WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk; Huma Ahmed
Cc: 6-Laurence Wiener; [email protected]; Alexandria Smille; Aria Ahdoot Subject: Agenda Item F 1, 9229 Wilshire Appeal
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 4:54:55 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please provide these to city staff and the council members and please read them consecutively at the meeting tonight, this first one by Lee Pasternak and the next e-mail by Darian Bojeaux.
Thank you.
Dear Council Members:
The planning commissioners wanted to bring down the height of this 7 plus story project in a 3 story mixed use zone, however felt compelled to approve it based upon the city attorney’s office advice that under state density bonus law, the project had to be approved as proposed.
Similarly, when the matter was called up so that residents could avoid paying the city’s exhorbitant appeal fee, the city attorney’s office again advised that the project was required to be approved based on state density bonus law.
It is true that we cannot enforce the 3 story 45’ height limit against this project due to the 50% density bonus entitling the builder to build 57 units instead of 38. That is because Govt. Code §65915(e)(1) provides that a city may not apply a development standard, which would include height, that will physically preclude the construction of a project with a bonus density.
However, just because we cannot limit this project to 3 stories does not mean that a builder should be able to build units of any size or height whatsoever in total disregard of the allowed base density of 3 stories. And there is no law that provides that just because a density bonus is awarded, that a project can be any size whatsoever.
It would be reasonable and would comply with state density bonus law if the city allowed the project size and density to be increased by 50%, to 4 or 4 1/2 stories in height to accommodate the base density of 38 units plus the 50% additional 19 units.
Since our housing element was not approved at the time, and our city staff wanted to represent to the state that it had approved the building of 56 units, the city was over-inclined to approve the project and did not protect the residents and neighborhood. Now, city personnel need to be more careful in understanding and applying the applicable law.
Thank you.
Lee Pasternak
To: Beverly Hills City Council
Re: Nonsupport, 125-129 S. Linden Drive
Date: April 15, 2024
From: Karen Constine, Resident
Greetings.
I am expressing my concerns about the proposed mixed-use development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. The applicant has filed an appeal, and the City Council is scheduled to hear it on April 16, 2024.
The project, described as a 19-story mixed-use development, includes an approximately 200-foot-tall building featuring 165 apartments and a 73-room hotel, far exceeding zoning limits on density and height. If constructed, it would be too large and significantly disrupt our residential neighborhood, including those living on Linden and nearby streets like McCarty.
Please do not support this project.
Very truly yours,
Karen R. Constine
Apr 15, 2024
City of Beverly Hills
Room 280A, 455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Incompleteness Determination for 125-129 South Linden Drive, PL2300126 By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Beverly Hills City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Council of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the appeal of the Incompleteness Determination for 125-129 South Linden Drive, PL2300126. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”) as well as SB 330 (Gov. Code, § 65941.1).
Under the HAA, a city may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(S), (h)(S), (o)(l).) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. See California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
Beverly Hills’s Housing Element was not in substantial compliance 1 with state law when the
preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted. The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed.
The staff’s incompleteness determination, and instruction to the applicant to submit a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change, disregards the plain language of the HAA. As was ruled in California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, the City may not require such a land use application as a condition of approval. Furthermore, the City may not use the modification of the project post-preliminary application as an excuse to deny it, as the modification was within the 20 percent threshold established in state law. (Gov. Code § 65941.1, subd. (c).) Nor will the City succeed in arguing that its incompleteness determination – which, if upheld, would functionally bar the project from proceeding – does not count as a “disapproval” triggering court review under the HAA. (See California Housing Defense Fund v.
City of La Cañada Flintridge [finding City disapproved builder’s remedy project when it upheld an incompleteness determination in nearly identical circumstances].) In addition to the provisions cited above, the HAA allows housing organizations like CalHDF to bring an enforcement suit. (Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (k)(2).) If an enforcement lawsuit brought by a housing organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees and costs. (Ibid.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, decarbonization in the face of climate crisis – and most importantly, it will provide badly-needed affordable and multifamily housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in more urban areas as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development at 125-129 South Linden Drive is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the Council to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
1 In a letter to the City dated May 12, 2023, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that the City’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element, adopted February 21, 2023, does not substantially comply with State Housing Element law; The City’s Housing Element remained out of legal compliance as of fall 2023, as confirmed by the September 12, 2023 Los Angeles County Superior Court ruling in Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Beverly Hills, Case No. 23STCP00143.
2 of 3
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
From: sophie Norman
To: City Clerk
Subject: 19. Story building on 125 -129 Linden Dr., Beverly Hills, CA 90212.
Date: Friday, April 12, 2024 4:51:08 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Edgar,
Please note that I reside at , Beverly Hills, CA, 90212. My name is Sophie Normanova. Anyway, I most definitely and vehemently oppose to the building of the 19 story hotel/residence building, to be located at 125 - 129 Linden dr., Beverly Hills, CA, 90212.
My reason is, that there is already so much traffic on Linden Drive, going both ways. I cannot even imagine how crazy it will be with a 19 story building on the corner of Linden Drive and Wilshire. That is a very dangerous corner already, a lot of cars are doing many illegal turns and actions on there already. I cannot even imagine having a valet or driveway on Wilshire or on Linden, or in the alley behind the building.
In addition, permit parking is already almost impossible to find during the day, I cannot imagine having additional permit parking with tenants that reside in that building.
Not to mention all the noise and hustle Bustle that will come from that building, just by having all the activity of the hotel residence activity. Also, all the extra pollution with all the cars that will be coming in and out of the building, causing pollution and a bad smell in the air.
There is also a Catholic school on Linden Drive and several parents come and go around drop off and pick up times, which causes a huge congestion on Linden Drive already during busy hours. Not to mention all the transients that will be coming and going, because it’s a rental building and not condo owners. And also all the transients from the hotel part, and the additional crimes that may occur. We already have quite a few homeless transients in the area as is.
Please, taken into consideration, all the trash that the hotel will be providing and the tenants. There is already very limited room in the alleys. I cannot even imagine having more trash dumpsters in the alley area. The trash tracks already makes so much noise as is, and since they will be there on a regular basis, they will be coming more and more often. I believe this will reduce the value of our building, due to all the commotion. And all the noise and extra pollution.
There is already plenty of noise on Linden Drive from the school and from the driving cars, I cannot imagine having more noise, especially in the evening with the hotel being there. I beg you to please stop this project from happening. This is a horrible, horrible location for a hotel/residence building.
Thank you so much for your consideration, and please, please share this with the city council, and stop the permits to build this hotel/residence building.
Very concerned,
Sophie Normanova
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item F-3
Date: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:10:35 PM
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Please read the following comment at the meeting tonight.
I understand that the City of Beverly Hills wants to maintain a healthy budget, but the appeal fees of about $7,000 are outrageous and actually constitute a violation of due process.
The right to appeal is part of due process so the fee for appeal should not be prohibitive.
It costs $775 to file an appeal before the Court of Appeal following a Superior Court judgment. And it costs $775 to file an appeal before the California Supreme Court. And it may cost even less to file an appeal in the United States Supreme Court.
Keep in mind too that an appeal to a higher court involves many more intricate procedures than an appeal to the city council.
So the appeal fee should be brought down significantly.
Thank you.
Darian Bojeaux=