AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 21, 2024
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Masa Alkire, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
Subject: AN APPEAL OF STAFF'S OCTOBER 13, 2023 INCOMPLETE
DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65943(c), PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF AN
APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED 19-STORY RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL MIXED USE BUILDING AT 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN
DRIVE
Attachments: 1. Applicant’s Continuance Request – 5/13/2024
2. Public Notice
3. Public Correspondence
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Continue the public hearing to consider the appeal of staff’s determination that the application for a proposed mixed use development at 125-129 South Linden Drive is incomplete to June 27, 2024.
BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2024, the City Council set the appeal date for March 11, 2024 to consider the appeal of staff’s October 13, 2023 incomplete determination related to a Development Plan Review for a new 19-story, 165-unit mixed use building (the “project”) at 125-129 South Linden Drive (the “project site”). On March 11, 2024, and at the request of the applicant (Rand Paster & Nelson, LLP, on behalf of 9300 Wilshire, LLC), the City Council continued the appeal hearing to April 16, 2024.
Meeting Date: May 21, 2024
On April 16, 2024, the City Council continued the appeal hearing for a second time at the request of the applicant to May 21, 2024. Subsequently, on May 13, 2024, the applicant submitted a third continuance request to continue the public hearing currently scheduled for May 21, 2024.
Based on the applicant’s continuance request, staff recommends that the City Council continue consideration of the appeal to a date certain to Thursday, June 27, 2024.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Friday, February 16, 2024 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 2). An on-site notice was posted on the subject property on Thursday, February 15, 2024. The project was also noticed in the Friday, February 16, 2024 edition of the Beverly Hills Courier and the Thursday, February 11, 2024 edition of the Beverly Hills Weekly. Lastly, courtesy emails were provided to all interested parties advising them of the original and continued hearing dates.
If the City Council continues the public hearing to June 27, 2024, a date certain, no additional noticing will be required.
Public Comment
As of the writing of this report, staff has received additional comment letters in support and opposition of the project. Public correspondence is provided as Attachment 3 to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time and noticing costs. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the applicant.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Applicant’s Continuance Request
5/13/2024
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Edgar Arroyo
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:27 AM
To: Dave Rand
Cc: RWG DavidSnow
Subject: RE: 125-129 Linden Drive - Appeal Hearing Continuance Hi Dave:
The City has received your request to continue the appeal hearing. City staff concurs with the requested continuance and that will be the recommendation to the City Council in the brief staff report for the May 21, 2024 meeting.
Regards,
Edgar Arroyo
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Office: (310) 285-1138 | Fax: (310) 273-0972
E-mail: [email protected]
NOTE: Planning applications and project resubmittals are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittals are not considered received by the City until such submittal is acknowledged by a Planning Division staƯ member. If you have questions regarding the status of your planning application, please call 310-285-1141 and ask to speak to a planner. If you have questions about the status of your project resubmittal, please reach out to your assigned planner directly.
From: David Snow <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 7:39 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 125-129 Linden Drive - Appeal Hearing Continuance From: Dave Rand <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 7:21 AM
To: David Snow <[email protected]>
Subject: 125-129 Linden Drive - Appeal Hearing Continuance Mr. Snow,
On behalf of 9300 Wilshire, LLC, the applicant for the project at 125-129 Linden Drive (PL2300146), we request that the City Council continue the appeal hearing for the application completeness determination currently scheduled for May 21, 2024 to June 27,2024 pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(d).
Thank you,
Dave
2 Dave Rand
Partner
Phone: 213.557.7222 Direct: 213.557.7224
Cell: 818.983.6155
633 W. Fifth Street, Suite 5880, Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.rpnllp.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail +++++++++++++++++++++++
This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or include attorney work product privileged material, and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.
To comply with IRS regulations, we advise you that any discussion of Federal tax issues in this e-mail was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by you, (i) to avoid any penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) to promote, market or recommend to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. +++++++++++++++++++++++
Click here to report this email as spam.
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years. All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
ATTACHMENT 2
Public Notice
City Clerk’s Office
RLY
IM
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its regular meeting to beheld on Monday, March 11,2024, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:
AN APPEAL OF STAFF’S OCTOBER 13, 2023 INCOMPLETE
DETERMINATION, PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65943(c), PERTAINING TO THE REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSED 19-STORY RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL MIXEDUSE BUILDING AT 125-129 SOUTH LINDEN DRIVE The proposed project consists of the construction of a new 19-story, 200’ tall, residential and commercial mixed use building at 125-129 South Linden Drive. The commercial portion of the project consists of a 73-room hotel and restaurant located on the first through fifth floors of the building. The residential portion consists of 165 apartment dwelling units, ranging from studio to two-bedroom units, located on the sixth through the 19th floors of the building, with 20% of the units (33 units) to be reserved for rental to lower income households. Parking for the project is proposed within a four-level subterranean parking structure that would be accessed from an alley abutting the rear of the property, providing parking for 126 vehicles. The project site consists of two vacant lots with a combined lot area of approximately 21,676 square feet located along the west-side of the 100-block of South Linden Drive, within the R-4 Multiple Residential Zone. The applicant has submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application for review of the development as a “Builder’s Remedy” project, which relies on the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), codified in Government Code §65589.5.This project is currently under review by the City and no action regarding a decision on the projecthas occurred. The applicant (9300 Wilshire, LLC) has filed an appeal of City’s staff’s determination, issued on October 13, 2023, that an application to construct the proposed project is incomplete.
On February 6, 2024, the City Council set the appeal hearing date for the City Council’s regular meeting of March 11, 2024.
City ofBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15378(b)(5)), administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment, including determinations of application completeness, arenot considered projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is currently under review and the City has not performed an environmental analysis of the project,as project details may change in response to the City’s comments during project review.
Environmental review ofthe project will be performed and publicly available prior to any decision on the project being issued.
HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please be advised that pre-entry metal detector screening requirements are now in place at CityHall. Members of the public are requested to plan visits accordingly. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meetingthrough live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings are broadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms. Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed.These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.
Public Comment Participation:
• Oral Comment/Listen only: (310) 288-2288• Email: [email protected]• Video (during public comment only): http://beverlyhills.org/comment• To Watch Video Live: http://beverlyhills.org/live or• On-Demand: http://beverlyhills.org/citycouncilmeetings• In-Person: Submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk at the meeting How to Submit Public Comment (Email/Video):It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council/Parking Authority. Written comments should identify theAgenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only thefirst three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a largenumber of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the City Clerk’s Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part ofthe record.
If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Public comment via video conference will be no longer than three (3) minutes per each individual comment, subject to City Council discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting. In person speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk directly during the meeting.
City ofBeverly Hifis I 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 I t(310) 285-2400 f(310) 385-0862 BeverlyHffls.org Any interested person may participate in the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the City Council. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Council’s action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.In Person Participation:
All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the above information on the location and time of this meeting.
If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner in the Planning Division at (310) 285-1138, or by email at earroyobeverlyhffls.org. Please also contact us to add your email to the interested parties list for this ordinance, so that important updates and notifications may be sent to you.
HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-2400 (voice) J or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible.
The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired.
City ofBeverly Hifis I 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hifis, California 90210 I t(310) 285-2400 fl310) 385-0862 BeverlyHills.org ATTACHMENT 3
Public Correspondence
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: munkhbat ania
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2023 9:05 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: 9300 Wilshire LLC
[You don't oŌen get email from Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: External Sender
Use cauƟon when clicking links or opening aƩachments
________________________________
Good morning,
The proposed building if permiƩed is going to make the traffic on Linden and Wilshire impossible. Most cars traveling from Olympic to West LA to UCLA transit through Linden and if a hotel is built at that locaƟon the traffic will become insurmountable.
Thank you and I can be reached at if you have any quesƟon.
Ania
Sent from my iPhone
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
October 10, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Edgar Arroyo
Senior Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Email: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive (PL2300146) Dear Mr. Arroyo:
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the proposed development at 125- 129 S. Linden Drive. The City’s approval of this project is governed by the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5. For the purposes of Government Code Section 65589.5(k)(2), this letter constitutes our written comments on the project.
This project is subject to the so-called “builder’s remedy” under the Housing Accountability Act. Because the project qualifies as “a housing development project . . . for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” under the Act, the City must approve it unless the City can satisfy its burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicability of one of the exceptions in subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(5) of Section 65589.5. And because the City has not adopted a general plan housing element that substantially complies with state law, it is further prohibited from using subdivision (d)(1) or (d)(5) to reject the project.1 When a locality rejects a housing development project without complying with the Act, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5. Gov.
Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last few years in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). A non-profit organization can sue without the involvement or approval of the project applicant, to protect the public’s interest in the development of new housing. A locality that is sued to enforce Section 65589.5 must prepare the administrative record itself, at its own expense, within 30 days after service of the petition. Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). And if an enforcement lawsuit brought by a non-profit organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. 1 In a September 12 decision in our litigation against the City, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP00143, the Court determined that the City’s housing element does not substantially comply with state housing element law.
October 10, 2023
Code § 65589.5(k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
In recent years, there have been a number of successful lawsuits to enforce the Act:
In Eden Housing, Inc. v. Town of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV300733, the court determined that Los Gatos had improperly denied a subdivision application based on subjective factors. The court found that the factors cited by the town, such as the quality of the site design, the unit mix, and the anticipated cost of the units, were not objective because they did not refer to specific, mandatory criteria to which the applicant could conform. San Francisco Bay Area Renters Federation v. Berkeley City Council, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. RG16834448, was the final in a series of cases relating to Berkeley’s denial of an application to build three single family homes and its pretextual denial of a demolition permit to enable the project. The Court ordered the city to approve the project and to pay $44,000 in attorneys’ fees. In 40 Main Street Offices v. City of Los Altos, Santa Clara County Superior Court Consolidated Case Nos. 19CV349845 & 19CV350422, the court determined that the Los Altos violated the Housing Accountability Act, among other state housing laws, by failing to identify objective land use criteria to justify denying a mixeduse residential and commercial project. The City was ultimately forced to pay approximately $1 million in delay compensation and attorneys’ fees in the case. In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, a case brought by our organization, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the Housing Accountability Act when it rejected a 48-unit condominium project based on vague concerns about health and safety. Following the decision, the City agreed to pay $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to our organization and two other plaintiffs.
Based on the above legal framework, we are not aware of any legal basis for the City to deny the application to develop this project. If the City nevertheless does so, we reserve the right to initiate litigation against the City as a “housing organization” under the Act.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Jeffery Lambert, Interim Comm. Dev. Dir. (by email to [email protected]) Laurence Wiener, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected])
MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
February 20, 2024
VIA EMAIL
Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
City of Beverly Hills
Email: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive (PL2300146) Dear Mr. Arroyo:
As you know, Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using impact litigation to address California’s housing crisis. This letter follows up on our October 10, 2023 letter regarding the proposed development at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. That letter established our standing to challenge any denial of the application under subdivision (k)(2) of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), Government Codes Section 65589.5. Now that the City stands at the precipice of denying the application, we are notifying the City of our intention to initiate litigation against the City under the HAA if it does so.
As we explained in our prior letter, this project is subject to the so-called “builder’s remedy” under the HAA. Because the project qualifies as “a housing development project . . . for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” the City must approve it unless the City can demonstrate the applicability of one of the exceptions in subdivisions (d)(1) through (d)(5) of the HAA. And because the City has not adopted a general plan housing element that substantially complies with state law, it is further prohibited from using subdivision (d)(1) or (d)(5) to reject the project.
More specifically, as you know, a court recently determined that the City’s housing element does not substantially comply with state housing element law. The City therefore has no good faith basis for believing that it is not subject to the builder’s remedy.
When a locality rejects a housing development project without complying with the HAA, the action may be challenged in court in a writ under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5.
Gov. Code § 65589.5(m). The legislature has significantly reformed this process over the last decade in an effort to increase compliance. Today, the law provides a private right of action to non-profit organizations like Californians for Homeownership. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k). The locality bears the burden of proof in HAA litigation, and must pay a prevailing challenger’s attorneys’ fees. Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(i), (k)(1)(A)(ii), (k)(2). In certain cases, the court will also impose fines that start at $10,000 per proposed housing unit. Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(B)(i).
Indeed, just last week, a court fined the City of Berkeley $2.6 million on this basis, and that city February 20, 2024
was also forced to pay $1.4 million in attorneys’ fees arising out a developer’s HAA lawsuit.1 We have successfully litigated under the HAA. In Californians for Homeownership v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2019-01107760-CU-WM-CJC, the court ruled that Huntington Beach violated the HAA when it unlawfully rejected a condominium project. That city attempted to appeal the decision but abandoned its appeal after coming to understand that it would need to post a multimillion dollar bond to do so. It ultimately agreed to approve the project and pay $600,000 in attorneys’ fees to us and two other plaintiffs.
And to be clear, if the City Council affirms the incompleteness determination regarding the 125-129 S. Linden Drive project, that will constitute a denial of the project for purposes of the HAA. The City’s action is a transparent sham that attempts to insulate the City from HAA liability by disguising a denial as an incompleteness determination. Among other things, the City cannot demand that an applicant under the builder’s remedy apply for a general plan amendment or rezoning in order to have its application deemed complete. The builder’s remedy requires the City to disregard its zoning and general plan standards, not to change them.
It is not surprising that the City would rather the applicant follow a much more discretionary pathway to permit this project, but it cannot legally required the applicant to do so.
If anything, the City’s attempt to disguise its denial as an incompleteness determination only provides further evidence that would support a bad faith finding under the HAA. And we note that a Los Angeles Superior Court judge recently overruled a demurrer filed by another City that had similarly attempted to misconstrue a denial as an incompleteness determination.2 We urge the City to follow the law. If it refuses to do so, we intend to initiate litigation against the City under the HAA.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
cc: Michael Forbes, Comm. Dev. Dir. (by email to [email protected]) Masa Alkire, City Planner (by email to [email protected]) Nancy Hunt-Coffey, City Manager (by email to [email protected]) Ryan Gohlich, Asst. City Manager (by email to [email protected]) City Council (by email to [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected])
Laurence Wiener, Esq., City Attorney (by email to [email protected]) 1 https://www.berkeleyside.org/2024/02/16/court-ruling-1900-fourth-street 2 November 22, 2023 Order Overruling Demurrer, California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 23STCP02614.
From: n a
Date: February 21, 2024 at 8:47:57 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 125-129 S. Linden Drive - Project Update and Public Hearing Information Hello,
Thanks so much for keeping us in the loop for this project. We live on Linden Dr and would be utmost affected if this project gets a go ahead. Already Linden residents are greatly affected by heavy traffic and lack of parking spaces on the street. There are literally just a few metered parking spaces and the guests and visitors, as well as the parents of Good Shepherd Catholic school get a lot of parking tickets.
Linden is a main connecting corridor for any transit from Olympic Drive to Wilshire especially for westbound traffic. The businesses surrounding the Linden-Wilshire suffer severely from the lack of parking spaces. Already when someone travels from Golden Triangle to Linden we spend almost 10 minutes to pass Wilshire specially since a No turn on red sign was placed from North Linden to Wilshire last year significantly slowing the traffic.
We hope these points would be taken into consideration when the project is discussed.
Thanks so much for your kind attention.
Nara
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dan Landis < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 12:28 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Shawn < >; Harris Rosenblum < >
Subject: 125-129 Linden
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hello,
Please be advised that we own a home at South Linden and became aware of the proposed new project. As a property owner, we object and oppose this project as submitted. As we understand, the developer is seeking approval under the “Builder’s Remedy” which we have been advised would allow them to build without following Beverly Hills Code. We strongly encourage City Council to reject this proposal as drafted. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniel Landis
Wilshire Development Company
Calabasas Road, Suite 104
Calabasas, CA 91302
Some people who received this message don't o�en get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
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
(323)
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Ken Goldman < >
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:16 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo; Nancy Hunt-Coffey
Subject: RE: 125-129 South Linden Drive
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
To the Beverly Hills City Council—
We also note that the proposed over-development far far exceeds the limits of our City’s General Plan and the applicable zoning limitations.
Thank you.
Ken
Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association
From: Ken Goldman
Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 10:59 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: 125-129 South Linden Drive
THE SOUTHWEST BEVERLY HILLS HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION
To the Beverly Hills City Council—
We see that both the staff and the applicant for the proposed project at 125-129 South Linden have requested that the Hearing currently scheduled for 7pm April 16, 2024 be postponed until May. Based on this, the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association will not appear on April 16.
However, we note that the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association remains very much opposed to this proposed over-development which will adversely affect our residential quality of life, traffic at the key intersection of Linden and Wilshire, traffic on the 300, 200 and 100 blocks of Linden Drive-- all residential streets-- traffic on Charleville and Gregory, shade and shadow of nearby homes, and many other aspects of our residents’ lives.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ken Goldman
2 Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Association
Tel: (310)
Email:
From: Russell Haber < >
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2024 2:30 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniela Haber < >
Subject: 125-129 S Linden Drive Project
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
I am writing on behalf of those who live at S. Linden Drive, which is less than 100 yards south of this proposed project.
The City of BH must find a way to approve their housing element so they aren't strongarmed by developer, Leo Pustilnikov and his attorneys.
Although I have no problem with the building itself, has anyone taken the time to appreciate the chaos it will create to build such a project? The stretch of S. Linden Drive, over the past 10 years from Wilshire, to the north, south to Charleville, has become more dangerous to navigate as traffic has increased including the speeding cars racing north to Wilshire to beat the light to make a left turn onto Wilshire (as it's one of the few streets in the immediate area where one CAN make a left). Please contact Good Shepherd Catholic School (148 S. Linden) who recently had to add crossing guards at the Linden/Charleville intersection. Linden is a rather narrow street, like many others in Beverly Hills between Charleville and Wilshire, that allow parking on both sides. Since there are apartment buildings and a school on this stretch of the street, many park on the street at all times of the day/night. Getting out of a car, street-side, has become extremely dangerous task because of the speeding cars and lack of open street. It's already chaotic enough with all the delivery trucks (FedEx, UPS, Amazon, etc.) coming through, double-parked, during the day). I can only imagine it would be intolerable with all types of large trucks, construction workers, cement mixers, etc. passing through this narrow stretch for years on end. There appears to have been no thought of a mitigation strategy with regard to the building process. It's already bad enough we've dealt with the noise and inconvenience of the METRO for many years.
This project will be a disaster for the quality of life and safety this small community within Beverly Hills. People who do not live here can NOT appreciate how compromised this street has become over the past 10 years. Please find a way to stop this project. I am sure there are other areas within Beverly Hills where this project can be built.
Respectfully,
Russell Haber
S. Linden Drive Apt
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
From: catherine fitzmaurice kozubei
To: City Clerk
Cc: catherine fitzmaurice kozubei
Subject: 125-129 South Linden Drive
Date: Thursday, March 7, 2024 3:55:51 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
To whom it may concern:
I think the proposed construction on South Linden Drive will impact current area residents’ quality of life extremely negatively. There will be more traffic flow, pressure on finding street parking on surrounding blocks, and more pedestrians on the adjoining quiet streets, as well as visual impact and negative air quality. And an influx of potential for local crime.
I would like to vote NO on permission for this project to move forward. There are many other new (and old) hotels very close, and the community/ neighorhood quality of this part of Beverly Hills is suffering.
Thank you. Please let me know if I can do anything else to try to dissuade those who are just seeking an immediate cash boost for themselves.
~catherine
~~
Catherine Fitzmaurice Kozubei
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Daniela Haber
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2024 1:02 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Project at 125-129 S. Linden Drive
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Hi Edgar,
My name is Daniela Haber and I’m the owner and resident of S Linden Dr, Unit , Beverly Hills, CA.
I wanted to write this note to reiterate what others including Russell Haber have already expressed in their previous emails. I am completely against the development of this project as it would bring numerous problems to our community. From the impossible increase in what is already unmanageable traffic, to visual and environmental pollution to safety…. You name it. It would be a disaster.
I hope the city will continue to maintain its strict criteria and not approve such a horrendous project of this magnitude and nature.
Kind regards,
Daniela Haber