VRLYRLY. Planning Commission Report. City of Beverly Hills Planning Division. Meeting Date: July 13, Subject: 462 SOUTH REXFORD DRIVE

Transcription

1 Planning Commission Report VRLYRLY 455 N. Rexiord Drive Beverly Hills, CA TEL. (310) FAX. (310) A. B. Required Finding For Time Extension Draft Resolution D. September 8, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (no E. F. Planning Commission Resolution 1468 Planning Commission Resolution 1579 H. Planning Commission Resolution G. Planning Commission Resolution 1612 attachments) attachments) C. April 12, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report (no (310) beverlyhills.org Timothea Tway AICP, Senior Planner Attachment(s): Report Author and Contact Information: Tentative Tract Map extensions are granted the entitlements would expire on June 14, The applicant requests approval of one-year time extensions for a Vesting Tentative Tract Map The Planning Commission may grant the requests for extensions if certain findings are met. approval of the requested extensions. multiple-family residential building with seven units. lithe Development Plan Review and Staff s analysis concludes that the required findings can be made, and this report recommends (No ) and Development Plan Review that authorize the construction of a four-story, REPORT SUMMARY 2. Adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a one-year time 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive testimony on the project; and Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: extension. Project Applicant: Julia Kim, The Code Solution additional environmental review is required under CEQA. Quality Act, a negative declaration previously adopted for the project Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental of a four-story, multiple family residential building with seven units. Request for a one year time extension for a Development Plan Review Time Extension Request (PL ) and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No ) that authorizes construction continues to represent the independent judgment of the City, and no Subject: 462 SOUTH REXFORD DRIVE Meeting Date: July 13, 2017 City of Beverly Hills Planning Division

2 Application Complete File Date 5/9/2017 6/1/2017 Page 2 of 5 IL2 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Planning Commission Report 718 by the Architectural Commission on February 17, approved by the Architectural Commission. The modified design was considered and approved comply with the originally approved entitlements and the modified project s design must be As conditioned in 2007, the Commission was able to make all the necessary findings to approve originally approved project. Any proposed project at this location will need to substantially the project and its associated entitlements. The design of the project has changed since the The Proiect: The subject project was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved at its June 14, description and is included as Attachment C. Please note that the project was considered at project is included as Attachment E. consists of a four-story, 45-foot tall residential building that includes seven units and 20 parking several hearings after the initial April 12, 2007 hearing, and was ultimately approved with 20 instead of the originally proposed 17 parking spaces. The resolution granting approval of the spaces. The April 12, 2007 Planning Commission staff report contains a detailed project 2007 meeting, subject to specific conditions of approval. The previously approved project Drive is a three-story multiple family residential building. is located in Los Angeles and is a four-story multiple family residential building. Across Rextord two-story multiple family residential building. The property to the south, across Whitworth Drive and four stories in height. The property immediately north of the subject site is developed with a Whitworth Drive and is surrounded by multiple family residential buildings that vary between two The Neighborhood The subject site is located on the north east side of the intersection of South Rexford Drive and PROJECT DESCRIPTION Prior Project Previews Prior PC Action Prior Council Action None Resolution No approving original project on June 14, 2007 Resolution No approving time extension on May 27, 2010 Reso ution No approving time extension on May 26, 2011 None Resolution No approving time extension on September 8, 2016 Representative(s) Owner(s) AA CA Properties Portfolio 2 LLC Applicant(s) Julia Lee, The Code Solution Julia Lee, The Code Solution CEQA Deadline Subdivision Deadline Permit Streamlining 60 days from CEQA Determination N/A BACKGROUND

3 Page 3 of 6 The subject project was previously assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 719 recommended action in this report. testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the extension was granted by the Planning Commission on September 8, Since the time Subsequently the applicant team submitted a request for a time extension in May of This building permit during plan check. At that time the City identified project corrections and additional information needed to obtain a The current owner of the Project site purchased the property in September Since the applicant obtained Architectural Commission review and approval of a redesigned project in February The Project was then submitted for building permit plan check in March purchase of the site, the applicant has been actively moving a redesigned version of the project, consistent with the original project entitlements, through the City s review process. The Applicant s Rationale for Time Extension Request: ANALYSIS regarding the project. As of the date of the preparation of this report, staff has not received any public correspondence Public Comment Property Posting 10 Days July 3,2017 June 30, Days Website 7 Days July 6, 2017 July 6, Days Mailed Notice 10 Days July 3, 2017 July 3, Days Newspaper Notice 10 Days July 3, 2017 June 30, Days Posted Notice 7 Days July 6, 2017 July 6, Days Type of Notice Required Required Notice Actual Notice Actual Period Period Date Date PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under no substantial evidence that approval of the requested extension may have any significant CEQA. Planning Commission on June 14, There have been no substantial changes to the project that would cause the project to significantly impact the environment. Therefore, there is the environmental regulations of the City, and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the environmental impact. The original Negative Declaration continues to represent the contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Planning Commission Report

4 extension was granted, the applicant has been working with consultants and engineers to have experienced issues with consultants that they have hired for the project and this has hindered the project s advancement through the City review process. The applicant is seeking a address comments received by the City of Beverly Hills. The applicant has stated that they Page 4 of for three years. validity for development and subdivision approvals. One clarification included in the ordinance was to this change, but at the time of approval, the Development Plan Review granted to the applicant was valid approval expired at the same time as the tentative map. The current code (BHMC B) reflects subdivision maps to two years instead of three. This was done in order to ensure that the discretionary tentative map. The ordinance changed the validity of discretionary approvals that had associated change the amount of time that a discretionary permit is valid if it was approved in conjunction with a 2 In 2011 the City Council adopted Ordinance , which amended the code to clarify terms of Tentative Map June 14, Senate Bill automatic Commission one year June 14, 2010 Approved by Planning June 14, 2009 Resolution 1468 Action Expiration Date Notes The following provides a timeline for the Tentative Map approval and extensions and the Development Plan Review approval and expirations: request was granted by the Planning Commission in September 2016, which extended the of 2016 the applicant requested an additional one-year time extension from the City. This allows the Director of Community Development to extend entitlements (in this case the time extensions. The Development Plan Review Permit was then extended by the Director expiration to June 14, As a result of this, the City Council adopted an ordinance that created BHMC C that developers have had in obtaining construction financing for entitled projects, several State laws pursuant to BHMC C in 2011 and 2013, with an expiration of June 14, In May The subject Development Plan Review Permit initially received two one-year extensions from were enacted over the past decade to automatically extend the life of previously approved the Planning Commission in 2010 and Additionally, in recognition of the difficulty Tentative Maps (which extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Map to June 14, 2016). Development Plan Review) to match the expiration dates of State mandated subdivision map period of two years and can be extended for up to six (6) years beyond the expiration date (not in conjunction with a Tentative Map, may be extended by the Planning Commission after a duly discretionary approvals (such as the approved Development Plan Review) that were approved noticed public hearing. Pursuant to BHMC , Tentative Maps are valid for an initial initiat period of three years2. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) , At the time of project approval (2007) all Development Plan Review Permits were valid for an Time Extensions: including state granted automatic approvals). information requested by the City. one year time extension from the Planning Commission in order to complete the submittal of the 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Planning Commission Report

5 Assembly Bill 333 automatic two year June 14, 2012 Assembly Bill 208 automatic two year June 14, 2014 time extension time extension Page 5 of 6 July 13, original approval. in a manner that would warrant reconsideration of the findings and decision made at the time of the City as long as the extensions do not exceed an aggregate of six years (not including the that such extension may be granted after a duly noticed public hearing held pursuant to the Pursuant to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code ( ) a Tentative Map can be extended by determines that conditions and regulations affecting development in the City have not changed same procedures applicable to the approval of the original application, if the reviewing authority are associated with tentative tract maps. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section states 3-207B), the Planning Commission may extend the time limits for discretionary approvals that automatic extensions granted by the State). Pursuant to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (1 0- The timelines presented above show that the subdivision map and entitlements related to this project have been extended both through City actions and State extensions since its original entitlement. Commission June 14, 2017 Resolution 1786 Extension one year 2016 Planning years C Director Extension Planning Commission Planning Commission June 14, 2011 Resolution 1579 Extension Planning Commission June 14, 2012 Resolution Director Extension two Director to extend Extension were granted pursuant years the Tract Maps that one one two June 14, 2014 Pursuant to BHMC June 14, 2016 entitlements to match to State extensions June 14, Approved by June 14, 2010 Resolution 1468 Action Expiration Date Notes year Code sections allows year Development Plan Review 2016 Planning Commission one-year June 14, 2017 Resolution 1786 extension Assembly Bill 116 automatic two year June 14, 2016 extension extension 462 S. Rexford Drive Planning Commission Report

6 current one year extension request. to four more years of tentative map extensions, should the Planning Commission grant the Page 6 of 6 According to the BHMC regulations outlined in this report, the applicant could be eligible for up c!rly July 13, Principal Planner Masa Alkire, AICP Report Reviewed By: consistent with permit processing timelines, and at applicant s request or consent. 3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, 2. Deny the time extension based on revised findings. 1. Approve the time extension with modified findings or conditions of approval. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: attached resolution conditionally approving one one-year time extension. It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing, and adopt the NEXT STEPS entitlements (June 14, 2018) and reference the original conditions of approval for the project. project. Further, staff is proposing conditions that memorialize the new expiration of changed in a manner that would warrant reconsideration of the original decision to approve the Staff has concluded that conditions and regulations affecting development in the City have not 462 S. Rexford Drive Planning Commission Report

7 C- N 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Planning Commission Report 723 original approval. manner that would warrant reconsideration of the findings and decision made at the time of 1. The conditions and regulations affecting development in the city have not changed in a Required Finding for Time Extension Attachment A

8 Planning Commission Report 462 S. Rexiord Drive July 13, 2017 Attachment B Draft Resolution 724

9 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS APPROVING A 725 valid for an initial period of three years, and could be extended by the Planning Commission for Section at the time of project approval, the Development Plan Review Permits was Pursuant to the regulations contained in Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) for the Development Plan Review and Tentative Tract Map to June 14, Tract Map and Development Plan Review on September 8, 2016, extending the expiration date adopted Resolution No approving a one-year time extension for the Vesting Tentative the Development Plan Review to June 14, Subsequently, the Planning Commission Municipal Code (BHMC) Section C in 2011 and 2013, extending the expiration date for Director of Community Development granted two two-year extensions pursuant to Beverly Hills one-year time extension for the Development Plan Review on May 26, In addition, the Development Plan Review on May 27, 2010, and Resolution No approving an additional Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1579, approving a one-year time extension for the Project), were originally approved by Resolution No. 1468, adopted on June 14, The Development Plan Review Permit, which propose a seven-unit condominium project (the Section 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No and its associated determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and ONE-YEAR flme EXTENSION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVffiW PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A SEVEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 462 SOUTH REXFORD DRiVE. RESOLUTION NO.

10 In 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance , which amended the BHMC to change (6) years beyond the expiration date (not inclusive of automatic extensions granted by the State). for an initial period of two years and can be extended by the Planning Commission for up to six construction-related impacts would be appropriately mitigated. the Project was subject to numerous conditions of approval to ensure that project and buildings have not been demolished. The Planning Commission s original decision to approve parking spaces. Currently, no construction has begun at the subject site, and the existing of developing a seven-unit condominium project with a height of four stories/45 feet and twenty substantive revisions to Resolution No The entitlements were requested for the purposes The time extensions do not amend the conditions of approval or make other June 14, Development Plan Review Permit and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would have expired on Based on the original approval date and previously approved time extensions, the consistent with local ordinance. not apply to the Development Plan Review Permit, and those entitlements may be extended Assembly Bill 333, Assembly Bill 208 and Assembly Bill 116. These automatic extensions do automatically extend the life of previously approved Tentative Maps: Senate Bill 1185, Since the approval of the project, four State laws have been enacted to discretionary projects associated with a tentative map for up to six (6) years. subdivision map to two years and to allow the Planning Commission to grant time extensions to the time allowed to exercise rights on a discretionary project associated with a tentative up to two one-year extensions. Pursuant to BHMC Section , Tentative Maps are valid

11 of the date of adoption, unless extended by the Planning Commission. Section of the Planning Commission Resolution No expire if not exercised within thirty-six (36) months at the time of project approval, the Development Plan Review Permit rights granted under hearing. Development Plan Review Permit. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said public hearing to consider the request for an extension of the Tentative Tract Map and Section 4. On July 13, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed CEQA. the independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under any significant environmental impact. The original Negative Declaration continues to represent Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the requested extension may have to the environment that would cause the project to significantly impact the environment. was adopted. There have been no substantial changes to the project and no substantial changes CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City, and a Negative Declaration authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Section 3. This project was previously assessed in accordance with the automatic extensions granted by the State). Tentative Tract Map for up to six years beyond the original expiration date (not inclusive of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to extend the approval of the tentative map approval, if approved in conjunction with a subdivision map. Section of a Development Plan Review that match the extensions of time allowed to exercise the rights of a Beverly Hills Municipal Code allows for the Planning Commission to grant extensions of time to Section 2. Pursuant to Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code

12 substantial change to the surrounding environment since the initial Project approval. 1. There have been no substantial changes to the Project or any and determines as follows: City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the Development within 60 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in 2. This resolution granting the requested time extension shall not force for the duration of the life of the Project. 1. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full Resolution No. 1579, 1612, and 17$6 and the following project-specific conditions: and including June 14, 201$, subject to all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 146$ and the Tentative Map and Development Plan Review Permit granted under Resolution 146$ through Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby extends of Resolution No. 146$ shall remain in full force and effect. 3. Except as specifically modified by this Resolution, all conditions for one year. 2. The rights granted under Resolution No. 146$ shall be extended Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds

13 resolution approving the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect. request by the Applicant, grant a waiver from the 60 day time limit if, at the time of Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a effect. under Resolution Nos. 1468, 1579, 1612, and 1786 shall lapse and expire and be of no further Section 7. If this Resolution is invalidated for any reason, all rights granted any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 60 days, this

14 passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Adopted: Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City David M. Snow Ryan Gohlich, AICP Assistant City Attorney City Planner / Assistant Director of Community Development Department Approved as to form: Approved as to content: Ryan Gohlich, AICP Secretary of the Planning Commission Attest: Chair of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills Lori Green Gordon Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the

15 Staff Report (no attachments) April 12, 2007 Planning Commission Attachment C 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Planning Commission Report 731

16 For the Planning ( C 732 Pending testimony received at the public hearing and based on the information subject to the attached conditions. submitted, it appears that the necessary findings can be made to grant the request and staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving the Development Plan Review, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No for the construction of a seven-unit condominium project on a single-site in the multiplefamily residential zone (R-4), comprised of four-stories, 45 feet in height located at 4 South Rexford Drive. Required parking for the project will be provided in a singlelevel, 17-space subterranean garage. have been submitted by Mr. Robert Ives, 462 South Rexford Drive, LP., property owner, Applications for a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Vesting Tentative Tract Map EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14,003 square feet and provide 17 parking spaces within a onelevel subterranean garage accessed from alley along the rear. SUBJECT: Development Plan Review Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No ) for construction of a four-story, seven-unit residential condominium structure at 462 South Request for a Rexford Drive. The proposed structure would be approximately Development THROUGH: Vince Bertoni, AICP, Acting Director of Community Planner FROM: Ray Balderas, Principal TO: Planning Commission April 12, 2007 Commission Meeting of 0 CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS STAFF REPORT

17 Permit Streamlining Act Deadline. July STAFF REPORT requirement for lots that exceed fifty feet in width would have to, in addition to the front Modulation. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Sectionl (c) states that modulation patios, balconies, and roof top deck area. outdoor area being provided for this project is 2,930 square feet in the form of private requirements by providing the 1,400 square feet that are required by code. The total Outdoor living Area. The project appears to comply with the outdoor living area from the demolition would be exported from the site to make room for the proposed of basement garage with space for 17 vehicles. four-story, seven-unit, 45-foot high condominium project. The project includes one level Project. The existing apartment building is proposed to be demolished and the debris vary depending on the size of the structure. is a variation of density, height, building age and architectural styles. The densities The project site (67.74 x ) is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of range from as low as four units to as high as 100 units and the building heights also South Rexford Drive and Witworth Drive in an area designated as medium to highdensity multi-family residential (R-4) zone. Along this portion of South Rexiord Drive and evident on the photomontage that was included in the Commission s packet, there to accommodate the new condominium structure. for a total of 6 spaces. The existing apartment building on the site would be demolished Site Background. The project site consists of a single-lot development with a two-story apartment buildings built in 1948 which includes on-grade parking along the tear yard PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND AREA CHARACTERISTICS Parcet Size 8,225 square feet Zoning District Multiple-Family Residential (R-4) Project Owner Robert Ives Applicant Robert Ives April 12, 2007 Staff Report ( 462 South Rexford Drive

18 fourth was set back ten and fourteen feet from the minimum front setback tine. The April 12, 2007 all of the required modulation and the additional 10 foot setback on the top floor, as the building at least ten feet (10 ) from the front setback line. The applicant has integrated setback otherwise requited by code, modulate portions of the front façade of the STAFF REPORT more unit above the existing number of units on the site. proposed development of seven unit condominium. The existing apartment building on the site contain six units and the proposed improvements represent an increase of one A traffic and parking study has been prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates for the TRAFFIC AND PARKiNG STUDY Outdoor Living Space N/A ] 2,930 sq. ft. ] 1,400 sq. ft. Height Modulation N/A 608 sq. ft. 605 sq. ft StorieslBuilding 2-stories; 29 feet high 4-stories; 45 feet high 4-stories; 45 feet high Parking Spaces 6 spaces 17 spaces total 17 space Front Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Side Setback North: 8 North: 11 feet North: 11 feet Rear Setback 30 feet 15 feet 15 feet (19 feet combined) South: 6.5 South: Bfeet South: 8feet Garage) (In subterranean (Max Du s allowed) Units site area DensitylNumber of 6 apartment units total 7 condominium units 1 unit I 1,100 sq.ft.of Lot Size 8,225 square feet 8,225 square feet N/A Number of Lots 1 1 N/A Multiple-family dwelling Multiple-family d. PROJECT DATA SUMMARY however any comments relative to the plans from the Planning Commission may be forwarded to the Architectural Commission. building will be forwarded to the Architectural Commission for their review and approval, Landscape Plan. The preliminary landscaping plan along with the Tuscan design of the scale and mass presence as viewed from the street. Planning Commission may want to provide input on the adequacy of providing all of the modulation on the fourth floor with the potential of making the building have a stronger Staff Report 462 South Rexford Drive (

19 Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, generation counts for this project. However, to accurately reflect the impacts, the morning peak of four trips and evening peak of four trips. The Institute of Transportation 7 Edition, rates were used to estimate the trip Traffic. The proposed project is expected to generate 41 vehicle trips per day with a April 12, STAFF REPORT following findings: Pursuant to the Beverly Hilts Municipal Code the Planning Commission may consider a request for a Development Plan Review if the Planning Commission can make the Development Plan Review Findings The development as proposed meets the Code requirements (with exception of the residential area. General Plan of the City, which designates this area as a medium-density multi-family additional depth of the required modulation), and would be consistent with the adopted Municipal Code And General Plan Conformance ANALYSIS considers a resolution next month. addition, the site was posted. As of the day of the preparation of the staff report no but no concerns were expressed. As a result of a noticing error, the Planning correspondence has been received however a few calls were received about the project properties within 500 feet (if any) from the exterior boundaries of the property. In residential tenants within a 300-foot radius of the property, and all single-family zoned Commission should open the public hearing and allow public testimony, leave the public hearing open, and close the public hearing at the time that the Planning Commission Notice of the Public Hearing was mailed on April 2, 2007 to all property owners and PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS driveway accessed from the alley. located in a one-level garage. Access to the parking garage will be via a 20 foot wide Site Access & Circulation. The proposed project would provide 17 parking spaces the reduction, the project is expected to generate about one additional trip per day. The the analyzed intersections. Levels of Service will not show any changes to the street system. The City s on-call Traffic Consultant reviewed the traffic and parking analysis that was submitted by the applicant and concluded that the methodology and findings in the report were accurate. volumes must be reduced by the traffic generated by the existing development. After study indicates that the proposed development will have a negligible traffic impact upon Staff Report ( ( 462 South Rexford Drive

20 The development as proposed meets the Code requirements, particularly regarding adopted for the area. April 12, 2007 A. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan and any specific plans STAFF REPORT anticipated that the project would generate adverse traffic impacts, traffic hazards, potential impacts of the proposed development of seven-unit condominium project. upon the analyzed intersections and the residential streets. Therefore, it is not Based on the report (attached), the proposal will have a negligible traffic impact A traffic study has been prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates to assess the any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards. D. The re-distribution of the new traffic generated by the proposal will not create scale and massing of the development in this area and future developments. The are not expected to be significant because they do not occur year round. density, height and parking. The proposed scale and massing is consistent with the project as proposed would cast shadow to the west and north, however the impacts As noted above, the project complies with the current code requirements regarding the project will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of other residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property. C. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of building is subject to review and approval by the Architectural Commission who is to the development of the area. The project will be scheduled for review by the of the project. variety of buildings in this block of Rexford Drive which were built under different zoning standards and restrictions and consequently the modulation required under today s code would not be visible on these buildings. The applicant has Architectural Commission subsequent to the Planning Commission s consideration proposed, the building meets all the development standards pursuant to Section 10- proposed, exceeds the required modulation facing on Rexford Drive. There are a vested in reviewing projects and requiring that the proposed design be harmonious The site currently is developed with two-story, six-unit apartment building. As of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. It should be noted that the building, as incorporated a Tuscan architectural design on the building and as such the development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area. B. The proposed project will not adversely affect existing and anticipated Plan of the City which designates this as a medium high density multiple-family residential area. use, height, density and parking and would be consistent with the adopted General 462 South Rexiord Drive Staff Report ( C

21 pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards if the project were to be approved by the Commission. April 12, STAFF REPORT to wildlife or their habitat and a Categorical exemption was prepared on the of the subdivision. project pursuant to Section 15033(b) of the California Environmental Quality period, which relates to the development of the project rather than the design Act. There would be a temporary air quality impact during the construction The project was determined not to cause environmental damages or injuries and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially (c) That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are The site is currently developed with a six-unit, two story apartment building. suitable for the type of development and the proposed density. has no unusual seismic or other hazards. Therefore, the site is physically proposed seven-unit residential condominium structure is adequate. The site with a maximum density of seven units, and the infrastructure to serve the Under the current zoning designation, the project site could be developed proposed density. fb) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development and the with the General Plan of the City. The proposed project land-use and General Plan designation is multi-family residential, high density. Therefore, the project and its design are consistent General Plan of the City. or improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the (a) That the proposed tentative parcel map and the design or improvements The Planning Commission may authorize a tentative tract map lithe findings can be made (Government Code Section 66474): Tentative Map Findings project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Code standards and is consistent with the zoning for the area. Therefore, the It is anticipated that the project will be built in accordance with the City s Building welfare. E. The project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general Staff Report ( 462 South Rexford Drive

22 easement. subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with any public likely to cause serious public health problems and that the design of the (U) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements are not April 12, STAFF REPORT prepared for Commission consideration. environmental impacts are anticipated and therefore, a Negative Declaration has been This proposed project has been assessed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City s CEQA guidelines. No significant ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION listed above. In reviewing the proposed development on this site, the project meets the five criteria as The project has been preliminarily reviewed by the Public Works Department Therefore, the discharge of waste water from the proposed subdivision into requirements presented by the California Water Quality Act Control Board. Water Mitigation Plan. Moreover, the discharge of waste from the proposed the existing sewer systems will not result in a violation of existing subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of for compliance with the Storm Water Regulations and Standard Urban Storm existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water Board. Board. requirements presented by the California Water Quality Act Control the existing sewer systems will not result in a violation of existing (e) That the discharge of waste water from the proposed subdivision into easement. to cause serious public health problems and that the design of the addition, the project will not encroach into any public easement areas. subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with any public Department and the Building and Safety Division for code compliance. In The project design has been preliminarily reviewed by the Public Works Therefore, the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely 462 South Rexford Drive Staff Report ( (.

23 RECOMMENDATION STAFF REPORT 3. Applications 2.Traffic Report I Sections of BHMC Attachments: RAY BALDERAS attached to the report. result from testimony received at the public hearing and Planning Commission deliberations, and pending discussion of the issues raised, it is recommended that the Development Plan Review and Vesting Tentative Tract Map subject to the conditions Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution conditionally approving a Based on the foregoing analysis and pending the information and conclusions that may April 12, 2007 Staff Report 462 South Rexford Drive

24 462 south Rexford Drive Conditions of Approval April 12, STAFF REPORT Architectural Commission prior to issuance of building permits. 4. The project shall be subject to review and approval by the conditions. 3. The project shall comply with the Fire Department applicable Department. (Attached is the list of standard conditions.) from the Public Works/Engineering Department Recreation and Parks 2. The applicant shall comply with the applicable conditions and permits regarding the street trees. subject to the requirements of the Recreation and Parks Department 1. All street trees are to be protected and maintained during construction Staff Report 462 South Rexiord Drive

25 Planning Commission Report 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Attachment D September 8, 2016 Staff Report (no attachments) 741

26 Planning Commission Report 742 A. Findings and Recommended Conditions D. Planning Commission Resolution 1468 C. April 12, 2007 Planning Commission Staff Report 8. Resolution Attachment(s): Report Authot and Contact Information: (310) Masa Alkire, Principal Planner recommends approval of the requested extensions. four-story, multiple-family residential building with seven units, If the Development Plan Review met. Staff s analysis concludes that the required findings can be made, and this report REPORT SUMMARY The Planning Commission may grant the requests for extensions if certain findings are The applicant requests approval of one-year time extensions for a Development Plan Review and associated Vesting Tentative Tract Map (No ) that authorizes the construction of a and Tentative Tract Map extensions are granted the entitlements would expire on June 14, extension. 2. Adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a one-year time 1. Conduct a public hearing and receive testimony on the project; and Recommendation: That the Planning Commission: Project Applicant: Julia Kim, The Code Solution Map for a seven unit condominium project. Time extension request for a Development Plan Review and Tentative Subject: 462 South Rexford Drive Meeting Date: September 8, (310) FAX. (310) BEVRLYRLY 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly HHfv. CA Planning Division City of Beverly Hills

27 BACKGROUND Application 7/7/16 File Date 5/13/16 Page 2 of S September 8, the project and its associated entitlements. The design of the project has changed since the approved by the Architectural Commission. As conditioned in 2007, the Commission was able to make all the necessary findings to approve to substantially comply with the originally approved entitlements and the modified project design Architectural Commission on February 17, Any proposed project at this location will need originally approved project, and the modified design was considered and approved by the 2007 meeting, subject to specific conditions of approval. The previously approved project project is included as Attachment D. consists of a four-story, 45-foot tall residential building that includes seven units and 20 parking The Proiect: The subject project was reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved at its June 14, several hearings after the initial April 12, 2007 hearing, and was ultimately approved with 20 instead of the originally proposed 17 parking spaces. The resolution granting approval of the description and is included as Attachment C. Please note that the project was considered at spaces. The April 12, 2007 Planning Commission staff report contains a detailed project Drive is a three-story multiple family residential building. is located in Los Angeles and is a four-story multiple family residential building. Across Rexford two-story multiple family residential building. The property to the south, across Whitworth Drive Whitworth Drive and is surrounded by multiple family residential buildings that vary between two The Neighborhood The subject site is located on the north east side of the intersection of South Rexford Drive and and four stories in height. The property immediately north of the subject site is developed with a PROJECT DESCRIPTION Previews Prior Project None Prior PC Action Prior Council Action Resolution No approving original project on June 14, 2007 Resolution No approving time extension on May 27, 2010 Resolution No approving time extension on May 26, 2011 None Representative(s) Julia Lee, The Code Solution Applicant(s) Julia Lee, The Code Solution Owner(s) AA CA Properties Portfolio 2 LLC CEQA Deadline 60 days from CEQA Determination Subdivision N/A Deadline Permit Streamlining Complete 462 S. Rexford Drive Planning Commission Report

28 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Page 3 of 5 September 8, The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the 744 recommended action in this report. the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public The current owner of the Project site purchased the property in September Since the applicant obtained Architectural Commission review and approval of a redesigned project in February The Project was submitted for building permit plan check in March The the outstanding plan check issues, which has motivated the applicant s time extension request. Applicant s Rationale for Time Extension Request: during plan check. The applicant has been working on making necessary corrections and obtaining required information to resolve the issues identified during plan check. The issues include submitting seismic studies acceptable to City Staff. Additional time is needed to resolve City identified project corrections and additional information needed to obtain a building permit consistent with the original project entitlements, through the City s review process. The purchase of the site, the applicant has been actively moving a redesigned version of the project, ANALYSIS1 regarding the project. As of the date of the preparation of this report, staff has not received any public correspondence Public Comment Period Date Date Property Posting 10 Days 8/29/2016 8/26/ Days Website 7 Days 9/1/2016 9/1/ Days PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION Mailed Notice 10 Days 8/29/2016 8/29/ Days Posted 7 Days 9/1/2016 9/1/ Days Newspaper Notice 10 Days 8/29/2016 8/26/ Days Library Type of Notice Requited Requited Notice Actual Notice Actual Period independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under no substantial evidence that approval of the requested extension may have any significant CEQA. Planning Commission on June 14, There have been no substantial changes to the project that would cause the project to significantly impact the environment. Therefore, there is The subject project was previously assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and environmental impact. The original Negative Declaration continues to represent the the environmental regulations of the City, and a Negative Declaration was adopted by the 462 S. Rexford Drive Planning Commission Report

29 Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section , Development Plan Review Time Extensions: Page 4of5 September 8, Planning Commission June 14, 2011 Resolution 1579 Extension one year Planning Commission June 14, 2012 Resolution 1612 year by June 14, 2010 Resolution 1468 Planning Commission Extension one Action Expiration Date Notes June 14, Approved Development Plan Review Commission Assembly Bill 333 automatic two year June 14, 2012 Assembly Bill 208 Assembly Bill 116 extension extension automatic automatic two year June 14, 2014 two year June 14, 2016 time extension time extension Senate Bill 1185 automatic one year June 14, 2010 Tentative Map June 14, Approved by Planning June 14, 2009 Resolution 1468 Action Expiration Date Notes The following provides a timeline for the Tentative Map approval and extensions and the Development Plan Review approval and expirations: enacted over the past decade to automatically extend the life of previously approved Tentative Planning Commission in 2010 and Additionally, in recognition of the difficulty developers result of this, the City Council adopted an ordinance that created BHMC C that allows Maps (which extended the expiration of the subject Tentative Map to June 14, 2016). As a Plan Review) to match the expiration dates of State mandated subdivision map time extensions C in 2011 and 2013, with an expiration of June 14, The subject Development Plan Review Permit received two one-year extensions from the have had in obtaining construction financing for entitled projects, several State laws were the Director of Community Development to extend entitlements (in this case the Development The Development Plan Review Permit was then extended by the Director pursuant to BHMC expiration date (not including state granted automatic approvals). valid for an initial period of two years and can be extended for up to three (3) year beyond the in conjunction with a Tentative Map. Pursuant to BHMC Section , Tentative Maps are Permits are valid for an initial period of three years, and can be extended by the Planning Commission for up to seven (7) years beyond the original approval date, if they were approved 462 S. Rexford Drive Planning Commission Report

30 2011- Director Extension Code sections allows years C two June 14, 2014 Pursuant to BHMC Page Sot 5 September 8, Masa AlkWe, AICP, Principal Planner Report Revie$ed By: consistent with permit processing timelines, and at applicant s request or consent. 3. Direct staff or applicant as appropriate and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, 2. Deny the time extension based on revised findings. 1. Approve the time extension with modified findings or conditions of approval. Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions: attached resolution conditionally approving one one-year time extension. It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing, and adopt the NEXT STEPS entitlements (June 14, 2017) and reference the original conditions of approval for the project. Staff has concluded that conditions and regulations affecting development in the City have not project. Further, staff is proposing conditions that memorialize the new expiration of changed in a manner that would warrant reconsideration of the original decision to approve the to the approval of the original application, if the reviewing authority determines that conditions tentative map. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section states that such extension may be granted after a duly noticed public heating held pursuant to the same procedures applicable associated with tentative tract maps as much as one year beyond the expiration date of the 207B), the Planning Commission may extend the time limits for discretionary approvals that are the City as long as the extensions do not exceed an aggregate of six years (not including the automatic extensions granted by the State). Pursuant to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (10-3- and regulations affecting development in the City have not changed in a manner that would warrant reconsideration of the findings and decision made at the time of original approval. Pursuant to the Beverly Hills Municipal Code ( ) a Tentative Map can be extended by project have been extended both through City actions and State extensions since its original The timelines presented above show that the subdivision map and entitlements related to this entitlement. to State extensions years the Tract Maps that were granted pursuant Director Extension two June 14, 2016 entitlements to match Director to extend 462 S. Rexford Drive Planning Commission Report

31 Planning Commission Report 462 S. Rexiord Drive July 13, 2017 (0 Attachment E Planning Commission Resolution

32 DECLARATION AND CONDITIONALLY APPROVING CITY Of BEVERLY HILLS ADOPTING A NEGATIVE RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Of THE 748 B0785\0009\ based on the information contained in the initial study, determined that there was no substantial 15000, et seq.), and the City s Local CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an initial study and, seq. ( CEQA ), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et Section 2. The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the garage accessed from the rear alley and 3 parking spaces shall be at grade. required parking of 20 parking spaces. 17 parking spaces shall be in a single-level subterranean for property located at 462 South Rexford Drive (the Project ). The Project will provide the Code seven-unit, 14,003 square foot, four-story, 45-foot high condominium structure on a single-lot site Tentative Tract Map No and a Development Plan Review to allow construction of a new (hereinafter referred to as the Applicant ), has submitted an application for approval of Vesting Section 1. Robert Ives, 462 South Rexford Drive, L.P., property owner determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and CONSTRUCTION OF A SEVEN-UNIT RESIDENTIAL VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PERMIT TO ALLOW CONDOMINIUM STRUCTURE AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 462 SOUTH REXFORD DRIVE RESOLUTION NO. 1468

33 City prepared a negative declaration pursuant to Section of the State CEQA Guidelines. Pursuant to Section 15074(b) of said Guidelines, the Planning Commission independently reviewed 749 B0785\0009\ high-density multi-family residential (R-4) zone. The site is currently developed with a two-story the intersection of South Rexford Drive and WhItworth Drive in an area designated as medium to Section 4. The Project site is a single-lot site located on the northeast corner of visited the Project site. oral, was presented at said hearing. Prior to conducting the public hearing, the Planning Commission Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project. Evidence, both written and the City s hillside areas. On April 25, 2007, May 24, 2007 and June 14, 2007 the Planning continued to April 25, 2007 due to cancellation of the April 12, 2007 meeting because of a fire in Section 3. A hearing was noticed for April 12, 2007, and that hearing was of the Director of Community Development. decision is based are located in the Department of Community Development and are in the custody environmental impact. The documents and other material which constitute the record on which this that there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the Project will have any significant the negative declaration prepared for the Project represents the independentjudgment ofthe City and thereon, and the record before the Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby finds that to approve the Project. Based on the initial study, the negative declaration, the comments received and considered the contents ofthe initial study and the negative declaration prior to deciding whether evidence that approval of the Project may have significant environmental impact. Accordingly, the

34 styles along this portion of South Rexford Drive. condominium structure. There are a variety of densities, heights, building ages and architectural spaces. The existing apartment building on the site would be demolished to accommodate the new 750 B0785\0009\ designates this area as a medium-density multi-family residential area. the Code requirements and will be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the City which on the approved plans at all times. Accordingly, the Project as presented to the Commission meets Furthermore, as conditioned, the Applicant will be required to maintain the landscaping as depicted of the Applicant to provide mature landscaping reduces the mass and scale of the Project. setback line. Moreover, the dual color scheme presented to the Commission and the representation 10-foot setback on the top floor, as the fourth floor is set back between 10 and 14 feet from the front required by Code. The Applicant has integrated all of the required modulation and the additional building at Least 10 feet from the front setback line, in addition to the front setback otherwise modulation for lots exceeding 50 feet in width to modulate portions of the front façade of the Modulation. Beverly Hills Municipal Code Sectionl (c) requires that square feet in the form of private patios, balconies, and rooftop deck area. required by the City s municipal code. The total outdoor area being provided for this Project is 2,930 The Project provides more than the 1,400 square feet of outdoor living area as grade. Project includes one level of basement garage with space for 17 vehicles and 3 parking spaces at The proposed Project is a four-story, seven-unit, 45-foot high condominium. The apartment building built in 1948 and includes on-grade parking along the rear yard for a total of six

35 the building, will be forwarded to the Architectural Commission for its review and approval. Traffic. The proposed Project is expected to generate 41 vehicle trips per day with \0009\ wildlife or their habitat; likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or 3) Whether the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are proposed density; 2) Whether the site is physically suitable for the type of development and the improvement of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan of the City; 1) Whether the proposed vesting tentative tract map and the design or 64012, the Planning Commission considered the following issues: California Government Code, in reviewing the application for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. Section 5. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Section of the via a 20-foot wide driveway accessed from the alley. of which are located in a one-level garage and 3 are at grade. Access to the parking garage will be Site Access & Circulation. The proposed Project will provide 20 parking spaces, 17 based on the low trip generation forecast as noted on the traffic report. indicates that the proposed development will have a negligible traffic impact upon existing roadways for this Project. The Project is expected to generate about one additional trip per day. The study Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 7th Edition, rates were used to estimate the trip generation counts a morning peak of four trips and evening peak of four trips. The Institute of Transportation Landscape Plan. The preliminary landscaping plan, along with the Tuscan design of

36 improvements will conflict with any public easements; and cause serious public health problems and whether the design of the subdivision or the type of \0009\ seven units, and the infrastructure to serve the proposed seven-unit residential condominium Under the current zoning designation, the Project site can be developed with a maximum density of the proposed density. The site is currently developed with a six-unit, two-story apartment building. 6.2 As conditioned, the site is physically suitable for the type ofdevelopment and General Plan. designation for the Project site. Thus the proposed Project is found to be consistent with the City s a seven-unit residential condominium structure, which is permitted under the General Plan land-use designation for the proposed site is multi-family residential. The proposed Project will consist of policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. The General Plan consistent with the General Plan ofthe City. The proposed Project is compatible with the objectives, 6.1 As conditioned, the proposed Project and its design and improvements are follows with respect to Vesting Tentative Tract Map No : including the staff report and oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission hereby finds as Section 6. Based upon the evidence presented in the record on this matter, Water Quality Control Board. existing sewer systems will result in a violation ofexisting requirements prescribed by the California 5) Whether the discharge ofwaste water from the proposed subdivision into the 4) Whether the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to

37 6.3 As conditioned, the proposed Project will not cause substantial environmental physically suitable for the type of development and the proposed density. 753 B0785\0009\ of stormwater runoff from the Project site. Further, any discharge of waste from the proposed impermeable land or result in substantial changes in absorption rates that would increase the amount Water Quality Board. Implementation of the Project will not significantly increase the amount of Project will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDE$ ) permit and, therefore, implementation of the City s Storm Water and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Ordinance and the City s current National 6.5 The Projectwill be required to complywith all applicable requirements ofthe with any public easement. health problems and that the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict Therefore, the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public Code compliance. In addition, the Project will not encroach into any public easement areas. preliminarily reviewed by the Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Division for for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The Project design has been serious public health problems, and will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large 6.4 The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not cause documentation. serve the demands of the Project. This finding is further supported by the Negative Declaration wildlife resources or public health issues on the Project site, and utilities exist that will adequately damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife because there are no significant fish or structure is adequate. The site has no unusual seismic or other hazards. Therefore, the site is

38 prescribed by the California Regional Water Quality Board. Accordingly, approval of the Project Quality Board. will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the California Regional Water \0009\ general welfare. 5) Whether the proposed plan will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards; and 4) Whether the proposed plan will create any significantly adverse traffic impact, residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property. operation ofthe Project will significantly and adversely interfere with. the use and enjoyment ofother 3) Whether the nature, configuration, location, density, height, and manner of development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area; 2) Whether the proposed plan will adversely affect existing and anticipated specific plans adopted for the area; 1) Whether the proposed plan is consistent with the General Plan and any Commission considered the following issues: Section , in reviewing the application for a Development Plan Review, the Planning Section 7. In accordance with the provisions of Beverly Hills Municipal Code subdivision into the existing sewer system will would be required to adhere to the requirements

39 follows with respect to the Development Plan Review: including the staff report and oral and written testimony, the Planning Commission hereby finds as 755 B0785\0009\ proposed design be harmonious to the development of the area. approval by the Architectural Commission who is vested in reviewing projects and requiring that the a Tuscan architectural design on the building and as such the building is subject to review and do not display the modulation required the current Zoning Code. The Applicant has incorporated Rexford Drive which were built under different zoning standards and restrictions and consequently meets the code requirements for this property. There are a variety of buildings in this block of finds that the integration of the required modulation and additional 10-foot setback of the top floor Code. The Project exceeds the required modulation facing on Rexford Drive, and the Commission meets all the development standards pursuant to Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal site currently is developed with a two-story, six-unit apartment building. As proposed, the building anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development ofthe area. The 8.2 As conditioned, the proposed Project will not adversely affect existing and Plan of the City which designates this as a high-density, multiple-family residential area. particularly regarding use, height, density, and parking and is consistent with the adopted General proposed site is multi-family residential. The proposed Project meets Code requirements, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan. The General Plan designation for the with the General Plan of the City. The proposed Project is compatible with the objectives, policies, 8.1 As conditioned, the proposed Project design and improvements are consistent Section 8. Based upon the evidence presented in the record on this matter,

40 property. As noted above, the Project complies with the current Code requirements regarding interfere with the use and enjoyment of other residential properties in the vicinity of the subject \0009\ impacted during construction, the Applicant will be required to prepare and implement a accessibility to parking spaces. Furthermore, in order to ensure that local traffic and parking are not pedestrian safety hazards. In addition, the Applicant has revised the layout of the garage to improve Project will not generate adverse traffic impacts, traffic hazards, pedestriawvehicle conflicts, or negligible traffic impact upon the existing roadways and the residential streets. Therefore, the development of seven-unit condominium project. Based on the report, the proposal will have a prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates to assess the potential impacts of the proposed traffic impacts nor vehicular or pedestrian safety or circulation problems. A traffic study has been 8.4 As conditioned, the proposed Project will not create any significant adverse mature landscaping assists to reduce the mass and scale of the Project. color scheme presented to the Commission and the representation of the Applicant to provide interfere with the use and enjoyment of other residential properties in the vicinity. Last, the dual and mature landscaping between the façade and the property line ensures that the Project will not occur year round. Further, the design of the northern elevation of the building with the open area shadows from the existing structure, and because the potential impacts from these shadows will not structure; however, these incrementally greater impacts are not found to be significant in light ofthe proposed four-story structure will cast shadows to a greater degree than does the existing two-story massing of the development in this area and the standards applicable to future developments. The density, height, and parking. The proposed scale and massing are consistent with the scale and 8.3 As conditioned, the proposed Project will not significantly and adversely

41 be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works & Transportation or his designee to determine the amount, appropriate routes, and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary 757 B0785\0009\ relocated unless approval from the Department of Recreation and Parks is obtained. during construction of the proposed subdivision. No street trees shall be removed or 2. The Applicant shalt protect and maintain all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site Commission at its meeting on June 14, substantial compliance with the plans submitted to and reviewed by the Planning 1. Except as modified by the conditions set forth hereafter, the Project shall be developed in Review for the Project, subject to the following conditions: the Negative Declaration, approves Vesting Tentative Tract Map No and a Development Plan Section 9. Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby adopts proposed Project wilt not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare. conditioned by this Resolution and for the reasons discussed in the foregoing paragraphs, the with the City s Building Code standards, and adequate open space living area has been required. As health, safety, or general welfare. The Project, as conditioned, will be constructed in accordance 8.5 As conditioned, the proposed Project will not be detrimental to the public or parking related impacts on the neighborhood. for demolition and deliveries to the subject site. Therefore, the Project will have no adverse traffic construction management plan that includes a construction parking and hauling plan. Said plan will

42 conditions is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and is incorporated herein by reference. Works/Engineering Department/Recreation and Parks Department. The list of standard 758 B0785\0009\ purpose of ensuring that all owners and occupants adhere to the provisions of the CC&Rs. thereon, for the purpose of preserving the public health, safety, and welfare, and for the notice, have the right of access to the community, including all buildings and structures a provision establishing that the City shall, after making due demand and giving reasonable the Community Development Department and the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall include recorded in conjunction with the final subdivision map, subject to review and approval by 8. The Applicant shall prepare Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions ( CC&Rs ) to be changes to the landscaping shall require approval by the City. maintained as approved by the Architectural Commission at all times. Any substantial plans, and as approved by the Community Development Director. The landscaping shall be 7. The landscaping proposed shall be mature and of substantial size as proposed by the Project City. maintained and shall not be substantially modified except upon review and approval by the 6. The color scheme and variation of colors as proposed on the Project plans shall be to issuance of building permits. 5. The Project shall be subject to review and approval by the Architectural Commission prior the Fire Department through the plan check process. 4. The Project shall comply with all applicable conditions of approval that may be imposed by 3. The Applicant shall comply with the applicable conditions and permits from the Public

43 rooms capable ofbeing used as a bedroom are deemed to be a bedroom for the purposes of the parking requirements set forth therein. Accordingly, the Applicant shall provide B0725\0009\ with respect to schedules during the construction period, the arrangement of b. Information regarding the anticipated number of workers, the location of parking the site. transported to and from the Project site when sufficient parking is not available on arrangements for construction parking at a nearby site where the workers can be On-street parking shall be prohibited at all times. The plan shall indicate Engineering Division of Public Works and the Building and Safety Department. activities at different stages of construction to be reviewed and approved by the a. Written information about the construction parking arrangements and hauling The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum, the following: Community Development for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. ii. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan to the Department of STANDARD CONDITIONS and 20 in width. to. The parking spaces to be provided (at grade or garage) shall be a minimum of 36 in length shall be assigned to units on the ground floor. be assigned to the unit immediately adjacent to those spaces (Unit #102). The other spaces parking spaces shall be at grade. The plans shall clearly depict that the tandem spaces shall parking spaces in a single-level subterranean garage accessed from the rear alley and 3 9. Pursuant to Section the Applicant is required to provide twenty parking spaces as

44 related traffic. construction staging area and other pertaining information regarding construction 760 B0785\0009\ the general public and approved by the Director of CommunIty Development. Said signs name and telephone number of the contact person on the site in a location readily visible to Building Official. In addition, the Applicant shall, throughout project construction, post the contact person shall be transmitted to the Director of Community Development and the any concerns regarding the maintenance of the site. The name and telephone number of the a contact person directly accessible to the public by telephone in the event that the public has demolition, maintenance of safety barriers and adjacent public sidewalks, and provision of existing structures and landscaping on the site, dust suppression for areas cleared by during construction, including but not limited to, maintenance of the orderly appearance of 14. The Applicant shall maintain the site in an orderly condition prior to commencement of and reduce noise and dust impacts on neighboring properties. 13. During construction, the Applicant shall install a minimum 12-foot construction fence to the Departments of Public Works, Engineering, Building and Safety, fire, and Police. City s various departments, including but not limited to the conditions, if any, imposed by shall comply with all conditions required in conjunction with the plan check process by the 12. In addition to the conditions set forth in this Resolution, the Vesting Tentative Tract Map for demolition, deliveries, etc., to the subject site. amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary c. The proposed demolition/construction staging for this Project to determine the deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of operation, designation of

45 Department. The Applicant s representative s telephone number provided shall be manned during construction hours \0009\ that the additional deposit is received by the City. If the Applicant timely requests a hearing, with subsequent violations. Work shall not resume for a minimum of two days after the day that an additional deposit of$ 10,000 is deposited with the City to cover the costs associated before the City within 10 days of the notice; and (c) issue a stop work notice until such time cover costs ofenforcement; (b) notify the Applicant that the Applicant may request a hearing the event that three or more such violations occur, the City may: (a) retain the deposit to more than two violations of such conditions or the Beverly Hills Municipal Code occur. In returned to Applicant upon completion of all cpnstrnction activities and in the event that no conditions of this Resolution regarding construction activities. Such deposit shall be 18. A cash deposit of $10,000 shall be deposited with the City to ensure compliance with the Section to the Department of Fish and Game filing fee imposed pursuant to Fish and Game Code documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements in addition City a cashier s check, payable to the County Clerk, in the amount of $50.00 for a 17. Within three working days after approval of this Resolution, the Applicant shall remit to the the City for the Project. 16. Approval of this Project is subject to any and all other discretionary approvals required by Engineering Division prior to commencement of any demolition or Project related work. 15. The Applicant shall secure all necessary permits from the Public Works Department and the shall also include the name and number for a City contact from the Community Development

46 substantial evidence supports forfeiture. Any subsequent violation will trigger forfeiture of an opportunity to appear and offer evidence to the City, and the City determines that 762 E07$5\0009\ to deliver the executed covenant within the required 60 days, this Resolution approving the all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with Development within 60 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community shall include a copy of this Resolution as an exhibit. Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this Resolution. The covenant the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory i.n form and content to the City Development Plan Review (collectively the Approvals ) shall not become effective until 20. This Resolution approving Vesting Tentative tract Map No and issuing a for the duration of the life of the Project. 19. The conditions set forth in this Resolution shall run with the land and shall remain in force violation of the conditions of this Resolution or the Beverly Hills Municipal Code. may have in law or equity and shall not be the sole remedy of the City in the event of a The requirements of this condition are in addition to any other remedy that the City interest accruing on monies deposited. City shall be deposited fri an interest bearing account. The Applicant shall be reimbursed all $10,000, pursuant to the procedure set forth herein above. All amounts deposited with the the additional deposit, the issuance of a stop work notice, and the deposit of an additional said deposit will not be forfeited until after such time that the Applicant has been provided

47 from the 60-day time limit if at the time of the request, the Director determines that there 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 \0009\ David D. Gustavson Director of Public Works and Transportation David M. $now Assistant City Attorney Director of Community Development A roved as to form: Approved as to Secretary of the City of Beverly Hills, California Noah Furie Chair of the Planning Commission Adopted: JuNE 14, 2007 entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City. approval, and adoption of this Resolution, and shall cause this Resolution and his certification to be Section 10. The Secretary ofthe Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, Project. have been no substantial changes to any federal, state, or local law that would affect the

48 EXHIBIT A PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING STANDARD CONDITIONS LIST 80785\0009\972379,2 764

49 ENGINEERING, UTILITIES AND RECREAION & PABI(S: STANDARD CONDITIONS LIST 765 shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm shall be angled at 45 degrees to the curb face in the direction of the normal Street drainage flow. The applicant drains discharge to the street. All curb drains installed 6. The applicant shall provide that all roof and/or surface improvement security to ensure the establishment of any City Attorney. and shall be in a form approved by the City Engineer and the will be determined by the Director of Recreation and Parks, relocated or replaced Street trees. The security amount commence until the applicant has provided the City with an 5. The applicant shall protect all existing street trees Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not Recreation and Parks Department and the City Engineer is obtained. (See attached Trees and Construction document.) removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall be mature street trees. No street trees, including those proposed project. Every effort shall be made to retain adjacent to the subject site during construction of the existing and proposed buildings. defective alley and driveway approaches surrounding the shall be taken to not damage or remove the tree existing tree roots within the parkway area. Remove and replace all height and cannot be planted against the street trees. Care This landscape material cannot exceed six to eight inches in approaches. These parkway areas if any, shall be landscaped and maintained by the adjacent property owner. 4. The applicant shall remove all unused landings and driveway f*the tax figure is adjusted annually.) $5,638.80*, if a certificate of occupancy is issued prior to residential rental units into condominiums, including, but ordinances and regulations concerning the conversion of not limited to, the requirement that the applicant pay the City of Beverly Hills the condominium conversion tax of and gutter surrounding the existing and proposed buildings. 2. The applicant shall remove and replace all defective curb sidewalk surrounding the existing and proposed buildings. approval of the final subdivision map by the City Council. 1. The applicant shall remove and replace all defective 3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable statutes, CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

50 discharges onto the alley surfaces will be permitted. County Department of Public Works. No concentrated manner approved by the City Engineer and thee Los Angeles Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains. 15. Condensate from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain construction notes shall be followed. Chemical and Waste Control section of the general 14. During construction all items in the Erosion, Sediment, by the City. construction operations performed under any permits issued improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during 13. The applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing equipment and materials related to the project. public right-or-way for staging and/or hauling certain improvements in the public right-or-way, and for use of the Civil Engineering Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., and construction of any 12. The applicant shall obtain the appropriate permits from the deliveries, etc., to the subject site. determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of 11. The applicant shall provide to the Engineering Office the location of the water service meter installation will also require approval from the City Engineer. otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The size, type and system through the existing water service connection unless 10. The applicant shall make connection to the City s water Engineer and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee. proposed demolition/construction staging for this project to the subject site unless otherwise approved by the City sewer system through the existing connections available to heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for demolition, 9. The applicant shall make connection to the City s sanitary Utility Company and the City. in adjacent streets and alleys per requirements of the 8. The applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities site. No such installations will be allowed in any City the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the subject including electrical transformers required for service to right-of-way. 7. The applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, $tandard Conditions List

51 unloading. loading zone or designated parking space for1 loading and drain system. A loading dock is not to be confused with a interceptor/clarifier prior to discharging to the storm 16. Water discharged from a loading dock area must go through an required to be submitted to the Fine Art Commission for fee. alternative, the applicant may choose to pay an in-lieu art review and approval of any proposed art piece or, as an comply with the Public Art Ordinance. Z.n application is certificate of occupancy, the applicant is required to modified commercial structure, and prior to issuance of the 20. After completion of architectural review of a new or oil residuals which drip from vehicles. Maintain records of cleaned every two weeks with emphasis on removing grease and discharging into the storm drain system. In-lieu of discharging runoff through a clarifier, parking lots can be cleaning activities for verification by a City inspector. garage shall be discharged through a clarifier before 19. Storm water runoff from automobiles going into a parking ground water discharges are; rising ground water and garage the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Examples of 18. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from sumps. Examples are grocery stores, mini markets and food services. wash trash rooms cannot be discharged to the alley. 17. Organic residuals from daily operations and water used to Standard Conditions List

52 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) $5. City of Beverly Hills, California Secretary of the Planning Commission! Director of Community Development VIN6ENT P. BERTONI, AICP /( ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Commissioners Bosse and Cole. NOES: None. AYES: Commissioners Marks, Vice Chair Reims, and Chair Furie. and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit: the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No duly passed, approved on June 14, 2007, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Community Development of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five I, VINCENT P. BERTONI, Secretary of the Planning Commission and Director of CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ) STATE Of CALIFORNIA ) 768

53 V Planning Commission Report 462 S. Rexiord Drive July 13, 2017 Attachment F Planning Commission Resolution

54 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION Of THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS APPROVING A ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A SEVEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 462 SOUTH REXFORD DRIVE. determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hilts hereby finds, resolves and Section 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No and its associated Development Plan Review Permit which proposes a seven-unit condominium project (the Project) were originally approved by Resolution No. 1468, adopted on June 14, Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section , Development Plan Review Permits are valid for an initial period of three years, and can be extended by the Planning Commission for up to seven (7) years beyond the original approval date, if they were approved in conjunction with a Tentative Map. Pursuant to BHMC Section , Tentative Maps are valid for an initial period of two years and can be extended for up to three (3) years beyond the expiration date. Two recent state laws have been enacted to automatically extend the life of previously approved Tentative Maps: Senate Bill 1185 and Assembly Bill 333. These automatic extensions do not apply to associated discretionary entitlements, as in this case, the Development Plan Review Permit, and those entitlements may be extended consistent with local ordinance. 770

55 Based on the original approval date, the Development Plan Review Permit will expire on June 14, 2010 and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would have expired on June 14, To date, no time extensions for the project s entitlements have been granted by the Planning Commission. The subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map, based on its original approval date of June 14, 2007 and original expiration date of June 14, 2009, qualifies for the extensions provided for by the recent legislation and therefore is valid until June 14, 2012 and not a part of this request. The time extension does not amend the conditions of approval or make other substantive revisions to Resolution No The entitlements were requested for the purposes of developing a seven-unit condominium project with a height of four stories/45 feet and twenty parking spaces. The parking would be provided with 17 parking spaces in a subterranean parking garage accessed from the rear alley and three parking spaces at grade. Currently, no construction has begun at the subject site, and the existing buildings have not been demolished. The Planning Commission s original decision to approve the Project was subject to numerous conditions of approval to ensure that project and construction-related impacts would be appropriately mitigated. Section 2. Pursuant to Sections of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the Development Plan Review Permit rights granted under Planning Commission Resolution No.1468 expire if not exercised within thirty-six (36) months of the date of adoption. Therefore, the rights granted under Resolution No expire at 11:59 p.m. on June 14, 2010, unless extended by the Planning Commission. Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to extend the approval of the Development Plan Review 2 771

56 Permit for up to two, one-year time extensions, for a total of five years from the date of the initial entitlement approval. The application for time extension was timely filed prior to the expiration date of June 14, 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 Negative Declaration was adopted. There have been no 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 Negative Declaration continues to represent the independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. Section 4. On May 27, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request for an extension of the Development Plan Review Permit. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. There have been no changes to the Project or any substantial change to the surrounding environment since the initial Project approval

57 2. The rights granted under Resolution No shall be extended for one year, in order to provide the applicant with additional time to complete the fmal parcel map process and develop the Project. 3. Except as specifically modified by this Resolution, all conditions of Resolution No shall remain in full force and effect. Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby extends the Development Plan Review Permit granted under Resolution 1468 through and including June 14, 2011, subject to all conditions set forth in Resolution No. 1468, and the following projectspecific conditions: 1. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project. 2. 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 4 773

58 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. elements to the final Project: Sustainable Sites 3. The Applicant shall incorporate the following green building Construction Activity pollution control plan is part of the $USMP plan submitted to the City. The project will be equipped with storage capable of securing bicycles for over 20% of the building occupants. 5% of the parking stalls shall be reserved as preferred parking for occupants with low emitting and the! efficient vehicles. Stormwater management plan will cycle hardscape and overflow roof drainage through onsite planters, reducing peak discharge rates, and promoting infiltration of stormwater runoff. Water efficiency Plant species selected for landscaping are indigenous to the area and use water from site drainage for irrigation. Energy & Atmosphere Building energy expenditure meets Title % Materials and Resources Construction waste will be minimized during construction Local, regional materials and products will be used in the construction of the project when feasible Indoor Environmental Quality All residential units are provided with operable windows and doors to facilitate natural ventilation Low VOC emitting materials will be specified for all interior finishes 5 774

59 Section 7. If this Resolution is invalidated for any reason, all rights granted under Resolution No. 146$ shall lapse and expire and be of no thrther effect. 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: NAY 27, 2010 Liii Bosse Chair of the Planning Commission of City of Beverly Hills, California the Attest: Approved as to form: Approved as to content: D Id M. Snow Assistant City Attorney Jon*a ait, AICP City Ptmner ifl 6 775

60 STATE Of CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY Of LOS ANGELES ) CITY Of BEVERLY HILLS ) I, JONATHAN LAIT, Secretary of the Planning Commission and City Planner of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on May 27, 2010, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners Cole, Corman, Furie, Vice Chair Yukelson, and Chair Bosse. None. None. None. JON%T!-LN LAIT, Al P Secry of the Planning Commission / City Planner City of Beverly Hills, California 776

61 Planning Commission Report 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Attachment G Planning Commission Resolution

62 Of THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS APPROVING A A RESOLUTION Of THE PLANNING COMMISSION 778 extended consistent with local ordinance. extensions do not apply to the Development Plan Review Permit, and those entitlements may be previously approved Tentative Maps: Senate Bill 1185 and Assembly Bill 333. These automatic Two recent state laws have been enacted to automatically extend the life of to three (3) years beyond the expiration date , Tentative Maps are valid for an initial period of two years and can be extended for up date, if they were approved in conjunction with a Tentative Map. Pursuant to BHMC Section extended by the Planning Commission for up to seven (7) years beyond the original approval Development Plan Review Permits are valid for an initial period of three years, and can be Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section , Development Plan Review on May 27, Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1579, approving a one-year time extension for the Project) were originally approved by Resolution No. 1468, adopted on June 14, The Development Plan Review Permit which proposes a seven-unit condominium project (the Section 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No and its associated determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and AT 462 SOUTH REXFORD DRIVE. ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A SEVEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED RESOLUTION NO. 1612

63 Based on the original approval date and previously approved one-year time extension, the Development Plan Review Permit will expire on June 14, 2011 and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would have expired on June 14, The subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map, based on its original approval date of June and original expiration date of June 14, 2009, qualifies for the extensions provided for by the recent legislation and therefore is valid until June 14, 2012 and not a part of this request. The time extension does not amend the conditions of approval or make other substantive revisions to Resolution No The entitlements were requested for the purposes of developing a seven-unit condominium project with a height of four stories/45 feet and twenty parking spaces. The parking would be provided with 17 parking spaces in a subterranean parking garage accessed from the rear alley and three parking spaces at grade. Currently, no construction has begun at the subject site, and the existing buildings have not been demolished. The Planning Commission s original decision to approve the Project was subject to numerous conditions of approval to ensure that project and construction-related impacts would be appropriately mitigated. Section 2. Pursuant to Sections of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the Development Plan Review Permit rights granted under Planning Commission Resolution No.1468 expire if not exercised within thirty-six (36) months of the date of adoption, unless extended by the Planning Commission. Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to extend the approval of the Development Plan Review 2 779

64 for up to seven years from the date of the initial entitlement approval, if approved in conjunction with a subdivision map. 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 Negative Declaration was adopted. There have been no 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 environmentat impact. The original Negative Declaration continues to represent the independent judgment of the City. and no additional environmental review is required under CEQA. Section 4. On May 26, 2011, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request for an extension of the Development Plan Review Permit. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows: 1. There have been no changes to the Project or any substantial change to the surrounding environment since the initial Project approval. 2. The rights granted under Resolution No shall be extended for one year. 3. Except as specifically modified by this Resolution, all conditions of Resolution No shall remain in full force and effect

65 4 14, 2012, subject to all conditions set forth in Resolution No and Resolution No. 1579, and 2. This resolution granting the requested time extension shall not force for the duration of the life of the Project. 1. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full the Development Plan Review Permit granted under Resolution 146$ through and including June the following project-specific conditions: Development within 60 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby extends 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. under Resolution Nos and 1579 shall lapse and expire and be of no further effect. become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the request by the Applicant, grant a waiver from the 60 day time limit if, at the time of City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Section 7. If this Resolution is invalidated for any reason, all rights granted the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to 781

66 Joàn Lait, AICP Attest: Adopted: May 26, 2011 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 of the City. Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the Daniel i&elson Approved as to content: City Planner Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney David M. Snow retary City of Beverly Hills, California Chair c1he Planning the t\ I 5 782

67 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY Of BEVERLY HILLS ) I, JONATHAN LAIT, Secretary of the Planning Commission and City Planner of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on May 26, 2011, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners furie, Rosenstein, Cole, Vice Chair Corman, and Chair Yukelson. None. None. None. J THAN LAIT, AICP Secretary of the Planning Commission / City Planner City of Beverly Hills, California 783

68 C Planning Commission Report 462 S. Rexford Drive July 13, 2017 Attachment H Planning Commission Resolution

69 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION , Tentative Maps are valid for an initial period of two years and can be extended for up date, if they were approved in conjunction with a Tentative Map. Pursuant to BHMC Section extended by the Planning Commission for up to seven (7) years beyond the original approval Development Plan Review Permits are valid for an initial period of three years, and can be Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section , the Development Plan Review to June 14, Municipal Code (BHMC) Section C in 2011 and 2013, extending the expiration date for Director of Community Development granted two two-year extensions pursuant to Beverly Hills Development Plan Review on May 27, 2010, and Resolution 1612 approving an additional oneyear time extension for the Development Plan review on May 26, Subsequently, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1579, approving a one-year time extension for the Project), were originally approved by Resolution No. 1468, adopted on June 14, The Development Plan Review Permit, which propose a seven-unit condominium project (the Section 1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No and its associated determines as follows: The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves, and ONE-YEAR TIME EXTENSION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A SEVEN-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 462 SOUTH REXFORD DRIVE. OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS APPROVING A RESOLUTION NO. 1786

70 automatically extend the life of previously approved Tentative Maps: Senate Bill 1185, the state). Since the approval of the project, four state laws have been enacted to 786 Code allows the Planning Commission to extend the approval of the Development Plan Review unless extended by the Planning Commission. Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Resolution No expire if not exercised within thirty-six (36) months of the date of adoption, Code, the Development Plan Review Permit rights granted under Planning Commission Section 2. Pursuant to Sections of the Beverly Hills Municipal construction-related impacts would be appropriately mitigated. the Project was subject to numerous conditions of approval to ensure that project and buildings have not been demolished. The Planning Commission s original decision to approve parking spaces. Currently, no construction has begun at the subject site, and the existing of developing a seven-unit condominium project with a height of four stories/45 feet and twenty substantive revisions to Resolution No. 146$. The entitlements were requested for the purposes The time extensions do not amend the conditions of approval or make other June 14, Development Plan Review Permit and the Vesting Tentative Tract Map would have expired on Based on the original approval date and previously approved time extensions, the consistent with local ordinance. not apply to the Development Plan Review Permit, and those entitlements may be extended Assembly Bill 333, Assembly Bill 20$ and Assembly Bill 116. These automatic extensions do to three (3) years beyond the expiration date (not inclusive of automatic extensions granted by

71 the original expiration date (not inclusive of automatic extensions granted by the state). with a subdivision map. Section of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code allows the Planning Commission to extend the approval of the Tentative Tract Map for three years beyond for one year. 2. The rights granted under Resolution No shall be extended substantial change to the surrounding environment since the initial Project approval. 1. There have been no substantial changes to the Project or any and determines as follows: Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds hearing. Development Plan Review Permit. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said noticed public hearing to consider the request for an extension of the Tentative Tract Map and Section 4. On September 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly CEQA. the independent judgment of the City, and no additional environmental review is required under any significant environmental impact. The original Negative Declaration continues to represent Therefore, there is no substantial evidence that the approval of the requested extension may have to the environment that would cause the project to significantly impact the environment. was adopted. There have been no substantial changes to the project and no substantial changes CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City, and a Negative Declaration authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State Section 3. This project was previously assessed in accordance with the for up to seven years from the date of the initial entitlement approval, if approved in conjunction

72 Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby extends of Resolution No shall remain in full force and effect any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to request by the Applicant, grant a waiver from the 60 day time limit if, at the time of Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a resolution approving the Project shall be null and void and of no further effect. Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 60 days, this City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the Development within 60 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth become effective until the owner of the Proj ect site records a covenant, satisfactory in 2. This resolution granting the requested time extension shall not force for the duration of the life of the Project. 1. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full Resolution No and 1612, and the following project-specific conditions: and including June 14, 2017, subject to all conditions set forth in Resolution No and the Tentative Map and Development Plan Review Permit granted under Resolution 1468 through 3. Except as specifically modified by this Resolution, all conditions

73 under Resolution Nos. 1468, 1579, and 1612 shall lapse and expire and be of no further effect David M. Snow Ry,)hIich, AICP Assistant City Attorney Ct1Planner / Assistant Director of Community Development Department l.i A I Approved as to form: Approved as to content: ecretary of the Planning Commission Attest: City of Beverly Hills Chair of the Planning Commission of the Fshid foe Shooshani Adopted: September 8, (I 44 Certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City. passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Section 8. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the Section 7. If this Resolution is invalidated for any reason, all rights granted

74 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) $5. City Planner Secretary of the Planning Commission I City of Beverly Hills, California RYAf GOHILciH, AICP ABSENT: Commissioner Fisher ABSTAIN: None. NOES: None. AYES: Commissioners Licht, Block, Vice Chair Gordon, Chair Shooshani. Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on September 8, 2016, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit: the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said I, RYAN GOHLICH, AICP, Secretary of the Planning Commission and City Planner of CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS ) STATE Of CALIFORNIA ) 790