>>>
and welcome to
the regular
planning commission meeting of the
city of beverly
hills, december 11, 2025 and I do
call
this meeting to order.
1st of all I would like to remind
everybody,
including my fellow commissioners
to silence your cell phones. Members
of
the public may listen to
the meeting by calling 310-
288-2288 and selecting option 2 ,
the meeting is
airing live on channel 10 streaming
live on the city website at beverly hills
on the city website@beverlyhills.org.
written public comment can be submitted
by sending an email to comment
pc at beverly hills
and oral public comment
can be heard by calling 310, 228, 2288
selecting option 1
or by video at beverly hills/
bev public
passcode of 90210.
at this point I would like to invite
our
newly named and almost all official
city planner
cindy gordon, congratulations, by
the way to lead us
in the pledge of allegiance.
>> I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the united
states of america and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation under god
, indivisible with liberty and justice
for all.
>> thank you, cindy.
karen would you please call the roll.
>>
commissioner kaplan here commissioner
ross here,
commissioner demeter is absent, vice
chair milkowski here , chair
wolfe here.
>> at this time whether any
communications from
the audience for items not on the
agenda ? Seeing none in the room
are there any email, video or written comments
for
items not on the agenda?
>> no non-agenda comments.
>> therefore please read the legislative
applicant registration.
>> thank you, the city has ordinance
requiring registration of
lobbyists or advocates prepaid
or expect to be paid $50 or more to
represent a
project or influence city officials, professionals
such as attorneys architects
permit expediters, design professionals
those engaged with public relations
or research should register online
by visiting the
city website.
additional information is available
on the same webpage.
>> thank you, karen
next is the approval of the
agenda. Any questions or comments
or suggested changes to today's agenda?
seeing none by order of the chair
the agenda is approved
as presented. We want to
move on to the consent calendar which
we will do
in 2 sections because of various absences.
the 1st section will be consideration
of minutes
of our special meeting on october
21, 2025 as well as
the regular meeting of october 23
as well as the regular meeting of
october
23, 2025. Are there any questions
or comments on
those minutes?
I do not believe
I see any. May I have a motion
to adopt?
>> so moved. >> 2nd.
>> separately or altogether?
>> the 2 together.
>> seconded.
>> we
can do a voice vote for that, all
in favor,
all opposed? It passes.
the next item
is the consideration of minutes of
the regular meeting
of november
13, 2025 .
again, any questions or comments on
that item?
seeing that there are
not any revisions, may we have a motion
to
adopt?
>>
I move that we approve minutes as presented.
>> 2nd.
>> on this one may we have a
rollcall vote?
>>
kaplan yes, commissioner ross, yes,
>> I believe you were absent.
november 13.
>> my apologies.
>> thank you, vice chair milkowski.
yes chair
wolfe yes.
>> motion passes.
no reports from any party agencies
that
I can see. Which will
move us to the 1st item of continued
business, 410
410 dabney ln. This is one permit
item continued from
may 22, 2025 planning commission meeting
and afterward
was drawn by the applicant on
december 2 of 2025.
due to its withdrawal
by the applicant, there is no action needed
by the commission
at this time. Any other action we
need to take on this?
>> chair I want to note we did receive
2 comments from
members of the public not aware the
item had been withdrawn.
so we will
make sure they are aware, the commission
is not hearing the item today and
it
will remain for the record.
>> thank
you, that completes
any discussion on item number 4 on
the agenda
which will move us to
new business item number 5. 499,
n. Canon dr. Request for conditional
use
permit to allow vehicle sales used occupy
a ground floor tenant space within
an
existing multitenant building for
the establishment of
a vehicle. At
this time I will open up the public
hearing and ask
if any fellow commissioners
have communication.
>> no.
>> none, nor have I
may we have a staff reporter?
>> thank you and good afternoon.
the item is a request for conditional use
permit at 499 north permit at
499 north canon dr. Permit at 499
north canon dr.
project site is shown outlined in
the red.
specific tenant space shown in yellow.
product is developed with 4 story
commercial
building including a mix of
tenant spaces and development in the
immediate
vicinity includes commercial use
. Single-family development located
further north of
the project site separated by n. Santa
monica blvd. And beverly gardens park.
again the proposed project includes
request for conditional
use permit to allow the establishment
of vehicle
sales and showroom for
, project rendering shown here
on the screen.
as
far as project operations. Electrical
vehicle sales would be allowed at
the site
and it would include a show room
as well. No vehicle servicing would occur.
project site includes a total of 65
parking spaces and
proposed project
would have dedicated parking, 3 for
employees and 2 protester vehicles,
customer parking would be accommodated
be of the existing ballet operation.
no
on-site inventory would be on
site with no customer deliveries to
occur of vehicles.
35 total vehicles on-site,
3 for the display vehicles in the
show room and 2 for the
test drives . Showroom vehicle rotations
would occur twice per month during
off peak
nighttime hours.
traffic control plan was submitted
by the applicant and includes
a safety measures and personnel to manage
pedestrian and vehicle activity.
proposed test drive route is outlined
on the screen and does comply with
the
city requirements essentially from
the project site turning
right to north canon n. Canon dr.
on s. Santa monica blvd. Toward
century city and then back
to n. Santa monica blvd. And right
to
north canon back to the project site.
conditional use permit
outlined here on the screen in the
staff
report including detailed analysis
based
off of these findings.
proposed project was assessed and according
it does appear to qualify
for chemical exemption for existing
facilities.
project was notice pursuant to
the cities public notice requirements
with no
comments received.
staff would like to point out we did discover
a few typographical errors in the resolution.
one has been to correct
the date of adopted resolution
number 2022, that should be a very
7th, 1961. Also to correct the
building street frontage description.
so with that, staff recommends
the planning commission conduct a
public hearing,
adopt resolution with conditions approving
conditional
use permit and find the project exempt
from for
the review thank you.
>> thank you for the staff report.
I
would like to invite the applicant
to make a presentation.
you have 15 minutes and
please, anyone who speaks identify yourself
and
your relationship to the project.
>> do not
count my time. 1st of all
I would like to congratulate cindy
gordon, on the record for
her promotion
and I was one of the 1st people
who sent an email this morning to
congratulate her. 2nd of all I'm glad
to
see michael forbes here. I have not
seen him recently that it's great
to
see you are here.
now I can
start. Honorable chair, members of
the commission my name is, I am here
this
afternoon representing sony honda
mobility.
sony honda is a joint
venture between 2 international entities
that
have come together to manufacture
and sell
a new luxury electric vehicle
, the entity has chosen beverly hills for
the purposes of opening up a show room
and dealership where they
will be selling and taking orders
for this particular vehicle.
currently I have a pop-up showroom
in century city
and his vehicle has received good
responses however it is our desire
and goal
to make 499 in
beverly hills our flagship studio.
at this location we
will only be taking orders and displaying vehicles
and it should be noted there will
be no delivery
of vehicles in beverly hills.
all vehicles will be delivered either
in
torrance or fremont, california. Furthermore
there will be
no vehicle repairs for service at
this everly hills location.
as far as test drives, we follow the
approved test route
program that the city has and a copy
of that and judy has been kind enough
to show you our test drive route
and we don't go through any residential areas,
we
follow only the business streets.
both from entering and exiting. We
will not
have any impact on pedestrian safety
or traffic as vehicles will
be parked within the parking garage
adjacent to
the show room.
as far as loading or removal of the
vehicles from the showroom they
will use the same procedures we have
previously approved and you have
approved for car dealerships
at 9777 wilshire ,
those procedures will require not
only traffic control and signage
but if I request a public works
to move the vehicles in and out of
the showroom. Our
hours of operation are consistent
with retail
merchants within the triangle area.
we will be located on the ground level
of the building
and will not interfere with any other
businesses within the building.
the parking garage has its own private
entrance off of
canon and as indicated , the building has
a valley operator
which will handle our customer parking
, today I have
with me
who can answer any
operational questions you may want
to ask about
this location for the vehicle. We
hope that after you hear all of
our presentation , that you will approve
our cup , so we can start
to operate out of this location.
we
have a deck we would like to present.
and have an opportunity to go through
the deck
so you can understand a little more
about the vehicle itself and what
we
are doing.
stop the clock.
pulling it up.
okay?
there
we go.
>> perfect, thank you
very much. And the senior director
of marketing at sony honda mobility
of america. The presentation we have
is to give a little bit
of background on the company and what we're planning
on doing and the product we
are providing. On the next page
sony honda mobility has mentioned
it is a
joint venture between parent companies
sony and honda
where our own entity,
sony honda mobility and
the 1st brand to bring to market is
afeela. Trenton is meant to
bring together 2 brands with backgrounds
in intelligence and mobility but also adding
entertainment as we would expect from
the
sony side of things. Excited
to be opening up this location in
beverly hills. Considering
the flagship and we understand the
fortunes of being a good
citizen and also to make sure our experience
meets that
it what you expect for a location
in the beverly hills location. On
the
following slide you will see again
a quick rendering of
the location. The following page
want to quickly talk over what exactly
is
afeela. Afeela is the brand and
our 1st product is called the
afeela 1. It is
a sedan as seen in the picture. The
goal is to bring
people closer to the things they love
which includes things
such as movies and sports and video
games
and music. All things we feel are
quite important in the beverly
hills landscape. Our retail experience
is meant to be able
to be just as vibrant and as exciting as
the city is going to be in. Some of
the most called out
features of the car really feature
around innovation
such as self driving and a lot of customizable
interfaces we will be providing
them expenses from honda and sony.
we are also really big on
self-expression as you can tell from
the artwork outside of the mural
and the car itself allowing customers
to be able to express themselves
through moods and themes
and things such as the media bar in
front of the car and
on the exterior side.
on the next side as much in california
is going to be
our home. We currently have one retail
studio in westfield
valleyfair in san jose and another
we are hoping to be able to move forward
with of course is for
99 north on canon
and we have a few pop-ups, one of
which in
century city down the street and another
in
san diego currently. As mentioned
our
delivery hubs are where all the customer actual
final delivery will occur .
those are located at larger hubs
where service and other things will
be occurring in torrance
and fremont. On the next slide here,
a quick showcase
, we did have an event.
thank you for everyone's assistance
getting this through.
we do not want to miss out on the
los angeles auto
show that happened so we were able
to bring the press
that were here for the time to come
to a soft
opening of our studio. We were excited
to
be able to welcome 80 plus members
of the
press as well as some executives to
be able to meet with
the press so it was
our way of at least indicating to them we
are very serious and
excited to be here in the beverly
hills area and be able to bring
some of the press over here. On the
last slide here just wanted
to show some of
the activities we have done in other
locations I previously mentioned .
a
lot of what you can see are reservation
holders. Members of
our community that have placed a
deposit and are ready to start taking orders.
when we are ready for that time we
help many customers
will convert and become an actual
owner of
the car. Of course that is something
we're hoping to continue to build
and nurture a relationship with them
at the retail locations such as the
one in
beverly hills. Thank you very much.
>> that concludes the presentation,
other than answering
any questions. Or
anything else.
>> thank you.
return to your seats for now
and, very possible we might be inviting
you back up any minute.
at this time we will open
public comment. Each speaker
will be provided 3 minutes, public
comment will be closed
before the commission begins deliberations. Those
wishing
to provide comment should do so now,
the applicant may provide rebuttal,
the public will
have an opportunity to provide rebuttal
to the applicant's 1st rebuttal so
the order speaking will be as follows
for public comment. Commissioner questions,
applicant additional comments and rebuttal,
public rebuttal to the applicant and
applicant
final rebuttal and comment.
at this point
I will call for comment from those
in the room.
I currently have one speaker card
and that is the speaker so will you
please
come up?
welcome.
>>
chair and honorable commissioners,
thank you for allowing me to speak.
the problem I have with this application
is only on
process, nothing else. I reviewed
the last 10 applications
for dealerships . The way it went,
it
can be for you and then before
the commission.
the reason, in addition if tenant
improvements had
been done prior to the approval they
received
a letter enforcement such as
and 9737 wilshire , the tbf
tf w exotic car dealership.
as well as wires and they
did unpermitted tenant
permits. What happened here
is they wanted to have an event. And
the city manager
approved and what was shown
an architectural commission agenda report
it states last, lastly the established
auto dealership requires
issuance of conditional use permit
by the planning commission. Property
owner submitted cup under review by
the city
but is not approved as of the writing
of the report.
condition of approval has been included
in the draft
resolution indicating no permits for
the business
identification side issued until
the applicant has submitted a building
permit application and paid all
application fees for the improvement project
consistent with
city policy.
is not consistent with city policy
based on the previous dealerships.
in addition it was not only
for business sign identification
which itself is not a big deal, the
big deal is there is a
mural there and it is supposed to
be or should be also reviewed the
architectural commission
because effectively this is a form
of art which
is presented
on property and there should be additional
review. Originally
the logo was incorporated
in the upper portion
of the mural functioning as both an
artistic composition and
business identification sign
as again was in the architectural commission
. So the question
is again, I was shocked when I
saw the mural and I was shocked
when I saw the dealership. This is
an on my dealership, all the applications
for order
to buy has to be online . The
question is what does the city receive
out
of this? There is a sculpture
in front, in the railway portion.
half $1 million was spent on that sculpture
and
will this mural detract from that?
that
was not covered within the architectural
commission. I understand
the need for why they wanted to go forward
, but again there is a process. Thank
you.
>> thank you very much for your comment.
I don't see any other comments in
the room.
karen
do we have additional comments on this
item from phone video or email?
>>
no additional public comment.
>> thank
you, at
this time we will move on
to commissioner questions. Anyone
volunteer to
go 1st? Commissioner ross start
us off.
>>
thank you very much and thank you staff
for the presentation. And
the applicant
in yours as well. Why don't we have
the applicant come
up? I did not catch her last name
so I will call you jay until
and unless I get it.
and your colleague pulled a chair
up if you want.
what is your last name again? What
is your role? Are you with sony or
are
you with
honda ?
>>
it is one comedy, sony honda mobility
is one company.
>> what is your role
at
the company?
>> senior director of marketing.
>> who was the collie?
>> I work for the creative agency
that designed the studio and we are
partners
of sony honda in
bringing their retail expense to life.
>> very good.
in terms of the public comment
we heard I was not there and I don't
know how it happened. I think in my mind
there
is a distinction between what happened here
and with wires only where the
city manager approved it and that
makes it
maybe unusual but at least there was
a process.
>> 100% correct.
we went to the city manager 1st, we
asked the city manager because the
la automotive show was coming here
and we needed to
be able to invite all the press to
come see it.'s we went to
the city manager, city manager approved
the fact
we could have the special event at
the location, he put us in touch with
patty betancourt from special events department
in beverly hills
and we walked through every part of
her application in order to fill it out.
it was
approved, we were allowed to have
for 30
days a special event at the location
which we did.
just for edification, the
interior site
is not finished, we do not have all
of
our improvements. Went to go back
to the building and safety department
in
order to do that but we have paid
all along,
every fee requested of us. We
have paid all of those fees and work
closely
with not only planning, but
we have worked closely with building
and safety with respect to
what we have done.
>> significantly,
you understand that if this
is approved by this body to
go to the architectural review committee
for their approval.
>> we have already been to
the architectural review committee.
we have already gotten approval
from the architectural committee
. As to the mural, to the signs come
to
the locations of the signs and we
went to that because we could not
have put
up any of the stuff without their approval.
so we have done everything they asked
us to do with respect to what we
needed to do.
>> better yet
I thought I saw a condition in here
that said
this is subject to the approval of
the architectural review commission.
am I making that up?
I could be, I thought I read that condition.
issuance
of building permits.
the project shall be
subject to city architectural review.
>> that is a
standard condition on 99
if not 100% of all resolutions
considered by the
commission. Arguably if the resolution
is adopted that condition has been satisfied.
>> okay thank you, I
wanted to understand the interplay
between that condition.
okay very good. Can I
ask the applicants
some questions that
are related to the product?
and this
will be your 1st model year I assume
with no vehicles on the
road yet.
>> that is correct. We have
prototypes on display
but none have been sold.
>>
1st model you will be 2027 or 2026?
>> 2026. That will be the sedan. >>
hopefully coming out with a sub type
model?
>> we have not disclosed. >>
okay
that's confidential. What if I sign a
nda. What is the price point of the
sedan?
>>
the pastry was 89,900 and the higher
signature trim
is 102,900.
>> luxury vehicles to
compete with like
lucid.
>>
lucid, tesla model x, the
higher end.
>> a much as a
deposit?
>> 200. It is a reservation
so customers are 100% refunded
if they don't.
>> deposit is $200?
and refundable. Okay.
>>
the application seems to suggest
there will be full-time valley
during hours of
operation. Correct?
>> that's correct. >> provided by
the landlord if I
understood correctly.
>> the parking
structure is
leased out to another company, the
company is operating at
the same hours as the hours we indicated.
>> what happened of the landlord defaults
or fails
to provide the ballet? That's a
question for our staff.
>> we
have no knowledge of that all we know
is the operator of that particular
location has an agreement with
the landlord and as far as we
are concerned, that has been there,
for years.
you may know because
he represented before. And
they have been there
and if he terminates it,
we will work with him to find another
valley operator.
>> okay, thank you.
if
I'm not mistaken the space is currently
empty correct?
occupied by you guys?
>> empty other
than the fact that we have a car in
the location and we have done some
construction but
we have not finished.
>> okay very
good, no
other questions.
>> thank you
commissioner ross. Commissioner kaplan.
>>
hi. Thank
you for now giving me contextual understanding
of the mural which is
hard to miss.
this sounds like an
exciting product. I just have a couple
of
questions about how the space will
be utilized.
maybe we can pull up
sheet a 2.1 , the floorplan
of this space.
:
>>
give me one
moment here.
>> it is in the staff .
>> we are working on bringing up the
floor plans
and we can proceed with questions.
>>
2 questions. One
has to do with the upper right-hand
corner of the space. Which
on one of the sheets is labeled as an
exit.
and it exits toward santa monica
. I think that is a
pedestrian exit. Just asking.
that's why the plans are helpful.
the 2nd question
I have has to
do with I believe I read that initially
and long-term, you anticipate having
3 cars in the showroom.
I can see where 2
of them would be positioned.
I think I know where the 3rd one would
be
positioned, but I don't want to assume
so
I would like you to help me understand that.
and I would like a little explanation
of the notes that are on
this sheet on a 2.1.
it says additional automobile to
be shown in 2026 . One car to
be displayed
for the year 2025 which is almost
over already.
and you said there is one car now
in
the space. And then calendar year 2026
, you
anticipate displaying 2 cars
thereafter, at some point maximum
3 cars.
>> correct.
>> we are getting there.
>> and
what page?
>> a
2.1.
>>
thank you.
>> that is a survey.
>> I'm
getting that.
that is it I think. Yeah,
so the exit that I have a question about
is in the very upper
right, parallel to santa monica
. On one of the
prior sheets labeled as a exit.
>>
correct, both
of those are existing doors,
we do not plan on using them for customers
but rear labeling for
fire reasons that they are doors people
can
use to exit.
>> they would be strictly
emergency exits.
>> that's correct.
>>
could you tell me where the 3rd car
will be? It seems to me it would be
at the
upper portion. Next to the outdoor patio.
>> that
is correct.
>>
okay for now that's all the questions
I have. Thank you.
>>
thank you, commissioner kaplan, vice
chair
milkowski.
>>
thank you.
could
you please
explain how customers will access
the cars? For
test drive?
>> yes, so we
are planning on using the lobby
exit and entrance at the bottom of
the plan that you can
see here. That takes you to the outside
location where the vehicles will have
spots reserved.
>> reserved
spots in the parking garage.
in our parking plan we have the
car inside which will not be used
for test drive
and 2 spots in the parking garage
that there will be 2 vehicles on site
that
they can use for test drives.
as said , those
cars will be pulled out and
they will follow the
test route.
so, nothing from the dealership will
be pulled out for
test drives. Only from the parking garage.
>> understood, thank you. You have
a contract
for 2 fixed spaces or its varying?
>> with a contract for 2 spaces
and 3
spaces for employees. Customer parking
will be handled by the valet people.
you will driving, the valley will
take it and park the car.
>> thank you. Question .
how
is sales tax impacted or allocated?
>>
sales
tax is under the
city's licensing bureau. It will be
paid in
accordance with , I think you
pay the estimated amount or whatever
and it goes into the
finance department because the cars
are sold here
the orders are taken in
the city of beverly hills. It has the
nexus of allowing
that.
>> okay. That is good to
know that we'll get our bite of the
sales tax.
>> a big bite.
those are my questions. Thank
you.
>> thanks. I'm going to follow
up on
that question. I think the question you
were answering
had to do with the beverly hills business tax.
>> also the sales tax. We pay a business
license tax based upon the gross revenue.
and then sales tax, which
is a state amount of money that is
collected.
because the orders are taken in the city
of beverly
hills, the state rehits to the city
of
beverly hills. Don't hold me. I don't
know the exact number.
but I think it is 1% of the sale.
>> right. But the more significant
portion of
revenue, if I'm not mistaken,
that come to the city is in the form
of business tax paid directly to
the city as opposed to the allocation of
the sales
tax.
>> that's my understanding. >>
okay.
let focus on the business tax. The
sales, if they're taking place online,
and they're not taking place in the
showroom, and the delivery is
being done
in torrance, what determines where
the business tax --
when you fill out that estimate
on the beverly hills tax form, what
revenue are
you including. In if the sale is online and
the
delivery is taken outside of the city of beverly
hills.
>> we had this question come up once
before from
another auto
dealership. And now mr. Muir, who is
the city's treasurer? Finance director.
okay. Has determined that any
order that is written in beverly
hills, all right?
my understanding is that any order
written
in beverly hills incurs taxes. Okay?
>> but if it's placed online -->> it
doesn't
matter if it is placed online or not.
it is
where it is written and where it is written
the street city of beverly hills.
>> anyone who places an
order online with
sony mobility of america, even if
they
live in san francisco or las vegas
or
phoenix --
>> if the order is written
in beverly hills --
>>
so what will determine if it was written
in beverly hills if the order is
placed online? You have a couple
locations, right?
>> we have a couple
locations.
our intention is to do all the
paperwork online. So I think it
is something we have to discuss further.
I'm not
aware of us saying specifically it would
be to beverly hills or not.
it is meant to be all done online.
>>
all done online. But again,
under whose city's jurisdiction?
>> if you're
going to order the car in san diego, that
is not going to be considered beverly
hills.
if it is ordered through the showroom in
the city of beverly hills, according
to what has
happened in the past, that is considered to
be
a taxable event in beverly hills.
>> and again, I
don't mean to be repeating myself.
what determines whether or
not it is ordered through the showroom
in beverly hills if someone is doing
it at their home online and
they do not live in beverly hills.
>> we reach out to our
finance department as well and I'll
turn it over to miss gutierrez
to provide some, hopefully some clarification.
>> great. Looking for clarification.
>> it really depends on the way that
afeela
has basically structured their business.
in
this case, it sounds like he's saying they have
set up their business in a way that
they have determined
their cell's desk to be the city of
beverly hills.
>> that's not what jay just
that.
>> I cannot confirm that is
how our
business model is.
>> so I think it
depends on
where that ultimate sales desk is
located.
if that sales desk is located in the
city
of beverly hills, then
this theory, the city receives
the portion of the sales tax.
>>
if the sales desk is located in another
location,
perhaps as part of a corporate office in
a
different city, the sales tax would
be allocated to
that location.
>> the sales tax and
will the business
tax.
>> I think the information that
I have
is specific to sales tax.
>> I think
since
the business tax is based on the
grocery seats if the sales are not
being booked
here, presumably there would be some in-person
sales. So there would be --
>> it sounds like there are no in-person
sales.
>> that's not correct. >> so any online
sales,
if they're being booked outside of
the city, the sales
tax would not count toward the gross
revenue --
>> I'll give you an opportunity to you answer in
a
second. I want to tell you what I'm
hearing. I'm hearing that there
is no commitment yet as to where the
sales will be booked. They may be
in beverly hills. They may
not be in beverly hills. It's entirely
possible
that 100% of the sales online for
the
afeela cars will be booked in a location
outside beverly
hills. In which case, if what I'm
hearing is correct, the
city will not
get anyany benefit out of the revenue
associated
with this location.
now I'll let you
comment.
>> let me comment first of
all.
there will be
onsite people coming in to buy.
once you come in, you will use, you
might
want to correct me if I say something wrong.
there will
be a
computer. You will order off the computer
but that
computer is related to beverly hills.
those are definite whether
you walk in or you order through the
beverly hills location.
if you live in let's say san fernando
valley, and you
order, that order come through beverly
hills. There
is no location at that particular, in
the
valley. It come to the beverly hills
hills online. In addition to that, we
have a finance person in the
city of beverly hills. So unless you're
paying all cash, I would say, is that
correct? The people come into the
finance department.
the finance people will write write
their particular
part of it. It will be determined to
be a beverly hills sale on that basis.
if you're in san diego, all right?
then you wouldn't
be there. You would be going down
to there. If you're
in san jose, the san jose store
is already open. Then that would go
out of san
jose. But the intent is to bring
people into the showroom so that they
can see
the car. They can order on our computer.
and at the computer, then what would
happen is that would be booked as
a beverly hills sale.
>> I'm
going to ask the same question of
you. You were the one who just said
you had no commitment
yet that online sales would be booked
out of beverly hills. Can
you comment on what mr. Fisher just
said about the
process?
>> yes, yes. What I can say
is at
this moment, we are currently taking
reservations, throws are
booked on ipads or personal computers
at home.
the actual ordering process itself
is still yet to
be determined. We are not at the phase
of finalizing all that information.
but that is something
that we can discuss. I have to discuss
with our lawyers
back in the office as well. Right
now, what we are hoping to
do, at left a for the year of 2025, we
are primarily taking reservations
at those locations.
>> so you may
or may not have people ordering on
computers in
the store.
>> that's
correct.
>> that's different --
>> it would be dependent on inventory
and how we are, how reservations are
going.
as of right now, our plan is to be able to have
a reservation attached with every
vehicle that we sell.
which would be an advance. But we
don't plan on having as mentioned,
inventory in
the store for customers to be able
to purchase. So that
is something we would have to discuss in terms of
ordering
itself.
>> I'm not questioning the
model. It it is
a perfectly fine model. But if
I'm one of your car buyers, I think
what I'm likely
to do is come into the showroom. Do
the
test drive. Do all the research that
I want. Say, all
right. Terrific. And then go home and
then in
the next day or two decide at home
what I'm
going to buy. You may have people
who are willing to sit at a computer in
the
showroom and buy it at that moment.
may
guess, and I'm only doing it
based on what I would like to do, the
majority of people probably wouldn't
be actually doing the ordering in
the store. Assuming you even provide
that capability.
>> but there will be salespeople in
there. The salespeople in the store to
entice the
people to buy in the store.
>> I'm just reiterating what it
I'm hearing.
>> in the other studios that we have
in san
jose, we do have salespeople with
ipads had a
take reservations and a lot of people
are comfortable
making reservations.
>> look. I love the idea of the car
and all that.
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm
trying to get to
the facts. And at this point,
from what I'm hearing, there is, let's
say,
no guarantee, maybe some probability
but no
guarantee that any of the sales are
going to be generated in a
manner to
provide to the city
of beverly hills.
>> I understand.
>> the
next, the only other question I had,
it some of the other commissioners
asked the questions.
maybe this is more for staff
than for you.
so this went to the architectural
design commission
first in support of the city
manager's approval for this event.
>> that's correct. >> I think, I may not
be --if I'm wrong, I'll ask mr.
mayor to come up, I think that may
be
one of the process elements that would seem
unusual in this case.
typically we see thing come before
the planning
commission first and then the
architectural design commission. In
this case, it sound
like it went to the architectural
design commission first and then the
planning commission. I don't have
a stake in which goes first but I
wonder if you would comment on how
unusual that is, and why
that might be aa more common brass
than we
think.
>> our typical process is an
applicant would
first receive their land use entitlement,
either by
the director, depending on the scale,
or the planning commission. Then they
move
forward through the architectural
review process.
that's a standard procedure
that's followed.
there are times on a variety of
factors, on a case by case basis,
we make a decision
to take it to the
architectural commission first. When
that happens,
we always have a condition that they get
their approval from the planning commission.
if there are certain elements of that
approval that
are contingent upon planning commissioner
approval, that they obtain those.
so it is something that
we see on occasion.
it is not common but not
unheard of for that to happen.
I don't think anything was out of the
ordinary in this
case.
>> so it was a not
common process but certainly was not
completely out of
the ordinary for it to go through
the architectural review process first.
it did go will you
the process, they did review the signs and
the mural and
did approve all that'll in conjunction
with the
event.
>> that's correct. >> and
then you mentioned this event for
30 days. What 30 days were those?
>> november 19th
to december --november the 19th?
>>
right. That was in conjunction with
the auto
show that started then. The only reason I
ask that, I
did drive by the location
the other day and I mean, if
I didn't know better, I would think
that this business was operating.
there were people
in. There desks, cars. There was a
car in the
showroom. There was a desk set up.
a reception desk set up.
there were people milling around inside
the showroom, and look, I don't know what they
were
doing. Maybe you can explain to me what
they were doing. If
I were just a random person walking
by,
I would have looked and said, there
is a new
dealership opened and operating. Maybe you
can comment on what I
saw people doing in the showroom just this
week.
>> yeah. Myself included, I have been
there for
the past few days.
we have had planning sessions inside
the showroom. We've
had people, we had finished --not
finished.
we had done some additional finishing
touches
and construction on the outside that
were not complete due to the
rain that occurred right during that
time.
we also identified the press at that
time for
those not willing to attend during
that time that they can
schedule other times with us and stop
by and visit and hence,
the request for the 30 days just to
allow time
for other members to be there as
well. So it was to make sure that we
were
open for press members and then for
our planning purposes to be operational in
the future.
>> so then
I'll go back to
cindy again. So with whatever approval was
granted by the city
manager, everything that
he just described is consistent with
that
approval provided that they weren't
actually processing anyany of cars.
it is the
sale of the car that requires the
condition of use permit. But all the
other activity that's were just described
were covered under the
30-day window of the city manager.
>> that's
correct.
>> those are may questions.
>> are the tax issues
we've been discussing relevant
or
germane to the decision we are being
asked to make?
>> I think the
finding for a conditional use permit
are generally
related to, is it compatible to the
area and
will there befully
unintended impacts, particularly with
traffic,
vehicle conflicts. I think the focus.
conversation and if there are any
conditions imposed should be
based on those and less having to do
with the tax issue.
>>
the tax issue is somebody else's problem.
a big problem.
>> I think it is an informational
peace for the
commission.
>> thank you. >> I brought
it up,
one, because I
wanted to know. It was also listed
as
one of the land use elements. It
was in the packet as one of the elements.
economic stability is part of the
analysis
for approvalapproval of project. But
anyway, any other questions at the
moment from commissioners?
>> the
cars will be delivered
in torrance. Am I understanding that
correctly?
>> or fraemt.emont. >>
what if somebody
wants it delivered to their home?
>> we are
looking at options for home delivery.
right now we are
only looking at those two options.
>> thank you. Great. Thank you.
so at this time before we move on,
the applicant has an opportunity,
if
you choose to avail yourself ofof
that, to provide
any additional comments or rebuttal
to the
comments and questions that you've heard at
this time.
>> the only comment
we would make is the fact that we
look forward to making
this as our flagship location.
we believe that by providing this
car, there will be
a lot of interest in this car. It
will drive
people to the city of beverly hills.
people will order in the city of beverly
hills.
even though jay is not 100% sure.
in talking to the legal department, the
legal department has indicate
to me that the purpose,
they wouldn't be signing a ease
and having us here if they didn't
expect
to get orders here. The population
here, the surrounding areas, I
can tell you in century city, we've
had a tremendous
amount of people. They ask
where, is this where your location will
be? We
tell them no. The flagship is
in beverly hills. We'll take your
reservation but
we're doing business in beverly hills.
that's
come directly from the corporate attorneys
that I've been dealing
with and that's what our goal is.
>>
okay. Thank you. I will invite you
then to return
to your seats.
and is there anyone from the public had a
would like
to provide rebuttal to the
applicants' comments? I see mr.
mayor, thank you for coming up.
you will also as the normal guidelines,
have three minutes.
>> in previous dealerships
before you, you've, what you've been
told here about sales
tax, business tax and everything else
is not the same as
what you've been presented before.
before, a dealer
was actually saying, well, the sales
tax is dependent upon where the delivery is.
that's
a very important
component. In the world of financing,
it depends on
where the finance headquarters or
offices are. So for
example, if you buy
a lexus in beverly hills, but you
finance it
through bmw finance, which is
located on wilshirewilshire mid city,
you don't get
that benefit. Relative to the
city manager, you
a prove a special permit. Did he really
say it was okay toto issue building
permits for
the interiors? Those were done on
november 3rd. As to whether this
is out of sync, try maybe 1
out of 100. It's not a normal
course. And then finally, do you like
that
mural? If you don't like it, send
it back to
the planning commission. Thank you.
>> thank you very much. >>>
because by the way, they were very
conflicted when
you actually review
both the transcript as well as the
tape. Thank you.
>> thank you for your comments. Well
that,
the applicant will have one final
opportunity for rebuttal if
you would lake the take advantage
of that. I
satisfy them shaking their head
no. So before we close the public
hearing, I will ask the commissioners if you
have
any further questions of the applicant
as opposed
to of state of california seeing none, I
will move to close the
public hearing now. And move on
to commissioner deliberations and/or
questions of staff. Mr. Kaplan?
would you like to start us off?
>> I can make the findings
on this.
and I think that whether I like the mural or
not
is sort of irrelevant to me in terms
of the decision I make today. It is
hard to miss the mural.
so from a marketing
standpoint, it's probably pretty brilliant.
you're getting attention
in advance of the time that you'll
actually be open open business at
this location. So I would
make the findings andand vote
in support.
>> commissioner ross?
>> yeah.
I can also make the findings and will vote in
favor of this
project. I really do appreciate mr.
mayor,
when you come to us. We're always
smarter and better off for
the input that you provide. The
tax issues are important but I think
that's for another
body and another group to
evaluate.
the mural is also in the eye of the
beholder. For the architectural
commission, they still have jurisdiction
over
that, I believe.
but for me, in terms of land
use, in terms of economic viability, this
is a de sishl
tenant with a desirable
product at a desirable location. For that
reason, I
vote in
favor.
>> commissioner milkowski?
>>
I look forward to seeing the new models
coming out. I think it is beneficial
to our state. To our
country, to our environment. I can
make
the findings.
>> thank you. I
agree with pretty much everything that's
said.
I want to reiterate and thank
mr. Mayor for coming
in and his
comments point an light on thing that
need to be resolved. In terms of
the issues raised, I'm at left a confident
with the
answers I got from staff. While the
process may have been unusual,
for me my concern was whether it was
legal.
whether it was approved. Whether
someone within the city
approved what was taking place and whether or
not the applicant
was doing something withoutwithout
appropriate approval independent of whether or
not it was
unusual. I thank you for bringing that
up. We always
appreciate your comments. With almost to
the financial
piece, I just
wanted clarity. I'm perfectly
comfortable is that righting
this project
as designed independent or whether
or
not the city gets revenue. On these
situations,
I just like to know what the answer
is. With that, I would
also be able to make the findings
and support this. So with
that --
>> chair? >> could I say one
more thing?
>> absolutely. >> I would like to
acknowledge
the applicant and thank you for playing
by the rules. Coming to the
city for a special
event permit as on opposed
to just showing up and doing what
you want to do. Thank you.
I hope you set an example for others.
>> thank you, commissioner kaplan.
I agree with
that. That was what I was mostly concerned
about
and I was happy to hear that everything
was done by the book. With that, I
will entertain a
motion.
>> I would like to make a
motion
to approve a resolution of the planning
commission of the
city of beverly hills, conditionally
approving a
conditional use permit to allow a
vehicle sale use
to occupy a ground floor tenant
space within an existing multiten
an
building on the property located
at
499 north canon drive. As amended.
>> second.
>> will you call the
roll?
>> commissioner kaplan?
>> commissioner ross? Chair wolfe?
>> yes. >>> I believe there is
a --
>> one second. I believe there
is a city
attorney statement? We don't want
to preempt the city
attorney.
>> thank you, chair wolfe.
this is a
final. The city clerk office has the
appeals form and an appeals fee will be required.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
so before we get
into the next item, some of
the commissioners have some statements
to make
and we will begin with commissioner
kaplan.
>> I have
an interest in real property
located at knee 50 wilshire
boulevard, suite 402, which is less
than one quarter mile
from the metro d line rail
station at
wilshire boulevard. And directly impacted
by sb 79.
this matter has the potential to impact
the rental value of the property and to
change the actual or legally allowed
uses
of the property. In addition, I also
have
a financial interest in real property
located
at 136 el camino drive which is less
than one quarter mile from the metro
d
line rail station at wilshire
boulevard. And is also directly impacted by
sb 79.
due to these direct impacts, I will
need
to recuse from the discussion on this
matter.
>> thank you, commissioner kaplan.
>> I
have a statement that I would like
to read. I have a financial interest
in
real property located 234 south tower
drive, unit number 10, which is less
than one quarter mile
from the metro d line railrail at
wilshire
and la cienega boulevard. And is directly
magtd
by sb 79. In addition, my primary
residence is located less than one
quarter mile from
the metro d line rail station.
and is also directly impacted by sb
79.
due to these direct
impacts,
I will need to recuse on discussions in
this matter. Thank
you. In commissioner
demeter's absent, I will discuss her
conflicts.
her primary residence is located more
than 500 but
less than 1,000 feet from
properties directly impacts by sb
79.
these markts impacted properties are
within one quarter mile
at wish wilshire boulevard.
it could market
her real properties' development
potential, highest andand
use, altering traffic level, intense
at this of
use, privacy, noise level or air
quality or market value. Commissioner demeter
has
determined that any of the proposed
sb
79 alternative plans do have the potential
to
impact the
income-producing income. It could
crease the
intensity of use and increase for
marking in the area.
she believes any of the alternative
plans could impact the market
value of her property. Due to these
stated factors, commissioner demeter
will also recuse from the discussion of
this matter.
>> at this time, the city attorney, mr.
snow, will sort of describe the process
that we're going to have to go through at
this time.
>> for those
keeping track of the math, we do not
have a
quorum for this matter in light of
the
conflicts. The fair political
practicespractices has articulated some
rules on what
can happen in this circumstance. It is
called legally required participation.
and that is
when there is no other alternative
wayway a decision can be made without
the involvement of an
otherwise conflicted official. In
this
case, we've met that
criteria as it goes with the planning commission.
making recommendations to the city council
as to general plan
amendments and zoning map and
text amendments. There is no
other agency who is able to fulfill
that
function. Since there is no other
way
to
accomplish that, in this circumstance, with
a we
will do is have a random
selection process. One of the three
commissioners will be selected to
participate in the proceedings.
obviously, if it is either chair
wolfe or commissioner kaplan, we would proceed
today. If it is commissioner demeter,
the meeting would be continued to
allow her participation on
the matter. At this point, it looks
like that would
be 9:00 on monday morning. So
with that, I'll turn it
over to miss minor who will describe
the
random selection process
and conduct those proceedings.
>> thank
you. We have
three straws that look identical except for
the length.
so what will happen is I will take
these
straws to the dais. Chair
wolfe, and commissioner kaplan will each draw
a straw. The length will be concealed.
the remaining straw will
be considered commissioner
demeter's straw. We will lay them out so we can
see who picked the longest
straw. That is the person who will
participate in the discussion.
I'm not sure if you can see on the camera.
this is chair wolfe's.
commissioner wolfe will be the one to
participate in thethe
discussion. Oh. There were
three different lengths. Whichever is the
longest is the one who participates.
so that's you.
>> all right then. Lovely.
all right. I'll give us
a minute or two for
our recused commissioner to say goodbye.
and the others to come back.
okay then. Moving on to our next item.
a general
plan amendment and zone change to amen the
land
use map and zoning map and a draft
ordinance of the city of beverly hills
amenning various
sections of the beverly hills municipal
code to
document an alternative plan pursuant
to
senate bill 79. Government
code section
65192. 161 a. I
will first ask my remaining fellow
commissioners if anyone has any ex
parte communication.
>> nor have I.
may we have
a staff report?
>> yes. Thank you.
and good
afternoon, commissioners. This item is
a
review of aa transit oriented development
alternative plan per sb 79.
sb 79 is a state law that
was recently adopted in october of
this year and becomes effective in
july of next
year. And it mandates
increased density, floor area, and
height
on
cels. The bill does not apply to parcels
with
rent stabilized units. And there are
different zoning regulations set for
various distances from
transit and by the time of transit
stop known
as tiers. The tier 1 standards for
the quarter mile apply to the
radius, the quarter-mile radius
from following metro stations which
are coughed as tier 11 metro stops.
they are at la cienega and
wilshire boulevard, reaves drive and wilshire
boulevard, and constellation
boulevard and avenue of the stars.
the last one is
in century city in
the city of los angeles. There are also
tier 1 standards
for the quarter to half mile radius.
however, these only apply
to cities with populations of 35,000
or
more and so they do not apply to the
city
of beverly hills. However, the half
mail radius is
considered the transit oriented development
zone and therefore, it is eligible
for use within the alternative
plan as confirmed. And then there
are tier 2 standards also in the state
law
that do not apply to beverly hills as
we do not
have any tier 2 stops within the city.
and staff has repaired a map
showing the quarter mile radius from
the
transit stops and it is measured in
a straight line distance
from the pedestrian access point on
those stops
per state law. However, the state
law
also says that scag,
the metropolitan planning organization,
that includes
the city of beverly hills, is required
to produce the official map and we've been
following
up to ensure our map is consistent
with the map that they will eventually produce.
shown here in
this table are the new zoning
regulations that would apply to the
quarter mile radii.
it super seedsseeds
zoning regulations. It sets a knew
minimum density
of 30 dwelling units per acre. We must
also allow
at least 120 dwelling units per acre.
a new florida area ratio of 3.5.
at least 75 feet
of height. And there must be a maximum
average unit size in the projects of 1750 square feet.
and then
the state lawlaw allows sites within
200 feet of the transit stops to get
an additional 20 feet in height for
a total
of 95 feet, an additional 40 dwelling
units
per acre for a total of 160
dwelling units per acre density.
and an additional
increase of 1 far. It would be a total
of 4. 5 far. And shown
here are all three radii from sb 79.
there is the 200 foot radius
with the increase
density. And then the quarter mile
radius showing
with the green dash line, and then
the
larger outer circle which is the entire
half
mile radius. Just as a note, there
are
no parcels in the quarter mile from
the
century city station that are
upzoned for
sb 79. In order for a
project to utilize sb 79
regulations, it must neat following
criteria. It must have at least five
dwelling
units, ago minimum 30 dwelling units
per acre. And it must be residential
only.
two-thirds residential, or half
residential and a minimum of 500
net new units, or it can be
farm worker or transitional or
support housing. It
may not include hotels,
motels, bed and breakfast or
transient lodging. The
project must provide affordable units
at one of
the following percentages. Either
7%, extremely
low, 10% very low, or 13% low
income. And then if the project is
greater than
85 feet in height, it must
also meet labor standards set
in state law.
in addition, an sb 79
project may utilize the bonus if it
qualifies.
if it has more than ten units,
it is automatically eligible
based on
the affordability
requirement. It would be considered the new
base density for purposes of
the density bonus calculation. However, the city is
not
required to approve a waiver
for additional height above what is
already granted
by sb 79. And projects with at least
90 dwelling units per acre are also
eligible
for additional concessions based on
the time of low income housing they
provide.
as
shown in the chart. So sb 79 does
not require that
the project's proposed under the state
law
are ministerial. They
will still require that it is approved
and
reviewed. Most likely this would be
a planning review
and a density
bonus request. If state
law ministerial
streamlining applies, it may require that
processing.
the state law states that denial of
the project would be considered a
violation of the housing accountability act.
sb 79 also allows cities to
adopt what is called a
transit-oriented development alternative
plan, or alternative plan.
and will this allows the
cities
to applyapply plan. The
plan allows cities to reallocate up
to 50% of the
density of a satan within the applicable
quarter
mail radius to other sites within
the entire
half mile radius, as long as it
meets these conditions, it must
maintain the same net zoned capacity for
total
units and floor area
across the zones. It may not
reduce density on any site by more than
50%. And there
is a maximum calculation of
200 density for
any individual site. And staff
has repaired three
different alternative plan scenarios.
from single family sites within the quarter
mail radius,
known as our export sites. It
reallocates
that to mixed use sites within the
quarter mile or half mile radius.
each scenario distributes it in different ways
but no
scenario distributes any density to
the century
city station radius. And
this is because mixed use sites have
already been
identified as areas for additional
density and housing.
so in compliance with state law,
the scenarios maintain the zoning
capacity of 17,548 units, depending
on the scenario, either the quarter or
the half
mile. It maintains the net floor area.
so even though the
far on single family sites has been
reduced, all others
are a positive increase. And they
all
allow at least 75 feet of height
on the import sites, onner 95 feet
for
the adjacent
intensifier. And staff has created
these scenarios within an overlay
zone. And in addition to
that, it will add other
provisions and modifications to the code.
so in each alternative
plan, there are three different sub
areas. And the
density for those sub areas are shown
here. They
remain constant across the different
scenarios. Area a is the
area that is
upzoned in the quarter
mile radius and is not involved in
the
import/export activity.
area b is single
family export sites. It has
been reduced to 50% density. And area
c are within the 200 foot
radius and only upzoned. They're
not involved in the import/export activity.
and
then our first scenario is the pancake
scenario. And we're
calling it the pancake scenario because
it
distributes the units evenly across
the
entire half mile radius from both
stations. So
it creates three new sub areas
where there are import sites in the
mixed use overlay zone. Area d are
within
the 200-foot radius. Not
adjacent to single family. Area e
are
from the 200 to the quarter mile radius.
also
not adjacent to the single family.
and
area f, from the quarter to the half
mile,
not adjacent to single family. And
the new
dense business that would accommodate
the
distributed units are shown in the blue chart here.
and these maps show
an overview
of the distribution in a simplified
way. The light green are
the base sb 79 sites that are upzoenld
but they are not importing or
exporting density. The teal sites
are the
single family export sites
where we are
removing density. And the pink are in
the mixed
use overlay zone which are receiving
density. And
as you can see here, this scenario
has the pink sites extend into the
quarter mile. Which is
the only scenario that has that condition.
and the density on the
pink import sites ranges
from 121 to 202 dwelling units
per acre. And then this map
shows a little more detail with each of
the
new areas created. D, e, and f. And
they're shown in the light, medium,
and
dark blue around the
stations.
the second
scenario is the tent pole scenario.
this maximizes distribution in the 200 foot
and the quarter mile radius
from both stations.
there are
there is a sharper density. There are
two areas
created with this scenario. Area d,
within the 200 foot
radius, not ajason ento single family.
and area e, 200 foot to quarter
mile, not adjacent to
single family. And as you can
see here, the import sites
are concentrated around the stations.
it
does not extend into the outer ring.
the quarter mail to thethe mile radius.
the density ranges from the import sites
from 165 to 320 dwelling units
per acre in this scenario.
and
then this map shows more detail with
the specific
areas, d and e, shown around the
stations.
and finally, our
scenario 3 is the la cienega focused
scenario
which maximizes the distribution of units in
the
200 andand mile radius around only
the la cienega subway station. That's
because the majority of single family
sites from whichwhich there units
being exported are located around
the la
cienega station. So this
concentrates the units in that area.
and it creates two additional sub
areas. Area d are the mix use sites
within the 200 foot,
not adjacent to single family, and
area
e, from the 200 to quarter mail area
from the la
cienega station, not adjacent to single
family. The they are shown in the
blue chart. And in the
overview, you can see that there are
only
pink import sites around the la cienega
station.
and the densities here range from
230 to 320 dwellingdwelling
per acre. And
again, the more specific map, and you
can see
that only the area d and e shown in
light
and dark blue are around the la cienega station.
see that complies.
this was noticed in compliance with
all
requirements and an email to all interested
parties was
sent. And there were several comments
received that have
been circulated to the commission.
and with that, staff
recommends that the commission adopt
a resolution
recommending the
general plan amendment to create the
alternative
plan and find
it exempt from
ceqa.
specifically to prepare
updated land use maps and
zoning maps based on scenario 1, 2,
and 3.
>> thank you for that
staff report. I'll now open the public
hearing.
each member of the public will
have three minutes to
speak. And public comment will
be closed before the commission begins
deliberations.
those wishing to provide comment should
do so
now. I'm looking around. I don't have
any cards. Is there
anyone in the room who wishes to provide
public
comment on this item? Seeing none, I
will move to ask karen
if we have any public comment via
phone, video or email?
>> yes. We will start with phone comment.
we have a
call from kenneth. Please go ahead.
>> can you
hear me?
>> yes. Please go ahead.
>> can you hear
me now? My name is ken.
I live at 731 shoe
maker drive which
is part of, I'm literally over the fence from
the
east side of tower drive. And I'm
calling in as just an individual neighbor, of
course. There is
a lot to consume here
and understand with all the rules
and regulations. Profoundly what
I'm asking is two things. Number one, that
you don't grant an exemption under
ceqa.
we are, and most of you probably know
the
story and history.
we're on the national registry, et cetera.
the other thing is I noticed just now as
I'm getting educated with this, that
each.
these plans include an
exemption that, the three scenarios,
they're
not adjacent to single families. The
east side of tower drive
is immediately adjacent. It is
over the fence. I've lived here since
1976. I have
a number of new neighbors that have
children, et
cetera. And the impacts will be more
than substantial.
as I'm reading right now about ceqa
in particular,
notably, that indirect impacts on
adjacent properties are profoundly
protected under ceqa considerations.
even if you choose to exempt ceqa
from this,
which I think would be inappropriate, I
think that
the very fact that you've chosen to
exclude in every
one of your
scenarios, single-family dwelgs, should
give the
people that same consideration on
schumaker drive. What I would
request is thatthat looking at plan, that
you exclude the east side of
tower drive which is immediately, it
is in our back yards. It is
literally in our back yards.
if ceqa is
inapplicable,
it basically says that examples
of indirect impacts include visual,
auditory, atmospheric changes to immediate
surroundings of
an historical resource from
construction. This the resource impact
analysis may overlap with the aesthetic
and
noise vibration analysis. I
plead with you to think of us
asalize. Spend years working through
with
the beverly hills soccer and
baseball, la cienega park. We have
already incursions
from traffic
and from people people for parking.
and parking in
our neighborhood, so the more immediate
thing, of course, is over the fence
looking up at a
75-foot or so building. All the
impacts of the noise and he
esthetics are horrifying. Thank you for
your
consideration.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> okay. We have no additional phone
comments.
no video comments. But we have a few
written comments. I will go
ahead and read those. I will apologize
in
advance if I mispronounce any names.
and
if any letters go beyond the three minutes, I
will
just read as far as I can. But the
entirety of the letters will remain part of
the record.
the first letter
comes from --
hi. I live on north maple drive.
I strongly urge you to consider scenario three
and appreciate your consideration.
earn
thety plan scenario three reallocation
of
decreased residential density within one
quarter mail
of metro stations to mixed use
properties be adjacent, within one
quarter mile of the
la cienega wilshire stop.
within 200 feet.
thanks. The next letter come
from derian. Many thanks to the
planning department people
for their prompt and time-consuming work
on this project.
I think it is important to place increased
density in as small
an area as possible. Therefore I
favor alternative plans 3 and 2. I think 3 is
a
better idea for several reasons.
one, most of the area near the metro
stop is in los angeles.
two, it seems it would fit better
at wilshire and la cienega.
three, residents of new projects will have access
to la cienega
park. Four, residents of new projects
will
have better access to the freeway.
however, I am concerned about residential having a
hate
limit of 75 feet with increased density
limited to 50%. Then shouldn't the
height limit be decreased to half
of 75 feet or
38 feet or maybe 45 feet or
three stories? I think this would
especially important for such residential
properties which
are adjacent to
other one or two-story
single family residences which are
not being upzoned. Thanks to
everyone for their time. Before I read the
next letter,
I'm going to ask the zoom managers
to
please make sure everyone is muted so we
can hear the public comments. The
next
is from lee
pasterknack to the commissioners.
>> I already spoke. >> did you? >>
the zoom is not muted. The next
letter come from lee
pasterknack to the planning commissioners.
my preference would be the third plan because
the wilshire
and la cienega area is closer to los
angeles and the quarter mile
around the metro stop.
there is largely in los angeles. Also, there
is better approximate
it to the freeway as well as san vincente
and
there will be less gridlock to get
to those
places. Residents of the new projects
would have
better access to la
cienega park. The area around wilshire
and la cienega seems denser and
more compatible. The my
second choice would be alternative
two. Both 3 and 2
restrict density to smaller areas in
the city.
regards, lee pasterknack.
the next letter comes from sarah wilin.
in the
unlikely event that beverly
hills might remain a loverly place to
live as compared to say
shop, I urge the commission to document plan b
or
better yet, an alternative plan calling
for the
reallocation of decreased residential
density within one quarter mile of
metrometro
stations to mixed use properties.
not adjacent to mixed use residents
within one quarter
mail of the metro stop and
within 200 feet. Between the state
and the city
council, 32,000 beverly hills are being ronald of
a residential community which favors
their interest.
but here's for trying. Thanks.
the next letter comes from arnold
rosenstein.
this was
sent. We own
the proper at niemi 99 wilshire directly
across
the street from wilshire and reaves.
as we measure our property, we are
about 240 feet from
the metro site. Slightly more than
200
feet specified in sb 79. In addition,
our property is not
in the mixed use overlay don't previously documented
by the city. Nevertheless, we are, since we
are so close to the new metro
station, we think it makes sense for our property to
qualify for additional density. We
would appreciate it
if could you raise this question for
consideration. Thank you.
the
next letter
comes from we will shire skyline.
we
urge the city to reconsider
its current development alternative
plan as drafted it
is very unlikely to be approved by
hcd
and risks repeating the same mistakes
the city
made with a mixed use. Mistakes
that previously
caused hcd. It allows
an earn thety plan only if
it creates the same realistic
increase in zone capacity that sb 79
itself would proceed.
but the city moving it out and on
to
already difficult-
out parcels that have little chance
of
redevelopment. They will not
count it as
real. The draft plan does almost
nothing to
upzone multifamily areas.
exactly where state law expects meaningful
change. We have
seen this before when the city revised
the mixed use overlay density rules,
it looked
acceptable on paper but produced no
real housing capacity and
chd rejected it. The current plan
repeats that pattern,
relying on spread sheets while avoiding
the area where it must
be created. If the city wants an alternative
plan that will
be certain fade, it must shift real
feasible density. Some from
single-family zones. Not rely
on theoretical
capacity and built
out corridors. We attach a
memo seeking to help the city achieve
these goals.
we remain available at your disposal
to assist the
city and realize it planning goals.
thank you for your
consideration. The attachment, it's
addressed to the commission, come from
the beverly
hills initiative for research
and development. This is
part of the same
comment. We should only have about a
minute on the clock. This urges the
city to reconsider its
current approach to the sb
79 transit plan as presently
framed in the staff report and materials,
the
alternative plan appears unlikely to be
approved by the
california department of housing and
community development.
hcd. And risks repeating the same
problem that led hcd to question
the credibility. Mixed use
overlay zone in the
last cycle. To
avoid litigation risk and remedy exposure,
the city should pivot to
a more realistic
strategy,
mag into multi-family. That just relabeling
already
builtout commercial corridors. Legal
framework
establishes powerful default for transit
oriented
housing including minimum heights,
densities
and tier 1 and tier 2 transit stops.
a city may deviate only if it
documents a local transit oriented
development alternative plan that
one, is approved by
hcd before july 1st, 2026, and
two, maintains at least the same total
increase
in zoned capacity in terms of both
total units
and residential floor area, as provided
by
sb 79 crass all
signs.
it will remain part of the written record.
I'll do one last check to make sure we
don't have
any other
comments.
it looks like that concludes the
public comments.
>> thank you. At
this
point we will move to commissioner questions of staff.
commissioner ross, would you
like to start? Let me
rephrase that. Commissioner ross,
kick us off, please.
>>
yeah. I've honestly spent the last
week or so
trying to understand this and you
did a great job presenting it to us.
within various scenarios, and
alternatives and tiers, it is
really complicated. And I'm not sure
I'm in a
position to really make an
intelligent decision yet. So I have a number of
questions and I hope
I get therethere in meeting.
just as a
preliminary matter, I'm looking at
the very first map we have. The
draft sb
79 base zone map.
as a preliminary matter, you
have, excluding
century
city, I think up something about, there
is
been a finding
relative to the century city that
it does
not impact any properties in
beverly hills? Something up about
that. Can you repeat that?
>> sure.
you can see with the map
shown on the screen, the century city
station
is at the bottom left. The quarter
mile
radius, actually, the only
radius which the upzoning occurs per
state law. It only touches that
one prt which I believe is
the beverly hills high school property.
>> okay.
>> so because that parcel is not
zoned for
commercial, residential, or mixed
uses, it does not apply.
>> from the green to the red, that
is the half
mile radius. Correct?
>> correct.
>> what occurs
within the half
>> that
is considered
the transit zone under
the law. So although sb
79 only applies for
a quarter mile radius, we are able to
distribute
units within the half mail area which
is what scenario
one does in the alternative plan.
and that's
the only scenario that use that's
outer
ring.
>> scenario
1.
and that's on pagepage
6.1.
>> yes. >>
scenario 1 is the only one that extends
beyond the quarter mile.
>> correct.
I'll pull
up thethe 1 on
the screen here.
>> and
then
scenario 2,
tentpole, how do you distinguish
that from pancake?
>>> so the pancake, I would
say, is a
more gradual increase in density
across the entire half mile radius.
>> I'm sorry
to interrupt. I thought
pancake was limited to the one quarter
radius.
>> no. It uses
the entire half mile.
you will see here on the
map, the
areas in blue extend all the way to the
half
mile radius.
>> did you change maps on me? >> sorry,
I
did. This is scenario 1. The pancake
scenario. It is a more even distribution
because it uses all
the sites within the half mile
that are mixed-use import sites.
>> so scenario 1 goes -->>
out to the half
mile.
and then I'm changing to scenario 2.
so the
scenario 2, the tentpole
scenario, it maximizes the distribution
around
the station. 200-foot
radius and the quarter meanwhile-mile
radius.
so the
density is more. It accommodated all the
units west didn't need to utilize
the outer quarter
to half mile ring for any of those
distributions.
>> so tentpole
limits to it one quarter mile radius from the
transit station.
>> from both are
transit stations.
>> both
meaning la
cienega and reaves?
>> yes. >> hold on
one
second.
>> can you actually pull up
the
other color maps?
I think it is easier to see how it is being distributed.
the teal and pink ones.
>>
also, the half mile radius, we
could under sb 79 have redistributed
units
there, none of the scenarios
redistribute
there. We have only
redistributed to the half mile radius to
the
two stations
around beverly hills.
and we
did that to move it into an area where it
is not otherwise
increasing
density.
>>
if we want to back up a little
bit, I can go through these maps instead.
>> your presentation was great
but a lot of it was
like, hard to digest. It promise me to
ask these questions. Bear with me if
you
don't mind.
scenario 2,
tentpole, confines all the increased
density to 1 quarter mile from
the la
cienega and reaves stations.
and it goes half a mail, goes
a quarter mile --
>> but --
>> let me say it my way.
you're being very courteous. I appreciate
it. Limits the upzoning to a quarter
mile from
the la cienega station.
>> one point of clarification. It
only limits the redistribution to
the area around the la
cienega station. There's still upzoning
during per sb 79 at the other station.
it's just
that we're not adding additional density
per the alternative
plan around the reuse
wilshire station in this scenario.
>> okay.
>> would you say that again? >>
sb 79 is doing it. It is just, we're
not
adding additional in
that area. There's going to be increased
density. In area because
sb 79 will have it. Will make
it happen. But the city isn't then
redistributing extra density in that
area under
that scenario.
>> it's making up for
it how?
>> putting more
density than would otherwise be in
the other
scenarios.
>> that's correct. If you look at the
map, you can
see the pink sites are only limited
around
the la cienega station in scenario
three. So those are
the only sites that are
being added more than what
sb 79 already allows.
>> what's the
purpose
of that?
>> it allows -->>
it enables us to show the
state something.
>> it allows to us
remove up to 50% of the density
from single-family sites
that were upzoned by sb 79. We're taking
that
50% density and moving it
to mixed-use sites, the pink sites
here, those are already designated
for
additional housing and development.
>> okay. Those
are duplexes or
fourplexes.
>> they're commercially-
owned
partsels along the corridors that
allow the mixed-use.
>> okay. >> I can go back.
this is scenario three. You can look at
the pink around
the la cienega station. And then scenario
2, you
see the pifrg around both stations.
it
is only in the quarter mile. And then
scenario 1,
you see how it extends the pink out to
the half mile.
around both.
>> and it is limited
to those specific properties.
>>
the additional increase in density that the
alternative plan would allow are limited.
the quarter mail radius is also
upzoned the base density is
upzoned per sb
79.
>> okay.
>> how do we have the, within the dictates of
sb 79, we have
to demonstrate to the state,
much like we had to with respect to
our housing element, that we
have the ability to have
this much density.
and is it, am I correct that staff
came up with
these three scenarios as ways
to show the state that through one
of these mechanisms, we
are complying with sb 79.
>> correct. >> okay. And the
adoption of the alternative plan allows to
us
utilize these flew densities rather
than what just state law says.
>>
which is?
>> the upzoning in the quarter
mile radius and which would apply
the 100%
density. This allows us to reduce
the density on single-
family sites.
>> these plans aren't acquired.
>> that's helpful. >> not that
they're required but our planners
and our staff are
proposing these as a way to simultaneously
comply
with sb
79 and distribute the
increased density and upzoning in
ways
reserve some aspects of our
city. Within the dictates of sb
79. And this will not happen. What
if we
don't get an approval. If we don't
do this in
a timely manner,
and/or the state drags
its feet, like some people think we did
with respect to the housing element --
sorry? Then what
happens? It was dictated, as the chair
just that. What does that mean?
>> so
one of the reasons
we're presenting this in a very
compressed time line, we want to allow for
that 120-day
review period by hcd. If we
adopt, if the city council documents
this plan in january, that 120-day period
would run through the end
of may which gives us an opportunity
to address
any of the comments and make changes
so we can
bring the plan into compliance.
staff has been working with and is
in
direct contact with members of with
hcd.
we're addressing how to
comply with the regulations.
>> are
we being
asked today to pick scenario 1, 2,
or 3?
>>
yes.
>> then it will go to
council.
>>
light duty.
and if we select 1, 2, or
3, not
we, council picks, documents 1, 2,
or
3, that the state will find
that sufficient and satisfactory?
>> yes. Staff believes all
three scenarios comply
with all the requirements of sb 79.
>> thank you. Now I want
to back up again one more moment.
and
I want to try to simplify this
if at all possible. If I'm not mistaken.
scenario 1 extends the upzoning
beyond the half
mile intointo
the, beyond the quarter mail into
the half
mile radius.
>> number 3 --
number 2, limits the upzoning to a
quarter
mile from la cienega and reaves.
>> correct. >> can you tell me about
number
3?
>> it limits it to only the quarter
mile
from la
cienega.
>> and there were a number
of speakers that talked
about access to the freeways and activating
that part of
the city. And those were people
that were proponents of scenario 3,
if I
heard correctly.
>> correct.
>> mr.
pastrnak.
>> I
probably have some other questions.
that's at least a
good baseline. I
didn't have the benefit of
this. Read aing this
was very thick.
I'm going to defer for now if I have
more questions.
may I? Okay. Thank you very much.
thank you.
>>
vice chairchair milkowski?
>> my
head
is already going around and around.
chloe, thank you for
the explanation yesterday and what
you've explained today.
if I understand this correctly, in
our proposal to hcd, whichever scenario we
go with, these
are
theoretical units that can be --
>>
correct.
>>
built.
>> I was not parcelparcel to
original hcd application that
seemed to have gone on forever.
does our state
housing department,
how do they analyze the
realistic, applying the theoretical
to reality?
>> the letters, it is a reference to
a
standard that the housing
element exercise is held to. When
we did the
last housing element update, we had to
show that
the city could accommodate the
application, the number of units,
number one, and number two,
that there was realistic capacity
meaning they are realistic within
the next planning period cycle.
they are still working
on developing guidance. We expect
to receive that
guidance from them. I don't know if
michael has
got additional.
>> just to expand
on it,
there is nothing in the legislation
that suggests
that this will be held to the same
standard, and our assumption
is that it won't. The order of magnitude of this
is so far beyond what we had to do with
the arena. Our arena number is
a little over 3,000. As we mentioned
in the staff report, the net increase
in units under
sb79
theoretically is a little over 17,000
units.
so it is just a completely different
order
of magnitude, and the difference in
the
two approaches is that under the general
plan housing element
we have to identify the site. It is
up
to the city to pick
the geographic area the sites will
be located
and in this situation the legislation
is dictating to us
where we must put the unit. It wouldn't
be fair
to hold it to the same standard because
this is
significantly limiting where we can
put the
units. To say the sites are not viable
when legislation says that you have
to put it there, our hope
and assumption is that it will not
be held to the same
standard, and there is nothing in the
legislation suggesting it would be.
>> thank you both for your
clarification. I
know t you addressedaddressed earlier,
michael. Why aren't we expanding in
the
scenario, the pancake by the high
school to the half mile?
>> because
in that
area there is no up zoning applicable
under
sb79. Because we are only applying in
the quarter mile, the only
property falling within that is the high
school, and under legislation it
does not apply to the high school.
so within the
half mile there is no increase in
density there under sb79.
we have the option to
import units which would increase
the density in that part
of the city. We opted
as a policy matter not to move the
density into that area and to keep
it
focused on our two metro stations
in the
city.
>> okay. Thank you.
am I correct in assuming that each that the
three
scenarios reached the 17,000 unit
capacity?
>> correct. We are maintaining the
same net zone capacity in each scenario.
>>
so, our choice, if I --our
decision making if I understand
it
correctly
is
adopting a plan,
regardless of which we adopt we
are assuming hcd will go along
with it.
>> correct. The request is
for you to
recommend which scenario that you would
like to have
the city council consider for adoption,
and then staff does believe that
each scenario complies with all of the
requirements.
>> so with the
council looking over our shoulder,
if
we were to recommend a
certain scenario they still could
reject
the recommendation and go with another
scenario?
>> correct.
>> so it is more
basically our preference
of how we want
to recommend the allocation?
>> yes.
>> I guess
that I understand it as well as I am going to.
>> thank you.
>> one of the
public commenters raised the first
question on my list.
why did we only consider multiuse
overlay zones for the export
use and not multi family?
>> you can
see it on
the maps. There are a large number
of
parcels in the quarter mile
radius around bus stations that are not any
color. They are the
white parcels. Those are existing multi
family unit parcels that are subject
to the
city's rent stabilization ordinance.
sb79
specifically exempts
those from any up
zoning.
>> it
wasn't just they are exempted from
the effects
of sb79. They are exempted
from our ability to export and up
zone as a result of
the alternative plan?
>> both.
>> okay. >> however, there are
some --here. Only ones would
be the condos.
>> yes. The only multi family shown
on the base map
in orange are the condos.
>> that
answers
the questions. I understood sb79 did
not apply but I did not know
it they were exempted to use them
as
the receivers of some of the
density.
I was at the study question when it
was
discussed. I heard the city council's
recommendation. I am still going to
ask the question what
is the goal of
providing an alternative plan?
>> the alternative plan allows
the city to
exert a small level of control over
where
the density is going. Mr.
forbes mentioned it, the state
already determined the areas around
the
transit station will be up zoned allowing
us
toto redistribute some portion of
the units to sites that we would
like to allocate. There
are those limitations in
the statute about how much to reduce
the density. As
the city council agreed upon, staff's
recommendation
is to reduce the density of single
family
sites affected by sb79 to help preserve
the character of the single family
neighborhoods.
>> that is
the sentence I want to focus on for
a moment. To
preserve the character of the
neighborhoods.
those neighborhoods, a
typical residential
lot, depending on
the size could now have
75-foot building and let's
just pick a random say 20
units, you know. If it is
7,000-foot lot. Just say that it is
20 units. Someone living in
a single family zone could have right
next to them a
75-foot building with a bar on the first floor.
with 20 units.
the net effect
of the alternative is that the
same house would have next to them
a
75-foot building with a
bar on the first floor with nine
units. That is
the benefit we are talking about.
>> yes. It is reducing
the density as much as possible.
>>
the height will be
75, 73. The height
will be 70 something feet. The density
still will
be 60 units per acre.
on a lot say around 7,000-foot
lot would be about ten units.
there could be commercial on the first floor.
I
guess
that I am surprised there
are not more residents that did not
speak. I am curious
what had the typical resident would
feel the value is
if they are already going to have
a
70-foot building
next to them.
how much
value is it that the vehicle has 10
units instead of 20 units.
that is the crux of the
alternative plans. The assumption
that it creates
enough value in terms of the character
of the
residential neighborhood that will
still have 75-
foot buildings.
still could have commercial and retail
on the
first floor in the middle
of rodeo drive or anything like that.
the only difference is
that instead of the
same physical building having
20 units it might have ten. You
know. I am
having a little
trouble ascribing a
lot of value to how that is really
going to
improve the character of the neighborhood
when all of the
buildings are built to seven stories
and have
less density.
I know that is
not a question.
but I guess thethe is
that is really what we are talking
about. The only change we are allowed
to
make is reducing
the density
from 120 units perper
to 60 and no other provisions, height,
use, anything like that changed. Correct?
there
are no other changes happening in
the export
areas?
>> one change. >> 3. 5
to 2.5.
>> a slight
reduction, yes.
>> but the height
can still
be --with the density and the
f.a.r. , there might be fewer bigger
units but the same
physical massing
and same potential for retail on the
first floor?
if we ever go over 35,000 in population
will there be an opportunity
to provide a new alternative plan
since
it now affects a half mile instead
of a
quarter mile?
>> I would defer the
question
to the city
attorney.
I don't
know. I
know there is
expectation there will be clean up
legislation on this.
at this point right now it does not
apply to the
city of beverley
hills beyond a quarter mile.
>> we
are currently at 33,000?
>> 32,000. >> 32,000.
we are potentially providing an alternative
plan that
will be in place for a long time,
based on an assumption that all of
the
export sites are focused on a quarter
mile
radius, and all of the impacts of
sb79 are in a quarter mile radius.
five years from now
we go over 35,000 all of a
sudden a whole bunch, like on this
map, all
of those things in yellow now are --
excuse me,
yes. In yellow. The yellow dots.
they are now suddenly up zoned to
120
units per acre because we crossed the threshold to 35,000.
no opportunity to
now revisit that and now we will have a
situation where we have 60 units
per acre in a quarter mile radius
and
back to 120 and no opportunity then
potentially
to sort of re
configure?
>> potentially. The quarter to the
half mile
radius I
think it is a 100
per dwelling acre
density.
that would be
in the quarter
mile radius.
that creates an
odd situation, as all
of this does.
>> can I
ask a question?
>> please.
I think I am done with my
questions.
I have a question that I want to
incorporate the word export and
default.
what is the
sb79 default as it relates to the
quarter mile? Does it means the
up zoning will be limited to within
a quarter mile of
the transit stops?
>> yes. >> that
is the default?
>> yes. >> how is that different
from scenario 2?
>> it is really just
the densities that change. In this
map it shows
the base default sb79
density. In that smallest radius,
the
200-foot radius
it is a 160 dwelling unit
per acre density. In the quarter mile
it is 120.
>> sb79? >> yes. That is the
baseline.
>> that is default? >>
the biggest difference between the
base and
the alternatives is the reducing
of density in
the residential
area in
t he quarter miles. You
are taking from one.
you are taking density from here and
putting
it there. Overall density is the same.
you
are reconfiguring where you
are putting the
density. It is the reduction of density
in the single family neighborhoods within
a quarter
mile.
>> I think that
is the question.
what is the difference between the
sb79 default and
scenario 2.
limiting density to a quarter mile
from the transitd.
>>
yes. You
are going to see area b are
the single family export
sites.
you
can the
teal sites are the single family export
sites.
they have been reduced 120
dwelling units per acre to
60. That density, we have moved to
the pink sites, which are the
mixed use sites. Those
densities now range from
165 to 320 dwelling units
per acre.
>> okay.
green is non-residential.
>>
sb79 does apply to commercial
as well.
if I am talking to someone
tonight about
export. Give us
a lesson in the
role of export.
those are all
of the sites that would have been
up zoned.
we
are removing up
to 50% from those
export sites.
increasing the
density relieving
the density
from some
residential and export
to areas
where the density will be
increased.
I was just trying to
understand your back and forth with
her a little bit. I think that
helps me a lot.
>> basically, my
house, currently zoned for
single family residential under
default
79
would be up zoned to 120
units per acre. Under
these they would be 60. But the density
will
be placed on the mixed use
overlay zones in those areas. My back
and
forth had to do with wondering what
the true value was of the difference between
60 units per acre and
120 units per
acre.
>> I
think it is around 5,000
to 7,000.
>> what does that mean in
terms of acreage?
tenth of an
acre.
a little more
than 10%.
>> I
will give you an
example. My lot is 6 thundershower
500 square feet.
that is.
15 acres.
under 20
more than 20.
when
they talk about how many units per
acre?
>>
it ranges.
so, on a parcel
like we are
discussing you can have 12 units.
>> yes.
I think
so.
that is .
15 acres. Where is
it. Okay.
the alternative plan is nine. The
other
would be 18.
>> yeah. I think
most single family properties that
would be affected it
would be 20 dwelling units under the
default density. Under the alternative
plans it would
be reduced proportionally.
>> again, under
sb79 the default is limited to a
quarter mile from the transit
stop.
>> yes. What ramifications
are there for a quarter mile
to a half mile under sb79?
>> the default densities
do not apply from the quarter to
the half mile. We confirmed we would
be able
to utilize the half mile radius for
the alternative plan redistribution.
the only scenario contemplates
moving into that area is scenario
one. We concentrated that along the
mixed use
sites. You are going to see
some along
wilshire, the station and some
units along
robot son.
>> is that what I am
looking at?
>> yes.
I am ready to take a break.
>> any
questions?
>> I have
just two.
>> under the
--we have been
addressing the 120 dwelling
units vs.
60 it says
they can go up to 160
dwelling units.
that increases
the
allocation.
95 feet instead of the
75 feet.
it says
we can delay
the implementation.
can you explain
how
that impacts us.
the state
law says for the zone we would have
to show
that 33% of the
parcels have at least 50% of the
density allowed under sb79.
the density
is 120 dwelling units per
acre. The mixed use sites meet the
threshold.
they have a density of 79.
2 dwelling units per acre. However,
it does not meet the threshold of
33%
of the parcels. You are going to see
the
calculations here.
it does
not qualify.
there are 299
parcels total.
we would have to show
the densities
of all sites are
allowing that. We
do not believe it
could meet. The
law allows us to delay for individual
sites
that are affected by
sb79 if they meet
50% of the
density. Those would be the mixed
use
sites.
the alternative plans
wants more
density.
>> thank you
for clarifying
I'm done.
>> thank you. Any other
questions?
okay.
okay. With that I will close the
public hearing and move on to deliberates.
commissioner ross. Would
you like to share your thoughts and
deliberations?
>>
gladly.
I would be in favor of the
default provision or scenario three
and the third would
be scenario two.
probably scenario
three. In order
to activate the portion of the city
which is in
need of activation. I think that it
is consistent with the neighborhood.
you
know, it is a complement
of residential
and
commercial there.
it can handle it more than what I am
going to talk
about next in
terms of
access to the freeways.
I think the western part of the city
with all of
the projects we approved and that
I voted
in favor of.
the friars club
project. I think if we are going
to increase the
density I
would then vote for
scenario 3.
mindful trying
to minimize the impact
on single family residential.
I believe scenario
3 is the most appropriate and that
is what I
would vote for.
so, I am
really challenged here.
I will be completely
transparent. My
personal interests
are completely opposed to what
the council direction would
be.
it isis difficult.
>>
I wasn't --
>> to go ahead with one of
the
alternative plans.
>> they didn't indicate which they
would
prefer.
>> I am just saying the idea
of doing the export and
alternative plan.
it is not consistent with what is
best for
me personally.
but, since my role is as a commissioner, I
am going to try to put it
aside and take the council's direction
to
heart. I am going to assume that,
okay,
we are going to go forward with one
I
would support the tent pole
one, number two.
my reasons
as someone
that has lived in the southeast, when we
talk about activating the southeast a lot
is talkingtalking about south robinson
olympic
boulevard. This is really not
going to do anything to activate
the areas.
we are trying
to get more restaurants and
shops.
looking more like south
beverley drive.
the shopping is there
was taken over by a
personal injury lawyer.
I don't believe
putting all f
of
the density there is
going to do anything to benefit
the area.
I don't think it
will
satisfy those issues. When you look
at just planning
in general, step back.
one of the things that
you try to do, you are not going
to eliminate traffic. We are never
going to eliminate
traffic. The way that you help it
or
reduce the increase in traffic that
would come from all of
the development is that you try to
limit
the number of trips.
some someone does eight trips a week.
that helps. You try to put density
where
people live next to where people shop
and eat and try
to reduce the number of trips. We
already
have in the area around the rodeo stop
a
lot of
restaurants, retail
markets. If I said I
would have to drop density in the
city, what would be the
best thing to
do.
let's put some of it
over here.
you have
shops,
markets,
you will also have
that opportunity. I would treat
them evenly.
in order to maximize
the units
next to commercial, retail and
those.
I know I am in
the minority but
before asking for a
motion, I
will
see if I
had any effect.
>> I think the
area is already so impacted with what
you described.
I think it will activate the
southeast part.
if you build
it, increased concentration in that
area
the restaurants
and the bakeries and the
shopping will follow.
>> mr.
chair, I always appreciate your
comments,
insights. I have learned so much
from you.
however you have not changed my opinion
on that matter.
>> with that I will
accept a
motion.
>> chair wolfe, if I might,
inform the commission of a
further wrinkle. That is under the
government code with respect
to planning and zoning and general
plan
amendments, the planning commission
in order to forward a recommendation
to the
council
requires a majority of
the full body. Two
votes for any
particular
amendment would not
be sufficient.
to the extent that
there are only two votes for one of
the
alternatives.
another option is that
the commission discuss the
various
alternatives.
does support the
council proceeding to
adopt an
alternative plan.
that would be allowed to move forward.
>> okay. What
does that require?
>> if there
is interest in that maybe we can take
a
couple of minutes to quickly work
on
modifications to the resolution and
come back to you.
>> we
need to take a brief recess in order
to work on that?
>> if there is interest
in
the commission.
>> certainly sounds
that way.
>> sounds like
our only option. Would
it reflect that 2 of the
3 commissioners had a preference and
one had
another preference?
>> certainly could
do that.
>> okay.
>> thank you. >> like
an advisory.
in any way it
is a recommendation.
because we couldn't get to three it
is
two to one.
the council would
be informed.
you know, we can
memorialize that. But ultimately the
recommendation is
not for any of
particulars.
>> they would benefit
from knowing that.
I
would hope they would be
informed about that.
>> I
think that we can write it into the
resolution.
>> yes.
because of the
numbers we can make
no recommendations.
>> we need
to take a brief recess for you
to work on that?
>> yes. >> okay.
we are in recess.
>>> the meeting and
the discussion of the zone change,
recommendation. We have been supplied
an updated
resolution reflecting the discussion
we had before
taking the break.
at this time we
will take a few minutes and allow
the commissioners to briefly read
the resolution or
do you want to walk us through
the major changes here in the red
lines?
>> might be best for
staff to run through the revisions,
take a look and go from there.
>>
the
first changes that were made are
to section one, page two of
the resolution.
we moved up one of the sentences from
the bottom to
the top.
we
have added a. 2
and. 3, the three different maps for
the different
scenarios.
it is scenario
one, two,
three in those exhibits.
the following page,
page four,
the
changes memorialized only only
commissioner supported 3 and one supported 2.
the planning
commission's recommendation is not
for a specific
scenario, but they are recommending
the
adoption of an alternative plan and
associated amendments to the planned
land use
map and
recommending the council
adopt an
ordinance to reflect
the alternative plan
scenario.
one more change to
section 5.
updated to the different exhibits
that
are attached and the different amendments
being recommended.
>> is that because the
maps were not available?
>> we were
originally
anticipating if the commission selected
one scenario we would have
used that one.
>> you are already anticipating
updating one.
any questions from
the commissioners on the updated resolution?
have
you all had a chance to look at it?
are you
comfortable with the way that it is
currently written?
>>
yes, I am
.
>> I am as well.
>> with that
we move it
to a motion. Okay. I will accept a
motion.
>> a motion
for a resolution of the planning commission
of the
city of beverley hills recommending
the
city adopt a general plan amendment
and zone
change to amend the land use map and
zoning map and a draft ordinance of
the city
of beverley hills amending several
sections of
the beverley hills
municipal code
for anan alternative plan,
65912. 61 and
making a determination of exemption
under the
california environmental
quality act. Amended or as
set forth in
the document?
>>
one more change that we caught.
>> it
would be a
general plan amendment and zone change
to amend the land
use and
zoning map, and general plan
amendment to update or
amend the land
use.
>> we would say
it currently
says resolution recommending the city
adopt a
plan amendment to amend the land use
map and land
use element. And
zoning map.
>> another
motion or does he say with the laemt that
you provided.
>> that's fine. >> as
amended.
>> I will second the motion.
>> in that
case, I think karen, it would be appropriate for you
to call for a vote.
>> commissioner ross.
>> yes. >> vice chairman
milkowski.
>> yes. >> chair wolfe.
>> yes.
no city attorney
statement on this one.
>> legislative
and it will go to
the city council.
>> I would invite
the
recused commissioner back in the room
but I have
a feeling they are not in the vicinity.
I will
not do that.
we move on
to communications from the commission.
any communications
from the commission?
>> none from
me.
>> yes, I
would just like
to wish everybody a happy
holiday, whatever they may celebrate.
I want to thank
my fellow commissioners for making
me a
better commissioner and send love
to my wife gloria.
>> thank you. >> let me add to that
also in
the spirit of the holidays. Thank
you to the staff for
the lovely and delicious and
thoughtful gift, appreciate it very
much. I guarantee
you they will be enjoyed.
>> I would
like
to echo my
fellow commissioners comment
s thanking my fellow commissioners
and staff for
the work we did this year. It was
a challenging one.
we got through it. We were
able to support
us extremely well, particularly
on the item
today which is very
complicated.
the
beverley hills wellness network. Information can
be found on the
website, but in a nutshell
the beverley hills
wellness network allows residents
to pay an
annual $90 fee in order to cover any
costs that are
not covered by the medical insurance
in
conjunction with any medical services
provided
by calling 9-1-1 emergency services.
if you
call 9-1-1 and an ambulance, fire
department
comes out, any medical services that
are provided
including transport to the hospital
and what
not. Anything that is not covered
by
your insurance will be covered by
the city
if you join
this program and the cost again is
$90 a year.
I was also asked to
highlight
the water tracker that is also available
to all
residents in
order to have more information available to
the
water use in your home.
you can find the
information on the website as well.
any other commissioner questions?
>> how do people sign up for the health
program?
>> there is a link on the website.
if you go
to beverleyhills. Org, on the front
page of the beverleyhills. Org
website, and
if you scroll down --I thought it
was there.
>> it is there. >> there
it is. Under latest news there
is an icon for
beverley
hill welness network.
>> thank you
for pointing that
out. I probably was supposed to say
that. With that we will move on to anyany
city planner updates? Do we have a
city planner?
>> this will be
my last official
comments as the acting planner. I
am happy to
announce that cindy gordon has been
appointed
as the next assistant
director of community
development/city planner and assumes
her new duties on
monday and will be taking over city
planner
comments from now on.
>> congratulations.
>> I wanted to introduce or
reintroduce. I think andres
was introduced to the
commission but this is his first item
under
the commission. I wanted to point
out that he is
the brains behind all of the
sb79.
he was leading the charge on that.
he
did excellent work on the project.
I am sure you will
be seeing much more of him
going forward.
this will
be the commission's final meeting
of 2025. I
wanted to echo what the chair said.
it was
a very difficult year for the commission with
the
builders remedy projects and sb79.
I
think that we had six meetings in
the month
of october. I wasn't at all of them,
but you did.
I wanted
to thank the commission for the work
you did andand
understanding and patience with staff
as we worked through the process with
you.
thank you very much for all of your
efforts this year.
hopefully we will try to make 2026
easier on you. I wanted to wish you
all
happy holidays, new year and see you
in the new year.
>> thank you.
any questions on the current
development projects list?
seeing none. Any questions or comments
on the
2026 meeting schedule?
any other business?
we are officially adjourned.