Planning Commission Report

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Report 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA TEL. (310) FAX. (310) A vesting tentative tract maps expires 24 months after its approval pursuant to BHMC and Section A. Applicable Beverly Hills Municipal code (BHMC) Section B. Public Notice E. Council Resolution No. F. city 4, 16-R City Council Staff (w!o October 2016 Report attachments) G. 20, City Council (w/o September 2016 Staff Report attachments) H. March 10, PC (wlo 2016 Staff Report attachments) I. 7, Extension Request Dated August 2018 K. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No (Separate Attachment) Attachment(s): J. Architectural Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment) 0. Public correspondence c. Draft Resolution (310) Report Author and Contact Information: earroyo@beverlyhills.org Edgar Arroyo, Associate Planner (a)(j) of the Subdivision Map Act). On August 7, 2018, the project applicant filed an extension request for the Vesting Tentative Tract for the project. condominium building, inclusive of a very low-income affordable housing unit, on October 4, The City Council previously approved a Development Plan Review (DPR), Density Bonus Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow the construction of a 4-story, 8-unit residential was received more than 30 days prior to the October 4, 2018 tentative tract map expiration date. Map, which is needed to create and sell the individual condominium units. The extension request REPORT SUMMARY 2019, which would align with the expiration dates for the DPR and Density Bonus Permit granted unforeseen circumstances that have caused delays in the building plan check process. Staff s recommends approval of a one-year extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval. If The applicant is requesting a two-year extension to exercise the rights previously granted due to analysis concludes that the required findings to grant the extension can be made, and this report the extension is granted, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map approval would expire on October 4, and receive testimony on the Project, and adopt the attached resolution Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing approving a Time Extension Request for Vesting Tentative Tract Map. Project Applicant: BH Premier Investments, L.P. Map (No ) for an 8-unit condominium project on the property located Vesting Tentative Tract Map Time Extension Request (PU ) Request for extension of a previously-approved Vesting Tentative Tract 250 NORTH CRESCENT DRIVE at 250 North Crescent Drive. Subject: Meeting Date: December 13, 2018 City of Beverly Hills Planning Division

2 BACKGROUND December 13, 2018 Page 2 of 6 70 space provided in a single car garage located at the ground level and accessed via the alley. provided within a subterranean parking garage (14 parking spaces), with one additional parking loot tall condominium building containing 8 residential units. Parking lot the project will be The approved project at 250 North Crescent Drive involves the construction of a new 4-story, 45- PROJECT DESCRIPTION Commission Staff Reports provided as Attachments F, G and H to this report. For a complete background of the project, please refer to the City Council and Planning for all three entitlements concurrently. applicant is requesting a 2-year time extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve a 1-year time extension of the map to allow the expiration date to align with the expiration dates of the Development Plan Review and Density entitlements on the same schedule. As a result, any future extension requests would be made Planning Commission ii the request is made at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the entitlement. The applicant s extension request was received in advance of the 30-day expiration Bonus Permit, which expire on October 4, This will place the expiration dates for all project date for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, which was set to expire on October 4, While the Pursuant to BHMC , an extension of a tentative map approval may be granted by the with Southern California Edison and the additional time that was necessary to complete a sitespecific (seismic) fault investigation of the property. The fault investigation was required as part property and assess project feasibility. of the building plan check process to determine the existence of any fault line under the subject Map No , citing delays in coordinating the location of an electrical transformer for the site request on behalf of the property owner for a 2-year time extension of Vesting Tentative Tract On August 7, 2018, Brandon Hahn, the land surveyor for the project, submitted an extension Pursuant to Condition 20 of City Council Resolution No. 1 6-R-J 3109, the rights granted under the Pursuant to Condition 21 of City Council Resolution No. 16-R-13109, the Development Plan Vesting Tentative Tract Map than for the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit. Review and Density Bonus Permit expire within 3 years from the date on adoption of the resolution The City Council resolution approving the project provided for different expiration dates for the approval for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map expire within 2 years from the date of adoption of the resolution (October 4, 2018 expiration), unless a building permit is obtained for the project. (October 4, 2019 expiration). Density Bonus Permit to allow construction of the project. The City Council reviewed the subject conditionally approving the project on October 4, The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Development Plan Review (DRP), Density Bonus Permit and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map on March 10, At its meeting on April 5, 2016, the City Council voted to hold a de novo heating for independent review of the Planning Commission s decision conditionally approving the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, a DPR, and a project on September 20, 2016, and subsequently, adopted Resolution No. 16-R-13109, 250 North Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

3 The approved building would contain approximately 12,400-square feet of floor area on a 7,556 single one-bedroom unit designated as very low income housing. and a rooftop open space common area. The project includes seven two-bedroom units and a square foot parce. The project includes one level of subterranean parking, four residential levels Page 3 of 6 December 13, There have been no substantial changes to the project and no substantial changes to the environment that would cause the project to significantly impact the environment. Therefore, there environmental impact. The original determination of the project qualifying for a Class 32 is no substantial evidence that the approval of the requested extension may have any significant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the adopted under City Council Resolution No. 16-R This project was previously assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in review of the project a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-Fill Development Projects) was environmental regulations of the City. As part of the Planning Commission and City Council s ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Density Bonus) and state Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915, et seq.). The approval granted by the City Council is consistent with the City s regulations regarding residential density bonus projects pursuant to BHMC Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 15.2 (Residential bonus and providing affordable units. A request to utilize the State s required parking ratios for projects requesting a density square feet; setback provided on each side; and, Reduced front building façade modulation, from 525 square feet of modulation to 266 Reduced cumulative side setback, from 19 feet to 16 feet, with a minimum 8-foot side yard An increase in the allowable building height, from 33 feet to 45 feet; Plan allows for up to 7 units on the subject property. As part of the previously approved request, Density Bonus Permit included the following items: developed on the subject property. The application of the density provided in the City s General the project was granted an additional dwelling unit above the maximum allowable General Plan The City s multiple family residential development standards allow for up to 5 units to be income household. Additionally, the modifications granted by the City Council as part of the density for the subject property because the project includes a residential unit for a very low City s zoning ordinance and Land Use Element of the General Plan. Where there is an allows for an increase in the total amount of allowable residential units otherwise permitted by the Bonus Law within Government Code Section 65915, an application for a Density Bonus Permit Element of the General Plan shall govern. construct an additional unit on the property and to modify development standards relating to inconsistency in the permissible density for a property, the density provided in the Land Use As part of the project, a Density Bonus Permit application was approved by the City Council to building height, setback and modulation requirements, and parking. Pursuant to State Density 250 North Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

4 LL5 Planning Commission Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Categorical Exemption continues to represent the independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION Type of Notice Required Period Actual Period Required Actual Notice Notice Date Date Newspaper Notice 20 Days 20 Days 11/23/ /23/2018 Mailed Notice 20 Days 22 Days 11/23/ /21/2018 (Owners & Occupants Radius + blockface) Property Posting 20 Days 22 Days 11/23/ /21/2018 Agenda Posting 72 Hours 7 Days 12/10/ /6/2018 Website 72 Hours 7 Days 12/10/ /6/2018 Public Comment: As of the writing of this report, staff has received one from a neighboring resident seeking clarification on the nature of the applicant s request and the status of the project. ANALYSIS Applicant s Rationale for Time Extension: Pursuant to Condition No. 20 of City Council Resolution No. 16-R-13109, the applicant was required to exercise the rights granted for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map portion of the entitlement by obtaining a building permit within 2 years from the date of adoption of the Resolution. If not for the requested extension, the approvals granted as part of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would have expired on October 4, 2018, while the project was in building plan check review and a site-specific seismic fault investigation was being conducted to determine the existence of any earthquake faults within the property. In the applicant s extension request letter (Attachment I) the applicant cites unanticipated delays associated with coordinating the location of an electrical transformer on the site with Southern California Edison and the additional time required to perform the seismic fault investigation required for building plan check. Since the extension request was submitted on August 7, 2018, the applicant has completed the seismic fault investigation of the property. The document has been reviewed by the City and the findings of the report have been accepted by the City determining that no active fault lines exist at the subject property. 72

5 after the date the map was approved. A Tentative Map can be extended by the City as long as Pursuant to BHMC , the approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall expire 2 years Time Extensions: Page 5 of 6 December 13, map extensions, should the Planning Commission grant the one year extension request 2019 expiration date, the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to review the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit, in addition to the Vesting Tentative Tract Commission to make findings that the conditions and regulations affecting development in the city have not changed in a manner that would warrant reconsideration of the findings and decision delay efforts to advance the objectives of the zone. Pursuant to BHMC , the applicant could be eligible for up to five more years of tentative recommended by staff. Should the project seek an additional extension beyond the October 4, made at the time of original approval and that the extension of the approval will not unreasonably Map. Such additional review would be subject to BHMC and require the Planning dates for the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit. this project to align with one another. The extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a oneyear period would place the expiration date of the map on the same schedule as the expiration the requested 2-year extension to allow the expiration dates for the City s various approvals for Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission Grant a 1-year time extension instead of or the conditions of approval as adopted by the City Council as part of Resolution 16-R unit condominium building, which expire on October 4, The requested time extension for Additionally, there have been no changes to the development standards for multiple family of the project. Approval of the time extension for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would facilitate from the original date of approval. October 4, 2016, include a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit for the new 8- the Vesting Tentative Tract Map submitted on August 7, 2018, is the first extension request the zone by facilitating the development of additional housing stock within the City s multiple family the circumstances regarding the scope of the project, site conditions and the City Council s the construction of the project itself, as those approvals remain valid for a minimum of 3 years with an expiration date of October 4, Additional approvals granted by the City Council on The City Council approved the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the project on October 4, 2016, submitted for the project. The requested time extension does not modify the scope of the project residential development that would warrant reconsideration of the City Council s original approval the subdivision of the previously approved condominium building and advances the objectives of residential zones. As such, staff is recommending no changes to the conditions of approval, as previous determination for approval of the project have not changed. Furthermore, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is required only for subdivision of the condominiums, but is not required for project. the extensions do not exceed an aggregate of six years. In the granting of an extension request, the Planning Commission may impose additional conditions or revise existing conditions for the 250 North Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

6 NEXT STEPS approval previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16-R attached resolution approving a 1-year time extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public heating and adopt the Page 6 of 6 74 AICP, Assistant Director/City Planner Report Reviewed By: consistent with permit processing timelines. 4. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, 3. Deny the time extension, or portions of the project, based on revised findings. letter request. 2. Approve the time extension for a 2-year period, based on the applicant s original extension 1. Approve the time extension with modified findings or conditions of approval. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: December 13, 2018 ERL2 250 North Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

7 Applicable BHMC Section ATTACHMENT A Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive 75 December 13, 2018

8 Applicable Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section Attachment A December 13, 2018 A. Expiration: The approval or conditional approval of a tentative tract map shall expire twenty B. Extensions: The person filing the tentative map may request an extension of the tentative map C. Time Limits on Extensions: Extensions of a tentative map approval or conditional approval D. Effect of Map Modifications on Extensions: The modification of a tentative map after approval E. Failure to File Final Maps: Failure to file the final map within the time periods set forth in this eff ) ; amd. Ord , eff ; Ord , eff ; Ord , section shall automatically terminate and void the tentative map. (Ord , eff or conditional approval shall not extend the time limits imposed by this section. shall not exceed an aggregate of six (6) years. due to expire. The application shall state the reasons for requesting the extension. In granting approval or conditional approval by a written application to the planning commission, such application to be filed at least thirty (30) days before the approval or conditional approval is an extension, new conditions may be imposed, and existing conditions may be revised. four (24) months after the date the map was approved or conditionally approved or such other period as may be set by section of the Government Code of the state : EXPIRATION OF TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL: 250 North Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

9 Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13, 2018 ATTACHMENT B Public Notice 77

10 DATE: December 13, 2018 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TIME: LOCATION: PROJECT: 1:30 PM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard Commission Meeting Room 280A Beverly Hills City Hall 455 North Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA North Crescent Drive (Between Dayton Way and Clifton Way) The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, at its REGULAR meeting on Thursday, December 13, 2018, will hold a public hearing beginning at 1:30 PM to consider: A request for a two-year time extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for an 8-unit condominium project on the property located at 250 North Crescent Drive. The project entitlements (Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map) were originally approved by the City Council on October 4, The current two-year extension request would extend the Vesting Tentative Tract Map until October The request is being made pursuant to of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. This project was previously assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City, and a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (In-Fifi Development Projects) was adopted. There have been no substantial changes to the project and no substantial changes to the environment that would cause the project to significantly impact the environment. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the requested extension may have any significant environmental impact. The original Class 32 Categorical Exemption continues to represent the independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. Any interested person may attend the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the Commission. Written comments also may be submitted prior to the public hearing to the Planning Division, via mail: attn. Edgar Arroyo, 455 N. Rexford Drive, 1st Floor, Beverly Hills, CA Written comments may also be submitted via to earroyo@beverlyhffls.org. Any written comments received by end of day on Tuesday, December 4, 2018 will be attached to the agenda report regarding this item. Any comments received after Tuesday, December 4, 2018, but prior to the public hearing, will be distributed to the Commission under separate cover. City of Beverly Hifis 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California p (310) f (3 10) BeverlyHffls.org

11 According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the City s action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing. Please note that any comments received prior to or during the public hearing will be considered as part of the public record. If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Edgar Arroyo, Associate Planner in the Planning Division at (310) , or by at earroyo@beverlyhffls.org. Copies of the applications, plans, and Categorical Exemption document are on file in the Community Development Department, and can be reviewed by any interested person at 455 North Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA Ari2 ssociate Planner Mailed: November 21, 2018 In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Commission Meeting Room 280A is wheelchair accessible and is equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired. If you need special assistance to attend this meeting, please call the Planning Division at (310) or TTY (310) Please notify the Planning Division at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting if you require captioning service so that reasonable arrangements can be made

12 Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13, 2018 ATTACHMENT C Draft Resolution 80

13 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS APPROVING A ONE- YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (NO ) FOR AN 8-UNIT CONDOMINIUM BUILDING AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 NORTH CRESCENT DRIVE determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and Section 1. Brandon Hahn, on behalf of BH Premier Investments, L.P., the property owner of 250 North Crescent Drive, has submitted a request to extend the expiration date of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No approved by the City Council as part of Resolution No. 16-R to facilitate the construction of a new 8-unit condominium building. The project consists of the construction of a new 4-story, 45-foot tall condominium building containing 8 residential units. Parking for the project will be provided within a subterranean parking garage for 14 vehicles and one space provided on the ground floor. The proposed building contains approximately 12,400-square feet of floor area on a 7,556 square foot parcel. The project includes one level of subterranean parking, four levels of residential units and a rooftop open space common area. The residential units consist of seven two-bedroom units and a single one-bedroom unit designated for very low-income housing. Section 2. The City Council, at a noticed public hearing, adopted City Council Resolution No. l6-r on October 4, 2016, conditionally approving a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit and a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow for construction of the 81

14 new condominium building at the subject property. Pursuant to Condition No. 20 of Resolution No. 16-R , the Vesting Tentative Tract map shall expire within 2 years if the rights of the entitlement are not exercised by obtaining a building permit. The requested time extension does not amend the conditions of approval or make other substantive revisions to approved project. Rather, the time extension of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is being requested because of the need for additional time to complete the building plan check review of the project. Specific concerns that need to be addressed by the applicant as part of building plan check review include the placement of utilities and the completion of a site-specific fault investigation of the subject property to verify project constmctability. Approval of the time extension for the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would facilitate the subdivision of the previously approved condominium building and advances the objectives of the zone by facilitating the development of additional housing stock within the City s multiple family residential zones. The one-year time extension would align the expiration dates of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map and the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit, which will expire on October 4, Section 3. This project was previously assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City, and a Class 32 Categorical Exemption (Tn-Fill Development Projects) was adopted by the City Council as part of Resolution No. 16-R There have been no substantial changes to the project and no substantial changes to the environment that would cause the project to significantly impact the environment. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the requested extension may have any 2 82

15 significant environmental impact. The original determination of the project qualifying for a Class 32 Categorical Exemption continues to represent the independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. Section 4. On December 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request for an extension of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No , previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 16-R Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing. Section 5. Notice of the requested time extension, Project and public hearing was mailed on November 21, 2018, to all property owners and residential occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the property, plus block face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning November 21,2018, with publishing of the public hearing notice in the Beverly Hills Courier on November 23, 2018 and the Beverly Hills Weekly on November 29, Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby extends Vesting Tentative Tract Map No granted under City Council Resolution No. 16-R through and including October 4, 2019, subject to all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 16-R and the following project-specific conditions: 1. Except as specifically modified by this Resolution, all conditions of City Council Resolution No. 16-R shall remain in full force and effect. 2. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. 3 83

16 3. This resolution granting the requested time extension shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 60 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. if the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 60 days, this resolution approving the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a request by the Applicant, grant a waiver from the 60 day time limit if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Section 7. If this Resolution is invalidated for any reason, all rights pertaining to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map granted under City Council Resolution No. 16-R shall lapse and expire and be of no further effect. 4 84

17 Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City. Adopted: December 13, 2018 Andrew Licht Chair of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Attest: Ryan Gohlich, AICP Secretary of the Planning Commission Approved As To Form: Approved As To Content: David M. Snow Assistant City Attorney Ryan Gohlich, AICP Assistant Director / City Planner Community Development Department 5 85

18 Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13, 2018 ATTACHMENT D Public Correspondence 86

19 From: Carol Dudley Katzka Sent: Thursday, November29, :05 PM To: Edgar Arroyo Subject: 250 North Crescent Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged looking forward to a workman having access to my patio and my windows - Perhaps you could tell me what a of the municipal code is? I suspect or hope many will attend this meeting - architecture group sure OK d a very ugly building and I am sure you realize the disturbance to the the neighbors on both side are not happy - of this on Television - childhood this has been an empty lot - unfamiliar with what goes on (in some cases) - proposed building next door - were not at all happy with the true possibility of a building next door - on Boards of my building in New York I am not - Mr. Earroyo - I may be the only one in this building who has been to City Hall and discussed the Being Am sure you know there are many who I did watch a lot Since Why I don t know - I - tried to see who the owners are I know the lot has changed hands many times - The 240 and I wilt get a big more serious later North Crescent Dr. Carol Dudley Katzka Yours sincerely, noise, etc. the is a beautifully maintained building and I am not Edgar Arroyo

20 City Council Resolution No. 16-R ATTACHMENT E Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive 88 December 13, 2018

21 BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROV]NG A A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF by apartment and condominium buildings with heights that range between two to four stories. mixed use to the west, across Crescent Drive. Development on Crescent Drive is characterized three-story apartment building to the south, single-family uses across a 20 -alley to the east, and bordered by a three-story condominium building with fourth-story penthouse to the north, a Dayton and Clifton Ways in the Central Area of the City. The project site is immediately Section 2. The Project site is located along North Crescent Drive, between support of the Project. recp]ired for the Project may be approved by the City Council if specific findings can be made in project on the property located at 250 North Crescent Drive (the Project ). The entitlements income housing unit, all of which arc associated with the construction of an 8-unit condominium construction of the Project, and a Density Bonus Permit based on the inclusion of one very low to be sold individually as condominiums, a Development Plan Review to allow the general Applicant ), has submitted an application for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map to allow the units Section 1. BH Premier Investments, LP., applicant and property owner (the RESOLVES, AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS HEREBY FINDS, REVIEW, AND DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 NORTh CRESCENT CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT DRIVE VESTiNG TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DEVELOPMENT PLAN RESOLUTION NO. 16-R- 11O9 89

22 space. The project is proposed to be constructed in accordance with State Density Bonus whenever 11% or more of the total units are designated for very low income, a 35% rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, approval of the Density Bonus Permit, increase in density shall be provided. further, all density calculations are required to be of the base units would be very low income. The Density Bonus standards state that number of very low income units proposed is one. Therefore, 14.3% (one divided by 7) number of base units that could be built under the City s General Plan isl units, and the number of units allowed under General Plan density standards, without the inclusion of bonus units) that are designated for very low income households. In this case, the increase in density, which is based on the percentage of total units (the maximum Density Increase: Density Bonus standards allow for a certain percentage entrances located on the sides of the new building. The Project includes the following components: the site. Pedestrians would have direct access to the building from Crescent Drive through ground floor would also be provided by a second driveway from the existing alley at the rear of would be provided by one driveway from the existing alley at the rear of the site, which would lead from the alley to the underground parking level. Access to the one parking space on the one, one-bedroom unit designated for very low income housing. Access to on-site parking residential units, and a rooftop common area. The project provides seven two-bedroom units and 7,556 square feet. The project includes one level of subterranean parking, four levels of standards. The project contains approximately 12,400-square-feet of floor area on a site area of The project involves construction of a new four-story, 45-foot tall condominium building containing eight residential units. 14 subterranean parking spaces, and one ground floor parking 90

23 Development Incentives: Pursuant to the State Density Bonus statute, lounits north and south of the site, with a side setback sum of 16. reduction in the sum setback requirement, resulting in 8-foot side setbacks on the least 8. The applicant requests a density bonus incentive to allow a 3-foot requires the sum for the side setbacks to be at least 19 and each setback to be at o Reduced Side Setback Sum (incentive): The City s zoning code result in a building with 266 square feet of modulation. incentive to reduce the required modulation by 259-square-feet, which would 525 square feet of façade modulation. The applicant is requesting a density bonus o Reduced Modulation (incentive): The City s zoning code requires and 45 feet in height to accommodate the 8 units contemplated by the project. the building height limitation to enable the proposed project to be built at 4 stories Multi-Family Residential Height District A. The applicant requests a waiver of requires a maximum height of 3 stories or 33 feet for sites located within the o Additional Height (waiver): The City s zoning code development incentives. The applicant requests the following: designated for a very low income household, so the project is eligible to receive two applicant is entitled. In the case of the proposed project, 14.3% of the base units are also request a density waiver in addition to the number of incentives to which the income households are eligible to request two development incentives. An applicant may development projects where at least 10% of the base units are designated for very low with the inclusion of one very low income unit, would allow for a maximum density of 91

24 parking requirements set forth in the Density Bonus Statute, which can be invoked at the are based on the number of bedrooms in each unit; however, State law provides that regulations. applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and a.) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all in Section of the State CEQA Guidelines for in-fill development projects: of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project meets all five of the following criteria set forth development that meet certain criteria are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15000, et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Projects characterized as ia-fill ( CEQA ), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. Section 3. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the fifteen standard parking spaces. Project pursuant to the Density Bonus Statute, and the Applicant proposes to provide (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking). Fifteen parking spaces are required for the and one-bedroom units, and a maximum of two spaces for two- and three-bedroom units Density Bonus parking requirements, which require a maximum of one space for studio Municipal Code. Therefore, the applicant requests that the project be subject to the State applicable to this project are less stringent than those set forth in the Beverly Hills Applicant s option, prevail over local requirements. The State parking requirements Parking: Standard parking requirements set forth in the Municipal Code 92

25 more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. c.) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened study. said meeting. At the conclusion of deliberation, the Planning Commission voted to approve the requested entitlements. On April 5, 2016, the City Council voted to call the Planning Commission s decision up for review at a de novo public hearing. At the May 3, 2016 City Council hearing, the City Council scheduled the project s de novo hearing and directed staff to provide additional materials including financial and feasibility analyses, and a shade and shadow application at a duly noticed public meeting. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented at Section 4. On March 10, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the that the project is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA. documentation prepared by the City s environmental consultant, the City Council hereby finds Based on the information contained in the Class 32 categorical exemption e.) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. trac, noise, air quality, or water quality. d.) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to species. b.) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no 93

26 both written and oral, was presented at said meeting. Notice of the Project and public hearing application and the additional materials requested at a duly noticed public meeting. Evidence, likely to cause serious public health problems; 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is avoidable injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements development; 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density or 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not and specific plans as specified in Section 65451; 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any ofthe following findings: Section 6. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a was mailed on September 9, 2016 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500- foot radius plus block-face of the property. Additionally, notice was published in two newspapers of local circulation, the Beverly Hilts Courier and Beverly Hills Weekly. SectionS. On September 20, 2016, the City Council considered the 94

27 of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing development and the proposed density. The site is zoned R4 and has been vacant since the 1960s. Prior to the site s vacancy, in 1959, a building permit [br a As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the type of General Plan land-use designation for the project site. condominium structure, and condominium developments are permitted under the residential. The proposed project will consist of an eight-unit residential General Plan. The General Plan designation for the proposed site is multi-family with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the consistent with the General Plan of the City. The proposed project is compatible 1. As conditioned, the proposed map, project and its design are determines as follows with respect to the Vesting Tentative Tract Map: Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds and proposed subdivision. large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no acquired by the public. This subsection will apply only to easements of record or will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will 95

28 applicant has proposed $ units. Therefore, the development of $ units is within the unit apartment was issued by the City. Under the State Density Bonus Statute, the $ any existing easements maintained by the City. Moreover, the project design respects existing easements and will not conflict with proposed subdivision. The project site will meet City health code standards. acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the not cause serious public health problems, and will not conflict with easements 4. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will proposed development. habitats, in the vicinity of the project site that could be potentially impacted by the development in the vicinity, there are no fish or wildlife, or their respective project and the vacant (without vegetation) state of the project site and in the number of residential units at the site. Due to the urban location of the habitat. The project will not significantly impact the area based upon the increase environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their 3. As conditioned, the Project will not cause substantial an 8-unit residential condominium structure. with development in the surrounding area, adequate public facilities exist to serve permitted density for the subject property. Because of the project s consistency project site can be developed with a maximum density of 10 units; however, the 96

29 in support of the Project: Density Bonus Permit, the City Council considered whether it could make the following findings from those standards are allowed pursuant to the State Density Bonus Statute. As with respect to height, setbacks, and required modulation, however, the deviations 1. The Project does not conform to the City s zoning requirements determines as follows with respect to the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit: Section 9. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds and safety or general wellre. 5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, hazards; and impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety 4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property; 3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of ofthe area; anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development 2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and specific plans adopted for the area 1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any Section 8. In reviewing the request for a Development Plan Review and 97

30 construction of the Project, which is a multi-family residential use consistent with development along North Crescent Drive consists of a thee-story condominium are typically between two and four stories in height Based on analysis of the existing or planned development on neighboring properties, therefore, would not cause significant shade and shadow impacts on shade-sensitive uses on shade and shadow study requested by the City Council, the Project from those standards are allowed pursuant to, State Density Bonus Statute, and thus the Project is found to be consistent with the development standards established in the City s Municipal Code and General Plan. Existing building with fourth-story penthouse to the north of the site, a three-story apartment building to the south, and apartment and condominium buildings that with respect to height, setbacks, and required modulation, however, the deviations 2. The Project does not conform to the City s zoning requirements area and is consistent with the City s Municipal Code standards for development and the proposed project would therefore be a harmonious addition to the area. incentives associated with density bonus projects containing affordable housing units. zone. The subject site is surrounded by residential and mixed-use development, Furthermore, the Project is not located within any specific plans adopted for the General Plan for residential uses located within the multi-family residential R4 waivers and concessions, the Project is found to meet all zoning requirements and has been determined to be consistent with the requirements and guidance of the such, and in light of the mandates of density bonus law with respect to code 98

31 Family Residential-Commercial Parldng)-zoned properties across Crescent Clifton Way (Dayton and Clifton Ways both provide access to the alley leading to substantial. The traffic trip generation analysis, conducted as part of the Class 32 vehicle trips represents an increase of approximately 0.7% over Dayton Way s approximately 0.1% over Clifton Way s existing volume if all tips occurred on existing volume if all trips occurred on Dayton Way, and an increase of Categorical Exemption Report using the Institute of Transportation Engineers trips, four AM peak how trips, and four PM peak hour trips. The increase in daily by approximately 12,400 square feet, the increase in daily trips to the site is not (ITE) trip rates, found that the Project would generate an increase of 46 daily 4. While the Project would increase the floor area of the vacant site commercial uses. 3. The Project is residential in nature and does not include any households. Project could have parking impacts, Density Bonus Law precludes denying the which causes impacts to the limited parking available in the area. Although this harmonious addition that would help to provide additional housing opportunities within the City, including the provision of one unit reserved for very low income Applicant has invoked reduced parking pursuant to State Density Bonus Law, Project on this basis. Therefore t h e p r oj e c t I s considered to be a Drive. The Project does not provide City code compliant parking because the development on the adjacent, residentially-zoned properties or the RMCP (Multi surrounding uses, is not anticipated to adversely affect existing and anticipated 99

32 the Project s subterranean parking). Based on existing traffic volumes and the traffic. Vehicular driveway access is provided via the alley at the rear of the or safety. designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health conditions. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan use on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or approval of a project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, based a local agency from denying a very low income housing development unless to the public health, safety, or general welfare. Additionally, State Law precludes discussions and analysis in Findings 14 above, the Project will not be detrimental designed as a harmonious addition to the neighborhood, and based on the residential uses along North Crescent Drive. Because the Project has been authorized by the State Density Bonus Statue, and is compatible with the existing development while still being able to accommodate the additional residential units 5. The Project has been designed to be consistent with surrounding pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards. to result in any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, conificts, and pedestrian-safety hawds. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated Project site, thereby minimizing traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle projected trips, the Project would not generate any significant impacts related to 100

33 t3 by the applicant. shall be removed and replaced (according to City standards), and shall be paid for 3. Sidewalk, and curb and gutter fionting the site on Crescent Drive architectural review process. southern end of the front setback shall be landscaped subject to the City s paving to one walkway within the ftont yard setback. The area located on the 2. Beverly Hills Municipal Code limits front yard spaces. the Applicant, resulting in side yard setbacks that shall be a minimum of $ feet on each side of the building. The required façade modulation is approved at 266 setback sum requirement (development incentive) as a combination of density waivers and development incentives for the Project. The total height of the Project is approved at four stories and 45. The cumulative reduction in the required side setback sum requirement shall be no more than 3 as requested by waiver), reduced facade modulation (development incentive), and a reduced side square feet of modulations Pursuant to the State Density Bonus parking requirements, the parking is approved at 15 spaces, eight of which are tandem 1. The City Council hereby approves additional height (density subject to the following conditions: requested Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Plan Review, and Density Bonus Permit, Section 10. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the 101

34 shall be paid for by the applicant path ofthe front ovethaug. minimum turning radius for a typical passenger vehicle (25.8 feet) to cover the 8. The opening of the garage shall have enough setback to satisfy the Transportation Engineer. City s minimum standards, or any alternate standard approved by the City s 7. The driveway ramp slopes and transitions shall comply with the encroachment (steel tieback rods, etc.) within the public right-of-way. Shoring review by the Civil Engineering Division. Shoring elements shall not project into Attorney prior to excavation. the alleys. An indemnity bond must be submitted and approved by the City Civil Engineering Division for approval of any type of temporary construction plans and elevations prepared by a registered civil engineer must be submitted for Resolution 7I-R4269, the applicant shall file a formal written request with the 6. In accordance with the requirements set forth in City Council Beverly Hills which will convey the flow from the subject project. The applicant and occupancy in order to analyze the existing sewer lines within the City of shall pay for the sewer system upgrades (if needed) due to the additional proposed sewage generated from this project. 5. A Sewer Area Study may be required based on final approved use the property shall be removed and replaced according to the City standards, and 4. The pavement and center drainage gutter on the alley at the rear of 102

35 the alley condo project, or a combination thereof shall contain a minimum of one, onebedroom dwelling unit designed for occupancy by a very low income household. The finishing products used within the affordable imit shall be the same as the any amendment of the provisions of the CC&Rs related to the conditions of unit shall be maintained as a rental unit for a minimum of 55 years, and (b) that and the project is hereby conditioned, to require that the affordable unit shall be a products that are used in the other units in the building. The applicant has offered, rental unit that is rented in accordance with the City s Affordable Housing Guidelines and the provisions of California Government Code Section or its successor statute and shall be affordable to very low income households for a against the subject property. The CC&Rs shall provide (a) that the one affordable minimum of 55 years in accordance with California Government Code Section Applicant shall record covenants and/or deed restrictions as determined by the City Attorney to ensure that the requirements of this condition are recorded Prior to or concurrently with the recordation of the final map, the 11. The Project, whether operated as a rental property, as a for-sale be installed at the exit ramp by the alley. This device shall light up when a vehicle is leaving the garage, alerting the oncoming traffic in the alley. 10. To ensure visibility for egress traffic, a visual alarm device shall at least one vehicle to wait for opening the gate without blocking the traffic within 9. The garage gate shall be installed at a location to provide room for 103

36 12. The Project shall be subject to the review and approval by the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, prior to approval of the Final Map, the applicant 16. In accordance with the provisions of Section of the across the alley. The proposed dog washing/exercise area is not approved and shall be removed from the plans prior to the issuance of any building permit for conditions to address the rooftop use impacts. whether rooftop uses should continue to be permitted, and if so, to impose located within ten fret of the western edge of the roof. The City retains impact neighboring residents, the Director shall have the authority to refer the issue to the Planning Commission for a duly noticed public hearing to consider jurisdiction over the rooftop use area, and in the event that rooftop uses adversely the project. In addition, no umbrellas or other man-made structures shall be shall be provided at the rear of the rooftop, facing the single-family properties 15. A 10-foot setback and full screening in the form of landscaping 14. Amplified music shall be prohibited on the rooftop. rooftop. p.m., daily, and signage indicating such restrictions shall be installed on the of the roof deck areas shall be limited to between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9: To mitigate potential noise impacts to neighboring residents, use that could reduce the appearance of bulk and mass. Architectural Commission, and the Commission shall consider design features Beverly Hills before any such amendments become effective. approval contained in this resolution shall require approval from the City of 104

37 17. The applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan to I7 the subject site. traffic necessary for demolition, deliveries, etc., to routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck this project to determine the amount appropriate c. The proposed demolitionfconstruction staging for information regarding construction related traffic. construction staging area and other pertaining length of time of operation, designation of arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the schedules of the construction period, the workers, the location of parking with respect to 1,. Information regarding the anticipated number of the Building & Safety Department by the Engineering Division of Public Works and stages of construction to be reviewed and approved arrangements, and hauling activities at different a. Written information about the construction parking review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The Construction the Departments of Building and Safety, Public Works, and Transportation for Management Plan shall include, at a minimum- the following: (CC&Rs) for the project to the City Attorney for review and approval. shall submit a copy of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions 105

38 information of the general contractor and the d. A sign shall be posted on the temporaiy It foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a request by the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the the document with the County Recorder. if the Applicant fails to deliver to the executed covenant within the required 60 days, this resolution approving the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record Commtsion decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the resolution as an exhibit The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 60 days of the Planning approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of the not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, Tentative Tract Map, Development Plan Review, and Density Bonus Permit shall satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of 19. RECORDATION. The resolution approving a Vesting with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council on September 20, 1$. The Project shall be constructed in substantial compliance the City. construction except pursuant to a permit issued by e. No parking shall be allowed in the alley during construction supervisor. construction fence with the name and contact 106

39 federal, state, or local law that would affect the Project Council or Director of Community Development in conformance with the plans approved herein or as modified by the City Project shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Construction shall be the Director of Community Development. A significant change to the approved 24. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by on September 20, 2016, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, 23. This approval is for those plans submitted to the City Council limited to recovery ofenforcement costs to the maximum extent permissible. gain compliance. The City will seek all appropriate remedies, including but not these conditions of approval may result in an enforcement action or actions to 22. VIOLATION Of CONDITIONS: A violation of any of commenced within three (3) years after the adoption of such resolution unless Bonus Permit: The exercise of rights granted in such approval shall be otherwise extended. 21. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review and Density exercise of rights granted in such approval shall be commenced within two (2) years after the adoption ofsuch resolution unless otherwise extended. 20. EXPiRATION. Vesting Tentative Tract Map: The the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any Applicant, grant a waiver from the 60-day time limit if, at the time ofthe request, 107

40 shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are commence until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement 31. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not the subject site during construction of the Project Every effort shall be made to obtained. retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street frees designated approval from the Recreation and Parks Department and the City Engineer is first on the preliminary plans, shall be removed and/or relocated unless written 30. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to Municipal Code requirements for Noise Regulation. 29. The Project shall operate at all times in compliance with activities, parking or other actions. detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, 28. The Project shall operate at all times in a manner not and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid. 27. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park the Project. 26. APPROVAL RUNS WiTH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of General Plan Policies is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. submitted for plan check. Compliance with all applicable Municipal Code and zoning regulations, except as may be expressly modified herein. Project plans 25. Project Plans are subject to compliance with all applicable 108

41 shall be in a form approved by the City Engineer and the City Attorney. security to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The connection fee. otherwise approved by the City Engineer and shall pay the applicable sewer sewer system through the existing connections available to the subject site unless 35. The Applicant shall make connection to the City s sanitary adjacent streets and alleys per requirements of the Utility Company and the City. 34. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in right-of-way. installed on the subject site. No such installations will be allowed in any City electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be 33. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including permitted. Public Works. No concentrated discharges onto the alley surfaces will be approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. AU ground water the curb face in the direction of the normal street drainage flow. The Applicant discharge to the street. Mi curb drains installed shall be angled at 45 degrees to 32. The Applicant shall provide that all roof and/or surface drains security amount will be determined by the Director of Recreation and Parks, and 109

42 by the City Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter 36. The Applicant shall make connection to the City s water housing unit shall be delineated as shown on the approved plans, and shall be 42. The outdoor open space associated with the affordable shall require approval by the City of Beverly Hills Planning Commission. way separate from the affordable housing unit. Any change to this requirement be considered part of and shall not be leased, rented, sold, or transferred in any 41. The one parking space accessed directly from the alley shall units in the Project. to all amenities and common areas in the Project as do the occupants of all other 40. The occupants of the affordable housing unit shall have access drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains. 39. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall performed under any permits issued by the City. improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations 38. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing related to the Project. public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the Engineering for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for 37. The Applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from Civil installation will also require approval from the City Engineer. system through the existing water service connection unless otherwise approved 110

43 Commission / ll ti /1/ I ll ti f/f of the project and including a copy ofthis Resolution. occupants of residences on properties adjacent to the project site informing them project applicant or developer shall provide notice to all property owners and 44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the yard setback. Drive shall be cut back such that they do not encroach into the required front 43. The balconies on the western building façade facing Crescent requirement shall require approval by the City of Beverly Hills Planning maintained as private space for the affordable housing unit. Any change to this 111

44 Book of Resolutions of the City Council of the City City Attorney LAURENCE S. WIENE APPROVED AS TO FORM: BYRONPE J City Clerk AflF,ST: Section 1L The City Clerk shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption 24 Dirct6r of Community Development sun)1ealy KEENE U 7-d City Miger MAJU I 4gUZRJ APPqc: _(SEAL) California Adopted: October 4, 2016 of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered in the 112

45 (w/o attachments) October 4, 2016 City Council Staff Report ATTACHMENT F Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13,

46 C C Meeting Date: Item Number: To: From: Subject: Attachments: October 4, 2016 D-6 AGENDA REPORT The Honorable Mayor & City Council Laurence S. Wiener, City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, AND DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 6-UNiT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 NORTH CRESCENT DRIVE 1. Resolution 2. Redlined Resolution RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution entitled A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, AND DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 NORTH CRESCENT DRIVE. INTRODUCTION I DISCUSSION The City council at its meeting on September 20, 2016, considered the project proposed at 250 North Crescent Drive and directed staff to prepare a revised resolution conditionally approving the project. That revised resolution is presented for City Council consideration. Also attached, for convenience, is a redlined version of the Resolution showing the changes made to the version of the resolution included in the September 20, 2016 agenda materials. Although there was some discussion regarding the hours that the rooftop area could be used by project residents, it was unclear whether there was concurrence among the Council Members to change those hours. Therefore, the hours in condition no. 13 of the revised resolution have not been revised, and would allow rooftop uses between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. daily, unless the City Council wishes to revise the hours before adoption of the Resolution. Additionally there was direction from members of the Council to requite the installation of a glass barrier on the southern side of the roof deck area to limit noise emanating from \ v1.doc Page 1 of 2 114

47 provide. Requiring a glass screen wall taller than 45 inches would be inconsistent with condition requiring an additional glass screen wall on the south edge of the building. the City s current zoning regulations and therefore staff has not included a project parapet with a maximum height of 45 inches on a roof, which the project plans currently any rooftop use. Based on this direction, staff reviewed city zoning requirements regarding building height in multifamily residential zones. These standards allow for B \ v1.doc Page 2 of 2 City Attorney Laurence S. Wiener, 4tha) FISCAL IMPACT None. Meeting Date: October 4,

48 (wlo attachments) September 20, 2016 City Council Staff Report ATTACHMENT G Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13,

49 - HILLS BEVERLY 117 Page 1 off5 from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and conditionally approving a Vesting Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing on the proposed project, consider meeting, staff report, and public testimony, and adopt a resolution finding the project exempt the additional information provided in response to City Council requests at the May 3, 2016 RECOMMENDATION 7. Required Findings (Vesting Tentative Tract Map and 9. Resolution 10. Public Notice 3. Feasibility Analysis by John Kaliski Architects Foot Shade and Shadow Study by Applicant Team 11. Public Comments 12. Architectural Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment) Development Plan Review (DPR)) Elements 2. Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report 8. State Legislature s Findings Related to Housing and Housing Foot Shade and Shadow Study by Applicant Team 4. Financial Analysis by Keyser Marston Associates 2016) Attachments: 1. Planning Commission Staff Report with Attachments (March 10, UNIT ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 NORTH CRESCENT DRIVE. INCLUSIVE OF A VERY LOW-INCOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONSTRUCTION OF A 4-STORY, 8-UNIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING REVIEW, AND DENSITY BONUS PERMIT TO ALLOW THE Subject: A VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP, DEVELOPMENT PLAN City Planner From: Ryan Gohlich, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development / To: Honorable Mayor & City Council Item Number: F i Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 AGENDA REPORT C C

50 BACKGROUND North Crescent Drive. Tentative Tract Map, Development Ptan Review, and Density Bonus Permit to allow the construction of an 8-unit, 4-story residential building inclusive of a very low-income unit at Page 2 of 15 the zoning code allows for four residential units plus a 600-square-foot bonus efficiency unit, The proposed building contains approximately 12,400-square-feet of floor area on a 7,556 square-foot parcel. The project includes one level of subterranean parking, four levels of residential units, and a rooftop open space common area. The project includes seven twobedroom units and a single one-bedroom unit designated for very low income housing. While space. containing 8 residential units, 14 subterranean parking spaces, and one ground floor parking PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves construction of a new 4-story, 45-foot tall condominium building four stones. The project site is located on the east side of North Crescent Drive between Dayton and Clifton Ways in the Central Area of the City. The project site is immediately bordered by a three-story development to the west, across Crescent Drive. Development on Crescent Drive is characterized by apartment and condominium buildings with heights that range between two to building to the south, single-family uses across a 20-alley to the east, and a mixed use PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING condominium building with a fourth-story penthouse to the north, a three-story apartment Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C

51 6591 5(o)(2)). A new driveway connecting to the existing alley at the tear of the site will provide and the General Plan, General Plan densities shall prevail (Government Code Section standards requite that whenever there is a conflict between the densities set by the zoning code Density Bonus for a very low income unit to the zoning code density would allow for 7 units to be built at the site as opposed to 10 units under General Plan density. State Density Bonus General Plan density standards allow for 7 units to be built on the site. Applying the State Page 3 of 15 1 Available online at htto:ilwww.bevedvhills.orulservlceslolannino UivislonI9eneml olanlgenolan.aw bonuses, where feasible to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing. Policy H 2.1 Affordable Housing Incentives. Offer incentives, including density as required by State law. Policy LU Affordable Housing. Support the development of affordable housing densities, built form and scale. housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, Policy LU 5.2 Infill and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new and renovated image and complement existing development. renovation of existing buildings and properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site construction practices, landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City s distinctive planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and Policy LU 2.4 Architectural and Site Design. Requite that new construction and distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces. enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City s Policy LU 2.1 City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors. Maintain and the City. Some policies relevant to the City Council s review of the project include: The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in GENERAL PLAN1 POLICIES a development project. Density Bonus program, which allows for increased density, development standard Density Bonus Permit: Required in order to construct a project pursuant to the State waivers, and development incentives when affordable housing units are contained within condominium and for a project constructed pursuant to a density bonus permit. Development Plan Review: Required for general discretionary review of the proposed that can be sold separately. Vesting Tentative Tract Map: Required to allow the subdivision of air space and creation of common areas, which enables the creation of individual condominium units Required Entitlements. As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements: tear of the building. Pedestrians will have direct access to the building from Crescent Drive at the rear of the site, will provide access to a single ground floor parking space enclosed at the though entrances located on the sides of the new building. access to on-site underground parking. A second driveway, also connecting to the existing alley 119 Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C

52 Proactively seek out new approaches in the provision of affordable housing. The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 4 of 15 agenda. August 16, 2016 and requested additional materials including financial and feasibility analyses, and a shade and shadow study. At the August 16, 2016 Council hearing, staff recommended, and the applicant concurred, to continue the item to the September 20, 2016 City Council At the May 3, 2016 City Council hearing, the City Council set the project s de novo hearing for Proposed height and feasibility of fitting 8 units in three stories; The process by which the project was approved. Financial value of proposal; Shade and shadow impacts; State Density Law and DPR findings; and The City s discretion over the Density Bonus incentives and waiver; Tentative Tract Map, Development Plan Review (DPR), and Density Bonus Permit to allow construction of the project. At that meeting, the City Council expressed the following concerns: review of the Planning Commission s March 10, 2016 decision conditionally approving a Vesting At its meeting on April 5, 2016, the City Council voted to hold a de novo h aring for independent BACKGROUND OF CITY COUNCIL REVIEW under CEQA. The Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report is included as Attachment 2 for reference. Therefore, this project appears to be eligible for exemption from further environmental review d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, tare, or threatened than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. species. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no mote applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. noise, air quality, or water quality. a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. criteria set forth in Section of the State CEQA Guidelines for in-fill development projects: of the State CEQA Guidelines. The project appears to meet all five of the following seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Projects characterized as in-fill seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections et development that meet certain criteria are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections et 120 Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C

53 PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION Public notice for the September City Council hearing was provided on September 9, public provided oral comments on the project. Additionally, prior to the March 10, in the form of newspaper publication, direct mailing, and on-site posting. The Planning Commission also held a duly noticed public hearing on March 10, 2016, where members of the Page 5 of 15 households in Los Angeles County have been updated income limits are set forth as follows: Since the publication of the Match 10, 2016 Planning Commission report, 2015 income limits for very low income 2 Per httd:/lhcd.ca.aovthousina-oolicv-develoomenuhousina-resource-center!reoorts/state/inc2kl6.ddf Density Increase: Density Bonus standards allow for a certain percentage increase in are designated for very tow income households. in this case, the number of base units allowed under General Plan density standards, without the inclusion of bonus units) that density, which is based on the percentage of total units (the maximum number of units The proposed project includes one unit designated for a very low-income household (a household that earns 50% or less of the area median income)2, and is therefore proposed to be constructed in accordance with State Density Bonus standards (California Government Code Section 65915). Based on the very low income units proposed as part of the project, the applicant seeks the following density bonus and development incentives: including provisions intended to promote affordable housing in Beverly Hills. acknowledged a need for affordable housing. In order to address this need for affordable the construction of affordable housing, including the Density Bonus Law (Govt. Code Section 65915). The State Density Bonus Law provides developers with incentives to housing, the State has adopted various programs and incentives to facilitate and expedite housing. The City s General Plan and Municipal Code further support the State s goals by construct affordable housing, including increased density and relief from certain development standards that might otherwise discourage the development of affordable Density Bonus, Waivers, and Incentives. The State of California has identified and information as it relates to the project and required findings. In reviewing the requested entitlements, the Council may wish to consider the following ANALYSIS project. As of the writing of this report, staff has received one letter in support of the project. owners of 262 North Crescent Drive, Unit 3E, addressed to the City Council, in opposition of the The letters have been provided in Attachment 11. as well as three additional letters of support were submitted. After the project s Planning the Planning Commission meeting, a petition signed by 35 people in opposition of the project, Planning Commission meeting, four letters in support of the project were submitted to staff. At Commission approval on March 10, the City Clerk s office received a letter on behalf of the 121 Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C

54 are requited to be rounded up to the next whole number. Therefore, a Density Bonus or more of the total units are designated for very low income, a 35% increase in density units would be very low income. The Density Bonus standards state that whenever 11% shall be provided (Government Code Section 65915(f)). Further, all density calculations low income units proposed is one. Therefore, 1 4.3% (one divided by seven) of the base that could be built under the City s General Plan is seven units3, and the number of very Page 6 of 15 50% of private open space added to the unit square footage pursuant to BHMC F. *Wfth density bonus units provided, units do not require guest parking spaces. would be larger than the ones proposed and could be configured in a variety of ways. 5Ari illustration for this scenario was not included in the scope, however, the consultant has deduced that the units.25 guest parking spaces per dwelling unit (DU). element of the general plan, the general plan density shall prevaii (Government Code Section (o)(2)). 3 Whete the density allowed under the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the land use 2-BR DUs 7 DUs 4 DUs 4 DUs 4 DUs 4 DUs (11,235 SP).739 SPA) DU Floor Area 10,911 SF 8,501 SF 8,420 SF 8,129 SF 8,000 SFb r.. Efficiency DUs N.A. 3 DUs 4 DUs 4 DUs I DU w 3) Granted* Request incentive City s (Alternative 1) Granted* Granted* Standards (Alternative 2) (Alternative (Ease Zoning)4 Incentives Modulation Density Compliance to Proposal Density Only Façade Neither Units, Applicant 3 Stories and 3 StorIes with 3 StorIes with 3 StorIes, Five below and compared them against the applicant s proposal. The last alternative (four dwelling or without the requested concessions, John Kaliski Architects produced the alternatives listed units and a bonus efficiency unit) reflects a code-compliant project without the density bonus. In determining the feasibility of physically accommodating eight units in three stories, and with the City retained John Kaliski Architects and Keyser Marston Associates (KMA). providing the eight dwelling units sought by the applicant in a three-story or 33-foot tall structure, Pursuant to the City Council s request for additional information regarding the feasibility of project. The applicant seeks authorization to build a four-story structure that is 45 feet in height. stones or 33 feet is required to allow for construction of the eight units proposed in the provision of the affordable housing (Govt. Code Sec (e)). In this case, the development that accommodates the increased density allowed in exchange for the standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a Bonus Law, an applicant is entitled to request a waiver or reduction of development applicant asserts that waiver of the City s development height standards allowing three Waiver of Development Standards (Building Height): Pursuant to State Density request JO units, the applicant here seeks only eight units. Permit request at the site could potentially allow for up to 10 units. Although entitled to 122 Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C (

55 Parking at I space NA. N.A. NA. N.A. Grade Additional N.A. 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces Parking 123 Page 7 of 15 housing units would not be built, and the purpose of the Density Bonus Law to If the Project as a whole was not economically feasible, then the below-market-rate physically fit the eight requested units in three stories. Case law suggests that denying Density Bonus Law: value of the density bonus and concessions. At three storiesl33 feet in height and with the density bonus and concessions, the project is not financially feasible despite the ability to feasible is tantamount to precluding construction of a project that meets the criteria of the requested waivers of development standards that are required to make a project economically In each scenario, the cost of providing one very low income rental efficiency unit exceeds the Keyser Marston Associates Memorandum Net Surplus / (Cost) ($507,000) ($379,000) ($363,000) and Concessions: ($6,700) $121,300 $137,300 Value of the Density Bonus Low income Rental Unit $500,300 $500,300 $500,300 Cost of Providing One Very- Concessions Modulation Modulation No Façade Façade Side Setback & Kaliskl Development Alternatives 33 /three stones) are shown in the table below: The resufts of the financial analysis for the Kaliski Development Alternatives (8 units in stories). based on the applicant s proposal (with the density waiver granted for a height of 45 Ifour provide for affordable housing costs. Specifically, KMA conducted pro forma analyses on the rental unit in order to ascertain whether the density waiver and concessions are required to concessions, and bonus to the approximate cost of providing a very-low income affordable developed by Kaliski and compared the financial benefits associated with the density waiver, alternatives created by Kaliski (with a height capped at 33 /three stories) and on alternatives KMA then assessed the economic feasibility of the various three-story/33-foot-high scenarios with no density incentive granted). alternatives (with both incentives granted, with only façade modulation request granted, and physically accommodated in a three-story building with one level of parking in each of the three As shown in the table above, the consultant found that a project with a mix of eight units can be John Kaliski Arcnftects Memorandum Associated Exhibits (Subterranean) Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C

56 State Density Bonus Law, at the density requested by the applicant. In this case, the applicant Code Section 65915(e)(f) by precluding construction of a project that meets the criteria of the Consequently, denial of the waiver for additional height could be in violation of Government (Woilmer v. City of Berkeley, 179 CaLApp.4th 933 (2009)). encourage the development of tow and moderate income housing would not be achieved (2) Approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land (3) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city, county, or city and county that 124 Page 8 of 15 For ease of reference, this report refers to the appllcanvs requests as 1ncentives. result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. (Govt. Code Sec (k).) project will be located. compatible with the housing project and the existing or planned development in the area where the proposed housing uses will reduce the cost of the housing development and if the commercial, office, Industrial, or other land uses are otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code, including, but not limited to, a minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements that exceed the Density Bonus Law defines uconcessions or incenhives as any of the following: (1) A reduction in site development (in this case, two incentives). city or county must still grant the number of incentives required by Density Bonus Law evidence, to reject the requested incentives, lithe requested incentives are rejected, the the requested incentives unless it makes specific findings, based on substantial As discussed below, State Density Bonus Law allows project applicants to request the specific incentives they want the city or county to grant. The city or county must grant requirement, resulting in 8-foot side setbacks on the north and south of the site, side setbacks to be at least 19 and each setback to be at least 8. The applicant requests a density bonus incentive to allow a 3-foot reduction in the sum setback o Reduced Side Setback Sum: The City s zoning code requires the sum for the with a side setback sum of 16. building with 266 square feet of modulation. reduce the required modulation by 259 square feet, which would result in a façade modulation. The applicant is requesting a density bonus incentive to o Reduced Modulation: The City s zoning code requires 525 square feet of Sec (e)(2)). In this case, 14.3% of the base units are designated for a very low applicant s request for waiver of the building height development standard (Govt. Code incentives or concessions6 (Government Code Section (d)(2)(B)). The number of incentives to which an applicant is entitled is neither reduced or increased by the income household, so the project is eligible to receive two development incentives. The incentives requested by the applicant are as follows: Development Incentives (Setback and Modulation Reductions): Pursuant to the State Density Bonus statute, development projects where at least 10% of the base units are designated for very low income households are eligible to request two development has not exercised its right to construct 10 dwelling units, and does not seek further development standard waivers to enable construction of all 10 of the units to which it is entitled. Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C

57 financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions (Government Code Section (k)(3)) (d)(1), the incentives requested by the applicant must be granted: incentives that result in meaningful cost reductions. Therefore, the City must either grant the incentives requested by the applicant or find two other incentives that result in identifiable, Government Code Sections (d)(2) and (k)(3) state that the project is entitled to two Absent the City making the following findings provided in Government Code Section 125 Page foot cumulative side setback reduction and the 259-square-foot façade modulation reduction would not have specific adverse impacts upon public health and safety, the physical Staff recommends that the City grant the two requested concessions because granting the 3- Keyset Marston Associates Memorandum Net Surplus / (Cost) $270,000 $370,000 $386,000 Waiver and/or Concessions: Value of the Density Bonus, $1,029,200 $129,200 $1,145,200 Low income Rental It Cost of PrcMdlng One Very- Concessions Modulation Modulation No Façade Façade Side Setback & Applicant Development Alternatives Alternatives indicate that the combination of the height waiver coupled with the density bonus is sufficient to cover the cost of providing one very-low income unit. Nonetheless, under the order to provide for affordable housing costs. KMA concludes that the Applicant Development requirements imposed by Section 65915(k)(3), the City must provide two concessions to the federal law. Thus, staff asked KMA to assess whether the requested incentives are required in table shows that the requested incentives are not required to provide the affordable housing significant adverse impact or that either requested incentive would be contrary to state or project that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions (KMA Study, p.8). The following (footnote 8 refers to the very low income rental unit being a one-bedroom unit in each alternative). In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that either requested incentive would have a (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law. low- and moderate-income households. Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section , upon public health and safety or the (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact, as defined in target units to be set as specified in subdivision (C). costs, as defined in Section of the Health and Safety Code, or for tents for the (A) The concession or incentive is not required in order to provide for affordable housing Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C. C

58 While the provided 8 side setbacks do not meet the requited side setback sum requirement of While the reduced façade modulation could potentially affect the project s aesthetics, the design proposed project includes front façade balconies that will still contribute to building modulation. setback area. Additionally, although a reduction in façade modulation is requested, the 19, the proposed 8 side setbacks do meet the minimum requirement for each individual side environment, or on any real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. Page foof 15 than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all Projects. Section of the State CEQA Guidelines identifies that in-fill development meeting the following five criteria are categorically exempt from CEQA: The Project appears eligible for a Class 32 categorical exemption for In-Fill Development CEQA ANALYSIS Development Plan Review (DPR) findings for the Project. 2) a review of the shade and shadow information in regards to making the required 1) a CEQA review of the shade and shadow information; and applicant and submitted for staff to review. City staff s analysis below consists of: and shadow study (Attachment 5) for the proposed 4-story, 45 -tall building was prepared by the shade and shadow effects of the project shoufd be studied. Pursuant to that request, a shade At the May 3, 2016 City Council meeting, the City Council provided direction to staff that the SHADE AND SHADOW STUDY as opposed to 22 parking spaces required by the Municipal Code. The aforementioned spaces for two- and three-bedroom units - inclusive of handicapped and guest parking) spaces located in the subterranean garage are proposed as tandem spaces. right to invoke the Density Bonus Law parking standards, which require a maximum of 15 parking spaces (one space for studio and one-bedroom units, and a maximum of two unlike the requirements for concessions, the statute does not provide an opportunity to requirements (Government Code Section (p)(1)). The applicant has exercised its Government Code Section precludes the City from imposing additional parking, and tandem or uncovered parking (Government Code Section (p)(4)). Eight of the 14 reject the parking standards on economic grounds. Additionally, State Density Bonus parking standards that, if invoked by a density bonus project applicant, prevail over local parking requirements also allow a development to provide onsite parking through the number of bedrooms in each unit; however, State Density Bonus Law provides Parking: Standard parking requirements set forth in the Municipal Code are based on requests associated with a density bonus project. other concessions, the two concessions requested by the applicant are typical concession Lastly, short of exploring other concessions and conducting subsequent financial analyses on modulation reduction. recommendations and condition the project to include exterior elements to help mitigate the will, nonetheless, be reviewed by the Architectural Commission which can provide design 126 Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C.

59 e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. noise, air quality, or water quality. U) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, species. C) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened Page 11 ofl5 of the Public Resources Code). considered significant impacts on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21099fd)f1)). adopted pursuant to Section or of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (Section (a)f7) stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon induded in a Transportation Improvement Program Transftj,rioritv area: an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that Is existing or planned, If the planned aesthetic and parking Impacts of a residential...project on an infihl site within a transit priority area shall not be exemption. Aesthetic impacts, including shade and shadow, is not a criterion that is evaluated In summary, the project appears to qualify for a Class 32 infill development categorical Consequently, there needs to be the intersection of two or more major bus routes, and not the afternoon peak times. Therefore, Line 1 4 s frequency of service interval fails to meet the 15 transit stop frequency requirement. Thus, the project is not located in a transit priority area, as intersection of the two streets, Wilshire Boulevard and Beverly Drive as the applicant has stated minutes for the former). Metro Local Line 14 intersects these lines as it runs north-south on minutes or less requirement during afternoon peak commute periods. The BeverlyiWilshire stop to be exempt from aesthetic impacts and analysis. does not meet the definition of a major transit stop because Line 14 does not meet the major asserted by the applicant, and does not meet the criteria of Public Resources Code Section sufficient frequency during peak times (approximately 6-15 minutes for the latter, and 2-10 Beverly Drive; however, Local Line 14 has gaps in service greater than 20 minutes during in their letter. Metro Local Line 20 and Rapid Line 720 run east-west on Wilshire Boulevard at a periods. service interval of f5 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute A site must contain the intersection of two or more maior bus routes with a frequency of appear to qualify as a major transit stop. Bus service at Beverly Drive and Wilshire Boulevard does not meet the minimum criteria to be considered a major transit stop. Public Resources within a transit priority area. The transit stop location identified in the applicant s letter does not mile of the project site does not support the applicant s assertion that the project site is located Public Resources Code Section 21099(U)(f) specifically excludes aesthetic impacts of a environment7 if the project is located within a transit priority area8. Staffs analysis differs from second issue regarding CEQA analysis of the project s aesthetic impacts. The letter cites that The applicant s letter included in the shade and shadow study (Attachment 5) identifies a the applicant s assertion. Review of Metro transit service information for bus lines within a half residential project located on an infill site from counting as significant impacts on the Code Section states that to qualify as a major transit stop: Exemption, the project is categorically exempt from the preparation of environmental whether a project qualifies for an in-fill exemption. Since the project qualifies for a Class 32 Infihl documents, including further CEQA analysis of the aesthetic impacts of the project. not one of the five criteria set forth in Section that needs to be assessed in identifying Associates (Attachment 2). Aesthetic analysis, which includes shade and shadow impacts, is by the information contained the attached Categorical Exemption report prepared by Rincon A City determination that the project qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption is supported Meeting Date: September C C 127

60 the City s Development Plan Review findings. project deemed categorically exempt; therefore, shade and shadow impacts of the project would not be evaluated under the provisions of CEQA, but should be evaluated for consistency with guidelines identifies that categorically exempt projects are exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents. Additional environmental analysis is not required for a in identifying if a project qualifies for a Class 32 exemption. Section of the CEQA Page J2of 15 public health or safety. designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the complete. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan use objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed A significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on Finding A: The shade and shadow study does not provide additional information authorized by the State Density Bonus Statute, meets all zoning requirements and can Government Code Section (d)(2), a local agency shall not deny a housing development project for very low income households, or condition approval in a manner households, unless it makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence in the record that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, meaning: be determined to be consistent with the requirements and guidance of the General Plan evaluate the traffic impacts of the project. that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low income bonus project is detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare. Pursuant to Finding C: The project does not consist of commercial development therefore, the finding is not applicable. Finding D: The shade and shadow analysis does not provide information necessary to Finding E: State Density Bonus Law limits the City s ability to determine if a density for residential uses located within the multi-family R-4 residential zone. necessary to evaluate the project s consistency with the General Plan. The project, as determined the following: Staff has analyzed the information included in the submitted shade and shadow study and any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and e) The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area. b) The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development c) The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of vicinity of the subject property. d) The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic adopted for the area. adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards. a) The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans The City s DPR findings are as follows: DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW fdpr) FINDINGS 128 Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C

61 conditions, the project cannot be denied for public health or safety reasons. based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or Unless approval of the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact, Page 13 of 15 Rexford Or, and 245 N Rexiord DC) to the east of the project site, the study identifies the In evaluating the shade impacts on the single-family properties (257 N Rexford Dr, 251 N have an adverse effect on additional anticipated development at 262 N Crescent. 45-foot-tall project would not preclude the neighboring building from installing future solar rooftop would still have access to direct sunlight the majority of the year, including direct access to sunlight for the majority of the day during winter. In summary, the project can be found to not The DPR finding also identifies that the proposed project s effects on anticipated development should be evaluated. The shade and shadow study indicates that the 45-foot-tall building collectors on the roof of the building, or from creating a future rooftop outdoor use because the creates shade on the neighboring building in the morning during winter months, but during the test of the year, the project does not shade the roof of the building to the north. Therefore, the from the addition of a fourth story to the proposed building. The private outdoor space on the third level would have some access to light in the code-compliant building scenario ( unit condominium building contain private outdoor spaces on the building s southern wall. on existing shade-sensitive features of the building at 262 N Crescent. either a code-compliant, 33-foot-tall building or the proposed 45-foot-tall building during the there are potential outdoor shade sensitive uses on the south wall of the building to the north. to the north (262 N Crescent Drive) in the morning during winter months when the shadows are private outdoor spaces located on the first and third levels of the building. Only two units in the winter months. Therefore, this first floor deck would not have additional shade effects resulting story/45-foot-tall building in the morning and mid-day during fall, winter and spring scenarios, currently are no outdoor spaces on the roof, nor any solar-dependent features such as solar of the light blockage, the impact would not constitute a substantial adverse effect. Lastly, there shades this open space area the majority of the day. Consequently, based on the limited effect The shade and shadow study identifies the greatest shadow effect of the project on the building longest. Based on staff review of the submitted materials (Attachments 5 and 6), it appears that The opening of the inset deck on the first level of 262 N Crescent Drive would be shaded by height of a code-compliant building at this site, and the roof of the third-story inset deck already additional shadow cast by the proposed 45-foot-tall building would not have an adverse effect The number of potential shade sensitive uses is limited, consisting of two south-facing covered stories). While this direct light to the third-story inset deck could be blocked by the proposed 4 the light blockage would be incremental in nature since the proposed height is 12 taller than the panels. Therefore, no shade-sensitive uses exist on the roof of 262 N Crescent. In conclusion, across the alley to the east of the project site. promoting harmonious development of the area. The basis of staff s analysis is in identifying if proposed plan adversely affecting existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and penthouse condo building to the north (262 N Crescent Drive) and single-family properties Therefore, the information provided in the shade and shadow studies (Attachments 5 and 6) is applicable to the analysis of the project for consistency with DPR finding B regarding the the project has any potential substantial adverse shade and shadow impacts on nearby shadesensitive uses. Shade-sensitive uses in the vicinity of the project that could be adversely that could be affected by shade thrown by the project the adjacent three-story with fourth-story affected include residential outdoor spaces and solar collectors. Staff identified two locations 129 Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C

62 west property tines closest to the project site (along the alley). This existing landscaping along the property lines already shade the rear yard of these properties during the winter months. The greatest shadow effect of the project in the afternoon during the winter months. The shadesensitive use staff has identified on these properties is the teat yard outdoor space. Based on site visits, submitted photos, and) as identified on the submitted shade and shadow studies, the aforementioned single-family properties to the east have mature landscaping located on the 130 Page 14 of 15 denying the project or the requested waiver and incentive requests. A denial based on entitled, to reject development standard waivers when such standards preclude development of action, but also, a court would award attorney s fees to the project applicant. inadequate findings could result in not only a court order compelling the City to reconsider its the project with the allowed density, to reject incentives requested by an applicant, and to impose local parking standards that are more strict than those allowed pursuant to state statute. The Council, like the Planning Commission, must carefully weigh the legal risks associated with City s ability to reject the additional density to which density bonus project applicants are As noted in the body of this report, Density Bonus Law imposes significant constraints on the court were to find that the City s actions with respect to the project violated density bonus law. risks associated with the various decision options available to the Commission. requirements under Density Bonus Law and the ramifications for the City in the event that a The intent of the discussion was to provide attorney-client privileged information regarding legal regarding a closed session discussion with the Planning Commission involving the legal During the City Council discussions of setting the project for hearing, concerns were raised PLANNING COMMISSION PROCESS are not substantial, and the DPR finding regarding adverse impacts on neighboring Based on the analysis above, staff concludes that the shade and shadow impacts of the project development and the promotion of harmonious development can be met. on single-family properties located east of the project site. Therefore, it can be found that the proposed plan will not adversely affect shade-sensitive uses proposed building will have their greatest effect on the single-family homes to the east. neighboring residents, even in the afternoons of the winter months when shadows cast by the shade and shadow study does not show substantial new shade on the rear yards of the Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 C C

63 RECOMMENDATION 8-unit, 4 story condominium project on the property located at 250 North Crescent Drive, and finding the decision exempt from CEQA. Tract Map, Development Plan Review, and Density Bonus Permit to allow the construction of an A Draft resolution has been prepared conditionally approving the requested Vesting Tentative 131 Page 15 of 15 Director of Community Development Susan Healy Keene, AICP Alternatively, the City Council could continue the public hearing and direct staff to return with a modified draft resolution to either deny or approve a modified version of the project. Meeting Date: September 20, 2016 (

64 (wlo attachments) Match 3, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report ATTACHMENT H Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13,

65 <RtY City Planning Division 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA TEL. (310) FAX. (310) of Beverly Hills Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Match 10, 2016 Subject: 250 North Crescent Drive 8-Unit Condominium Project Request for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, Development Plan Review, and Density Bonus Permit to allow the construction of a 4-story, 8-unit condominium building on the property located at 250 N. Crescent Drive. Project Applicant: BH Premier Investments, LP Representative: Truman & Elliott LLP Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive testimony on the project; and 2. Adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving the requests. REPORT SUMMARY The proposed project involves the construction of a new 4-story, 8-unit condominium building proposed under the state Density Bonus provisions for affordable housing. The application includes the following requests: 1) a density increase; 2) a code waiver request to allow one story of additional height; and 3) a request for two development incentives (reduced side setback and building modulation). These requests are being made in accordance with the City s Density Bonus Regulations identified in Article 15.2 of the City s Zoning Code and California Government Code The proposed project includes one unit designated for a very lowincome household which qualifies the project for the requested density bonus, code waiver, and development incentives. This report analyzes key project components including the density bonus and requested incentives, scale and massing, rooftop uses, parking, and traffic. Based on the analysis contained in this report, the proposed project is not expected to result in any significantly adverse impacts, is consistent with state and local Density Bonus provisions, and will contribute to the City s supply of affordable housing. Accordingly, the recommendation in this report is for project approval. Attachment(s): A. Required Findings B. Draft Approval Resolution C. Public Notice 0. Public Comment Letters (3) E. class 32 Categorical Exemption Report F. Architectural Plans Report Author and Contact Information: Cynthia de Ia Torte (310) cdelatorrebeveriyhills.org 133

66 Application 6/5/2015 File Date 4/ BACKGROUND C HlLLS/ Page 2 ofl2 Match 10, 2016 Circulation and Parking Trips on Dayton Way: 6,548; Average Daily Trips on Clifton Way: Parking Restrictions Free 2-hour parking (8AM West (across RMCP (Multi-Family Residential-Commercial Parking Zone) Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses South R-4 North R-4 Multi-Family Multi-Family East (across alley) R-1.8X Single-Family Whole 6PM Adjacent Street(s) North Crescent Drive, Dayton and Clifton Ways 4,400 Adjacent Alleys 20, Two-way, north-south alley at tear of property Parkways & Sidewalks Crescent Drive sidewalk/parkway except Sunday) on the east side of line from face of curb to property Traffic Volume Average Daily Trips on North Crescent Drive: 9,300; Average Daily Crescent Drive) Foods and Senior Housing condominiums apartment Residential Area Lot Dimensions & (width) x (depth) = 7,556 square feet General Plan Multi-Family Residential Low-Medium Density Year Built N/A, the site is currently vacant. Address 250 N. Crescent Drive Protected None Trees/Grove ProDertv Information APN Existing Land Use(s) Vacant site Legal Description and Beverly Lot 4 Block 15; Zoning District R-4 Historic Resource N/A, the site is currently vacant. PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING Prior PC Action None Prior Council Action None Representative(s) Todd Elliott of Truman & Elliott LLP Applicant(s) BH Premier Investments, LP Owner(s) BH Premier Investments, LP Determination Permit Streamlining Take action on project within 60 days of CEQA determination CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption for infihl development CEQA Deadline 60 Days from CEQA Determination Complete BEVERLY 250 N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

67 Crescent Drive with overnight parking (2:30 AM 5 AM) by permit Page 3 of Project Site Looking North with heights that range between two to four stories. Ways in the Central Area of the City. The project site is immediately bordered by a four-story Neighborhood Character Development on Crescent Drive is characterized by apartment and condominium buildings uses across a 20 -alley to the east, and mixed use to the west, across Crescent Drive. condominium building to the north, a three-story apartment building to the south, single-family The project site is located on the east side of North Crescent Drive between Dayton and Clifton Circulation Element Nearest Intersection Crescent Drive and Dayton Way Crescent Drive is a local street only; One-hour (Mon Sat: 8AM 6PM (1 hour) metered parking as well as 20-minute metered parking on the west side of Crescent Drive March 10, 2016 iierly 250 N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

68 Page 4 of 12 BEVERIYI HILLS / Match 10, condominium and for a project constructed pursuant to a density bonus permit. Development Plan Review: Required for general discretionary review of the proposed enables the creation of individual condominium units that can be sold separately. Vesting Tentative Tract Map: Required to allow the subdivision of air space, which Requited Entitlements. As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements: entrances located on the sides of the new building. building. Pedestrians will have direct access to the building from Crescent Drive though driveway connecting to the existing alley at the rear of the site will provide access to on-site site, will provide access to a single ground floor parking space enclosed at the rear of the square-foot parcel. The project includes one level of subterranean parking, four levels of The proposed building contains approximately 12,400-square-feet of floor area on a 7,556 underground parking. A second driveway, also connecting to the existing alley at the rear of the residential units, and a rooftop open space common area. The project includes seven twobedroom units and a single one-bedroom unit designated for very low income housing. A new space. The project is proposed to be constructed in accordance with City and State Density containing 8 residential units, 14 subterranean parking spaces, and one ground floor parking Bonus regulations. The Density Bonus requests are discussed in more detail later in this report. The proposed project involves construction of a new 4-story, 45-foot tall condominium building PROJECT DESCRIPTION./- / 250 N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

69 when affordable housing units are contained within a development project. Page 5 of 12 Density Bonus program, which allows for increased density and development incentives Density Bonus Permit: Requited in order to construct a project pursuant to the State HlLS March 10, Available online at division/general rlan/genplan.asp than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. b) applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and c) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more regulations. a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained the State CEQA Guidelines for in-fill development projects: CEQA Guidelines. The project meets all five of the following criteria set forth in Section of ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT environmental regulations of the City. Projects characterized as in-fill development that meet certain criteria are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section of the State in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the Proactively seek out new approaches in the provision of affordable housing. bonuses, where feasible to offset or reduce the costs of developing affordable housing. Policy H 2.1 Affordable Housing Incentives. Offer incentives, including density as required by State law. Policy LU Affordable Housing. Support the development of affordable housing densities, buitt form and scale. Policy LU 5.2 Inflhl and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and Policy LU 2.4 Architectural and Site Design. Require that new construction and image and complement existing development. renovation of existing buildings and properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site construction practices, landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City s distinctive distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces. enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City s Policy LU 2.1 City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors. Maintain and the City. Some policies relevant to the Planning Commission s review of the project include: The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in GENERAL PLAN1 POLICIES BEVERLVI 250 N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

70 Planning Commission Report 250 N. Crescent Drive March 10, 2016 Page 6 of 12 d) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. e) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. f) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Therefore, this project has been determined to be exempt from further environmental review under CEQA. The Class 32 Categorical Exemption Report is included as Attachment E for reference. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION Type of Notice Required Required Notice Actual Notice Actual Period Period Date Date Posted Notice N/A N/A 3/3/ Days Newspaper Notice 10 Days 2129/2016 2/25/2016 (The 14 Days Weekly) Mailed Notice (Owners 10 Days 2/29/2016 & Residential 2/29/ Days Occupants Radius + block-face) Property Posting 10 Days 2/29/2016 2/26/ Days Website N/A N/A 3/3/ Days Public Comment Two letters in support of the project were received prior to the public comment period and one letter in support of the project was received during the public comment period. A call was also received on February 23, 2016 from a potential buyer of a condominium unit in an adjacent building. The caller requested project information to evaluate potential shadow impacts on the unit he is considering purchasing. Please see Attachment D for the public comment letters. ANALYSIS2 Project approval, conditional approval or denial is based upon specific findings for discretionary application requested by the applicant. The specific findings that must be made in order to approve the project are provided as Attachment A to this report, and may be used to guide the Planning Commission s deliberation of the subject project. each In reviewing the requested entitlements, the Commission may wish to consider the following information as it relates to the project and required findings. 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may teach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternate findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 138

71 adopted a statute to encourage the development of affordable housing units. The State affordable housing. In order to address this need for affordable housing, the State has Density Bonus and Incentives. The State of California has identified a regional need for Pagez of 12 March 10, 2016 in Household Maximum Household Very Low Income Number of Persons Income to Qualify as $29,900 $34,200 $38,450 $42,700 $46,150 $49,550 $52,950 County are set forth as follows: Per httd:llwww.hcd.ca.aov/housing-policy-developmentihousini-resource centerlreports/state/incnote.html income limits for very low income households in Los Angeles density, which is based on the percentage of total units (the maximum number of units or more of the total units are designated for very low income, a 35% increase in density next whole number. Therefore, approval of the Density Bonus Permit, with the inclusion calculation is further explained below. of one very low income unit, would allow for a maximum density of 10 units. This low income units proposed is one. Therefore, 14.3% (one divided by seven) of the base that could be built under the City s General Plan is seven units, and the number of very are designated for very low income households. In this case, the number of base units allowed under General Plan density standards, without the inclusion of bonus units) that units would be very low income. The Density Bonus standards state that whenever 11 % shall be provided. Further, all density calculations are required to be rounded up to the Density Increase: Density Bonus standards allow for a certain percentage increase in household that earns 50% or less of the area median income)3, and is therefore proposed to the applicant seeks the following density bonus and development incentives: The proposed project includes one unit designated for a very low-income household (a be constructed in accordance with State Density Bonus standards (California Government Code Section 65915). Based on the very low income units proposed as part of the project, otherwise discourage the development of affordable housing. The City s General Plan and including increased density and relief from certain development standards that might Municipal Code further support the State s goals by including provisions intended to promote Density Bonus statute provides developers with incentives to construct affordable housing, affordable housing in Beverly Hills. 250 N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

72 Total Units. This is the number of units allowed under General Plan density standards4. The General Plan allows 40 x (7,556 4; Density Calculations Page 8 of 12 State Density Bonus standards requite that whenever there is a conflict between the densities set by 140 story to accommodate the allowed units. is unable to fit 8 units within a three-story building envelope, and is requesting authorization of a fourth setbacks, etc.) physically preclude the allowed number of units from being constructed. The applicant A waiver may be requested by an applicant when the existing development standards (height, for the construction of 4 units, while the General Plan would allow for the construction of 7 units. the zoning code and General Plan, General Plan densities shall prevail. The zoning code would allow sum for the side setbacks to be at least 19 and each setback to be at least 8. o Reduced Side Setback Sum (incentive): The City s zoning code requires the to reduce the required modulation by 259-square-feet, which would result in a building with 266 square feet of modulation. o Reduced Modulation (incentive): The City s zoning code requires 525 squarefeet of façade modulation. The applicant is requesting a density bonus incentive the proposed project to be built at 4 stories and 45 feet in height. Residential Height District A. The applicant requests a density waiver to allow maximum height of 3 stories or 33 feet for sites located within the Multi-Family o Additional Height (density waiver): The City s zoning code requires a follows: for a very low income household, so the project is eligible to receive two development entitled to. In the case of the proposed project, 14.3% of the base units are designated households are eligible to request two development incentives. An applicant may also request a density waiver5 in addition to the number of incentives that the applicant is Development Incentives: Pursuant to the State Density Bonus statute, development projects where at least 10% of the base units are designated for very low income incentives. The incentives and the density waiver requested by the applicant are as sauare feet, and an acre is 43,560 square feet square feet of site area. The site area is 7, dwelling units per acre on the project site, or I unit per SF/43,560 SF) Maximum Density. This is the total number of units that can be built pursuant to State Density Bonus standards. =10 units this case, one very low income unit is provided. =6.9 (rounds to 7) 35% density bonus whenever 11% or more of the total 7 x 35% 35% bonus. number of very low income units by the total units. In =14.3% Percentage of Very Low Income Units. The percentage =7 total units of very low income units is achieved by dividing the units are very low income. In this case 14.3% of the total =2.45 (rounds to 3) units are very low income, so the project is eligible for the =3 bonus units Density Bonus. The State Density Bonus provides for a \HILLS cbeverl March 10, N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

73 the sum setback requirement, resulting in 8-foot side setbacks on the north and south of the site, with a side setback sum of 16. The applicant requests a density bonus incentive to allow a 3-foot reduction in Page 9 of 12 March 10, Bedroom 1 2 (2 per unit) 1 (1 per unit) 141 which should be considered in analyzing the scale and mass of the project. whichever is less). Based on the proposed design, the four-story project would be slightly south of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would be located across from a mixed-use building containing a Whole Foods Market that is approximately 50 -tall. To the located across North Crescent Drive to the single-family properties located to the east of the story building. The proposed project exceeds the height allowed in the Municipal Code for project site, and taller than the three-story, 28 -tall apartment building located immediately surrounding development, the proposed project is consistent with multi-family properties on also includes requests for reduced modulation requirements and a reduced side setback sum requirement (consistent with State-authorized provisions for density bonus projects), residences are buffered from the proposed project by a 20-foot alley to the teat of the site in character of the multi-story residential and mixed use neighborhood, the proposed project taller than the four-story, 42 -tall condominium building located immediately north of the addition to the project s 15 -l rear setback. Based on the variations in height of project, across the alley. Although the overall height is anticipated to be consistent with the North Crescent Drive and acts as an appropriate transition from the mixed-use project Scale and Massing. The project includes a density waiver request to allow a 45 -tall, four east of the project site, are one- and two-story single-family residences; however, the the subject property by one story and 12 feet (the allowed height is three stories or 33, Totals Bedroom (2.5 per unit) 14 (2 per unit) Unit T e (15 are proposed) I Units Requirement Parking Requirement Parking Requirement Comparison Number of Standard Parking State Density Bonus Guest Parking N/A 2 (1 space per 4 units) 0 spaces for two- and three-bedroom units (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking). State parking requirements applicable to this project are less stringent than those set one onsite space for studio and one-bedroom units, and a maximum of two onsite State Density Bonus parking requirements also allow a development to provide onsite subterranean garage are proposed as tandem spaces. A comparison of standard the number of bedrooms in each unit; however, State law provides that parking requirements set forth in the Density Bonus statute prevail over local requirements. The subject to the State Density Bonus parking requirements, which require a maximum of Parking: Standard parking requirements set forth in the Municipal Code are based on parking through tandem or uncovered parking. Eight of the 14 spaces located in the parking requited for the project versus State Density Bonus standards is set forth below. forth in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. The applicant requests that the project be 250 N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

74 the property to the south was constructed with a 15 front setback. Although façade adjacent property to the north was constructed with an approximately 13 front setback and The required front setback along the subject portion of North Crescent Drive is 15. The Page 10 of tandem. Although the provided parking does not meet the Municipal Code parking for a density bonus project by providing 15 standard parking spaces, eight of which are property; however, the project does meet the State-mandated 15-space parking requirement requirements, which would require the provision of 22 parking spaces for the subject Parking. As proposed, the project does not meet the standard Municipal Code parking projects; however, rooftop amenities also have the possibility of impacting surrounding residential uses if not properly designed and regulated. In the case of the proposed project, and the 20 alley) is provided to the single-family properties located to the rear of the project. regarding rooftop hours, music, and use, similar to conditions imposed on other projects with residential rooftop amenities. seating, a dog washing area, and an area for dogs. The Planning Division has observed that outdoor space has become more popular on residential buildings over the past few amenities for residents. The rooftop amenities help to improve the quality of multi-family the location of sloped skylights, stair and elevator enclosures, and mechanical equipment on the rooftop provide a 15-foot setback along the northern property line from proposed uses wash at the rear of the rooftop, and instead has included a recommendation for a 10-foot the rooftop to ensure that privacy impacts to the single-family properties are mitigated. The towards the rear of the roof, however, staff recommends against the placement of the dog the adjacent three-story building would be limited to the building s roof. While staff supports the general design of the rooftop amenities, staff has recommended additional conditions adjacent apartment building; however, privacy impacts are not anticipated because views to Staff also recommends full screening in the form of landscaping to be located at the tear of location of proposed planters along the south side of the rooftop helps screen views to the decades, and recently approved/constructed projects have typically contained rooftop building s common open space. The proposed rooftop amenities include a BBQ area, Rooftop Uses. The proposed project includes a rooftop deck that would serve as the setback at the rear of the rooftop so that a 45 buffer (inclusive of the site s 15 rear setback on the rooftop because this area is inaccessible. The dog washing area is proposed neighborhood. Furthermore, inclusion of appropriate landscaping within the front setback as close as 12 to the adjacent sidewalk. Despite the reduction in the front setback, the 12 would encroach up to 3 into the 15 setback, causing portions of the building to be located would be consistent with the front setback of the adjacent building to the north and staff would not be inconsistent with the existing character of North Crescent Drive, and the closer to North Crescent Drive than the adjacent building to the south because the balconies notes that other multi-family developments on this block of North Crescent Drive have scale and mass impacts. will still contribute to building modulation. The front balconies are proposed to be located 3 modulation reduction is requested, the proposed project includes front façade balconies that similar front setback distances. Therefore, the requested façade modulation reduction project s scale and massing is expected to be compatible with the surrounding could improve the building s interface with the streetscape and help reduce the building s HILLS March 10, 2016 BEVERLYI 250 N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

75 structures to the project site: Page 11 of 11 parking that could offset any potential deficit. The following are the closest public parking requirements, a number of City parking structures located near the site6 provide ample March 10, 2016 Masa Alkire, AICP, Principal Planner Report RevjNed By: consistent with permit processing timelines. 2. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, 1. Deny the project, or portions of the project, based on specific findings. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: attached resolution approving the requested entitlements. It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the NEXT STEPS parking impact is anticipated to result from the project. Furthermore, parking impacts to the nearby single-family residential zone are not anticipated residential zone is permit-restricted, the parking provided is considered to be sufficient and no because the project is surrounded by public parking and the parking in the nearby single-family of North Rexford Drive is restricted daily during alt hours of the day except by permit. Therefore, due to preferential permit parking regulations. Parking on both sides of the 200 and 300 blocks o 940 spaces o Hours: Mon Fri 6AM 10PM; Sat 6AM 8PM; Closed Sunday o Rate: Daily Maximum: $12.00; monthly rate: $95.00 o Hours: Daily 6AM 2AM o Rate: Daily Maximum: $12.00; monthly rate: $95.00 o 221 spaces o 720 spaces o Hours: Mon Fri 6AM 10 PM; Sat 6AM 8 PM; Sun 9AM 6PM o Rate: Daily Maximum: $16.00; monthly rate: $ N Crescent Drive parking structure (on North Crescent, northwest of the project site) project site) 221 N Crescent parking structure (located immediately across the street from the 9385 Dayton Way Dayton Way Garage BEVE N. Crescent Drive Planning Commission Report

76 Planning Commission Staff Report 250 North Crescent Drive December 13, 2018 ATTACHMENT I Extension Request Dated August 7,

77 H, / C ( Hahn and Associates, Inc., AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Land Constellation Road, Unit 300 Santa Clarita, CA (661) ofc (661) fax Surveying Service Company August 7, 2018 Cynthia de la Torre City 455 N. Rexford Dr. Beverly Hills, CA of Beverly Hills Reference: Tract No N. Crescent Dr., Beverly Hills, CA Final Map Time Extension Request To Whom It May Concern, We are the surveyors who are preparing and filing the We also prepared the Tentative Map. Further, we have been authorized by the owner of the property, Bil Premier Investments, L.P. to act on their behalf regarding requesting this time extension for filing of Final Map. final Map for Tract No As you may be aware, the Tentative Map has been approved and conditions have been set. This map is set to expire on October 4, Please accept this letter as our formal request for a 2-year time extension to file the Final Map. The main two reasons this extension is needed are as follows. First, Southern California Edison has required numerous changes to the transformer, causing delays due to plan revisions. Second, after an initial earthquake fault study was performed, the City came back with additional requirements to perform additional studies and work, which has taken several months for the team to understand and agree on a scope. The team will be ready very soon to submit the initial submittal package for Final Tract Map. We respectfully request that this extension be granted to allow sufficient time to process the Final Map to the City of Beverly Hills standards, to clear all the conditions and to complete the various steps that are needed to wrap up the fmal recording of this Tract Map. Sincerely, Brandon M. Hahn, PLS 7582 President 145