WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
unnecessary conflict with state housing law.
I respectfully urge you to approve the project at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. Anne A. Winter
VIA EMAIL
January 12, 2026
Sharona R. Nazarian, Mayor
Craig A. Corman Vice Mayor
John A. Mirisch, Councilmember
Lester Friedman, Councilmember
Mary N. Wells, Councilmember
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Judy Gutierrez, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Community Development Department
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Huma Ahmed, City Clerk
City Clerk’s Office
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive, Room 290
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 for the 9229 Wilshire Boulevard Project (PL2400152) Dear Mayor Nazarian, Vice Mayor Corman, , Honorable Councilmembers, Ms. Gutierrez, and Ms. Ahmed:
I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in the City of Beverly Hills (“City”) regarding the 9229 Wilshire Boulevard Project (PL2400152) (“Project”), proposed by Hamburg Properties LLP, Frosenfelt LLP, Barry & Beth Rosenbloom Properties, LLC, Mimilee Properties LLC, KDR Golden LLC, Double Decker Partners, LLC; JD Tower LLC; and Reggio Mayo LLC (“Applicant”). The Project involves the construction of a 14-story, 116-unit, 163’-0” tall, mixeduse development with a combination of residential, commercial and hotel uses, a subterranean parking structure, and approximately 5,340 square feet of outdoor living space. The Project is scheduled to be heard at the City Council meeting on January 13, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.
Through the recently-enacted Assembly Bill 130 (“AB 130”), the Applicant has sought to exempt the Project from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). AB 130 establishes a new statutory exemption from CEQA for qualifying infill housing projects. (See AB 130 § 59; Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66 [“PRC”].) As discussed below, AB 130 specifies construction labor standards for certain types of projects, including buildings taller than 85 feet, such as the proposed Project here. Therefore, under AB 130, SAFER January 12, 2026 Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 for the 9229 Wilshire Boulevard Project (PL2400152)
respectfully requests that the Planning Commission require the Applicant to: (1) employ a skilled and trained construction workforce; and (2) pay its construction workforce prevailing wages.
DISCUSSION
AB 130 states that the labor standards of Government Code § 65913.4(a)(8) [“Gov.
Code”] apply to buildings over 85 feet in height for any housing development project that otherwise qualifies for a CEQA exemption under AB 130. (PRC § 21080.66(d)(2); AB 130 § 59(d)(2).) Here, the Project will be 163 feet tall, thereby triggering the labor standards of Gov.
Code § 65913.4(a)(8).
I. The Applicant must employ a skilled and trained construction workforce to build the Project.
Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i) states, inter alia, that the developer for any project over 85 feet tall shall enter construction contracts with prime contractors only if the contract contains an enforceable commitment that the prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in Public Contract Code § 2601(d), to perform work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation, as defined in PCC § 2601(a), in the building and construction trades. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i)(I).) Public Contract Code § 2601(d) [“PCC”] defines a “skilled and trained workforce” as a workforce that meets the following conditions, among others:
(1) All workers performing work in an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades are either skilled journeypersons or apprentices registered in an apprenticeship program approved by the chief.
(2)(A) For work performed on or after January 1, 2017, at least 30 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation. This requirement shall not apply to work performed in the occupation of teamster. . . .
(2)(D) For work performed on or after January 1, 2020, at least 60 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation, except that the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply to work performed in the following occupations: acoustical installer, bricklayer, carpenter, cement mason, drywall installer or lather, marble mason, finisher, or setter, modular furniture or systems installer, operating engineer, pile driver, plasterer, roofer or waterproofer, stone mason, surveyor, teamster, terrazzo worker or finisher, and tile layer, setter, or finisher.
(PCC § § 2601(d).) PCC § 2601(a) defines an “apprenticeable occupation” as an January 12, 2026 Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 for the 9229 Wilshire Boulevard Project (PL2400152)
occupation for which the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations had approved an apprenticeship program pursuant to California Labor Code § 3075 [“CLC”] before 2014.
Here, because the Project building will be over 85 feet tall, the Applicant must use a skilled and trained workforce at every tier to perform work on the Project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades.
II. The Applicant must pay its construction workforce prevailing wages for the Project.
For any development that is not entirely a public work, Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A) requires, inter alia, that all construction workers employed in the execution of the subject project 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 under CLC §§ 1733 and 1733.9.
However, apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (Gov.
Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(i).) Additionally, the development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work and shall also provide notice of all contracts for the performance of the work to the Department of Industrial Relations for the portions of the development that are not a public work. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(ii).)
Here, because the Project is not a wholly public work and will be over 85 feet tall, the Applicant must pay all its construction workers prevailing wages.
The prevailing wages requirement would still be applicable under the newly proposed 26- story Project application, due to the Project still being over 85 feet tall.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Planning Commission must require the Applicant to use a skilled and trained construction workforce and pay its construction workforce prevailing wages, in compliance with the labor standards set forth in AB 130. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard T. Drury
Lozeau Drury LLP
Jan 13, 2026
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Beverly Hills City Council:
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of Beverly Hills (“the City”) of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 195 dwelling unit project located at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”), SB 330 (Gov.
Code, § 65941.1), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and AB 130.
Under the HAA,1 a city (or town) may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides a certain percentage of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the local zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's (or town’s) housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1).) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA.
However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under current law or opt into the provisions of the new law, at the choice of the project applicant. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(7).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
Of note, this project has now been revised to fulfill the definition of a “Builder’s Remedy” project pursuant to Government Code, section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(11) and is eligible for the protections of the HAA. (Id. at subd. (d)(6).)
The City’s Housing Element was not in substantial compliance with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted for the project at issue, and the City must allow the project to be developed as proposed under the builder’s remedy.
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project any proposed waivers and concessions. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is exempt from state environmental review pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66), which was signed into law on June 30, 2025 and effective immediately (Assembly Bill No. 130, 2025-2026 Regular Session, Sec. 74, available here).
Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue and new customers to local businesses; it will provide badly needed affordable housing; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents. While no one project will solve the statewide 2 of 3
housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the Town to approve the projects, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3