Beverly Hills City Council
March 24, 2026

APPEAL TO UPHOLD
DENIAL
8844 Burton Way ·
Beverly Hills
Case No. PL2400115
The developer's own documents. The City's own
records. Two licensed engineers. One
conclusion.

This building cannot be approved as
submitted.

APPEAL OF 8844 BURTON WAY WhatYouAreAbouttoReadWillNotBeEasytoIgnore 79Pages.Over40SourceDocumentsEvaluated.2LicensedEngineers.OneConclusion:This26- storyBuildingCannotBeApprovedasSubmitted.

This booklet was prepared by the residents of Beverly Hills who will live with the consequences of this vote. It is not a political document. It is an engineering and factual record: Organized, sourced, and stamped by California-licensed professionals. The claims in these pages are drawn directly from documents already in your administrative record, or from independent expert analysis commissioned to fill the gaps your own staff identified and never resolved. We ask only that you read it with the same seriousness with which it was written. And that tonight, you put the safety of the people who live here above the pressure of the people who want to build here.

TABLEOFCONTENTS
SECTION1—CREDIBILITY&THERECORD
Pages 4–5: The Feasibility Lie / The Developer's Own Admission SECTION2—EMERGENCYEGRESS&THEALLEY
Pages 6–9: Emergency Egress Obstruction (Parts 1 & 2) / Site Photography SECTION3—THECONSTRUCTIONBLOCKADE
Pages 10–12: The Actual Construction Blockade (Parts 1 & 2) / The City's 'Surrender' Email SECTION4—LEGALTHREATS&DEFERRAL
Pages 13–16: The Developer's Legal Threats / The Alley Threat Goes Underground / City's Improper Deferral of Safety / The Geometry of Impossibility SECTION5—FIRESAFETY
Pages 17–21: The Fire Marshal Greenlit an Empty Lot / Your Own Fire Department Never Verified This Building Is Safe SECTION6—SEISMICHAZARD&THEGHOSTBUILDING
Pages 22–30: The Ghost Building in a Seismic Hazard Zone (Parts 1 & 2) / The Visual Proof / The Secret Spreadsheet Liability / Construction Risk & Disaster Priority
SECTION7—FIVEFATALOMISSIONS

(Continued on next page — Sections 8–12 & Appendix)

APPEAL OF 8844 BURTON WAY
TableofContents (continued)
Sections8–12&Appendix
SECTION8—LEGALFRAMEWORK
Pages 32–36: Housing Accountability Act Standards / What AB 130 & Builder's Remedy Do NOT Exempt / Conditions vs.

Prerequisites
SECTION9—ENGINEERINGEVIDENCE
Pages 37–50: The Wrong Safety Standard (Parts 1 & 2) / Wrong Safety Standard Summary / Seismic Risk: The Missing Analysis / No Fault Study. No Exceptions. / Two Hazards. Zero Analysis. / Excavation Dewatering / The Methane Hazard Nobody Mentioned / The Dam Nobody Mapped / The Wrong Report for the Wrong Building SECTION10—DEMOGRAPHICS&COMMISSIONFINDINGS
Pages 51–54: The Senior Zone Impact / The Planning Commission Was Right (Parts 1 & 2) SECTION11—THECANCELLEDDUDEKEIR&AB130EXEMPTION
Pages 55–58: The Cancelled Dudek EIR / The Improperly Granted Exemption (Parts 1 & 2) SECTION12—CLOSINGARGUMENTS
Pages 59–66: The Only Legal Standard That Matters / Two Paths Forward / The Record Speaks for Itself / What We Are Asking
APPENDIX—EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKET
Pages 67–79: Source Documents 1–11 / Code Citations & Cross-References / Master Bibliography (44 Source Documents)
The Planning Commission found this building unsafe. Your own City Engineer found the seismic investigation missing. Your own Deputy Fire Marshal found the life-safety systems unverified. Two independent licensed engineers found the geotechnical report invalid for this building. Tonight, the record speaks. The only question is whether this Council will listen to it.

CREDIBILITY CRISIS

THEFEASIBILITYLIE
DeveloperContradictedTheirOwnStatements inJust
8Days.

October21,2025
The developer states on the public
record that redistributing affordable
units "would render the Project
financially infeasible."
October29,2025
Just 8 days later, the developer
voluntarily submits revised plans
dispersing affordable units across 14
different floors.

The Contradiction: Dispersing units across multiple floors is significantly more expensive. They implemented the most costly version days after stating it was financially impossible.

If the developer misrepresented the financial feasibility of the floor plans, what else in this 12,000-page application has not received adequate scrutiny? Follow along and we will show you.

The Credibility Crisis | The Feasibility Lie

THEDEVELOPER'SOWNADMISSION
Material Omission - Pedestrian Egress Never Disclosed, Never Analyzed WhattheDeveloperToldStaff:
"No direct vehicular access from 300
North Swall to the alley," leading to
the conclusion of "no violation of the
fire code"
What was omitted? That 300 North
Swall residents use the alley daily for
pedestrian egress and ingress—
walking and emergency evacuation.

WhatStaffNeverEvaluated:

Pedestrian safety in an alley that will
be simultaneously used for
construction staging and delivery
operations during 36+ months of
construction, permanent loading and
delivery operations after construction,
and daily pedestrian use by adjacent
residents.

The analysis was vehicular only.

Pedestrian egress was never studied.

The developer never disclosed it, and
the City never evaluated it.

Under Government Code Section 65589.5, the Council cannot adopt health or safety findings based on an incomplete factual record. The developer's omission of pedestrian egress from their analysis means the City's safety findings are legally deficient.

Continue to next page...PICTURES TO FOLLOW

MATERIAL OMISSION
EmergencyEgressObstructionat300NSwallDr.

PedestrianEgressNeverDisclosed,NeverAnalyzed

WHATTHEDEVELOPERTOLDSTAFF
Loading Study / Transportation Memorandum (September 26, 2024 / March 12, 2025): DEVELOPER REPORTED:
"No direct VEHICULAR access" from 300 N. Swall to the alley.

CONCLUSION PRESENTED TO STAFF:
"No conflict."
WHAT WAS OMITTED:
300 N. Swall residents use the alley daily for pedestrian egress and ingress — walking and emergency evacuation.

By inserting "vehicular" twice, they analyzed whether cars would conflict—but deliberately omitted that residents depend on PEDESTRIAN emergency egress through rear exits into this alley.

Theanalysiswasvehicularonly;pedestrianegresswasnever reportedorstudied.

CODEVIOLATIONS
California Building Code § 1028.5 requires exits to discharge directly to a public way. California Fire Code § 1031.2 requires means of egress to be maintained free from obstructions.

THEDANGER:
- Construction equipment blocking the alley -
- A fence blocking the pedestrian egress -
- Delivery trucks staging in the egress path -
THECITY'SRELIANCEONTHISOMISSION:

Planning Commission Staff Report (October 21, 2025) concluded the project "would not create any... pedestrian safety hazard" based on the developer's vehicular-only analysis. The City overlooked pedestrian egress inside the alley entirely.

Council cannot adopt health & safety findings under Gov. Code § 65589.5 based on an incomplete factual record.

MATERIAL OMISSION
EmergencyEgressObstructionat300NSwallDr.

PedestrianEgressNeverDisclosed,NeverAnalyzed

THEDEVELOPER'SDELIBERATEOMISSION
You can find this exact quote in two separate transportation documents submitted by the developer's traffic engineers (Linscott, Law & Greenspan).

1.TheOriginalLoadingStudy(September26,2024)
In the document titled "8844 Burton Way - Loading Study", on Page 3 under the "Municipal Code Requirements for Loading Space Configuration" section, the engineer writes:
"It is of further note that the existing residential building located along the south side of the alley provides no direct vehicular access to the alley. Thus, commercial vehicles accessing the Project's loading space on the alley will not conflict with vehicular traffic related to the neighboring property."

2.TheUpdatedTransportationMemorandum(March12,2025)
The developer repeated this exact same defense in their updated CEQA exemption filings. In the document titled "Appendix A_Transportation Memorandum", on Page 9 under the "Site Access" section, the text states:
"It is of further note that the existing residential building located along the south side of the alley provides no direct vehicular access to the alley. Thus, commercial vehicles accessing the Project's loading space on the alley will not conflict with vehicular traffic accessing the neighboring property."

WHYTHISMATTERS
In both documents, 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 the neighboring residents use that alley for pedestrian emergency egress. PICTURES on the next pages

Emergency egress pathway
photographed from the 2nd floor
balcony — looking directly down at
the route residents must use to
evacuate to the alley below.

From the emergency door.

This is where the pedestrian
emergency egress deposits directly
into the public space of the 20-foot
wide alley.

This is a standard FedEx delivery
truck — not a fire engine. See how
much of the 20-foot alley it
consumes. A fire apparatus is
significantly wider and longer.

NEW EVIDENCE - FEB 19, 2026 ISSUE TWO • FIRE SAFETY
The Actual Construction Blockade
Construction Management Plan Sheet A2.0 — April 24, 2025 WHAT THE CMP ACTUALLY SHOWS - SEE YELLOW HIGHLIGHT AND TINY CIRCLES REPRESENTING THE 8 FOOT HIGH CONSTRUCTION FENCE AGAINST 300 N SWALL Property Line. "ALLEYWAY and Clark sidewalks CLOSED for staging and deliveries area" "8 foot high construction fence, typical" ABUTTING THE PROPERTY LINE of 300 N Swall Dr and BLOCKING PEDESTRIAN EMERGENCY EGRESS FOR 36+ MONTHS
"Tower Crane"
"Construction trailer offices"
"Full sidewalk closure along Burton, Clark and N Swall for safety and staging" "Full parking lane closure along Burton Way for staging/loading" "Truck Route for excavation and deliveries" REVERSING TRAFFIC FLOW IN A ONE WAY ALLEY "Entrance Gate with pedestrian/vehicular signage" (×2)
"Exit gate with pedestrian/vehicular signage" (×2)
Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"
Document: 8844 Burton Way Construction Management Plan, 4/24/2025, Sheet A2.0

NEW EVIDENCE - FEB 19, 2026 ISSUE TWO • FIRE SAFETY
TheActualConstructionBlockade
WhyThisRecordIsLegallyInsufficient

THEPROCEDURALFAILURE
This is the document the Fire Marshal never reviewed. Fire Marshal Trevor Richmond stated on the public record that he saw "proper access" from a satellite view. The developer's Construction Management Plan (CMP) Sheet A2.0 — the actual legal document governing this site for 30+ months — was never part of his review.

THEFACTUALCONFLICT
California Fire Code § 503.2.1 requires 20 feet of unobstructed clearance for fire apparatus access roads. However, the developer's CMP explicitly states the alleyway is "closed for staging and deliveries area" and mandates an 8-foot high construction fence along the 300 N Swall property line. These two facts cannot coexist.

THEREALITY
The Fire Marshal did not approve this Construction Plan. He approved an empty street on Google EARTH. These are not the same thing.

HAASTANDARDMET
The City cannot base an affirmative finding of Life Safety on a Google Earth review that ignores the developer's actual construction blockade. Approving a 26-story project based on an incomplete factual record regarding fire emergency access does not satisfy the City's obligation under the Housing Accountability Act.

Sources: Fire Marshal Trevor Richmond testimony, Beverly Hills Planning Commission, Oct. 21, 2025. Developer's Construction Management Plan (CMP) Sheet A2.0, April 24, 2025. California Fire Code § 503.2.1.

NEW EVIDENCE - FEB 19, 2026
TheCity's 'Surrender'Email
ApprovalBasedonFear,NotSafety
TheLegalRealitytheCityForgot:
"An exemption from CEQA is not an exemption from the California Fire Code." "AB 130 does not change the physical geometry of a 20-foot alley, and it does not give the Developer the right to barricade a required emergency egress route for 30 months." "The Developer deems the project 'consistent' with the standards. It does not deem a missing 26-story seismic geotechnical report 'safe' in a liquefaction zone." WhatThisReveals:

The City felt "defeated by Sacramento" and believed they had no choice but to approve this project.

TheProblem:

Because Staff felt "constrained" to approve, they stopped checking if it was actually safe:

Rubber-stamped a missing 26-story seismic report
Ignored the illegal alley closure
Overlooked pedestrian egress violations
Deferred fire safety verification
TheLegalReality:

The Housing Accountability Act explicitly allows cities to deny projects that violate objective health or safety standards. The City does NOT have to surrender public safety.

Builder's Remedy excuses developers from local zoning (height, density). It does NOT excuse them from gravity, physics, or the California Fire Code.

NEW EVIDENCE - FEB 19, 2026
TheDeveloper'sLegalThreats
HowTheirLegalTeamIntimidatedCityStaff
Every single time City Planning tried to enforce the rules and ask for the required documentation, the developer’s lawyers threatened to sue them, and the City immediately caved.

July 19 & 29, 2024: Developer's attorney Benjamin Hanelin (Latham & Watkins) pushes back against the City's "Incomplete" letters. He attaches a recent court ruling against the City of Los Angeles, threatening the City with Permit Streamlining Act violations
January 10, 2025 (The First Surrender): The City capitulates. The City officially drops its legal defenses and deems the application "complete" March 12, 2025: The developer suddenly revises the project, increasing it to a 26-story tower
April 9, 2025: The City pushes back, issuing a new "Incomplete" letter.

NEW EVIDENCE - FEB 19, 2026
TheDeveloper'sLegalThreats (continued)
TheFinalSurrender—AndWhyItMatters
July 2, 2025: The developer's new attorney, Dave Rand, fires back with another aggressive legal threat, telling the City that state law does not allow them to issue an incomplete letter.

July 31, 2025 (The Final Surrender): The City backs down again. The City officially deems the 26-story application "complete" — even though the mandatory 26-story Geotechnical Report was never provided. "The City was so afraid of a Permit Streamlining Act lawsuit that they rubberstamped the completeness of a 26-story skyscraper without ever requiring the math to prove it would stand up."
WhyThisMatters
The approval process was driven by fear of litigation, not by verification of safety compliance. When a developer's law firm can intimidate city staff into waiving safety requirements, the public loses.
"The City felt they had no choice. But they do have a choice when objective safety standards are violated."

THEALLEYTHREATGOES

UNDERGROUND
WhattheDeveloper'sOwnEngineersRevealed

THESURFACEDANGERISALREADYDOCUMENTED
The developer's Construction Management Plan, Sheet A2.0, dated April 24, 2025, explicitly designates the entire 20-foot alley as a closed construction staging zone for the full duration of construction — 36 months or more. An 8-foot construction fence is mandated flush against the property line of 300 North Swall Drive. The surface emergency egress route for residents is completely blocked. That evidence is presented elsewhere in this booklet.

But the danger does not stop at the surface.

THEALLEYTHREATGOESUNDERGROUND(continued)
TheUndergroundThreat,MissingConsent&LegalSignificance

THEUNDERGROUNDTHREAT
Independent geotechnical engineers at Terraphase Engineering reviewed the developer's own geotechnical report and identified a separate and compounding threat to the adjacent alleyway. The developer's excavation plan includes tiebacks — underground anchoring systems — that could extend laterally up to 25 feet beyond the shoring wall and directly into the adjacent alleyway.

This is the same alleyway that:

California Fire Code Section 503.2.1 requires to remain unobstructed as a fire access road California Building Code Section 1028.2 and Fire Code Section 1031.2 require to remain unobstructed as an emergency egress route The developer's own Loading Study acknowledges is reserved for fire access The developer's construction footprint does not merely block the alleyway above ground. It potentially penetrates the alleyway below ground as well — during the same 36-month construction period during which the surface is already designated as a closed staging zone.

THEMISSINGCONSENTANDTHERECORDGAP
The administrative record contains no analysis of how these underground incursions into the alleyway will be managed during construction. No mitigation has been proposed. No alternative has been evaluated. The developer's own engineers identified this issue.

The developer chose not to address it.

THELEGALSIGNIFICANCE
Under the Housing Accountability Act, California Government Code Section 65589.5, this Council cannot make an affirmative finding of life safety compliance based on an administrative record that fails to address a documented underground threat to the only emergency egress route serving the residents of 300 North Swall Drive.

The surface blockade violates California Fire Code Section 503.2.1, California Building Code Section 1028.2, and California Fire Code Section 1031.2.

The underground threat compounds every one of those violations with a gap in the record that has never been analyzed, never been mitigated, and never been resolved.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, March ______, 2026, Page 3. Source: Developer's Construction Management Plan, Sheet A2.0, April 24, 2025.

City's ImproperDeferralofSafety
TheConditionNo.40ShellGame
Rather than requiring the developer to resolve the fire lane violation before approval, the City added Condition No. 40, which merely requires the applicant to "obtain all required permits for use of the public right-of-way for staging." The Fatal Flaw: This defers the safety determination to a future encroachment permit that cannot legally be issued if the Fire Department follows the 20-foot clearance rule. The City is recommending approval of a project plan that requires an illegal condition, postponing the inevitable denial to a later date.

Under the Housing Accountability Act and CEQA principles, agencies cannot defer mitigation of known safety hazards when the solution is not guaranteed to be feasible. We know today that the alley is only 20 feet wide—no future permit can make it wider.

THE LEGAL REALITY
AB130&Builder'sRemedyDoNOTOverrideSafety
An exemption from CEQA is not an exemption from the California Fire Code.

AB 130 does not change the physical geometry of a 20-foot alley, and it does not give the Developer the right to barricade a required emergency egress route for 36+ months.

This project has not been shown safe & substantially compliant within objective standards.

ISSUE TWO • FIRE SAFETY NEW EVIDENCE - FEB 19, 2026
The Fire Marshal Greenlit an Empty Lot on Google Earth
Not the Developer's Actual Construction Blockade
WHAT THE FIRE MARSHAL SAW (The Empty Lot) with NO INDICATION the 8FT Fence is directly up against the property line of 300 N Swall Drive completely blocking emergency egress.

The Fire Marshal's approval of fire access was based on a review of a Google Earth satellite view showing an empty 20-foot alley.

ISSUE TWO • FIRE SAFETY NEW EVIDENCE - FEB 19, 2026
TheFireMarshalGreenlitanEmptyLot
(continued)

THEDEPUTYFIREMARSHAL'SADMISSION&HAA

STANDARDMET

THEDEPUTYFIREMARSHAL'SADMISSION
TheDeputyFireMarshaladmittedthatthesafetyplanshadnotbeen verifiedatthetimeofapproval.Unverifiedsafetyplansatthepointof approvalisaproceduralfailurethatgoes totheheartoftheCity's safety reviewprocess.

HAASTANDARDMET
TheFireMarshal'sapprovalwasbasedonanincompletefactual record.A safetyfindingbasedonanincompletefactual recorddoesnot satisfythe City'sobligationunder theHousingAccountabilityActtomakefindings supportedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.

TheFireMarshaldidnotapprovethisConstruction
Plan.HeapprovedanemptystreetonGoogleMaps.

Thesearenotthesamething.

Source: Fire Marshal Richmond Email [Source 542] | Construction Management Plan Sheet A2.0 [Source 316]

FIRE SAFETY
TheGeometryofImpossibility
TheStandard
California Fire
Code § 503.2.1
requires fire
apparatus
access roads
to have an
unobstructed
width of not
less than 20
feet.

TheAlley
Planning
Commission
Staff Report
confirms the
alley is exactly
"20' Wide OneWay Alley"—
meeting the
minimum
requirement.

ThePlan
Construction
Management
Plan Sheet
A2.0 explicitly
states:
"Alleyway and
Clark sidewalk
closed for
staging and
deliveries
area."
TheViolation
20-foot alley
minus 8-foot+
construction
truck (with
doors open
increases to 12
feet) equals
less than 8
feet of
clearance—a
direct
violation of
state fire code
standards.

HAA Standard Met: This violation constitutes a specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact on public health or safety — based on an objective, identified, written standard (California Fire Code § 503.2.1). The developer's own Construction Management Plan is the evidence. There is no feasible mitigation at this density on this footprint. This satisfies BOTH prongs of Cal.

Gov. Code § 65589.5.

YOUROWNFIREDEPARTMENTNEVERVERIFIED

THISBUILDINGISSAFE
DaveRandcalls it "conjectureandspeculation."YourownFire Department calls it "unverified".

The developer's legal team has threatened to sue the City, claiming the Planning Commission's fire safety concerns are baseless and that the City's own top fire officials have completely cleared the 26-story tower. The administrative record proves the developer is wrong.

WHATTHEDEVELOPERCLAIMS
"The fire safety findings are merely conjecture and speculation." — Dave Rand, Rand Paster & Nelson (October 28, 2025)
"Professional firefighters in the year 2025 can, of course, fight a fire in a 26-story building." — Matthew Gelfand, Californians for Homeownership (October 29, 2025)

WHATTHERECORDACTUALLYSHOWS
Fire Marshal Trevor Richmond: Approved based entirely on a Google Earth satellite image of an empty lot. "From the satellite view, there appears to be proper access for aerial ladders should that be needed..." (October 21, 2025)
Deputy Fire Marshal Alvin Cuna: Admitted the mandatory life-safety infrastructure for a 26-story tower is missing. "Fire pump room, additional water storage, smoke control systems... should be verified with a fire sprinkler engineer prior to official plan submittal." (February 9, 2026) THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS RIGHT. THE FIRE SAFETY MATH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE.

SEISMIC RISK
TheGhostBuildinginaSeismicHazard
Zone
TheReportWasWrittenforaDifferentBuilding—And
ThreeDocumentsProvetheHazardIsReal
IndependentEngineeringVerification—Terraphase
EngineeringInc.

Two independent, California-licensed Principal Geotechnical Engineers from Terraphase Engineering Inc. (Andrew Guatelli, PE [C47335], GE [2320]; Jeff Raines, PE [C51120], GE [2762]) performed a formal peer review of the record.

They confirmed that the industry standard of care strictly mandates a reaffirmed geotechnical report for a structural change of this magnitude. No such report exists in the administrative record. — Terraphase Project No.

W272.001, March 17, 2026.

1.TheEngineeringDiscrepancy
The Only Safety Report on File: The developer's Geotechnical Report was engineered specifically for a 20-story building with 3 levels of below-grade parking.

The Actual Proposal Before You: The developer is asking you to approve a 26-story building with only 1 level of below-grade parking.

The Physical Reality: This is a 30% increase in structural load (6 additional stories) placed on a significantly shallower foundation in a documented seismic hazard zone.

SEISMIC RISK
TheGhostBuildinginaSeismicHazardZone
(continued)
TheCity'sOwnAdmission&WhatThreeDocuments
Confirm

2.TheCity'sOwnAdmission—The"KillShot"
The City's own Building & Safety Department caught this dangerous discrepancy. In a formal memorandum dated April 8, 2025, Senior Plan Review Engineer Al Noriesfandeyari explicitly confirmed regarding the 26-story design:
"Thepackagedoesnotincludeageotechnical report."
"Seismic faultinvestigationis stillmissing."
What Three Documents Confirm — And What None of Them Resolve:

The site is in a documented liquefaction zone — confirmed by the City, the developer's map, and the developer's own engineer.

The only geotechnical report on file was written for a 20-story building with 3 levels of below-grade parking.

The current proposal is 26 stories with 1 level of below-grade parking — a 30% increase in stories and 38% increase in height.

No updated, building-specific geotechnical report exists in the administrative record.

No written reaffirmation from the original engineer exists in the administrative record.

SEISMIC RISK HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2
TheGhostBuildinginaSeismicHazard
Zone(continued)
ThreeDocumentsConfirmtheHazard.NoneofThem
ResolveIt.

3.TheCity'sOwnCEQA
DeterminationLetter
City of Beverly Hills CEQA
Determination Letter, February 7,
2025 — signed by Senior Planner
Edgar Arroyo:
"Based on the City's review of
the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone map, the Project is
in nearby proximity to the
extension of the Santa Monica
Fault Zone and located within a
delineated liquefaction zone,
which have the potential for
adverse geological and soil
impacts to life and property."
The City knew. The City admitted
it in writing. The City approved it
anyway.

4.TheDeveloper'sOwnSubmitted
Map(ExhibitC.7)
The developer submitted a map
package to the City in support of
their application. In "Exhibit C.7 —
Earthquake Zone Map," the
California Geological Survey call-out
box for this specific parcel (APN
4335020009) explicitly states:
"Liquefaction Zone: All or a
portion of this parcel LIES
WITHIN a Liquefaction Zone."
This is the developer's own
exhibit. Submitted by the
developer. To the City. In support
of this project.

SEISMIC RISK HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2
TheGhostBuildinginaSeismicHazard
Zone(continued)
TheLegalHook—Prerequisitesvs.Conditions

5.TheLegalHook:Prerequisitesvs.Conditions
Under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5), the City cannot legally make an affirmative finding of public safety on an unengineered structure. You cannot design a 26-story high-rise first and verify the earthquake fault risk later. A 26-story geotechnical and seismic fault investigation is a Prerequisite to approval — not a deferred "Condition of Approval."
The Question for City Staff — Ask This Directly:
"Can City Staff point to a reaffirmed Geotechnical Report and Seismic Fault Investigation engineered specifically for a 26-story building in the administrative record today?"
If they say "they will do it later during permitting," they are illegally deferring a known life-safety hazard.

SEISMIC RISK HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2
TheGhostBuildinginaSeismicHazard
Zone(continued)
HAAStandardMet—TheLegalConclusion
HAA Standard Met — The fact that this site sits in a mapped seismic hazard zone is not disputed; it is confirmed in writing by the City, by the developer's own submitted map, and by the developer's own engineer. The only question before this Council is whether a 26-story residential tower can be approved in a documented hazard zone without a geotechnical report engineered for that specific building, and without the legally required ASCE/SEI 7-22 site-specific seismic risk assessment. This finding is confirmed by two independent, California-licensed PE/GE engineers in a stamped report dated March 17, 2026.

The Ghost Building problem is not a theory. It is a documented, verified, specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable safety deficiency. Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 Prong 1 and Prong 2 are both satisfied: the deficiency cannot be mitigated at this density without a complete geotechnical reaffirmation for the actual 26-story building. Under Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5(j), this is a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety. The answer is no.

Sources: Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, March 17, 2026 (Andrew Guatelli, PE [C47335], GE [2320]; Jeff Raines, PE [C51120], GE [2762]).

Geotechnologies File 22004, Nov. 21, 2022; City Engineer Memo (Al Noriesfandeyari), April 8, 2025; City of Beverly Hills CEQA Determination Letter, Feb. 7, 2025 (Senior Planner Edgar Arroyo); Developer's Exhibit C.7 — Earthquake Zone Map, APN 4335020009 (California Geological Survey).

SEISMIC RISK HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2
The Visual Proof: The Engineering Not Valid for 26-
Stories
The Discrepancy Between the Analyzed Structure and the 26- Story Proposed Structure

THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEERING REPORT
What this means:

The foundation loads, settlement calculations, and seismic response data in the administrative record are explicitly capped at a 20-story weight distribution spread across a deeper, 3-level subterranean foundation.

Independent Engineering Verification
"While the current planned building footprint is similar to the previous design, internal foundation elements and parking ramp(s) were likely altered to reflect the reduction in below-grade levels...The existing geotechnical report does not reflect the current adopted California Building Code and is considered outdated."
"The current version of the 2024 geotechnical report should not be used for continued development without significant revisions and additions." -- Terraphase Engineering Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review (March 17, 2026) | Project No. W272.001

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1

THESECRETSPREADSHEETLIABILITY
BeverlyHillsCannotVerifytheDeveloper's
LiquefactionAnalysis.NoOneCan.

WHATTHEDEVELOPERSUBMITTED
Incomplete and unverifiable
Liquefaction Evaluation performed
using an in-house proprietary
spreadsheet
No supporting calculations provided
No methodology disclosed
No equations shown
Unclear what level of conservatism
was applied
The City of Beverly Hills has no way
to verify the results
The developer's own consultant
(Tang) did not show its work
Only one boring on the entire site
extends below 45 feet —
Terraphase recommends borings to
70 feet minimum for a structure of
this height. Terraphase conclusion:

LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
INCOMPLETE.

WHATTERRAPHASERECOMMENDS
Developer must either:
(a) Provide full supporting
calculations and methodology for
independent review, OR
(b) Use commercially available
software so the City can verify
results
Without this, the City is being asked to
approve a 26-story building based on
math it cannot check
This is not a minor procedural gap — an
incomplete and unverifiable
Liquefaction Evaluation determines
whether the ground beneath the
building will liquefy during an
earthquake

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1

THESECRETSPREADSHEETLIABILITY
(continued)
TheLegalConclusion—MathNoOneIsAllowedtoSee
The City of Beverly Hills is being asked to approve a 26-story, 309-foot tower based on an incomplete and unverifiable Liquefaction Evaluation it cannot verify, performed with a proprietary spreadsheet, with no equations, no methodology, and no independent review. That is not a safety standard. That is math no one is allowed to see.
"Has anyone in this City verified the developer's liquefaction calculations? If not, how can this Council make a finding that the building is safe?" HAA Standard Met — Prong 1: The inability to verify the incomplete and unverifiable Liquefaction Evaluation is a specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable safety deficiency. The objective, written standard is clear:
calculations must be verifiable. They are not. Prong 2: There is no feasible mitigation at this density without providing the required calculations for independent review.

Terraphase finding: Only one boring on this site extends below 45 feet.

Terraphase mandate: A 26-story tower requires new borings that extend below the current 70-foot exploration depth. Terraphase conclusion: LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION INCOMPLETE.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, March 17, 2026.

Construction Risk & Disaster Priority
Documented Construction Damage
During the demolition of prior structures
on the site, the developer proceeded
without adequate protections:

No sound blankets installed
No vibration controls implemented
Inadequate dust suppression
measures
Physical damage was caused to units in
the adjacent 300 N Swall condominium
complex. While the developer sent
workers to repair the damage, the fact
that damage occurred during relatively
simple demolition underscores the
serious oversight failures that will be
magnified during three years of high-rise
construction.

Emergency Resource Prioritization
In a major earthquake or fire, a 26-story
high-rise will command priority
emergency resources, directly
disadvantaging surrounding elderly
residents in care facilities and low-rise
residential buildings. This specific impact
on vulnerable populations has not been
studied or mitigated.

Structural crack at wall junction in adjacent unit at 300 N Swall Dr. - Direct result of developer's demolition without adequate protections

PATTERN OF CONCEALMENT HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2

FIVEFATALOMISSIONS
A12,000-PageRecord.FiveCriticalLife-SafetyFailures.AllMissing.

We have a 12,000-page administrative record. Yet the five most critical life-safety failures for this specific piece of land are completely unresolved.

NOFAULTSTUDY
This site is in an Earthquake Zone of Required
Investigation. State law mandates a physical fault study.

They did not do it.

NOMETHANEANALYSIS
The developer wants to dig an underground parking
garage 225 feet from an idle Chevron oil well — and
provided zero methane vapor analysis.

NOFLOODOREVACUATIONANALYSIS
The state maps this site inside the Lower Franklin Reservoir dam inundation zone. There is no flooding analysis and no evacuation analysis.

THESECRETSPREADSHEET
The developer used a proprietary hidden spreadsheet to
calculate what they call a Liquefaction Evaluation — which Terraphase found to be incomplete and unverifiable. Only one boring on this entire site extends below 45 feet.

Terraphase recommends a minimum of 70 feet for a
structure of this height. Their conclusion in writing:

LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION INCOMPLETE. One hole.

Hidden math. A 309-foot tower.

GEOTECHNICALREPORTFAILSSTANDARDOFCARE
Terraphase Engineering Inc. — two California-licensed Principal Geotechnical Engineers (PE/GE stamps, March 17, 2026) — concluded in writing that the developer's geotechnical report does not meet the standard of care and should not be used for continued development of this project. This is not a gap. This is a disqualification.

Thisisnotincompetence.Thisisapatternofconcealment.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
HousingAccountabilityActStandards
TheLegalStandard
Government Code § 65589.5(d)(2)
requires cities to deny projects with
"specific, adverse impact on public
health or safety" based on objective
standards.

FireCodeViolation
California Fire Code § 503.2.1 is an
objective standard. The 20-foot
requirement is not discretionary or
negotiable—it is mandatory
statewide.

SeismicStandards
Beverly Hills Policy DSP-003
mandates site-specific fault rupture
investigation before approval.

Builder's Remedy does not waive
engineering physics.

BuildingCode
CBC § 1028.5 and Chapter 33 prohibit
construction that obstructs required
means of egress. Blocking emergency
exits is per se unsafe.

Important Distinction: An exemption from CEQA paperwork (AB 130) is not an exemption from gravity, physics, or state building codes. The City has admitted this project creates a "Risk of Death" from fault rupture. That risk remains unstudied and unmitigated in the administrative record. (Continued on next page)

LEGAL FRAMEWORK
WhatAB130&Builder'sRemedyDoNOT
Exempt
AnExemptionfromPaperworkIsNotanExemption
fromPhysics,FireCode,orEngineering
An exemption from CEQA is NOT an exemption from the California Fire Code.

AB 130 does not change the physical geometry of a 20-foot alley. It does not give the Developer the right to barricade a required emergency egress route for 30 months.

The Builder's Remedy deems the project 'consistent' with zoning. It does NOT deem a missing 26-story seismic geotechnical report 'safe' in a documented seismic hazard zone.

AB 130 does not exempt this project from the California Building Code.

AB 130 does not exempt this project from the requirement to submit a complete, building-specific geotechnical report.

AB 130 does not exempt this project from the requirement to conduct a seismic fault investigation — which the City's own Building and Safety Department confirmed in writing on April 8, 2025 was "still missing."
The developer's attorneys will tell you AB 130 makes this project untouchable. It does not. It exempts them from filing a CEQA document. It does not exempt them from the laws of physics, the California Fire Code, or the California Building Code. Those laws apply tonight. They have not been satisfied.

THE FIREWALL AGAINST 'WE'LL FIX IT LATER' HAA § 65589.5 Conditionsvs.Prerequisites
ThereIsaFundamentalDifferenceBetweenWhatCanBe
ConditionedandWhatMustPrecedeApproval.

ACONDITIONOFAPPROVAL
Something done AFTER approval. Safe to
defer.

Examples:

Landscaping
Paint color
Signage specifications
Minor design adjustments
Items that do not affect whether the
building is structurally safe
A condition is appropriate when the
City already knows the project is safe
and is refining details.

APREREQUISITETOAPPROVAL
Something that must exist BEFORE
approval. Cannot be deferred.

Examples:

A geotechnical report for the actual
building — you cannot approve first
and drill borings later
A site-specific seismic risk assessment
— must inform structural design
before approval
A fault study — could reveal groundcrossing faults that make the site unbuildable at this height
Methane mitigation analysis — affects
foundation design and below-grade
safety
Dam inundation analysis — affects
egress design and occupant safety
A prerequisite is required when the City
cannot determine whether the project
is safe without it. Every deficiency in
this record is a prerequisite, not a
condition.

THE FIREWALL AGAINST 'WE'LL FIX IT LATER' HAA § 65589.5 Conditionsvs.Prerequisites (continued)
THEFATALFLAWS—WhyTheseCannotBeConditioned
Away
WrongBuildingReport
The geotechnical report was prepared
for a 20-story building. You cannot
update borings that were drilled for a
different structure. A new report
requires new borings, new analysis, and
new structural design. This must precede
approval.

NoSite-SpecificSeismicAssessment
ASCE/SEI 7-22 §21.1 requires this
analysis to inform structural design. You
cannot design a safe 26-story building
without it. Approving first and requiring
it later means approving a building
whose structural design may be
fundamentally wrong.

NoFaultStudy
A fault study could reveal groundcrossing faults that make this site unbuildable at 26 stories. If the City
approves first and the fault study reveals
an unbuildable site, the City has
approved a building that cannot legally
be built. That is not a condition. That is a
catastrophe.

InadequateBoringPattern
Three borings in a straight line through
the center of a site that requires corner
borings. Additional borings could change
every conclusion in the geotechnical
report — soil variability, liquefaction risk,
settlement predictions. The City is being
asked to approve a 26-story building
based on incomplete subsurface data.

THE FIREWALL AGAINST 'WE'LL FIX IT LATER' HAA § 65589.5 Conditionsvs.Prerequisites (continued)
WhytheDeveloperCannotConditionTheirWayOutof
This
The developer will stand at this podium and say: 'We will address these issues as conditions of approval.' That is not how safety works. You do not approve a building and then find out if the ground beneath it is safe. The investigation must come first. The engineering must come first. The safety finding must come first. That is what the law requires. That is what the evidence demands.

Under Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5, the Council must make written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specific, adverse health or safety impacts exist with no feasible mitigation at this density. The City cannot make that finding when the required analyses have not been performed. Approving with conditions does not satisfy the statutory standard.

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 TheWrongSafetyStandard
TheDeveloperCiteda35-Year-OldLACountyDocument.BeverlyHillsHas ItsOwn.

SAFETY TOPIC DEVELOPER'S REPORT CITES BEVERLY HILLS ADOPTED

STANDARD

NATIONAL/STATE

REQUIREMENT
General Plan Safety
Element
1990 Leighton Report for LA
County General Plan. Wrong
jurisdiction. 36 years old.
2022 Updated Safety Element
adopted by BH City Council on
May 10, 2022
Gov. Code §65302(g)
requires each city to
adopt its own Safety
Element
California Building
Code
Pre-2022 code edition. Does not
reflect current adopted CBC.
2022 CBC (based on 2021 IBC)
adopted by Beverly Hills
CBC Title 24, Part 2 is
mandatory.

Compliance is not
discretionary.

Seismic Design
Standard
Standard USGS mapped
parameters only. No site-specific
analysis.

BH Safety Element requires
seismic hazard evaluation in fault
proximity zones
ASCE/SEI 7-22, Section

21.1 requires sitespecific seismic
response analysis for
structures of this
height
Fault Investigation No fault study performed. No CEGsigned evaluation. No trenching.BH Safety Element maps site near Santa Monica, Hollywood, and
West Pico Faults (all within 1 mile)
Alquist-Priolo Act and
CGS require fault
investigation in
Earthquake Zones of
Required
Investigation
(Continued on next page)

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 TheWrongSafetyStandard
(continued)
FourMoreFailures—DamInundation,Methane,ReportScope,andtheMissing Reaffirmation

SAFETY TOPIC DEVELOPER'S REPORT CITES BEVERLY HILLS ADOPTED

STANDARD

NATIONAL/STATE

REQUIREMENT
Dam Inundation
Hazard
Not discussed. Hazard omitted
entirely.

BH Safety Element identifies
Lower Franklin Reservoir
inundation zone. Site is within
mapped boundary.

Gov. Code §65302(g)
(4) requires dam
failure inundation
mapping
Methane Mitigation Not addressed in geotechnical
report or ESA. Idle oil well 225 ft
from site.

BH Safety Element references
methane mitigation zones. Site
confirmed within zone.

LA Ordinance 175790
(Methane Seepage
Regulations) applies.

Report Scope vs.

Project
Report prepared for 20-story
building with 3 subterranean
levels. Current project is 26
stories with 1 level. No
reaffirmation.

City accepted report without
verifying scope match. No written
reaffirmation on file.

Standard of care
requires geotechnical
reaffirmation when
project scope
changes materially
(38% height
increase).

The developer's geotechnical report relies on the outdated LA County's safety standard, does not comply with the current California Building Code, and omits analyses required by national engineering standards. Beverly Hills adopted its own Safety Element in May 2022 — six months BEFORE the developer's report was written. The developer had the correct standard and ignored it. This Council is not bound by a 1990 LA County reference document.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc. (Andrew Guatelli, PE [C47335], GE [2320]; Jeff Raines, PE [C51120], GE [2762]), Project No. W272.001, March 17, 2026. Cal. Gov. Code §65300, §65302(g); ASCE/SEI 7-22 §21.1; CBC Title 24, Part 2; Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. BH Safety Element adopted May 10, 2022.

THE WRONG SAFETY STANDARD — SUMMARY
TheDeveloperCited:

The 1990 LA County General Plan — 36 years old.

TheBeverlyHillsStandard:

Beverly Hills updated its own Safety Element on May 10, 2022 — six months BEFORE the developer's report was written.

TheReality:

The correct standard existed. It was ignored.

IndependentVerification:
"The existing geotechnical report does not reflect the current adopted California Building Code and is considered outdated."
— Terraphase Engineering Inc., Geotechnical Peer Review (March 17, 2026) | Project No. W272.001

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 SeismicRisk:TheMissingAnalysis
ThreeMajorFaults.OneMileAway.NoSite-SpecificSeismicStudy. 3 ActiveFaults
Within 1 Mile (Santa Monica
Fault, Hollywood Fault, West Pico
Fault)
M6.0–7.0
EarthquakeMagnitude
Each Fault Is Capable Of
0 Site-SpecificSeismicRisk
Assessments
Performed

WHATTHENATIONALSTANDARDREQUIRES
ASCE/SEI 7-22, Section 21.1 requires a site-specific seismic response analysis for a structure of this height at this location
Shear wave velocity data for the upper 100 feet is required — and missing No site-specific seismic response spectra exists in the developer's submission
Standard USGS mapped parameters are NOT sufficient for
a 26-story building at this location — confirmed by two licensed PE/GE engineers

WHATTHEDEVELOPERSUBMITTED
Standard USGS mapped parameters only
No site-specific seismic risk assessment
No shear wave velocity data for upper 100 feet
No site-specific response spectra
The site is in a 1G zone — horizontal and vertical
acceleration above 1G
This is not our opinion. This is what ASCE/SEI 7-22 Section 21.1 requires. The developer has not performed the analysis the national engineering standard demands. The City cannot approve a 26-story building without it.

HAA Standard Met — Prong 1: The absence of a required site-specific seismic analysis is a specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable safety deficiency based on ASCE/SEI 7-22 — an objective, identified, written national engineering standard. Prong 2: No feasible mitigation exists at this density without first completing the required analysis.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, March 17, 2026. ASCE/SEI 7-22 Section 21.1.

BH Safety Element (2022) — seismic hazard evaluation required in fault proximity zones.

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 NoFaultStudy.NoExceptions.

StateLawRequiresaFaultStudyatThisSite.NoneHas
BeenPerformed.

WHATTHELAW

REQUIRES
The Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act requires a fault study
for structures intended
for human occupancy
within an Earthquake
Zone of Required
Investigation
The study must be signed
by a California Certified
Engineering Geologist
(CEG)
The California Geological
Survey (CGS) requires
evaluation of groundcrossing faults beneath
the site
The study must evaluate
sympathetic movement
from nearby active faults
The study must evaluate
the influence of nearby
blind thrust faults

WHATTHE

DEVELOPER

SUBMITTED
No fault study
No CEG-signed
evaluation
No trenching
No analysis of groundcrossing faults
No evaluation of
sympathetic fault
movement
Confirmed missing by:

City Engineer Memo,
April 8, 2025 — "Seismic
fault investigation is still
missing"
Confirmed required by:

Terraphase Engineering
Inc., Project No.

W272.001, March 17,
2026

WHYTHISMATTERS
Three active faults within
1 mile: Santa Monica
Fault, Hollywood Fault,
West Pico Fault
A fault study could reveal
ground-crossing faults
that make this site
unbuildable at 26 stories
Without a fault study, the
City cannot determine
whether the site is safe
for a building of this
height and occupancy
This flips the litigation
calculus: the risk is not
"they will sue if we deny"
— the risk is "we are
liable if we approve
without this study"

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 NoFaultStudy.NoExceptions.(continued)
TheLegalConclusion—AStudyThatCouldChange
Everything
The City Engineer flagged this as
missing in April 2025. Two licensed
geotechnical engineers confirmed it
is required in February 2026. The
developer has had years to perform
this study. They have not. The City
cannot make a safety finding for a
26-story building on a site that has
never been evaluated for groundcrossing faults.

HAA Standard Met — Prong 1: The
absence of a required fault study is a
specific, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable safety deficiency based
on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act — an objective, identified,
written state law. Prong 2: There is no
feasible mitigation at this density
without first completing the required
fault study. The study could reveal
conditions that make this site
unbuildable at 26 stories.

Source: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act; California Geological Survey; Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, March 17, 2026; City Engineer Memo, April 8, 2025. BH Safety Element (2022) — site near Santa Monica, Hollywood, and West Pico Faults.

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 TwoHazards.ZeroAnalysis.

MethaneMitigation&DamInundation—BothintheBeverlyHillsSafety Element.BothIgnored.

METHANEMITIGATIONZONE
Site confirmed within a mapped methane mitigation zone
(Terraphase Figure 2)
Idle Chevron oil well less than 225 feet from the southern boundary
Site within a mapped oil-producing zone
Vapor barrier design affects foundation performance
The developer's geotechnical report: NO mention
The developer's Environmental Site Assessment: NO
mention
LA Ordinance 175790 (Methane Seepage Regulations)
applies
Historical precedent: Wilshire district parking garage fires and explosions in the 1970s–80s led to code changes.

Underground parking is vulnerable to methane gas
accumulation.

Council question: "How can you approve
underground parking 225 feet from an idle oil
well with no methane analysis?"

DAMINUNDATIONZONE
Site is mapped within the Lower Franklin Reservoir
inundation zone (Terraphase Figure 5)
California Division of Safety of Dams confirms the zone Gov. Code §65302(g)(4) requires dam failure inundation
mapping in the Safety Element
The developer's geotechnical report: hazard NOT discussed No analysis of dam breach potential
No evacuation plan for below-grade parking during a dam breach
In a power failure scenario during an earthquake: no pumps, subterranean parking floods
Council question: "Where is the evacuation
plan for the underground parking garage when
the dam fails during an earthquake and the
power goes out?"
The Beverly Hills Safety Element identifies both of these hazards. The developer's report addresses neither. These are not hypothetical risks. They are mapped, documented, and confirmed by two licensed geotechnical engineers. They were simply ignored.

HAA Standard Met — Prong 1: Both omissions represent specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts on public health or safety, based on objective, identified, written standards in the Beverly Hills Safety Element (2022), LA Ordinance 175790, and Gov. Code §65302(g)(4). Prong 2: No feasible mitigation exists at this density without completing the required analyses.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, March 17, 2026 — Figures 2 and 5. BH Safety Element (2022). LA Ordinance 175790. Cal. Gov. Code §65302(g)(4). Cal.

Division of Safety of Dams.

ADDITIONALRECORDGAP:EXCAVATION

DEWATERINGIMPACTSONADJACENT

STRUCTURES
The developer's geotechnical report provides zero analysis of excavation dewatering impacts — including the characterization and disposal of produced water and the potential effects of groundwater drawdown on adjacent structures and utilities.

The residential building at 300 North Swall Drive was constructed in 1983. Its foundations have never been evaluated for the effects of a major dewatering operation conducted directly adjacent to them during 36 months of high-rise construction.

Groundwater was encountered at approximately 40 feet below ground surface on this site. A 26-story excavation will require significant dewatering activity. The impact of that dewatering on the structural integrity of adjacent buildings has not been analyzed, not been mitigated, and does not exist anywhere in the administrative record.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, this Council cannot make an affirmative finding of life safety compliance when the administrative record is silent on the impact of the developer's own construction activities on the health or safety of the residents living directly next door.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, March ______, 2026, Pages 2 and 4.

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, FEB. 26, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 TheMethaneHazardNobodyMentioned
AnIdleOilWell225FeetAway.ZeroMitigation
Analysis.

WhattheRecordShows
An idle oil well is located approximately 225 feet from the project site — confirmed in the record.

The site is within a Beverly Hills-designated Methane
Seepage Zone.

The developer's geotechnical report does not address
methane mitigation.

The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) does not
address methane mitigation.

Los Angeles Ordinance 175790 (Methane Seepage
Regulations) and Beverly Hills Standardized Building
Codes + California Building Safety Codes Title 9-91.7104.1 and 2 applies to this site and requires specific mitigation measures for new construction.

Beverly Hills' own adopted Safety Element (May 10, 2022) references methane mitigation zones and identifies this site as within one.

TheMissingAnalysis
Methane Seepage Zone:

CONFIRMED (Beverly
Hills Safety Element)
Idle Oil Well Distance:
~225 ft from site
Methane Mitigation in
Geotechnical Report:

NONE
Methane Mitigation in
ESA: NONE
Applicable Ordinance: LA
Ord. 175790 —

UNADDRESSED
Beverly Hills Safety
Element Compliance:

NOT DEMONSTRATED

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, FEB. 26, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 TheMethaneHazardNobodyMentioned
(continued)
WhyThisMattersUnder theHAA
Under Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5, the City may deny or condition a project only when it can make written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety. The complete omission of methane hazard analysis — for a 26-story residential tower on a confirmed methane seepage site — is precisely that kind of specific, adverse, unmitigated impact. This is not a speculative concern. The hazard is mapped. The well is documented. The ordinance is mandatory. The analysis is absent.

HAA Standard Met — The failure to perform any methane mitigation analysis for a high-density residential tower on a confirmed methane seepage site, adjacent to an idle oil well, constitutes a specific, adverse, unmitigated impact on public health or safety. Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 Prong 1 is satisfied.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No. W272.001, Feb. 26, 2026; Beverly Hills Safety Element (adopted May 10, 2022); LA Ordinance 175790; Developer's Geotechnical Report (Geotechnologies File 22004, Nov. 21, 2022).

NEW EVIDENCE — BEVERLY HILLS SAFETY ELEMENT, MAY 10, 2022 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 TheDamNobodyMapped
LowerFranklinReservoir InundationZone—Omittedfrom
EveryDeveloperSubmission
TheSiteIsWithinaMappedDamFailureInundationZone.

TheDeveloperNeverDisclosedIt.

TheHazardIsMapped
Beverly Hills' own adopted Safety Element
(May 10, 2022) identifies the Lower
Franklin Reservoir inundation zone. The
project site at 8844 Burton Way falls within
the mapped inundation boundary. This is
not a hypothetical risk — it is a
documented, city-adopted hazard
designation.

TheDeveloperNeverDisclosedIt
The developer's Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA), geotechnical report,
and CEQA submissions contain no
reference to dam failure inundation
hazard. The Lower Franklin Reservoir is
not mentioned. No inundation analysis
was performed. No evacuation or
emergency response analysis was
submitted.

StateLawRequires It
Cal. Gov. Code § 65302(g)(4) requires each
city's Safety Element to address dam
failure inundation. Beverly Hills complied
— and adopted that mapping in May 2022,
five months before the developer's
geotechnical report was written. The
developer had access to the correct
standard and omitted it entirely.

A26-StoryTowerChanges theCalculus
A 26-story residential building housing
hundreds of occupants within a mapped
dam inundation zone requires site-specific
emergency egress and life-safety analysis.

None has been submitted. The City
approved the project without requiring
this analysis. That omission is not a
condition that can be deferred — it is a
prerequisite to any lawful approval.

NEW EVIDENCE — BEVERLY HILLS SAFETY ELEMENT, MAY 10, 2022 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 TheDamNobodyMapped(continued)
HAAStandardMet—DamInundationCannotBe
ConditionedAway
DamInundationHazardSummary
Reservoir: Lower Franklin Reservoir
Inundation Zone Status: CONFIRMED — Beverly Hills Safety Element (May 10, 2022) Developer Disclosure: NONE
Inundation Analysis in Record: NONE
Emergency Egress Analysis: NONE
Applicable Law: Cal. Gov. Code § 65302(g)(4)
HAA Standard Met — The complete omission of dam inundation hazard analysis for a 26-story residential tower within a city-mapped inundation zone constitutes a specific, adverse, unmitigated impact on public health or safety.

Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5 Prong 1 is satisfied. This deficiency cannot be conditioned away — it must be resolved before any approval.

Source: Beverly Hills Safety Element (adopted May 10, 2022); Cal. Gov. Code § 65302(g)(4); Developer's ESA and Geotechnical Report (Geotechnologies File 22004, Nov. 21, 2022) — no dam inundation reference found.

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 TheWrongReportfor theWrongBuilding
TheDeveloper'sGeotechnicalReportWasWrittenfor
aDifferentProject

WHATTHEREPORTWASPREPARED
FOR
20-story building
3 levels of below-grade parking
Internal foundation elements and
parking ramps designed for that
configuration

WHATISACTUALLYBEINGPROPOSED
TODAY
The current proposal is 26 stories
and 309 feet, a 30% increase in
stories and approximately 38%
increase in height over the 20-story
building the geotechnical report was
prepared for.

Only 1 level of below-grade parking
Completely different subterranean
configuration
No written reaffirmation from
Geotechnologies on file
Two independent, California-licensed Principal Geotechnical Engineers (PE/GE) have confirmed: the developer's geotechnical report was prepared for a different building. The standard of care requires written reaffirmation when project scope changes materially. None exists.

NEW EVIDENCE — TERRAPHASE ENGINEERING, MARCH 17, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2 TheWrongReportfor theWrongBuilding
(continued)
The"Sifted"Report&HAALegalConclusion
The information appears 'sifted' to remove controversial findings. — Independent Geotechnical Peer Review, Terraphase Engineering Inc., Project No.

W272.001, March 17, 2026
HAA Standard Met — Prong 1: This is a specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable safety deficiency based on objective, written engineering standards of care. Prong 2: There is no feasible mitigation at this scale. The report must be rewritten for the actual building — which means the project cannot be approved as submitted.

Source: Terraphase Engineering Inc. (Andrew Guatelli, PE [C47335], GE [2320]; Jeff Raines, PE [C51120], GE [2762]), Project No.

W272.001, dated March 17, 2026.

The developer's own expert says the report is not valid for this building. The City's own engineer says the seismic investigation is missing. This Council cannot approve a building its own files confirm is unengineered.

DEMOGRAPHICS
TheSeniorZoneImpact
EmergencyResponseCrisis inNumbers
38+38
EmergencyCalls
From just two adjacent buildings
in 2024 and again in 2025. That's
3+ per month. Before you add
200 units.
8min
ResponseTime
Current emergency response time
at 4:15 PM. Fire station is less
than 1 mile away. Double the
NFPA standard.
908
DailyVehicleTrips
This project adds this many daily
vehicle trips. Developer's own
traffic study number.
0 ZeroAnalysis
Times the developer analyzed
emergency vehicle response
times, ambulance routes to
Cedars-Sinai, or impact on
three senior facilities. Not once
in the entire study.

TheCommunityContext:
25% of Beverly Hills residents are age 65+ (50% higher than national average) This project sits in the most concentrated pocket of elderly residents in the entire city Three senior care facilities (retirement, assisted living, memory care) within a block and a half, with a fourth under development
Two largest adjacent buildings: 4-story complexes with 64 and 102 units, housing high proportion of elderly and disabled residents
NFPA 1710 standard: 4 minutes travel time for cardiac emergencies Current reality: 8 minutes (double the standard)

DEMOGRAPHICS
TheSeniorZoneImpact(continued)
MissingFireDepartmentRecords

MISSINGFIREDEPARTMENTRECORDS
Zero primary source documents from the Fire Department in the approval package:

Incident Reports: MISSING — City delayed production by splitting PRA request into new case, then requested 10-day extension on Feb 17 because records are "too voluminous" (Source: 25- 2969 Final Response Letter, 02/10/2026)
Fire Marshal Approval: MISSING — Developer's attorney claims Fire Marshal has "no concerns" but provides only hearsay. No written approval exists in the record.

Compliance Verification: FAILED — Fire Department's only written comment: Plans "do not appear to show compliance" (Source: Incomplete Letter PL2400115, Aug 9 & Dec 5, 2024) HazMat Records: NONE — Environmental consultant searched LACoFD database: "The search revealed that your noted address did not match our database" Cedars-SinaiLevel 1TraumaCenter:0.6milesaway
4-6 minutes in peak traffic on single-lane Robertson Boulevard Robertson is the primary emergency route with severe congestion. Response times that historically averaged under 4 minutes have already degraded to 8 minutes.

The 26-story tower will add 200 units, nearly tripling the population density of this block — with zero analysis of emergency response capacity.

For a cardiac arrest patient, stroke victim, or fall with head injury: every minute of delay is brain damage. Every minute is survival probability dropping.

PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING HAA § 65589.5

THEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONWASRIGHT
TheAdministrativeRecordProves It.DaveRand's
ThreatsCannotChangeIt.

THEDEVELOPER'SATTORNEYCALLED
IT"CONJECTURE"
Developer's attorney Dave Rand filed
written threats with this Council
claiming the Planning Commission's
fire safety denial is — and quoting his
exact words from October 28, 2025 —
"merely conjecture and speculation."
His co-counsel Matthew Gelfand
mocked this Council in writing on
October 29, 2025, stating:
"Professional firefighters in the year
2025 can, of course, fight a fire in a 26-
story building." He then threatened:
"We have already won two lawsuits
against the City. Please do not force us
to file a sixth."
RESOLUTIONNO.2104—OCTOBER21,
2025
"Failed to show that the Project's
height will not create a serious and
unmitigated risk to occupant safety
in the event of a fire." — Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2104
The Commission formally found there
was insufficient evidence that
emergency services could "safely and
effectively operate at the heights the
26-story Project would require." That is
not conjecture. That is a formal legal
finding based on the evidence in the
record.
(Continued on next page)

PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING HAA § 65589.5

THEPLANNINGCOMMISSIONWASRIGHT
(continued)
YourOwnDeputyFireMarshalProvedIt.TheSpaceNo
LongerExists.

YOUROWNDEPUTYFIREMARSHAL—
FEBRUARY9,2026
"The applicant should also consider
other high-rise requirements, such as
fire pump room, additional water
storage, smoke control systems. The
water storage room capacity should
be verified with a fire sprinkler
engineer prior to official plan
submittal." — Deputy Fire Marshal
Alvin Cuna, February 9, 2026
Dave Rand told you the Planning
Commission went rogue. Dave Rand told
you your own top fire officials cleared
this building. Your own Deputy Fire
Marshal's written admission — dated
February 9, 2026 — proves both of those
statements are false.

THESPACETHATNOLONGEREXISTS
The developer reduced their
underground garage from three levels
down to one. A 26-story high-rise
requires massive water tanks and fire
pump rooms. Those systems require
physical space — space this building has
already given away. You cannot legally
lock in the massing and single-level
footprint of this building tonight when
your own Fire Department admits the
mandatory life-safety equipment has
never been verified to fit inside it.

ThePlanningCommissionwasexactlyright.Theadministrativerecord provesit.Youhavetheexplicitlegalauthority—andtheobligation—to upholdtheirdenial.

CEQA VIOLATION HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2

THECANCELLEDDUDEKEIR
TheCityFormallyIdentifiedaRiskofDeath—Then
CancelledtheInvestigationIntoIt.

THECITY'SOWNWORDS
"Risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of an earthquake fault." — Senior Planner Edgar Arroyo, CEQA Determination Letter, February 7, 2025 Because of this severe, documented hazard, the City officially required a full Environmental Impact Report. Twenty days later, on February 27, 2025, the environmental engineering firm Dudek submitted a comprehensive $338,880 proposal to the City to investigate these exact seismic, geological, and vibration threats.

CEQA VIOLATION HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 & 2
THECANCELLEDDUDEKEIR(continued)
TheInvestigationThatNeverHappened&TheRiskThat
Remains

THEINVESTIGATIONTHATNEVERHAPPENED
That safety study never happened. When the developer invoked the AB 130 CEQA exemption, the City abruptly cancelled the Dudek investigation. The developer's attorney will tell you that because of AB 130, they are legally exempt from environmental review — that the Dudek study was no longer required by law.

An exemption from CEQA paperwork is not an exemption from the California Building Code.

AB 130 waives the obligation to file a specific CEQA environmental report. It does not give this Council legal authority to approve a project that your own files formally determined poses a lethal threat to human life.

THERISKREMAINSCOMPLETELYUNQUANTIFIED
Because the Dudek study was cancelled, that documented risk of death remains completely unquantified tonight. No one has measured it. No one has mitigated it. No one has even tried. The Builder's Remedy does not waive the California Building Code.

Youcannotmakeafindingoflifesafetycompliancewhenyourownfiles confirmalethal riskthatwasformallyidentified—andthendeliberately leftunmeasured.

AB 130 ABUSE GOV. CODE § 65913.4(A)(6)

THEIMPROPERLYGRANTEDEXEMPTION
HowtheDeveloperKilleda$338,880SafetyStudyin24Hours

THEPRECISETIMELINEOFTHELOOPHOLE
February7,2025
City formally concludes project is "not eligible for a statutory exemption" and requires full EIR. Reason: documented seismic hazard zone and "risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of an earthquake fault."
February27,2025
Environmental firm Dudek submits $338,880 proposal to conduct the legally required investigation.

July1,2025
Assembly Bill 130 takes effect, creating a new CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing projects.

July2,2025
ONE DAY LATER — Developer's attorney submits letter invoking AB 130 to kill the EIR.

July17,2025
Senior Planner Edgar Arroyo emails developer's attorney confirming the City agrees the project satisfies AB 130 criteria. The $338,880 safety investigation is dead. Documented in a single email. Sixteen days after a brand new law took effect.

AB 130 ABUSE GOV. CODE § 65913.4(A)(6)

THEIMPROPERLYGRANTEDEXEMPTION
(continued)
WhytheAB130ExemptionShouldNotHaveBeen
Granted
THEAB130EXEMPTIONSHOULDNOTHAVEBEENGRANTED
AB 130 provides a CEQA exemption for qualifying infill housing projects. It does not exempt a project from the California Building Code. It does not exempt a project from the requirement to submit a complete geotechnical report. And it does not exempt a project from the requirement to conduct a seismic fault investigation — which the City's own Building and Safety Department confirmed in writing on April 8, 2025 was 'still missing.' The exemption was granted while that investigation remained unresolved. It has never been resolved.

TheAB130exemptionshouldnothavebeengranted.TheDudekEIR
wascancelled.Itisstilllegallyrequiredtonight.

SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE — MARCH 24, 2026 HAA § 65589.5 — PRONG 1 BEVERLYHILLSMUNICIPALCODE§10-3-1833—VIOLATED

BEFORETONIGHT'SHEARING
BeverlyHillsMunicipalCode§10-3-1833RequiresEnvironmentalClearanceBefore AnyBoringActivity.TheDeveloperViolatedThisBeforeTonight'sHearing.

THEMANDATORYSTANDARD
Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-1833 requires the applicant to clear all environmental hazards prior to commencing any boring or grading activities. The developer already drilled three borings on this site. That means this requirement was already triggered — and already violated — before tonight's hearing.

STEP3—THEVIOLATIONTHATALREADYOCCURRED
The City's own protocol requires the applicant to clear all environmental hazards prior to commencing any boring or grading activities. The developer already drilled three borings on this site. An idle Chevron oil well sits 225 feet from the southern boundary. The site is in a mapped methane seepage zone. Zero methane analysis was performed before those borings were drilled. This requirement was already triggered and already violated. That violation is in the record tonight.

BORINGDEPTHCORRECTION—TERRAPHASEFINDING
Terraphase finding: Only one boring on this site extends below 45 feet.

Terraphase mandate: New borings must extend below the current 70-foot exploration depth.

Terraphase conclusion: LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION INCOMPLETE.

Builder's Remedy waives height and density. It does not waive Beverly Hills Municipal Code Section 10-3-1833.

AB 130 waives CEQA environmental review. It does not waive the City's mandatory 7-step seismic safety protocol.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, the Council cannot declare this building safe when the developer bypassed every step of the City's own published objective safety verification process.

Source: City of Beverly Hills Seismic Fault Investigation Requirements — beverlyhills.org/494 — BHMC § 10-3-1833 | Supplemental Evidence — March 24, 2026

LEGAL FRAMEWORK — CAL. GOV. CODE § 65589.5 HAA § 65589.5 TheOnlyLegalStandardThatMatters
Under the Housing Accountability Act, the City Council may deny or condition this project ONLY if it makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, that BOTH of the following are true:

PRONGONE:Specific,Adverse
Impact
The project would have a
SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACT upon
the public health or safety.

The law defines this as: a significant,
quantifiable, DIRECT, and
UNAVOIDABLE impact, based on

OBJECTIVE, IDENTIFIED, WRITTEN
public health or safety standards,
policies, or conditions.

PRONGTWO:NoFeasible
Mitigation
There is NO FEASIBLE METHOD to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid
that impact other than:
(a) Disapproving the project, OR
(b) Approving it at a LOWER
DENSITY.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK — CAL. GOV. CODE § 65589.5 HAA § 65589.5 TheOnlyLegalStandardThatMatters
(continued)
EveryFindinginThisRecordMeetsThisStandard
Every finding in this presentation is designed to meet this exact standard.

Every claim is drawn from the public record. Every impact is specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable.

This is not about aesthetics. This is not about neighborhood character. This is about documented, written evidence of health or safety risk.

THE COUNCIL'S CHOICE CAL. GOV. CODE § 65589.5
TwoPathsForward
ThisCouncilIsNotBeingAskedtoStopHousing.ItIs
BeingAskedtoStopaDangerousBuilding.

PATHONE:ApproveWithoutVerifiedEngineering
What the developer is asking for
309 feet. 26 stories. On a site with no compliant geotechnical report.

No site-specific seismic analysis. Three active faults within 1 mile.

No methane mitigation plan. Idle oil well 225 feet away.

Site inside dam inundation zone. No evacuation plan.

Fire lane blocked during construction. Emergency access unverified.

Liquefaction analysis the City cannot verify.

Underground tiebacks that could extend 25 feet into the adjacent alleyway. No study exists. No analysis in the record.

Zero analysis of excavation dewatering impacts on the 1983 building at 300 North Swall Drive directly next door.

High-rise fire safety systems — water storage, fire pump, smoke control — never verified by the Fire Department.

A geotechnical report written for a 20-story building. The current proposal is 26 stories and 309 feet — a 30% increase in stories and approximately 38% increase in height. No reaffirmation on file.

This is not a housing decision. This is a safety decision. The evidence in this record does not support approval at this scale. If this building fails, the record will show the Council was told.
(Continued on next page — Path Two)

THE COUNCIL'S CHOICE CAL. GOV. CODE § 65589.5
TwoPathsForward(continued)
PATHTWO—UpholdtheDenial.BuildataScalethe
EngineeringSupports.

PATHTWO:UpholdtheDenial.BuildataScaletheEngineeringSupports.

The developer already has a geotechnical report for a 20-story building. The borings, foundation design, and settlement analysis were all prepared for that scale. That work exists today.

Uphold the Planning Commission's 3-2 denial of the 26-story project.

Direct the developer to return with a project that resolves fire lane access, addresses methane mitigation (LA Ordinance 175790), analyzes dam inundation risk, and provides a compliant egress plan.

For 26 stories: additionally require a site-specific seismic risk assessment (ASCE/SEI 7- 22 §21.1), a fault study signed by a CEG, and a new geotechnical report for the actual building.

Require tieback consent documentation and dewatering impact analysis for adjacent structures.

Require Deputy Fire Marshal verification of all high-rise life-safety systems prior to resubmission.

Timeline: 18–24 months.

For approximately 20 stories: the existing geotechnical analysis applies. Address the remaining site-specific issues and return with a complete application. Timeline:
significantly shorter.

Housing can still be built here. Safely. At a scale the evidence supports.

Uphold the denial. Require the developer to do the work. Then come back with a building Beverly Hills can safely approve.

THE COUNCIL'S CHOICE CAL. GOV. CODE § 65589.5
TwoPathsForward(continued)
TheRecordIsClear.TheStandardIsMet.

ThePlanningCommissionvoted3-2todenythisproject.Theywere right.Thenewevidencemakesthecaseevenstronger.ThisCouncilhas thelegalauthority—andthelegalobligation—toupholdthatdenial underCal.Gov.Code§65589.5.Theevidencemeetsthestandard.The recordisclear.

Under Cal. Gov. Code § 65589.5, the Council may deny or condition this project upon written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence, of specific, adverse health or safety impacts with no feasible mitigation at this density. That standard is met. Path Two is legally sound.

TheRecordSpeaks for Itself
FireCodeViolation
The Construction Management Plan explicitly closes a 20-foot alley while California Fire Code § 503.2.1 requires 20 feet of unobstructed clearance.

This is a geometric impossibility documented in the project's own plans.

EngineeringAbsent
The only geotechnical report analyzes a 20-story building. The proposed structure is 26 stories—30% heavier. The City Engineer's April 2025 memo confirms the seismic investigation for this height is "still missing." LifeSafetyHazard
Closing the alley blocks the emergency exit for all residents at 300 N Swall. This violates CFC § 1031.2, which requires maintaining egress free from obstructions, and fails to meet CBC § 1028.2 regarding exit discharge requirements. The developer deliberately omitted this impact from their analysis.

AdmittedRisk
The City's own February 7, 2025 determination identified "Risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of an earthquake fault." That risk was never studied after the EIR was cancelled. The danger did not disappear—only the paperwork did.

UndergroundThreat
The developer's own excavation plan includes tiebacks that could extend up to 25 feet below ground into the adjacent alleyway — the same alleyway already closed at the surface. No consent has been obtained. No analysis exists in the administrative record.

FireSafetyNeverVerified
Deputy Fire Marshal Alvin Cuna confirmed in writing on February 9, 2026 that fire pump room, water storage, and smoke control systems must be verified with a fire sprinkler engineer prior to official plan submittal. That verification has never been done.

DewateringThreat
Groundwater was encountered at 40 feet below ground surface. The developer's geotechnical report provides zero analysis of excavation dewatering impacts on the adjacent 1983 residential building at 300 North Swall Drive. Never analyzed. Never mitigated. Not in the record. "If you approve this project today, you are not approving housing. You are approving a documented public safety hazard affecting one of the most vulnerable populations in your city—many of them elderly, some Holocaust survivors, and many disabled. They are not opposed to housing. They are asking to be heard and to be kept safe."
We respectfully request that the City Council grant this appeal and deny the project until a lawful Construction Management Plan and updated 26-story Seismic Analysis are provided.

WhatWeAreAsking
FollowtheLaw,NotthePressure
We are not asking the Council to make a policy decision about whether housing should be built at this location. We support additional housing and affordable housing.

You cannot fit a fire engine in a blocked 20-foot alley You cannot build a 26-story tower using the foundation calculations for a 20- story building
You cannot barricade the emergency exit for neighbors at 300 N Swall You may not approve underground tiebacks that penetrate the only emergency egress alleyway without property study
You cannot approve a 26-story excavation next to a 1983 residential building with zero dewatering impact analysis
You cannot approve a 26-story tower whose fire pump, water storage, and smoke control systems have never been verified by a fire engineer

WhatWeAreAsking(continued)
TheHousingAccountabilityActStandardIsMet
GrantAppeal
Seek denial per law based
on safety impact
Geotechnical
Reaffirmation
Provide engineering for
proposed building
Code-Compliant
SafetyPlan
Resolve fire access,
egress, life-safety issues
A project Beverly Hills can safely and legally approve
The Housing Accountability Act requires denial when a project has a specific, adverse impact on public safety based on objective standards. Violation of the Fire Code is that impact. The missing seismic analysis is that impact. The blocked emergency egress is that impact. The underground tieback threat is that impact. The unverified fire safety systems are that impact. The dewatering gap is that impact.

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKETFORCOUNCILMEMBERS
Appendix — Page 67 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 1 of 9

DOCUMENTCITATIONGUIDE

1.LOADINGSTUDY
Date: September 26, 2024 / March 12, 2025
Key Quote (Vehicular Omission): "It is of further note that the existing residential building located along the south side of the alley provides no direct VEHICULAR access to the alley. Thus, commercial vehicles accessing the Project's loading space on the alley will not conflict with VEHICULAR traffic related to the neighboring property." Key Quote (Fire Access Claim): "...the remaining portion of the Project Site's southerly boundary adjacent to the alley is proposed to accommodate... other building systems (e.g., fire access)." Relevance: Developer uses the "vehicular" qualifier to intentionally hide the pedestrian egress issue; simultaneously claims the alley is required for "fire access" to justify a zoning waiver.

2.TRANSPORTATIONMEMORANDUM
Date: March 12, 2025
Content: Repeats Loading Study arguments regarding vehicular access and fire access requirements.

Relevance: Reinforces the developer's contradictory positions on the alley's use on the public record.

3.CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENTPLAN(CMP)
Sheet: A2.0
Key Quote: "Alleyway and Clark sidewalk closed for staging and deliveries area." Duration: 30+ months of construction.

Relevance: Proposes closing and barricading the exact same 20-foot alley the developer previously claimed was required for fire access, creating a geometric impossibility for fire apparatus.

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKETFOR

COUNCILMEMBERS
Appendix — Page 68 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 2 of 9 DOCUMENTCITATIONGUIDE(continued)

4.PLANNINGCOMMISSIONSTAFFREPORT
Date: October 21, 2025
Key Quote (Alley Closure): "The Construction Management Plan... identifies the need for... alley closures at the rear of the property for staging and construction." Key Quote (Safety Finding): Project "would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts... [or] pedestrian safety hazard."
Relevance: Proves the City improperly accepted the developer's vehicular-only analysis and entirely overlooked the pedestrian emergency egress obstruction inside the alley.

5.CONDITIONSOFAPPROVAL
Condition No. 40: Requires applicant to "obtain all required permits for use of the public right-of-way for staging."
Relevance: Constitutes improper deferral of a known safety hazard. The City cannot defer a safety determination to a future permit that cannot legally be issued if the objective standards of the California Fire Code are followed. (Continued on next page — Documents 6–8)

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKETFORCOUNCILMEMBERS
Appendix — Page 69 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 3 of 9 DOCUMENTCITATIONGUIDE(continued)

6.CITYCEQADETERMINATIONLETTER
Date: February 7, 2025
From: Senior Planner Edgar Arroyo
Key Quote: "The Project may have potentially significant geology and soils impacts, including, but not limited to, adverse impacts that may result in risk of loss, injury, or death from the rupture of an earthquake fault... and located within a delineated liquefaction zone..."
Relevance: The City officially documented a severe, lethal seismic threat at this exact site. This triggers the strict requirement to prove public health or safety before approval.

7.CANCELLEDDUDEKENVIRONMENTALSTUDYPROPOSAL
Date: February 27, 2025
Content: A $338,880 proposal from environmental firm Dudek to provide full CEQA services, including a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

Relevance: Proves the City intended to fully investigate the "risk of death" from fault rupture and ground failure. When the developer used a statutory exemption to bypass CEQA, the safety study was cancelled. The physical danger remains; only the paperwork disappeared.

8.DEVELOPER'SGEOTECHNICALREPORT(GEOTECHNOLOGIES,INC.FILENO. 22004)
Date: November 21, 2022 (Revised April 3, 2024)
Key Quote: "The site is proposed to be developed with a 20-story residential complex, which will be constructed over 2 to 3 subterranean parking levels... Column loads are estimated to be between 1,500 and 2,000 kips." Relevance: The "Ghost Building" proof. The only engineering math in the 12,000-page record is capped at 20 stories. It is physically and legally invalid to approve a 26-story tower on foundation calculations designed for a lighter, shorter building. (Continued on next page — Documents 9–11)

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKETFORCOUNCILMEMBERS
Appendix — Page 70 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 4 of 9 DOCUMENTCITATIONGUIDE(continued)

9.CITYBUILDING&SAFETY/PLANREVIEWMEMOS
Date: April 8, 2025 (and multiple 2025 reviews)
Key Quote (Missing Report): "The package does not include a geotechnical report." Key Quote (Missing Fault Study): "City of Beverly Hills policy DSP-003, dated June 29, 2022, mandates a site specific investigation of fault rupture... Due to the project's location... it is crucial to conduct this investigation and submit the findings... The study's results may lead to construction restrictions or project scope changes." Relevance: The City's own engineering staff confirmed in writing that the necessary 26-story geotechnical report and the legally mandated fault study are missing from the record.

10.FINALTERRAPHASEENGINEERINGPEERREVIEW
Date: March 17, 2026
Key Quote (The Missing Math): "USGS mapped seismic design parameters are not sufficient for a 26-story structure at this location. A site-specific seismic risk assessment consistent with Section 21.1 of ASCE/SEI 7-22 is required." Key Quote (The Liability Trap): "The report does not pass the smell test... [and] does not currently meet custom and practice nor standard of care for geotechnical engineering for similar projects at this location." Key Quote (Ignored Hazards): Confirms the site is located in a mapped Methane Mitigation Zone (less than 225 feet from an idle Chevron oil well) and a mapped Dam Inundation Zone (Lower Franklin Reservoir). Zero analysis was provided for either.

Relevance: This document provides the exact "objective, identified written public health or safety standards" (ASCE 7- 22, BH Policy DSP-003, 2025 California Building Code) that the developer violated. It legally establishes an unmitigated specific, adverse impact on public health or safety under the Housing Accountability Act, mandating denial. (Continued on next page — Document 11)

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKETFOR

COUNCILMEMBERS
Appendix — Page 71 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 5 of 9 DOCUMENTCITATIONGUIDE(continued)

11.DEPUTYFIREMARSHALCUNAEMAIL
Date: February 9, 2026
From: Deputy Fire Marshal Alvin Cuna
Key Quote: "Fire pump room, additional water storage, smoke control systems... should be verified with a fire sprinkler engineer prior to official plan submittal." Relevance: Confirms that mandatory high-rise life-safety systems have never been verified. The Fire Department's own deputy marshal admitted on the record that the safety plans are incomplete.
(Continued on next page — Code Citations)

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKET(Page6)
Appendix — Page 72 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 6 of 9

CODECITATIONS
CaliforniaFireCode§503.2.1 -Fire
ApparatusAccessRoads
Requirement: "Fire apparatus access
roads shall have an unobstructed
width of not less than 20 feet"
Application: The alley is exactly 20 feet
wide per the Staff Report; the
developer's 8-foot construction fence
reduces clearance to 12 feet. Any
obstruction violates this code.

Authority: State-mandated, objective
minimum safety standard.

CaliforniaFireCode§1031.2-
Obstructions
Requirement: "Required means of
egress shall be maintained free from
obstructions"
Application: The alley serving as the
exit discharge path for 300 N Swall
must remain unobstructed during
construction.

Authority: State-mandated, objective
life-safety standard.

CaliforniaBuildingCode§1028.2-ExitDischarge
Requirement: "Exits shall discharge directly to the exterior of the building. The exit discharge shall be at grade or shall provide a direct path of egress travel to grade." Application: Rear emergency exits at 300 N Swall discharge directly into the alley; the alley serves as the public way for pedestrian emergency egress.

Authority: State-mandated, objective life-safety standard. (Continued on next page — Code Citations continued)

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKET(Page7)
Appendix — Page 73 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 7 of 9 CODECITATIONS(continued)
ASCE/SEI 7-22Section21.1 -National
SeismicStandard
Requirement: Strictly mandates a sitespecific seismic risk assessment for high-rise buildings in extreme ground
acceleration zones.

Application: The developer failed to
perform this mandatory assessment
for a 26-story tower facing forces
approaching 1G.

Authority: National engineering
standard for building design loads.

CaliforniaFireCodeChapter33-Fire
SafetyDuringConstruction
Requirement: Safeguarding of means
of egress during construction
operations.

Application: Developer must maintain
emergency egress paths during the
30+ month construction period.

Authority: State-mandated fire safety
standard.

HousingAccountabilityAct(HAA) -CaliforniaGovernmentCode§65589.5(j) Key Provision: Local agencies may deny housing projects only when there is a "specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety".

Standard: The impact must be based on "objective, identified written public health or safety standards".

Application: CFC § 503.2.1, CFC § 1031.2, CBC § 1028.2, and ASCE/SEI 7-22 are objective, written standards. Documented violations of these codes constitute specific, adverse impacts to public health or safety.
(Continued on next page — Cross-References)

EVIDENCEREFERENCEPACKET(Page8)
Appendix — Page 74 of 79 · Evidence Reference Packet: Page 8 of 9

CROSS-REFERENCETOPRESENTATIONSLIDES
FireSafetyViolation(Slide2)
Source: Planning Commission Staff
Report - "20' Wide One-Way Alley"
Source: Construction Management
Plan Sheet A2.0 - "Alleyway... closed for
staging"
Code: California Fire Code § 503.2.1
EmergencyEgressObstruction(Slide3)
Source: Loading Study - "no direct
VEHICULAR access"
Codes: CBC § 1028.2 and CFC § 1031.2
Issue: Developer analyzed vehicular
conflict only, deliberately omitting
pedestrian egress.

Developer'sContradiction(Slides4–7)
Source: Loading Study - "fire access"
claim vs. Construction Management
Plan - alley closure for staging.

Legal Doctrine: Judicial estoppel
(developer cannot claim the alley is a
fire lane to gain a zoning waiver, then
close it for construction staging).

City's ImproperDeferral(Slide8)
Source: Condition No. 40
Legal Standard: HAA § 65589.5 + CEQA
deferral principles
Issue: The City cannot legally defer the
resolution of a known geometric
impossibility (the fire lane violation) to
a future permit phase.

MASTERBIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix — Page 75 of 79 · Master Bibliography: Page 9 of 9 (Part 1) CATEGORY1:CityofBeverlyHillsAdministrativeRecords&
Admissions

1.CityEngineerMemorandum(Al
Noriesfandeyari),April8,2025
Confirmed missing geotechnical report and
fault studies.

2.CityofBeverlyHillsCEQADetermination
Letter (SeniorPlannerEdgarArroyo),February
7,2025
Admitted risk of death/injury from fault
rupture and liquefaction.

3.FireMarshalTrevorRichmondEmail,
February9,2026
Admitted no formal review was conducted;
only an email thread.

4.DeputyFireMarshalAlvinCunaEmail,
February9,2026
Admitted high-rise life-safety systems not
verified.

5.TheCity's 'Surrender'Email,February19,2026
Admitted project approval was based on state
pressure, not safety.

6.PlanningCommissionStaffReport,October
21,2025
Documented the "20-foot one-way alley."

7.PlanningCommissionStaffReport,November
5,2025

8.IncompleteLetterPL2400115,August9&
December5,2024

9.CityPRAResponseLetter25-2969,February
10,2026
Delayed fire records for being "too
voluminous."

10.ConditionsofApproval
Condition No. 40 detailing staging in the public
right-of-way.

11.PlanningCommissionResolutionNo.2104
The formal 3-2 denial.

12.LACoFDHHMDResponseLetter,February12,
2025
Confirmed no hazardous materials file on
record.
(Continued on next page — Category 2)

MASTERBIBLIOGRAPHY(continued)
Appendix — Page 76 of 79 · Master Bibliography: Page 9 of 9 (Part 2) CATEGORY2:IndependentEngineering&
EnvironmentalAssessments

13.TerraphaseEngineeringPeer
Review,ProjectW272.001 (Final:March
17,2026)
The "Smell Test" and "Standard of
Care" liability trap.

14.TerraphaseEngineeringDraft
Review,February26,2026

15.CancelledDudekEnvironmental
Study(EIR)Proposal,February27,2025
The cancelled $338,880 safety study.

16.PreliminaryEndangerment
Assessment(PEA)Report,February
2025
Documented 254 surrounding
environmental risk sites.

17.CertifiedSanborn®MapReport/EDRRadiusMap,February2025 (Continued on next page — Categories 3–5)

MASTERBIBLIOGRAPHY(continued)
Appendix — Page 77 of 79 · Master Bibliography: Page 9 of 9 (Part 3) CATEGORY3:ObjectiveWrittenSafetyStandards (The
HAALegalTriggers)

18.CaliforniaGovernmentCode§
65589.5(j)
The Housing Accountability Act.

19.ASCE/SEI 7-22Section21.1
National Seismic Standard requiring
site-specific risk assessments.

20.CaliforniaFireCode§503.2.1,§
1031.2,andChapter33
Mandating 20-foot unobstructed fire
apparatus access.

21.CaliforniaBuildingCode§1028.2
Mandating unobstructed emergency
egress.

22.BeverlyHillsSafetyElement,
AdoptedMay10,2022

23.Alquist-PrioloEarthquakeFault
ZoningAct

24.LosAngelesMunicipalCode–
Division71
Methane Seepage Regulations.

25.CaliforniaDivisionofSafetyofDams
(DSOD)Map
Lower Franklin Reservoir Inundation
Zone.

26.CEQAStatutesandGuidelines (CaliforniaAssociationofEnvironmental Professionals)
(Continued on next page — Category 4)

MASTERBIBLIOGRAPHY(continued)
Appendix — Page 78 of 79 · Master Bibliography: Page 9 of 9 (Part 4) CATEGORY4:TheDeveloper'sOwnSubmissions&Contradictions

27.Geotechnologies Inc.,Geotechnical
InvestigationReport,File22004(Nov.2022,Rev.

Apr.2024)
The "Ghost Building" math.

28.ConstructionManagementPlan(CMP),Sheet
A2.0
Proves the 30-month alley barricade.

29.LoadingStudybyLinscott,Law&Greenspan
(LLG),Sept.2024/Mar.2025
The "Fire Access" judicial estoppel trap.

30.TransportationImpactAnalysis /LTAbyLLG, May1,2025

31.Developer'sEarthquakeZoneMap,ExhibitC.7
California Geological Survey liquefaction
admission.

32.DaveRand'sAB1893/AB1633Exemption
Notices,July2025&March2026

33.Developer'sUnitDispersalTable,October28,
2025
The "Feasibility Lie."

34.Letter fromNicoleBrowne(TenThousand),
October27,2025
Trash chute justification.

35.PolarisPacificFinancialAnalysis,October27,
2025
South-facing balcony justification.

36.HistoricResourcesMemorandum/Analysis

37.ProtectedTreeReport 38.NoiseImpactStudy

39.AirQualityandGreenhouseGasEmissions
Worksheets

40.EnergyandWaterComplianceReport

41.UtilityWillServeLetters 42. 1990LeightonReport(LACountyGeneralPlan) The obsolete standard improperly cited by the
developer.

MASTERBIBLIOGRAPHY(continued)
Appendix — Page 79 of 79 · Master Bibliography: Page 9 of 9 (Part 5) CATEGORY5:Community&VisualEvidence

43.300N.SwallDriveResidentPublic
CommentPackage,October2025
30+ signed letters detailing traffic,
scale, and specific physical damage
during demolition.

44.GoogleEarthSatelliteImagery
The visual proof used to expose the
Fire Marshal's "empty lot" approval.