briefs

City Council resumes Roxbury discussions Tuesday afternoon

The City Council will take a look at two options for a new Roxbury Park community center at Tuesday afternoons study session. Last week, the City Council reviewed four conceptual options for a new one-story community center. The City Council directed staff to bring back more information about one of those concepts, Option D, and bring back an

additional concept, Option E, which would situate the new community center on the footprint of the existing building. Option D would be situated over part of the existing footprint and extend north, requiring an east-west reconfiguration of the existing outdoor basketball court. Councilmember Lili Bosse requested Option E after learning the City would have to relocate the Citys storm drain, which is under the existing community center, in order to build Option D. At a previous meeting, the City Council was told it could not construct a new building over the existing storm drain or move the storm drain. City staff estimates relocating the storm drain would cost roughly $250,000. Once I found out they indeed could build over the [existing] storm drain, my suggestion is thats great news, because thats what the community had said at all the meetings: Lets go and bring back a new building exactly where this building is, Bosse said Tuesday in a phone interview. By requesting an additional concept, Bosse said it did not mean she would not support Option D, but she said she would not support Option D without first studying Option E. When Option D comes back before the

City Council, it will include a multipurpose room but not a basketball court. Last week, the majority of councilmembers supported removing the indoor basketball court, but maintaining outdoor basketball courts. Bosse said she thought Option E would be advantageous because it would not require repositioning the existing outdoor basketball court to an east-west orientation, which could be problematic for participants depending on the location of the sun. I think the community will feel that weve respected the character of the park and were not going to be taking away any mature trees or taking away any green space, Bosse said. I would hope that we could then have a unanimous 5-0 on that. I think that would really show the community that weve put a lot of time into this, weve come a long way, but were all on the same page with the community and we can move forward, and I think Option E represents that. When asked if Mayor Willie Brien thought

a unanimous consensus would be possible, Brien said, I never speculate on how my colleagues will vote on things but I believe whether its unanimous or not, input has been taken. Whatever the final design is, it may not be exactly what each person would have designed, but there will be elements in it from each and every councilmembers input and certainly input from the community. Having spent months working with the Recreation and Parks liaison committee on revising the project, Brien said he felt the process has been open and positive. I think it is time to get this project moving. I think its something the seniors deserve and the children deserve and I believe in the end the residents deserve, Brien said. I believe they will be happy to have a clean facility that preserves green space, enhances the programmatic opportunities for each of those stakeholder groups, yet builds flexibility that briefs cont. on page 4

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10-8-106 REGARDING TROUSDALE VIEW RESTORATION PERMIT PROCEDURES AND CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO BEVERLY HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10-3-2616 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR WALLS, FENCES AND HEDGES IN THE TROUSDALE ESTATES AREA OF THE CITY. The proposed Zoning Code amendment would change the public notice requirements for a Trousdale View Restoration Permit and amendments to the Trousdale Estates wall, fence and hedge standards, particularly the denition of hedge, would also be considered. Trousdale Estates is dened in the zoning code as all property located north of Doheny Road and east of Schuyler road, except that land zoned R-1.X, and that portion of lot A of the Doheny Ranch Tract northwesterly of Tract Numbers 24485 and 24486, commonly referred to as the Greystone Mansion Property. The amendments propose limited changes to the previously adopted Trousdale View Restoration Ordinance and the related Trousdale Wall, Fence and Hedge Ordinance for which a Negative Declaration was adopted after the project was assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City and no signicant environmental impacts were identied. At the public hearing, the City Council will hear and consider all comments. All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter. Written comments may also be submitted and should be addressed to the City Council, c/o City Clerk, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. The comments should be received prior to the hearing date. Please note that if you challenge the Councils action in regards to this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Michele McGrath, Principal Planner in the Beverly Hills Community Development Department at 310.285.1135 or by email at mmcgrath@beverlyhills.org. Copies of the staff reports, initial study and Negative Declaration, and associated documents are on le in the Community Development Department and can be reviewed by any interested person at 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210. BYRON POPE, CMC City Clerk August 2 - August 8, 2012 Page 3

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS AMENDING SECTION 10-3-1618 B. OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR EXERCISE CLUBS. The proposed ordinance would allow exercise clubs located outside the Business Triangle to request a Conditional Use Permit to allow the joint use of parking facilities for the purpose of satisfying parking requirements. Currently, only exercise clubs located inside the Business Triangle are permitted to make such a request. The requested amendment is associated with the establishment of an LA Fitness exercise club at 9100 Wilshire Boulevard. This ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City has determined that the ordinance will not have a signicant environmental impact and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15305 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. At the public hearing, the City Council will hear and consider all comments. All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter. Written comments may also be submitted and should be addressed to the City Council, c/o City Clerk, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. The comments should be received prior to the hearing date. Please note that if you challenge the Councils action in regards to this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Ryan Gohlich, Senior Planner in the Beverly Hills Community Development Department at 310.285.1194, or by email at rgohlich@beverlyhills.org. Copies of the Project plans and associated documents are on le in the Community Development Department and can be reviewed by any interested person at 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210. BYRON POPE, CMC City Clerk

briefs cont. from page 3 will meet the needs for today and the near future. At last weeks meeting, Brien said he supported the larger multipurpose room option,

which is 5,105 square feet, over the smaller 4,500-square-foot option. It just seems it adds more flexibility, and it doesnt have an impact on any green space, Brien said. To me if you can have a

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 7, 2012, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider: AMENDMENT TO THE STREETS MASTER PLAN TO ALLOW REALIGNMENT OF THE PORTION OF EAST-WEST ALLEY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF 121 SPALDING DRIVE. THE EXISTING ALLEY SEGMENT WOULD BE SHIFTED SOUTH BY 1 FOOT, AND WIDENED TO 20 FEET IN WIDTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE SECTION 8300 ET SEQ.; AND AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING BENEATH A PORTION OF THE EASTWEST ALLEY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF 121 SPALDING DRIVE, AND TO ALLOW AN ABOVE-GROUND BRIDGE THAT WOULD SPAN OVER THE EAST-WEST ALLEY AND CONNECT THE TOP FLOOR OF 121 SPALDING DRIVE TO THE TOP FLOOR OF 9800 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD.

Planning Commission approves ground-floor medical use at 8536 Wilshire

A vacant ground-floor storefront on Wilshire Boulevard has prompted the buildings owner to seek a change of entitled use from retail to medical, which was supported by the Planning Commission last week in a 3-2 consensus. Commissioners Nan Cole, Howard Fisher and Dan Yukelson supported the conversion, while Chair Craig Corman and Vice Chair Brian Rosenstein voted against it. Wilshire-Le Doux Medical Plaza, the group owner of the 8536 Wilshire Boulevard office building that contains medical offices occupied by Cedars-Sinais heart transplant team, has not found a tenant for the 5,780-square foot ground-floor retail space since the building was completed in 2010. A pharmacy occupies additional groundfloor space on the corner. Former Mayor Joe Tilem represented the owner, which requested a 20-year term to lease the space for medical use, but the Planning Commission approved a 15-year term. The issue was raised that perhaps the buildings green-tinted windows and planter in front of the window made the storefront undesirable to potential retail tenants, but Tilem said he believed the location was the problem. Fisher said he assumed a potential tenant, if interested in the location, would have inquired about changing out the windows. I think they tried long and hard enough to find a tenant and they had apparently virtually no interest in the space, Fisher said. Fisher said by allowing medical space, the commission was not precluding the space from being used for retail. The question is, are we going to force him to do it? Fisher said. Corman said he voted against the conversion because he believes it is more beneficial to the City to have retail in the location than medical. The question is whether its viable. There are other retail establishments [in the area] there currently, Corman said. I was not comfortable tying up the ground-floor space for 15 years given the fact we would rather have retail there and the building was entitled for retail there. Corman said if the Metro Westside Subway Extension moves forward in accordance with the accelerated America Fast Forward plan, there would be demonstrably increased demand for retail at that location before 15 years is up. A subway station is proposed at La Cienega and Wilshire boulevards. Allowing the conversion of the space from retail to medical requires the owner to provide 12 additional parking spaces off site, at 99 N. La Cienega Boulevard. Based on a parking demand study, City staff says existing on-site parking would likely satisfy the demand for parking for the ground-floor medical use in addition to existing use, but the spaces at 99 N. La Cienega would be available in case of a shortfall. I think they did the right thing, Tilem said. It was better for the City to have somebody there and have at least somebody paying rent and somebody paying taxes than to leave a store empty for years without any prospects of renting it because it just is not a rentable space for retail uses. The resolution related to the medical conversion as well as a second resolution related to modifying the conditional use permit to allow the building owner to charge tenants for parking are expected to come back for the Planning Commissions final approval on Sept. 13. Tenants would still be required to offer free parking to patients, customers and employees.

The City Council will be reviewing the above items, which are components of a new commercial building on the property located at 121 Spalding Drive. The new building was previously approved by the Planning Commission on July 12, 2012; however, the alley realignment and alley encroachment permits require nal review and approval by the City Council. This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City has determined that the project will not have a signicant environmental impact and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15332 (inll development) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. At the public hearing, the City Council will hear and consider all comments. All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter. Written comments may also be submitted and should be addressed to the City Council, c/o City Clerk, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210. The comments should be received prior to the hearing date. Please note that if you challenge the Councils action in regards to this matter in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Ryan Gohlich, Senior Planner in the Beverly Hills Community Development Department at 310.285.1194, or by email at rgohlich@beverlyhills.org. Copies of the Project plans and associated documents are on le in the Community Development Department and can be reviewed by any interested person at 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210. BYRON POPE, CMC City Clerk

Page 4 Beverly Hills Weekly

little larger room you get more functionality. Youll see in the design the ability to divide rooms into different sizes. It gives you more flexibility for different programs. Bosse and Brien said parking still needs to be addressed in both options. I dont support having subterranean parking and I think the community made it clear they didnt as well, Bosse said. What I would say is I would like for us to provide the most amount of parking that we can, try and be creative with our way of parking, without taking any green space away. Bosse said she would also like renovation to be a part of Tuesdays discussion. Ive had a number of residents contact me saying they feel that the whole option of renovating the existing building kind of has fallen off the radar screen, Bosse said. What I would ask is when we have our meeting about Roxbury that those numbers be presented so we can make an informed decision.

Existing Hawthorne campus. Last week, the Board of Education directed staff to provide information on a concept that would preserve Building Group A, but demolish the rest of the campus Manaster said he would support creating on recommendations from Tracy Richter of DeJong-Richter, who was hired to create a a working master plan for each campus, and perhaps taking a phased approach to accommaster plan for the district.

plishing goals for the campus. As an example, Manaster said the multipurpose room/gymnasium or parking structure could be reserved for later phases in the interest of addressing educational and MEPC needs first. I just simply dont want us to lose what the end product is supposed to be because we dont have funding, Manaster said. At last weeks study session, board members responded to community members concerns about potential demolition of the historic campus. Ive heard a lot of what the community has said about all this, since I went to the schools here and watched what Beverly Vista briefs cont. on page 7

Historic parts of Hawthorne safe, for now

Hawthornes historic Building Group A and auditorium has been spared from the wrecking ball, at least for now. The Board of Education was presented with two construction concepts for the school at a study session July 25, but held off on selecting either one. Option 6, estimated at a total of $85.9 million, would preserve only part of the faade of the 1928-constructed Building Group A, the tower, and the courtyard. Option 7, estimated at a total of $92.6 million, would preserve the exterior of Building A in its entirety including the auditorium. Options 6 and 7 both included a $4-million gymnasium and a $3.1-million parking structure with 50 spaces. The preservation aspect of Option 7 has been estimated at $3.3 million. BHUSD facilities consultant Julio Palacio attributed the remaining cost difference between the two concepts to a higher contingency for existing buildings. The board directed staff to see if an additional option involving preservation would result in cost savings. President Brian Goldberg proposed addressing Building Group As mechanical, electrical, plumbing and civil engineering (MEPC) issues but otherwise leaving it intact, and focusing on new construction on the north and south ends of the campus. The Board of Education agreed to look into this option in order to save money and avoid demolishing the historic building. I want to see if we can get our educational uses in for closer to what we had talked about, when this bond was passed [which was] $4548 million, Goldberg said. When the concepts were previously presented in February, Option 6 was estimated at $73 million. Palacio said the most recent estimates are totals for the entire project, including contingency. I dont believe there was ever any intention or knowledge by the folks who went out for the bond that they would be replacing Hawthorne. Thats evidenced by the purpose of the bond, which was to do fire, life safety and other things, Vice President Jake Manaster said in a phone interview Tuesday. Manaster said the board started looking at re-building most of the campus based August 2 - August 8, 2012 Page 5