AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Cindy Gordon, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
Subject: APPEALS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 29, 2025 DECISION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,
AND DENSITY BONUS PERMIT FOR A PROJECT UTILIZING
STATE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BUILDER’S
REMEDY PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65589.5(D)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 14-STORY,
116-UNIT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AT 9229 WILSHIRE
BOULEVARD; AND,
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY
HILLS VACATING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S APPROVAL
OF THE 14-STORY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT
9229 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, REMANDING THE MATTER TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, AND GRANTING IN PART RELATED
APPEALS.
Attachments: 1. Draft City Council Resolution
2. Appeal Petition Form – Filed by Applicant (9229 Wilshire Skyline LLC – Alan T. Nissel)
3. Appeal Petition Form – Filed by Beverly Hills Citizens Coalition
4. October 29, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report (without attachments)
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2103
6. State Statutes
7. Preliminary Application
Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
8. Entitlement Applications
9. AB 130 – City Compliance Analysis
10. AB 130 – Applicant Compliance Analysis
11. Public Hearing Notice
12. Public Correspondence
13. Project Plans
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeals, and
2. Adopt a resolution vacating the Planning Commission’s October 29, 2025 decision and remanding the matter to the Planning Commission for further processing of the revised Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application.
INTRODUCTION
The subject of this appeal is a proposed 14-story, mixed use development located at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard (the “Project” or “Builder’s Remedy 1.0”). The Project proposes a total of 116 dwelling units, 60 hotel rooms, and ground floor retail space. Three subterranean parking levels would provide 140 shared parking spaces for all uses.
On December 14, 2023, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (“PA”) to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, including the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted formal entitlement applications on April 15, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in Government Code (GC) §65941.1(e)(1). The application was deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025. While the Project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), codified in GC §65589.51 because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this Project prior to housing element certification and proposed at least 20% of the total units in the development for lower income households.
For context, the term “Builder’s Remedy” generally refers to certain findings pursuant to the HAA that must be made for a local agency to disapprove a qualifying housing development project meeting certain affordability requirements, and which findings require a certified housing element (GC §65589.5(d)(1) and (5)). Under these circumstances, state law imposes specific limitations on a city’s authority to deny a project proposing “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households”2, even if that project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations. 1 The full text of Government Code Section 65589.5 is available online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=65589.5 2 Pursuant to the previous version of the Housing Accountability Act, “‘housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households’ mean that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
Enacted in 1982 and more recently amended, the HAA establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs. The HAA limits the City’s ability to disapprove a housing development project and provides specific findings for disapproval based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record. These findings are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j) and are provided as Attachment 6.
Pursuant to the City’s appeal procedures, the City Council must conduct a de novo public hearing to consider appeals of a Planning Commission decision. Under a de novo review, the City Council considers not only the appeals and points raised therein, but also conducts an independent review of the project application and record to determine whether the City can make the findings required by state law. The October 29, 2025 Planning Commission staff report, provided as Attachment 4, includes an in-depth analysis of the Project, its vicinity, applicable state requirements, and the findings considered by the Planning Commission. This staff report specifically addresses the issues raised in the appeals of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Project.
It is important to note that in this case, in addition to the appeal filed by Beverly Hills Citizens Coalition, the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project, requests that the approval be set aside, and that a revised project be processed in lieu of the approved Project.
Planning Commission October 29, 2025 Decision
On October 29, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the Project and associated Development Plan Review (DPR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the hotel component, and Density Bonus Permit (DBP). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment including concerns regarding the proposed Project. After discussion and deliberation of the Project and of the topics raised by the public, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2103 (Attachment 5) conditionally approving the Project with several project-specific and construction-related conditions.
Full text of the conditions begins on pg. 26 of the Planning Commission resolution.
Applicant Requests to Continue October 29, 2025 Planning Commission Hearing On September 16, 2025, Avi Stieglitz, on behalf of the applicant, requested an extension under GC §65957 after being informed by City staff that the item was tentatively scheduled for the October 14, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, which the applicant team was unable to attend due to a religious holiday. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled to the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, within the 90-day extension period allowed under GC §65957.
In preparation of the scheduled hearing, on October 9, 2025, notice of the hearing was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) to nearby property owners, residential occupants, and interested parties, which include a mailed notice and an on-site posting. Notice was also published in the Beverly persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code.” (Govt. Code § 65589.5(h)(3).) This definition changed on January 1, 2025, when AB 1893 took effect, and, among other changes, mixed-income projects with lower percentages of units for extremely low, very low, and lower income households are now considered “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.”
Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
Press and Beverly Hills Courier newspapers on October 9, 2025 and October 17, 2025, respectively.
Subsequent to the public notice, on October 17, 2025, Alan T. Nissel, on behalf of the applicant, submitted an additional request to postpone the October 29, 2025 hearing. Staff did not agree to this request because GC §65905.5 limits the City to no more than five public hearings in its consideration of a housing development project. A continuance of the October 29, 2025 hearing to a future date would have counted as one of the five allowed hearings because GC §65905.5 (a) states in relevant part that “[i]f the city… continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section.” Given that additional hearings may be required for potential City Council and Architectural and Design Review Commission hearings, staff determined that the remaining hearings should be preserved for substantive project consideration. Moreover, staff had previously accommodated the applicant’s prior request to reschedule the hearing from October 14 to October 29.
Revised Application Submitted Prior to October 29, 2025 Hearing On October 28, 2025, the evening prior to the scheduled Planning Commission hearing, the applicant submitted a revised application (“Builder’s Remedy 2.0”) seeking to revise the Project. Amendments to the HAA, including Assembly Bill 18933 , as codified in GC
Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B), allow an applicant to revise a previously deemed complete Builder’s Remedy application without submitting a new preliminary application, which the applicant relied upon in submitting the revised materials.
The Builder’s Remedy 2.0 materials were submitted at approximately 9:22 PM, outside of normal business hours, and were not processed prior to the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. Project intake requires a thorough review of all submitted materials, and during this time City staff was focused on preparing for the hearing, the agenda for which included three Builder’s Remedy projects. City staff acknowledged receipt of the revised materials via email after the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission hearing. For purposes of processing the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application, the City is considering November 25, 2025 as the submittal date of the revised project, based on payment of the fees on that date.
The Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project proposes a 26-story mixed use building consisting of 195 units, ground floor retail, and seven levels of above-grade parking for a total of 252 parking spaces; it does not include a hotel component. By comparison, the Project approved by the Planning Commission proposes a 14-story, mixed use development, with 116 dwelling units, 60 hotel rooms, ground floor retail space and three subterranean parking levels for 140 shared parking spaces for all uses.
Prior Project Approvals
For background, the project site has been the subject of a prior, separate entitlement approval. On February 8, 2024 the Planning Commission conditionally approved a DPR 3 Assembly Bill 1893, Wicks. Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals: required local findings. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1893 Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
and DBP for an eight-story, mixed use building with ground floor commercial uses and 56 residential dwelling units (the “2024 Density Bonus Project”).
On February 22, 2024 a timely appeal of the Commission’s February 8, 2024 decision was filed. On July 2, 2024 the City Council conducted a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and after discussion and deliberation, conditionally approved the 2024 Density Bonus Project. Subsequent to the City Council’s approval, the applicant submitted a new and separate application pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) for a different mixed use project on the same site under the HAA Builder’s Remedy provisions (the Project), which is the subject of this City Council review.
Appeals Filed
On November 12, 2025, two separate appeals were submitted regarding the Planning Commission’s October 29, 2025 decision conditionally approving the Project. The appeals rendered the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project ineffective and stayed pending a final decision on the appeals by the City Council.
The appeals were filed by:
• Alan T. Nissel, on behalf of the applicant, 9229 Wilshire Skyline LLC (Attachment 2); and
• Aria Ahdoot, on behalf of the Beverly Hills Citizens Coalition (BHCC) (Attachment 3)
Applicant Appeal
The following grounds are taken directly from the applicant’s November 12, 2025, appeal petition:
1. Violation of Our Right to Revise Builder’s Remedy Application (Gov. Code §65589.5(f)(7)(B)).
2. Denial of Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised Application Constituted Arbitrary and Capricious Action and Violated the HAA.
3. Denial of Procedural Fairness and Due Process in the Conduct of the Hearing.
4. Evidence of Bad Faith under Gov. Code §65589.5(I) and Potential Violation of the HAA.
Beverly Hills Citizens Coalition (BHCC) Appeal
The following grounds are taken directly from the BHCC’s November 12, 2025, appeal petition:
1. Violation of Due Process Right.
Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
2. The Developer Which Filed the Application for the 14-story Builder’s Remedy Project Had Not Filed a Preliminary Application and Was Therefore Not Entitled to Pursue the Builder’s Remedy.
3. The Developer’s Bad Faith Use and Gaming of Builder’s Remedy Laws.
4. The Developer’s Late Request for a Continuance.
5. The Proper Denial of the Developer’s Request for Continuance.
6. The Developer Did Not Meet the Requirements of AB 130, Public Resources Code §21080.66, and Therefore Failed to Meet CEQA Requirements for the Project.
7. The Planning Commission Failed to Discuss or Consider the Following Significant Adverse Impacts to Public Health and Safety, which Requires Disapproval of the Project Pursuant to Government Code §§65589.5(d)(2) and (j)(1).
a. Traffic, Inability to Address Fires at the Project, Lack of Safety on the Clifton-LeDoux Bicycle Corridor
8. The Planning Commission Should Have Denied the 14-story Builder’s Remedy Project in Light of the Above Facts as well as the Proven Feasibility of the 7 story Project Approved at the Same Site for the Same Developer.
9. Significant Adverse Impacts to Residents’ Use and Enjoyment of their Nearby Properties.
DISCUSSION
The following addresses the grounds for appeal raised in the two separate appeals filed by the applicant and the BHCC. The analysis is organized by appellant to distinguish the issues raised in each appeal.
Applicant Appeal Ground No. 1:
“Violation of Our Right to Revise Builder’s Remedy Application (Gov. Code §65589.5(f)(7)(B)).”
The applicant states that “pursuant to AB 1893, and Government Code §65589.5(f)(7)(B), a project applicant may revise a previously deemed-complete Builder’s Remedy application into a statutorily defined ‘builder’s remedy project’ without being required to resubmit a preliminary application:
Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 65941.1, for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025, the development proponent may choose to revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more.”
The applicant asserts that a revised application converting the Builder’s Remedy 1.0 project into a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project, pursuant to AB 1893, was submitted in accordance with state law on October 28, 2025, and that City staff verbally confirmed receipt of the revised submission on October 29, 2025, and in writing on October 30, 2025.
The applicant further asserts that by denying the requested continuance and proceeding to vote on the Builder’s Remedy 1.0 application, the Planning Commission “unlawfully and without any justification disregarded [their] valid Builder’s Remedy 2.0 submittal and deprived [the applicant] of [their] right to have the operative revised application processed under applicable state law.”
City Response to Applicant Appeal Ground No. 1
At the time of the Planning Commission’s October 29, 2025 public hearing, the project before the Commission was the 14-story Project that had been scheduled, noticed, and analyzed for consideration. Prior to that hearing, the City had already accommodated a request by the applicant for additional time and postponed the previously scheduled hearing.
Specifically, on September 16, 2025, Avi Stieglitz, on behalf of the applicant, requested an extension pursuant to GC Section 65957 after being informed by City staff that the item was tentatively scheduled for the October 14, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, which the applicant team was unable to attend due to a religious holiday. In response, the hearing was rescheduled to the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, within the 90-day extension period allowed under GC Section 65957.
Subsequently, on October 17, 2025, Alan T. Nissel, on behalf of the applicant, submitted an additional request to postpone the October 29, 2025 hearing. Staff did not agree to this request due to statutory limitations under GC Section 65905.5, which limits a city to no more than five public hearings in its consideration of a housing development project and provides that any continued hearing counts toward that five hearing maximum.
Accordingly, staff believed all five meetings should be preserved for substantive project consideration.
In addition, prior to the October 17, 2025 request to postpone the hearing, notice of the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission hearing had already been provided on October 9, 2025, pursuant to the noticing requirements set forth in the BHMC. Notice included mailed notice to nearby property owners, residential occupants, and interested parties, as well as on-site posting. Notice was also published in Beverly Press and Beverly Hills Courier newspapers on October 9, 2025 and October 17, 2025, respectively.
While the applicant asserts that a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project was submitted on October 28, 2025, the application materials were submitted late in the evening, at approximately 9:22 PM, outside of normal business hours. The Builder’s Remedy 2.0 materials were submitted the evening prior to a major Planning Commission meeting involving multiple Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
large-scale projects (including the Project) and staff resources on the day of the hearing were devoted to hearing preparation and participation. As a result, review of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 submission did not begin until October 30, 2025.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission proceeded to consider the Project, which had been properly scheduled and noticed for public hearing.
Nonetheless, in light of the applicant’s stated intention not to proceed with the Project, staff supports the applicant’s request that the decision of the Planning Commission be set aside and that the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application be processed instead.
Further, the applicant was informed on November 17, 2025, that the City would process the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application depending on the outcome of the appeals, and adjust course, if necessary, based on any action taken by the City Council on the appeals. The first round of review was completed on November 26, 2025, and the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised Application was deemed incomplete at that time.
Applicant Appeal Ground No 2:
“Denial of Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised Application Constituted Arbitrary and Capricious Action and Violated the HAA.”
The applicant asserts that “by not considering the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 revised application, the Planning Commission unlawfully denied the Project, resulting in a loss of dwelling units and floor area. Pursuant to Gov. Code §65589.5(h)(6)(A), a denial occurs when a local agency ‘[v]otes or takes final administrative action on a proposed housing development project application and the application is disapproved, including any required land use approvals or entitlements necessary for the issuance of a building permit.” Further, the applicant asserts that “the Planning Commission’s denial of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 revised application was neither accidental nor without reason” and that the Planning Commission seemingly directed City staff to avoid processing the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 revised application and clearly refused to entertain any discussion at the hearing. “This conduct can only be understood as a de facto denial of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 revised application. The disparate treatment of similarly situated applicants and failure to consider the revised application demonstrate an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion in violation of Gov. Code §65589.5(I), which prohibits local agencies from taking actions in bad faith that delay or frustrate housing development.” City Response to Applicant Appeal Ground No. 2
The applicant asserts that the Planning Commission’s action constituted an unlawful denial of the revised Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application in violation of the HAA. However, the Planning Commission did not take any action to deny the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application, and in fact approved the Project.
As discussed in response to applicant Appeal Ground No.1, at the time of the October 29, 2025 public hearing, the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application had not been processed, reviewed, or noticed for Planning Commission consideration. As such, the Builder’s Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
Remedy 2.0 application was not before the Planning Commission for consideration, and no deliberation or vote occurred on the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application. The Planning Commission’s action was limited to consideration of the 14-story Project that had been scheduled, noticed, and analyzed. Therefore, because the Planning Commission did not act on the Builder’s Remedy 2.0, no denial occurred.
With respect to the applicant’s assertions regarding continuance requests, and as further described under the City’s response to the Applicant Ground for Appeal No.1, the record demonstrates that the City accommodated a prior request to reschedule the hearing.
Subsequent requests to postpone the hearing raised statutory considerations under GC Section 65905.5, which limits the number of public hearings allowed for a housing development project. Under these circumstances, the Planning Commission proceeded with the hearing that had been properly noticed for the Project and no determination was made on the merits of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application.
Applicant Appeal Ground No 3:
“Denial of Procedural Fairness and Due Process in the Conduct of the Hearing.”
The applicant asserts that the Planning Commission acted in bad faith proceeding with limited deliberation and moving forward while acknowledging a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 revised application. The applicant further asserts that the “Planning Commission proceeded with only the bare minimum quorum of three commissioners, even though missing commissioners was the reason why the Planning Commission earlier at the hearing allowed a continuance of the Burton Way Builder’s Remedy project – i.e., to ensure a full and fair hearing.”
Therefore, the applicant states that the “Planning Commission deprived [the applicant] of any meaningful opportunity for review or consideration of our Builder’s Remedy 2.0 revised application, which constitutes a procedurally defective proceeding that is inconsistent with fair hearing standards and the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code §§ 65940-65943).”
City Response to Applicant Appeal Ground No. 3
The Planning Commission convened a duly noticed public hearing on October 29, 2025, at which a quorum of commissioners was present. The Commission’s decision to proceed with the hearing with a quorum provided the applicant team and members of the public a full opportunity to be heard as to the Project.
While the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project was acknowledged during the hearing, the Planning Commission’s deliberations and vote were limited to the 14-story Project that had been scheduled, noticed, and analyzed. As the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project had not been noticed and was not on the agenda, the Commission could not provide comments on that project.
The applicant also references a continuance granted for a separate project earlier during the same Planning Commission meeting. Continuance decisions are evaluated on a case- Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
by-case basis while considering statutory circumstances and project specific circumstances. The granting of a continuance for one project does not require the Commission to continue another project scheduled for the same meeting. Further, the project that was continued had already had a hearing that provided substantial deliberation of that project, and the continuance was granted in part to provide sufficient time for the project to be modified in response to the Planning Commission’s comments.
Finally, the applicant asserts that the Commission’s actions violated fair hearing standards and the Permit Streamlining Act. The October 29, 2025 hearing was conducted in compliance with the City’s noticing requirements and the applicant team and members of the public were provided an opportunity to participate in the public hearing. The Commission did not take any action on the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application, and no determination was made on the merits of that project.
Applicant Appeal Ground No. 4:
“Evidence of Bad Faith under Gov. Code §65589.5(I) and Potential Violation of the HAA.”
The Applicant asserts that the City “intentionally manufactured a record” to “effectively deny” the revised Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project and alleges this constitutes bad faith under Government Code Section 65589.5(I). The applicant requests that the City Council acknowledge and accept the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 submission as operative, direct staff to process it, and refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
City Response to Appeal Ground No. 4
At the time of the October 29, 2025 hearing, the revised Builder’s Remedy 2.0 submission had not been reviewed or processed for Planning Commission consideration and had not been scheduled or noticed for a public hearing. As a result, the revised submission was not before the Planning Commission for action.
As explained in response to Applicant Appeal Grounds Nos. 1-3, the Planning Commission acted based on the Builder’s Remedy 1.0 application before them, consistent with applicable statutory requirements, including limitations on the number of public hearings permitted for housing development projects.
And as further explained in response to Applicant Appeal Grounds No. 1, staff is processing the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application after notifying the applicant on October 30, 2025 that the application would proceed through the City’s review process, and the first round of review was completed on November 26, 2025.
Conclusion and Recommendation as to Applicant Appeal
Based on the foregoing discussion, staff does not believe the Planning Commission’s consideration and approval of the Project was improper, however, in light of the applicant’s stated intention not to proceed with the Project, staff supports the applicant’s request that the decision of the Planning Commission be set aside and that the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application be processed instead. This course of action would afford all parties the Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
opportunity to participate in the processing of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised project.
A resolution that would vacate the Planning Commission’s approval and remand the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration of the Builder’s Remedy
2.0 Revised project, is attached for the Council’s consideration.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 1:
“Violation of Due Process Right”.
The BHCC asserts that residents’ due process rights were violated by the City’s consideration of multiple project proposals for the same site. The BHCC asserts that residents were provided insufficient notice and time to review extensive project materials, were afforded less opportunity to present their positions than the applicant and were prejudiced by the placement of the item on the agenda, which limited the ability of some residents to provide public comment.
In addition, the BHCC asserts that residents were required to incur “the City’s outrageously unfair appeal fee of approximately $7,000” in order to have their positions represented, after their views had allegedly already been “prejudiced by initial adverse decisions.” Based on these circumstances, the BHCC asserts that residents were “deprived of their due process rights.”
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 1
While the project site has been the subject of various project applications, the item scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission on October 29, 2025 related only to the 14-story Project, which was subject to its own review process, noticing requirements, and public hearings. The City’s consideration of a new application following City Council action on a prior entitlement is not considered simultaneous consideration of multiple projects and does not deprive residents of due process. Each application was processed independently, in compliance with the City’s standard noticing requirements, and with opportunity for members of the public and the applicant to provide written and oral testimony to the Planning Commission.
Regarding agenda order, the Planning Commission is often called upon to consider multiple projects during one meeting, and the timing of the individual items varies depending on the length of preceding matters. The order of the agenda was not set to further any particular agenda, as suggested by BHCC. The 8844 Burton Way project appeared first on the agenda consistent with standard protocol, because it was a continued matter, thus the 145 S. Rodeo Drive project and the Project followed. Further, the City provides multiple options for public comment including submittal of written testimony for the Commission’s consideration, or remote participation by phone or Zoom.
With respect to the appeal fee referenced by the BHCC, the City’s appeal fees are established by the City Council adopted fee schedule and are applied uniformly to all appellants. The purpose of the appeal fee is to recover the City’s administrative costs associated with processing appeals, including staff time, noticing, and public hearing expenses.
Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 2:
“The Developer Which Filed the Application for the 14-story Builder’s Remedy Project Had Not Filed a Preliminary Application and was Therefore Not Entitled to Pursue the Builder’s Remedy.”
The BHCC asserts that “the application for the 14 story Builder’s Remedy project was originally filed by different developers who had not filed a preliminary application entitling them to utilize the builder’s remedy law.”
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 2
Both the Preliminary Application (Attachment 7) and the entitlement applications for the 14-story Project (Attachment 8) were submitted on behalf of the same property ownership group. The owners of the subject property consist of Hamburg Properties LLC, Frosenfelt LLC, Mimilee Properties LLC, Barry & Beth Rosenbloom Properties LLC, KDR Golden LLC, Double Decker Partners LLC, JD Tower LLC, and Reggio Mayo LLC (collectively, the “Property Owners”). Thus, staff believes the Preliminary Application submitted for the Project remained valid.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 3:
“The Developer’s Bad Faith Use and Gaming of Builder’s Remedy Laws.” The BHCC asserts that the “current developer applicant of the 14-story Builder’s Remedy project and the 7-story density bonus project has not acted in good faith and is gaming the housing laws,” and alleges that the applicant’s “practice of obtaining entitlements and then instead of building those projects, he lists the property with the entitlement for sale to profit by millions of dollars at residents’ expense.” The BHCC further alleges that the applicant displaced about 30 tenants, including children, at another property and characterizes these actions as evidence of bad faith use and gaming of Builder’s Remedy laws.
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 3
The appeal ground cited above is based on activities unrelated to the Project. State housing law does not require or allow the City to review a housing development project based on speculation regarding an applicant’s intent, business practices, or conduct at other properties, and such considerations are not relevant to the findings for housing development projects under state law or City ordinances.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 4:
“The Developer’s Late Request for a Continuance.”
The BHCC asserts that, at the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission hearing, the developer’s attorney requested a continuance to submit a new application for a different project and represented that the 14-story Builder’s Remedy project could not be legally built due to recent changes in state law. The BHCC asserts that, based on those representations, the Planning Commission should have denied approval of the 14-story Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
project, and further asserts that the request and representations reflect “continuing bad faith” and a “serious misrepresentation” by the developer and its attorney.
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 4
The Commission was not required to deny the Project based on statements regarding legal interpretations offered during a hearing or alternative projects that had not been formally processed or reviewed. Denial of a housing development project must be based on findings set forth in state law that are supported by substantial evidence in the record and applicable statutory standards, not on representations made in the context of a continuance request. Nonetheless, as previously explained, staff recommends that the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project be vacated based on the Applicant’s representations that it does not intend to construct the 14-story Project, which is consistent with BHCC’s request to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.
Further, if the matter is remanded to the Planning Commission for consideration of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised Project, a new hearing would be held before the Planning Commission and all interested parties, including BHCC and its members, would have an opportunity to participate in those proceedings.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 5:
“The Proper Denial of the Developer’s Request for Continuance.” The BHCC asserts that “the applicant’s submission of plans for a third and new 26 story project the day or evening before that meeting, which plans had not even been reviewed by the developer’s counsel, constituted a new project which fell outside the housing element non-compliance window and is subject to current zoning and objective standards.”
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 5
On December 14, 2023, the applicant submitted a preliminary application for a Housing Development Project (“PA”) to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted formal entitlement applications on April 15, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). The application was deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025. While the project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to housing element certification.
Further, the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application seeks to modify the 14-story Project pursuant to amendments to the HAA under AB 1893, as provided in Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(7)(A). Therefore, the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 application qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this Project prior to housing element certification, thus vesting rights at the time pursuant to HAA Section 65589.5(o)(1). Further, Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B) states that “…the development proponent may choose to revise their Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application, even if the revision results in the number of residential units or square footage of construction changing by 20 percent or more.” The Builder’s Remedy 2.0 revised project was submitted prior to final action on the Project, because the Planning Commission’s approval was stayed by the filing of the appeals pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 1-4-305. Thus, staff believes it falls within the scope of AB 1893’s provisions allowing submittal of a revised project in reliance on the December 14, 2023, Preliminary Application.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 6:
“The Developer Did Not Meet the Requirements of AB 130, Public Resource Code §21080.66, and Therefore Failed to Meet CEQA Requirements for the Project.”
The BHCC asserts that the Project does not qualify for the statutory CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Assembly Bill 130) because, although subdivision (a)(4)(A) provides that a project may be deemed consistent with the general plan and zoning for purposes of such section if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent, the developer did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan and zoning designations. The BHCC further asserts that a reasonable person would not conclude that a 14-story project located adjacent to lower-scale residential and commercial development was consistent with the general plan and zoning.
The BHCC additionally asserts that Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(4)(A) was misinterpreted and that subdivisions (B) and (C) of that section, which addresses inconsistencies between zoning and the general plan and clarify that density bonuses and related concessions do not render a project inconsistent, do not modify the requirement in subdivision (a)(4)(A), which deems a project consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning if supported by substantial evidence, but are instead “separate and additional” conditions that must be satisfied for the exemption to apply.
Further, the BHCC asserts that Public Resources Code §21080.66(c) requires that as a condition of approval of the development under that section, the developer is required to complete a Phase I environmental assessment. The BHCC further asserted that the Planning Commission approved the project in the absence of such a Phase I environmental report and simply listed the completion of a Phase I environmental report as a condition to be later completed by the developer, thereby depriving the city and residents of an opportunity to review such a report prior to project approval.
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 6
First, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11), the Project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the City’s General Plan and Beverly Hills Municipal Code for all purposes.
Further, subdivisions (A), (B), and (C) of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(4) collectively define when a housing development project is deemed “consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance” for purposes of the exemption. Subdivision (B) clarifies how consistency is determined when the general plan and zoning are not consistent with one another, and subdivision (C) provides that the approval of density bonus-related incentives, waivers, or reduced parking ratios pursuant to GC Section 65915 does not constitute a basis for finding a project inconsistent. These provisions do not impose separate or additional conditions independent of subdivision (A), but instead clarify how consistency is evaluated under subdivision (a)(4). Subdivisions 21080.66(a)(4)(A)-(C) establish a single consistency requirement, which the Project meets based on the “deemed consistent... for all purposes” language of HAA Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), as previously discussed.
With respect to the Phase I environmental assessment report, Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(c)(1)(A) requires completion of a Phase I environmental assessment as a condition of approval and does not require that a Phase I assessment be completed prior to project approval. The statute provides a process for addressing hazardous materials if discovered after a project has been approved with project-specific conditions requiring removal or mitigation to levels required by current federal and state standards prior to a certificate of occupancy. Accordingly, the Phase I environmental assessment may be completed following project approval and does not prohibit the Project from qualifying for the statutory exemption.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 7:
“The Planning Commission Failed to Discuss or Consider the Following Significant Adverse Impacts to Public Health and Safety, which Requires Disapproval of the Project Pursuant to Government Code §§65589.5(d)(2) and (j)(1).
a. Traffic, Inability to Address Fires at the Project, Lack of Safety on the Clifton-Le Doux Bicycle Corridor.”
The BHCC asserts that the Planning Commission did not adequately evaluate significant adverse public health and safety impacts related to traffic. Specifically, the BHCC asserts that the Project would generate substantially increased daily vehicle trips through surrounding residential streets and the adjacent alley. The BHCC contends that the Planning Commission did not consider these impacts, relied on conditions of approval to address traffic concerns, and did not account for existing hazardous conditions reported by nearby residents, increased vehicle emissions, and potential interference with emergency vehicle access.
The BHCC further asserts the City’s Fire Department has access only to 100’ ladder trucks, which would not reach a large portion of the building, thus requiring fires to be Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
fought using elevators and internal stairways, which the BHCC claims is considered a significant adverse impact to residents’ health and safety.
The BHCC further asserts that the Project would conflict with the City’s efforts to decrease traffic and reduce vehicle speeds to improve safety along the Clifton-Le Doux Bicycle Corridor on Clifton Way. The appellant states that the City has invested in traffic circles and curb extensions to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, and that introducing additional vehicle trips into the area would result in a significant adverse impact to the health and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians using the corridor.
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 7
Regarding traffic impacts, the BHCC relies on a traffic report prepared for the previously proposed 2024 Density Bonus Project and extrapolates those estimates to the proposed 14-story Project. The record, however, does not include objective evidence demonstrating that traffic associated with the Project would result in a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety, based on objective, written standards as required by the HAA.
Further, BHCC does not cite any written, objective health or safety standard that the Project violates.
Regarding fire access, the Project was reviewed by both the City’s Fire Department and Building & Safety Division. Under the HAA, a housing development project may be denied only if there is substantial evidence of a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety based on objective, written standards. Concerns regarding ladder truck reach do not meet this statutory threshold as the record does not include objective evidence demonstrating that the Project would create fire safety hazards. Further, as explained by the City’s Fire Marshal during review of a comparable residential high-rise project, modern high-rise fires are addressed through interior firefighting operations using a coordinated incident command system rather than an exterior ladder.
The Clifton-Le Doux Bicycle Corridor was established to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety by discouraging cut through traffic and reducing vehicle speeds. The record does not contain substantial evidence, based on objective, written public health or safety standards, that Project related traffic would create a specific unavoidable hazard for users of the Clifton-Le Doux Bicycle Corridor.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 8:
“The Planning Commission Should Have Denied the 14-story Builder’s Remedy Project in Light of the Above Facts as well as the Proven Feasibility of the 7 story Project Approved at the Same Site for the Same Developer.” The BHCC asserts that that the “Planning Commission should have denied the 14-story project due to the cumulative significant adverse impacts to health and safety, particularly in view of the proven feasibility of the 2024 Density Bonus Project that had been applied Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
for by the same developer and approved, which would increase housing and affordable housing, and which is consistent with the newly enacted SB 79.
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 8
Under the HAA, the City may not deny a qualifying housing development project, unless it can make specific findings based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, including that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety based on objective, written standards. As outlined in the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission meeting staff report, there is no evidence in the record that would have enabled the City to deny the Project. Further, the prior approval of a project at the subject property does not provide a lawful basis to deny a qualifying housing project. State law does not require or allow the City to require an applicant to pursue a previously approved project in lieu of a proposed housing development project.
Nonetheless, as previously explained, staff recommends that the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project be vacated based on the applicant’s representations that it does not intend to construct the 14-story Project, which is consistent with BHCC’s request to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project. Further, if the matter is remanded to the Planning Commission for consideration of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised Project, a new hearing would be held before the Planning Commission and all interested parties, including BHCC and its members, would have an opportunity to participate in those proceedings.
BHCC Ground for Appeal No. 9:
“Significant Adverse Impacts to Residents’ Use and Enjoyment of their Nearby Properties.”
The BHCC asserts that the October 29, 2025 staff report acknowledged that the Project would adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties, but improperly concluded that such impacts would be addressed through conditions of approval. The BHCC further asserts that “all of the adverse impacts could not possibly be eradicated or significantly reduced by the conditions,” and that the staff report did not address impacts related to traffic, health or safety; residents’ loss of views; and loss of sunlight to nearby residences. The BHCC further asserts that the Project would adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and would not promote harmonious development of the area, contrary to the staff report’s conclusions.
City Response to BHCC Appeal Ground No. 9
The staff report of the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission meeting stated that the Project may result in privacy, noise, lighting, scale, and operational impacts affecting nearby residential properties. The report further concluded that certain findings related to the requested DPR and CUP related to neighborhood compatibility and use and enjoyment could not be made. However, although some of the DPR and CUP findings could not be made, the City is obligated to approve the Project pursuant to the HAA because there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to make the findings required under the HAA to deny the Project, including any evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety based on objective, Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
written standards. The Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy housing development project and is therefore deemed consistent with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards under state law. Accordingly, incompatibility, aesthetic impacts, or neighborhood character do not provide a basis for denial under state law. Claims regarding loss of views and loss of sunlight would be considered aesthetic impacts and would not provide a legal health or safety basis for denial under state law.
The HAA limits the City to imposing feasible conditions that do not reduce density or render the Project infeasible. Consistent with state law, the DPR and CUP analysis provides the basis for project specific conditions that were included in the Planning Commission resolution (Attachment 5).
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION
Since the applicant has submitted a revised Builder’s Remedy project application pursuant to AB 1893, staff recommends that the City Council vacate the Planning Commission’s October 29, 2025 decision to approve the Project and remand the matter to the Planning Commission for consideration of the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised Project. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council grant the applicant’s appeal as to its request to vacate the Planning Commission’s approval and process the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Revised Project. Further, staff recommends that the BHCC appeal be granted to the extent that BHCC sought to have the Planning Commission’s decision overturned.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The Project was assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines4 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Based on the analysis provided, the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.66(a).
An assessment of the project’s eligibility for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) is provided in Attachment 9. Additionally, the applicant provided an analysis demonstrating how the Project qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) (Attachment 10).
In consideration of this statutory CEQA exemption, PRC §21080.66(b) requires the City to provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the project, its location, and the project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. The City provided notification via certified mail and email on July 22, 2025, to eight Native American tribes. In response, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested consultation. City staff met with a representative of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and engaged in consultation via electronic correspondence with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Conditions memorializing both tribes’ requests were incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 5).
The City concluded the tribal consultation process on September 28, 2025. Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7), the City is required to approve or disapprove the project within 30 days 4 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Meeting Date: January 13, 2026
from the conclusion of the Native American tribal consultation process. However, pursuant to GC §65957 this deadline could be extended by up to 90 days pursuant to a written agreement between the applicant and the City.
Although the Project qualifies for exemption from CEQA pursuant to PRC §21080.66, City Council vacation of the Planning Commission’s approval as requested by the applicant is exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code §21080(b)(5) for projects that a public agency rejects.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Friday, December 19, 2025 to property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 11). An on-site notice was also posted on the project site on Friday, December 19, 2025. Additionally, notice was published in the Beverly Hills Courier on December 19, 2025 and the Beverly Press on December 25, 2025. Further, courtesy emails were sent to all interested parties advising them of the appeal hearing date.
Public Comment
All public correspondence is included as Attachment 12 to this report.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellants through application fees.
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft City Council Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 26-R-________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BEVERLY HILLS VACATING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S APPROVAL OF THE 14-STORY HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 9229 WILSHIRE
BOULEVARD, REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, AND GRANTING IN PART RELATED
APPEALS
WHEREAS, prior to January 1, 2025, 9229 Wilshire Skyline LLC (the “Applicant”) submitted an application to develop a 14-story mixed-use residential, hotel, and commercial project at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard (the “Project”) under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of Government Code Section 65589.5, and in reliance on a preliminary application filed on December 14, 2023; and
WHEREAS, following submittal of the application, City staff conducted review and analysis of the Project application and recommended conditional approval of the Project to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in collaboration with the Applicant, the Planning Commission hearing on the Project was scheduled for October 29, 2025 and in preparation for the meeting, staff wrote and published the Planning Commission agenda, staff report, and draft resolution recommending conditional approval; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893 amended the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(7) to, in part, permit applicants to revise pending housing development project applications without being required to resubmit a preliminary application so long as the project application was “deemed complete” before January 1, 2025; and -2-
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, prior to any action by the Planning Commission and before the close of the administrative record for the noticed hearing, the Applicant submitted revised plans and materials pursuant to AB 1893, proposing a revised 26-story residential and retail development, colloquially referred to as a Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project (hereafter the “Revised Project”); and
WHEREAS, at the hearing on October 29, 2025, the Applicant requested a continuance of the Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project, seeking consideration and ultimate action on the Revised Project instead of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission opted not to continue the matter and proceeded with the scheduled and duly noticed hearing on the Project; and WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Project application and did not address or evaluate the Revised Project; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, Aria Ahdoot, on behalf of Beverly Hills Citizens Coalition (BHCC) filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) Section 1-4-301 et seq. on various grounds set forth in the appeal, seeking denial of the Project (the “BHCC Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2025, the Applicant filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) Section 1-4-301 et seq. asserting that the Planning Commission acted on an application that had been superseded by the proposal for the Revised Project submitted before the Planning Commission’s action (the “Applicant Appeal”); and
-3-
WHEREAS, BHMC Sections 1-4-302 and 1-4-308 authorize the City Council to hear and decide appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission and to reverse, affirm, modify, or make such decision or determination as may appear just and reasonable in the light of the evidence presented, which includes the authority to remand such decisions as the Council deems appropriate based on the record; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to BHMC Section 1-4-305, the effectiveness of the Planning Commission’s decision on the Project was stayed pending final decision on the BHCC Appeal and Applicant Appeal (collectively, the “Appeals”); and,
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2025, the Applicant paid the required processing fees for the Revised Project applications, and,
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed de novo hearing on the Appeals; and,
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65589.5, as amended, and AB 1893, reflects a strong state policy favoring the timely and orderly consideration of housing development proposals and revised applications that are submitted before a final decision is made; and WHEREAS, the City Council has independently reviewed the administrative record, the Appeals materials, and the applicable law.
NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the arguments set forth in the Applicant’s Appeal and, for the reasons set forth in the January 13, 2026 staff report, finds that those arguments -4-
do not justify or support denial of the Project based on the required findings in Government Code Section 65589.5(d) or (j), or the BHMC findings for the Project’s Development Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Density Bonus Permit, as applicable to the Project in light of its status as a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act. However, the City Council acknowledges the Applicant Appeal requests that the City Council set aside the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and that the Revised Project be processed in lieu of the approved Project.
The City Council further finds, based on the analysis in the January 13, 2026 staff report, that:
(1) The Revised Project is presently under review by the Community Development staff;
(2) The Planning Commission did not deny either the Project or the Revised Project pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65589.5(h)(6)(A);
(3) The Planning Commission’s hearing on the Project afforded the Applicant and other interested parties a full opportunity to be heard on the Project, and thus did not deny procedural fairness or due process, and the Revised Project was not on the Planning Commission’s agenda for consideration; and,
(4) The Planning Commission’s consideration and approval of the Project at the October 29, 2025, duly noticed public hearing, was not taken in bad faith, and that action did not deny the Applicant’s Revised Project proposal.
Section 2. The City Council has considered the arguments set forth in the BHCC Appeal and, for the reasons set forth in the January 13, 2026 staff report, finds that those arguments -5-
do not justify or support denial of the Project based on the required findings in Government Code Section 65589.5(d) or (j), or the BHMC findings for the Project’s Development Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Density Bonus Permit, as applicable to the Project in light of its status as a housing development project under the Housing Accountability Act. The BHCC appeal does not articulate any significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. Further, to the extent BHCC argues that the Project is inconsistent with the City’s zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation, that is not a permissible basis upon which to deny a housing development project based on a specific adverse impact to health or safety pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)(A).
The City Council further finds, based on the analysis in the January 13, 2026 staff report, that:
(1) The Planning Commission’s consideration of the Project did not violate residents’ due process rights;
(2) The December 14, 2023, preliminary application for the Project is not invalid based on alleged changes in Project applicants;
(3) The allegations regarding “Developer’s Bad Faith Use and Gaming of Builder’s Remedy Laws” are not relevant to the required findings for approval or denial of a housing development project under state law or City ordinances; (4). BHCC’s allegations that Applicant’s late request for a continuance to allow for submittal of the Revised Project, because the Project could not be built, was in bad faith is not a -6-
valid basis on which to deny the Project as it is unrelated to the findings set forth in state law and the BHMC;
(5) The City Council concurs that it was within the Planning Commission’s authority to deny the Applicant’s continuance request, and take action on the Project on October 29, 2025, however, the Revised Project falls within the scope of AB 1893’s provision for project revisions because the Revised Project was submitted prior to final action on the Project, since the Planning Commission’s approval was stayed by the filing of the appeals pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 1-4-305;
(6) Contrary to BHCC’s assertions, the Project qualifies for the California Environmental Quality Act’s statutory exemption set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, and there is not sufficient evidence in the record to conclude that the Project is inconsistent with the City’s general plan and zoning ordinance taking into account the permissible grounds in state law on which an inconsistency determination can be based; (7) The traffic impacts, including impacts to the Clifton-Le Doux Bicycle Corridor, alleged by BHCC are not based on any written, objective health or safety standard, and thus the record does not include objective evidence demonstrating any such health or safety impact upon which denial of the Project could be based. Further, evidence in the record shows that the City has the ability to address fires at the Project, including evidence from the City’s Fire Marshal during review of a similar project that fires in modern high-rise buildings are addressed through interior firefighting operations using a coordinated incident command system, rather than an exterior ladder; and,
-7-
(8) The prior approval of a smaller project at the subject property does not provide a lawful basis to deny a qualifying housing project such as the Project. State law does not require or allow the City to require an applicant to pursue a previously approved project in lieu of a proposed housing development project; and,
(9) The Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy housing development project and is therefore deemed consistent with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards under state law. Accordingly, incompatibility, aesthetic impacts, or neighborhood character do not provide a basis for denial under state law. Claims regarding loss of views and loss of sunlight would be considered aesthetic impacts and would not provide a legal health or safety basis for denial under state law.
Section 3. The City Council finds that the application for the Revised Project submitted on October 28, 2025, and for which fees were paid on November 25, 2025, was filed prior to final action on the Project, because the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project was stayed upon the filing of the Appeals, pursuant to BHMC Section 1-4-305.
Section 4. Although the record supports approval of the Project, and rejection of the Appeals, the City Council finds that vacation of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and remand for consideration of the Revised Project by the Planning Commission as requested by the Applicant is an appropriate remedy in this circumstance, and represents a just and reasonable determination in light of the evidence presented in the record. Further, vacation of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project is not intended to constitute a denial for purposes of the Housing Accountability Act; does not foreclose the Applicant rights under state housing law as to the Revised Project it now wishes to pursue; does not foreclose any rights of BHCC, its members or members of the public who are free to participate in the Planning Commission’s process of -8-
considering the Revised Project; and is consistent with principles of fundamental fairness and sound administrative practice.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission’s approval of the housing development Project at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard, adopted on October 29, 2025, is hereby vacated, and the matter is remanded back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the Revised Project pursuant to standard project processing procedures.
Section 6. The City Council hereby grants the Applicant’s Appeal solely as to the request to vacate the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project and remand the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration of the Revised Project.
Section 7. While the City Council rejects the BHCC Appeal seeking denial of the Project for the reasons set forth above, the City Council grants the appeal solely as to the vacation of the Planning Commission’s approval.
Section 8. The City Council finds that the determination to vacate the Planning Commission’s approval is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(5) for projects a public agency rejects.
Section 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.
-9-
Adopted:
SHARONA R. NAZARIAN, PsyD
Mayor, City of Beverly Hills,
California
ATTEST:
_______________________________(SEAL)
HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
LAURENCE S. WIENER
City Attorney
NANCY HUNT-COFFEY
City Manager
ATTACHMENT 2
Appeal Petition Form
Filed by Applicant
(9229 Wilshire Skyline LLC – Alan T. Nissel)
ATTACHMENT 3
Appeal Petition Form
Filed by Beverly Hills Citizens Coalition
ATTACHMENT 4
October 29, 2025 Planning Commission Staff
Report (without attachments)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1000 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):
A. Draft Resolution
B. Required Findings
C. State Statues
D. General Plan Policies
E. AB 130 CEQA Exemption – Staff’s Analysis
F. AB 130 CEQA Exemption – Applicant’s Analysis
G. Applicant’s Request Pursuant to GC §65957
H. Public Notices
I. Public Correspondence
J. Project Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment)
Report Author and Contact Information:
Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1192
[email protected]
Meeting Date: October 29, 2025
Subject: 9229 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
Development Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Density Bonus Permit (PL2400152)
Request for a Development Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Density Bonus Permit utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), to allow for the construction of a 14-story, mixed use development consisting of 116 residential units, commercial uses, and a 60-room hotel. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.
Project Applicant: 9229 Wilshire Skyline LLC (c/o Alan T. Nissel) Project Representative: Ryan Leaderman (c/o Holland & Knight LLP) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, Density Bonus Permit, and find the project exempt from CEQA.
REPORT SUMMARY
The proposed project involves a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR), Conditional Use Permit (CUP), and Density Bonus Permit to allow for the construction of a 14-story, mixed use development consisting of 116 residential units, commercial uses, and a 60-room hotel at the property located at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard (the “project site”). The project application has been filed pursuant to the “Builder's Remedy” provisions of Government Code §65589.5(d)(5). The project site is located within the City’s C-3 Commercial and Mixed Use Overlay Zone and has a General Plan designation of Low Density General, Commercial.
This report details the physical context of the property and its vicinity; outlines the findings that are required to be made for the requested entitlements; and analyzes key project issues, which include: the proposed use of the property in relation to the adjacent uses, physical characteristics
WITHOUT ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
of the subject property, parking, and discussion on applicable state law requirements related to Builder’s Remedy projects. Based on the analysis contained in this report, staff’s recommendation is to conditionally approve the project.
Separately, on September 16, 2025, Avi Stieglitz, on behalf of the applicant, requested an extension under Government Code (GC) §65957 after being informed by City staff that the item was tentatively scheduled for the October 14, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, which the applicant team was unable to attend. The hearing was subsequently rescheduled to the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission meeting – within the 90-day extension period allowed under GC §65957.
However, on October 17, 2025, Alan Nissel, representing the applicant, submitted an additional request to postpone the hearing. Staff did not agree to this request because GC §65905.5 limits the City to no more than five public hearings in its consideration of a housing development project.
A continuance of this matter to a future date would count as one of the five allowed hearings because §65905.5 (a) states in relevant part that “[i]f the city… continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section.” Since the Planning Commission, City Council (if appealed), or Architectural and Design Review Commission may require more than one meeting in their consideration of this project, the City believes all five meetings should be preserved for substantive project consideration. Moreover, staff had already accommodated the applicant’s prior request to reschedule the hearing from October 14 to October 29.
Additionally, on October 9, 2025, prior to the receipt to postpone the public hearing, notice of the hearing was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) to nearby property owners, residential occupants, and interested parties, which include a mailed notice and an on-site posting. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Commission proceed with consideration of the project. At the hearing, however, the Commission can consider whether it believes a continuation of the public hearing is warranted.
BACKGROUND
File Date 4/15/2024
Application Complete 1/10/2025
Subdivision Deadline N/A
CEQA Recommendation Statutory Exemption for Infill Housing (Assembly Bill (AB) 130) (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.66)
CEQA Deadline and Permit
Streamlining
30 days from conclusion of Native American Tribal
Consultation (PRC §21080.66(b)).
Conclusion of Tribal Consultation: September 28, 2025
Applicant(s) 9229 Wilshire Skyline LLC (c/o Alan T. Nissel) Owner(s) Hamburg Properties LLC, Frosenfelt LLC, Mimilee Properties LLC, Barry & Beth Rosenbloom Properties LLC, Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
KDR Golden LLC, Double Decker Partners LLC, JD Tower
LLC, and Reggio Mayo LLC
Representative(s) Ryan Leaderman – Holland & Knight LLP Registered Legislative Advocates1 Ryan Leaderman – Holland & Knight LLP Prior Planning Commission Action Resolution No. 2050 (2/8/24) – A resolution of the Planning Commission conditionally approving a Development Plan
Review and Density Bonus Permit to allow for a new eightstory mixed use development with ground floor commercial uses, 56 residential dwelling units, and rooftop restrooms.
Prior City Council Action Resolution No. 24-R-13516 (7/2/24) – A resolution of the City Council Conditionally approving a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit to allow for a new eightstory mixed use development with ground floor commercial uses, 56 residential dwelling units, and rooftop restrooms.2
PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address(es) 9229 Wilshire Boulevard
Assessor’s ID No. 4342-031-031
Zoning District C-3 – Commercial Zone
MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone
General Plan General Commercial – Low Density
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Commercial Building
Lot Dimensions & Area 150’ x 138’ (≈ 20, 665 Square Feet (SF)) Year Built 1947
Historic Resource None
Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North R-1.8X – One-Family Residential (Single Family
Residences)
1 Registered advocate search run on October 8, 2025.
2 The City Council’s decision was challenged in court; however, the pending litigation is currently stayed.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
South C-3 – Commercial Zone/MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone (Retail, Medical and General Office, Vehicle Sales, and Mixed Use Development)
East C-3 – Commercial Zone/MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone
(Retail, Medical and General Office)
West C-3 – Commercial Zone/MU – Mixed Use Overlay Zone
(Banks and General Office)
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) Wilshire Boulevard and North Maple Drive Adjacent Alleys 35’ wide one-way westbound alley to the rear of the property
Parkways & Sidewalks Wilshire Boulevard: 15’ from curb face to property line North Maple Drive: 16’ from curb face to property line
Parking Restrictions Wilshire Boulevard:
• Two-hour metered parking from 10:00 A.M. to 3:00
P.M., Monday through Saturday. No Stopping/AntiGridlock Zone from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M and 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday (east and
west sides of street)
North Maple Drive (Residential):
• No parking 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday (east and west sides of street). No parking
any other time except by permit
North Maple Drive (Commercial):
• No parking 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday (east and west sides of street). No parking
any other time except by permit
Nearest Intersection Wilshire Boulevard and North Maple Drive Circulation Element Wilshire Boulevard – Arterial Street North Maple Street – Local Street
Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is a 20,665 square foot (SF) rectangular lot located at the northeast corner of Wilshire Boulevard and North Maple Drive (Fig. 1), within the City’s C-3, Commercial Zone and MU, Mixed Use Overlay Zone. The project site is developed with an 11,726 SF, two-story commercial building, and surface parking lot. Vehicular access is provided via a one-way westbound alley north of the project site, accessible from North Palm Drive.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
The project site is bordered to the west by North Maple Drive and to the south by Wilshire Boulevard. The project site abuts single-family residential uses directly to the north, consisting of one- to two-story residences along North Maple Drive within the R-1.8X, One-Family Residential Zone. The areas located to the south, east, and west of the site along Wilshire Boulevard are developed with low- to high-rise commercial buildings consisting of retail, restaurant, general and medical office uses, including a six-story mixed use building at 9200 Wilshire Boulevard. The project site is directly adjacent to properties developed with two- and three-story commercial buildings with surface parking lots to the east and west. Further south, the area is developed with low- to midrise multi-family residential development consisting of two- to five-story buildings along South Palm and South Maple Drives, within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone.
Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: City of Beverly Hills GIS
BACKGROUND
On February 8, 2024 the Planning Commission conditionally approved a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit to allow the construction of a new eight-story, mixed use Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
building with ground floor commercial uses and 56 residential dwelling units located above the ground floor. On February 22, 2024 a timely appeal of the Commission’s decision was filed. On July 2, 2024 the City Council held a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision and after discussion and deliberation, conditionally approved the project.
Subsequent to the City Council’s approval, the applicant submitted a new application pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5) seeking approval of new mixed use project on the same site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of a new 14-story, 162’-5” tall, mixed use building that includes residential, retail, and hotel uses (Fig. 2). The project proposes a total of 116 dwelling units, 60 hotel rooms, and approximately 7,316 SF of ground floor retail space. Three subterranean parking levels would provide 140 shared parking spaces for all uses.
Residential Uses. The residential portion would occupy Levels 2, 3, and 5-10 and include 116 dwelling units, 24 of which would be reserved for low-income households, with the following unit types proposed:
TABLE 1. Dwelling Unit Summary
Unit Type Affordable Market Rate Total Area (SF)
Studio 9 21 30 481 SF – 547 SF
1-Bedroom 6 16 22 741 SF – 895 SF
2-Bedroom 9 47 56 790 SF – 1,052 SF
3-Bedroom 0 8 8 1,347 SF
Residential open space would be provided through a combination of private and common areas.
Private open space would consist of inward-facing balconies located on Levels 3 and 5-10, oriented toward an internal courtyard located on Level 2. Common open space for residential occupants would include the Level 2 courtyard. Residential amenities would be located on Levels 2 and 4 and include lounge and community rooms, as well as fitness and wellness spaces, and communal offices.
Hotel and Commercial Uses. The ground floor would include a residential lobby and leasing area, a hotel lobby, and approximately 7,316 SF of commercial space accommodating two tenant spaces and associated utility areas. The commercial tenant spaces would front North Maple Drive and Wilshire Boulevard, with pedestrian access provided from Wilshire Boulevard.
Levels 11 through 14 would include a 60-room hotel with guest amenities, including a rooftop deck and pool that would only be accessible to hotel guests. Elevators would be shared by both the hotel and residential components, with floor access controlled and restricted through key-card access. According to the applicant, a hotel operator has not yet been identified and no hotel kitchen is proposed.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
The project site is located within a Commercial-Residential Transition Area, which ordinarily limits hours of operation for commercial uses. However, hotel uses and appurtenant services are exempt from these restrictions pursuant to BHMC §10-3-1956.B.2. Therefore, no Extended Hours Permit is required for the hotel operations.
According to the applicant, at least one State-licensed security guard would be on duty during each shift to patrol both the interior and exterior of the premises. Details regarding each shift were not provided by the applicant; however, the security guard would monitor the premises to deter illegal activity. A 24-hour hotline for community complaints would be maintained and posted at the building entry, at the customer service desk, and provided to adjacent property owners. Hotel management would keep a complaint log noting the date, time, nature of each complaint, and the corresponding response. The log would be available for review by the Beverly Hills Police Department and the Planning Division upon request. Conditions of approval have been added to the draft resolution to memorialize this as a requirement for the project.
Access, Parking and Loading. Vehicular access would be provided from North Palm Drive via the one-way westbound alley along the rear of the site. Three subterranean parking levels would provide a total of 140 shared spaces distributed as follows:
• 58 spaces for residential uses
• 60 spaces for hotel use
• 22 spaces for ground-floor commercial uses
The subterranean parking garage would serve residents, hotel guests, commercial patrons, and employees. According to the applicant, employee and residential parking would be self-park via key fob or electronic access, while hotel guest parking would be valet-only, accessed through the porte-cochere along the alley frontage. The applicant further states that the porte-cochere would accommodate passenger loading and unloading, and that ample street frontage along Wilshire Boulevard and North Maple Drive would provide additional options for passenger drop-off and pick-up. However, no specific detailed plans or supporting materials have been submitted to illustrate or evaluate these proposed passenger loading arrangements. The Department of Public Works reviewed the applicant’s statements and indicated that vehicle pullouts for loading or passenger drop-off along major corridors such as Wilshire Boulevard would not be permitted, as such configurations interfere with traffic operations, create potential safety hazards, reduce pedestrian circulation space, and eliminate opportunities for street trees within the public right-ofway.
Three loading spaces, each measuring 12’ x 35’, are proposed along the rear of the site adjacent to the alley – two are oriented perpendicular to the alley and one parallel to the alley. The parallel loading space would also be utilized for valet operations, resulting in a shared use of this portion of the alley frontage by both valet and loading vehicles. Although this configuration could create overlapping use of the parallel loading space, the two additional perpendicular loading spaces would be available to accommodate delivery and loading needs.
The applicant also indicates that given the 35’ width of the alley, potential modifications may be considered to reverse the direction of alley traffic or establish two-way circulation to facilitate access between the porte-cochere and the subterranean parking entry. However, no detailed Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
plans or supporting documentation have been submitted to illustrate or evaluate these potential alley modifications. Public Works advised that, absent a demonstrated operational need supported by a study, the Department would be unable to provide direction on any proposed modification to the existing alley circulation pattern.
Furthermore, the draft resolution includes conditions of approval requiring that all operations associated with the project, including loading, valet or guest pick-up/drop-off, and employee activities, shall be conducted entirely on the project site. The use of the adjacent alley or nearby streets for operational purposes is prohibited.
Fig. 2: Project Rendering looking North from Wilshire Boulevard Source: SPF:architects
Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy
Enacted in 1982 and more recently amended, the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code (GC) §65589.5) hereafter the “HAA”) is state law that establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs.
Additionally, the HAA includes a provision that allows developers to bypass local zoning and Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
general plan rules when a local government’s housing element is out of compliance with state law (“Builder’s Remedy”). The HAA limits the City’s ability to disapprove a housing development project and provides specific findings for disapproval based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record. These findings are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j) and are detailed further in this report.
On December 14, 2023, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (“PA”) to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR), Conditional Use Permit, Extended Hours Permit3
, and Density Bonus Permit application on April 15, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). The application was deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025. While the project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to housing element certification.
Density Bonus
As part of the applicant’s request, the applicant submitted a Density Bonus Permit application requesting concessions and waivers from applicable development standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (GC §65915 et seq.). Although the applicant is not required to utilize State Density Bonus Law to deviate from development standards in light of the “builder’s remedy” provisions that predated AB 1893 and upon which the project generally relies, they nevertheless elected to do so for the deviations described in this section.
Under State Density Bonus Law, qualifying housing development projects that include five or more units and provide a specified percentage of affordable housing units are entitled to a density bonus, incentives or concessions, and waivers or reductions of development standards that would physically preclude construction of the project. The number of and type of benefits available are determined based on the percentage and level of affordability of the proposed affordable units.
Although the applicant did not elect to use the State Density Bonus Law to increase the total number of dwelling units, the law also allows applicants to request the associated incentives, concessions, and waivers without utilizing the additional density (GC § 65915(f)). Therefore, the applicant is requesting concessions and waivers to facilitate development of the proposed project, which includes 20% of the total units (24 units) reserved for low-income households. The affordable housing units required under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance also count toward satisfying the requirements under State Density Bonus Law.
Based on the level of affordability provided for the project, the project qualifies for up to three (3) (5) incentives or concessions, which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for 3 The applicant submitted an Extended Hours Permit request associated with the hotel operations located within a commercial-residential transition area. However, pursuant to BHMC §10-3-1956.B.2, hotels and appurtenant service uses are exempt from the operational requirements applicable to commercial-residential transition areas that would otherwise require an Extended Hours Permit. Accordingly, the current application does not include an Extended Hours Permit request.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
affordable housing costs or for rents of a project’s affordable housing units. Separately, an applicant may also request waivers from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Concessions and waivers must be granted unless such a request would cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or would be contrary to any state or federal laws. Waivers do not count as a concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted provided each would preclude development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Accordingly, the project includes the following concession/incentives and waiver requests:
Concessions/Incentives
1. Residential Adjacency for Hotels. BHMC §10-3-2868.B prohibits hotels from being developed on lots that abut or are separated only by an alley from R-1 zones. The applicant is requesting an incentive to allow a 60-room hotel on a site that is separated only by an alley from an R-1.8X zone located north of the project site.
2. FAR Relief. BHMC §10-3-2746 establishes the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 for commercial development. The applicant is requesting an incentive to allow a 3.25:1 FAR for the proposed commercial portion of the project.
Waivers
1. Height: BHMC §10-3-1880 establishes the allowable building height for development in the Mixed Use Zone, which allows for a maximum building height of 45’. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a building with a height of 162’-5”.
2. Stories. BHMC §10-3-1880 establishes the allowable stories for development in the Mixed Use Zone, which allows for a maximum of three stories. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a 14-story building.
3. Commercial Use Setbacks. BHMC §§10-3-1884 and 10-3-1952.A, establish a minimum setback of 6’-0” for any building or improvement located either above or within 8’-0” below grade on a nonresidential site that abuts an alley separating a nonresidential zone from a residential zone. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced rear setback of 0’-0” along the rear property line, which abuts an alley separating the site from singlefamily development to the north of the project site.
4. Outdoor Living Space. BHMC §10-3-2803 requires useable outdoor living space for each dwelling unit to be at least 200 SF. The applicant is requesting waiver to allow a total of approximately 4,456 SF of outdoor living space in lieu of the 23,200 SF required.
5. Outdoor Living Space. BHMC §10-3-2803.A, requires that each private outdoor living space contiguous to a dwelling unit have minimum dimensions of 6’-0” in length, width, and depth. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced balcony depth of 3’-1 ½”.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
6. Minimum Unit Size. BHMC §10-3-1882 establishes a minimum floor area for dwelling units within a Mixed Use development, including a minimum of 500 SF for efficiency units. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced minimum floor area for 15 of the 30 proposed studio units, ranging in size from 481 SF to 490 SF.
7. Walls. BHMC §10-3-1953.A, requires the construction and maintenance of a 3’-0” high solid masonry wall along a nonresidential property line that abuts an alley separating the nonresidential zone from a residential zone. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement to not construct the wall that would be required along the rear property line.
8. Commercial Parking Separation. BHMC §10-3-1883.B, requires that parking for the commercial and residential components of a mixed use development be physically separated. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement to allow shared parking without physical separation between the commercial, hotel, and residential spaces.
9. Residential Parking Requirement. BHMC §10-3-1883.C, and §10-3-2816 establish minimum parking requirements for multi-family residential uses. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement to allow a total of 140 shared parking spaces within three subterranean levels, of which 58 would be allocated for residential uses.
10. Minimum Parking Standard. The City’s Minimum Parking Standards require a minimum driveway width of 24’-0” for projects providing 100 or more parking spaces. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced driveway width of 20’.
11. Commercial Use Parking Requirement. BHMC §10-3-2730 establishes a minimum parking requirement of one space per 350 SF of commercial floor area, which would require 22 commercial parking spaces for the proposed retail uses. The applicant is requesting a waiver from this requirement to allow a total of 140 shared parking spaces within three subterranean levels, of which 22 would be allocated for the retail uses.
As further detailed in the analysis section of this report, this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 and as such, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project or the requested concessions or waivers.
Inclusionary Housing
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-4803, a minimum of 10% of the units in a newly constructed rental residential development shall be rented to and occupied by very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income households. The proposed 116-unit project would require a total of 12 affordable units to meet this requirement. The 24 low-income affordable units proposed for the project meet, and exceed, the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.
Shade and Shadow Study
A shade and shadow study was prepared by the applicant and included in the set of plans for the project (Attachment J). The study shows that during winter months, the project would cast shadows on single-family residential buildings located to the north, northeast, and northwest, as Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
well as on portions of the commercial development along Wilshire Boulevard to the east and south, thereby reducing access to natural light for these properties. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
Pursuant to PRC §21099(a)(7), a transit priority area is defined as an area within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The project site is located within ½ mile of the future Wilshire/Rodeo D Line Metro Station at the intersection of South Reeves Drive and Wilshire Boulevard. Accordingly, the project’s aesthetic impacts are not subject to evaluation under CEQA as these impacts cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment. Further, as discussed below, the project qualifies for a statutory CEQA exemption, which does not include consideration of any potential shade/shadow impacts.
Parking
The proposed Builder’s Remedy project is not eligible for the parking reduction provisions under Assembly Bill (AB) 2097, because the project includes a hotel use. Thus, in this case, AB 2097 does not limit the City’s authority to impose its generally applicable parking requirements but the builder’s remedy provisions of the Housing Accountability Act limit the City’s ability to require additional parking for any commercial or residential uses. As a point of information, the application includes a Density Bonus Permit and provides 24 low-income units within one-half mile of a major transit stop with unobstructed access between the stop and the development, GC §65915(p)(2), which would otherwise limit the City’s ability to require parking to no more than 0.5 spaces per unit. Based on the proposed 116 residential units, the maximum number of spaces the City could require is 58. The applicant has proposed to provide a total of 140 parking spaces within three levels of subterranean parking, including 58 spaces for residential use, 60 spaces for hotel uses, and 22 for the ground floor commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed parking supply of 58 spaces meets the minimum requirements under State law.
The parking provided on-site would be unbundled, pursuant to Civil Code (CC) §1947.1 (AB 1317)4
, which requires an owner of a residential property consisting of 16 or more units located in the County of Los Angeles to unbundle parking from the price of rent. Tenants desiring parking would be able to add parking as part of their lease for an added cost. The option to lease a parking space would be made available to all tenants on equal terms, regardless of income level and would be subject to availability.5
4 Assembly Bill 1317, Wendy Carrillo. Unbundled parking. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1947.1.&lawCode=CIV 5 Civil Code Section 1947.1 includes certain exceptions from the unbundling requirement for 100% affordable housing projects, projects that receive low-income housing tax credits or financing from tax-exempt bonds pursuant to a program administered by the California Housing Finance Agency, and any unit that is leased to a tenant who receives a federal housing assistance voucher issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f), including a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS6
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
• Development Plan Review
A Development Plan Review (DPR) is required pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3100 to allow the construction of a new 14-story mixed use building.
• Conditional Use Permit
A Conditional Use Permit is required pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2862 to allow the construction and operation of a new hotel.
• Density Bonus Permit
Pursuant to Section 65915 of the California Government Code, a Density Bonus is requested to allow certain concession/incentives and waivers from development standards to accommodate the provision of 24 proposed affordable housing units.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES7
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project are included as Attachment D, although, as discussed below, the HAA limits the City’s ability to address project inconsistencies with the General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines8 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on June 30, 2025 with the passage of AB 1309
, is applicable to certain housing
development projects that meet prescribed objective standards. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider finding the project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).
An assessment of the project’s eligibility for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) is provided in Attachment E. Additionally, the applicant has provided materials and studies in support of the statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) (Attachment F).
In consideration of this statutory CEQA exemption, PRC §21080.66(b) requires the City to provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is 6 Pursuant to Government Code §65905.5(a), the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. This is the first hearing on this project. 7 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1065/General-Plan 8 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ 9 Sec. 59 of Assembly Bill 130, Committee on Budget. Housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130 Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the project, its location, and the project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. The City provided notification via certified mail and email on July 22, 2025, to eight Native American tribes. In response, the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation requested consultation. City staff met with a representative of the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council and engaged in consultation via electronic correspondence with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. Conditions memorializing both tribes’ requests have been incorporated into the draft resolution (Attachment A). The City concluded the tribal consultation process on September 28, 2025. Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7), the City is required to approve or disapprove the project within 30 days from the conclusion of the Native American tribal consultation process. However, pursuant to GC §65957 this deadline could be extended by up to 90 days pursuant to a written agreement between the applicant and the City.
As noted in the Report Summary section of this report, on September 16, 2025, Avi Stieglitz, on behalf of the applicant, requested an extension under GC §65957 after being informed by City staff that the item was tentatively scheduled for the October 14, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, which the applicant team was unable to attend (Attachment G). Accordingly, the item was rescheduled to the October 29, 2025, Planning Commission meeting – within the 90-day extension period allowed under GC §65957.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The notice for this project (Attachment H), summarized in Table 1, was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in BHMC §10-3-2.5, et. seq.
TABLE 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Notice Type Notice Date
Notice of Pending Application
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 5/30/2024 • Mailed Notice (100’ radius; via tracked courier) N/A
• On-site Posted Notice 5/30/2024
Notice of Public Hearing
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 10/9/2025 • On-site Posted Notice 10/9/2025
• Newspaper Notice
Beverly Hills Press
Beverly Hills Courier
10/9/2025
10/17/2025
Applicant Outreach Efforts
No known outreach efforts.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
Public Comment
Staff has received numerous inquiries regarding processing of the application and public correspondence related to the project. All public correspondence is included as Attachment I.
ANALYSIS10
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary action requested by the applicant. This section is intended to provide a detailed analysis of the project to assist the Planning Commission in assessing whether a project is able to meet the required findings for the requested entitlements. The specific findings that must be made in consideration of the project are provided as Attachments B and C to this report.
Denial of Housing Development Projects. The HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, if they wish to deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing conditions on a project that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” These potential findings that could be made to disapprove a project are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j).
The potential findings in GC §65589.5(d) apply to “housing development projects for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” which are defined in GC §65589.5(h)(3). This project falls within that definition because the project dedicates 20% of the units (24 units) to very low-income households and is considered “housing for mixed-income households.” (GC §65589.5(h)(3)(c)(i)(I).) Findings or determinations based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard require that the City weigh the evidence in the record and conclude that the evidence on one side outweighs and is more than the evidence on the other side (i.e., that a particular claim is more likely true than not true).
Based on this standard, staff’s analysis of each potential finding that could be relied on for a potential denial of this housing development project is provided below.
A. Findings for Denial or Conditioning of Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or ModerateIncome Households (Government Code Section 65589.5(d))
1. The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 10 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(1)) On May 1, 2024, HCD certified the City’s Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. In this housing cycle, the City is tasked with creating a regulatory environment and identifying sites that would facilitate the production of 3,104 dwelling units, 504 units of which would be reserved for extremely low-income households, 504 units reserved for very low-income households, 680 units reserved for low-income households, 602 units reserved for moderate income households, and 814 reserved for above moderate-income households.
The project proposes a total of 116 dwelling units, which includes 24 deed-restricted affordable units reserved for low-income households. Based on current housing production figures during this housing cycle, a total of 192 market rate units and 21 lower income units have been permitted11. While the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element, the City has not yet met or exceeded its share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the current planning period for the income category proposed for the project. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.
2. The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
a. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. b. The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)) 11 2024 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report - https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=10213&meta_id=636011 Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
The proposed project conflicts with General Plan land use designation and zoning development standards, including land uses, height, density, parking, outdoor living space, building setbacks, landscape setbacks, minimum unit size, and required walls.
However, as noted in GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), any inconsistency with the City’s zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety for which the City may use in consideration of the denial of the proposed housing development project. It should be noted that the standard is for “public health or safety” and not “welfare”. Additionally, the project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, or a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the project do not appear to demonstrate that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that would necessitate mitigation. Further, additional research has been performed as to whether there are any applicable objective written health or safety standards that would apply to this project and would warrant denial or reductions in density and has identified no such standards on which a denial pursuant to this finding could be justified. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.
3. The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(3))
Research into relevant state and federal laws has been performed and there is no basis on which to find the project to be out of compliance and thus has no basis on which to rely to make this finding. As the project is consistent with state housing law and no specific state or federal law preempts approval of the project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.
4. The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(4))
The project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes. Improvements required for the project would require that the applicant upgrade any existing water and wastewater facilities to adequately serve the proposed building as part of project construction. During the building plan check process, the applicant would be required to submit studies demonstrating the adequacy of existing water and wastewater facilities, and any upgrades to these utilities would be upgraded at the expense of the applicant. Furthermore, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has evaluated water demand, Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
wastewater treatment capacity, and the ability to serve future housing units to accommodate the City’s obligations under RHNA. The analysis in the UWMP has projected that sufficient capacity exists to serve the 3,104 units anticipated during the 2021-2029 housing element planning cycle and through 2030. As this project is not on land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation and there is no evidence showing that water and wastewater facilities are inadequate to serve the project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.
5. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. a. This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderateincome households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
b. If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5))
The applicant submitted a PA for a Housing Development Project on December 14, 2023 in order to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time. On this date, the City did not have a certified Housing Element. For purposes of implementing this state law, the application is deemed complete on the date the PA is submitted. Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted entitlement applications on April 15, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). As this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA), there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
6. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(6))
Consistent with the analysis provided for the finding required by GC §65589.5(d)(5), as this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA), there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.
B. Findings Required for Denial of a Housing Project that is Consistent with Applicable Plans, Standards, or Other Similar Provisions Based on the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1))
1. When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
a. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(a)) Pursuant to the HAA (GC §65589.5(h)(6)(E)), a Builder’s Remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. Similarly, GC §65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.” Per GC §65589.5(h)(5), “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a PA to vest the right of a project prior to the submittal of a formal application. While the project as designed conflicts with general plan and zoning development standards, including land uses, height, density, parking, outdoor living space, building setbacks, landscape setbacks, minimum unit size, and required walls, this project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and is Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
considered statutorily compliant with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria because the PA for this project was submitted on December 14, 2023, prior to HCD certification of the City’s Housing Element.
Additionally, while materials submitted for this project show that the project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which to deny the project. Aesthetic impacts of a project associated with privacy and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard. Similarly, construction traffic impacts would be temporary, and any traffic control measures implemented would be consistent with City requirements for development projects and would be removed at the end of project construction.
Construction noise impacts would also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays.
Furthermore, the project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), on a hazardous waste site, in a delineated earthquake fault zone, in a special flood hazard area, or in a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the project do not appear to demonstrate that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to construction workers or future occupants of the residential development. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to deny the project on these grounds. b. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(b)) While the project is anticipated to have aesthetic and temporary constructionrelated traffic and noise impacts, the noted impacts do not appear to constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to merit disapproval of the proposed housing development project. Furthermore, pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.
Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.
Development Plan Review. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3104, the Planning Commission’s review of a Development Plan Review application is based on the following findings:
• The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
The project site is designated as General Commercial – Low Density/Mixed Use Overlay in the City’s General Plan. The proposed project includes a mixed use development consisting of residential, retail and hotel uses. While mixed use development and hotel uses are permitted within this designation, subject to applicable development standards, the project far exceeds the development standards outlined in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element.
This land use designation allows for a maximum residential density of 79.2 dwelling units per acre and a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.0 for commercial development.
Based on the site area of 20,665 SF (0.47 acres), the General Plan would allow up to 38 dwelling units. The proposed 116 dwelling units far exceeds this limit. In addition, the proposed commercial FAR of 3.25:1 exceeds the maximum permitted FAR of 2.0, resulting in a total building intensity that is inconsistent with the development planned for under the General Plan.
Further, the project appears to be in conflict with several goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, including LU 1.1 (Scale of the City), LU 2.1 (City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors), LU 2.10 (Development Transitions and Compatibility), LU 3.2 (Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs), LU 5.1 (Neighborhood Conservation), LU 5.7 (Neighborhood Transitions), LU 12.1 (Functional and Operational Compatibility), LU
12.2 (Building, Parking, Structure, Site Design), and LU 12.3 (Alleys Between Commercial and Residential Uses.
As designed, the project does not maintain and enhance the established character, scale, or aesthetic qualities of the residential and commercial areas in the vicinity of the project. The proposed 14-story, 162’-5” tall mixed use building disrupts the established character, scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood characterized by one- to two-story single-family residences immediately north of the site and low- to mid-rise commercial buildings ranging from two to six stories along Wilshire Boulevard.
The hotel uses are not permitted on sites where an alley is the only separation between a nonresidential site and a residential site, as this would create privacy and noise concerns. Further, the project’s reduction in rear yard setbacks from 6’-0” to 0’-0”, prevents an effective transition between two different land use intensities. The lack of landscaping along the rear yard eliminates any potential buffer that would otherwise soften the visual and privacy impacts between the commercial and residential zones.
However, as part of a prior approval, the applicant has agreed to fund new plantings within the existing planter located on the north side of the adjacent alley between North Maple Drive and North Palm Drive, which would help create a visual and privacy buffer between the project and the residential uses to the north. Accordingly, a condition of approval has been added to reflect this commitment.
Additionally, the orientation of the rooftop deck and pool amenities toward neighboring residential properties would result in direct views into private yards, creating privacy concerns. The unmodulated elevations, combined with the project’s overall scale, height, and lack of setbacks, further creates a visual contrast between the project and the adjoining low- to mid-scale neighborhood.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
Collectively, the project’s height, massing, lack of setbacks, inclusion of a hotel use adjacent to residential properties, and insufficient building modulation do not provide a compatible transition in scale, form, and character between the established residential neighborhood to the north and the Wilshire Boulevard commercial corridor to the south, east, and west. Based on the foregoing, this proposed project is not consistent with the City’s General Plan and thus, the finding cannot be made that the project is consistent with the General Plan.
However, while the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, the HAA requires that a Builder’s Remedy project be considered consistent and in compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, and such inconsistencies do not provide a basis for denial of the project.
• The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.
The proposed 14-story, 162’-5” tall mixed use building substantially exceeds the General Plan and zoning density limitations resulting in a mass and scale that are incompatible with the surrounding area, which includes one- to two-story single-family residences to the north and low- to mid-rise commercial buildings ranging from two to six stories along Wilshire Boulevard.
The hotel component is also inconsistent with the development pattern, as hotel uses are not permitted on sites where an alley is the only separation from adjoining residentially zoned properties. This proximity would introduce potential privacy, light, and noise impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood. Additionally, the orientation of rooftop amenities, including the pool and deck areas, toward adjacent residential properties would result in direct views into private yards, exacerbating privacy concerns.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would appear to adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the project site and would not promote harmonious development of the area. Thus, this finding cannot be made; however, in light of the issues presented in this finding, the project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.
• The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.
The proposed height, stories, lack of a rear setback, and lack of landscaping or screening along the alley create visual and privacy concerns with the one- and two- story single-family residences located across the alley to the north. The orientation of rooftop hotel amenities, including the pool and deck, toward the north would result in direct views into private yards, further diminishing privacy.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
Additionally, the nature of hotel activity, including late-night guest circulation, valet operations, and loading along the shared alley would generate noise, light, and operational disturbances inconsistent with the residential neighborhood immediately to the north of the project site.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would appear to adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the project site. Thus, this finding cannot be made; however, in light of the issues presented in this finding, the project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts. • The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.
Although the project appears to be exempt from CEQA, the City’s CEQA thresholds of significance inform whether impacts would be considered significantly adverse for the purposes of this finding. Per the City’s CEQA Transportation Thresholds and the findings of the previously adopted Class 32 report for the Density Bonus and Development Plan Review project (City Council approval of July 2, 2024)12, the project site is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA). Projects located within commercial zones and within onehalf mile of a Metro Rapid bus stop are presumed to have less-than-significant Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impacts.
While the City cannot conclusively determine that no impacts would occur, the available information supports a conclusion that potential transportation effects would not be significant under CEQA thresholds. Moreover, to further address potential circulation and neighborhood compatibility concerns, conditions of approval have been included requiring that all project operations, including loading, valet, and guest pick-up/drop-off, occur entirely on-site.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project may create adverse traffic impacts, however, this is not a basis for denial of the project. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts. .
• The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
The project is designed in conflict with general plan and zoning development standards, including land uses, height, density, parking, outdoor living space, building setbacks, landscape setbacks, minimum unit size, and required walls. While the aesthetic impacts of a project on an infill site within a transit priority area cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), the materials provided for the project demonstrate that the project would cast shadows during winter months on the single-family residential buildings located to the north, northeast, and northwest, as well as on portions of the commercial development along Wilshire Boulevard to the east 12 The Class 32 Repot referenced herein is available on the City’s website at the following link:
https://beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/4905/9229-Wilshire-Boulevard---Class-32-Report-PDF?bidId= Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
and south, thereby reducing access to natural light for these properties. The loss of daylight would diminish the enjoyment of residential and commercial uses.
The proposed hotel component, which would operate on a 24-hour basis introduces lighting, activity, and noise incompatible with the residential uses immediately to the north. The orientation of rooftop hotel amenities, including the pool and deck, toward nearby residences further increases privacy and noise concerns, affecting the general welfare of neighboring properties.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project appears to be detrimental to the general welfare and thus, this finding cannot be made.
Conditional Use Permit. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-2862, the Planning Commission’s review of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a new hotel is based on the following findings:
• The proposed location of any such use will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or to the public welfare.
The proposed 14-story, 162’-5” tall mixed use building, which includes residential, retail, and hotel uses, is located immediately south of single-family residential properties separated only by an alley. The project’s height, number of stories, lack of a rear setback, and lack of landscaping and screening along the alley create visual and privacy concerns for the single-family residences located across the alley to the north. The orientation of rooftop amenities, including the pool and deck, toward the north would result in direct views into private yards, reducing privacy.
Further, the nature of hotel activity, including late-night guest circulation, valet operations, and loading along the shared alley, would generate noise, light, and operational disturbances that are inconsistent with the residential neighborhood immediately to the north of the project site.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed location appears to be detrimental to the adjacent property and public welfare, however, this is not a basis for denial of the project. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.
While staff believes that some of the above outlined DPR and CUP findings cannot be made, the City is obligated to approve the project because, as described above, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to make the necessary findings in the HAA as grounds to deny the project. However, the DPR and CUP analysis provides subjective findings that are the basis for certain conditions that staff is recommending in the draft resolution (Attachment A), as outlined in the following section.
Additional Considerations. While not specifically required for project approval, staff has provided additional information that the Planning Commission may take into account in consideration of the project.
Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
State Housing Laws
Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7), the City is required to take action on the project within 30 days following the end of tribal consultation, which concluded on September 28, 2025. As discussed earlier in the report, pursuant to GC §65957, the deadline was extended by 90 days pursuant to a written agreement between the applicant and the City. Further, pursuant to GC §65905.5, the City is limited to five total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. To retain sufficient public hearings for architectural review and any potential City Council review, it is recommended that the Planning Commission complete their review of this project in two meetings or less.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
While only objective standards can be the basis for project denial, there is some authority to impose conditions on a project to further compliance with subjective standards, provided that the conditions do not have the effect of lowering density, which could have the effect of making the project infeasible to develop.
Staff has included project-specific conditions in the draft resolution (Attachment A) for the Planning Commission to consider as part of their review of the project. The conditions are intended to address the findings related to the DPR, CUP, and Density Bonus Permit in order to minimize impacts related to existing and anticipated development, traffic/pedestrian safety conflicts, and the welfare of the surrounding area. These project-specific conditions are consistent with conditions imposed on similar mixed use, residential, and hotel projects approved by the Commission, and include those conditions previously imposed by the Commission on the previously approved density bonus project. Specifically, the proposed conditions include:
• Limitation on common outdoor living space hours (Condition No. 13) • Amplified sound prohibition in common outdoor living space areas, including balconies and the rooftop of the building (Condition No. 14)
• Construction of a 6’-0” tall sound barrier on the north side of the rooftop area (Condition No. 16)
• Installation of parabolic mirrors, light system, and vehicle stop signs at the ingress and egress points to the parking area and loading area (Condition No.17) • Signage to be maintained on the rooftop and at the alley to inform hotel guests of the hotel’s location adjacent to a residential neighborhood and to be mindful of noise (Condition No. 18)
• Prohibition of live entertainment on the rooftop area at all times (Condition No. 19) • At least one state-licensed guard shall be on duty at all times (Condition No. 27) • The applicant shall maintain a 24-hour hotline for community complaints (Condition No. 29)
• Require all loading, valet or guest pick-up and drop-off, and employee activities to be conducted entirely on the project site and prohibit the use of the adjacent alley or public streets (Condition No. 31)
• Routing construction-related traffic toward Wilshire Boulevard (Condition No. 55.e) Planning Commission Report
9229 Wilshire Boulevard
October 29, 2025
NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Density Bonus Permit for the proposed Builder’s Remedy project at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard and find the project exempt from CEQA.
Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:
1. Consider the applicant’s postponement request and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with the permit processing timelines.
2. Approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions of approval.
Report Reviewed By:
Cindy Gordon, AICP
Project Manager – Current Planning
ATTACHMENT 5
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2103
!""#$
"%&%"&
'(
!(
)
$**$
%*'++"*&
,-./00102344155130367,-17836-9-:.81..5,-:-;8610<5 :-53.9-5/0<
<-7-:410-5/563..3=5>
-?7130
./0
155-.
30;-,/.636$**$
1.5,1:-@8.10-
%?3..-?719-.87,-ABB.1?/07C&
,/55D;4177-</-9-.3B4-07./0-91-=
30<17130/.5-
-:417
/0<-0517830D5-:417/BB.1?/71305D71.1E10257/7-3D5102??3D07/;1.178?7 D1.<-: 5-4-<8B:39151305
BD:5D/077339-:04-073<--?7130!""#$
"%<&%"&
5--@102
/BB:39/.36/0-='(573:8
41F-<D5-<-9-.3B4-07=17,5D;7-::/0-/0B/:@102/7$**$
1.5,1:-
3D.-9/:<
,-:3G-?710?.D<-5!<=-..102D0175
?30515710236*'.3=(10?34-D0175%7,-
A:3G-?7C&
D:5D/0773-9-:.81..5D01?1B/.3<-%&H+(I(I++
-9-.3B4-07./0
-91-=15:-JD1:-<63:7,-0-=41F-<D5-<-9-.3B4-07
BD:5D/0773H+(I(*#!*
/
30<17130/.5--:41715:-JD1:-<73/..3=7,-?3057:D?713036/0-=,37-. /0<BD:5D/0773
39-:04-073<--?7130!"$"
/-0517830D515:-JD-57-<73/..3=?-:7/1010?-0719-5/0< =/19-:56:34<-9-.3B4-0757/0</:<573/??3443</7-7,-B:391513036*'/663:</;.-,3D5102D0175
-?7130*
,-:3G-?7517-15/*+
!!"5JD/:-(6337%&:-?7/02D./:.37.3?/7-<
/77,-03:7,-/57?3:0-:36
1.5,1:-3D.-9/:</0<
3:7,/B.-:19-
=17,107,-178 5(I
KLMNOPQRSRTUVLWUXKYZ[\]\Z]K^K_\S^`_KZ^abc[^ZdceKbZf]cd[
!"
#$"%&
'
(
))
#
(
#*
))
+, #-.
(
)
)
/
(
) !*
)
/
()
0
)
) ,*
(
(
!1
%!+-.
(2
'
/
"
3
"'
(
(
+!
12%-.
(#
'
#
/
"
3%#
"
'
(
(
+2*
*%-.
(2
'
!+
/
"
3
1
"'
))
,!+-.
'
/
"
0
)
)
')
(
'
)
)
)
"
('
4
,
%" *
4
)
)
)
4
0
'
4
!
(
)
5
(
''
(
''
))
+, #-.
)
(
)
)
6
)
7
8
9
)
)
8
9
4
( !
#*"
(
(
)
:;<=>?@ABACDE;FDG:HIJKLKIL:M:NKBMON:IMPQRJMISRT:QIULRSJ
!
"
#
$%&
'()
*+&
*,,
#
#
$,-.(-
/
0
#
1
#
/
"2
'3
4
15"2
62
-78
9:;<=>?@A@BCD:ECF9GHIJKJHK9L9MJALNM9HLOPQILHRQS9PHTKQRI
!
"#
$%
&
$&'!()**+,$
-
-%*.
$
/
0
,)*-
-
%*$1.
$
+$2%%
$&'!()**+3,
-
4--
52%6
+$)
--
-
$/
0
$+7 2%
--
$
8
$&
&'!()**)
-
'4
*9
:
-
4--
7;$
/
0
,+;*7<$
+$=
$&'!()**)
-
'4
*9
:
-
4--
$/
0
*
$
$!--
9
=
>$&'!(()**
)**7+$
- --
>
,;*)<
-
-
;*)<
.
-
.
$/
0
?@ABCDEFGFHIJ@KIL?MNOPQPNQ?R?SPGRTS?NRUVWORNXWY?VNZQWXO
!
"
# $%&'()*+,*-
+#. /0
-
1
2#.
+*+#.
-
!
"
# $%&'()*+,* 0-
2
/0
-
*)3
2 &
4
#5 $%&'()*),,+
&14
#.
/0
-
)
*
5
,)#.
6#.
7 8 $%&'()*)6* 0-
*
5
5
/0
-
-
-
, '
9
#
$%&'()*),,* $-
1
/0
-
-
:;<=>?@ABACDE;FDG:HIJKLKIL:M:NKBMON:IMPQRJMISRT:QIULRSJ
!"#$%$"&&%
!"#$%$'&"
(
$(
)*
+(
(",#
+(
-&(
"#
.
)
/
.
+
(',/$#0( 1 +
"##
)
+
+
('#/
""
2
!"#$%$'3%#
(
%-#.4(
(
''
(
)*
+(
(",#
+(
''(
)1
(
/ +
(5 !--&-
+
1
+
.
% 6
7",'#'%*
*
(
7+
189*0:+
(1
+
/
;
(
(
7
(
7+
8
7:.
(**
7+
+
2
;<
7
=>?@ABCDEDFGH>IGJ=KLMNONLO=P=QNEPRQ=LPSTUMPLVUW=TLXOUVM
!
"#$%&%&$'
(
)
*
+
$,
)
(
-
.
(*
/ 0
1
)
2
( 3
-4
)
/
.
*
%5/6&*
*
)
.
(
..
/!
"#$%
&%&$
!
$ '
)
*
(
7
8
% 78
*
4
!
2$&! 78
%
(
(4.
'
!
2$&
.
(
$9
)
2 ((
:
*
4
%4 &;$""% &$'
:
*
((
+
<
.
(*
3
<
*
.
)
(
.
*
*)
$
$
)
!!=%4 !
$""% &%&%3&&>'
)
2
(
*
-
)
(
!
"#$%&%&
)
(
=$
$
)
?
%4 !
$""% &%&%&&>'
)
*
(
(3
/
$
<$9* 9%4 !
$""% &%<&%0&&>'
)
*
@
A
(
( )
*
@
A
(
2
(
BCDEFGHIJIKLMCNLOBPQRSTSQTBUBVSJUWVBQUXYZRUQ[Z\BYQ]TZ[R
!
" #
$%&&''!(!(!)((*
#
'++,+!
(!%%(-
. /
-
#
'++,+!(!'(!0(!(-
-
-
/
1
2 3
4
-
5
0 1
5
"
#
$%&&''!(!(! (
+ 30 !
" #
$%&&''!(!+((*
#
'++6$!(!6(!1(!(-
1 2
-
6&
)1%6&.
-
%+
7
.
'8
!
" #
$%&&''!(!'((*
#
'+,%6!(!'(-
-
.
*
5 -
-
-
5 5
-
5
-
.9 5
-
5-
-
-
-
:;<=>?@ABACDE;FDG:HIJKLKIL:M:NKBMON:IMPQRJMISRT:QIULRSJ
!
" ! #$
!
!%
%
!
!
&
'
#'
!"
$''!
("!
!
)
*
"
+++
+%
("
'
!"
$''!
,
"(
-%.
"'!
%!! /&
!$
0 "'
'
! &
!
"'
#
%
!& ""
($#
0 "'#
"#
/'
1
+
(2%
$'
#
"! #
#
"!
"!
!#
3
2"
(
!!$
!
!!$##!
/
!
%
!
%
4'
!
##
(!
!
!
2
&!$%(
! (
/
$
*(
!
& 5 #!#
(!
!
*(
!
6 7 #8 5 9:;
3 %
$
''
! #
'
(-
3
#
'(!
&/"!
<
(
%
+% !!'
'
$ /
!
'/
+=#
#
'
'
$%
0
(!
>#
2 =
'
/ '!$
'
'
$(
&&
<
(
%+
&
/! '(!
?@A@BCDEFCCGHB@GG
$%
<
(
%+
?@A@BCDEFCCGIJKBF@B L
$%<
(
%+<<
(
%+%
MNOPQRSTUTVWXNYWZM[\]^_^\_M`Ma^U`baM\`cde]`\fegMd\h_ef]
!
!
"##$%#
&'
&(')
)
)
(*
(
!!)
)
)
))
+
+ +
,
"##$%#&'
-
)
)
)
.
(
"##$$
(
/
)
"##$0)
)
)
(
)
"#$*)
(
/)
(
/
)
)
)
( )
(
)
)
1
)
1
"#0*
)
(
/
)
)
&
')
& ')
23456789:9;<=3><?2@ABCDCAD2E2FC:EGF2AEHIJBEAKJL2IAMDJKB
!
"
"
"
" "
""
# #
" " "
$"
% "
& "
!
"
"
' "
"
"(
)
*
"' +,
"
-". ' /+0 /
1
+,+
,,
" ! " &
""
"
""
# #
" " "
- ! * "
23456789:9;<=3><?2@ABCDCAD2E2FC:EGF2AEHIJBEAKJL2IAMDJKB
!
"
"
#
$%&
$&'
()*
$+&
$&'
()*
,-./012343567-869,:;<=>=;>,?,@=4?A@,;?BCD<?;EDF,C;G>DE<
!""#
!$
%
%
%
&
%
'
(
!""#)"
!
#*
+
(
%
'
(
!""#)"
,
$
-./.
0(1
(&0
2
((
-
#./.
(3
/
"/
4
5
"/
5
!#/
5
!/.
#
5
6 +%
!
.
5
5
*
).
3
.
789:;<=>?>@AB8CAD7EFGHIHFI7J7KH?JLK7FJMNOGJFPOQ7NFRIOPG
!
" !#
$
!
%$
&'
%$
(
) %
*
+
+
+
*
,
(
(
)-.//01/"#"&#"!#
(
2
*
(
$
3
4
5
4( 5!
%$
(
*
* "6789#
*
(
,
+
*
*
(
%$
%$
(
(
7
(
$
(
(
%$
(
(
(
$
!
%$
:;<=>?@ABACDE;FDG:HIJKLKIL:M:NKBMON:IMPQRJMISRT:QIULRSJ
!
"#
$
%
&
&
'
&
(
&
&
'
'
)
!
*+,+,-
.
/
0-./1
!
*
23 #
-./
'
,"
+,+4+,+5
+,,
$
&
!
#
2
(
(
" +,+
6
!
2
7)
89:;<=>?@?ABC9DBE8FGHIJIGJ8K8LI@KML8GKNOPHKGQPR8OGSJPQH
! "#
#
$%
&
' (
)()
*
+
,-
#
.
$%
&
!'
(/)
.
%
#
#
*
%
#
.
#$%
&
!'
()(
)
*
+
,-
#
.
$%
&
!'
(/)
.
%
#
#
*
'0
*
*
.
.
$.
%
!'
(*)()
%
1
2
3
.
*
*
.
4
.
.
#
.
*
*
.
#
#
.
*
#
.
5
2
6
.
*
.
.
#
*
.
789:;<=>?>@AB8CAD7EFGHIHFI7J7KH?JLK7FJMNOGJFPOQ7NFRIOPG
!
"#
$
%&
'
(
)
(
$
*++,-+"#"#.
'
/")(0*++,-+"#"*#"1##&
23
4
$
)(0*++,-+
"
#"*#"5#"#
&
23
' )(0*++,-+"#"+#
'
6
'
4
789:;<=>?>@AB8CAD7EFGHIHFI7J7KH?JLK7FJMNOGJFPOQ7NFRIOPG
!
"
#
$
%&%'
()#
)
(
*
+
"
,
+"
)
+-
)
+)
)
.&&"+/+0.&&
+/+
+
1
23(1(-45
6789:;<=>=?@A7B@C6DEFGHGEH6I6JG>IKJ6EILMNFIEONP6MEQHNOF
!
"
#
$%&'('(
)
*
+
,
#
,
-
$&!.!.&/
-
0
1
'-01
(
2
3
%3
4
.3
56789:;<=<>?@6A?B5CDEFGFDG5H5IF=HJI5DHKLMEHDNMO5LDPGMNE
!"
#$
%
#&
%
"
#
'
! #
(
)
$
*+
%
,,-.
/
0
$1
)
#
(
.
2.
(
#
(
.
$1
)
#+
/
3
.
45
.
678&9
"
::
764
9)
#
;<
!!:
.
=
78&
;
'!.
.
78&
)
#
7
(
$1
)
#
+/!!6
$9+/!6$#
'
>
%
$
9+/!6%
$
9+/;67
&
?
>
9+/
!6>
@ABCDEFGHGIJKALJM@NOPQRQOR@S@TQHSUT@OSVWXPSOYXZ@WO[RXYP
!
"!
#$
%
&
'
'
(
)* #
$
+""
,
*
% -
"
.
/
""
#
/
! -
! !01
#2314
"
5
!
"
/
6#
1
+1
#
/
"
#
""
#
/
+1
"
1
""
/ "
+
5
7
$
! "
+
#
#!
+
+
!
#
% -
3
#
&/ "23184
83184!
//
+
+
//
#
&/
!
#
"
#!
//
+
+
/
!
#
"!
+
""
69+
*!!
/
+!
+
5
!
/
-
#
+
:
! (
%
"(
+
+
!
!
#
//
+
% -
*
#
/
/
!
&
!
"
+
! !
+
+
!
#
!
#
"
"
+
% -
3
;<=>?@ABCBDEF<GEH;IJKLMLJM;N;OLCNPO;JNQRSKNJTSU;RJVMSTK
!
!
"
#
"
#$$% !
&
'
(
)*
)+
,-
.
.
"
.
!
(
'
( .
$
/01234567689:0;9</=>?@A@>A/B/C@7BDC/>BEFG?B>HGI/F>JAGH?
!
!
!
"
"
"
!
#
"
$#
%&'#
%(%&'#
%(%&'#
%
)
)
*
+%%
,-$.
/01234567689:0;9</=>?@A@>A/B/C@7BDC/>BEFG?B>HGI/F>JAGH?
!
!
"
#
$
"
$
%
&
!"
!
!'
"
!
!
!
#
!
&()
"
'
!
!
#
'
" "
!
*!#
'
!
#
#'"
'
#!
+! ,
'!
-
##'
"
'
"
'
.#
!
#'
"
/
#
0
#
"
'!
#
!
'
#
'
' +#'!
"#
'
!
#
+'
+'!!
'
*!
%
#
"
!!
&12344
2'
"
!
%
"
"
&
'
' !
'
"
!
!#
#
!
#
'
'
'
"
#%
-!
"
!
'
!#
56789:;<=<>?@6A?B5CDEFGFDG5H5IF=HJI5DHKLMEHDNMO5LDPGMNE
!
"# $
%
&
'(
)*&!
"+
#
,-
(
&
(
"
!
"
(
&
&
'(
.
"
"
"-/
0
1
(/
2
3456789:;:<=>4?=@3ABCDEDBE3F3GD;FHG3BFIJKCFBLKM3JBNEKLC
!
"
#
$
"
%
"
!
&
$
'%
(()
"
*
+
!
,
"
!
-
(.
!
$"
"
/
"
0
"
$
!
$
"
1
2
"
!
"
!
"
!
$
!
$
"
3,
!
"
"
4
5
"
6789:;<=>=?@A7B@C6DEFGHGEH6I6JG>IKJ6EILMNFIEONP6MEQHNOF
!
!
"
!
#
!
$
%
$
#
!
&
'(
'
)
!
)
*
!
+
'
!
+,
"
!
-
"
.
/
(
!
)
)
0 1
!
-
'
-
23456789:9;<=3><?2@ABCDCAD2E2FC:EGF2AEHIJBEAKJL2IAMDJKB
!
"
#
$$
%
$$
&
'
($$)$*+*,+
-.
#
/
#
0
"
'
'
$..1)$
2
"
2
/
$$
--#
3
4
3
-
5 %
6789:;<=>=?@A7B@C6DEFGHGEH6I6JG>IKJ6EILMNFIEONP6MEQHNOF
!"
!"
!"
!"
!#
$%&&
!&%&&
%&&'!&
(
!)*
+,
!-
+,
.
/
0 12
!3*
4
32"
(1)&
*
+,
,
5
1
5
!6*
4
789:;<=>?>@AB8CAD7EFGHIHFI7J7KH?JLK7FJMNOGJFPOQ7NFRIOPG
!
!
"#
$
"%
&
'
(
)'
*
'
"+
,
*"
)$
-
-
-
,
-
**
)$
.
/
&
(
*
'
$
0
*%-**1-
2+
2*
-
$
)
$
'
/
/
$
3456789:;:<=>4?=@3ABCDEDBE3F3GD;FHG3BFIJKCFBLKM3JBNEKLC
!
!
"
#
$
%
&'
(
(
#
#
#
)
* +
#
,
-
.
(
/
%
.
#
,
/
+
#
)
* +
0 1
2
3
(
(
4&56
7.
46
!#
!
(
8 .
!
/!
#
9:;<=>?@A@BCD:ECF9GHIJKJHK9L9MJALNM9HLOPQILHRQS9PHTKQRI
!
"#
$
%&
&
$
$
'
%
(
%
)
%
&
$
(
%(
%
)
%
%
%
& &
*
+
$
%
,
%
+
%
%
%
%
-
%
./01234565789/:8;.<=>?@[email protected]?6ACB.=ADEF>A=GFH.E=I@FG>
!
"
!#!
$
!
!
%!
&
'
!
(
)
!
(
(
)
!(
$ !
!*
!
$
!
!
(
$
'
$
!
$
+
'
!
!
!)
!
!
(
!
!
,$-
./010
&&
232432%323
!
!
5
!
$
'
'
6!
'
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
789:;<=>?>@AB8CAD7EFGHIHFI7J7KH?JLK7FJMNOGJFPOQ7NFRIOPG
!
"
#$
%&
#
%
'&
&
(
)%&
"
##&
&
*#
*
)
#
#
#
+%
#*
#
&
#
#
,
!
)##
)
&
#
#
$
) $
%
,
!
"
)
&
-
'&)
$)
-'
*
#
#
#
&.
/
)
#)
*
)
%
#
)
#
$
&
#
*
)
)
#0#'"$(1
"
)
-
*))
1 -
!
"
/
)
#)
*
)
%
#
)
#
$
&
#
*
)
.
)
$%
-
#&$#
-
2 3
3#3
,2,
#
*
))#
%+
*
#
"$&))
*##)
#
%
%#
%
&&
#
&
1
" )
!
"
456789:;<;=>?5@>A4BCDEFECF4G4HE<GIH4CGJKLDGCMLN4KCOFLMD
!
"#$
%&'('))*+*+*,+*
+
-
.,/
0
12
34
1#
"
4
/
!
55
4
5
-
.,/
0
12
3
4
55
4
5
4
/
4
*
!
!
!
+
0
6
6
7
!
*
!
'+
#"
2
3
52
3
2
3
#"
5
!
8
!
!
!
5
9:;<=>?@A@BCD:ECF9GHIJKJHK9L9MJALNM9HLOPQILHRQS9PHTKQRI
!!
!" #
!
!
$! !!%
&
&!
$&
'
#!()
"&&
!
*
*!! (&
!
!
+
!
"
&!!(
! *!
! $&
"
!
$
!
! !
,!( &*!!
# !
#!
,( &*!!&&(
%
$!
&!
$
(
&& !
!
&&(
&
!
-
& ! (&
!
!
.
-
&&/
&+
#!
+
!
/
*
,( &*!!&&(
& %
$
& ! (&
!
!
!
0 1
! !
#"-!%&&
&#&
#!
"
!#!!
&&(
!
2
(#&-1
!(
"
/
*
!
!
/ - &&(
!
"
/&&
#! #
3!4 %

345 $!
&&(
2
$
!"
!& !" $! !!
&&(
! &&!
$&
-
.
6
!
&
! !
7
$$& &&!
$&
1
!
&
"
!
/
&+
#!
/+ +
!
"(
!
#!
-"$!+
!0
!
!
89:;<=>?@?ABC9DBE8FGHIJIGJ8K8LI@KML8GKNOPHKGQPR8OGSJPQH
!"#
$
%
$
%
$
&'
("!"))*
+*+*,+
(
$
%
$
$
-
$
$
&'
("!"))*
+*+* +
%
%
%
$
-
$
$
&'
("!"))*
+*+*.+
/ $
0&
&'
("!"))*+
1
$
2 )#0* +*!+
1
&
3 4
1
1
-
$
4
1
$
&
3
5'
6789:;<=>=?@A7B@C6DEFGHGEH6I6JG>IKJ6EILMNFIEONP6MEQHNOF
!
"
#
$
%
&
"
%&
'
()
*
&#
&
#
#
#
#
+
#
&
#
#
#+
*
,,
#
&#
#
&
#
,
#
#
-
+
.
#
.
#
%
'
#
/ 0%
'
1234567898:;<2=;>1?@ABCB@C1D1EB9DFE1@DGHIAD@JIK1H@LCIJA
!
" " "
#$$%
"
#$$%
#
#&
#
'
(
'
"
" "%
)*+
,
#*
%
%
-
%
'
#
#
#
#
' "
#
#
#
!
#
"
. /
#
0
#
"
!1
2
3
4
)
%
!'
'
'
"
5#
6789:;<=>=?@A7B@C6DEFGHGEH6I6JG>IKJ6EILMNFIEONP6MEQHNOF
!
"
#
!
$
%
&
'()
!
*
+
,
%
&
&
)
'(
)
)
-
#
.
.&
/0
1
&
2
&
&
*$
)!3+
,
'
4
5
!
6
)
'(
789:;<=>?>@AB8CAD7EFGHIHFI7J7KH?JLK7FJMNOGJFPOQ7NFRIOPG
!
"
#
#
$
%%#
&
!
'
$
$
()
*
$
+
#
,
!
#
$
-
#
.! #
(
*
$
+#
,
#
#
$
-
/
#
#
$
-
.! #
(0
.!
.!
(1
,
%
$
"
%#
#
%%##
23456789:9;<=3><?2@ABCDCAD2E2FC:EGF2AEHIJBEAKJL2IAMDJKB
!"#
$
%
$&
'
()
*)+,*-+
%
%
)%
.
/
.
0
%
1
%.
.
%
+
%
2
+
%
2
%
%
"34
%
%
.
%
)
,
% 2
%
'
"34
.
%
%
)%
%
-
.
%
.
'
.
2
"345
.
%
"345
"34
.
'
.
%
.
1)
.
%
%
67,)+,*-%
)%
0
8+
2
%
!9#
:;<=>?@ABACDE;FDG:HIJKLKIL:M:NKBMON:IMPQRJMISRT:QIULRSJ
!
"#$#% &
'(
)*(
+,
-.
'(
/
,
/,
,
,
)
0,, )),
1
)/2!
)
3
4)
/
-
567& 167$787$96167$+*
/
,
)/
,), 2//,
2
):
;
+,
<-
,,
:
, ,
2//
2)
/2
)2
2/
/2
,
=
(("75 &"'$+%61& $9
1,
)
,
(
0,
-
6$9#$686 167$781#61>
6)/9/ 9
72: (/?:)9
6,:
/@86,
2/
/
1
,
)
/
)/,
,
,
)
/
: /:
:
,
,
/
,3, ,
/A6)B4
)
:/,)):, ,
,
,:
0:), !
3,: )
/@
,
, 4/)
:
, (: )) @,
(: )) ,
)
/@
)
1
,
/
//0:)
CDEFGHIJKJLMNDOMPCQRSTUTRUCVCWTKVXWCRVYZ[SVR\[]CZR^U[\S
!
"""
"""
"""
#$%&'()*+*,-.$/-0#12345425#6#74+687#269:;362<;=#:2>5;<3
! " #
$
%& '(')'
*+,-./0+120.
3.45
!
6
$7%
8888888888888888888888888888888
9: $;
$#&<7=$&:	%$#&<7=$&&>7>%
=
9
?
$
$
9: $;
=
=
@ABCDEFGHGIJKALJM@NOPQRQOR@S@TQHSUT@OSVWXPSOYXZ@WO[RXYP
!"# $%&!
''
((
# $
"#
)&"
&&(!&
#
!
$*"
#" $! $#
(! +!
,"
#
(&+
-./0
+&",!((
!,,)
!
!
,
*" $%&!
''
((
#(!
"! !'
#(!
''
((
*-1-/-2!
$!#
+&"
(
*" $ !"# $%&!
''
((
!(
!
3!
$! $%&!
''
((
# $
"
(
( (##
)42
''*(!
(!
(&+
5!(,!((
*"
$#&&5
) #(!
''
((
5
6 6''
((
(
((7'
$!
&85(8
6
6
6''
((
!,&!
$!
9&#
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
!"# $
%&!
''
((
"#)&"
&&(!&
#
!
;<=>?@ABCBDEF<GEH;IJKLMLJM;N;OLCNPO;JNQRSKNJTSU;RJVMSTK Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 2A37327D-D63E-46D2-BF5A-2051DF28750A Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: PC Reso 2103 - 9229 Wilshire.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 46 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Evelin Welch
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.181
Record Tracking
Status: Original
11/10/2025 4:32:53 PM
Holder: Evelin Welch
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Karen Myron
[email protected]
COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,
CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.181
Sent: 11/10/2025 4:35:56 PM
Viewed: 11/10/2025 9:48:47 PM
Signed: 11/10/2025 9:50:14 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Lou Milkowski
[email protected]
President HOA
Palm Drive Plaza HOA
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 66.74.132.169
Signed using mobile
Sent: 11/10/2025 9:50:16 PM
Resent: 11/13/2025 3:14:11 PM
Resent: 11/13/2025 4:22:57 PM
Viewed: 11/13/2025 8:50:22 PM
Signed: 11/13/2025 8:50:43 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
David Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 38.122.232.202
Sent: 11/13/2025 8:50:45 PM
Resent: 11/17/2025 7:57:33 AM
Resent: 11/17/2025 2:02:44 PM
Resent: 11/19/2025 11:02:47 AM
Resent: 11/19/2025 11:04:34 AM
Resent: 11/20/2025 8:01:53 AM
Resent: 11/24/2025 7:47:23 AM
Resent: 11/25/2025 12:15:31 PM
Resent: 12/1/2025 8:02:41 AM
Resent: 12/1/2025 5:03:14 PM
Resent: 12/2/2025 1:18:48 PM
Viewed: 12/2/2025 7:24:35 PM
Signed: 12/2/2025 7:24:50 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Cindy Gordon for
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 12/2/2025 7:24:51 PM
Viewed: 12/8/2025 8:51:45 AM
Signed: 12/8/2025 8:53:54 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 11/10/2025 4:35:56 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/8/2025 8:51:45 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 12/8/2025 8:53:54 AM
Completed Security Checked 12/8/2025 8:53:54 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 6
State Statutes
State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65589.5
65589.5.
(d) For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project.
The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
(A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AUTHENTICATED
ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
Findings for Denial or Conditioning of
Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or
Moderate-Income Households
(Government Code Section 65589.5(d))
(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan.
(A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderateincome households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project.
State of California
GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65589.5
65589.5.
(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AUTHENTICATED
ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
Findings Required for Denial of a Housing
Project that is Consistent with Applicable
Plans, Standards, or Other Similar
Provisions Based on the Preponderance
of the Evidence Standard
(Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1))
® STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATIVE AUTHENTICATED
~7,'t,:i}X ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
State of California
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Section 21080.66
21080.66. (a) Without limiting any other statutory or categorical exemption, this division does not apply to any aspect of a housing development project, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65905 .5 of the Government Code, including any permits, approvals, or public improvements required for the housing development project, as may be required by this division, if the housing development project meets all of the following conditions:
(1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the project site is not more than 20 acres.
(B) The project site or the parcel size for a builder's remedy project, as defined in paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, or the project site or the parcel size for a project that applied pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code as it read before January 1, 2025, is not more than five acres.
(2) The project site meets either of the following criteria:
(A) Is located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality. (B) Is located within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. (3) The project site meets any of the following criteria:
(A) Has been previously developed with an urban use.
(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
( C) At least 7 5 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
(D) For sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
( 4) (A) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program as defined in Section 30108.6. For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, and any applicable local coastal program, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent. (B) If the zoning and general plan are not consistent with one another, a project shall be deemed consistent with both if the project is consistent with one. (C) The approval of a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project Assembly Bill 130
CEQA Statutory Exemption
(Public Resources Code
Section 21080.66)
is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program.
(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code.
( 6) The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph ( 6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code.
(7) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the Government Code.
(8) For a project that was deemed complete pursuant to paragraph ( 5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. For the purposes of this section, "other transient lodging" does not include either of the following:
(A) A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local law. (b) (1) (A) A local government shall provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the proposed project, its location, and the project's potential effects on tribal cultural resources pursuant to one of the following deadlines:
(i) Within 14 days of the application for the project being deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code. (ii) For projects whose applications were deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code before July 1, 2026, within 14 days of notifying the local government that the project is eligible to be exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(B) The formal notification shall include all of the following:
(i) Detailed project information to help inform the consultation, including site maps, proposed project scope, and any known cultural resource studies. (ii) Contact information for the local government.
(iii) Contact information for the project proponent.
(iv) Notice that the California Native American tribe has 60 days to request consultation with the local government pursuant to this subdivision. (2) (A) Each California Native American tribe has 60 days to notify the local government that it accepts the invitation to consult.
(B) If a California Native American tribe chooses not to accept the invitation to consult, or does not notify the local government of its decision within 60 days, the consultation shall be considered to have concluded.
(3) (A) Within 14 days of receiving the notification that the California Native American tribe has elected to consult, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2), the local government shall initiate the consultation.
(B) During the consultation, the local government shall act in good faith to identify whether a tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed project and shall give deference to the tribal information, tribal knowledge and customs, and the significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe. (C) The project proponent may participate in the consultation with the approval of the California Native American tribe if the project proponent agrees to engage in good faith and comply with the confidentiality requirements of Sections 7927.000 and 7927.005 of the Government Code, subdivision (d) of Section 21082.3, subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, and any confidentiality standards adopted by the California Native American tribe participating in the consultation.
(D) The consultation shall seek to find measures that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.
(E) The local government shall document the results of the consultation. (F) The consultation shall conclude within 45 days of initiation, subject to a one-time 15-day extension upon request by a participating California Native American tribe.
(4) The local government shall include, as binding conditions of the project approval, all of the following:
(A) Any enforceable agreements reached during the project consultation. (B) All of the following measures, unless there is mutual agreement between the California Native American tribe and the project proponent not to include the measure as a binding condition:
(i) Upon request by a California Native American tribe, the project shall include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities, as follows:
(I) The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor. (II) The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant's site access and workplace safety requirements.
(111) The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the project. (ii) Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes. (iii) All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Section 21083.9. (iv) A California Historical Resources Information System archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search shall be completed for the project site.
(v) A Sacred Lands Inventory request shall be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission.
(vi) The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe. (vii) An application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
(5) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A) "California Native American tribe" has the same meaning as defined in Section 21073.
(B) "Enforceable agreement" means an agreement between the local government, project proponent, and any California Native American tribe that has engaged in consultation pursuant to this subdivision regarding the methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource identification, treatment, and protection, including consideration of avoidance. Compliance with the enforceable agreement shall be a required condition of approval for the project and its terms must be enforceable against the project proponent by the local government and the California Native American tribe.
(C) "Tribal cultural resource" means a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, including a Native American sanctified cemetery, Indian cemetery, or Indian burial area, or an object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is any of the following:
(i) Included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.
(ii) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(iii) Identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred place pursuant to Section 5097.94 or 5097.96.
(iv) Included in a local tribal register.
( c) (1) (A) The local government shall, as a condition of approval for the development, require the development proponent to complete a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) If a recognized environmental condition is found, the development proponent shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity.
(C) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy.
(D) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy. (2) For any housing on the site located within 500 feet of a freeway, all of the following shall apply:
(A) The building shall have a centralized heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system.
(B) The outdoor air intakes for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system shall face away from the freeway.
(C) The building shall provide air filtration media for outside and return air that provides a minimum efficiency reporting value of 16.
(D) The air filtration media shall be replaced at the manufacturer's designated interval.
(E) The building shall not have any balconies facing the freeway. (d) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, all construction workers employed in the execution of a housing development project exempt from this division pursuant to this section where 100 percent of the units within the development project are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate, regardless of whether the housing development project is a public work. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, the labor standards of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code shall apply to buildings over 85 feet in height above grade in any housing development project exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding any other law, the labor standards of Article 4 ( commencing with Section 65912.130) of Chapter 4.1 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code shall apply for projects of 50 units or greater in the City and County of San Francisco that are not covered by paragraph (2), for any construction craft where at least 50 percent of the units in market-rate multifamily housing projects that received their certificate of occupancy between 2022 and 2024, inclusive, were built by workers that were paid not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages. (B) For purposes of this section, "market-rate multifamily housing development project" means a housing development project of greater than 10 units where less than 95 percent of the units are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C) (i) The eligibility of this subparagraph, by classification, will be determined by the Department of Industrial Relations and published on its internet website by January 1, 2026.
(ii) In making a determination of eligibility pursuant to this subparagraph, the Director of Industrial Relations shall obtain and consider data from the labor organizations and employers or employer associations concerned no later than October 1, 2025.
(iii) To determine the number of market-rate multifamily housing projects that received their certificate of occupancy in a given year, the Department of Industrial Relations shall use the annual progress report data as reported by the jurisdiction pursuant to Section 65400 of the Government Code.
(4) The provisions of Section 218.8 of the Labor Code shall extend to the development proponent in addition to the direct contractor or subcontractor. For purposes of this paragraph, "development proponent" shall mean a developer who submits the housing development project application to a local government that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(5) (A) A joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) may undertake any of the following on a housing development project that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section:
(i) Bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction against a contractor or subcontractor at any tier on behalf of construction workers employed by the contractor or subcontractor on a housing development project that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section to enforce Section 226 of the Labor Code. A contractor is not subject to an action pursuant to this subparagraph due to the failure of a subcontractor to comply with Section 226 of the Labor Code.
(ii) Bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of an affected employee against an employer for damages as if Division 4 ( commencing with Section 3200) of the Labor Code did not apply, if the employer fails to secure the payment of compensation as required by Article 1 ( commencing with Section 3 700) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Labor Code.
(iii) In addition to the remedies set forth in Section 7028.3 of the Business and Professions Code, on proper showing by a joint labor-management cooperation committee of a continuing violation of Chapter 9 ( commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code by a person who constructs a housing project and does not hold a state contractor's license in any classification, an injunction shall issue by a court specified in Section 7028.3 of the Business and Professions Code at the request of the joint labor-management cooperation committee, prohibiting that violation.
(B) For any action brought pursuant to this paragraph, the court shall award a prevailing joint labor-management committee its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred maintaining the action.
(C) An action brought pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed within one year of a local government issuing a certificate of occupancy for the housing development project or for the portion relating to the action.
(D) This paragraph shall apply only to violations that occur on the site of construction of the housing development project.
(e) This section does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code.
(f) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:
(1) "Adjoins" includes parcels that are only separated by a street, pedestrian path, or bicycle path.
(2) "Construction worker" means one performing onsite work associated with construction, including work involving alteration, demolition, building, excavation, renovation, remodeling, maintenance, improvement, repair work, and any other work as described by Chapter 9 ( commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and other similar or related occupations or trades. (3) "Urban use" means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
(Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 22, Sec. 59. (AB 130) Effective June 30, 2025.) ATTACHMENT 7
Preliminary Application
City of Beverly Hills - Preliminary Application for Housing Development
11. What are the number of bonus units and any incentives, concessions, waivers or parking reductions requested pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law? Project would pursue parking relief pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Gov.
Cade Section 65915-6591 B) and/or AB 2D97 (Gav Cade Section 655B5 65B63 2) Projects will request height, stories, rear setback, 2:1 commercial FAR limit waivers, and outdoor llvlng spaces, and reserves ttIe rlgtlt to request addltlorial waivers and concessions prior to full application completeness determination.
12. Are any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map being requested?
No
13. Are there any units on the project site that are proposed to be demolished as part of this application? How many of these units are currently occupied? No. The property is currently a medical office building.
14. Please include a site map showing a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1600) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code and an aerial site photograph showing existing site conditions of environmental site features that would be subject to regulations by a public agency, including creeks and wetlands. N/A
15. Are there any recorded public easements, such as storm drain easements, water line easements or other public rights of way on the project site? If so, please show their precise location on the site plan.
No