nuance to that.

Alan Block: Please.

beverlyhillsb38e2237-al f7-425O9bec453a0 11 d67f7 Page 10 of 54

David Snow: I don’t think that this commission is called upon to actually adopt the negativedeclaration again, it’s to consider what’s already been adopted and as Mr. Gohlichpointed out, I think a significant part of that consideration are the mitigationmeasures that were identified in which in the materials to this commission is asummary of those mitigation measures, how does would apply to the Beverly Hillspart of the project if this were to be approved, the recommendations that thosemitigation measures be imposed conditions on the project and the mitigationmonitoring reporting program for the Beverly Hill side of things be adopted.

Alan Block: Yes. But what I’m looking for is that we do not have the discretion to approve thenegative declarations, that’s already been approved, correct?

David Snow: It is already been approved. There’s very limited available to require supplementalenvironmental review and at this point from staff’s analysis we don’t believe thatthere’s the evidence necessary that would enable the City of Beverly Hills to requitesupplemental environmental.

Alan Block: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner? Okay, go ahead Vice Chair Joe Shooshani,

Joe Shooshani: As fat as the building of the building. If this project is sustainable, is it LEEDcompliance or what ate you ... either our part or the Los Angeles part, is there anysignificant environmentally, they’re doing something, they’re putting any solar orare they using sustainability stuff to build this or not?

Ryan Gohlich: I don’t have specific information from the applicant as to whether they intend tocomply with any of the LEED certifications. However, under the state’s currentbuilding codes we have adopted to the CALGreen Building code which doesestablish sustainability measures as well as energy conservation among otherthings and those would be the standards that they would have to comply with, justas any other new building would have to.

Alan Block: Okay, continuing now. With regard to the parking, if the entire building have beenlocated within the City of Beverly Hills, how many parking spaces would berequired?

Cindy Gordon: If we were located fully within Beverly Hills, there would be a total of 82 spacesrequired just for the residence with an additional eight for guests which is a total of90 parking spaces.

Alan Block: Right, now they have, total of 82?

Cindy Gordon: Eighty two inclusive of both residential and guest parking.

Alan Block: I believe that you stated earlier Ryan Gohlich that in Beverly Hills for a twobedroom unit we require two and a half parking spaces a unit?

Ryan Gohlich: That’s correct.

beverlyhlllsb3 8e2237a I 17-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 11 of 54

Alan Block: Okay. I have no further questions. Any other questions?

Joe Shooshani: One.

Alan Block: Go.

Joe Shooshani: Is the loft considered a bedroom or not?

Ryan Gohlich: I believe you’re referring to the lofts that are in the Los Angeles portion at the toplevel?

Joe Shooshani: Yes.

Ryan Gohlich: Under the Beverly Hilts code, again, the lofts are not subject to the Beverly Hillscode, we would likely consider them to be a bedroom. We consider any room thatcould be use as a bedroom in the customary manner that bedrooms are used to bea bedroom even if it’s not labeled as such.

In Los Angeles I don’t know whether it would qualify as a bedroom. However, in LosAngeles the parking requirement is based on the unit count rather than theindividual bedrooms.

Joe Shooshani: I see.

Alan Block: I have one other question regarding the street parking. There is permit parking onthat street, is that correct?

Male: Two-hour public parking.

Ryan Gohlich: Unless by permit.

Alan Block: Okay, so two-hour public parking unless by permit.

Ryan Gohlich: That’s correct.

Alan Block: Okay, with that, unless there’s any other questions which I don’t see, I will nowopen the public hearing on this matter. Does the applicant wish to be heard?

I assume the applicant wants to be heard.

Matthew Hayden: Yes.

Alan Block: Mr. Vaughn or?

Matthew Hayden: I’m sorry?

beverlyhills_b3 8e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 12 of 54

Alan Block: Would you please sit and state your name for the record? I can’t read thehandwriting on the card here.

Matthew Hayden: Good afternoon, my name is Matthew Hayden Hayden. I’m here on behalf of theapplicant and we have a PowerPoint for you.

Alan Block: Thank you.

Matthew Hayden: Okay, thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I’m here as the LandUse consultant for the applicant. We also have the rest of the applicant’s team hereincluding the representative for the ownership, the project manager, the architect.We have our attorney here, and we have a historic consultant as well so if there arequestions, our team is here and available.

But there were some things that we wanted to go through with regard to thisproject but first and foremost we want to say that we appreciate staffs review andsupport their recommendation that this project be approved. We think they’vedone a good job and we appreciate the report that they gave.

In terms of the project, some highlights. This is a housing project. It’s an infillhousing project and it’s important to understand what this project is about. It willpropose 31 units and as staff indicated there are entitlements that are requiredboth in Beverly Hills and Los Angeles. The Los Angeles entitlements have beenapproved and we’re here now for the Beverly Hills portion. It’s also important tounderstand that this project has a long history. Their project was originallyproposed in 2011 and it was originally proposed as a 37 unit project and four to sixstory in height building.

Our team has taken over the project application and we revised the proposal andthere’s now just 31 units proposed and a four and five story building. We reducedthe number of units and the height of the proposed building. As a housing project,we think it’s important to point out that it will provide new housing opportunities.New home ownership opportunities and it addresses housing issues in both theCity of Los Angeles and Beverly Hills.

Just as a little background on the housing situation which you may or may not havebeen following, this is a recent rental indicator, it’s a heat map from the companyZumper which is an online rental agency. They show housing average rents for onebedrooms all around the Los Angeles area but if you notice the Beverly Hillsaverage one bedroom rent it’s $2,340 a month.

The income needed to support that type of a rent if you followed the federalrecommendation of approximate 30% of household cost towards housing cost,would be $93,600 a year. The median county income is only $55,000 a year so thatcreates a rent burden pressure on households and the housing element for the Cityof Beverly Hills talks about that low income workers, 95% of them have to comefrom outside the city because there’s an issue with hou5ing.


There’s another indicator that has come out recently from the California legislativeanalyst which talks about housing prices in California overall. If you look at the topblue bar that’s the state of California with an average hou5ehold price of almost$450,000. If you look at the blue bar towards the middle, that’s the US average. It’smore than double that, the average is 180 around the country.

The analyst paper looks at housing trends in the state and if you look at the bargraph on the top around 1970 housing prices in Los Angeles and California startedto outpace the rest of the country. In the findings are that the state has not keepingup with the demands for housing and produce the housing to support thepopulation so the graph at the bottom shows that California particularly in thecoastal cities has not kept up with demand for housing and this issues affect theeconomy, they affect the portability, they affect all kinds of different scenarios butit’s important to remember that what we’re proposing here is a housing projectthat will provide new housing.

If you think about a housing project and where housing would go, alL cities bothBeverly Hills and Los Angeles, have to accommodate their fair share. I mean this is abig issue. It’s statewide. We can’t deal with all of it but on a site specific issue welook to what the cities have in terms of zoning and this is a zoning overlay of boththe City of Beverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles. Beverly Hills has four multipledwelling zone, it’s more multifamily land uses. The same thing in the City of LosAngeles it’s for multifamily land uses. If you look at the built environment, theseare areas that are in the middle of very dense urban development area.

Mid-city part of Los Angeles, edge of Beverly Hills and there’s lots of multifamily,multistory buildings in the surrounding area. But this is the right place to puthousing if we’re going to put it and I think that staff has gone through andhighlighted the project and the requirements that is fulfilling and the codecompliance for the project meets both the City of Beverly Hills and the City of LosAngeles zoning code requirements. We’re not asking for any zone variances. We’renot asking for any deviations, we are 45 feet in height for the portion of thebuilding in Beverly Hills.

There’s unlimited height in the City of Los Angeles but as I said we’ve reduced theheight of the building, we revised it to make it more consistent and compatiblewith the area. The density that’s allowed in Beverly Hills is seven units, in LosAngeles it’s 45 but we’re only proposing 24. We’re trying to provide a developmentthat will meet housing and meet a certain type of housing market that isappropriate and we fulfill all of these setback requirements for both the cities.

This building will be a new building and in terms of compliance with the city zoningcodes it will provide the associated amenities that come with a new development.It will have over 5,000 square feet of open space. There will be private balconies,decks, courtyards. There will be a gym and a lounge. In terms of the parking, we’reproviding 68 parking spaces which meets the code requirements and it’s more

beverlyhillsb3 8e223 7-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 14 of 54

parking than what’s there.

The existing buildings have one parking space per unit, there’s 16 units and there’s16 parking spaces so there is no guest parking spaces, there is no additional parkingfor the buildings that are there. We have provided significant modulation for theproject. The City of Los Angeles does not require the modulation the Beverly Hillsrequires. We got over 3000 feet of modulation on the front of that building. It’salso setback 25 feet, the front yard setback in LA is only 15 feet and the upperportion of the building is setback almost 44 feet from the side of the block sothere’s significant bulk and mass relief in the design that we proposed.

It will be built to the current building standards and we were talking about this justa moment ago. The existing buildings are older buildings. They don’t have thingslike proper HVAC systems, air conditioning, ventilation, Internet, things like that.The new buildings will be built to provide those things. They will be built and theywill be sustainably designed. The City of Los Angeles has a green building codethat’s a LEED standard and they will be built to those standards so this building willmeet green building in LA entitle 24 requirements.

It features ENERGY STAR appliance, water saving low flow fixtures. Non-VOC paintsand adhesives, drought tolerant plantings and it will be high performance buildingenvelope and there will be proper on-site trash and recycling facilities. We did do atraffic analysis for this project. There’s been a lot of comments about theenvironmental review. There were no significant impacts found. The net trips inmorning is five, the different between existing 16 units and the 31 proposed units isfive trips, there will be five more trips. Throughout the 24 hour period, there’s only67 more trips and these are below the thresholds under CEQA that constitute asignificant impact.

Similarly we’ve looked at the age of the buildings that’s been asked, these are olderbuildings, could they be historic? We had an environmental consultant and historicexpert look at the buildings themselves and they aren’t found to be historic. Theother question that we got asked that we supplemented our report with waswhether this could be part of a district and if there was a district and there’s aquestion if there hasn’t been one nominated yet, it would be required to bemanaged and nominated and put together by both cities and that’s a very difficultdistrict to put together but if it were, the buildings that are removed would notimpact the ability for that district to be formed. There’d be over 75% of thebuildings in a potential district left.

The question about this building and being a housing development and how it fitsinto the surrounding area, we have to look at the existing built environment and ifyou look here the building on the top left is across the corner on the Beverly Hillside, that’s a multi-story development. If you look below that there’s another multistory development next to it and if you look behind the project across the alley,there’s other multi-story development5 in the City of Los Angeles. There’s alreadyexisting change going on reflecting the need for housing and where this is zoned

beverlyhillsb3 8e2237-al f7-4250-9bec%53a0 11 d67f7 Page 15 of 54

and how it’s being provided.

The building on the top right is the building that is directly across the subjectproperty in the City of Beverly Hills. It has no modulation. It has not articulation, nodesign enhancement. The only Improvements that that blank façade isfenestration, there are some windows there.

We think that we are going to be consistent with the surrounding area and wethink we’re actually going to do a better job. This is the Street view that we werejust talking about. I think the one thing that we didn’t see was the existing buildingsso if you look at the top view, that is the existing subject property with the streettrees in front of it, in the middle you see the proposed building without the trees.We’re doing that so that you can see what the building looks like, but we aren’tgoing to be removing those trees. We understand that this is an existing area thatwe’re trying to be as appropriate and provided development that will be a sensitiveto this area as possible. The street trees will be retained, They will screen thatupper floor.

In addition to the setback and modulation that happens, those mature jacarandatrees will stay. The other thing is that this is tree lots, they’re being developedtogether and the benefit of having the alley on the rear in the City of Los Angeles isthat we will not have to provide driveways in the front of the subject property,interrupt that landscape, take out those trees or put curve cuts in and remove theopportunities for guest parking. There’s plenty of guest parking opportunities onthe Street and they’re going to be retained.

You can see an example of the type of development that we’re proposing. This is arecent project just south of the subject property. It’s in the Los Angeles side andhas similar zoning and development requirements but when you look at thefinished project and the setback on the upper floor and it also retain becausethere’s an alley, the existing street trees. We find that we have a development thatwill be suitable and will fit in with the built environment.

In that regard, this is a rendering that we showed to the actual review commissionback in the 2013 here at the City of Beverly Hills before we filed at the City of LosAngeles. We wanted to make sure that we were proposing a development that wasgoing to be successful that met the design intent, the zoning code intent and theneeds of both cities. The architectural review commission all reviewed this projectfavorably. They had no major concerns, they made no major comments, it was avery good meeting.

They did ask for minor articulation refinements which we did. We changed some ofthe colors on the upper story to try to provide a little bit more relief for thatportion of the building. We’ve changed some of the materials in the balconies andthings of that nature to try to make it more suitable. But they look forward to ourproject returning and we look forward to this project being built. I would lookforward to living in this project and I think that you have to think about the future

beverlyhillsb3 $e2237-al f7-4250-9bec453 aOl 1 d67f7 Page 16 of 54

residents as well who will live in this building so with that I thank you for theopportunity to speak today, and if you have any questions, our team will beavailable when appropriate.

Alan Block: Commissioner Gordon?

Con Gordon: Okay. The open space calculation for the Beverly Hills portion is that including theprivate balconies of the homes because I couldn’t add up the numbers on theplanning.

Matthew Hayden: The portions of the open space are located in each jurisdiction so there’s portionsthat are in Beverly Hills and portions that are in LA but each side has the openspace square footage that’s needed for each jurisdiction.

Lan Gordon: Because I was trying ... maybe I just couldn’t add it up but I couldn’t add up theactual open space that’s public. Is it including balconies, is it including

Matthew Hayden: Yes. There’s a portion that is balconies, there’s a portion that is courtyards andyards and then there’s a portion that is lounge and gym so that is common indooropen space as well as the outdoor open space.

Loni Gordon: Okay. I understand that. Let’s see, I’ll ask you this question, is it proposed for guestto enter the parking lot?

Matthew Hayden: The parking in ingress and egress happens off the alley as I indicated. Guest thatwill arrive to the subject property, they will either know ahead of time that they’recoming to visit and they’ll make arrangement or when they get there, there will bean intercom system that they can buzz into the tenants that they’re visiting so theycan use the intercom system and that will allow them to come in and out.

Lan Gordon: While they’re waiting to be allowed and that could cost a little bit of congestion inthe alley if other residents are trying to come in

Matthew Hayden: There’ll be a reservoir space between the security gate and the actual edge of theproperty to accommodate some on-site loading so it won’t happen in the alley, andall the internal circulation maneuvering, the cars coming in and out will happen onsite versus the existing parking spaces in the back of the property where they justback out into the alley so that won’t happen anymore, it will happen on site.

Carl Gordon: Right, okay. You brought up the issue in the opening of your PowerPoint about thecost of living in terms of renting years or what the average income would be. Sinceyou brought up the prices, what would the average price of these units be for thecondominiums?

Matthew Hayden: We don’t have a specific estimate just yet. We do know that they will reflect whatthe market conditions are when the project comes online, it’s probably going to bean 18 month or so period to the time they’re actually built from when they start

beverlyhills_b3$e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 17 of 54

construction so it’s hard to say. But there will be market rate prices. It’s not anaffordable project. This project is not taking advantage of AB2222.

We’re not proposing more density. We’re not proposing relief to the zoning coderequirements, more height, less step backs, less parking. We’re just trying toprovide market rate housing and it will be a condominium building so it will allownew home ownership for the community, People can live here and own it.

Lan Gordon: Okay. The tenants that were living in the existing apartment buildings wererelatively in sort of low-income kind of situation or something like that?

Matthew Hayden: They weren’t all in low income situation. The units were subject to rank control inLA and you may speak about the rent situation in Beverly Hills but as tenants comeand go, they’re going to be brought up to market rates again every time there’s achange over in the vacancy but all of those tenants were assisted to relocate andthat has been completed in the last couple of months.

Lori Gordon: All the people that were in that building were assisted by the current owners torelocate?


Lori Gordon: Okay. Let’s see here. Back to that question regarding the school fees, because a aparent or former parent of BHUSD students I understand the concept of the basicaid system and the fees actually go to actually fund the schools rather than the wayit’s generally done in the state.

Is there any provision or proposal to enable the schools to be properly funded if infact all 31 units will be allowing their students to attend BHUSD schools?

Matthew Hayden: We haven’t worked that part of the map recordation process out specifically to getthose clearances from the involved agencies but we will be subject to fees if it’sdetermined that there will be and we will have

Lan Gordon: I mean well, that’s you but then we get to the property tax issue because annualproperty taxes have an assessment for the schools and I’m assuming that theproperty tax bill will have an assessment that is a portion based on where the unitis or what percentage of the building is in Beverly Hills towards Beverly Hills versusLos Angeles but that would not be a sufficient amount of funds to cover the basicaid cost of each student if all were allowed to attend our schools.

Matthew Hayden: I’m not exactly sure that either that something that the tax assessor would have towork out and it may be done in coordination with the school district if it’sdetermined that all of the units are subject to that but that’s something that wehaven’t specifically looked into just yet either.

Con Gordon: But that is a consideration. Okay, all right, thank you.

beverlyhills_b3$e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 18 of 54

Alan Block: Commissioner Craig Corman. Any comments, questions?

Craig Corman: Just one quick question. I mean in response to Commissioner Gordon’s question,you said you don’t really know how much you’re going to be selling these units for.You’re embarking on this, this project without a pro forma that gives you an idea ofwhat you’d be looking for in a square foot basis once construction is finished.

Matthew Hayden: Sure. There is a pro forma, I just don’t have that number readily available but Ithink we could get probably an estimate of that in ... if you need it from the team.

Craig Corman: No, I was just curious because I didn’t understand it. It seemed odd to me.

Matthew Hayden: But I just can’t specify exactly what the market conditions might be like. We’relooking down the road into the future but they will be comparable with other unitsin the area. They’re proposed as marked array units.

Craig Corman: All right. Thank you.

Matthew Hayden: Okay.

Alan Block: Vice Chair Joe Shooshani.

Joe Shooshani: Yes. Why is such a difference of 20 feet between the Beverly Hills side and the LosAngeles side?

Matthew Hayden: Twenty feet

Joe Shooshani: This height, the height. Our side is only 40 to 45 feet but if ... but the unit in theback goes up 20 feet. Basically, it’s two story not one story up.

Matthew Hayden: Well, it goes up one story. Those are ... They have loft style units on the upper levelbut there’s no height limit in the City of Los Angeles. The building is 45 feet inBeverly Hills compliant with the zoning code requirements but in the City of LosAngeles, there is unlimited height. In order to accommodate the number of unitsand the floor plans and layout that we’re proposing, we have the bulk and mass ofthe building located at the back of the building away from the public right of way asfar back as we can. That upper floor is set back approximately almost 44 feet.

Joe Shooshani: How do you ... Can you consider lowering it down so we get better modulations sothat we have a ... The face of this building is Beverly Hills. People don’t say that’sLos Angeles. They see it as a Beverly Hills property. They look up and they see thismassive bulk, right? Is there any way you can reduce that bulk down a little bit?Because who ... I mean, it’s just a 20-feet high condo, I mean

Matthew Hayden: Well, as I said when we talked about this issue with the Architectural ReviewCommission, the suggestion was to try to deemphasize that portion of the building,

beverlyhills_b38e223 7-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 19 of 54

to consider a different color selection so we’ve changed the color there to try todeemphasize the bulk and the mass of that portion of the building. The other thing,as I say, it is set back almost 43 feet from the streets so when you’re walking alongthe street, you won’t see that additional height. It’s beyond the way that you canview that portion of the building.

Craig Corman: Did you bring any elevations to show that?

Matthew Hayden: Do you have any elevations here?

Craig Corman: Just to be clear, when you say it’s setback and make a big deal with that setback[4315 00:50:37] Street, it’s only three feet back from beyond the city limit line?

Matthew Hayden: Right.

Craig Corman: Okay.

Matthew Hayden: That’s almost the entire width of the street. I mean, it’s a whole street dimensionback. It’s wider than the street.

Craig Corman: Right. At three feet beyond the city limits, that building shoots up from 40 to 60feet.

Matthew Hayden: Correct.

Craig Corman: Okay. That’s all I’m asking.

(crosstalk 00:50:58]

Matthew Hayden: Do you have the front part of the building [inaudible 00:51:14]?


Matthew Hayden: There ... if

David Snow: We’ll just wait a moment for our quorum to come back. I’ll hold up until they comeback. Thank you.

Matthew Hayden: Can you go back to the elevation 2?


Alan Block: Excuse me. I thought that you were talking to your associates.

Matthew Hayden: Yes. We ... He’s pointing out, if you look ... We’ll look at that other exhibit again in aminute as well. If you look at the center of the building, there is some additionalmassing relief. It’s not 60 feet for the entire portion of the roof line. If you look at

beverlyhills_b3 8e2237-al f7-425O9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 20 of 54

the center of the building, those portions are actually more like 50 feet. There issome, again, further modulation and break up of that roof line. If you now go to theside, you can see that parts of the building are only 50 feet and it’s when you getback to ... further back to the portions that are in the City of Los Angeles and I’mjust talking about trying to get some of those dimensions, well maybe get them foryou, but that’s where the additional height happens.

Joe Shooshani: I have another question. Does the elevator goes all the way to the loft or goes allthe way to the roof or not? How many feet you’re going to go over the roof so wegot 60 feet from usually 15 more feet for the elevator. Where do you hide yourelevator? Where is the elevator shaft? I can’t find it.

Matthew Hayden: They are set back from the edge of the roof. There’s a requirement for them to beset back a certain distance and

Alan Block: Are they shown In this etevation?

Matthew Hayden: I don’t think ... They’re not shown in that one, are they?

Lori Gordon: I have a question for him.

Alan Block: [inaudible 00:53:14]


Joe Shooshani: Actually, we’re talking about 60 feet plus whatever the elevator is. We’re talkingabout 75 feet high in some portion of the

[00:53:28)Male: Let me jump in. I’m First off, the elevator only goes to the fifth floor on the LA

side. It doesn’t go up to the loft level and there’s an overrun usually from the fifthfloor 12 feet up to the top of the elevator. We’re probably looking at some ... it’sunder the 60-foot height.

Joe Shooshani: Okay. The elevator doesn’t go to the loft area?

Male: No.

Lori Gordon: I have a question. This is the south elevation, is that looking on to the propertiesthat are on Third Street? Is that that way?

Male: Yes.

Lori Gordon: Okay. What efforts have been made to mitigate the views into the properties thatare on Third Street from all of these windows?

Matthew Hayden: The windows are as high as they can be to try to limit views and there will also be


landscape planting along that side property line to help provide privacy andseparation.

Lori Gordon: But what about

Matthew Hayden: If you also can see in the middle of the building, there’s a large courtyard area thathas provided ... been provided there to again, break up the bulk and mass of thatportion of the building. That façade, if you look in the center, that part of thebuilding has been stepped back further away from the property line to try toprovide privacy.

Lori Gordon: If you’re in one of these units, it’s on, say, the third, or the fourth, or the fifth floorand your window is a clear window looking out, you’re looking right into thebackyard, right into the property of these properties on Third Street, is thatcorrect?

Matthew Hayden: yes.

Lori Gordon: And there’s been no effort made to mitigate that?

Matthew Hayden: Well, the other effort that we’ve provided is that we have greater setbacks thanour required rate there on that part of the building.

Lori Gordon: But you can still see it. No matter what setbacks and whatever you can 5till see ifsomeone is sitting in their backyard Sunday then you can watch them, is thatcorrect?

Matthew Hayden: There may be views into the yards.

Lori Gordon: Okay.

Matthew Hayden: But we do ... Yes, we do have landscaping that will screen the views.

Lori Gordon: Well, it’s not the four-five stories.

Matthew Hayden: No, the landscaping won’t go up five stories but it will go up high enough so thatwhen you’re looking down in, you won’t be able to look into the yards. You’ll belooking over the landscaping to the top of the buildings.

Lan Gordon: You’re saying you’d be able to look over the landscaping onto the street rather thaninto the backyards.


Loti Gordon: How tall are those trees going to be?

Matthew Hayden: I think they’ll come in to be maybe 30, 40 feet.

beverlyhills_b38e223 7-al f7-4250-9bec-453 aO 11 d6717 Page 22 of 54

Alan Block: I mean ... Staff, don’t we have

Matthew Hayden: Fifteen or 20 feet.

Alan Block: Yeah. do we have a height limit on side yard landscaping?

Ryan Gohlich: For the portion thats located in Beverly Hills, we limit hedges to seven feet inheight. However, individual trees, there is no height limit requirement.

Loti Gordon: Is there a landscape plan in here? I didn’t see one.

Alan Block: Any other questions?

Matthew Hayden: The landscape plan’s on there?

Alan Block: I have a question with regards the use of the alley. Are there any other projectspending that might make use of that alley as well?

Matthew Hayden: No, not that we’re aware of.

Alan Block: Okay. The staff, are you familiar with any projects that might be pending thatwould use that alley?

Ryan Gohlich: We’re not aware of any but anybody can submit an application at any time they’dlike.

Alan Block: Yeah and

Joe Shooshani: Maybe it’s not our concern but are you going to resurface the alley or not? It’s stillLA but I don’t know if we have any preview.

Matthew Hayden: The Deputy Adviser Agency asked us to repair and replace the alley portions thatare there.

Joe Shooshani: There’s only one ... the entrance is from ... the alley is one Third Street, correct? Theentrance


Joe Shooshani: They don’t come to Beverly Hills. If somebody, egress and aggress would be froman alley to Third Street, correct?

Matthew Hayden: That’s correct, yes.

Alan Block: Okay. Anybody else on your team want to speak right now?

beverlyhills_b3 8e2237-alf7-4250-9bec-453a011 d67f7 Page 23 of 54

Matthew Hayden: No, I think we’re okay for now.

Alan Block: Okay. I will save you some time for rebuttal as well.

Matthew Hayden: Thank you. Appreciate it.

Alan Block: Now, I’m going to call ... I have Steve Mayer and I know that I have Steve Mayer ... isit [Castell 00:57:30], Steve Weinglass and Lionel Ephraim. I believe we’ve also givenyou their time so I will give you additional time to speak.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Steve Mayer: Good afternoon. My name is Steve Mayer Mayer, PO. Box 16766 Beverly Hills90209. I would like to highlight some of the major points of my memorandum toyou. By means of introduction I was the appellant in both the appeals in the City ofLos Angeles and the main litigant on the CEOA lawsuit. There are other members ofthe concerned citizens for Beverly Hills, Beverly Grove who will also be speakingtoday.

The purpose for the filing of the CEQ.A lawsuit were many but the main beneficiarywould be the City of Beverly Hills and its citizens. If successful, the full rights of thecity will be restored. As a part of the CEQA lawsuit, I’m heavily involved in thereview of discovering materials. They are close to a thousand pages of applicationdocuments, City of Los Angeles documents, transcripts, et cetera, and over 900pages of emails in the City of Los Angeles alone. I’m probably the most qualifiedperson in the room to answer questions as to the specifics of the case and I will bemore than happy to do so.

For the most part, this presentation will follow the sequence of the memorandumwith one exception. Much of the focus will be upon trying to make ... about thefindings. One of the other duties of the commission today is to reach its ownconclusion on whether the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared toyour standards. We have found a major flaw which well identify later.

We start with the issue of parking. There are numerous issues of parking whichsome of you have already identified, others which many of the speakers I believebehind me will attest to. People are very, very concerned about the insufficientparking, especially on Friday night, the Sabbath. The memorandum also remindsyou there’s nothing that you can do say like in five years if the HOA decides to rentout those parking spaces in the City of Los Angeles. In fact, that is precisely what’soccurring at an HOA for the condominium project directly across the alley from thesubject property.

If we start with this one here.

Chris Hammond: I distribute this one?


Steve Mayer: Yes. What is being distributed to you are

Alan Block: Just please give them to the secretary. She’ll distribute them. Thanks.

Steve Mayer: What is being distributed now are the final two pages of Attachment 3D, the TrafficConsultant’s Report. I direct your attention to the bottom portion of p1. This is thefloor plan of the parking. You will see that there are 11 standard parking spacesdenoted for the City of Beverly Hills but how many spaces are there in total? Yousee three compact spaces on each floor between the pages of; and 2, there are 22parking spaces at the City of Beverly Hills but there ate also six compact spaces forthe City of Los Angeles.

If the project was only being built in Los Angeles it could not be approved becausethere’d be insufficient parking but the issue here is the fact that it was deliberatelyhidden by the City of Los Angeles from someone else. It can be argued that theowner has the right to use the land in Beverly Hills to meet their requirements inthe City of Los Angeles. By law, it may not be permitted but that’s nonethelesswhat happened here flies in the face of what the commission ... what thiscommission is for. Permission must be asked of you and all it would have taken wasone sentence but that didn’t happen.

There’s no footnote on p1, instead it shows 60 spaces in Los Angeles, 22 in BeverlyHilts. The assumption is ... Well, I think you get it as Dr. ... and Mr. Shooshani isalready nodding. All throughout the packet it says 22 space in Beverly Hills and 60in Los Angeles. On that basis, the project cannot meet the first two findings of thetentative tract map.

The next issue is traffic. There are two issues here. One, the first issue is the tripgeneration analysis. There’s a dispute in the unit of measure chosen by theconsultant and the consultant chose to use a number of units. As an alternative,the unit of measure could be the total number of residents in the project. Thedifference in the results are staggering. The number of total daily trips increases by237% and p.m. peak trips increased by 325% by just using residents instead ofdwelling units.

The second issue is the new projects that are approved, planned and/or projected.There is a new apartment building at the corner of Alden-Doheny that has beenapproved, that is in the permit process that will increase the LA traffic from eightvehicles to 88 vehicles directly same alley, same condition.

Alan Block: Can you describe where that is?

Steve Mayer: It’s at the southwest corner of Alden and Doheny. The alley fronts or it is used byOakhurst and also Doheny. It is at the other end of the block on Alden.

Alan Block: (inaudible 01:04:51]


Steve Mayer: Yes.

Alan Block: Okay, go ahead.

Steve Mayer: They were approved. They’re going to be constructing, I believe, 35 units,apartment units.

Ion Gordon: They’re constructing those and that is something that’s going to be using the alleyas well.

Steve Mayer: That’s right.

Ion Gordon: Okay.

Steve Mayer: There is the other two projects that are planned and/or projected that will increaseingress and egress on West Third by over 500%. Just on the alley alone, the numberof cars would be increased by 650%. The biggest concern as Commissioner Gordonmade reference to is the project at the post office renovation. What was approvedwas the potential for $80 creative office employees. If only a quarter of thoseaccessed West Third, there will be resultant gridlock. On that basis, a full study isneeded not a disputed trip generation analysis. On that basis, finding for of thedevelopment plan where you cannot be made as traffic [inaudible 01:04:26] alsofinding for the tentative tract map relating to the density.

The next issue is the neighborhood. The neighborhood has been defined for you asboth sides of Oakhurst between Beverly Boulevard and Burton Way. Theneighborhood that local stakeholders believe that In fact the neighborhood is onlyboth sides of Oakhurst between West Third and Alden because there’s such atremendous difference between West Third and Alden, it’s basically two stories.The other two blocks are far more height. It’s not the same thing, not the samecharacter. It means that the draft resolutions in Section B Paragraph 2 is incorrectbecause it cites many other properties.

We believe that Land Use 1 states the policy and goals maintain and enhance thecharacter distribution, built and form and scale and aesthetic qualities of the city’sdistinctive residential neighborhood. We believe this neighborhood just in thatspecific area is very distinctive and therefore, finding of the development planreview cannot be made.

The next issue is lead agency. There is misinformation in the Planning Commissionreport stating the City of Los Angeles had to be a lead agency. That is simply notcorrect. The City of Beverly Hills ceded its right as lead ... to be lead agency. Theycould be lead agency, they could have controlled virtually every aspect of thisproject and then the approval would have been in the City of Los Angeles. Youbasically have no control over anything which happens in Los Angeles. They can doanything which they want and there’s nothing you can do to stop it. Again, goingback to the purpose of the CEQA lawsuit, the opportunity is to have Beverly Hills be

beverlyhills_b3 8e2237-a 1 f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 26 of 54

the lead agency again.

There was an example of when the Applicant boarded the windows when tenantswere still living in the property last December. The City of Beverly Hills could notforce the applicant to take down the boards of the Los Angeles portions of theproperty, he did so voluntarily but there is no control.

In terms of the public review, there has been misinformation in the PlanningCommission report stating the City of Los Angeles as whose participation in theprocess. There are three periods of public review. City of Beverly Hills onlyparticipated in the last one. Before, they allowed everything to go through. Matterof fact, the city that did not awaken until ... for the third review until a citizen raisedissues to the mayor regarding the historical significance. Only then did the cityrespond and assigned a very capable staff, Shena Rojemann who held the City ofLos Angeles’ feet to the fire. Only after she left in August 2014, the project justslipped in the abyss. Under Shena in June 14th, she had requested an EIR on thehistorical basis. There’s an entirely separate section on that.

Commissioner Gordon asked about public services and specifically at school district.The way it works is that each district has to provide a release. That release is thenprovided to the county assessor who then makes the proper adjustment. There’sno guarantee of a release on either side. There is an existing court case that wouldpermit students in Los Angeles but it’s not really clear and who knows which waythat court case is going but it still comes down to each individual condominiumunit, its own unit, its own property. The building itself cannot pay fees. It’s only thecondominium owner unit.

In terms of sustainability, Dr. Woody Clark will be addressing sustainability andwhat he’ll speak to will demonstrate that finding eight of the tentative tract mapcannot be made. In terms of the general plan, Robert Block will address selectedelements of the general plan. Staff states there are four goals and policies, if youcan distribute that one, which should be ... to make its case that it meets generalplanning requirements. We contend that there are 10 goals and policies that showexactly the opposite.

There are a number of mischaracterizations in the Planning Commission report, thespecial city council meeting, the central area planning commission, the historicresource. The last mischaracterization is actually critical to the entire case. The citycontends that it did its duty in hiring a historic resources group. What you’re nottold is the HRG produced a memo and not a historical report and that ... which wasthe minimum standard which the City of Beverly ... the City of Los Angeles required.That memo was so derided in both appeals that it was embarrassing that the City ofBeverly Hills had failed so miserably to understand what LA needed.

It is important to note that the city also got snookered when the out ... when thesame was not provided with a second historical report in December. The city wassandbagged or felt it was when the determination letter was issued on February


3rd. There was no interaction between the City of Beverly Hills and the City of LosAngeles. They never received a draft determination letter. It was just ‘This is what’sgoing to happen. You’re stuck with it.”

Relative to the historic aspect, it’s very important to note that the prestigious LAConservancy, the most effective defenders in the United States, believes in theseproperties. We have a representative who will be speaking to that. They concurthat it can be a potential historic district and they believe that such properties areworth saving. The reason we have not pursued the historic district designation isbecause of cost. We’re having to spend the money on the CEQA lawsuit. We don’thave money for both.

Also, in the City of Beverly Hills, the Architect Edith Northman will be considered asa master architect in the historic preservation meeting in November. Anotherelement which there was is the City of Los Angeles said that the architect was notnoteworthy but in fact, they didn’t even look in their own department files to seethat she was mentioned to be a very prominent residential architect.

At the beginning of this presentation I said that one of the other duties of thecommission today is to reach its own conclusion on whether the MitigatedNegative Dec has been prepared to your standards. I indicated there’s major flawand it’s a very simple one, if you would. The applicant’s historical consultant,Kaplan Chen Kaplan, is not qualified to work in the city for this type of work. If theMND was prepared in this city and the applicant had used Kaplan Chen Kaplan, theMNO would be rejected. This was confirmed in the special city council meeting inFebruary 12th where our Councilman Willie Brien asked, “Do we, as a city, useKaplan Chen Kaplan for any of our reviews?” Ryan Gohlich Gohlich responded, “Iwould defer that question to our urban designer.” Council Brien asked Bill Crouch,“Are they on the list?” Bill Crouch responded, “No.”

There are three categories of historical preservation consultants. The first isHistoric Preservation Planning as you can see from your list. KCK is not on the list.They’re on the second list of the historic architecture and the third for archeology.Some consultants are listed in all three categories. Some are on two, some are onlyone. This is a parallel as to who can be an expert in a trial. If they’re not a courtqualified expert, they are not qualified ... considered to meet the standards of anexpert.

KCK never applied to be a historic preservation planning consultant as you see inyour list in the City of Beverly Hills. They applied for one category and not for two.The determination letter and MND falls down because the expert is not qualified inBeverly Hills. The report will not be considered sufficient in Beverly Hills for anMND or an EIR. What you must do is to reject the MND because it is flawed. Youmust vote that you cannot make the findings, If the applicant asked for acontinuance, quite frankly ... well, I was going to say he doesn’t deserve one but ifyou do, specify that the contingents must continue until after the CEQA lawsuit isfully resolved. Thank you.

beverlyhillsb3 8e2237a1 f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 28 of 54

Alan Block: Commissioner Gordon, any questions for Mr. Mayer?

Lori Gordon: I think I have one but I’ve lost it. None sir.

Alan Block: Okay. Commissioner Craig Corman?

Craig Corman: Yeah. Brief question. Mr. Mayer, I think a lot of your comments you just made aremirrored in the lengthy memo that you provided us previously and I just want toask you, did you show all the information or provide all these information that’s inyour memo to the City of Los Angeles before they finalized their MND?

Steve Mayer: Yes, almost ... well, most all. I did three extensive memos and they basically ignoredit. They specifically said in their staff report that it was irrelevant.

Craig Corman: All right. Thank you.

Alan Block: Vice chair Joe Shooshani?

Joe Shooshani: Where do you live in this area? Do you live in that street or?

Steve Mayer: I live a stone’s throw away. I’m actually within the City of Los Angeles but whereI’ve became interested was [Joseph Syseskey] who lives on one of the small housesnext to your hairdresser is an 86-year-old resident who basically needs a voice. Theissues of privacy are very important to him. All the elements, he just wants to livehis life in peace. He suffers from COPD, asthma, congestive heart failure. Heconsiders that the mitigated measures not only in Beverly Hills but also in LosAngeles are insufficient for him as well as the next door neighbor who has a 4-year-old daughter.

Alan Block: Good.

Lori Gordon: I too have one que5tion. This group, I forgot the name of the group that yourepresent, but what would be your desire in this ... besides us not making thefindings, what do you think this property would be best used for? What does yourgroup feel the property should be best u5ed as?

Steve Mayer: Well, we have proposed a condo conversion but the problem ... and we’ve waivedthe parking requirement but the problem is, is that this is a project which is thedeveloper probably has to sell them in the range of a million and a half right now.The condo conversions may only be in the range of 500 to 750. There’s a bigdifference right off the bat. If there are ... Basically, as we see it is, is that thedeveloper overpaid. There’s nothing we can do about this. We’re just at animpasse. You’re asking before about what the apartment owners or, excuse me,the apartment dwellers. They range from in their 30s to ... 30s and 40s. They’repaying less than 2,000 a month. It is a unique quality of life experience and insteadwhat you’re going to be turning it into are condos where at the minimum it’s going

beverlyhitls_b3 8e223 7a1 f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 29 of 54

to be five grand a month just for the mortgage.

Lori Gordon: Are you prepared if there’s an impasse and this for some reason does not gothrough, are you prepared for those buildings to be vacant or torn down? I don’tknow what the city would be requiring of it but it’s perhaps tearing them down andfencing it off or something. I don’t know what is

Steve Mayer: We think that they can be reoccupied, number one, because they haven’t been outof service for a year which is one of the defining requirements. Also in terms ofbeing able to meet the ,., put them up to code, it’s not going to take that much, atleast in terms of apartments.

Alan Block: Commissioner Joe Shooshani?

Joe Shooshani: No.

Alan Block: Your memo was dated October 5th, your 47-page memo. Did you discuss any of theitems that are delineated in the memo regarding the general plan with staff? Thiswas originally

Steve Mayer Staff had said that they had ... Andre had said he had received thesame memos which are provided to the City of Los Angeles.

Alan Block: Oh and so the October 5th memo was fairly similar to that? To the earlier one?

Steve Mayer: Well, the ... It was three separate memos and hopefully, he ... Unfortunately, as weboth know when you see something like 46 pages, it’s going to be impossible toread and I don’t know exactly how much he reviewed of the materials which I haveprovided before. He also said that he had gone through all of the appeal materialswhich also included copies of the memos as well as other information.

Alan Block: Okay. Thank you. We’re going to take a 10-minute break and then we will go withpublic comments ... continue with public comments with Dr. Clark.

Okay. We’re going to reopen the meeting. I will call Mr. ... Dr. Clark, Woody Clark.Everybody’s time will now be limited to three minutes. I’m going to ask staff tokeep the time here and when you see the red light flash then your times will be upand then I will give the applicant time for rebuttal at the end. Dr. Clark.

Woodrow Clark: There, thanks. Okay.

Alan Block: Please state your name and address.

Woodrow Clark: Yes. I’m Dr. Woodrow W. Clark II and I live at 321 North Oakhurst, toughly half ablock from and across the street from this discussion today. I should also point outmy training and background is so that I refer to myself as a qualitative economistand that’s because I like to ask questions about numbers and examples and that

beverlyhills_b3 8e223 7-al f7-4250-9bec-453a011 d67f7 Page 30 of 54

sort of thing and there are a few of you here who I see every once in a while indifferent places around the city. I know that we have a couple of lawyers in thegroup and yes, I had a year of law school so I’m trained a little bit to ask questionsin wanting the meaning of numbers.

I’m here though specifically to bring up something I have talked about to this groupI think about month ago having to do with Beverly Hills sustainability city planwhich I think you all have copies or seen. This plan was adapted by the city councilin February 18th 2009. I’m here because I want to be positive about what oursolutions are and what we can do about this particular situation at 332 and 336North Oakhurst. I say that because I firmly believe that the City of Beverly Hills canbe and should be a leader in this area, not a follower. I have got ... I can go on andon about having attended some of the meetings with the LA Planning Commission.They call it the Central Planning Commission.

The misinformation that was given repeatedly by the members of that staff, we’regiving them a report, but I can say to you when they voted two to one, not 20 toone or 16 to one, two to one to accept the moving ahead with their project onNorth Oakhurst. What was interesting about it was one of the members said theonly thing she voted against the proposal, she said, “We don’t want Los Angeles tobe, “ as Mayor Garcetti said, “the elephant in the room.” That’s what we arehearing this afternoon so far and that’s what I have problems with.

Getting to ... to get very specific, I want to say that there are other people here Ithink who are going to talk about other regions in Beverly Hills, otherneighborhoods. I didn’t know, you’ve heard some samples of that like Coma Linda.You’ve also heard about lots 11 and 12 along Santa Monica Boulevard. The storygoes on and on. We are seeing a pattern here in Beverly Hills and we have to dosomething about it in a positive way. The sustainability plan for the city has got tobe put together and enacted.

I had Mayor Julian Gold do one of his meetings to meet the Mayor in the buildingnext to mine which is 325 North Oakhurst. We’re in the corner of Third and ... NorthOakhurst and Third and he brought this up because in a sense what he was saying isthat the idea of sustainability in doing something about it for Beverly Hills issomething that we need to do and enact. We can do the plans, the numbers andthe other areas of it. I believe that that’s something that this commission should beinvolved in but not alone. Again, Mayor Gold made that point. There are othercommissions in this city that should be involved, Public Works, Traffic andTransportation, Parking and others. In other words, this is something that’s acommunity area and a very strong importance.

I should mention too that I’m on the board of the Muni League and the MuniLeague verifies I had a call before this meeting today from Thomas White who’s thechair of the Muni League and he wanted me to echo the fact that the Muni Leagueis in support of opposing this particular project because of the reasons that werealready stated earlier. I should also mention that a colleague of mine because I’m


now the chairman of the United Nations Association of Beverly Hills and I chair thatnew organizations here in Beverly Hills because one of our key areas of concern issustainability, and that’s one of the things that I see the United Nations doing andit’s a very important issue here in Beverly Hills.

Finally, I want to bring up something that’s extremely important. The value ofhistorical buildings makes the community go up. I can go on and on about this.When I lived in Northern California for 25 years, I worked with (inaudible 01:22:33]up there and I can tell you right now that we see the same sort of thing going on inLos Angeles with Broadway, the Orpheum and others and here in Beverly Hills withthe Saban Theater and the Fine Arts Theater. These are examples of things thatpeople want to see and be a part of in Beverly Hills. For us to see these buildingstorn down and destroyed is a crime frankly and it’s one against all of us and ourfuture and our children and our grandchildren.

I urge you not to accept this proposal from this organization and to proceed on amore positive way of looking how Beverly Hills can be sustainable. Thank you.

Do I get questions?

Alan Block: Any questions? Thank you.

Wood row Clark: Oh, okay.

Alan Block: Robert Block. Somebody I share two names with.

Robert Block: Could I say Chairman Alan Block a couple of times because it feels so good?

Alan Block: Yes, absolutely.

Robert Block: My name is Robert Block. I live at 339 North Oakhurst Drive and I ... Can I? That’sjust a diagram of the landscape of the neighborhood we’re talking about.

Alan Block: Can you speak in the microphone, Robert Block?

Robert Block: Oh, I’m sorry. How is that? Better? Okay. For the past 10 years I’ve been a propertymanager and real estate sates and leasing agent in Beverly Hills. I work for twogentlemen whose combined portfolio comprises of over 70 buildings in the GreaterLos Angeles area so I am pro building, I am pro-development. The reason I’m here issimply because this particular project fails to meet the most basic tenant of allresidential building in this city. It fails to comply, excuse me, to conform with thestreetscape.

Now, it’s important to note that the neighborhood we’re talking about is from Thirdto Alden. It doesn’t include Mexico to Canada as the applicant would like you tobelieve. It’s a very narrow area consisting of 90% two-story structures and most ofthem vintage buildings with plenty of space and plenty of area. In fact, at the Team

beverlyhitlsb3 8e2237-a 1 f7-4250-9bec-453a0Ii d67f7 Page 32 of 54

Beverly Hills orientation meeting it was spelled out that what we want this city torepresent is to be suburban lifestyle within an urban environment and thisneighborhood, if you look at that diagram, is exactly that. Bottom line, this buildingdoesn’t fit.

ft is totally incompatible with anything, any measurement that you want to make.Size, scope, density, whatever, it simply doesn’t fit. It doesn’t belong. I was thinkingof the late Johnnie Cochran and paraphrasing him and it’s simply this, “If it doesn’tfit, it shouldn’t be built.” Thank you.

Alan Block: Thank you. Chris Hammond.

Chris Hammond: Good afternoon.

Alan Block: Can you please state your name and

Chris Hammond: Yes, sorry. My name is Christopher Hammond. I’m a resident at 347 North OakhurstDrive. I’m just a little bit north and across the street. I’m here to discuss parking.There’s two points, basically, actually, I’d like to start with. I take a little bit of issuewith the guest parking access that was discussed previously because I ... just on apersonal note the guest parking goes through the back, you have a security andessentially either guests will be given security codes to park there or someone hasto be there to let them in or like most of us would do, because the front door’s onthe front, you just park on Oakhurst.

The points that I originally wanted to talk about is this. It’s upsetting that as aBeverly Hills resident I cannot get an overnight parking permit but according topage 11 of the Planning Commission report there are now 24 Los Angeles residentsthat can apply for that but it’s really point number two which is what I’m more irateabout and that is the same Los Angeles residents again, also according to this samereport, also qualify for temporary overnight parking permits which are unrestricteduse. All the Los ... all any of these Los Angeles residents need to do because they’renow accorded this is to call in, provide their name, their address and the vehicleinformation and each unit is allowed 14 overnight permits per month per unit everymonth 12 months a year.

On a block where residents already complained about the parking and for theframe of reference that 14 spots is roughly half of our block. Our block gets about30 cars on there.

Furthermore, the part that troubles me is that the same 24 Los Angeles units arealso allowed up to three daily exemptions. You know the little parking hangers thatyou see hanging on people’s rear view mirrors, the only restriction ... and they canhave up to three of those per unit. That’s 72 annual permits with the onlyrestriction being that they couldn’t park between 2:30 and 5 a.m. Now I’m alsoguilty because I have one of those two for my guest but if I’m coming home and Idon’t think I want to be there that long I’ll just throw it up there and Ill park on the

beverlyhillsb3 8e223 7a I f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 33 of 54

street.

Now I’ve got a lot more people and I’m at least polite about it. I don’t do it fit’sreally busy but my point being is that there’s a lot more people, Los Angelespeople, that are going to be clogging up the street that is already as you ... asCommissioner Gordon noted, it’s busy. It’s packed. I find that unacceptable and Ihope that the commission finds it unacceptable too and I do urge you to vote notoday.


Chris Hammond: Thank you.

Alan Block: iamie Hall Hall. Please state your name and address, Mr. Hall,

Jamie Hall: Sure. My name is Jamie Hall. I’m an attorney with Channel Law Group and my officeis located at 8200 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 300 Beverly Hills, California. I’m heretoday representing the Concerned Citizens of Beverly Hills/Beverly Grove, thegroup that was formed to challenge the city of LA’s approval of the project fornoncompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. My comments todaywill be brief. I’d like to first reiterate what has previously been mentioned in thishearing and that is that this project is currently in litigation.

After the city of LA approved the project and refused to conduct an environmentalimpact report as requested by the City of Beverly Hills, litigation ensued. Theessence of the lawsuit is that the City of Los Angeles failed to meaningfully analyzeand mitigate the environmental impacts that were raised by my client. One of theprimary issues that was raised in our case was the historical status of theproperties. Trial is currently set for iune 10th.

The second and final thing that I’d like to raise is the fact that the City of BeverlyHills, notwithstanding the fact that the city is determined to be the lead agencyunder CEQA retains the right to deny the permit that is requested by the applicantand you retain a tremendous amount of discretion to analyze whether or not theproject complies with all of the applicable city laws including but not limited tocompliance with the general plan and the city’s zoning code. While there may beissues that overlap, the city retains the ability to conclude that the project does notcomply with city law.

The bottom line is that you have exercise to ... the legal right to exercisetremendous discretion in this situation so don’t feel like that you’re hamstrung tomake a decision to approve this project simply on CEQA grounds. One final thing, tothe extent that the Planning Commission did decide to approve this project and wewould certainly hope you do not make that decision, we’d ask that you include acondition of approval that automatically invalidates the approval in the event thatwe are successful in court and the City of Los Angeles is required to undertake anenvironmental impact report that ... as was requested by the City of Beverly Hills.

beverlyhillsb3 $e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 34 of 54

Thank you for your time.

Alan Block: Thank you, Mr. HaN. Any questions? Philip? Is ft Blustein?

Philip: Blustein.

Alan Block: Blustein.

Philip: Thank you. I’m Philip Blustein. I own the property at 337 North Oakhurst directlyacross the street from the project. To echo the guest parking, I think it’s onlyhuman nature that if there’s two-hour Street parking you’re going to park there.You’re not going to go through the alley and push a buzzer on intercom or ... to getin that way. If the project is approved which I’m against, I think ... I don’t know if it’sin the Planning Commission’s purview but I would recommend that all two-hourparking be eliminated and make It a permit parking 24/7 as many streets in BeverlyHills are.

The PowerPoint presentation said there’s only going to be five more trips and Idon’t know why the staff took up the applicant’s boundaries of Burton Way on thesouth and Beverly Boulevard on the north. The boundaries as stated are ThirdStreet on the south and Alden on the north and as was stated there’s a new projecton Alden and Doheny, which is going to affect ingress and egress in the alley on thenorth end. On the south end, all you have to do is go look at Third Street and thetraffic on Third Street. You don’t have to take the PowerPoint presentation as wordfor, you don’t have to take my word for it. Go out and stand on Third Street andlook at the eastbound traffic at rush hour. It backs up from Doheny, past ofOakhurst, all the way to Palm and Maple. With more ... with 24 or with plus 40more units, you’ll see that there’s going to be a lot more trouble with ingress andegress from Third Street.

As for the math, Vice Chair Joe Shooshani asked staff how many units are going tobe lost and how many units ... what’s the net? Well, they were a little befuddled bythat but it came out that 17 rental units will be lost, that’s definite. Staff said therewill be a net gain. I don’t see how there could be a net gain if seven of the units aregoing to be in ... only seven are going to be in Beverly Hills and 24 in LA. The issue ofschools was addressed but I didn’t hear anybody address whether the 24 unitswhich are going to have a Beverly Hills address are going to be considered BeverlyHills or are they going to be considered Beverly Hills post office, just as the streetsup north.

Are these people 24 years are going to be able to vote in Beverly Hills? Are theygoing to be Beverly Hills citizens or are they going to be LA citizens? We don’t knowbut we know that 17 rental units are going to be lost. That’s definite.



Philip: Thank you.

Alan Block: MarcelloVavala.

Marcello Vavala: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Marcello Vavata with the Los AngelesConservancy. Although the MND was approved by the City of Los Angeles, webelieve it is significantly flawed in support of the lawsuit but it’s challenging theMND for noncompliance with CEQA. The structures at 332.336 Oakhurst Drive havebeen identified as potential historic resources as part of a small and 100% intactpotential historic district. Recent survey work conducted as part of a city-widesurvey for the City of Beverly Hills by the city’s own consultant, Historic ResourcesGroup, identified North Oakhurst Drive as a National California Register eligiblehistoric district. As proposed, the project would have a significant impact with thedemolition of these potential historic resources. When there is a significant adverseimpact like this, CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR, in this case inconsideration of preservation alternatives.

The City of Beverly Hills planning staff acknowledged the potential historic district.In a letter submitted to Los Angeles planning staff dated June 11th 2014. BeverlyHills planning staff requested that the lead agency prepare an EIR to fully assessand disclose the project’s impacts referencing CEQA guidelines section 210$OD thatif there is substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the lead agencythat the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an EIR shall beprepared.

Without question this project will jeopardize the potential eligibility of this historicdistrict In the future. The basic facts are the proposed project will demolishpotential historic resources and that’s a result in significant impacts of a historicdistrict requiring an EIR in consideration of alternatives. Because theseenvironmental impacts cannot be mitigated through the project before you ascurrently evaluated, we strongly urge the commission to deny the project. Thankyou.

Alan Block: Thank you. Oliver Mateen.

Oliver: Hello everyone. I’m

Alan Block: Please state your name and address for the record.

Oliver: My name is Olive Mateen. I actually live on 1730 Sawtelle Boulevard Los Angeles,California. lm here by coincidence. The developer of this project, proposed projectactually developed the condominium building that I live in today and I had nointentions of speaking here today but I just thought that I should because maybe Ihave some input to provide. I live in an area where predominantly there are rentalunits and single family homes and by this developer coming in there, I benefitedtremendously as I was able to acquire a condominium for myself and I am veryclose to my place of work.

beverlyhlllsb38e2237-alf7-4250-9bec-453a01 1d67f7 Page 36 of 54

Now, in a place like Beverly Hills where there is significant demand for new productand there’s not enough, it makes sense for this developer to build this project andit only provides more new quality product for people with quality talents to moveinto this area and only be in positive light for the city. I can also say that his qualityof work is there. I have no issues with my unit or the building and it’s almost nowseven years old. They also just built another project adjacent to the lot of mybuilding and my unit actually faces the new project and they were extremelyrespectful to keep the area clean and reduce noise and keep the area clear. I justthought I should give my input and while I do respect both sides here, that’s justhow I feel in this case.

Alan Block: All right. Thank you.

Oliver: Thanks.

Alan Block: Sarah ... is it Blanchard? Did I pronounce it correctly?

Sarah Blanchard: Yes, Blanchard.

Alan Block: Blanchard.

Sarah Blanchard: Hi. I had no intention to be speaking here either. I live at 342 North Oakhurst Driveand I live in Beverly Hills and I have my own entrance, so right there. There weresome observations and some comments made that living where I live, I’ve seen youknow a lot in the neighborhood in the last five years. One is that the Four Seasonscauses enormous parking problems on our Street. People come here all the time onFridays, afternoons, Thursday, Friday, it’s packed. There’s never a place which iswhat you referred to when you were speaking.

The other thing is at the Four Seasons, nobody’s discussed the fact that two blocksaway, maybe three now, they’re building a huge condo project too. We have Aldenand we have that. Oakhurst is a huge cut-through street. I’m sure you all havenoticed that. Palm, Oakhurst, everybody drives on that street already so it’s a very,very busy street. Third is fairly backed up and the area has a lot of traffic. I mean,again I don’t think this is new news. There were a couple of other points I justwrote down that I just wanted to review.

Condo conversions, we have seen in West Hollywood condo conversions wherethey take old buildings, convert them and the prices they’re selling for actuallypretty high. Sometimes it’s high as their (inaudible 01:40:03] but they’re very welldone, they’re converted very respectfully because a lot of people want to live in oldbuildings and that’s somebody ... When you take an old building and convert it andmake it elegant, then I think it is very viable and you can use the historical aspectand the fact that this is a very well-known female architect becoming more wellknown, you can use that to sell the buildings and you can get good prices. I justwant to add that to the mix.

beverlyhillsb38e2237-al f74250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 37 of 54

The other thing, nobody has addressed the fact with the police or the firedepartment. I have never seen the IA Police or Fire Department come to ourstreet. tt’s always Beverly Hills. They came at all times and day or night, whateverhappens the police are very Johnny on the spot for the people in the neighborhood.We’re very appreciative but I don’t see howl think that will continue and if you addmore bodies there’ll be a lot more problems and they’re probably overworked as itis but that was just something I’ve noticed as well.

There’s also a building, two buildings to the right of our building that are beingemptied out a little bit and it’s ... I’m getting the feeling that somebody wants tothey’re gorgeous buildings but that somebody may want to construct on that sideas well. Then you have two people constructing this little block area and these areabsolutely stunning historical buildings and I think they’ve come to you before tomove them into actually being ordained historic. That was just one other thing andthen I apologize.

I think that’s really, that’s all I just wanted to address from the things I heard. Imean I realize that having more condominiums will bring in more money but sinceit doesn’t have that much to Beverly Hills, I think you would be just as happy havingless construction, less traffic, less use of the schools, the police and also keeping inmind all the other projects that are being considered. That’s all I have to say.


Sarah Blanchard: Thank you.

Alan Block: Jennifer Morgan. I want to welcome you to councilperson (inaudible 01:42:22).

Jennifer Morgan: Thank you. I’m Jennifer Morgan. I’m with United Nations Association in Beverly Hillsand I lived for many years in Beverly Hills in the ‘80s and the ‘90s. I moved to SanDiego and recently moved back, had been up in Northern California and recentlymoved back to take care of my mother. Beverly Hills reminds me of San Franciscowhen I was growing up. People flocked to put new buildings in and we were sort ofthe radical kids on the block and we fought to save them. Today, San Francisco’s sounique because we fought and saved those old buildings and those beautifulVictorians. We painted them four and five different colors and everybody thoughtoh God, those are just hippie kids out there.

Today, they make a statement and I think that the charm of Beverly Hills are oldbuildings, it’s the little neighborhoods, it’s ... I know what Los Angeles is like, I knowwhat their building department does because I’m friends with some of the womenthat fought with the Millennium Building going up and doing a lot of work with thebuilding department. Beverly Hills is not Los Angeles and to allow three wonderfulhistorical buildings to be lost is a real shame, to change the character of aneighborhood.


I am ever grateful that a gang of us stood up and when we did in the ‘70s, ‘60s, late‘GOs and then ‘705 and ‘80s in San Francisco and said no, you’re not going to teardown these buildings and I hope that you would consider that here because it trulyis a charming city. Thank you for hearing me.

Alan Block: Thank you. I believe that’s the last public speaker slip that I have. I’m going to askthe applicant if he wants to have any time for rebuttal.

Ellia Thompson: Good afternoon, for the record my name is Ellia Thompson. I’m with the law firm ofSklar Kirsh and I’m the land use attorney for the applicant.

To be clear because there have been a number of comments thrown out there inthe last hour or so, I want to be clear on a couple of points. Number one, thesebuildings are not historical. They are simply old. They are not in a ... they are in astate of disrepair. Our client bought them in the last year or so. They have not beenproperly maintained. This notion that we could simply slap some paint on them anddo a simple little condo conversion is frankly baseless and ludicrous. Thesebuildings are not to code for all of the reasons that were discussed by Mr. ViceChair Joe Shooshani previously regarding what’s code compliant, what’s greenbuilding, ADA accessible, all of the things that we now have in our lives that help uslive better lives and make buildings more habitable, none of these buildings have it.

Quite frankly, there’s no way that we could convert these buildings in a mannerthat would salvage them and make them code compliant, ADA accessible and all ofthe other things that we want our buildings to have. Safety for fire and earth quakeand so forth. I also want to put forth on the record because I personally had asignificant amount of knowledge and input in the process for the City of LosAngeles, to be clear there’s 17 units on, we are doing 31 units so that’s a differenceof 14 units. Currently, there are 17 parking spaces for 17 units. We are proposing82 parking spaces. This is a net gain of 14 new units with 65 new parking spaces. Asignificant portion of the congestion that you’re finding right now on the streets isbecause this particular project hasn’t had any kind of adequate parking as well as alot of the other older buildings. Newer buildings have significantly more parking.

We are going to be helping or alleviating the parking issues, not hurting them andas far as where guests will park, you’re right, there’s no actual enforcement as towhere a quest would park, certainly where a pizza delivery man may park if he’s got10 minutes in and out the building. I, personally, if I’m having some friends over fordinner or if my mother is visiting me for a week she’s going to park inside thebuilding. I’m going to go down, I’m going to let her, I’m going to let my guest in andthey’re going to park inside the building. As far as the history of the kind of in-depthanalysis that we did to ensure that we had a very strong legally sustainabledocument is we hired Pam O’Connor who is sitting right here with Kaplan ChenKaplan.

I want to also take one second. She ... There was ridiculous allegation about justbecause she was on the city’s recommended list that perhaps her work was sub

beverlyhillsb3 8e2237-al t7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 39 of 54

par. I want to be very clear. The National Park Service Secretary of Interior’squalifications for architectural historians, that’s the standard that’s used by nearlyevery city and state in this country. Pam O’Connor and her team meet all of thoserequirements and they’ve worked in Beverly Hills on many other projects. She’shighly qualified, so much so that when I went and met with Councilman Paul Koretzwho I think we all know. We all know he’s very conservative. He takes his time inseriously considering the issues in front of him, especially when they deal withpotentially historic structures.

I met with him on two occasions. He looked at this 65-page report that wasincredibly in depth, very detailed, going through every single aspect one would gothrough in determining whether or not a building is actually historic and he read itand he asked very lengthy, significant questions and at the end of the day, heagreed with us that this call for an EIR that every opponent in the city and the stateof California raises up the call for an EIR, we would not have produced any moreinformation as to the historical issues if we did an EIR versus the 65 pages to workresearch report that we did along with an MND, along with a traffic study whichwas just to determine the additional 14 units on this project site.

I just wanted to lay that out. Matthew Hayden had a couple of other things todiscuss and I really also want to say that the planning department has done anenormous amount of work and any sort of allegation that the report wasincomplete or was misleading or it wasn’t clear, I think they’ve done an amazing jobin making this very clear. I don’t say that in a moment of shining towards anybody. Isay that because they’ve quite frankly put us through heck and they’ve done agreat job, so thank you.

Matthew Hayden: Thank you I’ll just make a few other final comments in regard to the review of thetraffic, the other environmental consideration. There has been a study that wasdone and it was below the threshold of significance that’s why there wasn’t anyfurther traffic study that was required. These properties are zoned for multi-familyresidential developments and there’s a certain amount of growth that’s alreadybuilt into the existing zoning and they comply with the zoning and the traffic is notgoing to be an impact.

One final point of clarification on the height that you’re asking about. I think we aretalking about that the height was a 20-foot difference in the front. The BeverleyHills portion of the building is 45 feet and the LA portion is GOso it’s only 15 feetthat are different. As we were discussing, there are portions that are down at 50feet so there is articulation in the roof.

We understand that there is concern. We understand that there is change that ishappening here and we don’t want to be insensitive to it. There’s a lot of peoplethat are here today and hearing some of the comments and some of the questionsfrom the commissioners and having a chance to discuss these things during thebreak, we just wanted to propose a few other things that we will possibly do aspart of this development. One of the things that the applicant would be willing to


do is to improve the entire alley, not just his half but the entire alley all way out tothe access to the public street. We would replace and improve the existing alleycondition to make ft more appropriate.

In terms of the properties that are next door and the landscaping that we’reproposing we will be willing to put in taller plant materials that would reach 30 or40 feet in height if that were required. When you look at the buildings next door,there are single family houses and they take up a lot of ... they’re very small lots,they’re only about 50 feet deep. The actual buildings take up a lot of the lots.There’s not a lot of backyard there. The materials that we had in there, that 15 feettheoretically would provide the screening of the backyard but we would be willingto install more mature, more substantial landscaping along that yard to addressthose issues.

I think the final thing that we would suggest and would consider is the applicanthas a lot of experience doing development. They do a very good job with theprojects and managing them with construction. One of the things that I would saythat the applicant would do would be to put a full barrier around the property, adust and noise barrier, when they’re in construction to help mitigate some of theconstruction impacts that are going to be created when this development comes in.

Was there anything else you wanted to add on construction?

Just really quickly, here’s a picture of one that we have done. This is a picture of aconstruction barrier that we’ve put around the property as well. I don’t have that inpaper but I can submit It.

Ellia Thompson: There were just two last things I wanted to approach from a legal standpoint.Number one, this idea that you would include a condition that any approval wouldautomatically be invalidated if the case is struck down by the judge or returned tothe City of Los Angeles. It’s unnecessary, obviously if we go before the judge andthe judge doesn’t feel that Los Angeles did things properly, he’s going to send itback to Los Angeles to fix it and redo it, in which case I’m sure that there is and I’dleave this to the city attorney and city planner, but I’m sure that there’s boilerplatelanguage that addresses that in any kind of approval.

Also, to be clear too we had talked about on our construction site we could makethese approvals and since some of these have to do with Los Angeles as far as thehours of construction, we can also self-limit ourselves and we would agree to thisas a condition of approval on Saturdays to not have heavy machinery. Now again,we would be able to have guys that are there working doing simple things likeframing or painting and things like that. I’m not going to say there would beabsolutely no noise but we would refrain from having any kind of heavy machinery,trucks moving things in and out that beep, beep, beep that’s really unpleasant tohear at 8:00 on a Saturday morning, those kinds of things. We can limit ourselves tonot use any kind of heavy machinery on Saturdays, whatsoever.

beverlyhills_b3 $e2237-a 1 f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 41 of 54

Alan Block: Thank you. Commissioner Gordon.

Lori Gordon: Yeah, I have one question. If we were to make the findings today and approve theproject, does that mean that ... that’s really more of a staff question, can we ... Doe5that mean that they would be able to demolish the building at this point or is itthey have to wait till the lawsuit is heard?

David Snow: I believe there was a condition that required Beverly Hills. I’m trying to quickly findit here, condition of approval on the Los Angeles approval that required BeverlyHills approval prior to demolition permits. I believe they would be able to getdemolition permits from a lawsuit perspective, to my knowledge there’s been nostay issued. The way CEQA lawsuits typically work is an applicant or developer canproceed at their own risk with the project if at some point the CEQA, they loseCEQA lawsuit then they reap the risks that they’ve

Lori Gordon: They can’t put the buildings back up.

David Snow: Correct.

Alan Block: The City of Beverly Hills requires a demolition permit, doesn’t it?

David Snow: This would require demolition permits I believe from both jurisdictions because ofthe nature of the project.

Alan Block: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Craig Corman, any questions?

Craig Corman: None.

Alan Block: Okay, thank you. We’re closed to public hearing.

Ellia Thompson: Thank you so much for your time.

Matthew Hayden: Thank you.

Alan Block: Ask for commissioner comments. Commissioner Gordon.

Lori Gordon: First of aH, I want to start by saying that I’m really impressed by everybody spresentation on all sides because I think this was really very informative and I’vebeen spending a lot of time studying this issue over.

I’ve driven up and down this street and all of the streets in the general vicinityincluding streets in Los Angeles to just get an idea of the feel for the neighborhoodbecause I think that’s what we’re basically talking about here.

I respect the fact that as a planning commissioner I feel I have very strongresponsibility to represent the interest of the community. Its very clear to me fromthis the presentation today that the community has a very strong feeling negatively

beverlyhills_b3 8e2237-a 1 f7-4250-9bec-453a0 it d67f7 Page 42 of 54

about this project. I must say that quite frankly I am very impressed with theunique nature of this particularly block. There is really no other block in the generalvicinity that I’ve driven up and down that I feel has the nature of this particularblock. When I look at the particular findings in terms of the tentative tract mapwhether the site physically is suitable for this type of development, I say no;whether the site is physically suitable for the proposed density, I say definitely no.

I feel that this is really could have issues regarding environmental and in terms of, Idon’t know, necessarily public health but certainly, it’s not an appropriate projectfor the area, the scale, the massing, and the traffic and parking are two things thatconsume me greatly, because I will say for many, many years lTve drove up anddown Third Street on my way from my home to my office and I could often see alot of traffic going on that street and that’s long before any of these other projectswere concerned ... considered.

The other problem that concerns me very much about this is that we have ... its allabout Beverly Hills. It’s our front. It’s our view. It really concerns me that LosAngeles has that much say into what we in Beverly Hills can do with our propertyand for those reasons and also, I cannot make the findings on two, three, and fourof the DPR. I will personally state my say that I will be voting no on this project.

Alan Block: Commissioner Craig Corman.

Craig Cocrnan: Thank you. Quick question for Mr. David Snow on the MND question, Ijust want tobe clear. If all the facts on which the legal challenge to the MND’s determinations,there’s no significant impact to historic resource, if all those facts were previouslygiven to LA before the MND was finalized, doesn’t that mean that we don’t reallyhave discretion to second guess that determination at this point because wewouldn’t be able to rely on new facts or new circumstances or new impact thatarose after the MND was prepared?

David Snow: Yes, Chair Alan Block, members of the commission. Pursuant to the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act when agency is in the responsible agency role, which theCity of Beverly Hills is in here, there are very limited recourse for the city to exert orrequire further CEQA review. One of those opportunities would be for subsequentor supplemental review. There, again, limited circumstances for changes in theproject that require additional analysis or substantial changes in the circumstancessurrounding the project. Then the third category, there is new information ofsubstantial importance that was not known or could not have been known withinexercise of reasonable diligence at the time of preparation of the mitigatednegative declaration that shows one or more significant effects not discussed in themitigated negative declaration.

Again, I think you’re correct here on that last category. If there is no newinformation of substantial importance that was not known or could not have beenknown regarding a new impact then there’s limited ability for Beverly Hills torequire additional CEOA analysis at this point.

beverlyhills_b3 8e2237-al f7-4250-9bec453a0 I I d67f7 Page 43 of 54

Craig Corman: All right, thank you. The reason I wanted that clarification is obviously a lot ofpeople spend a lot of time and effort on the historical resource issue. I don’t knowif these properties are historical resources. It’s certainly in the court’s hands andthey will make a determination. As we’ve heard today there doesn’t seem to bethere haven’t been sufficient facts or circumstances or change to the project thatwere brought to our attention today that would allow us to second guess the MNDon that issue.

I’m going to steer clear of the historical resource issue in my comments. I knowthere are people who like us to address it but I’m sorry I think that’s the law and Ithink that’s just the way it is. There are other issues I think that have been raisedtoday we need to discuss. Let me turn to those now.

The main issue I think at hand is whether we should grant the request of thetentative tract map and development plan review. In order to do that weessentially have to find that the proposed project is consistent with the generalplan, harmonious development in the area and will not be detrimental to thegeneral welfare. Now as the number of the speakers today pointed out, the staffreport points to several elements of the general plan at page 8 and those are theLand Use policy 2.4 and 7.1 which deal with design quality, Land Use policy 14.4which talks about environmental sustainability and Land Use policy 14.8 and OpenSpace policy 6.3 which deal with landscaping.

As speakers today pointed out and I think correctly there are other applicableelements of the general plan that I believe are even more important here. Wedidn’t really read them but I’d like to read some of them because I think they arethat important. Land Use 1.1 which was referred to by a couple of speakersspecifically says that although implicit in any discussion of the future of the city theimportance of scale must be underscored. I mean that’s actually in the Land Usepolicy. As long as the city is able to regenerate itself within the general frameworkof the existing scale it will alter ... it will offer an environment which is becomingincreasingly unique in the west side.

Land Use policy 2.1 specifically says maintain and enhance the characterdistribution built form, scale and aesthetic qualities, the city’s distinctive residentialneighborhoods, business districts, corridors and open spaces.

Land Use policy 5.2, which I’m not sure one of the speakers referred to, does saywith respect to infill and replacement housing, and as the applicant pointed out,this is infill and replacement housing, accommodate new and renovated housingwithin existing neighborhoods that is consistent with the contextual parcel sizes,densities, built form and scale. Those are really I think the touchstones of ouranalysis today. I think collectively these policies bring into focus something that’sreally critical both for this project and elsewhere in the city. That is even if an areais not deemed to be in historic district as this may or may not be, that doesn’t meanits character cannot and shouldn’t be protected under our general plan, quite the

beverlyhills_b3 8e223 7-al f7-4250-9bec453a0 11 d67f7 Page 44 of 54

opposite it should be.

If you look at the proposed project closely it’s clear to me that it’s fundamentally atodds with the character of the surrounding community. Existing buildings on theeast side of Oakhurst with one exception at the top of the block are all two storieshigh. There is a five-story building, a three-story building on the west side of thestreet but the rest of the buildings in that side are two stories as well.

in contrast, the proposed building would be four stories tall in Beverly Hills andeffectively six stories tall in Los Angeles. The part in Los Angeles is normally fivestories but as Vice Chair Joe Shooshani pointed out the fifth story units have fullstory loss which effectively bring to the sixth floor. Because the Beverly Hillsportion is only 19 feet deep, the overall building will read like a six-story buildingfrom Oakhurst and that is very different to the predominantly two-story buildingselsewhere in the block, Thus, the proposed project is a lot taller than thesurrounding cityscape.

Furthermore, and I think this is something that really is sort of been touched on bysome of the speakers but not really hammered home as well as maybe I think Iwould do it and I’m going to do it now. The existing buildings on the east and westsides of the 300 block of Oakhurst all occupy one city lot and are separated bysetbacks. The proposed building on the other hand would span three lots which Ithink will destroy the development rhythm of the street. Not only will this three-lotwide development gain the developer 38 feet of otherwise undeveloped setbackspace. It will create an enormous facade mote than three times as long as they’rebuilding the block. If there’s any doubt of how differently a three-lot wide structureread as compared to a series of one-lot wide structures, one need only look at the400 block of Oakhurst and how 411 Oakhurst stands like a sore thumb there evenamong neighboring structures that are similar in height.

The proposed buildings is not only much taller than the surrounding buildings, it’smuch longer as well and it doesn’t take a math major to realize that outsized heighttimes outsized width equals massively out of scale development.

That obviously is the inescapable conclusion of the project as proposed is notcompatible with the surrounding neighborhood and therefore, does not complyand is not consistent with the land use elements of the general plan.

In partial defense of the project the staff report points out the four-story portion inBeverly Hills is only 40 feet tall, is actually 40 feet tall plus the four foot parapet. Ithink the reason the portion in Beverly Hills is what it is, is because the developerwants to squeeze effectively six floors into a 60-foot height requirement or 60-footheight limit or 60-foot height envelope I should say in Los Angeles and [inaudible02:06:05] use 10-foot height place and that’s how you get the 40 feet plus the fourfoot parapet. I don’t think it’s ... I don’t think the 40 foot, the height in Beverly Hillshave the goodness of anybody’s heart.


Now importantly and people have made comments about this today. The staffreport also points out that four and five story buildings have been built and are inthe planning stages elsewhere in the general area. It’s true that in January weapproved a project in the northwest corner of Beverly Boulevard and Palm andreplaced three older low-rise apartment buildings with a five-floor condominiumproject. That area is zone for extra height and there are already numerous buildingsthat big in the block.

I would also point out, the same holds true for existing plan buildings in BurtonWay but Beverly Boulevard and Burton Way are larger streets, they are widerstreets and can accommodate extra height. If taken to its logical extreme one couldsay the fact we’ve allowed eight floors of the Montage in the triangle and eightfloors of L’Ermitage Hotel means that that’s fair game to everyone in the city. Weknow that’s not the case.

Now it’s true the Montage are probably 10 to 12 blocks away but L’ermitage is onlyfour to five blocks away. Where do you draw the line? As I said several years agowith respect to the Robert Derrah Building at 9936 Durant Drive, also potentialhistoric resource, I believe the obvious answer to that question is that a project’simpact to a neighborhood or district should be mainly determined by looking at theimmediately surrounding area. I think that’s common sense. That’s the area that’svisible from the property that really defines its aesthetic environment. We shouldnever really say well, when the project is seen in the context of a five-block area it’sno harm, no foul because no project is actually seen in the context of a five-blockarea.

That’s why I believe the 300-block of Oakhurst should be our primary reference andthe project is not compatible with that part of the city.

Now, applicant has made a point. Vice Chair Joe Shooshani’s comments actuallysuggest this point as well, that the project is code compliant which means that itactually conforms to the maximum height limits and densities that the city allows ina zoning code. I think that is something that’s floated in the background of thewhole project from the design, the staff’s reaction to it and that is a presumptionwe often see, that people ordinarily should be allowed to build to the maximumheight allowed absent unusual circumstances. I mean that is a common theme on anumber of our projects that come before us.

I don’t think that presumption applies in the R4 areas of the city and I’ll tell youwhy. In the R4 areas of the city every condo project, as Mr. Gohlich said earlier, andjust about every apartment projects, the very, very small ones, requires a DPR. As Ipointed out previously one of the key findings for a DPR is consistency with thegeneral plan. Now if you look close to the general plan, you’ll see there’s nothing init that says or in any way suggests that people should ordinarily be allowed to buildwhatever the zoning code permits. To the contrary, the general plan says over andover that new develop must be compelled with the neighborhood.

beverlyhillsb38e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 46 of 54

Land Use policy 1 supposedly says, I said earlier, the importance scale must beunderscored. Land Use policy 2.1, Land Use policy 5.2, they’re all explicit and theseare not optional policies. They’re mandatory. They’re all optional or aspirationalpolicies, one of which we’ll get to in a minute. The land use policies I’ve read arenot those.

The lesson to be learned from these land use policies is that new buildings subjectto a with DPR like the current project should only be allowed to be built to themaximum height allowed in the zoning code if such scale and mass would fit intothe neighborhood. That’s the touchstone, otherwise, what’s the point In requiring aDPR that in turn requires consistent the general plan? It’s just common sense.Those are my main comments.

Let me just go a little further if anyone’s not too bored. Even apart from theproject’s incompatibility from a bulk and mass standpoint, I don’t think theproposed project is consistent with general plans for other reasons as well. Farfrom exhibiting a high level of excellence in site planning architectural design andbuilding materials as required by Land Use policy 2.4, the proposed structure is, Ithink we all can agree, a little more than a large stucco box that was clearlydesigned to fill the maximum building envelope with little regard for aesthetics.

Now I understand there’s been tweaks because of some reactions to thearchitectural commission but the architectural commission hasn’t approved it. Theyjust gave some preliminary comments and the thing was tweaked as a result.

The main step backs in the front façade occur almost exactly on the borderbetween Beverly Hills and Los Angeles to take maximum advantage of theadditional height permitted in Los Angeles.

The applicant showed the south elevation to show that there are otherintermediate step backs along the way from the bottom floor to the top floor. Ifyou look at the north elevation you’ll see parts of the North LA and parts of thebuilding do not step back at all below that 44-foot parapet. I don’t think there arereally any meaningful step backs

The cutouts in the middle of the building would be barely visible from the street,would not afford any meaningful open space and their purpose seems really toallow the developer to be able to sell these back units which will otherwise have nolight or air or whatsoever. There are also some concerns raised in the staff reportabout potential privacy impacts to neighbors because of those cutouts.

Other than these step backs and cutouts I don’t think there’s any really meaningfulmodulation of the façade as required by Land Use policy 7.1. I know the applicantmentioned there are modulations but I don’t think there are. I think the fact thatthe architectural commission suggested they paint the top portion a little differentto highlight the difference shows that otherwise, from a bulk and mass standpointthere really isn’t much modulation in the façade.


It goes without saying that there’s no attempt in the project to satisfy theaspirational provisions of Land Use policy 7.2 which requires some open space andIll ... little differently. Let me read that too because I think that’s important. It isinspirational but this is Beverly Hills we like to meet these higher standards. 7.2says encourage, optional, new multifamily development to provide amenities forresidents such as onsite recreational facilities, community meeting spaces, andrequire usable private open space, a public open space or both. When you’retalking about a project that expands three tots you’d like to think that somebodywho is doing that large of a development could provide some of these additionalamenities.

For these additional reasons I can’t vote to approve the project. We also talkedabout also some discussion today about traffic studies. I personally am not sure thetraffic analysis conducted by the applicant sufficiently takes into account otherdevelopments in the area but I don’t think we have to rely on that at this point. Ialso heard loud and clear, people in the neighborhood saying look, we have aparking problem already and this could only exacerbate it from bringing in a lot ofextra guest parking that will not likely park in the basement. Also, the applicant saywell, we’re going to provide more tenant parking or occupant parking in thebasement that exist in the current rental units. There’s obviously some discussionback and forth there but I think that we don’t have to get into that today.

It seems to me the question, especially given the fact that one of my colleaguesalso agrees with me and maybe more do. Where do we go from here? I think it’sfair to give the applicant some direction so they don’t just spin their wheels andspend money needlessly. For my comments, I think everyone can probably guess. Ithink the project needs a major overhaul and not just minor adjustments, not just anip and tuck, not just what’s been done previously. It should have a reduced heightnot just in Beverly Hills but in Los Angeles because that’s what we see from BeverlyHills.

I’m not saying it has to be two stories all the way through but certainly, its currentheight envelope is a nonstarter in my view. It should have much more modulation,at least enough to suggest that the building is comprised of three connectedstructures matching the lot to lot rhythm of the rest of the Street. It should have amore aesthetically interesting design. Maybe not as radical as the building weapproved at the corner of Palm and Beverly Boulevard, that’s kind of interesting,but something more fitting with the neighbor but something interesting, somethingthat brings value to the community and not just the developer. I don’t thinkexpensive tight fixtures and painting different portions different colors is sufficient.

On the other hand, I think neighbors who have as5erted in some of thecorrespondence we received that there shouldn’t be any development at allbecause the construction impacts are being a little unrealistic. Even if the existingproperties are rehabbed there were still be major construction impacts because aswe heard the building themselves are below code, need to be brought up to

beverlyhills_b38e2237-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d67f7 Page 48 of 54

different kinds of building codes if they could even be that.

(inaudible 02:15:11] the court overturn the MND on historic preservations grounds,I think the odds are something that likely going to be build here. The key is findingthe right balance that everyone can live with and what we know is the project as itcurrently poses is not it. For efficiency reasons if there’s an agreement among therest of the commissioners I would suggest a subcommittee to work with theapplicant on a redesign. Subcommittee could have notice meetings. Give theapplicant intermediate input before they come back to the entire commission.Also, give the neighbors and their local stakeholders an ability to come and haveinput in the process as well and I think everyone would welcome that. Those aremy thoughts.

Alan Block: Thank you. Vice Chair Joe Shooshani.

Joe Shooshani: I don’t know what to say after. My colleague had practically covered everything, soI’ve not much to say. I also think this is a unique neighborhood and we should keepthe character of it. We also, this is not ... also, I don’t want to have a piece of landor dilapidated apartment buildings there. What I heat from the neighbors is there’salready bunch of rats living in there. I mean they are bothering the neighbors.Something has to be built there.

I think whatever is going to be built It has to have Beverly Hills parking regulations.What do you propose as far as parking is not enough, I mean it doesn’t haveenough parking. If you come up with something else, it definitely have to have theparking enough for Beverly Hills. The height also is much higher than ... the street is

Beverly Hills is going to be ... people are not going to go and see the map, this isBeverly Hills or Los Angeles, they ‘re going to come here as Beverly Hills. Thisbuilding has to be part of Beverly Hills and look like Beverly Hills.

I think you have to reduce the height of it to something manageable or to keep it to40 feet unified for the entire thing. Other than that, he said everything that had tobe said.

Alan Block: Well I have to echo the comments of my co-commissioners. I do want to say thatthis was a well-done presentation on both sides. This is really a precedent settingproject. Whatever happens in this project on these three lots is probably going toaffect the rest of the block. The alley and the traffic and the potential forcumulative effect in this neighborhood with the use of that alley I think is probablygoing to overburden the alley.

I think the character of the neighborhood is really important. I walk the street atlike Commissioner Craig Corman said every structure on the east side of the streetexcept the corner at Alden is a two-story structure. It has a unique character. Idon’t know if it’s a historical, cultural aspect of the project but if we didn’t havediscretion you wouldn’t be required to come before the planning commission. Thefact that it’s code compliant in Beverly Hills doesn’t mean it gets approved. We still


have the discretion and I think the mass scale of this building is just too big.

I think I echo the comments of Commissioner or Vice Chair Joe Shooshani in that Ithink this project or any project that’s going to be build has to be code compliantwith parking for Beverly Hills because Beverly Hills is going to get the traffic. Peopleare going to park an Oakhurst. If they can’t find a parking space then they’re goingto go around the black. I think guests will use the street. I don’t think guests willuse the guest parking or most of the guests will not do so.

I think that regarding the height for this project, even if the commissioners were tovote In favor of this project I think that the loft portion closest the Oakhurst is a nostarter. I would totally agree with keeping the height at 40 feet.

I think the neighbors are going to have to be realistic and realize that thereprobably will be some development on this block if ... unless the CEQA lawsuit isone. There will be some construction impacts. That’s just the way it goes. Ithappens whenever there’s new development.

I think that the comments of Commissioner Craig Corman with regards to settingup a subcommittee may be a good idea if the applicant is interested in doing so.With that, I think I will ask Karen to have a roll call. No excuse me. I think we need amotion.

Loti Gordon: But we ... Okay.

Joe Shooshani: What is the motion? Can you

Lan Gordon: All right. The motion is here. It’s the

Craig Corman: We move ... Do we move to adapt the resolution or deny the resolution, deny theapplication?

David Snow: What I would suggest again judging on the comments from the four commissionersthat the commission in effect deny the project and direct the city attorney toprepare a denial resolution memorializing the findings that were articulated heretoday and bring that back for the commission.

Craig Corman: Okay. I’ll make that motion that we have the staff prepare a resolution denying theproject for the reasons stated in our deliberations.

Alan Block: Is there a second?

Lan Gordon: I’ll second.

Alan Block: Now we can have a roll call. Do I see

Ellia Thompson: Hold on. We’ve been trying to speak to them for one


Alan Block: Why don’t you ... I’ll reopen the public hearing before the roil call and you can ... ifyou want to come up here and speak.

Ellia Thompson: I’m sorry I know that that wasn’t proper, I was just trying to get some

Alan Block: That’s fine.

Ellia Thompson: ... attention. Again, Ellia Thompson for the record. My question is both to thecommissioners as well as the city attorney. Is there also a secondary optionwhereby we could get a continuance to regroup and sit down and talk to planningabout perhaps is there a place we could find some more parking, is there a way tomake some changes to the architecture and be able to present this back to you? Iwanted to put that out there before there was a vote that we potentially have acontinuance to come back with a revised project that meets some of the concernsthat were addressed today.

Alan Block: Thank you. I would

Craig Corman: I would ... Let me put it this way. It doesn’t sound like the comments you just madeare going to sufficiently address my concerns.

Ellia Thompson: I just don’t want to put anything out there that we’re definitely going to do A, B andC. I was trying to be cautious.

Craig Corman: I understand, but your caution makes me think that I don’t want you ... this is mypoint and my comments. I don’t want you to spin your wheels, so I don’t want youto spend your money and spin your wheels doing something which won’t satisfy meand if it won’t satisfy the other members of the commission then I don ‘t see anypoint in doing that.

I mean my position has been that this thing needs major overhaul. I don’t know if Iwould even support a building that’s only 45 feet tail all the way across the board.It may need to be lower or close to Oakhurst but I have made that finding, I’vemade the determination, I’m willing to listen and talk, If your client is looking for abuilding approximately the same size and envelop as what they’ve got, I’m nevergoing to get there. Just being honest with you, given what I’ve seen, given what Iknow about the neighborhood and I don’t know

Con Gordon: I echo that. No, I echo that. I think the concept of the subcommittee might be agood idea because maybe we can get some more thoughts across as far as what wethink is appropriate kind of architecture for that property. I’m not seeing at all. Icould not see

Craig Corman: A little additional parking or more or fewer compact parking space in the basementis not

bever1yhi11s_b38e2237-a1f7-425O9bec-453aO1 1d67f7 Page 51 of 54

Ellia Thompson: Again, to be clear, obviously you take the vote that you need to take but thoseweren’t my words. That wasn’t what I was saying. I was being very clear that theother option that we wanted to have put out there was to have a continuance to goback to the drawing board and meet with Ryan Gohllch and others, and RyanGohlich has been involved in this process for the get-go and to see if there wassomething we could come up.

We may not be able to come up with something that you’re satisfied with. Thewhole idea was to be able to have some time in which to take into account becausethis is the first time we’ve heard from all of you as to what your thoughts and yourconcerns were and also what are not your thoughts and concerns and to be able totake that back. If that’s not an option, that’s fine, I just want to be able to voice it.

Alan Block: Will the applicant be willing to work with the subcommittee of this planningcommission?

Eflia Thompson: Absolutely. We will definitely want ... I mean that would be the first thing is to see ifRyan Goblich could set up a meeting with the subcommittee.

Craig Corman: Obviously, I suggest that. I think that would be a good idea.

Joe Shooshani: I think that’s great.

Alan Block: I agree. Well, on that basis then can we continue the hearing?

David Snow: Mr. Chair, just one logistical matter. There are certain processing timelines underthe Permit Streamlining Act and under the Subdivision Map Act. I would just askthat the applicant waive those for all purposes to give the time for that to occur sothat the city isn’t stuck in a position of having to act because of those deadlines.

Alan Block: Where are we with regard to the 180 days?

David Snow: Do you know Ryan Goblich where we’re at?

Ryan Gohlich: I don’t have the specific date off the top of my head but I believe that the 180 dayscomes up next month.

Alan Block: Okay. Then we could ... if they agree to waive then that would be an additional 90days, correct?

Joe Shooshani: No, it is 180 days.

David Snow: I would ask that they waive them and we could start with 90 days. I would ask thatthey waive them to provide ... just waive them outright at this point to providesufficient time. Again, there are two different aspects, Subdivision Map Act as wellas Permit Streamlining Act.


Lori Gordon: I notice those people in the audience wanted to speak to this. I don’t know if weshould

Alan Block: Right now, I think we should stay with the applicant and what we’re talking. I meanI would take it you want to speak to the continuance issue.

Male: A helpful suggestion.

Female: Excuse me. If he’s going to speak

Alan Block: No, okay.

Craig Corman: What if we ask the others whether they’re willing to waive the items that Mr. DavidSnow just mentioned?

Alan Block: Is staff ... Excuse me, okay. Is the applicant willing to waive?

Ellia Thompson: We would like to have it waived for an additional 180 days. We don’t want it just tobe completely but I mean six months where either going to come back withsomething that works or not. That’s what we would like to do. We like to have acompromise of 180 days.

Lori Gordon: From today as opposed to from the month from today.

Alan Block: That would be acceptable to me.

Joe Shooshani: 180 days, correct?

Craig Corman: Mr. David Snow.

David Snow: Typically, they’re an extension from the deadline so whenever that deadline wouldroll.

Alan Block: If the deadline is next month it would be 180 days from that time, that date.

David Snow: Correct. Okay, that would be fine. Okay. That’s fine.

Alan Block: Didn’t somebody want to make a motion to continue?

Craig Corman: So we should ... we move to continue this

Alan Block: We would have to have a sub or

Craig Corman: Right. You ‘re the one that has ... well, first, you want to set up a subcommittee.

Alan Block: Okay, yes. I do want to set up a subcommittee. Would you like to be on thesubcommittee?

beverlyhills_b3 $e2237a I f7-425O-9bec453aOIi d67f7 Page 53 of 54

Craig Corman: Sure.

Alan Block: Okay. Vice Chair Joe Shooshani and Commissioner Craig Corman will make up thesubcommittee. Now do I have a substitute motion for a continuance for the 180days from the deadline of the Permit Streamlining Act?

David Snow: Well, that’s a wave. Should we continue the matter to a date certain 180 days fromtoday?

Ryan Gohlich: I woutd recommend continuing to a date uncertain, that way we can do a newnotice at whatever point this does come back before the commission.

Craig Corman: Okay. Obviously, you will let us know when were getting near that 180-day waiverextension.

Ryan Gohlich: Yes.

Craig Corman: Okay. I move to that we continue this matter to a date uncertain.

Alan Block: Do I have a second?

Joe Shooshani: I second.

Alan Block: Karen, could we have a toll call?

Karen Myron: Commissioner Gordon

Loti Gordon: Yes

Karen Myron: Commissioner Corman

Craig Corman: Yes

Karen Myron: Vice Chair Shooshani?

Joe Shooshani: Yes

Karen Myron: Chair Block?

Alan Block: Yes.

Ellia Thompson: Thank youAlan Block: Thank you. I look forward to working with you on the sub committee

beverlyhillsb3 8e223 7-al f7-4250-9bec-453a0 11 d6717 Page 54 of 54

Submitted at the P’anningCommission ti g of:

7/c

e

2-336 NOflTj OAKWJRST- ALLEY

I—

I

ATIV-ISUf1NNVOftD1O19c-ZEE

C-,

I

Nossnb.r2013

OakhurstCondominiums332-36NO*itOily,.Cc,CAX048

MICHAELBAU.LArchItects1 474114AOCA17403

818-783.802?

/I14”.r

of

cDtr0

r-im

ik

I-,

JO)

CD

0-I

111111LIllJI

11

liiII

+—

it..

0 E C -ø

CITY

OP

LOS

AN

C3EC

ES

—yvy

i-ia

s

p-2

gara

ge

e

(CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT455 N. Rexford Drh,e, Beverly Hills, CA 90210Tel. (310) 285-1141 Fax. (310) 852-5966

HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT LIST

HISTORY, ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY (HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNING)

Page 3

Submitted at the PIaHningmsiilg0f:

By: n(e

PCLb. 4flW6 - tfZ to

HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT UST (MARZal3rei4

QUALIFICATION CATEGORY:

Consultants listed in alphabetical orde

Architectural Resources GroupHistoric Resources Group

Katie Horak, Architectural Historian65 North Raymond Avenue, Ste. 220Pasadena, CA [email protected]

Christie McAvoy, Founding PrincipalChristine Lazzaretto, Principal12 South Fair Oaks Ave. Ste. 200Pasadena, CA [email protected]

Galvin PreservatIon Associates

Andrea Galvin, Principal231 CalifornIa StreetEl Segundo, CA [email protected]

IS Architecture

lone R. Stiegler, Principal5649 La Jolla 81.La Jolla, CA [email protected]

Heritage Architecture & Planning

David Marshall, Principal625 Broadway, Suite 800San Diego, CA 92101619- [email protected]

Page & Turnbull

Leslie J. Heumann Consulting

John Lesak, AlA417 South Hill Street, Ste. 211Los Angeles, CA [email protected]

Leslie Heumann, Principal600 N. Sierra Bonita AvenueLos Angeles, CA [email protected]

PCR Services

Margarita Wuellner, PhD, Dir.of Historic Resources201 Santa Monica Blvd, Ste. 500Santa Monica, CA 90401310-451-4488 ext. [email protected]

C

Planning Commission / MayerOctober 5, 2015Page 15.

GENERAL PLAN

Staff contends that the proposed project is in conformance tvith the General Plan.

Staff cited LU 2.4, LU 7.1, LU 14.4, and OS 6.3 to support its contention.

The local stakeholders believe this is misguided.

The proposed project is not consistent with ‘Goals and Policies of LU 2.1, LU7.2, LU 14.2, LU 14.5, OS 6.1, OS 6.6, OS 6.7, HI, H1.2, and H1.4.

In summary. the proposed project does tof:

* Maintain the character of a distinctive residential neighborhood (LU 2.1)

* Promote amenities (both private and public) due to its high density (LU7.2)

* Incorporate the latest stistainability measures such as solar, capture andreuse of rainwater and graywater on-site. (LU 14.2)

* Does not reduce the “Heat island Effect” by using the latest techniques(LU 14.5)

* Does not protect Scenic Views of the immediate neighborhood (OS 6.1)

* Does not minimize obtrusive outdoor light by using devises over windowson the North, East, and South sides of the property (OS 6.6)

* Does not utilize the latest building techniques to minimize glare (OS 6.7)

* Does not maintain the character and quality of residential neighborhoods(H I .1)

* Does not promote the preservation of historic buildings and historicneighborhoods (HI .4)

* Does not promote inclusionary housing (Imp 10.2)

Submitted at the PlanningCommission neptmg of:

BJfl—‘7M ui1€t± I’

TO: THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONERSPLANNING COMMISSIONCITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

FROM: STEVE MAYER[PH: 310-275-8423]

DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2015

RE: 332-336 NORTH OAKHURST

INTRODUCTCON

The Concerned Citizens for Beverly Hills / Beverly Grove represents the interestsof a group of local stakehotders.

They oppose the project for a variety of reason. Such opposition has beenmemorialized in a series of appeals in the City of Los Angeles, and also a CEQA lawsuit.

That CEQA lawsuit is scheduled for trial on June 10,2015.

One of the important reasons for filing the tawsuit was to restore the rights of theCity of Beverly Hills. The City of Beverly Hills should be the “Lead Agency,” and not a“Responsible Agency.”

After ceding tights to be the “Lead Agency” in 201 1. the City did not exercise itsrights during two ‘public review” periods dating back to 2012. for example, does theCommission know that construction can commence in Los Angeles at 7 a.m., and there isnothing you can do about it?

You, as a Commission, are being told that since you did not object to theMitigated Negative Declaration and the Determination Letter, you have little recourse inmaking changes.

While that is not technically correct, the fact remains that you, as a Commission,should have had the opportunity to weigh-in on a mttltitude of issues that affect thecitizens of Beverly Hills.

Those approval rights were taken away from you; this is the opportunity to regainthose rights, to make certain that the development process is to the standards of the Cityof Beverly Hills.

Submitted at the PlanningCommission meinot:

L)[fPBy: 1

p11hc pi,cfr

Planning Commission / MayerOctober 51 2015Page2

At the conclusion of the public hearing, we ask that you vote “no” on the findings.

No continuance should be granted. We, the stakeholders, should not have toendure this any further

TOPIC AREAS

This memorandum will address a number ofdifferent issues, including:

Traffic / Parking

Neighborhood Definition

Lead Agency

Public Review

Public Services

Sustainability

General Plan

Mischaracterizations

PARKING / TRAFFIC

-0 Site

While the number of parking spaces for the proposed project meets code, there isa general lack of understanding as to the nature of the neighborhood.

There may sufficient parking for overnight guests; there will not be enoughparking on friday night.

On Friday nights, the two blocks of Oakhurst between Burton Way and AldenDrive are jam-full with cars for the Sabbath.


There are no parking spaces left on the street.

At its height, according to the Applicant’s own records submitted to the City ofLos Angeles, a total of 22 residents occupied 17 apartment units. Of those, only two (2)residents were above age 62. There were no children, and rents averaged less than$2000. The median age was 35.

In the 31 units, based upon housing data from the census for the tract, theprojected residents will be families of three and four. While the age of the children isdifficult to accurately predict, it is a reasonable assumption that the owners of the unitscan be predominately segmented into two age groups, those in their late thirties and thosein their late forties, with children in two groups, adolescent and preteenieen. At theprojected sales price of$ 1.5 million, the average mortgage will be $5000 per month.

It is disingenuous to believe that guest parking wilt be used, in the mannerintended, due to:

* It is behind a gate, whose passage can only be granted by an owner

* Because over 40% of alt parking spaces in the City of Los Angeleswill be allocated for compact cars, what guest wants their luxuryvehicle to be shoved into a space for a Smart car?

* What happens if the HOA decides that the guest parking should bein the tandem spaces?

If the design had allowed for the guest parking to be unsecured spaces on thealley, guest parking utilization would increase.

But the real problem will be five years from now, when those spaces are rented toothers.

Wont happen? That is precisely what occurred at 147 South Doheny, acondominium project being rented as apartments that is directly across the alley. Theguest parking spaces are rented.

You cannot, and will not control, the actions of the HOA, relative to their guestparking spaces in the City of Los Angeles. No matter what conditions you might imposein the CC&Rs, they can be changed by a majority vote. If the CC&Rs are not changed,in practice, they will be ignored.


Traffic

Relative to the issue of traffic, the Applicant submitted a “Trip GenerationAnalysis” dated January 29, 2014,

What had been requested by the City in 2011 was a traffic study.

In a November 7, 2011 letter from Nathan Gapper (Limited Term Planner — Cityof Beverly Hills) to Ifa Kashefi (Chief of Engineering Bureau, Department of Buildingand Safety, City of Los Angeles), Mr. Gapper wrote:

Traffic would likely be the categoly that presents the greatestpotentialfor environmental impact. Therefore, the results of traffic studiesfor the project may play a sign(Jicant role in dictating the levet of impactthe project may have.

Some may question why a letter from 2011 is being cited in this hearing.

The correspondence from a previously “closed” application file in the City ofBeverly Kills governs the process in the City of Los Angeles’ “current” application.

Even though the City of Beverly Hills opened a new application in 2013 for 332-336 North Oakhurst, the Applicant piggy-backed on a 2011 application in the City of LosAngeles.

roec

Between 2014 and now, there are three new projects that will impact theApplicant’s consultant’s findings:

• 9100 Alden Drive (at Doheny)• 32$ West Third• 325 North Maple

9100 Alden Drive is the tear-down of 8 units in two two-story apartmentbuildings, replaced with a 35 unit 5-story apartment building (with a 4-unit low-incomecomponent). The property is currently undergoing the permit process. No specialpermissions were required. 9100 Alden Drive shares the alley with the proposed project.The number of vehicles accessing the alley will increase from 8 vehicles to 88 vehicles.

Planning Commission / MayerOctober 5,2015Page 5.

328 West Third is a bi-jurisdictional property. This two story apartment buildingof 6 units was purchased in November, 2104 for $4.6 million. It is believed that theintent is to build 14 units. The new owner commissioned a traffic count survey on WestThird street. How this property can impact the proposed project is that the alleyentrance/exit for this project is situated directly across from the main alley entrance/exitfor the proposed project. The number of vehicles accessing the alley will increase from 6vehicles to 35 vehicles.

325 North Maple is the Post Office renovation, in August, the Commissionapproved a project that can house 880 new employees for a facility that has less than 300parking spaces. With the traffic analysis projecting little utilization of public transit, atremendous number of potential employees might flood West Third Street, during peakhours.

Another property that local residents project being developed is 344-348 NorthOakhurst. 344-348 North Oakhucst is another bi-jurisdictional property. These threetwo-story apartment buildings, that contain 13 units, were designed by master architectCharles Lee in the 1930’s. The local residents fear that if 332-336 North Oakhurst isapproved, the current owner will immediately commence the development process. Theirbelief is predicated upon units being vacant for up to a year, or more, before being rerented in 344 and 346 North Oakhurst. Assuming the acreage is the same as 332-336North Oakhurst, it is projected that 31 units could be constructed on the site. If that isaccurate, the number of vehicles would increase from 13 vehicles to $2 vehicles.

Within three years, the number of cats accessing the alley could increase by over650%,

Measure

As to the “Trip Generation” analysis, there is a dispute as to the “unit of measure”utilized by the Applicant’s consultant.

Traffic consultants calculate “Trip Generation” by using “codes” developed bythe Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). There are over two hundred codes fordifferent property types. In addition, there are different units of measure” for a numberof those codes.

Planning Commission / MayerOctober5, 2015Page 6.

For residential properties, there are close to twenty different codes ranging indescription from “Single Family” to “Resident PUD,” The “units ofmeasure”are “number ofdwelling units,” “number ofpersons, and “number ofvehicles. Not all“units ofmeasure are available for each residential property code.

The AppLicant’s consultant utilized “number ofdwelling units” to generate “TripGeneration” projections.

By some transportation experts, it can be argued that the proper “unit ofmeasure” for 332-336 North Oakhurst should have been the “number ofpersons,” andnot the “number ofdwelling units”

Using “number ofpersons” generated vastly different “trip generation” results,showing far more vehicle trips for the proposed condominiums:

ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION COMPARISONUNITS OF MEASURE: “DWELLING UNIT” V “NUMBER OF PERSONS”

PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT332-336 NORTH OAKHURST DRIVE

TOTAL DULY TRIPS PM PEAK TRIPS

Units of Measure Units of Measure# Of Dwelling Number of Dwelling Number of

Persons Persons

PROPOSED USECondominiums 31 180 232 11 22

EXISTING USEApartments 17 Z

NET DAILY TRIPS 4

Using a different “unit ofmeasure” resulted in a “Total Daily Trips” increase of

237ó and a “PM Peak Trips” increase of 325%, compared to the Applicant’s consultant.

When adding the approved, the proposed, and the projected developments, andusing “number ofpersons” as the “unit ofmeasure,” the “Net Daily Trips” closes uponthe City’s thresholds.


When combined with just a quarter of the potential 880 new employees for thePost Office renovation traveling along West Third Street, then the Cftys thresholds arevastly exceeded, requiring a full traffic study

NEIGBORHOOD DEFINITION

In the Planning Commission Report, the neighborhood is defined as the areabounded by Burton Way, Beverly Boulevard, and both sides of North Oakhurst Drive.

The definition of a neighborhood is open to interpretation.

To the local stakeholders, the neighborhood is defined as both sides 300 block ofNorth Oakhurst Drive between West Third Street and Alden Drive.

The Applicant’s historical consultant originally defined the neighborhood as thesame as reflected in the Planning Commission Report.

Subsequently, that same consultant narrowed the focus to an area similar to thelocal stakeholders definition.

The East side of the block of Oakhurst is especially unique from a historicalperspective in Beverly Hills. It may be the only block in the City that has spumeddevelopment. Highlights of the eleven (II) properties include:

* 91% of the properties are over 75 years old

* The remaining property is over 25 years old

Indeed, it may be the only block within the area bounded by Santa MonicaBoulevard, Doheny, and Burton Way that has not seen any development in nearly threedecades. [nstead, most of the property owners maximize their investment through prideof-ownership.

The other side of the block is populated by two-story apartment buildings, someolder than 75 years old, with the exception of one five story building that was constructed50 years ago.

Planning Commission ‘MayerOctober 5, 2015Page 6.

LEAD AGENCY

The depiction of the Lead Agency status in the Planning Commission Reportdiffers from what is in the public record in the City of Los Angeles

During the Central Area Planning Commission hearing in the City of Los Angeleson March 19, 2015, the Chairman of that commission asked Department of Planningemployee Luci Ibarra (Planner) how the City of Los Angeles became the Lead Agency:

COMMISSIONER MILLMAN: This is Commissioner Mittman. Can youjust explain to us how it was that Los Angeles became the lead agency andwhy that was and what that meant?

LUI IBA RRA: Okay. So when the case was originallyfiled in 2011 theapplicant provided-- or the City ofBeverly Hills provided a letter to thefile basically saying that they deferred lead agency status to us as wewould be reviewing the projectfirst and so we processed theenvironmental document. We certify that document and upon which it spresumably the City ofBeverly Hills itottld use that document assatisfying EQA for the purposes ofa discretionary project.

PUBLIC REVIEW

There were three perIod of Public Review,” that allowed for comments by theCity of Beverly Hills.

The first was related to the initial Mitigated Negative Declaration. The secondwas related to the Reconsidered Mitigated Negative Declaration,

During those first two “Public Review” periods, the City did not provide anyresponse.

As testified to by Luci [barra, Planner, City of Los Angeles, during the CentralArea Planning Commission hearing in the City of Los Angeles on Match 10, 2015:

LUC’I IBARRA: The project t’as processed and an MND W05 issued. Wenever heardfrom the City of Beverly Hilts when tI?at was circulated. Thecase was then placed on hold.


A new owner came into the project, revised the project reducing theproject We issued a reconsideration. We scheduled the hearing.

The hearing notice was received by the City ofBeverly Hills. They cattedus and said, we ‘re not going to the hearing but tet us know how it turnsout. They didn ‘t attend the public hearing.

During the third comment period, the City of Beverly Hills started to examine thepotential historical aspects regarding both the individual properties as well as theimmediate neighborhood. The examination was at the behest of a resident whoquestioned the City of Beverly Hilts.

The summary of the actions by the City of Beverly Hills during the third PublicReview period is:

March 19, 2014 The matter is kept open to address concerns abouthistorical significance and other issues

May 1, 2014 The Applicant submits a historical consultant’sreport to the City of Los Angeles that states:

(A) The “neighborhood” is defined by BurtonWay, both sides of Oakhurst, and BeverlyBoulevard

(B) There was no historical significance withinthe entire neighborhood

May 29, 2014 City of Beverly Kilts employee Shena Rojemannexpresses concern as to the Historic Analysis in anemail:

‘Pursuant to my previous conversations with bat??ofyou, the City ofBeverly Hills is interested inhaving an opportunity to comment on the HistoricAnalysis in a public hearings. Based on counselfrom our City Attorney, it is my understanding thatit is a matter ofdue process that a public hearingshould be held to allow the pztbtic to comment onany new information (historic analysis,J, despite


whether the reviewing authority has determined thatthe new information witi result in modifications toany environmental documents prepared. Luci, whenwe last spoke a little over two weeks ago, you weregoing to consult with your City Attorney to discussthis issue. To date, I’ve not received anyfeedbackfrom you on this issue. Ifyou could provide me withan update, I would greatly appreciate it,

“At this point in time, our historic consultant isresearching the neighborhood and we anticipatehaving a memo summarizing the findings ofthatresearch in approximately a week I wiltfollow-zipwith both ofyou at that time to discuss thefindingsandprocess movingfonvard.”

June II, 2014 Shena Rojemann submits a letter to the City of LosAngeles requesting an E1R, due to:

(1) The City of Beverly Hills’ historicalconsultant, Historic Resources Group,looked at the east side of Oakhurst as part oftheir Historic Survey

(2) They determined there was a potentialhistoric district comprised of nine (9)properties

June 13, 2014 Ryan Gohlich submits an email to the City of LosAngeles, affirming his desire for an EIR:

“As afollow up to the email below, I wanted toprovide some additional clarification. Although its’articulated in Shena’s letter, I wanted to be clearthat the City ofBeverly Hills is requesting that anEIR be prepared based on the conflicting expertopinion, and that simply adding a copy ofour letterto the file will not achieve compliance with CEQA.

Planning Commission /MayerOctober 5, 2015Page 11

At your earliest convenience, please confirm thatthe City ofLos Angeles intends to prepare an EIRas required by CEQA.”

June or July, 2014 Applicant requests the project be placed on hold inthe City of Los Angeles

June / July / August Shena Rojemann submits a series of emails to Cityof Los Angeles planner Luci Ibarra asking for anupdates. The last exchange was on August 4, 2014:

Hello Luci,

I hope this emailfinds you welt.

Ijust wanted tofollowup on this project. Ifyoucozddplease provide me with a status update, Iwould greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

Best,Shena Rojemann

Hi Shena,

There really hasn’t been any movement. Theapplicant asked us to keep the case on hold sayingthey wanted to meet internally. Haven’t heardfromthem in recent weeks.

-Lttci

October, 2014 Applicant meets and/or converses with City of LosAngeles on how to proceed

Planning Commission / MayerOctober 5, 2015Page 12

December 4, 2014 The Applicant submits Applicant’s historicalconsultant’s report to the City of Los Angeles andrequests the Application be taken off “holdS”

The Applicant did not submit a copy of thehistorical consultant’s report to the City of BeverlyHilts.

The City of Los Angeles does not forward thereport to the City of Beverly Hills, likely believingthat Applicant’s historical consultant had.

The Applicant’s historical consultanfs report statesthey are amending their initial report from May:

(I) They agree with the City of Beverly Kills isthat there is a potential historic district.

(2) But the potential historic district iscomprised of twelve (12) properties insteadof nine (9). The additional three (3)properties came from across the street.

(3) Because the potential historic district hasbeen expanded to twelve (12) properties, thedestruction of three properties would notviolate the 75% threshold of maintaining adistrict.

February 3, 2015 Determination Letter Issued

There appears to have been no further written communication between theDepartment of Community Development in the City of Beverly Hilts and the City of LosAngeles from August 4, 2014 to June 15, 2015 regarding 332336 North Oakhurst, withone exception.


That sole exception was an email sent on January 7, 2015 from Ken 3emstein, theManager of Historic Resources in the City of Los Angeles to Bill Crouch, the UrbanDesigner in the City of Beverly Hills. There does not appear to have been a responseregarding 332336 North Oakhurst by Mr. Crouch.

Such information was uncovered during the discovery process in the CEQAlawsuit. A ‘records request” generated over 900 pages of emails in the City of LosAngeles, a number of which were also in the physical Application file.

In the City of Beverly Hills, no copies of emails were present in the physicalApplication file on September 17th.

PUBLIC SERVICES

The use of City of Beverly Hills public services by City of Los Angeles residentsis a contentious issue.

Some of the services listed on page 11 of the Planning Commission Report areexiraneous, while others cannot be substantiated.

Zn addition, there are substantive discrepancies in, and between, the City ofBeverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles documents.

The City of Beverly Hills documents of the Planning Commission Report, theDraft Resolution, and the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program are not in concertwith the City of Los Angeles documents of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and theDetermination Letter.

The bottom line is that those residents in the City of Los Angeles can do whateverthey wish.

Had the City of Beverly Hills retained its ‘tead Agency status, the Commissioncould have controlled every aspect of the entire project. The project would be developedto the City of Beverly Hills standards and not the lesser ones of the City of Los Angeles.


SUSTMNABILITY

The City of Beverly KIlls isa world-class city. It should be leading in all aspectsof sustainability.

The staff contends that Land Use 14.4 should be operating directive.

The local stakeholders believe this to be incorrect and inadequate.

The proposed project lacks solar panels, power connects at every parking space toencourage alternative vehicle use, capture and re-use of stormwater and graywater onsite, etc.

The proposed project is not in adherence with Land Use Goal and Policy 14.2:

LU 14.2 Site Development. Require that sites and buildings be planned anddesigned to meet applicable environmental sustainabilitv objectives by: fa) facilitatingpedestrian access between properties and access to public tram it; (‘by providing solaraccess; (c) assuring natural ventilation; (d) enabling capture and re-use ofstormi aterand graywater on-site while reducing discharge into the stormwater system: and t’e,Jusing techniques consistent with the Cit/c sustainabitity programs such as the Cit/.sGreen Building Ordinance. (Imp. 2.1, 2.4)”

A concern of many of the local stakeholders is that a monolithic building willdecrease airflow and become a pocket of heat. They do not believe that the designproperly incorporates Land Use Goal and Policy 14.5:

“LU 14.5 ifeat Island Efftct. Reduce ‘urban heat island’ effect by requiring thatnew construction and substantial renovation ofbuildings use techniques to reduce theamount ofheat that buildings, outdoor spaces, and parking tots absorbfrom sunlight.(Imp. 2.4)”

Presently, the three existing buildings offer natural ventilation between thebuildings, utilizes stucco, substantial vegetation, and soft colors and offers naturalventilation between the buildings.


GENERAL PLAN

Staff contends that the proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan.

Staff cited LU 2.4, LU 7.1, LU 14.4, and OS 6.3 to support its contention.

The local stakeholders believe this is misguided.

The proposed project is not consistent with Goals and Policies of LU 2.1, LU7.2, LU 14.2, LU 14.5, OS 6.1, OS 6.6, OS 6.7, HI, HI.2, and H1,4,

In summary, the proposed project does not:

* Maintain the character of a distinctive residential neighborhood (LU 2,1)

* Promote amenities (both private and public) due to its high density (LU7.2)

* Incorporate the latest sustainabitity measures such as solar, capture andreuse of rainwater and graywater on-site. (LU 14.2)

* Does not reduce the “Heat tsland Effect” by using the latest techniques(LU 14.5)

* Does not protect Scenic Views of the immediate neighborhood (OS 6.1)

* Does not minimize obtrusive outdoor light by using devises over windowson the North, East, and South sides of the property (OS 6.6)

* Does not utilize the latest building techniques to minimize glare (OS 6.7)

* Does not maintain the character and quality of residential neighborhoods(H 1.1)

Does not promote the preservation of historic buildings and hIstoricneighborhoods (H 1.4)

* Does not promote inclusionary housing (Imp 10.2)

Planning Commission / MayerOctober 5,2015Page 16.

MLSCHARACTERIZATIONS

There were several instances in the Planning Commission Report that aremischaracterizations of events.

In fact, that is a completely

Cit Council Meeii,ofebrua 12 2015

On page 7 of the Planning Commission Report, it stated:

“..,the Beverly Hilts City Council considered appealing Los Angeles’decision; however, a majority ofthe Council did not vote in support offiling an appeal.”

There was never a vote by the City Council.

Members of the Beverly Hills City Council were moved to call a Special Meeting.after feeling sandbagged by the City of Los Angeles. A copy of the article from theBeverly Hills Courier that comprehensively recalls the session is contained as Exhibit A.

One Councilmember in particular believed that a vote could not be taken, becausethe Appeal form itself did not exist was not appended to the Council packet.

There was considerable discussion about what rights the City of Beverly Hillswould retain, if the council did not appeal.

There was inaccurate information provided by staff that lent the impression thatthe Planning Commission and the City Council would have considerable decision makingauthority. That is not the case.

Central Area Pla,tnin Commission - City ofLos AnRelex March 10, 2015


“At its meeting on March 10, 2015, the Central Area Planning(‘ommission denied the appeal and upheld the original approval.’


In fact, the Determination Letter by the Commission, stated:

“At its meeting on March 10, 2015, the central Area City Planningcommissionfailed to reach a consensus. The Commission failctre to actresulted in the automatic denial of the appeal and reaffirmation ofthedecision of the Deputy Advisory Agency’s Approval of Vesting TentativeTract No, 70499-cNfor the approval of3I residential condominiums, andaffirming Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV-2011-3325-MND-REC asthe environmental clearance.”

There were numerous instances of inaccurate information that created confusionfor the Commissioners during that meeting Two examples were exchanges between theCommission and a City of Beverly Hills employee.

First exchange:

COMMISSIONER BROGDON: Commissioner Bragdon

You ‘ye actually confused me more now because I-- is --I’m confusedabout really where the City ofBeverly Hilts stands on this because fromwhat I’m reading it sounded like theyfelt that LA asn ‘I considering theirarchitectural and their historical considerations. Is that no longer thecase?

MS GORDON: That was the viewpoint stated in the June 2014 letter;however, I think based on subsequent reviews our City council believesthat our review process will be comingforward with the PlanningCommission and the Architectural commission couldprobably any ofthose maintaining concerns or existing concerns.

COMMISSIONER BROGDON: Well, what does that mean? Iftet likeI’m not getting a clear answer here. So ifyou ‘re saying that if— ifthisappeal is denied and then it goes to Beverly Hills you ‘it be able to do yourown historical review or --

MS. GORDON: I have to check on that process. I don ‘t know the answerto that.

COMMISSIONER BROGDOM Okay


Second exchange:

COMMISSIONER MILLMAN: So that’s the position -- this isCommissioner Miltman, So that c the position ofthe City currently is thatthey stilt would like an EIR?

CINDY GORDOM Yep.

COMMISSIONER MILLMAN: But they don ‘V want to appeal thedecision that said not to do an EIR?

CINDY GORDON: Correct.

COMMISSIONER MILLMAN: Okay

COMMISSIONER BROGDON: Alt right.

C’OMMISSIONER MILLMAN: That’s a little confusing because thattotally contradicts. I’d like to take aflveminute recess. Sony.

icRurc


“The Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by the City ofLos Angelesfound that none of the properties are eligible as historic resources.”

On page 24 of the February 3,2015 Determination Letter, it stated:

“Nevertheless, fthe City ofBeverly Hills should choose to consider apotential district relative to these architectural styles, the 20% (two,)properties that remain on the west side ofOakhurst together with ten o,fthe 11 structures an the east side of Oakhurst, couldpotentially constitutean historic district with a total of 12 structures in the Spanish ColonialRevival and Minimalifraditionat Regency styles. With the development ofproperty at 332 and 334336 North Oakhurst, more than 70% oftheproperties would remain, thereby meeting the 70% threshold per the CityofBeverly Hills criteriafor an Historic District”


In essence, the Applicants historical consultant in its December 3, 2014 reportexpanded the City of Beverly Hill’s potential historic district from nine (9) structures totwelve (12) structures.

By adding three (3) structures, it would permit the destruction of the threebuildings at 332336 North Oakhurst, while still maintaining the minimum threshold touphold the potential historic district.

City ofLos Angeles Appeal Recommendation Report to CentralArea Planning

As the Appellant, this document was never provided to me prior to the hearing ofMarch 10,2015.

It is less than straightforward for the Planning Commission Report to provide onedocument out of hundreds of pages and not putting forth the other side.

One document that might be of interest would be “Recommended Changes To theDetermination Letter offebruary 3, 2015

That document is show in Exhibit B.

The document was submitted as a supplement to the Appeal before the CentralArea Planning Commission on March 10, 2015. It asks for mitigation measures to beadded to the Determination Letter of February 3,2015. Such measures include those thatshould have been requested by the City of Beverly Hills.

“Our ilands Are Tied”

One of the common refrains that have been heard is that the City of Beverly Hillshad to proceed with the Application, due to CEQA regulations. That is incorrect.

In fact, the City of Beverly Hills lost the opportunity to be proactive on threeseparate occasions:


(I) In a dispute as to necessity for the EIR, the California Public ResourcesCode Section 21165 permits a difference of opinion between a LeadAgency and a Responsible Agency to be resolved by the Office ofPlanning and Research.

There Is nothing in the Application file that indicates that the City ofBeverly Hills made any such attempt.

(2) The California Public Resources Code Section 21167.10 permits anyentity or person to request mediation of the Lead Agency, after the Noticeof Determination,

There is nothing in the Application file that indicates that the City ofBeverly Hills made any such attempt.

(3) The California CEQA Guidelines Section 15096 permits preparation of asubsequent EIR, or taking over the Lead Agency responsibility.

There is nothing in the Application file that indicates that the City ofBeverly Hills made any such attempt.

Edith Northman - Architect

During the Central Area Planning Commission hearing of March 10, 2015, Cityof Los Angeles planner Luci Ibarra testified:

“And as to the architect. EdIth Northman, she was well known, but Ishould add that the evidence that we have suggests that she was inure weltknownfor her work on the oil the service stations for the Oil UnionCompany and some --for industrial structures for the US’ Army corps ofEngineers, not necessarily her multi-family residences.”

A review of City of Los Angeles Department of Planning files reveal a number ofreferences to Edith Northman architect. Limited to only residentiat properties, excerptsfrom four (4) of those files revealed are shown:


Document I: Wilshire Park HOPZ Preservation Plan(October, 2010 - Page 26)

The work of Edith Northman was specifically identified in a complex named the“Edith Northman Apartment Complex”:

“The Edith Northman Apartment Comptex:

“In 1938, tate in the Depression, development in Wilshire Park resumedafter a tong period of inactivity. During this yeai Louis S. Strausscommissioned a set ofcourtyard apartments for his properties on thecontiguous intersections of Witton, Leeward and 7th. Strauss had been areal estate developer in Los Angeles since 1935, building apartments onCochran, Detroit and La J0110, and later in tfe became active in theBraille InstItute

‘Edith Nor!hman was Strauss’ choice ofarchitect. Northman maintainedoffices at 3052 Pico, and had recently compteted plansfor a synagogue at5500 Hoover. During these years Edith Northman was vemy prolific,particularly in the design ofapartment buildings. The complex at Witton,7th and Leeward is in the modern and efficient Minimal Traditional stylewith elements ofthe Streamline Moderne, a sign‘flcant departureforWilshire Park already having beenfully built outfifteen years earlier.The complex consists offour twelve-unit buildings symmetrically arrangedtoform a common courtyardfor each ofthe two pairs. All units haveseparate private entries and private garages.”

Document 2: Historic Resources Survey Hollywood RedevelopmentProject Area (as preparedfor the C’R4)(February, 2010 - Page 149)

Edith Northman was cited as one of the prominent architects for the area, for herbiography was included:

“Edith Northman (1893-1956)

“Architect Edith Mortensen Northman, Los Angeles’ only womanarchitect when she was working in the 193 Os, was born in CopenhagenDenmark in 1893 and immigrated with herfamily to the US. in 1911. Inthe 1920s, she workedfor Los Angeles architect Hemy £ Knauer andlaterfor Clarence J. Sinale, under whom she served as chiefdraftsman.


She wasformatly educated in architecture at the University ofSouthernCaflfornia during the years 1927-1930. She is described in the 1937 LosAngeles Times as Los Angeles’ onv woman architect, She had an officelocated at 3052 Pico Blvdprior to 1933. In 1933, her office was moved to5639 Pico Blvd, where she also resided. In Hotlywood Northmandesigned the 4-stoiy apartment building located at 5600 fernwood Ave in1929 and the 2-story apartment building located at 5400 Canton Way in1941. She is responsible for the design ofmany other buildingsthroughout the Los Angeles area, including a synagogue located at 5500South Hoover Street, a residenceforfilm star Jean Hersholt located at602 North Rodeo Drive, Beverly Hills and a $100,000 studio apartmentbuilding located on Harper Ave between Sunset and Santa Monicaboulevardsfor owner Elwood 0. Houseman. She also designed theNormandie Mar Apartment ifotel in the Tower District ofFresno, CA.

Throughout the course ofher career, she designed a wide variety ofbuilding types, including Union Oil Company service stations (shedesigned at least 50, including a Mediterranean style “supeiwervicestation” in Westwood Village in 1933), churches, commercial buildings,factories, residences, and apartments. During World War H, she designedbuildingsfor the U& Army Corps ofEngineers and after the War shespecialized in design oflarge apartment buildings and hotels in LosAngeles and Palm Springs. She died ofParkinson ‘s disease in 1956 in SaltLake City,”

Document 3 - Miracle Mile North HPOZ Draft Preservation Plan(November, 2010 - Page 22)

tn this document, Edith Northman was identified as one of the prominentarchitects for the area:

“Other architects represented in the area are: Milton Black, knownfor hisStreamline Modenne desIgns; Eric Black; Bevery Hills architect GeraldColcord; Arthur Hmves; Hollywood architect ff1 Knauer; EdithNorthman; C,i Smale; West Hollywood designer Don Uht; the proIicH H Whitely; and Westwood architect Percy P. Lewis. Most ofthe abovehad worked at! over the Westside, building similar residences in periodrevival styles in the communities ofSanta Monica, Wesiwood...”

Planning Commission ‘MayerOctober 5, 2015Page 23.

Document 4- Proposed Country club HPOZ: Resources AgencyState ofCalifornia — Primary Record(May, 2009 - Page 16)

In this State of California document, Edith Northman was one of two architectscited in the Postwar Era.

Theme: Important Designers (1903-1952)

Celebrated architects and designers who worked in country Club Parkin the postlt’ar era include Edith Northman and Ralph Vaughn.

City of West Holl’wood

In West Hollywood, blocks away from the Beverly Hills boarder is the NorthHarper Avenue District, found in the National Register, of which Edith Northman isprominently mentioned:

Historic District - North Harper Avenue District (West Hollywood, LosAngeles County, CA 90046) Registered on May 28, 1996 with the National Register ofHistoric Places of the National Park Service, the North Harper Avenue Districtapplication as one of three (3) architects for the district.

from its application, it is described as:

“The North Harper Avenue Historic District is comprised ofeightcontributing apartment buildings, one contributing automotive garage

ith attached dwelling unit, and two non-contributing apartmentbuildings. The contributing buildings were constrticted during the period1923 to 1931 and represent variations in 20th century period revival stylearchllecture—specflca1Iv Mediterranean Revival and Chateauesq ye.They range in heightfrom one to four stories and are composed as large,simptfled geometricforms which virtualtyfill their entire lots.”

Further in the application, Edith Northman is specifically mentioned:

“Few ptthtications have appeared on the hLsto,y and development ofapartment buildings in West Holt’ood and more generally Los Angeles.


Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles, by Stefanos ?otyzoides/ et. aL, thedefinitive study ofcourtyard apartment buildings, is one ofthefewpublications on the subject. Polyzoides discussesfour ofthe apartmentbuildings tocated in the district, Among these, Mexican Village (nowknown as the Villa Primavera, 13004308 North Harper Avenue,Arthur and Nina Zwebellj and Patio del Moro are seminal works in thedevelopment ofthe courtyard apartment building.(l) The authors considerVilla Sevilla (13384352 North Harper Avenue, Edith Af Northman) andEl Pasadero (7330 North Harper Avenue, Arthur W Hawes,) as among the‘most important courtyards in Los Angeles.

vet! Hilts

Relative to the City of Beverly Hills, from the records of the City, EdithNorthman was invotved with at least six (6) properties:

City of Beverly HiVeHistoric Preservation ProgramArchitects for 2,900 Properties, Complied 1986

PERMIT:DT BUILDER

337 Beverly Drive South 01102146 Northman, Miss Edith Paliisgaard; Niels (Ki&s)712 Foothill Road 11118147 Northman: Edith Van Meterer;807 Linden Dr. North Northman: Edith334 Oakhurst Dr. North 01108130 Northman: Edith Northman, E.336 Oakhurst Dr. North602 Rodeo Drive North Northman: Edith

The residence of Jean Hersholt is of significance. The Academy’s HumanitarianAward is named after actor Jean Hersholt. One of its most recipients was Sidney Pokier,a Beverly Hills resident.

Planning Commission I MayerOctober 5, 2015Page 25.

Academia

In 1990, a traveling exhibition, starting at UCLA, featured Edith Notthman alongwith three other noted women architects. The exhibition was titled:

“A Life in Architecture, four Women in Los Angeles, 1900-1950, featureddrawings and scale models by Constance Austin, Edith Northman, EdiaMuir, and Julia Morgan.”

The April 29, 1990 edition of the Los Angeles Times, briefly was described theexhibition as:

“The works offour pro!(ftc women architects in thefirstfiftyyears ofthiscentwy are on exhibit through May 11 at UCLA ‘s Graduate School ofArchitecture and Urban Planning in Gallery i220”

The exhibition was part of a course for a seminar entitled, “Women and MinorityArchitects in Southern California’ and was curated by Dr. Diane favro, a prominentUCLA architecture professor, who was also the instructor.

EXHIBIT A

BEVERLY HILLS COURIER ARTICLES

WELEDMtNGThH HO Tho Heredy Kitu Fire petttrenl welcomed etu new HtuRhters at a bedpepntsng cerencay held at Station I Alter cunptulrt a Wewk artettlulton that bsduded the Em tzatntn,sfltdu aetttnehen end other Heresy tRite upeelbo nauhene. they reowned Mob BHFD beeRotated (from tutU Vice Meyer .bkan Hold. Ftrettoftter Stom Burned C member Neatty KrconeFuithteta John Eteami, Rondo Hula, Jeremy Made, Btyun Mites end Basso Faboted. end CesrtdtmemberMile ten

City Council To Consider Tour Bus Restrictionsey Ulcierta Talbal Way and Thud Street, and the 110w Bureau, tour buses betag

The Thur But Ad Hoc n thur feth5onto Mon 24 erceet. or 15 mtlfton ofCorntmttee sitll pmpooe re tea Boulevard between Canon the CttyV vtetltsrl who ependttftCtlOne or tour bat accetu to and Conceal Doses rot the bun an aserae 5137 us thou twothe Euttoteet Trtaogte Tuesday cutout hour starts Wagner opac tourtsr study mutton The comrntttee sstlI pro bus drtvere w H eltrntnnte the

On (an 26 a loadtng zone pose a werghr hess ta the Haul. City at a destroutron preferrtnBIocalitd at 9500 Dayton Way eneomangle that wit oftectise the ease of ether detttoatcnusa remoecd Loadtng scat ret 1b restnct tow buses (mm the chopping wearlocated to theeattardeofCtvic awe Seed tube Wagoet. CEOCenter Dose netween Burton of the BH Conventton and Vie

Board Of Education Denies El Rodeo PrincipalAllents Request To Implement School UniformsHy Laura Coleman

The Heserly Htltu Board orEducatton shot down a proposal b3 El Rodeo Prtnctpal SiestaAllen to adopt a polity requtrtop the ochacte K Hutadeats towear uerformu comprised pomrtl1 of khaktt apint wearand theta to nosy, red anddole tot order to adopt thepaltry tot El Rodeo, the board

oufrl hiss needed to outs tochange the current dress coderthch now goseme alt Franllesert Httls pubttc schools

There rvas tpreutousf phorrtttc tracklath us tics cootmuotty to the current dvettcode we hate in place,’ soul

_________________ _____________________

Hoard Prnstdent Boon Goldberg who lrl,e the metorrt othtt colleagtret stat hesttont toenact a pulrry that could patenttatly become a dtstrectton

Allen tulsa orchestrated am or tashrnn thou at mondayntght s msetng of urnrtnd arlnaen hi Rodeo str’dentadrected to clurhreg atlesuedunder the proposed polrcyprecontest the Beard with awell thonghr.out ptan forarlolttreg unttormn, ushtch hesrd ssoultl actuate acaclnrnrcachresement

‘What we’re realty getttngat ltd do students feel a wowor corrnecisdness and safety atschcoP,’ he euplarned

Roarrimerriter Learns Hall

DRESS CODEdoI Rcdee toe ubrdeels shaward the Betedy tRee Boerdci Bducadatt and the comrruzrity a eampto whet urdtrentu would besecond ceder fit Rodeo Pnactpea KevIn Made ptepceel

was the only one wttltng to whether adoptbtg such a peltsupport a paltry change to try eb a obted students Feetoral mplettwnttng unttomss at Amendment rights It doesEl Rodeo not

Students wtll be thtnk og Boardotember Noah Marteas altars what they re wear ye pornted out that tense slumg attd mere about what dents already donS retiree thethey’re learnittg, ststd Hall current tlrett code nd hesaid, tluestt000d the efficacy of en

‘I thtnk it does promote a plementtng a new paltry thatprolessranat setting where the rnmpht base parents and stufocus ts un schools and aca denb wrltfully retustng to rotdemic tuccess. tl could be low the eras putrtyvery henettcmaL’ ‘tt’s a complete culture

Relate the item came up change to the sends of par(or dmscasston, two parents eon,’ he saidsoicod their opposrtton to theproposed poitcy, questrarstog

Saves From Developers

oupport the appeal NoahMuhklemn Planning Deputyfor LA. Councilman Paul Itorent caked them to eppeat

The property located henbeen the subject of tnteeae 01(cnn by Beserly Hills restdenbto uncover the hiusarrc roots atthe butldtetg, protect vuhetatale residents who are tenanteand get the attenlton of Beserly Hills City staff and counctlmembers 10 aid them to theirquest to peeseeve thea oomphborhoodlt tntegrtey

We neenf to etrck tsp (orour rettdentn, nard Councilman (ahn Mirioch ‘They wonttaehed our hacks’

‘It eeeeaa unreucoeablelhet the city of Lou Mgefeu

armada 11 a 3’yeet etd, Bsteed. Patretsaleryutpeeld

.,Jc eweutte Sedly, herI owner peered carey Those

letorneted 1cr aOnptln,fr Btunda aeti tarng her ahapey new beg’rrnttsg tmejcontest the nco.ptcft rue

L cure c r pet dora“°etshqunro at

Foregional Award

and conutnrct a cmteeleckmnprobot tmm btueprrntn to finalassembly In the Ire week timealiotment, rnaddttton 10 cr051erg a lewionu plan and markelteg strategy. And Ibm tt IheteamS totof week logos tt rrght

‘Our robalrcu program ruseal untqste,’ eaplatned Hoboltcu co president GabrielleSholet “We go beaond the tohot rn mulhple (edt tons

Bepood the cempetrtmonMorTwqh primary goal a toepsoad ecrenre and technologyto resfrrre ytaunger generaltonsThroughout the year, the learnengages tn preleste that grueback ro the commuorly ouch asa reseat utne to the Ronald

y Hrtlt GreyCoaactl called a epecral meetlog Thursday, after The Courl’n/u prtnt deadline, 10 dectde 1they went to file an appeal ofthe city of be Angelra apeprosI ref a enetreg lentatmuetract map end adoptton of arnirrpted negaltve declarareato amlaw conntractton of a 31’uert condominium penlerl at332 33bN DakhurslDr

Ut a case where an hlcloncproperty re partly tot Los Ange.lee and panty ret Boserly Hrllo,LA city planners keen determtned uniletorally that theycan develop the utte, ovemet.log Beserty Hmtle’ request forceEnstronmealal tm”'CI Report

About 50 t tIe came

By Laura CotemaaTho Beverly Hrllu High

School Rolaotice team MorTorq me knee deep reIn deutgnmg thus year’c mechancaf conlender at nest monlhk CA Be.grenal Tournament hr FIRSTlEer lnuplrattoo and Recogef.lion of Sctence and Technoto.gail For the taut tWO years, theBeverly Hr lie team baa takenthe top prtze al the repooalcompetttton the preuttgtoonChaIrman’s Award aed thruyear’s 53.memlmer team hasesoty rrrtenttan ot cealmeumngthur tradttton

On lan 3, ihe team recetsed this yeaau FIRST genre‘°“ ole Ruth,’ and has been

mown,,, y to deumga

HOBO’flCS—’The Bmerty Huh H .. , edbe free and reocurcee ci the Rent Oreteld batten Pa , eleft): keels row Matthew Borer hen Keller, Jonaeten Lesto ,RonaldMcDnnebo cad Gernitu stenches, mddte row Maya Luon, NoahDenesh, Rune Shr*rou Beeffaturt Ruse Steptren Ken, BenjemloDuels, Va ,tma Kim Raetmty Schmdt, RObe Vluyeerptye heel a RonaldMcDonald yeeth resident wIts Grainy Seals Craw

OAKHURST

uoed make a demwotnabout a property located patay rt 8euerl HUIs wrtt’oulthe anput of the C ty of Pesedysails Vher the condaronsallowed by LA Poverty Hiltsnas the oght and reponathAtyin protect at revdenta saidCcc Mayor chart Gold

The Cay, nchadtrsg ourpbentrg staff wore increase asthe fact the cay of LA has gteen thetr spprsvsl at the prayoct satd InterIm CIty Manager%lahdt Alazrt

The Intl ,eforwattwt wehad from thee staff below reremap thts demean was thatthe apphcauon ems on hal U atthe rclyaest as the projects cPateloper pendtng dsscutston

our plsnetng stats on howto adarros the concerns Paverly 14,lts retard ott the ertetronmental assessment Our plan’meg stan te curnesdy revtovvtngthe demure and we croft beoscusung the matter wtth thecIty SCorner s oPt e to determtne positbie options for resrnnnse

Atuart pet together thesrecttng Wedeesday eventsng

The nil of Los Angeles at‘empted to trnpose to wtlt over

the ctttzens at PeverlyHtllermuch as in the daynwhen Beverly HUh opted not tobe enetwed by C A dosing thewater battles early trot centuryThe tens its not seater theywant Its Beverly Hills a Cttywith a mputatton so valuablethat nearby netghlaorhoods setsr to thenreelces as BeverlyHsllsaadacent, to pan cache.

PsI that’s not the only reneon to be alarmed. In a formalliltng In April of last year wshthe toe Angeles Deparsmont ofRlanntng the eppltcant wassaid to be engagmg to Irregularconduct towards tenants AccordIng to present end formertenants of 332, 334 end 336North Dakhuest, the currentappltcant and former appltcanthave taken acttona agaInst tenanti that are violattoos at bothcode and lsw, tncludsrtg ElksAct vtolatrons dnnytng reloca’Son asststance, stakeholder to’tsmtdattons and more

The ts the same propertywhere an overly eager developer boarded up the buttdtngswteh tenants chIt reasheg onthe property last month

Says Msesch the developeta are probably anntotss toraptalsce on that but not socosmos to play by the Cayrules ‘Our cede rays a may tse

historicalI fact, the buIldings are

the work of EdIth MorternsenNotlbman, described to 1937by the Los ,Sngefea limes asLos Angeles’ only woman aschitect” 6am to 1693 toCopenhagen, Denmark, Northmark tudted architecture atUSC from 1927 to 1930 Shebustt us eecepllonal careeneven during the Depresntoodosegrnnghertdreda otprolentnWork’ng for Union Dl I Co , shedevsgned a number of gas stattons, as welt as stngle’tamslyhomes to Los Fettz, Holly’wood, Beverly Htlts and Hancock Park. Many of her cltentawere to the ftlm mdustry, toecladtrsg as a conssltaot to SamColducyn when he was preductop Desrotby Parkers kibmanC5aaea Mao 1937, about a opmale archtoct Northmanspenlhi’MtwtththeUS ArmyCotpn of Engtneera Attetacardashe masked en Los Angeles andPalm Springs uelst she evesstricken wtth Parktnson a dtsease

The streets bwldmgs couldhe part of an htslortc dtstrtcs,seems many butldng osvsaessIke ther corner at BeverlyHtlls much as tt stands The stirve team tar the 2014 HtvtnrtcResources Survey Identtfted It

as a potemial htttonc diststct,eltgtbte fora tsntmg to the Nattonal Register, the CnttfnmiaRsgtetee and as a Ctty of Boverly Hells hesoric dintrics satdconsultant Chosline Lanareaoma May 29, 2014 mesnuo

Patti t93Ot939, the tractwas ortgtnally laId out by theRodeo Land arid Water Compapa “All the rnatdeoces contribute to the districts sigotft’canoe, nickIng North OakhututRestdentsat Hetoric Dutrtct acoheseve repneventattoo of Periad Rested style multl’famllyresIdences”

No such constdaratlon Iscurrenllp to the ptpeltne but Itte part a1 thp conservation Ifthe project goes torward, thebustdtng wtll become condomintums, (tanner dtmtntahingthe Ctty’s metal inuentosy

At the Cm Angeles Cornervancy Adrtan Ftee satd “TheConsem’arsry believes an Etwt’ronmental Impact Repom IEIRIs clearly warranted in thia cane

as h clerIc resources are aigeift’cantly snpacted by the pro’posed prqect Sulmsanttst evedettce has been presented thatdemonatrates thta these build’logs conlrtbate to a prttenltalhtslorlc dstrtrt, therefore theres a need to coesder preserva.

tlort alternatsea

“The approval from LouAngeles ensttles them to bueldon the LA porisore, but tt hasImposed coodtltons that theyget clearances from BeverlyHtlIe before they start convirucltoo So untel the Beverly kittlsPlansieg Commtsston approves something on the Severly Hills poriton, them Isn’t S lotthe developer can do Adelttionally, cue enlI not anus demottiton permits until they hateapprosat tram the PlanningCommission,” eatd RyanCoblich, tooter planner for theCay of Beverly Hells

The Cay of Beverly Hetlmuse thus approse any demoltleon Or conttruclton wtthtn theCay See emnwbhcourterconeFriday foj,ygj ales

L B AB0ARstuAgency steicenlen Jade FstedktttJude It Makatng Atsiotanl toend seen to be patinesa wtthastute e9ent Leonard Reblnnetic

.E AGENCYV I t I N

I L IL

‘Iv I

j

BeverlyHills For Decades

This year, The Courier celebrates 50 yeats vi the cranrnrunlty.Thmtaghow the yeac 7he Courier ritll honor the tegacl of sceffence inBeverly Hilh’ hetitage buehiesse that have catted the City their homesince t9&S or carPer These are our heritage businessesBy Victoria Telbot said smrlmg

Gas stations tend to he dented Shalom Gabay is charming.the spotlight but they are a never With dancing Woe eyes and solidsaty patS of most peopleit everyday gray hair he speaks with an unusuIon Avis Union 76 has beei sets at accent, part Israeli and parttog she people of Beverly Hills lot French Muioccan,The result is esabout 75 years eric and familIar, framed by a boy.

located on the western end ot ish smile ever present on his upsthe City at 99116 Wilshire Boule- The station is busy A pumpyard, it has seen more than a few frees and a car moves up is thechanges in tianspoitat en cue Inside his neat httte office, he

Owner Shalom Gahay has can see the never-ending artionbeen the proprietor of the location outside on ctosed-circut leievi.since t9Bt When Cabs) began nionhis business he seas as dittributor “Union used to give us trips, toUnion owned the station to those t’tawait, the Caribbnan lamaica.days, Cabay had tee service buys cruites, he muses They don’t doand his attendants prodded trail it anymore t bad to buy the buildservice ing am absolutely independent

“But you have to change,” he, Sesweoritvpaoitt,

DHUSD SaIotySecuritvCommittee Convenes

Beverly Hills Elder: MarionCoaves SDecades In LB.Part 24 in a series on Beverly Hills residents whohates Brown with theBy Laura Coleman

At 96 years old, BeverlyHills rusidetit Marion Ciardayhas seen the world graw,change, wales and thriek Shehas raised two childrenthrough the Beserly Hilluschool system forged lifelongfrsendthgas wsh people wham mostly rsow gone from thesanta, pioneered at a scientistita male-dominated era andtravelled the globe with herlate husband of 56 years, OrSlot Corstay

And since 1953, she haslived in the name family homein the Bats of Beverly Hills

“We had a very intermtmglife,” she said in a recent toter-view, “I lust love Bevetty Frills

Ii -s. rustS a trail’1 andeats Itt 95 ci In thoseda- 4 raaa s cr-d’_rfulPeep’s is: scr friendly veryhettf_i’

Her husband who was actively tnvulved in thepotitics of

oi 6uBt*utcO5flkrsete tI

FRtEHDS OFTHE ACEB OOtE

Luecasa Sarrateand husbandMast Chmanwith Chits Prattand RenaRouse parhelsated to the

ti annualB Eddie

a at The

The Newnnheaslersem EthS nut Fatosarp, Z1115

Alqem, MsyaUS Bose, Behest heardevaNancy Kmaos and Councilman Wifla BrIan

ByL,auraCotemenBeverly Hills Inified

School Dluteict convened esfirst School Safety and SecurityAd Hoc Committee Wednesday night In Its latest aflernpt tocultivate an efietttve nolutinto keep the district’s 4,261 stsJdents sate, Currently in edditree to the BHlaSOli h’ghsriool security detail the fivereboots re’y soitly an the Bene5y Ht1ls Police OepsrtmenL

From the onset at the aflee 1 S-hour meetIng, whIchincluded BHUSO and Cityleaden to addition to parents,use student, school securityurd polce, It quddy hoc-aweclear that parents need to par-t clpate In the plan and then lettee BH°D sod BHUSD preferniaeala mplement it.

ml

SteepSetea, Cundlearman

Fr Bin Mt etorc ann page 4,

BriaN And Kmsne Drop The BailOn OakhurstAppeBy VictorIa Talbet Willie dijon and Nancy Koisne

Residents of Beverly Hills lost In the absence of Mayor BouseIhart F gIst chest the Beverly I-SIlt who was out on bereavement oser

tty CouncIl dropped the ball last the loss of her reoshert, the testIsweek giving an odloun vIctory to was 22 With no clear melons, noLos Mgeles that atlases them toes action could be takenera thlr truthrity over a butldreg Brien wan outraged that 5ththat lies pdliialty within the Beset District CtIy Councilman Peul Co-ly Ht Is City limits, Opponensn of rest tent Nosh Muhlstesn Kotetzthe project hate contacted The Planning Deputy to ask the City toConner in Mal shack that the Ctty appeal “He should file the apgate assay Itt Iuriudctonal rights peul,t tald Brian

The outcome was a result of Kiasne repeatedly said that thenay votes by Council menrbers lies BeIoaItartein 151

AVIS UNION TB— Picturedtafl Slretem Gassy has

— swtrtd tha legendary AsIaUnion 76 sInce stat TssestallosstaB1111wtatsiegivdhas psitiffand gas lets seatdee tourIng In end out 51 the

— cIty Fur more disc 75 paste

Police emphasized that anemergency tritustiota requirespbeein and control sod consotent trcsptementatron as thesituation evolsm,

BHPD insists that Its up tothe taak and that the sche0idistrict does not needle spendmoney tohire a private sncsrity company to provide additional wear ate

Among the dean profferedby police were to enable studenta by hosing designated sludent monitors with vests in additron to metaling panic buttans and ensuring the lockingcapacity at all dassroomt

Spurred on tergely by net-vous parents that the BHPO usauftucuent to petrol the ties Betely Hills school campuses, the

tea tdttoOLEaeeTTeec Z

learn piaM lied at CAergiceetcenysltton 4

Gods Bathear mediaMuds Car ala 5ps5rtwest gstio price

Servilyriita raolderdLearn OSlvirn wecara‘Cetabyti apraenltra” a

Tte itcasemnaytetAsh Wednesday it Ton

Due ro times closures,walken wilt creel at thetsar Case iv the spaceadiacesr to the Seams,bills Police Depasnseeland the Civic CenterParhir Garage onMonday Feb 25 at 630amWett‘Spirla<,apem In Sin Caner at

GetupPage 6

A VelsiseBruuOcnsleI Lsvry

Elder HasDepertsd <ABC

And May BaHuurd On TheComputer At

LariyEtdtr oemAIe On Your

Cetltheee Tablet,Dr In Your Car

SaSh Preavinari650 MOSs

CCASSIFIEDS so‘vmnurenwnnt,‘Sea Cniain‘SeMa a‘SaSh‘aid Mvrs

crcrsphotis tea GeorgeCiii :ty a eattan sa page 6.

.

HE ‘EHL1 HILLSREAL ESTATE

____

OAKMURST PROPERTY

develepen had played by therures and theatric) be tncossentenced despise the fact thattheta it a boats lull of olycral

rings ol violattans againsthem, not least among themboarding up of the entire Structare ivhi:e rent paying tenantsresided behind the itoardadwindowt

Kratne end Brien weretkeptlcat about any hisiorcpreservation efforst as sseli atthough that was nor thepurview of hit hearing Theonly issue on the table waswhether or nOt to appeal a tiechico by the Los Angeles Plan-rung Qepnrtment that will afmci the tines otcilizetra in Bennrly Hills The building lacesmm the City and the rseidonstslive in Bevcily Hills

in a special meeting lastweek called by Councilmemset olin Miritch and charred

lip Vico Ma1 or lalian Cold inMayor Ciii Bosses absence. thecnuncil split 2-2 The tsch of direcrioir in the tied vote meantthsi there wan no direction toappeal, hente no action wasi3hen ho apeil was made

The deadline for as appealon the S sea apartment build-rig was Friday Feb 13 Thabsence of an appeal meansthat the prorecs is set to go

forth Residents have expressedabsolute shock Neighbots tiledtheir own appeal, though theWest Los Angete5 PlanningCommission does rot have torecognrze it.

‘The non-decision is at,embarrassment to all of BeverlyHills aid seers LA. resisientn’wrote Woodruw Clark Ii, PhDThe report in full of latte and

m5?eading lniormation as wellas totally ignoring or respectingthe Beverly Hill; planning andgovernment process For LACity Couricltmember Koretz toeend hiS planning deputy totestify is evidence that these itsomething serioaely wrongwith this report I arts in ehuck

The Cltyh decition meansthat it has abdicated its opportunity to request an BIlL which,accordtng to Adrian Scott Fineof the Los Angeles Consewancy, Is clearly warranted in thiscase as historic resources arestgniticandy impacted by sheproposed prolecs Ssbsssnlralevidence hat been presentedthat demonstrates that thesebuildings contribute to epotenhal historic district, thereforethere Is a treed to censiderpreservation alternuslnm

Ins only alternative left istar she Beserly Hills pianningcommission to deny a demolilion permit or a protracted lawsuit, whTh mrs-f marenrsiize

2015 Design Awards Given to Three OutstandingLocal Homes for New Construction and RemodelThRBE BEAUTIES—The BOa5rtyHl5Oean RenewCorranleatots tecag.tuned three stngt5.tisrityticarra designsBda meets based artestertsr ecspewarice,qsstty ci matos1Lmass and sane,iandacap:ng andcompsSsthty wits theCtreetonspe TheDesign Awards recognised tremari hitwo categories NewConatrssctios andRemestet, and eraewetued sheet esssythree years. All thehomea have beancompteted since2051Conrmsrctst aridrrssth-temdy arotetec.semi awards are hicamidersslen by seeBeeerty HithsArchltechu ratCsmnvssen Is beawarded is April CrMay

Photon by ZaIoPielsami RubtnaPhete Grxphlca El. shoec A r5ster,. . ...

tare. aserrçtttee preservahos, GassIest and sante In resident I construe as tilesssect4er, Destgnec ci Idedun Hcrrtes, ME Morales, dee gear ol EIME Peebsera,

Forsyth colsbaret rig Gesigirerbantractor

P ta’mty candron esters Style homeS , mcdutesng mess rd, sCectursJ elementsBruce lbdvar, arctdtactur& daennr ci Bruce Tardier DesIgn Simile, MabsetSdssrudel, landscape ardsttect at Orange Street Skedo, Den M&aws genarat contractor at Hermin Gensiat Corrtmctozs

; —

THE AGENCY

Lii ING RcA

Ptehaed those A new .rard5y restderrue in an atnesgameist a? soOthand yards. stsaw a tredilcesely styled barns can It wdlws Use mess wstJ scale at theneiibostrood, even whats ats,slcarsBy larr than the Wucbwa it reptacad.Eduasdo do Ia Tone, Archiniastret Dasser. Uss Stirstese, Architecteat Dealg or IBen-Arts Stst4men. Magda & t,aroto Faemalln, General Cenleadem. at Meelean Butdees

TURNBERRY PLACEl.’t’s lC,\’s \I,iD

‘tc. — Ij” li,tdittrrnal thCtfl wtth

-

-

t.U%lt1flt lttrnivhtntz

(‘adirrine I.atc’v

Sieb fn.. littcsttuttt,tt.tl Ri sirs1)2 .-IO5229‘ThacvgesicyRE cam

EXHIBIT B

“Recommended changes To the Determination Letter of february 3, 2015”

Central Area Planning Commission / MayerVTT-70499-CN & ENV-20l 1-3325-MNDMarch 9,2015ExhibitAPage 1

RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO“DETERMINATION LETTER”

Of fEBUARV3, 2015.

STAKEHOLDERS’ RECOMMENDPAGE RE NO. CONCERN CHANGES

3 7c WORKER PARKING: No off-site worker parking wiH bepermitted.

There is exceedingly limitedparking in Los Angeles due to Until the parking area isthe constant violations of the constructed, workers will beFour Season Hotel. shuttled from a parking lot.

Beverly Hills does not permitworker parking for a projectthis size

The area cannot afford workerparking.

3 7d TRAFFIC MITIGATION: Applicant installs a four-waytraffic signal at Doheny and Alden

Ingress/egress to the alleycomes from two directions,from Third Street and AldenDrive. Most vehicles arecoming or going to DohenyDrive.

The intersection of Dohenyand Alden is especiallydangerous, and was also closeto the site of a hit and runfatality last year.

3-4 8 FIRE DEPARTMENT: Re-write the section per theinstructions of the Beverly Hills

The entire property is going to Fire Department

Central Area Planning Commission / MayerVTF-70499-CN & EN V.2011 -3325-MNDMarch 9,2015ExhibitAPage 2

[ eeBeverlyHillsFire Department.

The Los Angeles fireDepartment will only beinvolved upon a mutual-aidsituation.

4 9 DWP: Re-write the section per theinstructions of the Beverly Hills

This property will be served Municipal Waterby the a different water

4 10 BUREAU OF STREET Since the letter from thatLIGHTtNG: department is three years old, this

entire issue needs to be reThe alley is currently very addressed, with the minimum ofdark, and a safety hazard lighting being installed upon-

5 12 INFORMATION (1) The project’s CC& Rs willTECHNOLOGY AGENCY prohibit exterior wiring for

telecommunications.In both Beverly Hills and LosAngeles, telecommunications (2) The Applicant will properlycan be served by multiple wire the project so that no exteriorplatforms and multiple wiring is ever necessaryproviders.

(2) All exteriorIn addition, unless there is telecommunications receivers willproper interior wiring, the be placed only on the roof, andvarious providers will string shielded from any public viewwires all throughout theproperty, as exhibited by a (3) The Homeownersnearby dual-jurisdictional Association will create its owncondominium project. telecommunications provider that

will be provided as option to allresidents

5 14c DEPARTMENT OF Applicant will build the project toPLANNING the highest LEED standards

Applicant has stated that theproject will be LEED

_

—

Central Area Planning Commission / MayerVTF-70499CN & ENV-201 l-3325-MNDMarch 9,2015Exhibit APage 3

t6 DEPARTMENT OF On the sides and back of thePLANNING project, colors and materials must

be changed to be heat (sun)There is considerable concern absorbentthat the project will generateconsiderable heat andreflective light upon adjoiningproperties.

6 16 DEPARTMENT OF This section should be amended to:PLANNING

(1) All tenant disputes have beenIn testimony before the resolved through hearings withBeverly Hills City Council on LAI-ID, Applicant will waiveFebruary 12, 2015, statutory requirements, and allowCouncilman Koretz staffer re-filing of claims (if necessary)stated there had been abusesof the Ellis Act. (2) Applicant will provide proof

of payment. Applicant willIn addition, neighboring provide a full accounting of theowners in both oral testimony Escrow Accountand in writing have stated willbe financially harmed during (3) Applicant wilt make public thethe construction process. Operating Agreement of Oakhurst

90210 LLCLastly, neighbors in both oraltestimony and in writing have (4) All neighboringstated they will be affected by resident/owners disputes (for boththe construction activity, financial consideration and Quiet

Enjoyment mitigation/financialThe Applicant has done consideration) have been resolvednothing address such issues. through hearings with the LAHD.

6 20 DEPARTMENT OF Revise the paragraph to read thatPLANNING all inspections will be conducted

by the City of Beverly Hills.Due to the City of Los Should the City of Los AngelesAngeles never responding to wish to require its ownthe boarding-up of the inspections, Applicant will pay forproperty on December 9, those inspections.2014, the neighborhood has

Central Area Planning Commission / MayerVIT-70499-CN & ENV-20 11 -3325-MNDMarch 9,2015Exhibit APage 4

no confidence in the City ofLos Angeles.

7 23-MM I DEPARTMENT OF The Applicant is already inPLANNING violation,

“IvfM-I Eveiy building, There must be severe remedies andstructure, or portion thereof penalties, to prevent continuedshalt be maintained in a abuse.safe and sanitaly conditionand good repair, andfreefrom, debris, rubbish,garbage, trash, overgrownvegetation or other similarmaterial, pursuant toMunicipal Code Section91.8104.”

7 23-MM3 DEPARTMENT OF Re-write the section per thePLANNING auspices of the City of Beverly

Hills

The most important attributeis the Jacarandas. They residein the City of Beverly Hills asdoes all of the footage.

It is not the purview of theCity of Los Angeles, anddesperately affects the entireneighborhood

8 23-MM5 DEPARTEMNT OF Re-write that no excavation willPLANNING take place during the rainy season

Excavation during the rainyseason is problematic.

When excavation occurred at320 North Oakhurst duringthe rainy season, it made thealley impassable

Central Area Planning Commission I MayerVTT-70499-CN & ENV-201 l-3325-MNDMarch 9, 2015Exhibit APage 5

23-MM6 DEPARTMENT OFPLANNING:

There is considerable concernthat excavation and groundcompaction will causeconsiderable damage toadjoining properties.

A recent earthquake causedover $5000 to an adjoiningproperty.

There is no technical solutionthat is satisfactory to theadjoining owners.

It should be amended with:

The Applicant will post a $5million surety bond, held by anindependent escrow (and not byhis attorney) for potential claimsduring the construction phase ofthe project.

The only means to protectadjoining owners is financial.

9 23-MM I I DEPARTMENT OF Re-write the section per thePLANNING; instructions of the Beverly Kills

Fire DepartmentThe entire property is going tobe served by the Beverly KillsFire Department.

The Los Angeles FireDepartment will only beinvolved upon a mutual-aidsituation.

10 23- DEPARTMENT OF EliminateMMI2c PLANNING:

There are no surface parkingislands

1 1 23-MM 13 DEPARTMENT OF Re-write to include:PLANNING:

(I) The CC&Rs will clearly stateThis property is served by two that those units located in Losschool districts. Angeles will not be permitted to

send their children to Beverly HillsInaBeverly Hills Cy schools.

8

Central Area Planning Commission / MayerVTT-70499.CN & ENV-201 l-3325-MNDMarch 9,20(5ExhibitAPage 6

Council meeting of February12, 2015, it was made clearthat councilmembers wouldnot permit Los Angelesdomiciled children to attend_

13 24-CM2 DEPARTMENT OF Increase the wetting to four (4)PLANNING: times per day

There are number ofconstruction sites potentiallyoperating simultaneously,substantially increasing areadust

14 24CM3 DEPARTMENT Of Rcwrite to include:PLANN ING:

(I) The Applicant will construct aThere is a project at Third 16’ wood fence, painted darkStreet and Wetherly. green, fronted by trees, modeled

after the fence at The WetherlyTo mitigate dust and sound, (Third Street and Wetherly)that developer constructed aI 6’ wood fence, painted dark (2) During excavation thegreen, fronted by trees. Applicant will commit hiring a

Street sweeping service for a oneIn addition, that developer has mile radius for one hour beforeagreed to street sweeping for excavation begins to one hour aftera potential I mile radius excavation concludes

14 24.CM6 DEPARTMENT OF Change to 10 miles per hourPLANNING:

15 Miles per hour is far toliberal in a high density

14 24CM9 DEPARTEMNT OF Change to:PLANNING:

(I) The construction hours will beThe local residents and either the lesser of City of Beverlyowners are extremely Kills hours of construction, or theconcerned by the potential hours of 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

disruptionof unabating hours

— j of construction cayationremylcanonjy

Central Area Planning Commission / MayerVTT-70499-CN & ENV-201 l-3325-MNDMarch 9,2015Exhibit APage 7

occur during the hours of 10:30In addition, due to traffic a.m. to 2:30 p.m.congestion, excavation mustbe restricted

14 23-CM 10 DEPARTMENT Of Re-write to include:32-CM I I PLANNING:

(1) The Applicant will construct aj There is a project at Third 16’ wood fence, painted dark

Street and Wetherly. green, fronted by trees, modeledafter the fence at The Wetherly

To mitigate dust and sound, (Third Street and Wetherly)that developer constructed a16’ wood fence, painted darkgreen, fronted by trees.

18 S-3(i)(a) BUREAU OF Re-write that the reconstructionENGINEERiNG: will include the entire alley from

Third Street to Alden Drive“a. Improve the alleyadjoining the subdivision bythe reconstruction of alleyintersection with 3rd Streetincluding any necessaryremoval and reconstruction ofthe existing bad order alleyimprovements.”

What was stated by theHearing Officer in the March19, 2014 Hearing was that theentire alley would bereconstructed

EXHIBIT C

JUNE 11, 2014 - CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS LETTER

R LV;’

\—

June 11,2014

Cuciralia ibarraCity Planner — Major ProjectsDepartment of City Planning200 N. Spring Street, Rm 750Los Angeles, CA 9001Z

RE: 332-336 North Oalthurst Drive (Case No. VTF-70499-CN and CEQA No. EVN-2001-3325-MND)

Dear Ms. Ibarra,

As you are aware, the City of Beverty Hills serves as a responsible agency pursuant to theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act for the purposes of processing the subject project,while the City of Los Angeles serves as the lead agency. Previously, the City of Beverly Hillsrequested that additional analysis of potential impacts to historic resources be undertakenas part of the proposed mitigated negative declaration (MM)). In response to this requestthe project applicant engaged Kaplan Chen Kaplan to further assess potential impacts. TheCity is aware that the applicant-prepared Historic Resource Evaluation concludes that thesubject properties are not potentially hIstorl and the City further understands that theCity of Los Angeles intends to support this conclusion. The purpose of this letter is to notifythe City of Los Angeles that the City of Beverly Hills has engaged its own historicconsultant, Historic Resources Group, to study the subject properties. Contrary to theconclusions of the applicant-prepared assessment, the assessment prepared by HistoricResources Group concludes that the subject properties are located within a potentialhistoric district, which is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, theCalifornia Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Beverly Hills historic districtdue to the notable concentration of Period Revival style multi-family residences from the1930s. The assessment prepared by Historic Resources Group is attached for yourInformation.

Because the attached assessment concludes that 100% of the buildings located along theeast side of North Oakhurst Drive between Alden Drive and West 3rd Street contribute tothe potential historic district, demolition of the structures to make way for the proposedproject would result in impacts to the potential district.

City afBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly HIlls, CalifornIa 90210 p (310) 285-1141 1(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHIl1s.oi

M

332-336 North Dakhurst DriveHistoric AnalysisJune 11 2014

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 21080(d),if there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that theproject may have a significant effect on the environment, an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) shall be prepared. For the purposes of C6QA, substantial evidence includes fact, areasonable assumption predicated upon fact, or expert opinion supported by fact HistoricResources Group is recognized as an expert in the field of historic preservation, and theirexpert opinion (based on facts developed through intensive fieldwork and investigations)that the subject properties contribute to a potential historic district qualifies as substantialevidence. Because there is conflicting expert opinion regarding the potential historicdistrict, the City of Beverly Hills respectfully requests that an EIR be prepared for theproject to fully assess and disclose the project’s Impacts, and to identi& any mitigations orproject alternatives that can eliminate or reduce the project impacts In preparing the EIRrequired for the project, the appropriate public review and evaluation guidelines for EIRsmust be met pursuant to CEQA statutes and Guidelines.

The City of Beverly Hills remains committed to processing the subject project In acooperative manner with the City of Los Angeles, and is available to meet with the City ofLos Angeles and the project applicant to explore possible mitigation measures and/orproject alternatives. Thank you for your attention to this important matter, and please feelfree to contact me directly to discuss the Information provided in this letter I can bereached at 310-2854192 or via email at srojemannbeverlyhitls.orE.

Sincerely,

ç r

Sa Rofemann, Associate Planner

Attochment City of Beverly Hills - Historic Memo (prepared by Historic Resources Group)

Page2nf2

To: Reina Kapadia, Shena Rojemann

City of Beverly Hilts

From: Christine Lazzaretto

Date: May 29, 2014

Per your request, the survey team for the 2014 Beverly Hills Citywide Survey Update hasreviewed the potential historic district along North Oakhurst Drive for potential historicsignificance. North Oakhurst Drive was identified as a potential historic district during thepreliminary reconnaissance for the survey update, and that finding has been confirmedfollowing completion of an intensive level survey of the area1 The team has determinedthat North Oakhurst Drive is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Ptaces,the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Beverly Hills historicdistrict. The district overall, as well as the individual buildings, retain an unusually highlevel of historic integrity.

DESCRiPTION

The Oakhurst Drive Residential Historic District is a muIti-fmily historic district locatedalong the eastern edge of Beverly Hills at the city’s boundary with Los Angeles. The districtis one block in size and comprised of nine multi-family residences on the east side ofNorth Oakhurst Drive between Alden Drive and West 3rd Street. The topography of thedistrict is fiat and the lots are uniform, with a rectangular form, modest size, and consistentsetback. The residences are two-story duplexes, four-plexes, and small-scale apartmenthouses predominantly in the Spanish Colonial Revival or Minimal Traditional styles withMonterey Revivat and American Colonial Revival features. They have concrete walkwaysand rear, detached garages accessible via a rear atley, Significant district features include aconcrete sidewalk and parkway, with mature Jacaranda trees lining both sides of the street.All nine properties contribute to the district Common alterations include windowreplacements and the addition of window security bars.

‘Per the ,dent,fled fieldwork methodology for the prolect, the reconoussance survey was undertaken by the endta projectteam, mensive ievI fieldwork was conducted by Archkesaural Resourcas Group

MEMO

City of Beverly HillsNorth Oakhurst DriveHISTORIC RESOURCES GROUPis S. Fair Oaks Avenue. Suite oo. Pasadena, CA 91105-1955

Telephone 626 793 2400, Facsimile 626 793 2401

htscodcle corn

SIGNIFICANCE

The North Oakhurst Residential Historic District is significant as a notable concentration ofPeriod Revival style multi-family residences from the 193 Os. Its period of significance hasbeen defined as 1930 to 1939, which encompasses the earliest and latest residencesconstructed during the distnct’5 development The historic district is part of a tract that wasoriginally subdivided in 1922 by the Rodeo Land and Water Company and the residenceswere constructed in the subsequent decade by indMduat property owners. Variousarchitects and builders contributed to the district with notable locat architect, 5 CharlesLee, designing the building at 344 North Oakhurst Drive One hundred percent of theresidences contribute to the district’s significance, making the North Oakhurst ResidentialHistoric District a cohesive representation of Period Revival style multi-family residences.

MEMO

City of Beverly HillsNorth Oakhurst DriveHISTORIC RESOURCES CR0131’is S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite zoo, Pasadena, CA 951054915

Telephone 626 793 2400, Facsimile 626 793 soihistodc!acons

fi’NNDflNflCtCXCCC?CNCnnflNn-4--fiC4CtNXN

p4-

nfiZNC.NtC&4N4

flnNCNNCnN

4-N4-a444-WmCNPNwan

nnp;-ntNpfipan

CXtPpp.atCzranCmCnnfl

M.nflmnw%mwannn2nmCNCnlfltmtPfl4p4pnnp

CCCXCCCCCnCpCCflPpCCjfiNC,C.ppann4aflCCCfl4CC

NcppP;pACpCfannflICNWXSCCNCppmCnndnfl——PqCflCPCC

CCCXCCCtCCflmMNSmanNJtC.CCflmpmmflCnp4CqC4CnCmCCnflCfl

nmnnrnnCCCnCCCC

4-CNCCPtCCCCtmn4CFPCPmCflCCCflPn

CCCCCC%CCCpp%flCCCCCPICaCCpnpwanfimCØmCa

——

CC

mCnNpnCflnmnCCCCCCCCCCCC;

CCCCFC-CCCJCNCCwNCCCCCaCCCCC:FCCmCCCC

CCXC4nCCCWWCC

CCCIp:mPCflCCmTCCCNCiCSCCCCCCCCC

CnCp4-C(nCnCC

CCCIInCCCCCCCCC$CCCICCCCCCC’CCm:m2m;C.C

psCppCCCWC

CCCINflmpCCCmnppCI

CX

pC4CCCCCCCCnCCCCI;;CCCCCInCCCCItCCCINCCC

EXHIBIT D

PHOTOS

Andre Sahakian

From: Karen MyronSent Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:40 AMTo: Andre Sahakian; Ryan Gohlich; Michele McGrathCc: Susan Healy KeeneSubject Fwd: 332-336 North Oakhurst ‘Occupant’ Mailed Notice

Sent from my iFad


From: Alan Block <[email protected]>Date: September 21, 2015 at 11:19:35 PM PDTTo: Karen Myron <kmvron(Thbeverlyhills.org>Subject: Fwd: 332-336 North Oakhurst: “Occupant” Mailed Notice

Hi Karen:

Please forward this email and email below to Susan and Ryan for review. We need to Imowwhether the notice of the hearing to occupants was actually distributed.

Thanks.

Now Tm emailing you at 11p.m. Sorry but I thought this should be forwarded promptly.

Man

Sent from my iPad


From: Steve Mayer <[email protected]>Date: September 21,2015 11:03:17 PM PDTTo: Man Block <[email protected]>Cc: <maluzri(Thbeverlyhills.org>Subject: 332-336 North Oakhurst: “Occupant” Mailed Notice

Dear Chairman Block:

I wish to make you aware of a problem of regarding noticing for the scheduledpublic hearing regarding 332-336 North Oakhurst.

As of today, we have not been able to find any “occupants” who have receivedthe mailed notice.

According to page 9 of the Planning Commission Report, it states that “MailedNotice (Owners & Occupants - 500’Radlus + block lce) were mailed a week agotoday.

1

Based upon the Courier articles, there is obvious concern about the delivery ofmail In the City of Beverly Hills, and, In this case, the 90210 zIp code.

In the 90048 zip code, however, we have not found one ‘occupant’ (alongDoheny, Alden, and/or West Third) who has received the malted notice. The mall forthe 90048 zip code is distributed from a different hub than for mall destined for the90210 zIp code. Residents in the 90048 zip code have not been experiencing theUSPS delivery woes of the Beverly Hills residents.

My understanding is that the Applicant provides the mailing labels to the City,and the City malis the notices. It the provided mailing labels are deficient (and that iseasy to check), the hearing needs to be postponed.

I will be happy to help staff by examining the copies of the mailing labelsand/or the Excel spreadsheet that contains the same information, to quickly resolvethe problem.

Thanks,

Steve Mayer(310) 275-8423

2


VICTORIA MALE

Andre Sahakian

From: Victoria Male <[email protected]>Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 1:02 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Protect and Preserve 332-336 N. Oakhurst Drive

Dear Mr. Sahaldan,

I am writing at the behest that you and your team reconsider and reject the proposed plans to construct a multifamily residential condominium on the property located at 332-336 N Oakhurst Drive. As a resident ofOakhurst Drive for years, I have found this area of Beverly Hills to be incredibly special as it is one of the fewareas of the city as well as the larger Los Angeles area that has been able to preserve a quiet, neighborhood feel.I am always so proud to share where I live and entertain my friends and family here.

However, I am able to confidently say that the condominium would undermine the beauty and sanctuary thatOakhurst Drive provides to its residents. Not only would the building’s construction and the additional volumeof tenants disrupt the quiet and convenience of the residents of the neighborhood, but the demolition of thecurrent buildings would violate the historical significance of the street. The North Oakhurst block betweenThirds Street and Aldan Drive is one of the last examples of when Beverly Hills was a quaint village. Theeastern portion of the block has been deemed historically significant by both the cities of Beverly Hills and LosAngeles. The three properties are part of a potential 9 property Historic District. Two of the three buildingswere designed by Edith Northman, the first licensed woman architect in Los Angeles. In October, 2016, MissNorthman will be recognized by the City of Beverly Hills as a Master Architect.

Furthermore, The Developer’s revised plans are inconsistent and the Concerned Citizens for Beverly Hills /Beverly Grove found in August as part of the as part of the CEQA lawsuit they filed that Planning Departmentstaff members of the City of Los Angeles withheld information about the historical significance of the block.

Overall, the construction of this condominium would cause the current residents of North Oakhurst Drive tosuffer, the historical value of the street to be dramatically reduced, and besmirch the integrity of the city ofBeverly Hills. I urge you and your commission to not allow greed and apathy to govern this important decisionand instead choose to protect your current residents.

Sincerely,Victoria Male


WOODROW CLARK

(

BEVERLY HILLSSUSTAINABLE

CITY PLAN

C,

2009February 18,SubmittedatihePlanningCommission weehng

1A1L’5By: lfoodrt Ck2.r

1 2”;

..

SUSTAINABLE CITY PLAN

How to Use this Plan

The Sustainable City Plan is a tool kit that the City may use, either in whole, or inpart to help address sustainabillty Issues. The Sustainable City Plan does notdirect the implementation of any specific actions, but provides a list of potentialprograms and the foundation on which the City can build a unified sustalnabilitystrategy. The Sustainable City Plan is not a State requirement, but representsthe aspirations of the community to become more sustainable.

In the event of a conflict, the General Plan takes precedence over theSustainable City Plan.

SUSTAINABLE CITY PLAN

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1

PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN 1DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABILITY 2

WHAT DOES SUSTAINABIUTY MEAN TO BEVERLY HIU.S’ 3

Chapter2 GUIDINGPRINCIPLES 4

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 4

Chapter 3 SUSTAINABILITY GOALS 6GOALS AND POLICIES 61. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION & CIVIC DUTY 7

2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND AIR QUALITY $

3. ENERGY 94. WATER 10

5. LAND-USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND OPEN SPACE 11

6. MATERIALS AND WASTE 12

7. ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH 13

8. SUSTAINABLE LOCAL ECONOMY 149. SOCIAL EQUITY 15

Chapter 4 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 17

FORMINGASTRATEGY 17BECOMING SUSTAINABLE IS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS 17HOW DOES THE PLAN WORK? 18A STEP-WISE PROCESS 19

HOW DO WE MEASURE OUR SUCCESS? 19WHAT IF WE NEED TO MODIFY THE PLAN ONCE IT’S BEENPUT INTO ACtION’ 20

ChapterS NEXTSTEPS 21ONCE THE PLAN IS APPROVED, WHAT IS NEXT? 21WEIGHING SUSTAINABILITY AGAINST OTHER CITY PRIORITIES 22

Appendices

Appendix A PRIORITIZING NEW SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAMS 23Appendix B POTENTIAL ACflONS TO CONSIDER IN DEVELOPING AN

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 25

Appendix C ADDITIONAL RESOURCES 33

CiTY 01 avCLY HIILS

C w C 0 0

Andre Sahakian

From: Yumin Vu <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 6:38 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject Re: 332-336 N.Oakhurst Proposal

Dear AndreMy name is Yumin and I am owner of 9141 w 3rd st.I am writing to address many concern about proposed projectat oakhurst.Añer looking into proposed design,when we had last hearing,we bad commissioner addressed about privacy issue.With new design,therc are 32 Windows looking in to my back yard.There are no privacy what so ever.Developer had stated at last hearIng that they would plant 45 feet treeto obstruct the view.With new plan,buiiding is 9 feet from property line.There is no space for planting any thing.With new proposed project,because they had changed the designof front portion ,they had back part of building get much closer toProperty line where my property share.Back in October hearing,commissioner had addressed many concernHaving 31 unit project in this neighbor.We have never asked about participating planning of project.As I state before1this project would effect our family’s life.Would effect our property value,our daily life.Thank youSincerelyYumin Yu9141 w3rdst310-994-8638

1

I J

> On Apr 13, 2016, at 7:43 AM, Andre Sahakian <asahakianbever1yhills.org> wrote:>

> Hello Yumin,>

> Thank you for your email. I will provide copies to the Subcommittee members this afternoon for their review and consideration.

> Regards,>

>—

>AndreSahaldan> Associate PlanneriCity of Beverly Hills>310.285.1127

>

>

>

> —-Original Message—--> From: Yumm Yu [mailto:vuminukCamaiLcom1> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:02 PM> To: Andre Sahaldan>Cc: yurninyu> Subject: 332-336 N.Onlthurst Proposal>

> Dear, Asahaldan,> We own the property directly south of the southern portion of this proposed project.>

> After the last meeting we were told that day the developer was supposed to meet with the planner and discuss less number of units

less height, and density as instructed by the Beverly Hills commission.> After looking at the new rendering, we are very concerned and it’s obvious that this has not occurred.> As the matter of fact, this prqject is closer to my property and towering over it more than before> This new plan is not in conjunction with the surrounding property in neighborhood.> The new plan also does not show the number of units and the number of the Windows facing my property.

> In a perfect world the City would protect these fllstotically significant homes and they could be restored.

> As you can imagine this proposed project the way it stands will be a huge detriment to our Family and consequently devalue my

property and our lives.>1 would ask that the existing homes be considered in this process as so far it has not. We feel that we should be a part of this

procedure as we are drastically effected by it.>

> Thank you> Sincerely> Yumin Yu> 9141> West Third St>310-994-8638>>

>

>

>

>

>

> Sent from my iPad>

>

>—

> 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.

3

Andre Sahakian

From: Yumin Vu <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 3:02 PMTo: Andre SahakianCc: yumin yuSubject: 332-336 N.Oakhurst Proposal

Dear, Asahakian,We own the property directly south of the southern portion of this proposed project.

After the last meeting we were told that day the developer was supposed to meet with the planner and discuss lessnumber of units less height, and density as Instructed by the Beverly Hills commission.After looking at the new rendering, we are very concerned and ittS obvious that this has not occurred.As the matter of fact, this project Is closer to my property and towering over It more than beforeThis new plan Is not in conjunction with the surrounding property In neighborhood.The new plan also does not show the number of units and the number of the Windows facing my property.In a perfect world the CIty would protect these HIstorically significant homes and they could be restored.As you can imagine this proposed project the way It stands will be a huge detriment to our Family and consequently devalue my property and our lives.I would ask that the existing homes be considered In this process as so far it has not. We feel that we should be a part ofthis procedure as we are drastically effected by it.

Thank youSincerelyYuminVu9141West Third St310-994-8638

Sent from my iPad

1

Andre Sahaklan

From Vumin Vu <yuminuk@gmaiLcom>Sent Tuesday, September 22, 2015 7:49 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Vumin Vu 9141 w 3rd street

HI AndreMy name Is Yumin Vu.I own house at 9141 w 3rd st, right next to 332 oakhurst project.I have many concern as you can Imagine digging 40feet deep hole Next to me.10 years ago when they were building 325 oakhurst buIlding As they were digging for sub parking, they hit the oil field.They had to bring in lOOfeet high equipment to clean up.As I have 4 yeas old girl playing In back yard,the possibility of being exposed to gas and oil is unimaginable.Please make developer do all the right study.VumlnYu

Sent from my IPad

Andre Sahakian

From: Yumn Vu <yuminuk@gmaiLcom>Sent Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:00 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Vumin Yu 9141 w 3rd st

ThisisYuminYufrom9l4lw3rdst.I am adressing the concern that with demolishing the buildingand drilling and truti, my back fence will be all destroyed.Behind the back fence, I have jet bath and electic circuitThose are very sensitive to shock and vibelation.I want to make sure they would be responsible for the damages it may occur.

1

3-fi,

II:;b

Andre Sahakian

From: Yumin Vu <yuminuk@gmaicom>Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:07 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject YuminYu 9141 west 3rd st

Subject: 332-336Oakhurst condo project

ThisisYuminfrom9l4lw3rdst.I am adressing concern that my master bath room witch is about20 feet away from property line.It has been remodeled to have wall to wall tile work.It wifl be very sensitive to shock and vibelation.I want make sure they will be responsible for any crack and damages.

1

*1C

-

•0’

*

—___:

LA,

4

S;*

HfU’

t;1

Andre Sahakian

From: Vumin Vu [email protected]>Sent Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:10 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Yumin Vu 9141 w 3rd St

his is Yumin ftom9 141 w 3 rd atI am writing my concern about projectMy house is single family house build in 1923That time there was no zoning for residential or comercial.I feel I have been punished simply my house sit on comercial zone.Having 5 story building 12 feet from my house simply do not make sensein many way. It dose not Brend with caracter on the block.In front of street is only block in the neighbor that is allowed to park without limit.All the worker will fight to get the spot and only few are available.My house is over 90 years old and not retrofitted.I am fearing with pail the vibelation will cause the damage tomy house.Years ago, when they build 320 oakhurst building, when they were digging the ground,They hit the oil well under ground and they have to bring special equipment to clean outthe oil. I will be really concern about health of my family exposed to that situation.I will have more issue to submitYumln

Sent from my iPadih

Sent from my iPad

3

Andre Sahakian

From: Yumin Vu <yum)nuk@gmaiicom>Sent Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:13 PMTo: Andre SahakianSubject: Yumin 9141 w 3rd st

Subject: 3324360arkhurst condo project

1

I0

ftfl

eI

Hut

III

I I

I

Ii

: jt’lIlJ

8 C m

ccnd

ILL

ThisisYuminYufromW3rdsLT have concern about design of building.Balcony in courtyard are all facing into myjetbath in my backyard.I would lose complete privacy and why they wouldDesign something so they can peek into see somebody taking bathI would request redesignYumin

Sent from my iPad

3

Date post:	08-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

c)LU z00 - Granicus

Documents