WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
2601 Ocean Park Blvd. • Suite 205 • Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 314-6433 • www.angellaw.com • [email protected] August 5, 2025
Honorable Mayor Nazarian and City Councilmembers
Beverly Hills City Council
455 N. Rexford Dr.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Via email to [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]
RE: Legality of Proposed Rental Regulations
Honorable Mayor Nazarian, Vice Mayor Mirisch, and City Councilmembers:
Our office submits this letter on behalf of interested stakeholders in the City of Beverly Hills (City). We write to share our strenuous legal objections to the ordinance amending the City’s existing short-term rental (STR) regulations to further restrict and prohibit both STRs and so-called “intermediate-term rentals” (ITR) (the Draft Ordinance).1 The Draft Ordinance is patently unconstitutional and unlawful. It infringes on constitutionally protected property rights and significantly impedes individuals’ rights to travel, to work, and to reside within the City. The Draft Ordinance represents a divisive and misguided regulatory approach, ignoring its severe implications on constitutional rights, housing opportunity and diversity, and community economic and environmental health. Rather than embodying legitimate governance, it exemplifies a pretextual overreach without precedent, targeting specific property owners and renters, at the behest of economic competitors, under the guise of regulating a use. 1 STRs and ITRs will generally be referred to as “STRs/ITRs” in this letter, since the Draft Ordinance proposes to ban all leases less than one year encompassing both traditional STRs (30 days or less) and ITRs (flexible term leases less than 1 year -- e.g., one-moth month leases, six-month leases, etc.).
However, those proposed regulations uniquely affecting ITRs will be referred to as “ITRs.” Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025
The Draft Ordinance unlawfully and impermissibly discriminates against renters, nonpermanent resident travelers, visiting families, hospital employees, teachers, construction workers, and other essential personnel who depend on flexible housing arrangements to live and work in Beverly Hills. Furthermore, it disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations and economically disadvantaged individuals, effectively excluding those unable to afford first and last months' rent and a security deposit from living within City borders.
The Draft Ordinance Violates Numerous Constitutional Rights The Draft Ordinance infringes upon numerous constitutional rights of both property owners and renters. The City has not provided any substantiated justification or rational basis for its approach, nor has it met the heightened level of scrutiny required for municipal action that impedes fundamental rights. Specifically:
The Draft Ordinance Infringes on Vested Rights and Due Process.
The Draft Ordinance violates property owner's vested rights by prohibiting all STRs/ITRs, including those that have been operating legally for years. This abrupt abrogation of an existing lawful use contravenes established constitutional doctrine (see Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1996) 12 Cal.4th 533, 540, fn. 1; Hill v. Manhattan Beach (1971) 6 Cal.3d 279, 285-286) and the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), which protects lawful nonconforming uses. (BHMC, § 10-3- 4101 [“nonconforming [land] uses may be continued, without alteration or expansion, although such use no longer conforms to the provisions of” the zoning code].) The Draft Ordinance further violates property owners' due process rights under both the California and U.S. Constitutions by terminating lawful nonconforming uses and depriving property owners of their property without due process of law. It infringes upon property rights, including the right to lease and include others on one's property, as well as rights to privacy and freedom of travel. Given the lack of any evidence supporting the purported prohibitions or any legitimate governmental interests, the Draft Ordinance fails to meet the rational basis test, let alone the heightened scrutiny required when legislation infringes upon fundamental rights (as is happening here). (Cmty. Res. for Just., Inc. v. City of Manchester (N.H. 2007) 917 A.2d 707, 717.) Property Owners Will Have Takings Claims if the Draft Ordinance is Adopted.
The Draft Ordinance constitutes a per se taking under both the California and U.S.
Constitutions by appropriating fundamental property rights, including the right to lease and include others on one's property. (Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528, 537; Terrace v. Thompson (1923) 263 U.S. 197, 215; Union Carbide Corp. v.
Alexander (Tenn. 1984) 679 S.W.2d 938, 940.) When the government “appropriates for the enjoyment of third parties” “a fundamental element of the [owners’] property right” (Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) 594 U.S. 139, 147) or “otherwise interfere[s] with Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025
[such fundamental] right[s],” “[t]hat sort of intrusion on property rights is a per se taking” that automatically “trigger[s]” the “right to compensation.” (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2025) 601 U.S. 267, 274.) The Draft Ordinance empowers the City to decide the appropriate length of time that an owner may open their property to a guest and drastically curtails the owner’s right to rent the property, as well as the owner’s right to include others on it. By appropriating these essential elements of property ownership the City effects a per se taking of each property owner’s rights, requiring the City to provide property owners with just compensation. (Cedar Point Nursery, 594 U.S. at 148- 150; Sheetz, 601 U.S. at 274.)
The Draft Ordinance also effects a regulatory taking under the California and U.S.
Constitutions because the economic impacts of the ban would be severe for property owners, who have reasonable, investment-backed expectations in their ability to continue operating STRs/ITRs. (See Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City (1978) 438 U.S. 104, 124.)
The Draft Ordinance Violates Equal Protection.
The Draft Ordinance violates property owners’ and renters’ equal protection rights under the California and U.S. Constitutions by discriminating between similarly situated owners and tenants seeking to rent, depending on the length of the lease term. The Draft Ordinance disproportionately and inequitably impacts renters from economically disadvantaged and underrepresented populations, who have suffered from substantial and increasing home inaccessibility and wealth disparities. The Draft Ordinance fails to pass heightened scrutiny required for classifications that impinge a fundamental right. (See Nunez by Nunez v. City of San Diego (9th Cir. 1997) 114 F.3d 935, 944, 946; Halet v. Wend Inv. Co. (9th Cir. 1982) 672 F.2d 1305, 1311; Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options v. City of Santa Monica (2001) 88 Cal. App.4th 451, 462.) The Draft Ordinance Constitutes a Restraint on Alienation.
The Draft Ordinance imposes unreasonable restrictions on property owners' ability to rent out their properties and tenants' ability to sublet. California law generally prohibits such restrictions due to the negative impact they have on a property's value and utility in the market. (See Godoy v. Linzner (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 765, 776; Dawn Investment Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 30 Cal.3d 695, 703-704; Wellenkamp v. Bank of America (1978) 21 Cal.3d 943, 953.) The ban on STRs/ITRs fails to appropriately balance the claimed necessity of the restriction with the extent of its limitation. As a result, it effects an unlawful restraint on the alienation of property.
The Draft Ordinance Interferes with the Right to Contract.
The immediate prohibition of STRs/ITRs in the City interferes with property owners' constitutional right to contract, a right protected under both the California and U.S.
Constitutions. It substantially impairs existing contractual relationships by invalidating Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025
agreements that property owners have made to rent their properties on a short- and intermediate-term basis in the coming months. (See Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Alameda County Employees' Retirement Assn. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1032, 1075.) The Draft Ordinance Infringes on Individuals’ Right to Privacy.
The Draft Ordinance infringes on property owners’ and renters’ inalienable rights to privacy as protected by the California Constitution, which includes the right to privacy in one’s home. (See City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson (1980) 27 Cal. 3d 123, 130.) By prohibiting rentals less than one year, the ordinance severely restricts homeowners’ and renters’ ability to choose who can stay in their homes. That violates their privacy rights. (Coalition Advocating Legal Housing Options, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 459.) The City provided no substantial justification for this infringement.
The Draft Ordinance Violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.
The Draft Ordinance violates the Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by, among other things, disproportionately impacting individuals seeking flexible-term housing, thereby favoring local long-term residents and impeding non-residents' participation in the City's rental and job market. (United Haulers Ass’n, Inc. v. OneidaHerkimer Solid Waste Mgmt. Auth. (2007) 550 U.S. 330, 338.) This undue burden on interstate commerce is not justified, as the City has not demonstrated that the Draft Ordinance even-handedly effectuates a legitimate local public interest, nor shown any evidence that STRs/ITRs contribute to nuisance or housing problems, as discussed in more detail below. (Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. (1970) 397 U.S. 137, 142.) Adoption of the Draft Ordinance Would be Arbitrary and Capricious The City justifies its unprecedented approach to restricting rental housing based on unsupported allegations that STRs/ITRs impact housing affordability or cause nuisances. The City offers no meaningful support for these justifications.
First, the City fails to provide any evidence that STRs/ITRs affect housing affordability in the City -- the staff report uses flimsy language claiming STRs/ITRs “likely” affect the City’s long-term housing affordably and “may” exacerbate the affordable housing crisis in the greater Los Angeles area, providing no actual data to support these statements.
Empirical evidence supports the conclusion that STRs in fact support housing affordability by allowing homeowners to recoup some investment by renting their homes, and that the only solution to California’s housing crisis is to build more housing. (Dubetz et al, Staying Power: The Effects on Short-Term Rentals on California’s Tourism Economy and Housing Affordability, Milken Institute, p. 1 (2022); Betsey Stevenson, Banning Airbnb Won’t Solve the Housing Crisis, Bloomberg News (July 8, 2024).)
Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025
The Draft Ordinance is also fundamentally inconsistent with the City’s General Plan policies aimed at providing diverse and affordable housing options, because it eliminates numerous flexible term lease options and reduces the diversity and affordability of housing. It further fails to consider the diverse housing needs of individuals such as students, teachers, medical professionals on rotation at UCLA, St.
John’s and Cedars-Sinai, families and individuals whose homes are under renovation, and victims of natural disasters such as the January 2025 wildfires, who rely on flexible lease terms to live in the City. The benefits of flexible-term leases are extensive, and the corresponding costs of eliminating such leases significant, yet none are discussed or assessed in the various staff reports to the Planning Commission and City Council. This glaring omission and overgeneralized, simplistic rationalization for banning all leases less than 12 months is highly problematic. It suggests the City has either not considered any of these benefits, or more callously, does not wish to provide flexible accommodations for the variety of individuals who rely on them.
With respect to alleged nuisance impacts, the only evidence in the record is aggregated case data from the City’s code enforcement over a 10-year period showing there have been a nominal number of cases related to STRs resulting in a compliance order or citation. (July 1 Staff Report, Attachment 6 - Nov. 14, 2024, Planning Commission Report, pp. 3-5.) Contrary to the City’s position, this data actually demonstrates that a complete ban on all STRs/ITRs in the City is unreasonable, and any “bad actor” issues could be addressed through straightforward enforcement of the City’s generally applicable nuisance laws. (See, e.g., BHMC §§ 6-1-404 [solid waste accumulation]; 5-1- 302 [loud or unruly gathering]; 1-3-103 [City authority to abate public nuisance, enforce].)
There is also no data to show that any complaints came from ITRs – the data is silent as to the length of the rental term that the complaints and citations arose from. In fact, the data is silent on the nature of the complaints and if the issues identified were even nuisance-type activity. This failure is coupled with the fact that the City has not collected evidence to understand how many STRs/ITRs are operating in the City and what the impacts would be of banning them on the City’s economy and the environment.
Given the lack of meaningful evidentiary support that STRs/ITRs contribute to the City’s housing affordability challenges or nuisance activity in the City, and the failure of the City to evaluate the potential economic and environmental impacts of its unprecedented restrictions on property rental, adopting the Draft Ordinance will be arbitrary and capricious. (See Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (1994) 11 Cal. 3d 28, 34; see also Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1268.)
Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025
The Draft Ordinance Would Have Significant Environmental Impacts2 Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a local agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report whenever a project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21151.)
Ramboll found that the Draft Ordinance, if approved, may increase emissions and noise to such degree as to have the potential to cause significant impacts on the environment, cognizable under CEQA. As explained in the Ramboll Analysis, these impacts also have health-related effects that should be evaluated further. Indeed, CEQA requires the City to evaluate whether “[t]he environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(3), (d); CEQA Guidelines, § 15065, subd. (a) (4).) CEQA mandates a finding of significant impact when substantial adverse effects on human beings are caused by a project. (Id.) These effects must be fully disclosed and evaluated in-depth in an EIR (Id.; see also Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21068, 21100), and feasible measures to avoid or at least substantially lessen them must be discussed. (Id., §§ 21002, 21002.1, 21081.) Adverse effects on human health and safety, unquestionably, are “adverse effects on human beings” within the meaning of CEQA. (California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369, 386.)
The City’s finding that the Draft Ordinance is exempt from CEQA fails. It is not exempt under the commonsense exemption (July 1 Staff Report, p. 9; CEQA Guidelines, § 15061, subd. (b)(3)) because it cannot be “seen with certainty” that the Draft Ordinance has no potential to cause a significant environmental effect -- as discussed below, significant impacts are reasonably foreseeable. (See Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 117 [“the agency’s exemption determination must be supported by evidence in the record demonstrating that the agency considered possible environmental impacts in reaching its decision”].)3
2 Please refer to the Environmental Analysis of Short-Term Rental Regulation in Beverly Hills, prepared by Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc., submitted along with this comment letter (Ramboll Analysis).
3 The Draft Ordinance also does not qualify for the Class 5 categorical exemption for "Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations." (July 1 Staff Report, p. 9; CEQA Guidelines, § 15305.) This exemption is intended for individual changes of use, such as lot line adjustments, variances, minor encroachment permits, and reversion to acreage, rather than municipal ordinances that establish new, generally applicable regulatory policies applicable throughout a city’s entire incorporated territory. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15305.) Even if the Draft Ordinance did fit into the Class 5 exemption—which it does not—the unusual circumstances exception under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, subdivision (c) would apply. The Draft Ordinance is distinguishable from projects in the exempt class due to its geographic scale and scope.
Furthermore, there is a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects arising from these unusual circumstances, as eliminating many STRs/ITRs from the City may lead to substantial adverse direct and indirect environmental impacts.
Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025
Removing all existing STRs/ITRs from the City will almost certainly change traffic patterns. This shifting of traffic from within the City and its job centers to other locations in the Southland may have significant environmental impacts, including increased vehicle emissions from people traveling further distances to their places of employment and residence. This may result in adverse air quality impacts to residents of Beverly Hills and potential traffic impacts at new locations.
Courts have concluded that such potential impacts are sufficient to require an initial study. For example, in Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, 1198, the California Supreme Court held that San Diego’s medical marijuana ordinance was a CEQA project because it was capable of causing indirect physical changes in the environment, including changed traffic patterns. The court explained that “restrictions on the siting of dispensaries would require thousands of patients to drive across the City to obtain medical marijuana.” (Id. at p. 1182.) Potential changes to traffic and circulation were enough to require CEQA review. (Id. at 1200-1201.) The rule is indeed that a local ordinance must be considered a “project” subject to environmental review under CEQA, “if, by its general nature, the activity is capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Id. at p. 1197.) This determination is made without considering whether, under the specific circumstances in which the proposed activity will be carried out, these potential effects will actually occur. (Ibid., italics added.) Consistent with this standard, a ‘reasonably foreseeable’ indirect physical change is one that the activity is capable, at least in theory, of causing. (Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(3).)” (Ibid., italics added.) Fullerton Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Education (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779 provides another example. There, the high court found a school district secession plan “will change bus routes and schedules, and affect traffic patterns. Although it is uncertain whether the total impact will be significant enough to require an environmental impact report, it is clear that it is sufficient to require at least an initial study to inquire into the need for such a report.” (Id. at 794.)
The New Private Right of Action Violates Equal Protection and Invites Frivolous, Discriminatory Litigation
The Draft Ordinance now includes a private right of action for those who collect and remit transient occupancy tax (TOT) to bring a civil action for alleged violations of the Draft Ordinance. This effectively transfers enforcement responsibility from the City to a class of competing businesses who would benefit from renters in the City being forced to stay in hotels or motels for extended periods of time. This transferring of enforcement authority to a specific class of private actors not only violates the equal protection rights of property owners and renters who are now potentially subject to targeting and selective enforcement, it will lead to increased litigation and community discord. Inviting these specific businesses to directly sue property owners and renters may also encourage frivolous lawsuits driven by personal or constitutionally suspect grievances.
There is simply no rational basis for the inclusion of such a private right of action.
Beverly Hills City Council
August 5, 2025
The New Private Right of Action Requires Planning Commission Consideration In addition, because the private right of action was added to the Draft Ordinance after the first reading, and it is a significant substantive change to what was previously considered, the Draft Ordinance must return to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation before the City Council can approve it. (See Gov. Code, § 65857.) The City Cannot Legally Approve the Draft Ordinance
The Draft Ordinance not only bans a time-honored form of property use, it bans entire classes of persons from residing in or visiting Beverly Hills. It does so invidiously, under an unsupported guise of housing affordability and nuisance prevention. In actuality, STRs/ITRs provide access to housing (including affordable access) for many in the temporary workforce (traveling nurses, project-based employees or contract workers, construction workers, substitute teachers, retail workers during the holiday season, temporary administrative assistants, temporary travel nannies etc.), foster local tourism and economic vitality, and promote environmental sustainability. These benefits are not incidental -- they are central to the California dream and the liberty the California and U.S. Constitutions exist to protect. Beverly Hills does not have the right nor authority to take this dream and suppress this liberty.
Sincerely,
Frank P. Angel
foreigners, oligarchs, and such, and be used as a pied-â-terre, allegedly not impacting traffic and, wait for it, infrastructure. Another difference? Time has not been kind to this project.
Construction costs have probably sky rocketed, with supply tariffs and unforeseen labor costs.
I do not see any upside for the residents in providing this bond. If there were an upside, we would have heard about it.
So please, explain to me how this bond serves the residents? Helene Hartris
Attention: Ms. Huma Ahmed, City Clerk, City of Beverly Hills Re: Public Comment - To be Read at City Council Meeting August 19, 2025 Gina Levine
9 August 14, 2025
Dear Mayor Nazarian, Councilmembers, Director Harris, and City Staff, My name is Gina Levine, and I am a Beverly Hills resident with my son currently enrolled in the new preschool program at Horace Mann. I want to thank the City for creating an affordable, high-quality preschool program for residents and for opening the Horace Mann site so swiftly on August 12 despite the short turnaround from the granted license. This achievement reflects the City’s dedication to serving young families and investing in early childhood education.
As noted in the January 31, 2025 City Council Liaison Meeting, City staff have discussed the potential for before- and after-preschool care as part of future program enhancements. I respectfully request that the City prioritize implementing extended care for the preschool program.
The current 9:00 a.m. drop-off time presents significant challenges for many working parents and families with multiple children. Aligning before- and after-care with preschool hours would make the program more accessible, allowing more residents to participate fully without schedule conflicts.
I recognize that adding extended care will require careful consideration of staffing, funding, and licensing requirements. For that reason, I respectfully request a written response outlining specific details of any proposed extended care plan, along with clear implementation timelines. Having this information will help parents plan ahead and demonstrate the City’s responsiveness to the needs of the families it serves.
Thank you for your leadership, for listening to residents, and for your commitment to providing quality educational opportunities in Beverly Hills. I look forward to your response and to seeing the preschool program continue to thrive and expand in ways that meet the needs of our community.
Sincerely,
discussed months ago and was expected to be voted on in July, yet it remains unresolved. It’s disingenuous to move forward with project endorsements while failing to enact the very protections that were promised to residents.
Further, I am alarmed that the City is including this project in an application for $34 million of the $101 million in fire disaster relief funding. Using disaster relief intended for devastated areas like Palisades and Eaton Canyon to subsidize a private development in southeastern Beverly Hills is, frankly, shameful. It undermines the integrity of our City and its standing with the State.
Lastly, no meaningful concessions are being asked of the developer in exchange for public support and funding. Where are the requirements for additional parking, height reductions, sidewalk setbacks, or enhanced landscaping? Why is this developer being given our endorsement with no strings attached?
This entire process—from the lack of notification, to the rushed votes, to the inappropriate use of disaster funds—raises serious concerns about transparency and priorities. I respectfully ask the Council to:
Vote NO on the proposed endorsement and $500,000
allocation;
Delay any further decisions until proper community outreach is conducted; and
Prioritize the passage of the parking permit
ordinance before taking further action on Builder’s Remedy projects.
Thank you for your attention and for representing all voices in our community—not just the developers'
Nancy Philipson
Sent from my iPad
on the fourth attempt. That failure is precisely what triggered the Builder’s Remedy, leaving us burdened with projects that threaten to permanently alter the character of Beverly Hills. The fact that a developer is now rushing to meet his deadline when the City could not meet its own is, in every sense, true irony.
We respectfully request the following:
1. An explanation of why residents were not notified of tomorrow’s meeting when both the Mayor and the City Manager have acknowledged the importance of transparency.
2. Immediate access to the agenda, minutes, or any summary documentation of the session.
3. A clear reaffirmation of the City’s plan for notifying residents in real time going forward, whether through email, website postings, or other reliable channels, so that no meeting of this importance goes unnoticed.
As residents, we are not opposed to thoughtful, balanced development. We care deeply about responsible growth that honors the unique character of Beverly Hills. But when city leadership fails to communicate after specifically committing to do better, it erodes trust and creates unnecessary division. We are simply asking that the City uphold its promise, protect our voice, and ensure transparency in matters that affect us all.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this pressing concern.
Renée Strauss
From: Daniela Anderson
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item F-1
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 3:20:01 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
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
To the council members:
Please add my name to the other citizens of Beverly Hills who object to the issuance of this bond for One Beverly Hills. The town of Beverly Hills should not get involved in the financing and become responsible if anything goes wrong with the project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Daniela Anderson
Resident of 90210=
Honorable Members of the Beverly Hills City Council,
As many of you know, my family has deep roots in Beverly Hills, particularly in the southwest part of the city. I grew up on South Linden Drive, my wife Amy on Peck Drive, and today we live on South Camden. Amy and I both attended El Rodeo School and later Beverly Hills High School, so the 9900 site and the Beverly Hilton have been a part of our lives since childhood.
Many of you knew my father, Roger, and have honored my cousin, former Mayor Vicki Reynolds. Over the years, I’ve become familiar with the politics and spirited debates that shape our city. In my view, the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) for One Beverly Hills is not a controversial issue, it’s a sound policy decision. When the law enabling CFDs was written, its purpose was clear: to protect cities from financial liability while encouraging developers to invest in projects that enhance public infrastructure.
Amy, our children, and our neighbors are genuinely excited about the One Beverly Hills project. We’ve seen the positive impact the Waldorf Astoria has had on our community, and I believe One Beverly Hills will be an even greater addition—one that will bring lasting value to residents, visitors, and our city as a whole.
I respectfully urge you to approve the CFD for One Beverly Hills so we can keep this longdormant site moving toward the world-class development our city deserves.
Thank you for your time and dedication to Beverly Hills.
Sincerely,
Joey Behrstock
Honorable Members of the Beverly Hills City Council,
I must admit, speaking from the other side of the dais as a private citizen, feels strange. It is a privilege I take seriously. I’ve sat where you are and listened to constituents express their concerns and support. That dialogue is a critical and unique aspect of our democracy.
At the same time, it is important to distinguish testimony to the council which is factually true and pertinent. Sometimes it may be hard to separate the noise from the signal. As good councilmembers, I know you listen to everyone, reflect on their input and then decide based on the facts, your convictions and your knowledge.
We, the residents, the city and the developers of One Beverly are partners in the development and in the success of this project. A financially successful project serves us all well. One tool to create a successful project is the Mello-Roos Act. It is a very wellconceived piece of legislation. It enables cities to help developers finance the large costs associated with the public improvements and infrastructure required for a project. It is clearly written to insulate the city from liability. I think it important to reiterate that point.
The clear intent and language of the law, as well as years of experience by more than 1500 other cities, is to facilitate the creation of the CFD with no financial exposure to our city.
So, the question isn’t, “Why should we help the developer?” It’s just the opposite, “Why shouldn’t we help the developer?”
There are no credible reasons for us not to do this. We get the benefit of this new development. The developers save money which helps ensure the project is finished on time. The city has no liability.
I am sure after you to listen to all the public testimony, you will come to the same conclusion all these other cities have. A Community Facilities District is good for your constituents and the broader community.
I urge you to approve.
Golden Globes, LLC
11355 West Olympic Boulevard | Los Angeles, CA 90064
August 13
The Honorable Sharona Nazarian
Members of the Beverly Hills City Council
City of Beverly Hills, California
Dear Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers,
As President of the Golden Globes, I am proud to represent an event that has called the Beverly Hilton home for decades. Each year, the Golden Globes brings together some of the most influential names in film and television from around the world, showcasing Beverly Hills as a premier global destination. The Golden Globes’ impact extends far beyond awards night—boosting our economy, our businesses, and our city’s global profile.
The Beverly Hilton sits at the heart of the One Beverly Hills development. This project is vital not only to the future of our venue but also to the continued vibrancy of Beverly Hills as an international hub. Its timely completion is essential, especially with the 2028 Olympics approaching, when the world’s attention will once again be on our City.
I understand that the developer is requesting the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) under the Mello-Roos Act to finance the public portions of the project. This is a proven and widely used financing tool in California ensuring the cost of public improvements is borne solely by the property within the district—not by the City or its residents. Beverly Hills itself has successfully implemented such a district in the past.
For these reasons, I strongly support the formation of a CFD for One Beverly Hills. This will help keep the project on schedule, deliver world-class public improvements, and secure lasting benefits for residents, businesses, and visitors.
Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to keeping Beverly Hills a worldclass city.
Sincerely,
Helen Hoehne
President
1 August 18, 2025
Honorable Mayor Sharona Nazarian and Beverly Hills City Council City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Mayor Nazarian and Members of the Beverly Hills City Council:
The Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce writes to you in support of the One Beverly Hills (OBH) Project and specifically, the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance public improvements on the site, including public works improvements, utility relocation and the
4.5 acre botanical garden and open space open to the public. Our Government Affairs Committee and Board of Directors has spent considerable time reviewing this matter and, after careful consideration of the facts, believe this request will be helpful not just to the project but to our wider community.
The One Beverly Hills Project includes two new residential buildings, a new mixed use residential/luxury hotel building, the previously mentioned open space and a beautiful dining and retail area.
A CFD (sometimes called a “Mello-Roos District” after the authors of the bill that created it), is a special financing district that allows local governments to fund public improvements in a specific geographic region through the sale of bonds which are paid for by the property owners of the CFD until the debt is paid off.
There has been considerable discussion about why One Beverly Hills is seeking a CFD now. As we understand it, the answer is quite straightforward: (1) interest rates have gone up considerably since 2021 when the project was approved; (2) construction costs have gone up considerably since 2021; and (3) a CFD provides one financing method (amongst others OBH is also using) to access capital effectively and complete the public improvements. According to the information the Chamber has been presented, the proposed CFD currently represents about three percent of the financing costs for One Beverly Hills – the other 97 percent is from the private sector.
According to the bond attorney for the City, the City has no liability in reference to the repayment of the bonds. That is because the bonds are secured by the value of the land and the property (condos, hotel, etc.) developed within the CFD, not City property or assets. The 2 legislation creating CFDs was designed this way on purpose to protect cities. It is also important to note that the City determines when the bonds are issued and that the entire project will be near completion before the bonds are issued. The author of the legislation creating CFDs (former California Assemblymember Mike Roos) has written that a CFD is appropriate for OBH.
Finally, there has also been discussion about what the City is “getting” for allowing OBH to pursue this financing route. The land where OBH is planned has been vacant for over a decade.
Under the original development agreement negotiated with OBH, the City is going to receive millions of dollars for decades to come via fees and taxes – when the project is built. Under the most recent proposals for a CFD, OBH is going to pay for the costs of administering the bonds.
OBH is going to pay the City an additional $10 million. Most importantly, however, is the fact that the City is going to have a wonderful, world class project to display to the world and to encourage even more people to stay and spend money in the City. Plus, there will be a large, 4.5 acre publicly accessible botanical garden and open space. Isn’t that enough? We understand the suspicions that come any time a developer seeks an adaptation to an existing plan. In this instance, having reviewed the facts, the Chamber believes those suspicions are misplaced.
The OBH team have been good partners and are bringing a great and important project to Beverly Hills. We ask that you support their request.
Sincerely,
Todd Johnson
President and CEO
Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
B S H H O M E A P P L I A N C E S C O R P O R A T I O N
B S H H O M E A P P L I A N C E S C O R P O R A T I O N 1901 Main Street, Suite 600, Irvine, CA 92614
Phone: 949-440-7100, Fax: 949-437-7000
August 15th, 2025
Dear City Council,
At the Bosch, Thermador and Gaggenau’s Beverly Hills showroom, my team has the privilege of working in the heart of this wonderful city every day. We interact with residents, designers, and visitors from all over the world who come here because Beverly Hills offers an unmatched blend of quality, beauty, and service.
We believe the One Beverly Hills project will strengthen that reputation and bring lasting benefits to the community. The CFD is a smart way to ensure the public improvements tied to the project are delivered without drawing from the City’s budget or placing financial risk on residents.
We’re proud to be part of the Beverly Hills business community and encourage you to support this important step in the city’s future.
Thank you for your consideration and everything you do for the community, Christopher Kaeser
Christopher Kaeser
Senior Vice President, Sales
BSH Home Appliances Corporation
BOSCH – THERMADOR - GAGGENAU
Please reject this reckless and unnecessary bond issuance.
Thank you for your service to the City of Beverly Hills.
Sincerely,
Wendy Klenk
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
Tel: +1.213.485.1234 Fax: +1.213.891.8763
www.lw.com
FIRM / AFFILIATE OFFICES
Austin Milan
Beijing Munich
Boston New York
Brussels Orange County
Chicago Paris
Dubai Riyadh
Düsseldorf San Diego
Frankfurt San Francisco
Hamburg Seoul
Hong Kong Silicon Valley
Houston Singapore
London Tel Aviv
Los Angeles Tokyo
Madrid Washington, D.C.
August 4, 2025
Members of City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 N Rexford
Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: Community Facilities District No. 2025-1 of the City of Beverly Hills (One Beverly Hills) Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers:
It has come to our attention that a question has been raised whether the City will incur any financial liability as a result of forming Community Facilities District No. 2025-1 of the City of Beverly Hills (One Beverly Hills) (“CFD”) and/or issuing special tax bonds for or on behalf of the CFD. It is important to understand, your counsels (City Attorney and Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth) have advised and will more fully advise you on these matters. We are not counsel to the City, and you should, of course, rely on your counsels’ advice. However, we agree with your counsel that any special tax bonds issued by or on behalf of the CFD are not issued and sold as a City obligation or based on the City’s credit.
Rather, special tax bonds issued for or on behalf of the CFD are payable only from special taxes secured by a property tax lien imposed on the properties within the limited district boundaries of the One Beverly Hills project area. As explained more fully below, we agree with the City’s Bond Counsel, Brian Forbath of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth, that, if as a result of the failure by property owners within the CFD to pay the special taxes and the Bonds of the CFD go into default, the City is not financially liable for the Bonds.
By way of background, the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 has been used for decades all over the State as a method of financing public capital facilities and services. The Mello-Roos Act enables taxpayers in the proposed boundaries of a district to form a community facilities district encumbering their land (and only the land within the district) and approve a special tax to be levied solely on taxable property within such district as a means to finance various public infrastructure and services permitted to be financed pursuant to the Act. No other properties in the City are impacted by the special tax lien, only the properties in the boundaries of the district (the One Beverly Hills project).
There are currently over 1,000 community facility districts in existence in the State with many billions of dollars in outstanding bonds. Communities such as Irvine, San Clemente, Los Angles, Long Beach, Carlsbad and many others have formed community facilities districts and issued bonds in connection with such districts.
August 4, 2025
In fact, the City formed such a community facilities district in 2002 for the Business Triangle and, in 2013, the City also issued refunding bonds for that district, as approved by Mayor Brien, Vice Mayor Mirisch, and Councilmembers Gold, Bosse and Brucker. As noted in the Official Statement for the 2013 Bonds issued by Community Facilities District No. 2002-A (Business Triangle) of the City of Beverly Hills:
The Bonds and interest thereon are not payable from the general fund of the City.
Except with respect to the Special Tax Revenues, neither the credit nor the taxing power of the City is pledged for the payment of the Bonds or interest thereon, and no Owner of the Bonds may compel the exercise of the taxing power by the City or the forfeiture of any of its property.
As indicated in the staff report and as presented to Council by Mr. Forbath at the July 15th meeting, the Bonds will be land secured special tax bonds secured solely by the Special Taxes and the underlying taxable property located in the CFD. We agree with this construct; the Mello-Roos Act explicitly permits this structure wherein the special tax bonds are secured solely by the Special Taxes and underlying property and NOT by any other property or revenues of the City or any other municipality. The Bonds are not a general obligation of the City or the CFD and will not be payable from City general fund revenues or other property or sources, other than the Special Taxes.
The Special Taxes will be levied solely on property in the CFD and the current owners of such property have voted in favor of such levy while future owners will be fully apprised of such Special Taxes prior to purchasing property within the CFD. The only remedy for any default in the payment of Special Taxes on any taxable property in the CFD is the institution of legal proceedings to enforce payment of such delinquent Special Taxes and/or eventual foreclosure on the underlying real property subject to such Special Taxes.
The staff report also notes the special tax bonds will be issued in order to finance various public improvements including but not limited to streets, sidewalks, utility upgrades, and other public improvements required of the One Beverly Hills development. These public improvements and infrastructure will benefit not only the users and/or future residents of One Beverly Hills but also the City and its residents more generally.
Lastly, we also agree with the City’s Bond Counsel that, while the City Council will act as the legislative body of the CFD – similar to your function with the Business Triangle CFD - any costs associated with the CFD, the Bonds or the ongoing administration and enforcement thereof, will be paid or reimbursed from the Special Tax revenues generated by the taxable property in the CFD. The City will have NO obligation to use other City funds to pay such costs.
Sincerely,
Anna Rienhardt
of Latham & Watkins LLP
August 7, 2025
Dear City Council,
I am writing in strong support of the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the One Beverly Hills project.
As Executive Secretary of the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, I’m proud to represent more than 160,000 skilled workers from 48 affiliated local unions and district councils.
Our Council has been honored to contribute to many of Southern California’s most transformative projects - from the Waldorf Astoria in Beverly Hills to the Lucas Museum and Disneyland to major civic infrastructure like LA Metro, LA World Airports, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Through these efforts, we’ve seen firsthand the positive outcomes that result when developers, public agencies and the Building Trades work together.
One Beverly Hills and its construction team are great to work with and are providing economic opportunities and lasting community benefits.
Using a CFD to support public improvements is a well-established and responsible approach, used successfully in cities across California. The CFD poses no financial risk to the City and offers a practical way to help deliver the project’s public components. We have successfully worked with many projects throughout the region involving CFDs.
This project is bringing good union jobs to Beverly Hills, career pathways for residents, and long-term public benefits to all of Beverly Hills.
Please consider this letter as part of the public record. I respectfully urge your support for the CFD at One Beverly Hills.
Sincerely,
Ernesto Medrano
Executive Secretary EM: ag/OPEIU#537/afl-cio
August 15th, 2025
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
As a lifelong resident and business owner, I have had the privilege of watching our city grow into one of the most admired communities in the world. My family has called Beverly Hills home for over four decades, and I have built my career here with a deep sense of gratitude and commitment to giving back. Throughout the years we have seen all kinds of projects proposed, but nothing to the scale and grandeur of One Beverly Hills. One Beverly Hills was approved in 2021 during a period of low interest rates. As a way of comparison, the 5-year treasury in June 2021 was .84%, and as of today’s date, it’s 3.83%. Meaning financing for this construction went, as a guestimate, from 7-10% then to 10-13% now. While the developer’s profitability is not the city’s direct problem, the success of our city’s future is married to the success of this project, and I’m quite confident their interest rate section in their cash flows does not look as good as it did in 2021. As such, if the city can help the developer reduce their interest rate exposure without incurring any cost or financial risk and earn a large sum of money($10M) above and beyond the fees negotiated in the Development Agreement, then this CFD proposal screams success.
Another way to look at this proposal is if we were to compare the formation of this CFD to a traditional real estate transaction, the City is the broker, they are facilitating the transaction, they have no financial risk, and will get a cut of the proceeds for the deal they put together. Win-Win for all parties. Some say there may be a reputational risk for the city if the project became insolvent and the city facilitated the CFD, but what’s missing in that argument is that the reputational risk for the city is still there if the project went insolvent without the CFD(i.e. think Oceanwide plaza for the City of Los Angeles).
The proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) for the One Beverly Hills project represents a smart, proven, and responsible financing tool that has been used successfully across California for decades. I strongly encourage you to approve the formation of the CFD. Doing so will demonstrate the kind of forward-thinking leadership that has kept Beverly Hills thriving for generations, and it will ensure we continue to provide the infrastructure, beauty, and safety our community deserves.
Sincerely,
David Mirharooni
Brickstar Capital, LLC
To the Beverly Hills City Council,
In my work specializing in high-street, boutique, and mixed-use retail leasing and investment sales, I’ve seen how truly exceptional retail districts are built on more than just great stores — they’re sustained by smart infrastructure and public investment. Over the course of my career, I’ve been fortunate to work on large retail projects across Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, and beyond, and one consistent truth emerges: cities that invest in the public realm create enduring value for residents, businesses, and visitors.
One Beverly Hills is exactly that type of opportunity for our city. With the support of the CFD, this project will bring not only world-class hospitality and retail but also essential public benefits — upgraded utilities, improved streetscapes, and safer intersections. These improvements will directly enhance the appeal and competitiveness of Beverly Hills, ensuring it remains a global destination for luxury, fashion, dining, and culture.
The CFD represents a smart, targeted financing tool — a small part of the overall project’s capital structure — that will deliver significant, lasting benefits without placing new burdens on taxpayers. I strongly encourage you to move it forward.
Sincerely,
Jack Nathan
Vice President, Odyssey Retail Advisors
Regards,
Wendy E. Nystrom M.A, CRIS, ENV SP
No Shaming, No Blaming and Every Little Bit Helps
CA Producer License 0G85593
Dear Mayor Nazarian and Councimembers
This is in response to the letter of Dr. Julian Gold dated August 10, 2025 advocating that the City issue NTE $550 Million in Mello-Roos bonds to reimburse the developers of the One Beverly Hills project (OBH) for the cost of certain infrastructure.
I note that it took great courage for Dr. Gold to embrace so enthusiastically the arguments of OBH given that this request is strongly opposed by so many Beverly Hills residents.
I disagree with Dr. Gold for a number of reasons including the following:
The City and OBH are not partners. Partners share in the profits and losses of their venture.
Here, OBH will retain all of the profits if this venture is successful. If the project fails and the bonds cannot be repaid timely and in full, the City will be exposed to unquantifiable claims and potential liability.
While Dr. Gold’s experience with Mello-Roos bonds during his many years as a Beverly Hills official is likely very limited, it is surprising that he should adopt almost verbatim OBH’s assertions about them. OBH consistently ignores and, by necessity, Dr. Gold ignores the fact that these proposed bonds are different from the “more than 1500 other cities” who have reportedly used them. Here, uniquely I believe, the proposal is to use the public funds raised by the sale of the bonds to reimburse OBH for infrastructure costs that OBH committed to provide at its own expense. This commitment by OBH was in exchange for the unprecedented entitlements (including two condominium towers more than twice as high as any other building in the City) which the City granted three years ago. In the other cases, the request for Mello-Roos assistance was made and agreed to as part of the entitlement process. This difference is critical because the City faces enormous potential liability and serious fines for what appears to be an unlawful gift of public funds because the City would be paying twice for the same thing.
Dr. Gold argues that the “developers save money which helps ensure the project is finished on time.” This information about “finishing on time” (whatever that means) could only have come from the developer. It exemplifies the type of information that the City must have before it considers providing the requested financial assistance.
The City does not know anything about the financial condition of the project or how much has been borrowed with what strictures or what more is needed for completion or how valuable are the bond funds to OBG or when, if ever, it will be completed. Perhaps, Dr. Gold can assist in getting more transparency.
Dr. Gold states that there is “no financial exposure to our City” and the “city has no liability”. The developer has been requested to provide written assurances from experienced counsel that by issuance of the bonds and payment of the bond funds to the developer, the City has not made an unlawful gift of public funds under these circumstances and faces no other risk of loss, injury, liability or damage. This has not happened. All that OBH has offered is the entirely circular argument that the City doesn’t need these assurances or information because the City is not liable.
While Dr. Gold’s expressions of his opinion are undoubtedly well-meaning, they fall far short of what is needed because he knows nothing more about this than what the developer has decided to tell him.
I respectfully suggest that Dr. Gold’s entreaties are misdirected. If he has a sincere desire to help, and I have no doubt that he does, he should urge the developer to provide the requested assurances of counsel and the basic financial information that any responsible prospective lender would insist on.
Then and only then, if and when these are provided, should the City confront the questions of how, if at all, this benefits the City and, if so, what is fair consideration to the City commensurate with the benefit to the developer.
Sincerely,
Peter Ostroff
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
787 SEVENTH AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019
+1 212 839 5300
+1 212 839 5599 FAX
+1 212 839 5307
[email protected]
Sidley Austin (NY) LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership doing business as Sidley Austin LLP and practicing in affiliation with other Sidley Austin partnerships.
August 14, 2025
The Honorable City Council of the City of Beverly Hills 455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Re: One Beverly Hills—Limited Recourse Bonds for Community Facilities District Dear Council Members:
Attached is a formal memorandum from my law firm in support of the application for a community facilities district for the One Beverly Hills development project. At the request of our client Cain International LP, I am respectfully submitting the memo and this letter to address the limited recourse nature of the Bonds to be issued in the financing of the CFD, if it is approved.
The memo uses “limited recourse” to refer to provisions that will be included in the Bond documents for the protection of the City so that Bondholders will not have recourse to the City for Bond debt service—meaning that they will not be entitled to look to the credit of the City for Bond debt service. They will also not be entitled to look to the credit of the CFD, which will be similarly protected. Instead, their recourse will be limited to contractually available sources, which will consist principally of the special taxes levied by the CFD with respect to the CFD’s real property.
The Bonds will be contractual obligations of the CFD, not the City. In addition, in light of, among other things, the expected terms and disclosures relating to the Bonds, the memo states that there should be no reasonable basis for a Bondholder to believe that the City is obligated to pay Bond debt service—or even that the CFD is so obligated beyond available payment sources specified in the Bond documents.
After an Introduction and an Executive Summary (Parts I and II), the memo provides a description of the limited recourse structure of the Bonds (Part III) and information about the broad understanding and acceptance of limited recourse obligations in the area of municipal securities (Part IV). There is a graphic on page 3 of the memo to illustrate the contractual relationships relevant to limited recourse.
Despite the inclusion of the Executive Summary, perhaps it would assist your review to have some significant points stated here, although what follows is of course subject to the entirety of the memo.
First, as stated above, the Bonds will be contractual obligations of the CFD, not the City; the Bonds will be issued under Bond documents to which the CFD, and not the City, will be a party.
Second, in light of, among other things, the expected terms and disclosures relating to the Bonds, there should be no reasonable basis for a Bondholder to believe that the City is obligated to pay Bond debt service—or even that the CFD is so obligated beyond available payment sources specified in the Bond documents.
Third, the Bonds will be limited recourse obligations with substantial limited recourserelated protections for the City and the CFD, both in the contractual Bond documents and the Bond disclosure document. As a result, it will be clear, as a matter of contract and disclosure, that Bond debt service will depend principally on the special taxes, not the City’s or the CFD’s credit. This structure is in contrast to general obligation bonds or certain revenue bonds where a municipality would be directly or indirectly the basis for bond debt service. Investors, rating agencies and other constituencies will be in a position to evaluate the Bonds accordingly—and not as “AAA” City of Beverly Hills debt.
Fourth, there is broad understanding and acceptance of limited recourse obligations in the municipal securities market, including limited recourse or limited obligation bonds, as opposed to general obligation bonds. The memo provides categorizations of that distinguish between general obligation bonds and limited recourse bonds that are recognized by the market, as set forth in publications of financial institutions, the Securities and Exchange Commission and others. This means there is nothing unusual about the limited recourse nature of the Bonds.
On behalf of Cain and my colleagues in California who have participated in the preparation of the memo, thank you for your time. As the memo states, we would be pleased to answer any questions you have. Please feel free to contact me at if we may be of assistance.
Very truly yours,
Myles C. Pollin
cc: Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the City Council of Beverly Hills
CC: Laurence Wiener, City Attorney
FROM: Sidley Austin LLP
RE: One Beverly Hills—Limited Recourse Bonds for Community Facilities District DATE: August 14, 2025
I. Introduction
We respectfully submit this memorandum in support of the application for a community facilities district (a “CFD”) for the One Beverly Hills development project, which is being led by our client Cain International LP (“Cain”). The CFD, if approved, will be formed under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (“Mello-Roos”).
This memorandum addresses the limited recourse nature of the bonds (the “Bonds”) to be issued in the financing of the CFD. By “limited recourse”, we refer to a structure in which Bondholders will not have recourse to the City of Beverly Hills (the “City”) for payments on the Bonds (“Bond Debt Service”).
Instead, the Bonds will be obligations of the CFD, not the City, and Bondholders’ available sources for Bond Debt Service (the “Available Payment Sources”) will be limited to (i) the special taxes levied by the CFD with respect to CFD real property (the “Special Taxes”), (ii) the proceeds of foreclosures on properties whose owners are delinquent in payment of Special Taxes and (iii) the reserve or similar funds established when the Bonds are issued.
This limited recourse structure will be reflected in the agreement under which the Bonds are issued (the “Bond Agreement”), to which the CFD, and not the City, will be party.
Cain has requested that we submit this memorandum in view of our long-standing familiarity with limited recourse obligations in many areas of our finance practice.
Thank you for your time. We would be pleased to answer any questions you have.
II. Executive Summary
The Bonds will be contractual obligations of the CFD, not the City.
In addition, in light of the limited recourse nature of the Bond obligations (which are contractual obligations of the CFD, not the City), the disclosure that will be provided to Bondholders and the broad understanding and acceptance of limited recourse obligations in municipal finance, there should be no reasonable basis for a Bondholder to believe that the City is obligated to pay Bond Debt Service—or even that the CFD is so obligated beyond Available Payment Sources. More particularly:
2 The Bonds will be limited recourse obligations with substantial protections for the City in that regard in both the Bond Agreement and the Bond disclosure.
From them, it will be clear that (i) the Bonds will be obligations of the CFD, not the City, and (ii) Bond Debt Service will depend principally on the Special Taxes, not the City’s credit. In levying the Special Taxes, the CFD, and not the City, will act solely as an intermediary between taxpayers and the Bondholders— and the City will not be the obligor. This structure is in contrast to general obligation bonds or certain revenue bonds where the City’s credit would be directly or indirectly the basis for bond debt service. Please see Part III. There is broad understanding and acceptance of limited recourse obligations in the municipal securities market, including limited recourse or limited obligation bonds, as opposed to general obligation bonds. As a result, there is nothing unusual about the limited recourse nature of the Bonds. Please see Part IV.
This Executive Summary is subject to the entirety of this memorandum, including the qualifications in Part V.
III. The Bonds Will Be Limited Recourse Obligations of the CFD, Not the City A. Introduction; Graphic
The Bonds will be contractual obligations of the CFD, not the City, and they will be limited recourse obligations with substantial protections for the City in that regard. Bond Debt Service will depend on the Available Payment Sources (principally the Special Taxes), not the City’s credit or even the CFD’s general credit.1 In levying the Special Taxes, the CFD, and not the City, will act solely as an intermediary between that Available Payment Source and the Bondholders—and will not be the obligor.2 This structure is in contrast to general obligation bonds or certain revenue bonds where the City’s credit would be directly or indirectly the basis for bond debt service. Distinctions between categories of municipal obligations are discussed in Part IV.B.
The graphic immediately below is intended to facilitate your review of the textual discussion that follows it. It is not a substitute for the textual discussion in this memorandum. 1 Because there is no circumstance in which the City would have a direct payment obligation, the Bonds will be effectively non-recourse to it. However, we use “limited recourse” because the Bonds will be limited recourse as to the CFD.
2 We understand from Latham & Watkins LLP (“Latham”), which is representing affiliates of Cain in various aspects of the One Beverly Hills project, including the CFD, that the City has engaged a special tax consultant that has assisted with the formation of the CFD and will assist the CFD, after it is formed, with determining the levy and causing the levy to be included in county tax bills. If there is a foreclosure for delinquency in Special Taxes, the consultant will assist in relation to the Special Tax and penalties, and the CFD will hire a foreclosure firm that deals with tax foreclosures in California. 3 B. Bond Agreement in General; Specific Provisions Relating to Limited Recourse in Bond Agreement and Disclosure; Third Party Validation
1. Bond Agreement in General
Set forth below are assumed structural characteristics of the Bonds that are relevant to limited recourse.3
These characteristics will be reflected in the Bond Agreement (which will be a bond indenture or a fiscal agent agreement).
The parties to the Bond Agreement will be the CFD—not the City—and an institution serving as trustee or fiscal agent, and the party issuing the Bonds will be the CFD—not the City.
The CFD being a party to the Bond Agreement and being the issuer of the Bonds will not create recourse to the City for Bond Debt Service—or even recourse to the CFD beyond the Available Payment Sources.
Descriptions of this Bond structure are based on a recent Bond Agreement (in the form of a bond indenture) for Mello-Roos bonds using this structure (the “Example Bonds”).4 3 We do not describe characteristics, like interest rate provisions, that do not affect the limited recourse nature of the Bonds and are therefore not relevant to this memorandum.
Our description is stated as an assumption because Bond documents have not yet been drafted. We do not repeat “We assume” or similar language, but it should be understood as if repeated. Our assumption is based on the characteristics of the examples described below and our collaboration with Latham concerning this memorandum. 4 The Example Bonds are the Community Facilities District No. 2022-2 (McClaughlin Village) of the City of Menifee Special Tax Bonds, Series 2025. The Bond Agreement for the Example Bonds was provided to us by Latham. It is the Bond Indenture dated as of August 1, 2025 relating to the Example Bonds (on file with Sidley Austin LLP). The Official Statement for the Example Bonds is available at Electronic Municipal Market Access, $5,165,000 Community Facilities District No. 2022-2 (McLaughlin Village) of the City of Menifee Special Tax Bonds, Series 2025 (July 17, 2025), https://emma.msrb.org/P21944677-P21485290-P21936516.pdf ) (last visited Aug. 12, 2025).
The structure in the Example Bonds distances the City from bond obligations even more clearly than the structure used in the Bond Agreement (in the form of a fiscal agent agreement) for the 2013 Special Tax Refunding 4 Under the Bond Agreement, the trustee or fiscal agent will be responsible for, among other things, collecting and holding the Available Payment Sources and transmitting them to Bondholders for payments on their Bonds. The Bonds will be secured principally by collections of the Special Tax—and not by any asset, payment obligation or general taxing power of the City or even the CFD.
The CFD’s obligations will be set forth in the Bond Agreement, and they will be obligations of the CFD, not the City:
The Bond Agreement will obligate the CFD to levy the Special Taxes and to foreclose on properties whose owners are delinquent in payment of Special Taxes, and the Bond Agreement will address matters relating to those obligations. If there is any deficiency in the amount of Special Taxes, the CFD will not have any obligation to make up the deficiency out of its unrelated sources. The CFD will act solely as an intermediary between this Available Payment Source and the Bondholders.
The CFD’s payment obligations with respect to Bond Debt Service will be subject to the availability of Available Payment Sources.
None of these obligations will create recourse to the City for Bond Debt Service, and the recourse to the CFD will be limited to the Available Payment Sources.
2. Specific Provisions Relating to Limited Recourse in Bond Agreement and Disclosure
In addition, the Bond Agreement will have provisions that clearly reflect the limited recourse nature of the Bonds.5 For example:
Bonds of the Community Facilities District No. 2002-A (Business Triangle) of the City of Beverly Hills (the “Business Triangle Refunding Bonds”). In that structure, the City was the issuer-side party to the Bond Agreement, although it entered into the Bond Agreement and signed the Bonds “for and on behalf of” the CFD. Even in that structure, the fact that the City is a party to the Bond Agreement did not create recourse to the City for Bond Debt Service.
5 This was also the case for the Business Triangle Refunding Bonds.
The enforceability of limited recourse provisions is, in this context, a matter of contract law, in the absence of some other specifically applicable law. The Bond Agreement and the Bonds will be governed by California law, and the limited recourse provisions included in those Bond documents will be among the contractual terms of those documents. Under California contract law, parties are generally free to negotiate and agree to terms that reflect their intentions, and, in the absence of unconscionability, fraud or violations of public policy (which can be assumed not to be present here), courts will enforce the terms that parties agreed to. See Series AGI W. Linn of Appian Grp. Invs.
DE, LLC v. Eves, 217 Cal. App. 4th 156, 164 (2013). Parties may also choose to limit liability under contracts, and limitation of liability clauses are enforceable when not unconscionable. See Food Safety Net Servs. v. Eco Safe Sys.
USA, Inc., 209 Cal. App. 4th 1118, 1126 (2012).
5 Provisions resembling Section 2.2 of the Bond Agreement for the Example Bonds can be expected to provide, among other things, that (i) neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the City, the State of California, or any political subdivision thereof other than the CFD is pledged to the payment of the Bonds, (ii) except for the net amount of the Special Taxes, no other taxes are pledged to the payment of the Bonds, (iii) the Bonds are not general or special obligations of the City nor general obligations of the CFD but are limited obligations of the CFD payable solely from certain amounts (i.e., Available Payment Sources), (iv) no Bondholder may compel the exercise of the taxing power by the CFD (except as pertains to the Special Taxes) or the City or the forfeiture of any of their property, the Bond Debt Service obligations are not a debt of the City, the State of California or any of its political subdivisions within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation or restriction, and (v) neither members of the City Council nor any persons executing the Bonds are liable personally on the Bonds, by reason of their issuance.
Provisions resembling Section 5.2(b) of and Exhibit A to the Bond Agreement and for the Example Bonds can be expected to make it clear that the Bonds are payable solely from Available Payment Sources.
Similarly, the Official Statement for the Bonds will include detailed disclosure to investors describing the Bonds, including the limited recourse provisions. The disclosure will reflect the related provisions of the Bond Agreement and will also describe risks of investing in the Bonds, including their limited recourse nature. This kind of disclosure was included in the Official Statements for the Example Bonds and the Business Triangle Refunding Bonds.
Because of the expected terms and disclosures relating to the Bonds, as described above, there should be no reasonable basis for a Bondholder to believe that the City is obligated to pay Bond Debt Service—or even that the CFD is so obligated beyond Available Payment Sources.
3. Third Party Confirmation of Limited Recourse
There is third party confirmation of that point. For example, we have been informed by a representative of a major investment bank active in municipal securities to the effect that (i) the reception of potential investors to the Bonds will reflect the fact that the creditworthiness of the Bonds will depend on the Special Taxes and other Available Payment Sources and will not depend on the credit of the City, and (ii) investors will not perceive the Bonds as being obligations backed by the credit of the City. This is consistent with a letter dated August 8, 2025 that we understand was submitted to the City’s Director of Finance by the investment bank Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated. The letter stated: “Buyers of CFD bonds are entirely reliant on [Special Tax] revenues and the value of the underlying property, without any supplemental enhancement from the City’s general fund or other taxpayer monies.” Similarly, the rating of the Bonds can be expected to be based on the Available Payment Sources, not the City’s credit, as was the case when Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) rated the 6 Business Triangle Refunding Bonds. S&P’s press release from 20136 focused entirely on the taxes that will be available to service the debt of the Business Triangle Refunding Bonds, not the credit of the City, and S&P rated them “A+”, at a time when S&P’s issuer credit rating of the City was “AAA”.7 This difference between S&P’s “A+” rating of the Business Triangle Refunding Bonds and its “AAA” rating of the City itself is consistent with the limited recourse nature of the Business Triangle Refunding Bonds. We believe a similar difference can be expected between any rating of the Bonds for the One Beverly Hills CFD and the City’s rating.
We view the foregoing as third party confirmation that there should be no reasonable basis for a Bondholder to believe that the City is obligated to pay Bond Debt Service—or even that the CFD is so obligated beyond Available Payment Sources.
IV. Broad Understanding and Acceptance of Limited Recourse Obligations in Municipal Finance
A. Introduction
There is broad understanding and acceptance of limited recourse obligations in finance in the United States. This recognition includes limited recourse or limited obligation bonds in the municipal securities market, as opposed to general obligation bonds in that market. There is nothing unusual about the limited recourse nature of the Bonds. This broader context reinforces the point made above that there should be no reasonable basis for a Bondholder to believe that the City is obligated to pay Bond Debt Service—or even that the CFD is so obligated beyond Available Payment Sources. We provide details about different kinds of recourse in municipal securities in Part IV.B.
B. Limited Recourse in Municipal Securities; Different Categories of Securities In the area of municipal securities, there is particularly broad understanding and acceptance of limited recourse, as well as the distinctions between different categories of obligations—and the different risks that are associated with different categories. The following examples of categories likely repeat information already known to you, but our purpose is to show the broader dissemination of the information to reflect the broad understanding and acceptance referred to above.
For example, a recently published primer on municipal bonds by BofA Securities, a leading financial institution with experience in municipal securities, makes distinctions between categories and their risks, including the following categories:8 6 S&P Global, Beverly Hills Community Facilities District No. 2002-A (Business Triangle), CA’s 2013 Special Tax Bonds Rated ‘A+’ (Jan. 28, 2013 at 15:15 EST). We have no reason to believe that S&P’s methodology has changed since 2013 in any respect relevant to this validation. That methodology, in its current form, is available at S&P Global, Criteria | Governments | U.S. Public Finance: Priority-Lien Tax Revenue Debt (Sept. 9, 2024), https://www.spglobal.com/ratings/en/regulatory/article/-/view/sourceId/10540190?kw=%257bkeyword%257d. 7 Source: Bloomberg, as communicated to us by a representative of a major investment bank. 8 See BofA Global Research, Municipals Educational Series Primer on Municipal Bonds, BofA Securities (May 29, 2025), in particular, the overview of the municipal market on pages 5-7 (on file with Sidley Austin LLP). 7 General Obligation Bonds
GOs are supported by the issuer’s taxing power.
Where tax-backed bonds are supported by the full resources of the issuer, they are called General Obligation Bonds (GOs), as they are backed by the full faith and credit of the issuer. In the event that a GO issuer fails to pay bondholders as agreed, the trustee has the right to sue in court to compel the issuer to increase taxes in order to meet the obligation. This action is often termed obtaining a writ of mandamus.
Limited Tax Bonds
Limited tax bonds come from tax sources that are limited in amount.
The issuer may also agree to repay the bond from tax sources that are limited in type or amount, and these bonds are called Limited Tax Bonds. For example, a city might sell bonds to be repaid from a special tax assessment on certain properties, which are called special assessment bonds. Otherwise, the bonds may be payable from a discrete tax source, as in the case of sales tax bonds. There are many variations on this theme.
Revenue Bonds
Revenue bond payments come from the earnings of an enterprise or project.
When the payments come from the earnings of an enterprise or a project rather than taxes, the bond is a Revenue Bond. For example, a state or a local governmental authority may sell bonds to build a toll road. Since the state is the issuer, the interest income on the bond is federally tax-exempt. The tolls on the road, instead of the states’ tax receipts, pay off the bonds. Should the tolls prove inadequate to meet the debt service on the bond, the state is not obliged to pay.
Double-barreled Bonds
Double-barreled bonds have two sources of funds.
Many combinations and permutations of revenue sources on a bond are used. In the case of a Double-barreled Bond, two sources of funds are used. For example, both the GO of the issuer and a specific revenue source could be pledged as a source of repayment. In another case, the state may create a single entity, such as a bond bank, which sells municipal bonds to obtain funds and then lends those funds to various other entities in the state. The payments by participants on the loans from the bond bank are the sources of revenue on the bond bank’s bond.
Similarly, an online guide from Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.9 distinguishes as follows between general obligation bonds and revenue bonds:
The categories referred to in the bullet points are within the broader category of bonds with maturities of more than 13 months.
9 Cooper Howard, Choosing Municipal Bonds: GO or Revenue?, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc (Nov. 26, 2024), https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/choosing-municipal-bonds-go-or-revenue. 8 Munis can generally be classified into two camps—general obligation bonds and revenue bonds. General obligation, or GO, bonds are backed by the general revenue of the issuing municipality, while revenue bonds are supported by a specific revenue source, such as income from a toll road or sewer system. General obligation bonds account for 28% of the investment-grade muni market and are usually backed by the taxing authority of the bond issuer. Most states and local governments issue GO bonds to help fund operations or specific projects. The dollar value of GOs issued by states compared to local governments is roughly equal, even though there are fewer states than local governments. In other words, the amount of debt issued per state is much larger than the amount of debt issued per local government.
Revenue municipal bonds, or revenue bonds, account for nearly twothirds of all investment-grade munis outstanding, but they tend to get less attention than their more popular counterpart, general obligation bonds. Credit quality varies more with revenue bonds compared to GO bonds, but they can be an attractive option for muni investors looking to round out a diversified portfolio or to add investments that may have higher yields, if they're willing to accept additional risks.
The Schwab guide subcategorizes revenue bonds, and one of the subcategories is “special tax revenue bonds”, explained as “a bond that is repaid by levying a tax on a particular activity or asset”. And it goes on to describe the greater risk of revenue bonds: “Although GO bonds tend to have higher credit ratings and default less, we don’t think that revenue bonds should be overlooked as they can offer higher yields but come with higher risks.” The Securities and Exchange Commission has published an Investor Bulletin, “Municipal Bonds: Understanding Credit Risk”,10 in which it distinguishes between general obligation bonds and revenue bonds:
The type of municipal bond issued affects both the risk of default and the value of the municipal bond. Repayment may come from the issuer, an obligor, or from a single tax or revenue source. There are two major types of municipal bonds: “general obligation bonds” and “revenue bonds.” Because these types come in many varieties, you should look beyond the short-hand label when deciding whether to purchase.
Under the heading “Non-Recourse Financings”, it states (emphasis in original):
Some revenue bonds are “non-recourse,” meaning that if the revenue stream dries up, or if payments on the bonds are otherwise not paid, the bondholders do not have a claim on the underlying revenue source or against the conduit borrower. In instances where a conduit borrower fails to make a payment to the municipal issuer, the issuer is usually not required to pay the bondholders. For these reasons, it is essential to understand the source of the revenues that will be used to repay the bonds.
10 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Municipal Bonds: Understanding Credit Risk (last visited on Aug. 9, 2025), https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/municipalbondsbulletin.pdf. 9 C. Observations Based on the Categorizations
Many examples could be provided beyond those provided in Part IV.B, including categorizations and descriptions of varying risks from other financial institutions, other governmental bodies and rating agencies.
These examples illustrate how there is nothing unusual about the limited recourse nature of the Bonds and how the risks of investing in limited recourse bonds are—and are known to be—different from, and usually greater than, those of investing in general obligation bonds.
Again, the expected terms and disclosures relating to the Bonds should suffice, but the foregoing illustrations of the general understanding and acceptance should reinforce the point that there should be no reasonable basis for a Bondholder to believe that the City is obligated to pay Bond Debt Service—or even that the CFD is so obligated beyond Available Payment Sources.
V. Qualifications
This memorandum is subject to the following assumptions, limitations and other qualifications, in addition to qualifications set forth elsewhere in this memorandum:
(a) We have assumed the authenticity of all documents submitted to us as originals, the conformity to original documents of all documents submitted to us as copies and the authenticity of the originals of such documents. (b) We have made no independent investigation of the facts referred to in this memorandum or any other facts and have relied exclusively on the documents provided to us and on facts provided to us by or on behalf of Cain. We have assumed that all such facts are true on the date of this memorandum and will remain true at all other times relevant to this memorandum.
(c) We have assumed that there are no documents or facts not known to us that, if brought to our attention, would lead us to change any aspect of this memorandum. (d) The subject matter of this memorandum is limited to those aspects of the intended limited recourse of the Bonds that we address in this memorandum. We have been representing Cain in certain aspects of the One Beverly Hills project unrelated to the proposed CFD and the Bonds, and we have expanded the scope of such representation only recently and only to be able to prepare and submit this memorandum. Other law firms have primary responsibility for the CFD and the Bonds. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, this memorandum does not address, and we express no view on, any aspect of any law, federal or state other than those aspects of California law referred to in this memorandum in relation to the limited recourse issue. We have assumed that all applicable laws and regulations have been and will be complied with in connection with the formation of the CFD and the offering and issuance of the Bonds. (e) The laws to which this memorandum relate are solely those cited expressly in relation to any legal issue addressed in this memorandum. To prepare this 10 memorandum, we have also examined (i) title 3 (“Taxation, Finance, Purchasing, and Risk Management”) of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code11 and (ii) title 4 (“Revenue and Finance”) of the Los Angeles County Code.12 We conducted a reasonable amount of research, but our research was not comprehensive. It did not include any legislative history of any laws.
(f) To our knowledge, there is no precedent or other authority directly on point with respect to the matters addressed in this memorandum. (g) This memorandum is not a guarantee of the outcome of any ruling or other determination by, or view expressed by, any court or other authority. (h) This memorandum is based solely on factual matters in existence or assumed to be in existence as of the date of this memorandum and laws in effect on such date, and we assume no obligation to revise or supplement this memorandum to reflect any matter (including any change in fact or law) that comes to our attention after the date of this memorandum.
(i) This memorandum is solely for your information and not for the information of anyone else. We are not providing legal advice to you by submitting this memorandum to you, and such submission does not create any attorney-client relationship between us and you. For legal advice, you should consult with your own lawyers.
11 Accessed at https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/beverlyhillsca/latest/beverlyhills_ca/0-0-0-1547. 12 Accessed at
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_angeles_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT4REFI.
Beverly Hills, CA 90210 kwprealestate.com
August 18, 2025
Members of the City Council
City of Beverly Hills
Subject: Support for Cain Development’s One Beverly Hills Project and Request for Inclusion in Community Facilities District
Dear Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers,
I hope this letter finds you well. My name is Marlene Reyes and I’m the Property Manager at 0 . I have managed this property for over 5 years now and have worked with KWP Real Estate. Ltd, for close to 10 years. The KWP Real Estate. Ltd headquarters is also located in the City of Beverly Hills since 2015.
During my time in Beverly Hills, I have seen tremendous amounts of new and exciting projects underway. One of them includes One Beverly Hills. Cain Development has been my tenant for the past few years, and I have seen firsthand what great creation, imagination and development they plan to bring to our wonderful city.
I’d like to convey my full support for Cain Development. They have asked the City to allow the property to become a part of a Community Facilities District to help reduce the cost of financing public portions of the project. I fully support the Council’s establishment of a Mello-Roos District at the One Beverly Hills site.
Thank you for your consideration.
Marlene Reyes
Property Manager
KWP Real Estate. Ltd
Mike Roos
Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore
(Ret)
August 4, 2025
Mayor Sharona Nazarian
Members of the City Council
City of Beverly Hills
Dear Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers:
I understand that questions have been raised in Beverly Hills about the establishment of a Community Facilities District in your City. I have read the opinion pieces and letters to the editor, and I want to take this opportunity to provide you with facts.
I was a principal co-author of what is now commonly called the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. It passed with overwhelming support in the State Legislature.
When Senator Henry Mello and I crafted this legislation, our goal was to provide California's local governments with a flexible and robust mechanism to finance public infrastructure and services in a postProposition 13 era, yet preserving a 2/3 vote by the landowners in the district. We envisioned a tool that could support growth and enhance quality of life without burdening existing taxpayers and cities.
The beauty of Mello-Roos, and its enduring relevance, lies in its broad applicability. It allows for the funding of a vast array of public improvements like parks, roads, water, and sewer systems and other important services whether built by cities or developers.
Crucially, and this is a point I cannot stress enough, the Mello-Roos mechanism is designed to be entirely risk-free to the city's general fund, its existing property owners, and its residents. When a Community Facilities District (CFD) is formed, the special tax is levied only on the properties within that newly designated district – in your case, only within the boundaries of the One Beverly Hills development. This means:
• No Impact on Existing Residents: Your current property owners will not see this special tax on their bills. The financial responsibility for the new infrastructure rests solely with the properties that are in the district.
• No Risk to the City's General Fund: The bonds are repaid directly by the special taxes collected within the CFD. They do not rely on the city's general revenue, nor do they create a liability for the broader city budget. This allows the city to maintain its fiscal health while still facilitating community improvements.
This is precisely how Mello-Roos was intended to function: as a responsible, self-funding pathway to progress. It empowers communities to invest in their future, enhance their amenities, and accommodate growth, all while safeguarding the financial interests of their long-standing residents.
I commend your City Council for considering this prudent and effective financial tool. Your approach is entirely consistent with the intent and protective nature of Mello-Roos and it reflects a commitment to smart growth and fiscal responsibility that will benefit your community for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Mike Roos
Assembly Speaker Pro Tempore Mike Roos (Ret)
Co-Author, Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
SANTA MONICA | WASHINGTON | NEW YORK | LONDON | ABU DHABI | SINGAPORE August 15, 2025
Mayor Sharona Nazarian
Members of the City Council
City of Beverly Hills
To the honorable Beverly Hills Mayor and Councilmembers, The Milken Institute is deeply rooted in the Beverly Hills community through our annual Global Conference at the Beverly Hilton and surrounds. The conference and accompanying meetings and workshops span almost a full week every May, with programs, receptions, dinners and other events held at locations throughout Beverly Hills in addition to the Hilton, bringing muchvalued revenue and many international business travelers to the BH community. Our continuing commitment to holding the conference in Beverly Hills is based not only on the successes of our past conferences, but also our expectation that future conferences will benefit both the community and the Institute.
This letter of support for the One Beverly Hills Project reflects our belief that the development will further enhance Beverly Hills’ reputation of excellence and innovation, enhancing public infrastructure and creating vibrant new amenities. This will further elevate the experience of attendees and staff of our global conference - and, by providing new venues and amenities, will allow the Institute to offer more and expand our economic and social impact on the community as well.
We support the CFD proposed for this project as a responsible and widely accepted mechanism for funding public improvement, by ensuring that the costs are borne exclusively by the property owners within the district, without any financial risk to the City or its taxpayers. Beverly Hills has successfully utilized this approach before, which adds to its credibility.
I urge the City Council to approve the formation of the Community Facilities District as a vital step toward realizing the full potential of One Beverly Hills for our entire community.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Sarah Sandler
Executive Vice President and Chief Growth Officer
Milken Institute
From: Judith Segal
To: Megan Mumby
Subject: Oppose Bond Issue to One Beverly Hills
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 4:26:36 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
For the record:
I vehemently oppose one Beverly Hills being considered as a community facility district and the City Of Beverly Hills supporting the $550 million dollar bond issue. The potential financial liability resulting from inevitable lawsuits will cost the city millions of wasted dollars spent in defense of a faulty decision. The city already wastes millions of urgently needed dollars for lawsuits that shouldn’t have happened and accomplish nothing.
Dr. Judith Segal
Sent from my iPhone
federal tariffs, the cost of building has skyrocketed. This enormous, ultra luxurious project is no longer sustainable and that is why the developers are turning to the City for help via a bond.
My first reaction to their request: HELL NO!
My second reaction: either (a) scale back the project to the extent that it does not require city bonds or (b) require that the developers personally guarantee, from their own assets and holdings, the re-payment of the bonds. Let them put their own skin in the game. And put teeth into the repayment guarantees with liens on all real property holdings and UCC filings on anything else to the limit of the bond. Let the developer not sell out the collateral before it is called upon for repayment.
This project is not going to get any cheaper and in fact, will only rise in costs as time progresses. It will put the City at greater risk that the bonds will not be re-paid and at very least, not fully repaid.
We are heading for a recession. Residential sales are tumbling and taking longer to close.
Retail spaces are vacant for an extended period of time and as we are already seeing, tourism is dwindling. It would be unwise to count too much on the World Cup and Olympics as they too, are subject to the whims of the current administration and backlash from former allies around the globe.
With than in mind, now calculate the economic risk to the City it it approves a bond. Multiply the risk because this will likely not be the last request from the developers for City assistance.
Have you seen the hole left at Santa Monica Blvd and Doheny Dr in West Hollywood? Who is to say that a similar blight on our beautiful city will not happen at One Beverly Hills when the developer doesn't complete such an enormous, overly promoted and marketed project? The economics of this opulent development have changed drastically since it was approved by the City Council. It is the City Council's sworn duty to safeguard the City's finances and its residents' tax dollars in the face of changed conditions versus the developers overly promised revenue as inflation rises and construction labor dissipates.
Are you willing to put the salaries of City staff at risk when the bond can't be repaid? The tax dollars of the City's residents is not meant to line the pockets of developers with stars in their eyes from the projections of revenue that will likely not materialize for decades.
As stewards of the City, it is YOUR JOB to consider those possibilities and protect the City and its residents from such adverse consequences.
The City residents have already been educated on how developers beguile government officials into approving out of proportion development. And the residents squarely rejected them all. Does anyone remember the LVMH proposed project? This bond proposal, especially looking at the economic tsunami headed toward the US, is unacceptable and potentially disastrous. And that is without considering who would be the likely owners of the residential units of this project. From which part of the world would buyers come for these ultra expensive units? Do we not have enough anti-antisemitism and
From: Elaine Stein
To: City Clerk
Subject: Bond issue
Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 11:54:50 AM
[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
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
We are long time residents of BH
and we are against the Bond.
Sent from my iPhone
From: L S
To: City Clerk
Subject: objection to one beverly bond
Date: Monday, August 18, 2025 10:37:31 AM
[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
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
To the City Council,
Since I am unable to attend Tuesday's council meeting, I just want to vigorously object to Beverly Hills issuing a bond for One Beverly Hills. As someone who actually supports this development and would consider living there IF it's ever completed, the city should not be giving rich developers loans, period.
Some red flags:
1) Beverly Hills is about to come into a budget deficit issue next year, this could further exacerbate that. 2) Beverly Hills already has enough pending lawsuits, why add another potential lawsuit to this? 3) Many rules were already changed for this development, why are the developers now unable to finance what they promised?
4) Is anyone on the council or city staff really qualified to determine if this bond is a good investment? Who there has high level finance experience in the bond market to make this evaluation? I know there will be many people who show up in person to express their negative opinion of this bond. It's high time you start listening to the people who elected you to this council. You were elected to be a positive force for Beverly Hills, instead you seem to want to get involved in international politics and high finance. Please stick to keeping our streets safe and our systems operating, that's what your constituents want to see.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Best,
Lucy Stutz
Beverly Hills
August 18, 2025
To the honorable City Council of Beverly Hills,
Beverly Hills has been my professional home for many years, both as a member of the Rotary Club and a project manager at Peter McCoy Construction.
Regarding my participation through the generosity of Mr. McCoy in city projects at no cost, I was the project manager in charge of all the construction of the 911 Memorial Garden under the direction of our 911 Memorial Board and Chief Tim Scranton, and the improvement/remodel of The BHPD Motorcycle Garage under the direction of Bruce Meyer.
I have read about and share my support for One Beverly Hills and the proposed Community Facilities District. I understand that this (Community Facilities District) will pay for all of the following and not have any cost effect or impact on local tax payers or the city budget:
• Public infrastructure/utility improvements.
• Street/sidewalk improvements on Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, which is part of the gateway into Beverly Hills.
• New and upgraded traffic signals, utility improvements. This will really contribute in keeping the traffic flowing in the area, considering Wilshire and Santa Monica Blvds. is one of the busiest and most traveled intersections in the city.
• New street trees and landscape. This will be a great addition and beautification to the surrounding area.
• Property owners of the One Beverly Hills will provide all the funding for the ongoing maintenance.
Considering all of the above, I feel this (CFD) is a real asset to the city and the One Beverly Hills project.
As you all may be aware, Peter McCoy Construction is in the business of building high end luxury custom homes ranging from 10,000 - 100,000 sf. We understand what it takes to build large projects and all the scheduling, management and coordination involved.
Having years in the business of knowing real quality and the task of building large jobs, I want to commend the entire management and construction team for an incredibly well-organized job they have done. More importantly, the courtesy and professionalism in keeping the local community involved and updated. They definitely have an ongoing proven track record of getting things accomplished and following through on what they say they will do.
Sincerely,
Reggie Sully
McCoy Construction
From: Robin Vogel
To: City Clerk
Subject: One Beverly Hills bond issue
Date: Tuesday, August 19, 2025 8:26:34 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
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
To City Council Members,
I object to the bond issue for One Beverly Hills. The owners of the One Beverly Hills, should be the only ones paying for this project!
Thank You,
Robin Vogel
Resident of Beverly Hills for 28years=
Dear Members of the Council,
When I first heard about the CFD, I didn’t know what to think. So, I read up on it and even asked a few questions. What I learned makes me feel comfortable supporting it.
It’s not a tax on residents. It doesn’t affect city credit. And it helps get public infrastructure built. I don’t see a downside.
Thanks for doing your homework on this, and for approving it.
Best,
Matthew Weiner