WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
From: Malka Shooshani
To: City Clerk
Subject: E 1 in the subject line
Date: Wednesday, January 21, 2026 7:35:14 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Sent from my iPhone
E1 in the subject
I think scenario 3
into the La Cienega station area, leaving the Wilshire/Reeves station area untouched. Two of the three Commissioners involved in that vote do not live near La Cienega. It raises difficult but necessary questions about whose neighborhoods are protected and whose are not.
I urge Council to reconsider staff’s alternate plan, which distributes potential density equitably across both Metro stations. The La Cienega station should not bear the full burden of a policy meant to enable walkable, sustainable, and inclusive development.
It’s also worth noting: much of the Planning Commission’s discussion for the justification for placing all density near La Cienega seems tied to its proximity to freeway access. But that’s counter to the very spirit of SB 79, which aims to encourage walkable, transit-oriented communities—not more car dependency. While, yes, the state housing policies have good intent of creation of housing and are instead, horribly flawed, usurping local control, altering our neighborhoods – and in many cases, forcing our most vulnerable and elderly populations out of existing affordable housing, if we want to meet the intent of the law, we should be planning to support safe Metro ridership, not freeway use.
And while we’re on the subject of opportunity: a new subway station is opening at Wilshire and La Cienega within months. Instead of treating it solely as threat, we should be treating it as a catalyst—for thoughtful design, new business development, and creative placemaking. Instead of solely focusing on police substation, we should have been additionally focused on public realm improvements that help to ensure activity, economic development and more eyes and ears on the street, which can all help lead to public safety - a major valid concern - instead of the potential of people wandering into residential neighborhoods. Instead of meeting the opportunity for both enhanced safety and activation, there has been no proactive master plan. No incentives for an anchor market to serve existing and new residences, local-serving retail, or pedestrian infrastructure. The city appears a bit stuck in the past—focused on luxury, while a once-in-a-generation opportunity to do the subway right with enhanced above ground public safety, economic opportunity and pedestrian opportunities opens just blocks away.
We must plan smarter, act with transparency, and lead with fairness. SB 79 is coming, so is Metro. Both are poised to reshape our city. Let’s make sure the way we respond reflects the best of Beverly Hills, not the blind spots of its past and make sure we do everything we can to do it right by our community.
Thank you,
Rebecca Pynoos
Jan 21, 2026
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive, Room 280A
Beverly Hills, California 90210
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments for SB 79 Implementation Dear Beverly Hills City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state and federal laws when considering item E-1 for the January 21, 2026 Council meeting, the proposed SB 79 Alternative Plan. Specifically, the City must abide by the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”) and SB 79, including but not limited to Government Code sections 65912.160 and 65912.161.
The Proposed Height Limits Will Not Accommodate the Proposed Density The City’s proposed densities for the Tentpole Scenario and the La Cienega Focused Scenario are not achievable under the proposed height limits. It is likely impossible to achieve 320 units per acre with a 95-foot height limit, and likely impossible to achieve 230 units per acre with a 75-foot height limit.
The City is well aware that these densities are not achievable, as indicated by the staff report on page 19: “the City is not precluded from allowing additional height as an incentive to achieve the allowed densities per the alternative plan.” The City is evading the law by creating a density/envelope mismatch. For this alternative plan to be meaningful, the City must establish heights that actually allow the proposed density.
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
[email protected]
Of note, pursuant to Government Code section 65912.160, subdivision (c)(1) the California Department of Housing and Community Development must evaluate whether or not the City’s implementation ordinance will physically preclude residential development at the required densities.
Furthermore, a potential effect of these lower height limits is to disincentive the creation of family-sized units. In our experience, even achieving 200 units per acre with a 75-foot height limit requires relying heavily on 1-BR units and studios.
Familial status is a protected characteristic under state fair housing law. Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c)(5) (emphasis added):
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
The City should ensure that its proposed building envelopes do not physically preclude the development of the proposed densities. The City should also be sure not to violate applicable state fair housing law by creating a disparate impact against a protected class.
The City Must Allow DBL Height Waivers Under Its Alternative Plan Proposed City Code section 10-3-5102.7(A) precludes the use of DBL waivers to increase building height beyond 75 feet (or 95 feet adjacent to stations) for projects developed under the City’s Alternative Plan:
Request for Height Increase. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.157(d), the City is not required to grant a waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 for additional height beyond that specified in this Article, except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915.
However, this provision violates Government Code section 65912.161 as well as the DBL.
Government Code section 65912.161, subdivision (d):
Section 65912.157 shall not apply within a jurisdiction that has a local transit-oriented alternative plan that has been approved by the department as satisfying the requirements of this section in effect. The department’s approval pursuant to this 2 of 3
section shall be valid through the jurisdiction’s next amendment to the housing element of its general plan.
If the City’s Alternative Plan is approved, then it may not rely on section 65912.157 to preclude the use of DBL height waivers, as section 65912.157 “shall not apply” within the City. This means that the City must allow height waivers beyond 75 feet (or 95 feet adjacent to stations) pursuant to the DBL. By adopting a “local transit-oriented alternative plan” the City is establishing local development standards as an alternative to state standards. These standards, including height limits, are subject to modification by state density bonus law. ⧫ ⧫ ⧫
CalHDF appreciates the City’s effort to implement SB 79. We remind the City, however, that it must take care to follow the law in doing so. The current proposal needs revision before it can be finalized and implemented in accordance with 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
From: Mitra Gidanian
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda item E 1
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 9:56:28 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Hi,
I vote for scenario 3, focusing more density near the La Cienega metro station. Scenario 2 is the second best plan in my opinion.
Thanks,
Mitra Gidanian
Sent from my iPhone=
From: Steven Kamara
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda E1
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 8:17:15 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
I own a property on north palm drive and support
plan 3 , which I believe is the best for our neighborhood and city (La Cienega Focused Scenario) transfers some of the density which would be closer to our area and metro stop, to the La Cienega area.
Steven Kamara MD
Sent from my iphone
From: Saeed
To: City Clerk
Subject: E1
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 6:17:03 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Sent from Saeed’s iPhone
Scenario 3 is preferred.
From: mahnaz javaheri
To: City Clerk
Subject: E1 scenario
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 6:15:02 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Option 3 is preferred:
Sent from my iPhone
From: Lee Pasternak
To: City Clerk
Subject: E 1 on SB 79
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:45:11 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Dear Councilmembers,
I have been a Beverly Hills resident for over 40 years.
Of the three alternate plans suggested, scenario 3 is superior for both practical and aesthetic reasons.
Taller, denser buildings would have less of an impact on the La Cienega neighborhood which is adjacent to and shared with Los Angeles.
That area is also closer to the main transportation arteries going to and from Beverly Hills, and it seems that there are fewer single family residences which would be affected there.
A second choice would be scenario 2 because it restricts increased density to a smaller area of the city, rather than expanding the areas affected.
Thank you for your work and consideration.
Lee Pasternak=
From: Darian Bojeaux
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item E 1 -- SB 79 Alternative Plans
Date: Tuesday, January 20, 2026 5:25:29 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
Good evening everyone.
I noted that only three planning commissioners voted on this matter—two whom were not conflicted, and one who was conflicted because three felt conflicted and he drew the longer straw to afford a 3 commissioner quorum.
Two of the commissioners voted in favor of scenario 3, transferring density to the area near the La Cienega metro stop. The remaining commissioner was admittedly conflicted, because he lived and owned property in that area, and understandably, he voted in favor of scenario 2 instead.
But scenario 3 would seem to be the best alternative plan given all factors considered, even though residents in that area understandably may not think so unless perhaps their property is upzoned instead of just being affected by nearby upzoned property.
First, about half of the area around the La Cienega stop is in Los Angeles and the entire area already has greater density so that a further increase in density will not be as much of a shocking change as it would in other areas.
Also, the La Cienega area offers the best access to the 10 freeway as well as other good thoroughfares like La Cienega Boulevard, San Vicente, and 6th Street.
The area also offers La Cienega park which would be beneficial to many.
I therefore vote in favor of scenario 3.
My second choice would be scenario 2 because it also restricts increased density to the smallest area, 3 blocks instead of 6 blocks, and I am thinking it would be best to change the smallest amount of area in the city as possible.
Thank you.
Darian Bojeaux=