633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
March 24, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Hon. Mayor Nazarian, Hon. Vice Mayor Corman, and
Hon. Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
[email protected]
Re: 8844 Burton Way – Appeal of Planning Commission’s Illegal Denial Dear Honorable Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers:
We write on behalf of 8844 Burton Way LLC (“Applicant”) concerning its appeal of the Planning Commission’s illegal denial of the housing development project at 8844 Burton Way. We appreciate planning staff’s thorough review of the Project and the Appeal and are in full agreement with staff’s recommendation to grant the Appeal. (A summary of the Applicant’s Appeal justifications are included as Attachment A to this letter).
The State’s Department of Housing & Community Development (“HCD”) agrees. On October 28, 2025, November 20, 2025, and as recently as yesterday (March 23, 2026) HCD confirmed the following:
• There is no legitimate legal basis to deny the Project on public health and safety grounds or otherwise. The Project must be approved.
• The City could be subject to penalties of up to $10,000,000 ($50,000 per unit) if the Project is denied.
• The City could be referred to the Attorney General’s office for an enforcement action should it illegally disapprove the Project.
The City has also now received threats of litigation by at least four different non-profit housing advocacy organizations (e.g., YIMBY Law, Housing Action Coalition, Californians for Home Ownership, and the California Housing Defense Fund). Given the high stakes and the tremendous scrutiny the City faces from both the State and private actors regarding this Project, it is critical that the City Council follow its professional staff’s recommendation and grant the Appeal.
We also wish to address a group of City residents last minute submission of a “Booklet” over the weekend containing various allegations and points of opposition to the Project. The “Booklet” is reminiscent of a “kitchen sink” type challenge commonly used against housing projects that underwent City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
full CEQA review, typically with an extensive EIR. It is for this very reason that the legislature took dramatic action last year to streamline CEQA when it adopted the AB130 CEQA exemption. Instead of requiring that a myriad of environmental issues be evaluated with back-and-forth public commentary during the approval process – a requirement that imposed tremendous cost and substantial delay to much-needed housing projects – the legislature and the Governor fully exempted qualifying infill housing projects such as this.
To be clear, this in no way means the issues raised in the Booklet will be overlooked or go unevaluated. The law clearly requires many of the Booklet’s issues raised like construction circulation, fire code compliance, geotechnical evaluation, etc. to be confirmed through the City’s ministerial building permit review process. But it is no longer a requirement during the entitlement approval process. It is not surprising that the Booklet makes repeated reference to a specific City (now outdated) letter raising certain Project related environmental questions such as fault rupture, geotechnical analysis – in the course of telling the Applicant to prepare a full EIR. All of this changed – and became dramatically more streamlined – after the Project qualified for the new AB130 CEQA exemption.
As a result, as a matter of both State housing and CEQA law as amended by AB130, none of the information contained in the Booklet changes anything. Nevertheless, for purposes of the administrative record, we explain in more detail below why the Booklet fails to identify any legitimate, valid, or legal basis to deny the Project or to second-guess staff’s thoughtful and detailed analysis and recommendation regarding the Appeal.
1. The Booklet Does Not Identify Any Specific, Adverse Impact The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) sets a clear and exacting standard: to deny a builder’s remedy project, the City Council must find, based on the preponderance of evidence in the record, that the Project will:
have 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.
Furthermore, the City Council must not only find that such an impact exists but must also find that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the quantifiable and objective impact.
This means that impacts cannot be based on feelings or subjective concerns regarding safety, but must be based on numerical, written, objective, and quantifiable standards.
The Booklet does not identify a single purported impact that meets this high bar standard.
In fact, the Booklet wrongly relies on an incorrect standard. Specifically, the Booklet advocates for a new rule, one that would require the City Council to “make an affirmative finding of life safety compliance based on [the] administrative record.” (Booklet, p. 16.) This is wrong – no such finding is required.
Consequently, the Booklet’s repeated argument that more or different analysis is needed also misstates applicable law. The HAA does not require that every potential concern raised in public City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
comment be thoroughly analyzed and vetted until the commentor is satisfied. Furthermore, the mere fact that the authors of the Booklet would like more analysis is not itself evidence of a specific, adverse impact.
The authors of the Booklet also apparently believe that a specific, adverse impact finding can be based on a draft document or plan that is still subject to City review and Applicant revisions. This is also wrong. Potential impacts resulting from draft documents or plans are not unavoidable when the document can still be revised and the plan can still be changed.
Here, for example, the Construction Management Plan (CMP) is still under review and can still be revised. The City Council’s approval of the Project is not an approval of the CMP. If the City’s Fire Marshal determines that the proposed CMP is inconsistent with Building and Fire Code requirements, then the City is empowered to require revisions to the CMP and the Applicant will make all revisions necessary to comply with the Building and Fire Codes. The same applies to other document and plans that are still under review and subject to revision.
2. The Booklet Confuses the Entitlement Process With the Plan Check Process The authors of the Booklet also fail to understand that this Project must still undergo several more layers of detailed, expert review after this Appeal is decided. As clearly stated in the staff report, the City Council is only considering approval of two things: a Development Plan Review (“DPR”)/ Density Bonus Permit and the AB130 CEQA Exemption. The City Council is not considering the approval of any construction-related documents including a building permit, a construction management plan, a geotechnical report, a fault study, a methane mitigation analysis, or a dam inundation analysis.
Construction documents have not been prepared, and State Building, Fire, and technical code compliance has not occurred. This process – as is the case for every single AB130 CEQA-exempt development project in the City – occurs later.
After the City Council approves the DPR and Density Bonus Permit, City staff will begin an intensive, highly detailed review and analysis of every temporary and permanent change proposed on the site to ensure that it complies with the State Building Code and Fire Code, and all other City construction and occupancy standards, including all health and safety requirements. The Project will not be permitted to move forward until it complies with all of these standards. (a) Construction Management Plan
As discussed above, the Construction Management Plan submitted by the Applicant is not final and will not be approved by the City Council. The Draft Resolution attached to the staff report imposes conditions of approval to ensure the CMP will receive sufficient review to protect the health and safety of all City residents, including the residents that use the alley for emergency egress. Sections 16(39) and (40) of the Draft Resolution state:
39. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and such Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the earlier of the issuance of a demolition or the issuance of a building permit. The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum the following: … City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
d. Information on proposed temporary or permanent closures of public right-ofway areas, includes sidewalks, street lines, parking areas, and alleys. …
40. The Applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-ofway, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.
In short, any construction-related changes to the alley south of the Project site, including the placement of fences or other impediments to pedestrian ingress and egress, or the closure of the public right-ofway will require prior review and approval by City staff to ensure compliance will all applicable requirements, including the State Fire Code.
The Project’s engineers – Linscott, Law, & Greenspan (LLG) – prepared additional responses to comments in the Booklet related to both the Project’s Loading Study and CMP. These responses are included as Attachment B to this letter.
(b) Geotechnical Report and Fault Investigation
The Project site is in a liquefaction zone; it is not in an earthquake fault zone. 0F 1 As stated in the
City’s Policy for Site-Specific Seismic Fault Investigation,1F 2 applicants are required to conduct an
appropriate site-specific fault investigation prior to issuance of building permit – i.e., not as a requirement for a Development Plan Review. Consequently, a site-specific fault investigation is not required at this stage of Project review. Furthermore, if the Applicant’s geotechnical report or liquefaction evaluation requires updates to incorporate changes to the Project or clarify other issues, then those revisions will be made during the plan check phase. The City Council is not being asked to approved construction-level drawings or a geotechnical report.
Geotechnologies, Inc., which prepared the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Project, has prepared responses to the comments on the geotechnical report made by Terraphase Engineering and included in the Booklet. These responses are included as Attachment C to this letter. As stated by Geotechnologies, Inc., in its response to comments: “Terraphase identified no reason that the building cannot be constructed and maintained in a safe manner with proper engineering design and code compliance.”
(c) Building and Fire Code Compliance
The Project will comply with – and is required to comply with – all Building Code and Fire Code standards. Section 16(5) of the Resolution requires that:
Project plans shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are submitted for plan check. Compliance with all applicable Municipal Codes is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
1 https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/. 2 Available at: https://www.beverlyhills.org/DocumentCenter/View/2558/Fault-Investigation-Guidelines-PDF.
City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
The Project is not requesting to deviate from any Building or Fire Codes. (d) Requirement for Phase I Environmental Assessment
Sections 16(34)-(37) of the Draft Resolution requires the Project to complete a Phase I environmental assessment and submit the assessment to the City for review. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the Applicant is required to complete a preliminary endangerment assessment 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. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release must be removed or any effects of the release must be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy.
3. Any Concerns Should Be Addressed Through Conditions Of Approval Even if there were evidence that the Project would have a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards – which there is clearly not – state law mandates that the City address any impacts through conditions of approval if at all feasible. Here, if the City Council has specific concerns about the potential impacts of the Project, the only appropriate – and legal – way to address those concerns is by imposing additional conditions of approval on the Project, provided that those conditions also meet state law requirements.
As stated in the March 23, 2026 letter from HCD, any conditions of approval “should not have a ‘substantial adverse effect on the viability or affordability of a housing development for very low, low-, or moderate-income households’ and if the imposition of conditions is challenged under a court action the burden of proof shall be on the legislative body.”
In conclusion, we urge the City Council to follow the law and the repeated guidance of HCD, uphold the Appeal and adopt the draft resolution conditionally approving the Project. The Project is statutory exempt from CEQA and the Booklet’s attempt to back the Project into an EIR by another name ignores the new AB130 reality. To ignore your own professional staff’s recommendations would expose the City to massive financial penalties, protracted litigation and other potential unwelcome action by the State.
Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
Attachment A
Summary of Arguments in Appeal
1. There Are No Legal Grounds to Deny the Project – The Planning Commission’s denial resolution and verbal comments at the hearing on November 5, 2025, essentially state three grounds for denial: (a) the location of the Project’s affordable units violates state law; (b) the Project will have specific, adverse impacts on health and safety; and (c) the Project would still be economically feasible if it was shorter and smaller. All these alleged grounds for denial fail to meet the requirements in state law. (a) Affordable Unit Location. State law prohibits a project from isolating the affordable units “to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor.” The affordable units in the Project are located on 14 different floors and are not isolated to any specific area on those floors. This is not a valid basis for denial.
(b) Specific, Adverse Impacts. As defined in the state law, a “specific, adverse impact” on health and safety must be:
• Significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable; and • Based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards. 2F 3 The Planning Commission pointed to the Project’s alleged impacts on traffic and fire safety, but neither alleged impact meets the definition of a “specific, adverse impact.”
1. No significant impacts. The record shows the Project will result in insignificant traffic delays of “0.1 to 3.6 seconds.” There is no evidence to the contrary.
2. No quantified impacts. The denial resolution alleges an unquantified “serious” fire risk and an unquantified “lengthening” of emergency vehicle response times. The only quantified study prepared by a third-party expert shows no traffic delays.
3. No objective standards. The denial resolution states “the Commission did not believe that sufficient evidence was provided” regarding fire safety. A “belief” is not an objective standard. The objective evidence confirms no fire safety or health risks:
• The City’s Fire Marshall explained to the Planning Commission, in detail, how the City’s Fire Department would combat a fire in the proposed building, and stated he had no concerns about fighting a fire in the building.
• The City has approved multiple buildings over 100 feet with no similar fire life safety concerns. The idea that a building over 100 feet compliant with the California Building and Fire Codes presents a safety risk is just silly.
4. The denial resolution does not cite any written public health and safety standards. 3 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(2).
City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
(c) Economic Feasibility. Two of the Commissions argued that the Project could be denied because a shorter and/or smaller project would still be economically feasible. No evidence was given for this claim and, more importantly, this is not a legal basis for denial under state law.
2. The City Must Approve Clear Balconies
Prior to denying the Project outright, the Planning Commission proposed to require the Project to include opaque or translucent balcony barriers, rather than the clear balcony barrier proposed by the Applicant. Such a condition on approval would be illegal. (a) The Project Must Be Approved As Proposed. The HAA prohibits the City from imposing any condition that is inconsistent with the Project “as proposed by the applicant,” and gives the Applicant a right to construct the building consistent with the “plans and designs submitted by the applicant . . . as well as amenity areas [and] open space.”3F
4 The Applicant has proposed clear balconies so the City must allow them.
(b) Conditions May Not Render the Project Infeasible. The HAA prohibits the City from imposing any condition that renders the Project infeasible.4F 5 The Applicant has provided substantial
third-party expert evidence that prohibiting clear balcony barriers would significantly and negatively impact the Project’s economic feasibility by reducing rents by twenty-five percent or more. It is the City’s burden to prove that requiring opaque or translucent balcony barriers would not render the Project infeasible, but the City has produced no evidence to meet this burden. (c) No Connection to Alleged Impacts. The City lacks a basic legal nexus for imposing an opaque/translucent balcony condition. The Project’s first residential level starts higher than the top level of the adjacent residential multi-family building located to the south. As a result, balcony opacity would provide no actual privacy benefit in this case. It also provides no privacy protection or benefit since nothing would prevent someone from looking over the balcony railing down at a neighboring building.
3. Conclusion
The City Council is required to grant the Appeal, approve the Project, and permit transparent/clear balcony barriers. Failure to do so will violate state law and subject the City to additional state scrutiny, enhanced financial penalties, further loss of local zoning control, and further enforcement action from the Attorney General’s office.
4 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)(II). 5 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)(I) and (ii).
City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
Attachment B
LLG Response to Comments Regarding Loading Study and CMP O:\JOB_FILE\4679\hearings\Responses to Comments (03.24.2026).docx Edgar Arroyo
City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
David S. Shender, P.E.
Jason A. Shender, AICP
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
1-25-4679-1
Responses to Comments on the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit for the 8844 Burton Way Project (PL2400115) Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (“LLG”) is in receipt of comments1 submitted from members of the public related to the 8844 Burton Way project (“Project”). The comments were provided in response to the Loading Study2 and Transportation Analysis3 prepared as part of the Project’s Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit (PL2400115) request.
Provided below are the restated (or paraphrased) comments, followed by a response prepared by LLG:
Comment No. 1 (Page 7)
The developer uses the word “vehicular” to justify why putting a loading space in a 20- foot alley won’t be a conflict. They deliberately narrowed the scope of their safety analysis to cars, completely ignoring the fact that neighboring residents use that alley for pedestrian emergency egress.
Response to Comment No. 1
A Loading Study was prepared to demonstrate the Project’s compliance with Section 10- 3-2470: Loading Space, of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”). Per Section 10-3-2470 of the BHMC, the Project is required to provide a 25-foot by 10-foot loading space onsite to accommodate vans. As stated on Page 2 of the Loading Study and Page 9 of the Transportation Analysis, and in Section 10-3-2472.B of the BHMC, “Where the site or structure abuts an alley, access to the loading space shall be from the alley. Alley accessed loading spaces shall be parallel to the alley unless the project applicant establishes one of the following: 1) Site constraints preclude construction of a parallel loading space or spaces; or 2) The alternative loading space configuration proposed by the project applicant meets the functional requirements of this article.” Figures 2 and 3 of the Loading Study demonstrate that vans are able to access the Project’s proposed perpendicular loading space without adversely affecting operations on the adjacent one-way westbound alley. Subsequent to preparation of the Loading Study, a pullout lane has been incorporated into the site plan for use by larger vehicles for package 1 Appeal to Uphold Denial, 8844 Burton Way, Beverly Hills, Case No. PL2400115, Received March 23, 2026.
2 Loading Study Prepared for the Proposed Residential Project at 8844 Burton Way, LLG, October 9, 2024. 3 8844 Burton Way Residential Project – Class 32 Categorical Exemption Transportation Analysis, LLG, March 12, 2025.
Edgar Arroyo
March 24, 2026
O:\JOB_FILE\4679\hearings\Responses to Comments (03.24.2026).docx deliveries (e.g. UPS, FedEx, Amazon, etc.). The pullout lane is located within the Project Site and not within the public right-of-way, maintaining access within the alley for vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and emergency vehicles. Furthermore, the Project would not result in a loss of right-of-way within the public alley. The pedestrian walkway at the eastern edge of the alley from neighboring residential building is situated to the east of the Project’s loading areas, away from the maneuvering points. The comments do not identify an objective, quantifiable written public health or safety standard that this loading configuration would conflict with. In fact, the configuration is consistent with the City of Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
Accordingly, the location of the Project’s loading areas would not result in a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact on vehicular, pedestrian, bicyclist, and emergency vehicle access within the public alley abutting the Project Site to the south, including emergency response times by the Beverly Hills Fire Department, Beverly Hills Police Department, or any other emergency services provider.
Comment No. 2 (Pages 10-12)
The Project’s Construction Management Plan (“CMP”) was never approved and is legally insufficient.
Response to Comment No. 2
In accordance with Section 9-1-109 of the BHMC, the Project will be required to prepare and submit a CMP for review and approval by the City. In addition, the Project will be required to prepare a Traffic Control Plan, detailing any lane, sidewalk, parking or bicycle facility closures that are required for construction. Posted signs would advise pedestrians and bicyclists of alternative routes during the construction period. In addition, flagmen would be posted at any potential pedestrian/bicycle conflict points (e.g., at the public alley along Swall Drive and Clark Drive. The CMP would be reviewed and approved by the appropriate City departments, including the Building & Safety, Public Works, and Fire Departments, and construction activities would not be able to commence until the CMP is approved. The CMP ensures that the Project would be constructed in a safe and efficient manner, while also minimizing the impacts on neighboring properties.
Accordingly, as the Project will prepare a CMP and traffic control plan that will be reviewed and approved by the City, construction of the Project would not result in a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact on vehicular, pedestrian, bicyclist, and emergency vehicle access around the site and within the public alley abutting the Project Site to the south, including emergency response times by the Beverly Hills Fire Department, Beverly Hills Police Department, or any other emergency services provider.
cc: File
City of Beverly Hills
March 24, 2026
Attachment C
Geotechnologies, Inc. Response to Comments Regarding Geotechnical Report www.geoteq.com
March 24, 2026
File No. 22004
Crescent Heights
8 10th Street
San Francisco, California 94103
Attention: Harold Hill
Subject: Addendum I – Response to Geotechnical Comments Proposed Residential Complex
8844 Burton Way, Beverly Hills, California
References: Report by Geotechnologies, Inc.:
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, revised April 3, 2024.
Report by Terraphase Engineering:
Geotechnical Document Review and Limited Evaluation of Furnished Documents Letter, dated March 17, 2026.
Dear Mr. Hill:
This letter has been prepared to provide a response to the referenced letter by Terraphase Engineering. In preparation of this response letter, a copy of the latest schematic design set of drawings, Development Plan Review – Revision 4 (prepared by LARGE architecture, dated June 27, 2025), was provided to this firm for review.
Based on review of the latest development plans, it is the understanding of this firm that the proposed development has altered from the time of preparation of the above referenced preliminary geotechnical report. The Project has changed from a 20-story to a 26-story residential complex.
The footprint and the depth of the subterranean structure have remained relatively the same as conditions discussed in the preliminary report. There are 3 levels of below grade parking and the lowest level will extend between 20 and 27 feet below surrounding grade.
As stated on the cover page of the referenced Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report, the report provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site. The project is in a schematic and planning phase and no detailed structural analyses are currently available. The report will need to be updated with additional analyses to complete a detailed analyses for the design and development of the Project.
The above referenced report was prepared in 2024 and will need to be updated to meet the 2025 California Building Code when design development begins. When the Design Development Phase proceeds, a detailed comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation will be prepared and submitted to the City building official for review and approval. Supplemental subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, as well as the re-evaluation of the design parameters provided herein, will be required to meet the standards of a final geotechnical investigation prior to issuance of building permits.
March 24, 2026
File No. 22004
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
Terraphase has provided several geotechnical comments in response to the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, which are addressed separately below.
Faulting
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was established in California in 1972 and is designed to prevent the construction of buildings directly on top of active fault traces. The AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zones (APEFZ) are established and maintained by the California Geological Survey (CGS). These APEFZ generally extends 500 feet on both sides of mapped active fault traces to manage surface rupture risks. The Act requires a fault rupture study be performed when a project is located within an APEFZ zone. Within the APEFZ zones, a standard 50-foot building setback is typically mandated for human-occupied structures from an active fault trace, although site-specific geotechnical studies can adjust this distance.
The official Earthquake Fault Zones Map of the Beverly Hills Quadrangle was most recently updated and released on January 11, 2018. As stated in the referenced geotechnical report, the Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (APEFZ), established by the California Geological Survey (CGS). Also reported in the above referenced geotechnical report, the edge of the Santa Monica APEFZ (typically drawn 500 feet beyond active known traces) is located approximately 1,950 feet to the northwest of the Project Site. Additionally, the edge of the Newport-Inglewood APEFZ is located approximately 1 mile to the south of the Project Site, and the edge of the Hollywood Fault APEFZ is located approximately 1 mile to the north of the Project Site. These distances are also confirmed by Terraphase.
According to the City of Beverly Hills website (https://www.beverlyhills.org/494/Seismic-FaultInvestigation-Requirements), the City of Beverly Hills has site-specific fault investigation requirements prior to the issuance of building permits. This requirement is a part of the City’s building permitting process. The developer will contract a licensed California Certified Engineering Geologist (CEG), who specializes in fault rupture analyses, to perform a site-specific fault rupture study in accordance with the requirements outlined by the City of Beverly Hills for the Project during the Design Development phase. The fault study will be submitted to the City and their Third Party Reviewer for review and approval.
Site-Specific Ground Motion Evaluations
Since the project will be 26 stories in height, it will most likely follow a performance-based approach for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings with predictable and safe performance when subjected to earthquake ground motions. The scope of the site-specific ground motion evaluation will include the performance of a shearwave measurement, development of site-specific response spectra, selection and spectral modification of acceleration time histories. Once the project achieves more definition and moves into the Design Development phase, a well defined scope for the Time History Analyses and the targeted structural building periods will need to be provided by the project structural design team in order to proceed with the site-specific analyses.
These evaluations are not performed during the Schematic and Planning Phase of the Project.
March 24, 2026
File No. 22004
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
The results of the Performance Based Design approach and procedure will be subject to a dedicated Peer-Review process by an independent Structural Engineer and/or the Peer Review Panel throughout the development of the design ground motions responsible to the City of Beverly Hills.
These are all a part of the design processes in compliance with the City regulatory requirements.
Existing and Future Utilities
Similar to all construction projects, a survey and demolition plans will be prepared by a licensed surveyor and the project civil engineer identifying all existing utilities to be abandoned and/or relocated. These will be developed during the design development phase and will be submitted to the City for review and approval and recommendations will be made accordingly.
An utility plan will also be developed by the project civil engineer detailing the locations and depths of the proposed utility. Once the structural loading becomes available, a detailed settlement analyses can be performed and recommendations for utility connections will be provided as part of the City’s permitting process.
Traffic and Construction Surcharge Loads
Terraphase may have misunderstood the statement on page 23 of the above referenced geotechnical report. It is stated that “if the traffic is kept back at least ten feet from the retaining walls, the traffic surcharge may be neglected.” This statement is not a recommendation to maintain a 10-foot traffic setback from future below-grade walls but simply a statement that traffic surcharge does not need to be included in the structural analyses of the retaining walls if vehicular traffic is at least 10 feet away (which there are wide sidewalks currently on the east and west sides of the Project Site).
Nevertheless, traffic and construction surcharge are evaluated during the design development and construction document phases since the construction methods and equipment, crane size, outrigger loading, construction staging areas, manlift locations are not determined during the planning stage.
Once the project achieves more definition, the appropriate surcharges will be determined and analyzed, and incorporated into the final construction documents as part of the permit review processes, to comply with the City regulatory requirements.
Dam Inundation Hazard
Design base flood elevation is typically established by the project civil engineer. Once the base flood elevation is established, mitigation measures (such as incorporating flood walls as part of the structural design, raising ground level building entry elevations if appropriate) can be incorporated into the final building design as part of the design phase, and will be reviewed by the City agency during the building plan review and permit process.
Methane Mitigation
Methane evaluation is typically performed by an environmental consultant (who specializes in methane detection and mitigation) or a methane specialist. It is recommended that a methane consultant be contracted to evaluate the presence of methane gases and to provide mitigation March 24, 2026
File No. 22004
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
measures as appropriate. Methane mitigation systems are typically designed during the Design Development Phase of the Project. Once the design of the building and the methane mitigation system (if necessary) achieve more definition, the mitigation system and barriers (if required) and their impact on the foundation design and performance will be reviewed and evaluated by this firm as part of the City’s permitting review process.
Liquefaction Analysis
The liquefaction analysis was performed using a spreadsheet following the procedure outlined in the EERI Monograph (MNO-12), titled Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, by Idriss and Boulanger, 2008. The monograph provides a detailed spreadsheet program for liquefaction analyses and is commonly used by numerous geotechnical firms in the industry. The independent analysis by Terraphase using the software program LiquefyPro also validates the result of the spreadsheet liquefaction analysis presented in the referenced geotechnical report.
As stated above, the referenced report presents the preliminary geotechnical findings and site characterization, and provides preliminary geotechnical recommendations for the development of the site. The project is in a schematic and planning phase. The report will need to be updated with additional site explorations, and analyses to complete a detailed analyses for the design and development of the Project. The final design-level report will be reviewed by the City of Beverly Hills as part of their plan review approval and permitting process.
Shoring System
Due to the depth of the proposed subterranean levels, it is anticipated that braced shoring will be required. Shoring system may be braced with internal bracing (such as rakers) or with tiebacks.
The shoring system will be designed to comply with applicable regulatory requirements related to the temporary shoring system during the Design Phase of the Project and will be reviewed by the City of Beverly Hills as part of their plan review approval and permitting process.
Dewatering
Groundwater was encountered during site exploration at depths between 29 and 40 feet below the ground surface. Since the borings were excavated in a relatively straight-line, the differing groundwater depth would suggest that these are perched water zones of finite volume. As stated in the referenced geotechnical report, it is recommended that the subterranean structure be designed for hydrostatic pressure such that a permanent dewatering system below the base of structure will not be required. A dewatering consultant will be contracted during the design development phase to further study the groundwater levels for design of the temporary dewatering system. The dewatering study will include excavation of test wells, confirmatory hydrogeologic testing studies including drawdowns, environmental testing and disposal of the groundwater, and providing excavation dewatering approaches and methods in accordance with applicable regulatory and permitting requirements, as necessary. The final dewatering system methods and shoring design, which are subject to regulatory control for safety and subsidence, will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to construction.
Summary
March 24, 2026
File No. 22004
Geotechnologies, Inc.
439 Western Avenue, Glendale, California 91201-2837 Tel: 818.240.9600 Fax: 818.240.9675 www.geoteq.com
In summary, the project is in a schematic and planning phase. The above referenced preliminary report will need to be updated with additional site explorations, and analyses to complete a detailed analyses for the design and development of the Project, which will take place during the Design Development Phase of the Project. The final design-level report will be reviewed by the City of Beverly Hills as part of their plan review approval and permitting process.
The Terraphase report made specific recommendations to the project design which are dealt with during the Design Development Phase and will be addressed accordingly as part of the City’s permit approval process. Terraphase identified no reason that the building cannot be constructed and maintained in a safe manner with proper engineering design and code compliance.
The design of the proposed building and shoring system will be consistent with all regulatory requirements and best trade practices to preserve the integrity of all surrounding land and protection of workers. Inspections of shoring installations, surveying, and monitoring requirements will be incorporated and detailed in the shoring plans, as required by the City of Beverly Hills as part of the regulatory building permit review and approval process. All design and construction plans for the proposed development will be submitted for review and approval by the City of Beverly Hills prior to construction.
Should you have any questions please contact this office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC.
STANLEY S. TANG
R.C.E. 56178
SST:km
Email: [email protected]\