Item F -1 Part 1 of 3 — Beverly Hills City Council, March 24, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Cindy Gordon, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Project Manager
Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S NOVEMBER 5, 2025

DECISION DENYING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND

DENSITY BONUS PERMIT FOR A PROJECT UTILIZING STATE
HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BUILDER’S REMEDY

PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65589.5(D)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 26-STORY, 200-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 8844 BURTON WAY; AND

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW

AND DENSITY BONUS PERMIT FOR A PROJECT UTILIZING STATE
HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BUILDER’S REMEDY

PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65589.5(D)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 26-STORY, 200-UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 8844 BURTON WAY,

FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Attachments: 1. Draft City Council Resolution

2. Appeal Petition Form

3. October 21, 2025, Planning Commission Report (w/o attachments)

4. October 29, 2025, Planning Commission Report (w/o attachments)

5. November 5, 2025, Planning Commission Report (w/o attachments)

6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2104

7. State Statutes

8. General Plan Policies

9. November 20, 2025 – HCD Notice of Potential Violation

10. Local Transportation Assessment (LTA)

11. Construction Management Plan (CMP)
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 2 of 15 ends

12. AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption – City Compliance Analysis

13. AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption – Applicant Compliance Analysis

14. Applicant Correspondence

15. Public Hearing Notice

16. Public Correspondence

17. Project Plans

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal, and,

2. Adopt a resolution approving the project (i.e., upholding the appeal) and find the project exempt from CEQA.

INTRODUCTION
The subject of this appeal is a proposed multi-family residential development located at 8844 Burton Way. The project proposes a total of 200 dwelling units in a 26-story building with a height of 309’-6”. A total of 316 parking spaces would be provided in three subterranean levels and two above-grade levels (second and third floors) and would include the use of mechanical parking lifts (“stackers”). Of the 200 dwelling units proposed, 22 units would be deed-restricted affordable units with 14 units designated for rental to extremely low-income households and eight units designated for rental to moderate income households. As amended at the November 5, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant is proposing the following unit types:
• 38 Studio (Efficiency) Units: Ranging from 645 square feet (SF) – 936 SF o 4 Extremely Low-Income Units
o 34 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
• 86 Two-Bedroom Units: Ranging from 1,382 SF – 1,585 SF o 10 Extremely Low-Income Units
o 76 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
• 76 Three-Bedroom Units (Market Rate): Ranging from 1,853 SF – 1,942 SF o 8 Moderate-Income Units
o 68 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
This proposal supersedes the original unit mix that previously included 22 affordable studio units, consisting of 14 studio units for extremely low-income households and eight studio units for moderate income households.

Additionally, in response to concerns expressed by the Commission regarding the dispersal of the affordable units and compliance with state law, the applicant has more broadly dispersed the affordable units throughout the building and has included a portion of the required affordable units on higher floors, as reflected in Table 1.

Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 3 of 15 ends

TABLE 1: PROPOSED UNIT DISPERSAL

ORIGINAL PROPOSAL REVISED PROJECT

MARKET ELI MI MARKET ELI MI
LEVEL 24 5 -- -- 5 -- --
LEVEL 23 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 22 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 21 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 20 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 19 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 18 9 -- -- 10 -- --
LEVEL 17 9 -- -- 9 -- 1
LEVEL 16 9 -- -- 9 -- 1
LEVEL 15 9 -- -- 9 -- 1
LEVEL 14 9 -- -- 9 -- 1
LEVEL 13 9 -- -- 8 1 1
LEVEL 12 7 -- -- 6 1 1
LEVEL 11 7 -- -- 6 1 1
LEVEL 10 9 -- -- 9 1 1
LEVEL 9 9 -- -- 10 1 --
LEVEL 8 10 -- 4 10 1 --
LEVEL 7 10 4 -- 9 2 --
LEVEL 6 10 4 -- 9 2 --
LEVEL 5 8 3 -- 7 2 --
LEVEL 4 4 3 4 8 2 --
SUBTOTAL 178 14 8 178 14 8
TOTAL 200 200
All affordable units highlighted in yellow.

MARKET – Market Rate Unit | ELI – Extremely Low Income Unit | MI – Moderate Income Unit Pursuant to the City’s appeal procedures, the City Council must conduct a de novo public hearing to consider appeals of the Planning Commission decision. Under a de novo review, the City Council considers not only the appeal and points raised therein, but also conducts an independent review of the project application and record to determine whether the City can make the findings required by state law. The October 21, 2025 Planning Commission report (Attachment 3), includes an in-depth analysis of the project, its vicinity, applicable state requirements, and the findings considered by the Planning Commission. This staff report specifically addresses the issues raised in the appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project.

Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy
On December 15, 2023, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application (PA) for a Housing Development Project (“PA”) to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, including the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on March 25, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in Government Code (GC) §65941.1(e)(1). The original project (“Builder’s Remedy 1.0”) included a 20-story mixed-use building with 20% of the proposed Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 4 of 15 ends

200 dwelling units (40 units) reserved for lower income households. The application for the Builder Remedy 1.0 project was deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025.

While this project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on May 1, 2024, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), codified in GC §65589.51, because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to housing element certification and proposed at least 20% of the total units in the development for lower income households.

On March 12, 2025, the applicant revised the project to its current form, which increased the size and scale of the project but retained the same number of proposed units as the original project (“Builder’s Remedy 2.0”). The applicant increased the height of the project from 20 stories (223’-4”) to 26 stories (309’-6”), which included a revised DPR application and a new Density Bonus Permit request. Additionally, the applicant revised the project to utilize recent changes to the HAA and state Builder’s Remedy law that went into effect on January 1, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 18862 and 18933. The new bills clarified existing law within the HAA, provided alternative standards for projects, and reduced the affordability requirements for certain housing projects. Accordingly, the number of affordable units was revised for the current version of the project and now includes 22 affordable units (14 extremely low-income units and eight moderate-income units) in-lieu of the 40 affordable units previously proposed. The Builder’s Remedy 2.0 project h meets the reduced affordability requirements as allowed by AB 1893 (GC §65589.5(h)(3)(C)).

For context, the term “Builder’s Remedy” generally refers to certain findings pursuant to the HAA that must be made for a local agency to disapprove a qualifying housing development project meeting certain affordability requirements, and which findings require a certified housing element (GC §65589.5(d)(1) and (5)). Under these circumstances, state law imposes specific limitations on a city’s authority to deny a project proposing “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households”4, even if that project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations.

Enacted in 1982 and more recently amended, the HAA establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs. The HAA limits the City’s ability to disapprove a housing development project and provides specific findings for disapproval based on the “preponderance of the evidence” 1 The full text of Government Code Section 65589.5 is available online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65589.5 2 Assembly Bill 1886, Alvarez. Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1886 3 Assembly Bill 1893, Wicks. Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals: required local findings. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1893 4 Pursuant to the previous version of the Housing Accountability Act, “‘housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households’ means that either (A) at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or (B) 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or persons and families of middle income, as defined in Section 65008 of this code.” (Govt. Code § 65589.5(h)(3).) This definition changed on January 1, 2025, when AB 1893 took effect, and, among other changes, mixed-income projects with lower percentages of units for extremely low, very low, and lower income households are now considered “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.”
Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 5 of 15 ends

in the record. These findings are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j) and are provided as Attachment 7.

Planning Commission Discussion
On October 21, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project and associated Development Plan Review (DPR) and Density Bonus Permit (Attachment 3). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment, which included testimony and correspondence with concerns and in support of the proposed project. Based on the Commission’s review of the project, concerns were expressed regarding the placement of the affordable units within the building and the ability for emergency services to adequately serve the site and surrounding community. The Commission voted (4-1) to direct staff to prepare a denial resolution memorializing the Commission’s findings for consideration at the October 29, 2025 special meeting.

At the October 29, 2025 special meeting (Attachment 4), the Commission reopened the public hearing to consider a request by the applicant to continue the meeting to a future date to consider project revisions to address concerns expressed by the Commission and community members regarding the dispersal of the proposed affordable dwelling units and compliance with state law. Specifically, the Commission expressed concerns regarding the project’s compliance with Health and Safety Code (HSC) §17929(a)(2), which requires that the affordable units within a mixed-income multi-family structure5 shall not be isolated to a specific floor or area on a specific floors of that structure. After consideration, the Commission voted (4-0) to continue the project to the special meeting of November 5, 2025 to consider the applicant’s proposed revisions. Additionally, in recognition of the limited number of available meetings for continued deliberations, the Commission directed staff to return with both a resolution to deny the project, consistent with the direction provided at the October 21st meeting, and a resolution to approve the project, should the applicant’s proposed revisions address concerns previously expressed by the Commission regarding the distribution of affordable units.

At the November 5, 2025 special meeting (Attachment 5), the Commission reopened the public hearing to consider the applicant’s proposed revisions to the distribution of the affordable units in the project. At the meeting, the applicant provided an updated unit dispersal plan for the Commission’s consideration. The original version of the project located the affordable units, which were comprised of only studio units, on the fourth through eighth floors of the building and concentrated their placement toward the center of the structure, near the elevator and trash chutes that service the building. The applicant’s revised project proposed the dispersal of the affordable units across the fourth through 17th floors of the building and included a revised affordable unit mix for the required 22 affordable units that included four studio units and 10 two-bedroom units provided for extremely low-income households, and eight three-bedroom units provided for moderate income households.

While the revised proposal addressed the unit dispersal concerns, a majority of the Commission expressed concerns regarding project feasibility and the potential public health or safety concerns pertaining to the ability for emergency services to safely and 5 Pursuant to HSC §17929(b)(4), a “Mixed-income multifamily structure” means any residential structure with five or more residential dwelling units that includes both affordable housing units and market-rate housing units.

Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 6 of 15 ends

effectively operate at the heights the 26-story project would require. Additionally, the Commission expressed concerns of potential impacts from significant new traffic from resident and visitor vehicles, delivery, refuse, or moving trucks, and curbside activity that a majority of the Commission thought would further constrict roadway access, lengthening response times for ambulances and fire services and thereby creating a threat to resident safety, including the area’s concentration of existing elderly residents who regularly rely on rapid medical response and transport. Lastly, the majority of the Commission expressed concerns regarding project feasibility, as the original version of the project (Builders Remedy 1.0) was able to accommodate the proposed 200 units within a 20- story building, whereas the revised project (Builder Remedy 2.0) increased the project to 26 stories with the same number of units. After deliberation, the Commission made a motion (3-2) to adopt Resolution No. 2104, denying the project (Attachment 6).

Appeal Filed
On November 17, 2025, Adam Tartakovsky, on behalf of 8844 Burton Way LLC, submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project (Attachment 2). The appeal stayed the Planning Commission’s denial of the project pending a final decision on the appeal by the City Council.

The following grounds are taken directly from the applicant’s November 17, 2025 appeal petition:
1) The Proposed Project Is Subject to the Builder’s Remedy. 2) A Builder’s Remedy Project Must Be Approved Absent Extremely Limited Circumstances That Are Not Present Here.
3) The Planning Commission’s Reasons for Denying the Project Are Illegal. 4) The City Council Must Approve Transparent Balcony Barriers.

DISCUSSION
The following is an analysis of the points raised in the applicant’s appeal petition.

Applicant Appeal Ground No. 1:
“The Proposed Project Is Subject to the Builder’s Remedy.” The applicant asserts that the project is eligible for the protections afforded to Builder’s Remedy projects under the HAA. Specifically, the applicant notes that a PA was submitted on December 15, 2023 that included all information required under GC §65941.1(a) to vest the rights of the project under the standards that prevailed at that time, including that the City lacked a legally compliant Housing Element. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a DPR application on March 25, 2024, within 180 days following the submission of the PA, which was deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025 (Builders Remedy

1.0).

Following the City’s completeness determination, the applicant revised the project to increase the height of the building and change the number and income levels of the Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 7 of 15 ends

project’s affordable units, availing themselves of changes to state law made by AB 1893, which took effect on January 1, 2025 (Builder’s Remedy 2.0). As the revised project continued to comply with the amended provisions for Builder’s Remedy projects provided in AB 1893 and the number of residential units and square footage of construction did not change by 20% of more6, the project continues to be eligible for the protections afforded to Builder’s Remedy projects.

City Response to Applicant Appeal Ground No. 1
As detailed in the October 21, 2025 Planning Commission report (Attachment 3), the applicant submitted the PA on December 15, 2023 to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by HCD. Subsequent to the PA submittal, the applicant submitted a DPR application on March 25, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1), with the City deeming the original project complete on January 10, 2025 (Builder’s Remedy 1.0). Based on the criteria established in the HAA, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to housing element certification and the applicant provided 20% of the units affordable to lower income households (40 units).

Subsequent revisions to the project that resulted in increases to the height and number of stories, along with revisions in the required affordable units for the project, continue to comply with the amended Builder’s Remedy provisions adopted under Assembly Bill (AB) 18867 and 18938, which went into effect on January 1, 2025. These new bills clarified existing law within the HAA, provided alternative standards for projects, and reduced the affordability requirements for certain housing projects. Based on the information provided in the applicant’s appeal petition and review of the application submittal and revision timeline, as well as the project’s compliance with qualifying Builder’s Remedy provisions in the HAA, staff concurs with the applicant’s assessment that the project continues to be eligible for the protections afforded to Builder’s Remedy projects. Additionally, as the revised project does not exceed the thresholds in GC §65941.1(d) regarding the number of residential units and square footage of construction, the PA originally submitted for the project continues to remain valid and remains eligible as a Builder’s Remedy project.

Applicant Appeal Ground No 2:
“A Builder’s Remedy Project Must Be Approved Absent Extremely Limited Circumstances That Are Not Present Here.”
The applicant asserts that state law requires the City to approve this Builder’s Remedy project and that the HAA clearly explains that a Builder’s Remedy project may only be disapproved if the City makes one of six written findings, which are provided in the HAA (GC §65589.5(d)). The applicant notes that the Commission made findings to deny the 6 Pursuant to GC §65941.1(d), a development proponent may elect to revise the project without losing the vested rights granted under the PA submittal, provided that number of residential units or square footage of construction does not change by 20% or more.
7 Assembly Bill 1886, Alvarez. Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1886 8 Assembly Bill 1893, Wicks. Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals: required local findings. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1893 Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 8 of 15 ends

project under GC §65589.5(d)(2) regarding a project’s adverse impact upon the public health or safety and under GC §65589.5(d)(3) regarding a requirement to deny the project in order to comply with specific state or federal laws, and argues that the Commission’s reasons failed to meet the HAA’s extraordinarily high bar for the denial of a Builder’s Remedy project.

The applicant notes that the HAA provides that situations when a project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently (GC §65589.5(a)(3)), and that by the Legislature including this language, it is making it clear to the a local agency that commonplace effects of development that may be associated with a housing project do not constitute a “specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety.” Additionally, the applicant notes that through the HAA, it is the policy of the state that the HAA be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (GC §65589.5(a)(2)(L)).

City Response to Applicant Appeal Ground No. 2
As detailed in the October 21, 2025 Planning Commission report (Attachment 3), the HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, in order to defensibly deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing upon a project’s conditions of approval that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” The potential findings that must be made to disapprove a project are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j).

Staff concurs with the applicant’s argument regarding the limitations provided in the HAA for denial of a Builder’s Remedy project and the overall legislative intent of state housing law. Specific discussion regarding the Planning Commission determination in denying the project pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2) and (3) are provided in Applicant Appeal Ground No 3.

Applicant Appeal Ground No 3:
“The Planning Commission’s Reasons for Denying the Project Are Illegal.” The applicant argues that the reasons provided by the Planning Commission, both in points detailed in the resolution and verbally at the November 5, 2025 meeting, failed to meet the HAA requirements for denial of a project and therefore must be overturned.

Additionally, the applicant notes that additional reasons were provided by Commissioners at the November 5th meeting in support of project denial, which were not articulated in the adopted resolution denying the project, creating discrepancies in the record.

The resolution adopted by the Commission denying the project made findings in support of project denial pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2) and (3), pertaining to the project’s specific, adverse impacts upon the public health or safety and findings that require the denial in Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 9 of 15 ends

order to comply with specific state or federal law. The applicant notes that the resolution denying the project focuses on the location of the affordable units and health and safety concerns regarding the ability for emergency services to adequately serve the site and surrounding community. Separately, the applicant notes that additional points were expressed verbally by Commissioners at the meeting in support of denial of the project, which included feasibility of the project to be built at a smaller scale and with the same number of units as the original project (Builder’s Remedy 1.0), belief that the project was not located within a half-mile of a major transit stop, and conflicts with the City’s General Plan use designation and zoning development standards.

Accordingly, the applicant asserts that the Planning Commission’s reasons for denying the project, both verbally and in writing, are illegal and failed to meet the requirements in the HAA, and therefore, must be overturned.

City Response to Applicant Appeal Ground No. 3
The Planning Commission denied the project on the grounds that it will have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2) and findings in GC §65589.5(d)(3) that require the denial of the project is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate- income households. The applicant asserts that the Planning Commission’s action constituted an unlawful denial of the project.

As it pertains to public health or safety impacts pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2), the Commission determined that the applicant 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, and that insufficient evidence was provided in the record to conclude that emergency services can safely and effectively operate at the heights the 26-story project would require. Further, the Commission determined that impacts from significant new traffic from resident and visitor vehicles, delivery, refuse, or moving trucks, and curbside activity that will further constrict roadway access, lengthening response times for ambulances and fire services and thereby creating a threat to resident safety, including the area’s concentration of existing elderly residents who regularly rely on rapid medical response and transport.

As it pertains to affordable unit dispersal requirements in HSC §17929(a)(2) and HAA denial findings in GC §65589.5(d)(3), the Commission determined that the denial of the project was required in order to comply with state law, which provides that “a mixedincome multifamily structure shall not isolate the affordable housing units within that structure to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor.” Additionally, the Commission determined, based on testimony provided by the applicant at the hearing, that there was no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Subsequent to the Commission’s denial of the project, HCD issued a Notice of Potential Violation to the city on November 20, 2025 (Attachment 9), regarding the Commission’s determination to deny the project. In its letter, HCD asserts that the project is a qualified Builder’s Remedy project and that the revisions to the project made for the Builder’s Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 10 of 15 ends

Remedy 2.0 project remain consistent with the amended Builder’s Remedy provisions in AB 1893.

Regarding findings made by the Commission in denial of the project pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2), HCD notes that a housing development project qualifying under the HAA that meets all objective standards (except those lawfully modified via State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) concessions and waivers) may only be denied if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible. The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. HCD understood that the two main concerns related to impacts to health and safety are traffic impacts and emergency services access due to the height of the building. However, HCD notes that the Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) (Attachment 10) prepared for the project found that the project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections and that there is no “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” related to traffic found in the study or any submitted materials. Regarding concerns pertaining to limited emergency access due to building height, HCD also noted that it is not aware of any evidence in the record that would suggest that emergency access to all floors of the building would be an issue.

As it pertains to the dispersal of the affordable units, HCD notes that the HAA, along with the SDBL, do not contain specific dispersal requirements for the affordable housing units of a project. While HSC §17929 does provide for minimum dispersal requirements, HCD notes that these standards cannot serve as a basis to deny the project, as these requirements are not in the HAA and SDBL and due to the fact that the city does not have any adopted objective standard related to affordable unit dispersal. Rather, HCD suggests that the City instead consider working with the applicant to condition approval on improving dispersal as long as the condition does not render the project infeasible. As discussed earlier in this report, the applicant presented a revised unit dispersal plan for the Commission’s consideration, which further dispersed the affordable units throughout the building.

As it pertains to concerns related to emergency access to the building, the Beverly Hills Fire Department (BHFD) reviewed the project and stated at the November 5th meeting that they do not foresee concerns with being able to provide emergency services to the proposed 26-story building. Additionally, the BHFD notes that fires within high-rise buildings are generally fought from the inside, rather than the outside, rendering the need for exterior ladder access a nonfactor. Current modern fire suppression systems in highrise buildings work to isolate a fire to the affected area to prevent spread, with the likelihood of an out-of-control fire being extremely rare due to the fire safety sprinkler systems required throughout the building. Further, in reference to traffic concerns impeding emergency services from the additional vehicular traffic anticipated for the project, BHFD does not anticipate any disruption to services as a result of the project and has noted that response times for critical care patients requiring transport to Cedars Sinai does not currently exceed six minutes. As a result, the level of service currently provided Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 11 of 15 ends

is not anticipated to change once the project becomes operational. Furthermore, in review of local, state, and federal law, there does not appear objective public health or safety standards that would preclude the City from project approval due to perceived traffic impacts and emergency services access related to the height of the building. All projects, including high-rise developments, are required to be designed in compliance with state building and fire codes, and are already required to incorporate life safety measures, including fire-rated walls, corridors, and stair shafts, fire sprinklers, and fire hose connections to combat emergencies. Thus, as to fire response and emergency response times, there is not evidence in the record of a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

In regard to the dispersal of affordable units, while the argument continues on whether the dispersal provided in the original project considered by the Commission substantially complied with the requirements of HSC §17929, the revisions volunteered by the applicant to provide additional affordable unit dispersal throughout the fourth through 17th floors of the project further advances compliance with state law. Thus, the revised project appears to comply with the letter and spirit of HSC 17929.

Lastly, to the points that were verbally expressed at the hearing in support of project denial, staff notes that arguments on project feasibility as they pertain to making findings for project denial require the City to bear the burden of proof, pursuant to GC 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(ii). Nothing provided in the record included information to support that the project was feasible at a reduced scale and with the same number of units, as was otherwise originally proposed in the Builder’s Remedy 1.0 version of the project (200 units in 20 stories). In regards the project’s proximity to a major transit stop, evidence in the record was provided to accurately demonstrate that the project site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop located at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, where two bus lines with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or better intersect (Metro Bus Lines 14 and 16). With regard to the project’s expressed conflicts with the City’s general plan use designation and zoning development standards and those conflicts constituting a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, staff notes that pursuant GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), inconsistency with zoning or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety.

Similarly, GC §65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.” As such, the additional points verbally expressed at the Commission November 5th meeting are insufficient to meet the requirements to allow for project denial as set forth in the HAA.

In consideration of the points made by the Commission in denial of the project, as adopted in Resolution No. 2104, staff’s assessment of the project and all applicable state laws provided in the October 21st and November 5th Planning Commission reports continue to represent staff’s assessment of the project and the City’s obligations under the HAA.

Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 12 of 15 ends

Applicant Appeal Ground No. 4:
“The City Council Must Approve Transparent Balcony Barriers.” The applicant notes that the project includes clear (transparent) balcony barriers to allow the residents of the building to enjoy views offered by the units. While the project was ultimately denied by the Planning Commission, the applicant notes that the draft approval resolution included in the report for the Commission’s consideration included a condition that would have required the balconies to include translucent or opaque barriers, instead of the proposed transparent barriers. The applicant asserts that the inclusion of this condition is illegal and may not be imposed by the City.

The applicant’s first point notes that the City may not prohibit clear balcony barriers unless the City finds that this feature would result in a specific, adverse impact to public health or safety, or that a condition prohibiting clear balcony barriers is required to comply with a specific state or federal law. Furthermore, the applicant cites provisions in the HAA applicable to Builder’s Remedy projects (GC §65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)) that provides that a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that have the effect of precluding a project from being constructed as proposed by the applicant.

The applicant’s second point notes that imposing a condition that requires the balcony barriers to be translucent or opaque, instead of having clear balcony barriers as requested, would render the project economically infeasible. The applicant cites an analysis included in their October 28, 2025 letter to the Planning Commission (Attachment 14) prepared by Polaris Pacific, a real estate sales and marketing company, as well as statements from their company’s general manager, noting that the use of non-transparent material for the balcony barriers “would significantly limit visibility from inside the homes, reducing the primary views that contribute meaningfully to a buyers perception and value.” The Polaris Pacific analysis notes that view premiums can account for up to 35% of a home’s total value in comparable residential developments, and while a translucent or opaque balcony barrier would not fully eliminate views, the resulting reduction of views could result in an up to 25% decline in the value of the residences. Further, statements from the general manager overseeing one of the applicant’s other properties in Los Angeles note that there is a difference in renter demand between units that have transparent balconies, as opposed to those units with opaque glass of other non-transparent materials. Units that have transparent balconies and clearer views appear to consistently achieve higher rents (15% to 20% more), with units on upper floors with considerably better views potentially approaching 30% more rents than a unit with an obscured view, which “has translated into stronger leasing performance, fewer turnover costs and limited vacancy.” Lastly, the applicant argues that there is no legal nexus or practical basis for requiring non-transparent balcony barriers, as they believe that requiring opaque balcony barriers would not increase privacy for adjacent properties. The applicant notes that the building’s first residential floor (fourth floor) is higher than the closest neighboring residential use, and that an individual standing on the balcony could still look down at a neighbor regardless of whether the balcony barrier is transparent or not, with balcony opacity providing no meaningful privacy benefit.

Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 13 of 15 ends

City Response to Appeal Ground No. 4
In the context of a Builder’s Remedy project, the HAA significantly limits a city’s ability to regulate, condition, or deny a project. Specifically, GC §65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i) provides that, for a qualified Builder’s Remedy project, a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that renders the project infeasible. While only objective standards can be the basis for project denial, the City Council does have authority to impose conditions on a project to further compliance with subjective standards, provided that the conditions do not have the effect of lowering density, which would ultimately have the effect of making the project infeasible to develop. In disputes regarding project feasibility, the city bears the burden of proof for demonstrating that a condition of approval would not render the project infeasible.

The HAA provides that a city may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies. While the City has previously drafted conditions for the Planning Commission’s consideration regarding balcony barrier in an effort to address privacy concerns expressed by the general public, staff notes that the City does not currently have any objective, quantifiable, or written development standards regulating the opacity of a balcony barrier. Specifically, the Commission considered the following condition:
“A four-foot (4’) tall translucent or opaque barrier shall be installed on the balconies of every unit and along the south elevation, or any balcony component visible on the south elevation, along any guardrail surrounding the rooftop and common outdoor living space along the south elevation for the Project.” The Commission and public correspondence received for the project expressed concerns with privacy-related impacts associated with having clear balcony railing where occupants of the dwelling unit would have views of and onto neighboring residential properties.

Materials provided by the applicant appear to support that imposing a condition requiring translucent or opaque balcony barriers would have the effect of negatively impacting the income producing potential of the proposed units, potentially rendering the project financially infeasible, contrary to the provisions in the HAA. The imposition of conditions that render a project infeasible have a similar effect to denial of a housing development project, which is prohibited under the HAA unless the City makes findings that the proposed transparent balconies result in a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. While the balcony barrier opacity condition does not directly have the effect of reducing density, the applicant’s argument that the imposition of the condition has a similar effect to project denial appears to have merit, because, according to the applicant, the condition may have the potential to affect the financial feasibility of the project.

Accordingly, while the Commission considered a balcony opacity condition, such condition has not been incorporated into the Council’s draft resolution as there does not appear to be a defensible means of imposing this condition while complying with state housing law.

In review of state and federal law, there does not appear to be published objective standards that would support the City conditioning the project to have translucent or Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 14 of 15 ends

opaque balcony barriers to address privacy concerns, an aesthetic impact of a project.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. The project site is located within a transit priority area, as the site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop located at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, where two bus lines with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or better intersect (Metro Bus Lines 14 and 16).

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION
Based on the applicant’s analysis provided in the appeal petition and staff’s review of the HAA and applicable state and federal laws, staff does not believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to support any of the findings required by the Housing Accountability Act to defensibly deny the Project. Thus, staff concurs with the applicant and recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal and adopt the draft resolution conditionally approving a DPR and Density Bonus Permit for the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines9(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a statutory exemption pursuant to §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on June 30, 2025 with the passage of AB 13010, is applicable to certain housing development projects that meet prescribed objective standards. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council consider finding the project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).

An assessment of the project’s eligibility for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) is provided in Attachment 12. Additionally, the applicant has provided materials and studies in support of the statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) (Attachment 13).

In consideration of this statutory CEQA exemption, PRC §21080.66(b) requires the City to provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the project, its location, and the project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. The City provided notification via certified mail and email on July 16, 2025 to eight Native American tribes and received consultation requests from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. City staff met with representatives of each Native American tribe and conditions memorizing the tribes request have been incorporated in the draft resolution (Attachment 1).
9 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ 10 Sec. 59 of Assembly Bill 130, Committee on Budget. Housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130 Meeting Date: March 24, 2026

Page 15 of 15 ends

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Friday, February 27, 2026 to property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 15). An on-site notice was also posted on the project site on Monday, March 2, 2026. Further, courtesy emails were sent to all interested parties advising them of the appeal hearing date.

Public Comment
All public correspondence is included as Attachment 16 to this report.

STATE HOUSING LAW CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to GC §65905.5, the City is limited to five total public hearings on a housing development project after it has been deemed complete. Pursuant to this section, a public hearing continued to another date by the City is counted as one of the five allotted public hearings.

The Planning Commission’s consideration of the project on October 21, 2025, October 29, 2025, and November 5, 2025, has utilized three of the five available public hearings provided by state law. City Council consideration of the appeal and de novo public hearing on March 24, 2026 will constitute the fourth of five available public hearings for the project.

In order to retain the fifth and final available meeting for Architectural and Design Review Commission consideration of the Architectural Review required for the project, it is recommended that the City Council complete its deliberation and render a decision regarding this project at this hearing. If the hearing is continued to a future meeting, the Council would be required to act at the fifth and final meeting and no additional public hearings would be available for Commission consideration of the required Architectural Review.

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellants through application fees.

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft City Council Resolution
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 26-R-________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND DENSITY BONUS

PERMIT FOR A PROJECT UTILIZING STATE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BUILDER’S REMEDY

PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65589.5(D)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A NEW 26-STORY,
200-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
AT 8844 BURTON WAY, FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Thomas Faraut, on behalf of 8844 Burton Way, LLC (collectively the “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit utilizing state Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code (GC) §65589.5(d)(5), seeking approval of a new 26-story, multifamily residential development with above grade and subterranean parking (the “Project”). The Project includes a request for a Density Bonus Permit to allow for certain incentives/concessions (hereafter, referred to as concessions) and waivers from development standards based on the inclusion of 22 affordable housing units. The Project includes 200 units, consisting of 178 market rate units, 14 extremely low-income units, and eight moderate income units. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §§10-3-3100.A and 10-3-1524, a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit are required for the Project.

Section 2. The Project site is a 26,779 SF lot located along the south-side of the 8800 block of Burton Way, within the City’s R-4 Multiple Residential Zone. The Project consists of the construction of a new 26-story multi-family residential building, with 200 dwelling units. The -2-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Project will redevelop a vacant residentially-zoned lot with the construction of a new multi-family residential apartment building. The Project will have a maximum height of 26-stories and 309’- 6”. The Project will provide 38 efficiency units (studios) ranging from 645 square feet (SF) to 936 SF; 86 two-bedroom units ranging from 1,382 SF to 1,597 SF; and 76 three-bedroom units ranging from 1,853 SF to 1,942 SF. The Project will have front setbacks of 20’-10” along North Clark Drive and 17’-6” along North Swall Drive, a side setback of 6’-3” along Burton Way, and a rear setback of 10’-0” abutting the alley at the rear of the Project site. Approximately 42,226 SF of open space will be provided through a combination of common and outdoor living space on balconies facing Burton Way and the rear of the property, and terraces located on the 4 th floor, 11th
floor, 26th floor, and rooftop of the building. Additionally, a total of 316 parking spaces will be provided above grade and at subterranean levels, with parking lifts used on the above grade levels.

Vehicular access to the Project’s parking areas will be provided from North Clark Drive.

The Project also includes the following components as it pertains to density bonus law:

Density Bonus: The Project utilizes State density bonus to facilitate the provision of affordable housing. The Project would provide a total of 22 affordable dwelling units (14 extremely low-income units and eight moderate-income rate units), pursuant to GC §§65915, and 65589.5(f)(1). The Project qualifies for a density bonus, along with concessions and waivers, pursuant to GC §65589.5(h)(3), by dedicating a minimum of 12% of the total units (14 units) to extremely low-income households and 7% of the total units (eight units) to moderate-income households. Pursuant to §65589.5(f)(6)(C)(iv), a Project providing 12% of the total units to extremely low-income households shall be entitled to the same number of concessions as a project providing 15% of the total units to very-low -3-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
income households, which enables the Project to be eligible for three concessions under these provisions. Additionally, by providing up to 7% of the total units for moderate income households as part of a stacked density bonus request, the Project is eligible for two additional concessions. In total, the Project is eligible for and entitled to five (5) development concessions, along with waivers from development standards.

Development Concessions/Waivers: Pursuant to State density bonus law and the HAA, development projects that are also Builder’s Remedy projects providing housing for mixed-income households are entitled to five (5) development concessions, which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents of a project’s affordable housing units. Separately, an applicant may also request waivers from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Concessions and waivers must be granted unless such a request would cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or would be contrary to any state or federal laws. Waivers do not count as a concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted provided each would preclude development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted.

Accordingly, the concessions and waivers requested by the Applicant are as follows:

Concessions:

1. Parking Dimensions: Reduce the required minimum parking stall size, from 9’-0” x 19’-0” to 8’-6” x 18’-0” and reduce the required driveway aisle widths for portions of the parking structure, from 26’ to between 20’ and 22’. -4-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

2. Encroachments in Front and Street Side Yard Setbacks: Balconies: BHMC §10-3-2811.C establishes permissible encroachments for balconies within a required front and street side setback, which allows balconies to encroach a maximum of 3’-0” into the required setback. The Applicant is requesting a concession to allow for the balconies to encroach 9’-2” into the required front yard setback along North Clark Drive.

3. Encroachments in Front and Street Side Yard Setbacks: Basement Garages:

BHMC §10-3-2811.E establishes permissible encroachments for basement garages within a required front and street side setback, which allows the basement garage to encroach into a require front and street side yard setback, provided that the garage is located 2’-0” lower than the grade of the sidewalk. The Applicant is requesting a concession to locate the basement garage above the 2’-0” depth required.

4. Encroachments in Rear Yard Setbacks: Balconies: BHMC §§10-3-2812.A and 10-3-2811.C establishes permissible encroachments for balconies within a required rear setback, which allows balconies to encroach a maximum of 3’-0” into the required setback. The Applicant is requesting a concession to allow for the balconies to encroach 5’-0” into the required rear yard setback.

Waivers:

1. Building Height and Stories: BHMC §10-3-2804 establishes the allowable building height for development in the R-4 Zone, which allows for a maximum of five stories with a maximum height of 55’-0”. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a 26-story building with a height of 309’-6”.
-5-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

2. Length of Building: BHMC §10-3-2809 establishes the maximum length of a building in the R-4 zone, which is limited to 175’ in either width or depth. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a building with a width of 204’-6” along Burton Way.

3. Front Setback: BHMC §10-3-2806 establishes the required front setback for a property in the R-4 zone, which requires a 31’-0” setback along North Clark Drive. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced front setback of 20’-10” along North Clark Drive.

4. Street Side Setback: BHMC §10-3-2807 establishes the required side setback for a property in the R-4 zone, which requires a 9’-0” minimum setback along Burton Way. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced side setback of 6’- 3” along Burton Way.

5. Paving: BHMC §10-3-2813 establishes the maximum allowable paving in the front yard of a property in the R-4 zone, which is limited to a maximum of one paved walkway not exceeding 5’-0” in width. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow one walkway that exceeds 5’-0” in width along North Swall Drive and up to three walkways along North Clark Drive, two of which will exceed 5’-0” in width.

6. Outdoor Living Space: BHMC §10-3-2803 establishes the required amount of outdoor living space and the required minimum dimensions for the outdoor living space for development in the R-4 Zone, which requires a minimum dimension of 6’-0” for areas to be counted toward private outdoor living space and a 15’-0” minimum dimension for areas to be counted toward common outdoor living space. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to count toward the required outdoor living space private outdoor living spaces within balconies that do not have the minimum 6’-0” dimension and common outdoor -6-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
living spaces that do not have the minimum 15’-0” dimension. Additionally, the Applicant is requesting that outdoor living space area within a required front, side, or rear yard be allowed to count toward the required outdoor living space for a project.

7. Modulation: BHMC §10-3-2806(C) establishes the front modulation required for a building, which requires an additional 5’-0” setback beyond the required front setback line for an area to be counted toward the required modulation of a building.

The Applicant seeks a waiver of the modulation setback and area requirements.

8. Additional Modulation for Large Scale Multiple Residential Developments:

BHMC §10-3-2806(E) establishes the front modulation required for a building, which requires additional modulation for a total of 12,647.5 SF of modulation and the modulation to be proportionally distributed between the elevation that faces the front lot line and the elevation that faces the street-side lot line. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to provide up to 4,830 SF of modulation, less than the amount required per code and without a proportional distribution along the street frontages.

9. Rear Setback: BHMC §10-3-2808 establishes the required rear setback for a property in the R-4 zone, which requires a 15’-0” minimum setback along the property line abutting the alley at the rear of the property. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced rear setback of 10’-0”.

10. Building Height: The City’s General Plan provides that development proposed on properties within the High Density – Multi-Family Residential land use designation is allowed a maximum height of 60’-0”. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of this General Plan standard in addition to the zoning height and story waivers to allow a building with a height of 309’-6”.
-7-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Section 3. On December 15, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (the “PA”) to vest the rights of the Project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period under which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the Applicant submitted a Development Plan Review application on March 25, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). The application for the original Project was deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025. On March 12, 2025, the Applicant revised the Project, which included a revised Development Plan Review application and new Density Bonus Permit, and increased the size and scale of the Project but retained the same number of proposed units as the original Project, consistent with the amended Builder’s Remedy provisions adopted by AB 1893. Furthermore, the amended provisions in state law updated the affordability requirements applicable to Builder’s Remedy projects, lowering the requirement of providing 20% of the total units of a project toward lower-income households, to only requiring up to 7% of the total units toward extremely low income households to qualify, as applicable to this Project (GC §65589.5(h)(3)(C)). Accordingly, the affordable units provided for the Project were reduced from 40 affordable units to 22 affordable units, which included the application of a stacked density bonus pursuant to state Density Bonus Law. The revised Project was deemed complete by the City on July 31, 2025. While the original and revised versions of the Project were deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA, because the Applicant submitted the PA associated with the Project prior to Housing Element certification, thus vesting rights at that time pursuant to HAA §65589.5(o)(1). -8-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Section 4. On October 21, 2025, October 29, 2025, and November 6, 2025, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings after which it adopted Resolution No. 2104, denying the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit applications. The Planning Commission’s determination was based on findings provided in GC §65589.5(d)(2) that the Project will have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and findings provided in GC §65589.5(d)(3) that the denial of the Project is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate- income households. Separately, additional points were expressed verbally by Commissioners in support of denial of the Project, which included feasibility of the Project to be built at a smaller scale and with the same number of units as the original Project (Builder’s Remedy 1.0), belief that the Project was not located within a half-mile of a major transit stop, and conflicts with the City’s General Plan use designation and zoning development standards.

Section 5. On November 17, 2025, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Adam Tartakovsky, on behalf of the Applicant, in accordance with BHMC §1-4-301 et seq., seeking City Council review of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project.

Section 6. On March 24, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed appeal hearing, after mailing a Notice of Public Hearing to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500’ radius (extended to the block face) of the Project site and posting a Notice of Public Hearing sign on the Project site. Additionally, an email was sent to all interested parties about the City Council appeal hearing.
-9-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Section 7. GC §65589.5 paragraphs (d) and (j) set forth specific findings that must be made in order to deny housing projects. In considering the Project and HAA findings for denial or conditioning of housing affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households to lower density, pursuant to GC §65589.5(d), the City Council considered whether it could make any of the following findings:

2. The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible -10-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
a. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.
b. The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (GC §65589.5(d)(2))

5. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development -11-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. a. This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
b. If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.
-12-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

6. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (GC §65589.5(d)(6)) Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to GC §65589.5(d), as set forth in Section 7:

1. On May 1, 2024, HCD certified the City’s Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. In this housing cycle, the City is tasked with creating a regulatory environment and identifying sites that would facilitate the production of 3,104 dwelling units, 504 units of which would be reserved for extremely low-income households, 504 units reserved for very low-income households, 680 units reserved for low-income households, 602 units reserved for moderate income households, and 814 reserved for above moderate-income households.

The Project proposes a total of 200 dwelling units, which includes 14 deedrestricted affordable units reserved for extremely low-income households and eight units reserved for moderate-income households. Based on current housing production figures during this housing cycle, a total of 268 market rate units, six moderate income units, and 44 lower income units have been permitted. While the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element, the City has not yet met or exceeded its share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the current planning period for the income category proposed for the Project. Accordingly, the City is unable to deny the Project on these grounds. -13-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

2. The Project conflicts with general plan land use designation and zoning development standards, including density, outdoor living space, height, building setbacks, length of building requirements, permissible encroachments, and paving of setbacks.

However, as noted in GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), any inconsistency with the City’s zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that the City may use in consideration of the denial of the proposed housing development Project. It should be noted that the standard is for “public health or safety” and not “welfare.” Additionally, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) or on a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, or a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the Project do not appear to demonstrate that the Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that would necessitate mitigation. Further, additional research has been performed as to whether there are any applicable objective written health or safety standards that would apply to the Project and would warrant denial or reductions in density, and has identified no such standards on which a denial pursuant to this finding could be justified. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

3. Research into relevant state and federal laws has been performed and there is no basis on which to find the Project to be out of compliance and thus has no basis on which to rely to make this finding. However, to address concerns expressed by the Planning Commission regarding the concentration of the affordable units to the lower floors of the Project and compliance with state unit dispersal requirements (HSC §17929(a)(2)), the Applicant revised the Project to further distribute the units throughout the 4th through 18th -14-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
floors. As the Project and subsequent revisions are consistent with state housing law and no specific state or federal law preempts approval of the Project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

4. The Project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes. Improvements required for the Project would require that the Applicant upgrade any existing water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed building as part of Project construction. As part of the building plan check process, the Applicant would be required to submit studies showing the adequacy of existing water and wastewater facilities, and any upgrades to these utilities would be upgraded at the expense of the Applicant. Furthermore, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has evaluated water demand, wastewater treatment capacity, and the ability to serve future housing units to accommodate to the City’s obligations under RHNA. The analysis in the UWMP has projected that sufficient capacity exists to serve the number 3,104 units anticipated during the 2021-2029 housing element planning cycle and through 2030. As the Project is not on land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation and there is no evidence showing that water and wastewater facilities are inadequate to serve the Project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

5. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (PA) on December 15, 2023, in order to vest the rights of the Project under the applicable provisions at the time. On this date, the City did not have a certified Housing Element. For purposes of implementing this state law, the application is deemed complete on the date the PA is submitted. Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the -15-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Applicant submitted a Development Plan Review application on March 25, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). As the Project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA), there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on the grounds of inconsistency with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan.

6. Consistent with the analysis provided for the finding required by GC §65589.5(d)(5), because the Project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA) there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

Section 9. In considering the Project and findings for denial of a housing project that is consistent with applicable plans, standards, or other similar provisions based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, pursuant to GC §65589.5(j)(1), the City Council considered whether it could make the following findings:

Section 10. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to GC §65589.5(j)(1), as set forth in Section 9:

1.a. Pursuant to the HAA (GC §65589.5(h)(6)(E)), a Builder’s Remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. Similarly, GC §65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.”
Per GC §65589.5(h)(5), “deemed complete” means that the Applicant has submitted a PA to vest the rights of a project prior to the submittal of a formal application.

While the Project as designed conflicts with general plan and zoning development -17-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking, the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and is considered statutorily compliant with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria because the PA for the Project was submitted on December 15, 2023, prior to HCD certification of the City’s Housing Element.

Additionally, while materials submitted for the Project show that the Project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the Project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which the City could rely to deny the Project. Aesthetic impacts of a Project associated with privacy and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard. Similarly, construction traffic impacts would be temporary, and any traffic control measures implemented would be consistent with City requirements for development projects and would be removed at the end of Project construction. Construction noise impacts would also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays.

Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, in a delineated earthquake fault zone, in a special flood hazard area, or in a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the Project do not appear to demonstrate that the Project would have a specific, adverse impact -18-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
upon public health or safety to construction workers or future occupants of the residential development. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

1.b. While the Project is anticipated to have aesthetic and temporary construction-related traffic and noise impacts, the noted impacts do not appear to constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to merit disapproval of the proposed housing development Project. Furthermore, pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

Section 11. In considering the request for approval of a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit, pursuant to §10-3-3104 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the City Council considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:

1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards. -19-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Section 12. After conducting a de novo public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings to approve a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit for the Project, and uphold the appeal based upon an independent review of the evidence contained in the record. The City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the Project:

1. The Project site is designated as Multi-Family Residential – High Density in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation allows for multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre and at a maximum height of 60’-0”. The proposed Project is a new 26-story, 200-unit, multi-family residential development with a height of 309’-6”. As designed, the Project far exceeds the development potential outlined in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Under the applicable density standards, a total of nine units would be permissible at the Project site, with a maximum height of 60’-0”.

Additionally, the Project appears to be in conflict with several goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, including: LU 1.1 (Scale of the City), LU 2.1 (City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors), LU 2.10 (Development Transitions and Compatibility), LU 3.1 (Conservation), LU 5.1 (Neighborhood Conservation), LU 5.7 (Neighborhood Transitions), and LU 7.1 (Character and Design).

As designed, the Project does not maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the residential and commercial areas in the vicinity of the Project. The proposed height of 26 stories and 309’-6” height disrupts the established scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood characterized -20-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
by one- and two-story commercial buildings to the east, a four-story apartment building to the west, two- to four-story apartment buildings to the north, and a five-story condominium development to the south. The Project’s reduction in front setback along North Clark Drive from 31’-0” to 21’-10”, street side setback along Burton Way from 9’-0” to 6’-3”, and rear setback from 15’-0” to 10’-0”, prevents an effective transition between neighboring properties. The proposed units in the Project include balconies along the north and south elevations, along with common open spaces on the 4th, 11th, 25th, and 26th floors, and the rooftop area which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns that are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to assure functional and visual transitions between different densities. The Project’s scale, reduced building setbacks, and lack of building modulation on street-facing elevations do not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the neighboring residential and commercial uses. Based on the foregoing, this proposed Project is not consistent with the City’s General Plan. Thus, the finding cannot be made that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. Although the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, the HAA nonetheless requires that a Builder’s Remedy project be considered consistent and in compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, and such inconsistencies do not provide a basis for denial of the Project. Further, any development standard for which a density bonus concession or waiver is granted is not a basis for finding the Project inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning.
-21-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

2. The Project is severely out of scale with existing development immediately adjacent to the Project, which includes one- and two-story commercial buildings to the east, a four-story apartment building to the west, two- to four-story apartment buildings to the north, and a five-story condominium development to the south. The Project’s reduced front and street-side setbacks, and lack of building modulation does not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the scale of neighboring properties. The placement of the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential and commercial properties. The proposed units in the Project include balconies along the north and south elevations, along with common open spaces on the 4th, 11th, 25th, and 26th floors, and the rooftop area which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would appear to adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the Project and would not promote harmonious development of the area.

Thus, this finding cannot be made. However, any development standard for which a density bonus concession or waiver is granted is not a basis for finding the Project inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the noted impacts, and the City Council finds that the conditions of approval do not reduce the density of the Project or make it infeasible.

3. The Project proposal involves the construction of a new multi-family residential building and does not include any commercial development. As a result, this finding is not applicable.
-22-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

4. Although the Project appears to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City’s CEQA thresholds of significance inform whether impacts would be considered significantly adverse for the purposes of this finding.

Based on the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation impacts, the Project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) and within Low VMT generating area. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary as it relates to VMT. Additionally, while not required for CEQA, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the Project to evaluate level of service (LOS) impacts during peak hours at signalized intersections. The intersections evaluated as part of this study were located at:
• Doheny Drive and Burton Way
• Doheny Drive and Dayton Way
• La Peer Drive and Burton Way
• Robertson Boulevard and Burton Way
• Robertson Boulevard and Dayton Way
• Robertson Boulevard and Clifton Way
The LTA determined that the increases in intersection delays at the study intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s operations criteria at any of the six study intersections and that the Project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. Therefore, no transportation improvement measures are required or recommended. The LTA determined that the increases in intersection delays at the study intersections would be relatively small (0.1 to 3.6 seconds) -23-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
and that the Project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. The minor increases in delay at the study intersections fall below the thresholds established by the City for identifying potential adverse conditions at locations operating at LOS D or worse, so no improvements would be required at the study intersection as a result of the Project.

The Construction Management Plan (CMP) submitted for the Project identifies the need for several construction-related closures of public right-of-way areas.

The impacted areas include sidewalk closures along North Swall Drive, North Clark Drive, and Burton Way, parking lane closures along Burton Way, and alley closures at the rear of the property for staging and construction. Any use of public rights-of-way are subject to separate City approvals. While the Project has the potential to create adverse traffic impacts, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards as a result of the proposed closures of public right-of-way surrounding the Project site, a detailed CMP would require review by the City and measures would be implemented to minimize impacts associated with the temporary closures of the public right-of-way and the use of the rightof-way for construction staging. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard.

5. The Project is designed in conflict with general plan and zoning development standards, including density, outdoor living space, height, building setbacks, length of building requirements, permissible encroachments, and paving of setbacks. While the aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment pursuant to PRC -24-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
§21099(d)(1), the materials provided for the Project also demonstrate that the Project would cast shade shadows to single-family, multi-family, and commercial properties located to the east, west, and southeast and southwest in summer months and to the north, northeast and northwest in winter months, impacting the access to natural light to these properties. Furthermore, the Project includes balconies along the south elevation which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on existing multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project appears to be detrimental to the general welfare. Thus, the finding that the Project will not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare cannot be made. However, in light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the noted impacts, and the City Council finds that the conditions of approval to not reduce the density of the Project or make it infeasible.

Section 13. The City Council has considered the Applicant’s grounds for appeal and finds as follows:

1. The Applicant asserts that the proposed Project is subject to the Builder’s Remedy and eligible for the protections under the HAA. The City does not dispute this assertion, as discussed in the findings set forth in Sections 7 through 10 above.

Further, as detailed in the October 21, 2025 Planning Commission report, the Applicant submitted the PA on December 15, 2023 to vest the rights of the Project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by HCD. Subsequent to the PA submittal, the Applicant submitted a DPR application on March 25, 2024, within the 180- day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1), with the City deeming the original -25-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Project complete on January 10, 2025 (Builder’s Remedy 1.0). Based on the criteria established in the HAA, the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA because the Applicant submitted the PA associated with this Project prior to housing element certification and the Applicant provided 20% of the units affordable to lower income households (40 units). Subsequent revisions to the Project that resulted in increases to the height and number of stories, along with revisions in the required affordable units for the Project, continue to comply with the amended Builder’s Remedy provisions adopted under Assembly Bill (AB) 1886 and 1893, which went into effect on January 1, 2025.

These new bills clarified existing law within the HAA, provided alternative standards for projects, and reduced the affordability requirements for certain housing projects. Based on the information provided in the Applicant’s appeal petition and review of the application submittal and revision timeline, as well as the Project’s compliance with qualifying Builder’s Remedy provisions in the HAA, the City Council finds that the Project continues to be eligible for the protections afforded to Builder’s Remedy projects. Additionally, as the revised Project does not exceed the thresholds in GC §65941.1(d) regarding the number of residential units and square footage of construction, the PA originally submitted for the Project continues to remain valid and remains eligible as a Builder’s Remedy project.

2. The Applicant asserts that state law requires the City to approve this Builder’s Remedy Project and that the HAA clearly provides that a Builder’s Remedy project may only be disapproved if the City makes one of six written findings, which are provided in the HAA (GC §65589.5(d)). The Applicant notes that the Commission made findings to deny the Project under GC §65589.5(d)(2) regarding a project’s adverse impact upon the public health or safety and under GC §65589.5(d)(3) regarding a requirement to -26-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
deny the Project in order to comply with specific state or federal laws, and argues that the Commission’s reasons failed to meet the HAA’s extraordinarily high bar for the denial of a Builder’s Remedy project. The Applicant states that the HAA provides that situations when a project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety arise infrequently (GC §65589.5(a)(3)), and that by the Legislature including this language, it is making it clear to the a local agency that commonplace effects of development that may be associated with a housing project do not constitute a “specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety.” Additionally, the Applicant notes that through the HAA, it is the policy of the state that the HAA be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (GC §65589.5(a)(2)(L)).

As detailed in the October 21, 2025 Planning Commission report, the HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, in order to defensibly deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing upon conditions of approval on a project that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” The potential findings that must be made to disapprove a project are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j). The City Council finds that the HAA limitations on denial of a Builder’s Remedy project and the overall legislative intent of state housing law constrain the City’s ability to deny the Project, that the Planning Commission’s bases for -27-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
denying the Project pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2) and (3) were not supported by sufficient evidence, and that, as discussed in Sections 7 and 8 above there are not grounds to deny the Project based on the findings in GC §§65589.5(d)(2) and (3).

3. The Applicant argues that the reasons provided by the Planning Commission, both in points detailed in the resolution and verbally at the November 5, 2025 meeting, failed to meet the HAA requirements for denial of a project and therefore must be overturned. Additionally, the Applicant notes that additional reasons were provided by Commissioners at the November 5th meeting in support of Project denial, which were not articulated in the adopted resolution denying the Project, creating discrepancies in the record. The resolution adopted by the Commission denying the Project made findings in support of Project denial pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2) and (3), pertaining to the Project’s specific, adverse impacts upon the public health or safety and findings that require the denial in order to comply with specific state or federal law. The Applicant notes that the resolution denying the Project focuses on the location of the affordable units and health and safety concerns regarding the ability for emergency services to adequately serve the site and surrounding community. Separately, the Applicant notes that additional points were expressed verbally by Commissioners at the meeting in support of denial of the Project, which included feasibility of the Project to be built at a smaller scale and with the same number of units as the original Project (Builder’s Remedy 1.0), belief that the Project was not located within a half-mile of a major transit stop, and conflicts with the City’s General Plan land use designation and zoning development standards. Accordingly, the Applicant asserts that the Planning Commission’s reasons for denying the Project, both -28-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
verbally and in writing, are illegal and failed to meet the requirements in the HAA, and therefore, must be overturned.

As it pertains to public health or safety impacts pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2), the Commission determined that the Applicant 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, and that insufficient evidence was provided in the record to conclude that emergency services can safely and effectively operate at the heights the 26-story Project would require. Further, the Commission determined that impacts from significant new traffic from resident and visitor vehicles, delivery, refuse, or moving trucks, and curbside activity that will further constrict roadway access, lengthening response times for ambulances and fire services and thereby creating a threat to resident safety, including the area’s concentration of existing elderly residents who regularly rely on rapid medical response and transport. As it pertains to affordable unit dispersal requirements in HSC §17929(a)(2) and HAA denial findings in GC §65589.5(d)(3), the Commission determined that the denial of the Project was required in order to comply with state law, which provides that “a mixed-income multifamily structure shall not isolate the affordable housing units within that structure to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor.” Additionally, the Commission determined, based on testimony provided by the Applicant at the hearing, that there was no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. Subsequent to the Commission’s denial of the Project, HCD issued a Notice of Potential Violation to the city on November 20, 2025, regarding the Commission’s determination to deny the Project. In its letter, HCD asserts that the Project is a qualified Builder’s Remedy project and that the revisions to the Project -29-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
made for the Builder’s Remedy 2.0 Project remain consistent with the amended Builder’s Remedy provisions in AB 1893. Regarding findings made by the Commission in denial of the Project pursuant to GC §65589.5(d)(2), HCD notes that a housing development project qualifying under the HAA that meets all objective standards (except those lawfully modified via State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) concessions and waivers) may only be denied if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible. The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” HCD understood that the two main concerns related to impacts to health and safety are traffic impacts and emergency services access due to the height of the building. However, HCD notes that the Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) prepared for the Project found that the Project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections and that there is no “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” related to traffic found in the study or any submitted materials. Regarding concerns pertaining to limited emergency access due to building height, HCD also noted that it is not aware of any evidence in the record that would suggest that emergency access to all floors of the building would be an issue. As it pertains to the dispersal of the affordable units, HCD notes that the HAA, along with the SDBL, do not contain specific dispersal requirements for the affordable housing units of a project. While HSC §17929 does provide for minimum dispersal requirements, HCD notes that these standards cannot serve as a basis to deny the -30-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Project, as these requirements are not in the HAA and SDBL and due to the fact that the city does not have any adopted objective standard related to affordable unit dispersal.

Rather, HCD suggests that the City instead consider working with the Applicant to condition approval on improving dispersal as long as the condition does not render the Project infeasible. As discussed earlier in this report, the Applicant presented a revised unit dispersal plan for the Commission’s consideration, which further dispersed the affordable units throughout the building. As it pertains to concerns related to emergency access to the building, the Beverly Hills Fire Department (BHFD) reviewed the Project and stated at the November 5th Planning Commission meeting that they do not foresee concerns with being able to provide emergency services to the proposed 26-story building. Additionally, the BHFD notes that fires within high-rise buildings are generally fought from the inside, rather than the outside, rendering the need for exterior ladder access a nonfactor. Current modern fire suppression systems in high-rise buildings work to isolate a fire to the affected area to prevent spread, with the likelihood of an out-of-control fire being extremely rare due to the fire safety sprinkler systems required throughout the building. Further, in reference to traffic concerns impeding emergency services from the additional vehicular traffic anticipated for the Project, BHFD does not anticipate any disruption to services as a result of the Project and has noted that response times for critical care patients requiring transport to Cedars Sinai does not currently exceed six minutes. As a result, the level of service currently provided is not anticipated to change once the Project becomes operational. Furthermore, in review of local, state, and federal law, there does not appear objective public health or safety standards that would allow for project denial due to perceived traffic impacts and emergency services access related to the height of the -31-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
building. All projects, including high-rise developments, are required to be designed in compliance with state building and fire codes, and are already required to incorporate life safety measures, including fire-rated walls, corridors, and stair shafts, fire sprinklers, and fire hose connections to combat emergencies. Thus, as to fire response and emergency response times, there is not evidence in the record of a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. In regard to the dispersal of affordable units, while the argument continues on whether the dispersal provided in the original Project considered by the Commission substantially complied with the requirements of HSC §17929, the revisions volunteered by the Applicant to provide additional affordable unit dispersal throughout the fourth through 17th floors of the Project further advance compliance with state law. Thus, the City Council finds that the revised Project complies with the letter and spirit of HSC 17929. Lastly, to the points that were verbally expressed at the hearing in support of Project denial, City bears the burden regarding the Project feasibility arguments pursuant to GC 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(ii). Nothing provided in the record included information to support that the Project was feasible at a reduced scale and with the same number of units, as was otherwise originally proposed in the Builder’s Remedy 1.0 version of the Project (200 units in 20 stories). In regards the Project’s proximity to a major transit stop, evidence in the record was provided to accurately demonstrate that the Project site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop located at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, where two bus lines with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or better during morning and afternoon peak commute periods intersect (Metro Bus Lines 14 and 16). With -32-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
regard to the Project’s expressed conflicts with the City’s general plan land use designation and zoning development standards and those conflicts constituting a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, pursuant GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), inconsistency with zoning or general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific adverse impact upon public health or safety. Similarly, GC §65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.” As such, the additional points verbally expressed at the Commission November 5th meeting are insufficient to meet the requirements to allow for Project denial as set forth in the HAA.

4. The Applicant notes that the Project includes clear (transparent) balcony barriers to allow the residents of the building to enjoy views offered by the units. While the Project was ultimately denied by the Planning Commission, the Applicant notes that the draft approval resolution included in the report for the Commission’s consideration included a condition that would have required the balconies to include translucent or opaque barriers, instead of the proposed transparent barriers. The Applicant asserts that the inclusion of this condition is illegal and may not be imposed by the City. The Applicant’s first point asserts that the City may not prohibit clear balcony barriers unless the City finds that this feature would result in a specific, adverse impact to public health or safety, or that a condition prohibiting clear balcony barriers is required to comply with a specific state or federal law. Furthermore, the Applicant cites provisions in the HAA applicable to Builder’s Remedy projects (GC §65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)) that provides that a local agency shall not -33-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the Project that have the effect of precluding a project from being constructed as proposed by the Applicant. The Applicant also asserts that imposing a condition that requires the balcony barriers to be translucent or opaque, instead of having clear balcony barriers as proposed, would render the Project economically infeasible. The Applicant cites an analysis included in their October 28, 2025 letter to the Planning Commission prepared by Polaris Pacific, a real estate sales and marketing company, as well as statements from their company’s general manager, noting that the use of non-transparent material for the balcony barriers “would significantly limit visibility from inside the homes, reducing the primary views that contribute meaningfully to a buyers perception and value.” The Polaris Pacific analysis notes that view premiums can account for up to 35% of a home’s total value in comparable residential developments, and while a translucent or opaque balcony barrier would not fully eliminate views, the resulting reduction of views could result in an up to 25% decline in the value of the residences.

Further, statements from the general manager overseeing one of the Applicant’s other properties in Los Angeles note that there is a difference in renter demand between units that have transparent balconies, as opposed to those units with opaque glass of other nontransparent materials. Units that have transparent balconies and clearer views appear to consistently achieve higher rents (15% to 20% more), with units on upper floors with considerably better views potentially approaching 30% more rents than a unit with an obscured view, which “has translated into stronger leasing performance, fewer turnover costs and limited vacancy.” The Applicant further argues that there is no legal nexus or practical basis for requiring non-transparent balcony barriers, as they believe that requiring -34-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
opaque balcony barriers would not increase privacy for adjacent properties. The Applicant notes that the building’s first residential floor (fourth floor) is higher than the closest neighboring residential use, and that an individual standing on the balcony could still look down at a neighbor regardless of whether the balcony barrier is transparent or not, with balcony opacity providing no meaningful privacy benefit.

In the context of a Builder’s Remedy project, the HAA significantly limits a city’s ability to regulate, condition, or deny a project. Specifically, GC §65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i) provides that, for a qualified Builder’s Remedy project, a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that renders the project infeasible. While only objective standards can be the basis for project denial, the City Council does have authority to impose conditions on a project to further compliance with subjective standards, provided that the conditions do not have the effect of lowering density, including if the condition would ultimately have the effect of making the project infeasible to develop. In disputes regarding project feasibility, the City bears the burden of proof for demonstrating that a condition of approval would not render the project infeasible. The HAA provides that a city may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies. While the City has previously drafted conditions for the Planning Commission’s consideration regarding balcony barrier in an effort to address privacy concerns expressed by the general public, the City Council finds that the City does not currently have any objective, quantifiable, or written development standards regulating the opacity of a balcony barrier.

Specifically, the Commission considered and deliberated whether to impose a condition to -35-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
address privacy impacts and requiring “a four-foot (4’) tall translucent or opaque barrier shall be installed on the balconies of every unit and along the south elevation, or any balcony component visible on the south elevation, along any guardrail surrounding the rooftop and common outdoor living space along the south elevation for the Project.” The Commission and public correspondence received for the project expressed concerns with privacy-related impacts associated with having clear balcony railing where occupants of the dwelling unit would have views of onto neighboring residential properties. Materials provided by the Applicant appear to support that imposing a condition requiring translucent or opaque balcony barriers would have the effect of negatively impacting the income producing potential of the proposed units, potentially rendering the Project financially infeasible, contrary to the provisions in the HAA. The imposition of conditions that render a project infeasible have a similar effect to denial of a housing development project, which is prohibited under the HAA unless the City makes findings that the proposed transparent balconies result in a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. While the balcony barrier opacity condition does not directly have the effect of reducing density, the City does not have sufficient evidence to reject the Applicant’s argument that the imposition of the condition has a similar effect to project denial because the condition will affect the financial feasibility of the Project. Based on the foregoing, a balcony opacity condition has not been included in this resolution. In review of state and federal law, there does not appear to be published objective standards that would support the City conditioning the Project to have translucent or opaque balcony barriers to address privacy concerns, an aesthetic impact of a project. Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit -36-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. The Project site is located within a transit priority area, as the site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop located at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, where two bus lines with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or better during morning and afternoon peak periods intersect (Metro Bus Lines 14 and 16).

Section 14. The Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA(Public Resources Code (PRC) §§21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on July 1, 2025 with the passage of Assembly Bill 130, and subsequently amended, is applicable to certain housing development projects that meet the following prescribed objective standards.

1. Project Site Size (PRC §21080.66(a)(1)(B)): The Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project as defined in GC §65589.5(h)(11) and the Project site is less than four acres in size.

2. Project Location (PRC §21080.66(a)(2)(A)): The Project site is located within the incorporated boundaries of the City of Beverly Hills.

3. Urban Uses (PRC §21080.66(a)(3)(A-D)): The Project site is a vacant lot that was previously developed with urban uses; at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; at least 75% of the area within a onequarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses; and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. -37-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency (PRC §21080.66(a)(4)(A)): Pursuant to GC §65589.5(h)(11), the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and, pursuant to GC §65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the City’s General Plan and Beverly Hills Municipal Code.

5. Minimum Density (PRC §21080.66(a)(5)): Pursuant to GC §65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), for a jurisdiction such as Beverly Hills that is in a metropolitan county, sites must allow at least 30 units per acre. AB 130 requires that a project provide at least one-half of the applicable minimum density, which is 15 dwelling units per acre.

The Project satisfies this requirement.

6. Environmental Conditions (PRC §21080.66(a)(6)): Pursuant to GC §65913.4(a)(6), the Project site is not located in any of the following areas, nor meets the requirements for projects located in such an area: a coastal zone, prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, wetlands, a very high fire hazard severity zone, a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, a regulatory floodway, lands identified for conservation, habitat for protected species, or land under conservation easement.

7. Historic Resource (PRC §21080.66(a)(7)): The Project does not involve the demolition of any structure listed on a national, state, or local historic register prior to the date of preliminary application submittal.

8. Hotel or Transient Use (PRC §21080.66(a)(8)): The Project does not include a hotel or transient use component.

Therefore, the City Council hereby finds the Project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).
-38-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Section 15. Pursuant to PRC §21080.66(b)(1)(A), the City provided formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project site as an invitation to consult on the Project, its location, and the Project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, based on consultation between the City and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the City has conditioned approval of the Project pursuant to PRC §21080.66(b)(4).

Section 16. Based upon the evidence contained in the record on this matter, including the analysis of Appellants grounds for appeal as set forth in the Staff Report which are incorporated as the Council’s findings on the appeal, and the findings set forth herein, the City Council hereby upholds the Applicant’s appeal and approves the requested Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit associated with the construction of a 26-story, 200-unit multi-family residential development Project with above-grade and subterranean parking at 8844 Burton Way, subject to the following conditions:

Project-Specific Conditions

1. The City Council hereby approves the requested concessions and waivers for parking dimensions; building height and number of stories; length of building; front setback; street side setback; rear setback; balcony encroachments into the front, street side and rear setbacks; basement garage encroachments into front and street side setbacks; outdoor living space; modulation; and paving. The total height shall not exceed 309’-6”.

The number of stories shall not exceed 26 stories. The front setback along North Clark Drive shall not be less than 20’-10”. The street side setback along Burton Way shall not be -39-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
less than 6’-3. The rear setback abutting the alley shall not be less than 10’-0”. The maximum length of the building shall not exceed 204’-6” along Burton Way.

2. This approval is for those plans submitted to the City Council on March 24, 2026, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.

3. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development or their designee. A significant change to the approved Project shall be subject to Planning Commission review, or the City Council on appeal.

Construction shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein or as modified by the City Council or Director of Community Development or their designee.

4. The City Council provides that the Planning Commission reserves jurisdiction relative to traffic, parking, loading, light, and noise issues and the right to impose additional conditions as necessary to mitigate any other unanticipated impacts caused by the Project as they arise. In the event that the Project is found to result in any unanticipated impacts and a hearing is scheduled to review the Project, the full cost of the review hearing and implementation of any additional conditions or mitigation measures shall be paid by the Property Owner.

5. Project plans are subject to compliance with all applicable zoning regulations, except as may be expressly modified herein. Project plans shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are submitted for plan check.

Compliance with all applicable Municipal Codes is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
-40-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

6. The Applicant shall provide an updated rooftop operations plan to comply with Project conditions. The updated rooftop operations plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or their designee.

7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials, and finish of the building and landscaping shall be subject to the City’s architectural review process.

8. The property shall not be eligible for participation in the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program, or any other City-established parking program.

9. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or their designee for a consistency determination with the original approval.

10. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the Project shall be operated as a rental property and shall maintain a minimum of 22 affordable dwelling units, with 14 units designated for occupancy by extremely low-income households and eight units designated for occupancy by moderate-income households. The extremely low-income units shall consist of two (2) standard studio units, two (2) large studio units, and 10 two-bedroom units. The moderate income units shall consist of eight (8) three-bedroom units. The affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the fourth through 17th floor of the building so that there are no more than two affordable units per floor, and the unit dispersal on each floor shall be substantially as shown on Exhibit 1 of this Resolution. Further, the affordable units shall be distributed in similar proportion to the proximity to garbage chutes, elevator shafts, and utility closets, as the market rate units. The City of Beverly Hills or its designee shall be responsible for administering these units. Affordability of these units by said -41-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
households shall be guaranteed for a minimum of 55 years and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for a minimum of 55 years in accordance with California GC §65589.5(h)(3) or its successor statute.

11. The Applicant shall record covenants and/or deed restrictions as determined by the City Attorney to ensure that the rental price of the affordable housing units does not exceed an amount determined to be affordable to very low-income households. Extremely low-income and moderate income households are defined in California Health and Safety Code §§ 50106 and 50093, respectively, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development provides a process for determining affordable housing costs.

The covenants and/or restrictions on the affordable housing shall be in effect for a period of not less than 55 years.

12. An inclusionary housing agreement which includes provisions and terms for meeting the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements shall be approved by the city manager and city attorney and recorded as a deed restriction against the property prior to issuance of either a grading or building permit, whichever comes first.

13. The occupants of the affordable housing units within the Project shall have the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and amenities, including parking, as the occupants of the market-rate housing units and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor. This will also include the use of the amenity spaces and outdoor terraces on the 4th, 11th, 25th, and 26th floors and the use of rooftop residential amenities including the outdoor lounge and living areas, pool, jacuzzi, and pool deck. Further, the affordable housing units shall have the same number -42-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
and type of appliances as the market rate housing units, which shall include, at a minimum, one (1) refrigerator, one (1) stove, one (1) washer, and one (1) dryer.

14. As shown on the plans reviewed by the City Council on March 24, 2026, at least 2,459 SF of amenity space on the fourth floor, 2,435 SF of amenity space on the 11th floor, 8,615 SF of amenity space on the 25th floor and 5,416 SF of amenity space on the 26th floor shall be maintained for the life of the Project. The residential amenity and penthouse space is considered an extension of the livable space of the residential units in the Project. Such residential amenity space shall be located above grade and shall not be located in any subterranean portion of the Project. Any requests to remove or reduce the floor area of the enclosed residential amenity space shall require approval by the Planning Commission.

15. To mitigate potential noise impacts to neighboring residents, the use of all common outdoor areas, including the outdoor terraces and rooftop deck, shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Signage indicating such restrictions shall be installed on the rooftop and outdoor terraces.

16. Amplified sound shall be prohibited on all outdoor open space areas, including the rooftop area, outdoor common space terraces, and all balconies provided for the Project. This condition shall be incorporated into the lease agreement for each residential tenant.

17. Lighting on the Project site, including rooftop areas, shall comply at all times with the Beverly Hills Municipal Code’s restrictions on lighting of premises. -43-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

18. All outdoor living spaces for the Project, including those provided on balconies and the rooftop areas shall only be made available for use by Project residents and their guests; guests must be accompanied at all times by a Project resident.

19. A six-foot (6’) tall sound barrier with a sound attenuation rating of STC 40 or greater shall be installed on the side of the common outdoor living spaces provided on the terraces on the 4th, 11th, 25th, and 26th floors, and the rooftop area facing residential properties to the south. The Applicant shall provide an updated rooftop and common outdoor open space plan to show compliance with the Project conditions. The updated rooftop plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or their designee.

20. The use of barbeque grills shall be prohibited on the individual balconies of the residential units of the building and on the outdoor living space provided on the rooftop area and common outdoor space terrace areas. This condition shall be incorporated into the lease agreement for each residential tenant.

21. A parabolic mirror, light system and vehicle stop sign shall be installed at each parking egress point in order to ensure visibility for exiting vehicles and to warn pedestrian traffic of exiting vehicles; no sound shall be utilized for the warning system.

Such features shall not be placed in or project into the City’s public right-of-way.

22. A total of 316 parking spaces must be maintained on site.

23. The Project shall operate at all times in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of light, noise, activities, parking, or other actions.
-44-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

24. The Project shall operate at all times in compliance with Municipal Code requirements for Noise Regulation.

25. These Project-specific conditions of approval shall be incorporated into each residential lease/rental agreement and accepted by each tenant. Further, annually, the Project’s leasing agent or agents shall submit an affidavit that they have read and are aware of these conditions of approval.

California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions

26. The Applicant shall include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project, pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(i) or its successor statute, as follows:
a. The consulting California Native American tribes shall designate a monitor.
b. The tribal monitors shall comply with Applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements.
c. The Applicant shall compensate each tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the Project.

27. The Applicant, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(b)(4)(B)(ii) or its successor statue, shall avoid any tribal cultural resources where feasible, in accordance with PRC §21084.3(a). In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the Applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, -45-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.

28. Pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(iii) or its successor statute, all treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner by the Applicant, consistent with PRC §21083.9.

29. Pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(iv) or its successor statute, the Applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the Project site.

Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

30. The Applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(v) or its successor statute. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

31. The Project shall comply with Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§7050.5 and 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe, pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(vi) or its successor statue.

32. The Applicant shall provide an application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the Project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the Project, pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(vii) or its successor statute.
-46-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

33. Additional California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Requested by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation:
a. TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
i. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
ii. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.

Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the Project Applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
iii. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the Project Applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing -47-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the Project Applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the Project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
b. TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non Ceremonial)
i. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
c. TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
i. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the Project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code §7050.5 shall be followed. ii. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code §5097.98(d)(1) and (2). -48-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
iii. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. iv. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Environmental Assessment Conditions

34. The Applicant shall complete a Phase I environmental assessment, as defined in the Health and Safety Code (HSC) §78090, and submit the assessment to the City for review, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(A) or its successor statute.

35. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the Applicant shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in HSC §78095, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(B) or its successor statute.

36. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(C) or its successor statute.

37. If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(D) or its successor statute.
-49-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Construction Labor Conditions

38. Pursuant to PRC §21808.66(d) or its successor statute, the Applicant shall comply with the construction labor standards in GC 65913.4(a)(8) and enter into contracts with licensed contractors for construction of the Project. The Applicant shall certify compliance with these standards, including prevailing wage requirements, to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall comply with these labor provisions throughout Project construction.

Construction-Related Conditions

39. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and such Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the earlier of the issuance of a demolition or the issuance of a building permit. The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum the following:
a. Written information about the construction parking arrangements and hauling activities at different stages of demolition and construction to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works and the Building & Safety Division.
b. Information regarding the anticipated number of workers, the location of parking with respect to schedules of the demolition and construction period, the arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of operation, designation of construction staging area and other pertaining information regarding construction related traffic.
-50-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
c. The proposed demolition and construction staging for the Project to determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for demolition, deliveries, etc., to the subject site. d. Information on proposed temporary or permanent closures of public right-of-way areas, includes sidewalks, street lines, parking areas, and alleys. e. Construction-related traffic, including vehicles used for hauling and delivery of materials, shall exit the site toward Burton Way. Additionally, no construction-related vehicles may utilize that portion of North Clark Drive or North Swall Drive located south of the Project site.

40. The Applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.

41. Prior to the initiation of construction at the Project site, the Applicant shall install a temporary construction sound barrier at the north, south, east, and west property lines that shall be at least 12’ tall and that shall have a minimum STC rating of 32. The Applicant shall locate all stationary noise sources as far away from the south property line as feasible.

42. The Applicant shall post the names and telephone numbers of two construction representatives for the Project and a City contact on all construction fence signs. The phone numbers shall be manned at all times during construction hours. -51-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

43. The Applicant shall provide electric vehicle charging stations for the Project, including electric vehicle charging stations for required handicap accessible parking spaces, as required by all applicable California Green Building Code requirements.

44. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid.

45. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

46. The Applicant shall remove and replace all curbs and gutters adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

47. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or their designee) is first obtained.

48. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security deposit to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by the Director of Public Works (or their designee) and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Development.
-52-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc

49. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations performed under any permits issued by the City.

50. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.

51. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

52. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the subject site. No such installations will be allowed in any City right-of-way.

53. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.

54. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system through the existing connections available to the subject site, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

55. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s water system through the existing water service connection unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter installation will also require approval -53-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
from the City Engineer. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

56. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline.

57. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards and shall be paid for by the Applicant. No privately-owned structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

Standard Conditions

58. RECORDATION. This resolution approving this Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit. The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the City Council decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder.

If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving a Development Plan Review shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180-day period, grant a written waiver from the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days -54-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant.

59. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit: The exercise of rights granted in such approvals shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date of approval of this resolution, as provided for in BHMC §10-3-207.A., unless otherwise extended.

60. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in enforcement action by the City until such violation is abated or the entitlement granted herein is revoked pursuant to §10-3-258 of the BHMC, or its successor regulation. All costs incurred by the City as a result of abatement of a violation on the property shall be reimbursed by the party in breach of this resolution.

61. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project.

62. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgements and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgements, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the City Council’s action, this approval -55-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
and the City Council actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgement, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determination herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
///
///
///
///
///
///
-56-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
Section 17. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.

Adopted:

SHARONA R. NAZARIAN, PsyD
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills,
California
ATTEST:
_______________________________(SEAL)

HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

LAURENCE S. WIENER
City Attorney

NANCY HUNT-COFFEY
City Manager
Exhibit 1: Applicant’s Unit Dispersal Table
-57-
B0785-0001\3228720v1.doc
EXHIBIT 1
APPLICANT’S UNIT DISPERSAL TABLE
ATTACHMENT 2
Appeal Petition Form
4 APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION

APPEAL TO

PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY
COMMISSION ORIcircle one)
November 17, 2025
Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions ofthe Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of Planning Commission (Official, Board Commission, or City Council involved) rendered on November 5, 2025 ; which decision consisted of: The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNING: State groundsfor appeaL Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper ifnecessary.) See attached.

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Edgar Arroyo
(Department Head(s) Involved)
on November 17, 2025
Date
It is requested that written notice ofthe time and place for the hearing on this sent to:
appeal before the City Council be
Adam Tartakovsky 6200 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 Name Address
Aa-/at?z44
Signature of appealing partyt’
6200 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048
Address
424-653-2100
Telephone Number & Fax NumV HILLS dry CLERK
Fee Paidf 7/0/ (For City Clerk’s use) DATE RECEIVED (timestamp below):

LOG NO. (/.‘ 4 X Written Notice mailed to appellant:

Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, &wjrnrnh1 jwe/tzt Involved Depafment 633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
R A N D PASTER NELSON www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
November 17, 2025

VIA EMAIL & BY PERSONAL DELIVERY
Hon. Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
Re: 8844 Burton Way — Appeal of Planning Commission’s Denial of the Project Dear Honorable Mayor Nazarian and Councilmembers:

We are writing on behalf of 8844 Burton Way LLC (“Applicant”) to appeal the Planning Commission’s November 5, 2025, illegal denial of the housing development project proposed at 8844 Burton Way (“Site”) in the City of Beverly Hills, assigned case number PL2400115 (“Project”)..’ The Planning Commission’s decision rejected and ignored both the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s urging and City Planning Staff’s recommendation to approve the Project.

The Commission broke the law. The City Council must correct this. The Commission’s action lacked any legitimate legal or evidentiary basis for denial. In fact, the Commission majority’s verbal stated reasons for denial bore no relationship whatsoever to the actual draft written denial justifications presented to the Commission. This is because by the time the hearing concluded, the totality of evidence in the record — bolstered by clear and convincing testimony from the City’s Fire Marshal — made it impossible to justify Project denial (with a straight face) based on any kind of health and safety grounds. The Commission majority was therefore left grasping at straws and rattled off truly random reasons for denial completely untethered from any law, actual evidence, or legitimate finding.

The Commission ostensibly denied the Project based on mere feelings that the current Project includes an insufficient number of affordable units with more height as compared to the original application. This led to a tortured comparison between the two projects and an invented and misapplied “feasibility test” which has no basis in law whatsoever. The Commission willfully ignored that the proposed affordable units and building height are entirely consistent with the current Builder’s Remedy law (as amended by Assembly Bill (“AB”) 1893) as confirmed by Planning staff and the City Attorney on multiple occasions. Moreover, the Commission gave no credence to the fact that the 1 This appeal is timely. (BHMC Sections 1-4-102(A) and 10-3-3105 [14-day appeal period].) Because the Planning Commission still has not issued a written and signed resolution, this appeal is based on the Commissioner’s oralstatements for denial at the November 5, 2025, hearing and the draft but unadopted resolution.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 2
current Project includes 14 “Extremely Low Income” units — a much deeper affordability requirement (with significantly reduced rents) as compared to the previous project’s all “Lower Income” units.

It’s also noteworthy that the Commission approved nine (9) other builder’s remedy projects during the month of October — including numerous other high-rise buildings. The only other time the Commission questioned “feasibility” of Project height was a quick inquiry of the 145 Rodeo Drive Project that was dropped almost immediately before approving the development as proposed. No other builder’s remedy project had its affordable units scrutinized to anywhere near to the same degree — including the high-rise builder’s remedy development at 401 N. Oakhurst Drive which also opted into AB 1893’s reduced affordability requirements. It is therefore crystal clear from the totality of the Commission’s deliberations and actions on ten similarly situated builder’s remedy projects that 8844 Burton Way has been singled out for disparate and uneven treatment by the Commission majority.

The Commission majority subordinated a clear legal mandate, Planning Staff’s well-reasoned and fully supported recommendation, and HCD’s urging to approve the Project to its own personal “feelings” about a housing development it just didn’t like. This was clearly and painstakingly pointed out by the two Commissioners who followed the law and voted for the Project. The Commission also ignored evidence regarding the illegality of requiring opaque/translucent balconies.

We respectfully request that the City Council correct the Commission’s clear legal error and approve the Project as proposed with clear balconies.

I. The Proposed Project Is Subject to the Builder’s Remedy On December 15, 2023, the Applicant submitted to the City a Senate Bill (“SB”) 330 preliminary application (“Preliminary Application”) for the Project, including all information required under Government Code Section 65941.1(a). The City lacked a legally compliant housing element on December 15, 2023.

As required by Government Code Section 65941.1(e), the Applicant submitted a full Development Plan Review application for the Project (“DPR Application”) on March 25, 2024, within 180 days following submission of the Preliminary Application. On April 24, 2024, the City sent a letter to the Applicant confirming that: “The project for which the DPR application [was submitted] (the DA Project) is substantially the same as the project for which the [Preliminary Application] was submitted and meets the filing requirements of Govt. Code Section 65941.1(d)(1).”2 The City then deemed the DPR Application complete on January 10, 2025.

On March 12, 2025, the Applicant revised the Project to increase the height of the building and change the number and income levels of the Project’s affordable units as permitted by recently adoptedState legislation..3 These changes were authorized by AB 1893, which took effect on January 1, 2025. As detailed in our March 12, 2025, letter, the Project meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(11)): (i) it provides housing 2 This provision of the Government Code generally limits the type and extent of changes that may be made to a housing development project following submittal of a preliminary application while retaining the vestingprotections of the preliminary application.

These changes are detailed in our letter to the City dated March 12, 2025, which included the submission of revised project plans.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 3
to very low, low-, or moderate-income households (as defined in the HAA); (ii) the PreliminaryApplication was filed when the City’s housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law; (iii) the Project satisfies the density requirements in Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) and(0); and (iv) the Site does not abut a site that has been used within the past three years by a heavy industrial use or Title V industrial use. Consequently, the Project is eligible for the protections afforded to builder’s remedy projects under the HAA.

II. A Builder’s Remedy Project Must Be Approved Absent Extremely Limited Circumstances That Are Not Present Here
Said most simply, the law requires the City to approve this Builder’s Remedy project. There is no legal basis to deny it. Specifically, the HAA clearly explains that a builder’s remedy project may only be disapproved if the City makes one of six written findings, which are listed in subsection (d) of the HAA.

Moreover, as the HAA also makes explicitly clear, these findings cannot be based on speculation, hypothetical concerns, or unsubstantiated evidence. Of the six available findings for denialof a builder’s remedy project under the HAA, it is beyond dispute that the Commission did not attempt to make a finding under subsection (d)(1) (which requires that the City has met it Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirement; the City has not), (d)(4) (which applies to land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation; the land is not zoned agriculture or resource preservation), or (d)(5) and (d)(6) (which do not apply to builder’s remedy projects).

Instead, the Commission’s apparent intent was to make findings for denial under subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) of the HAA, which are as follows:
(d)(2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health orsafety, and there is no feasiblemethod to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact withoutrendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financiallyinfeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, directj, and unavoidable impact based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
(A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.
(B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(d)(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelterfinancially infeasible.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 4
The plain language of these subsections establishes an extraordinarily high bar for the denial of a builder’s remedy project, which, as described below, the Commission completely failed to meet in thecourse of denying the Project.

In addition, the Legislature has further emphasized how rigorous a jurisdiction must be when seeking to make these denial findings. First, regarding subsection (d)(2), the HAA explicitly states that:
“It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) ... arise infrequently.”.4 By adding this language to the HAA, the Legislature is making it clear to jurisdictions that commonplaceeffects of development that may be associated with a housing project do not constitute a “specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety.” Second, the HAA states that “It is the policy of the state that this section [i.e. the HAA] be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.”.5 Thus, when there is some question as to the proper interpretation or implementation of the HAA, the question must be resolved in favor of the approval and provision of housing. To do otherwise would violate the intent andpurpose of the HAA.Ill. The Planning Commission’s Reasons for Denying the Project Are Illegal The Planning Commission’s reasons for denying the Project completely failed to meet the requirements in subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3) of the HAA and therefore must be overturned. As a preliminary matter, there is a significant discrepancy between the stated reasons for denial given by Commissioners Ross, Demeter, and Vice Chair Milkowski during their verbal deliberations at the November 5 hearing, and the written findings in the proposed Denial Resolution that was presented to the Commission prior to the hearing. Consequently, both the verbal and written grounds for denial are addressed below.

As additional background, the first Planning Commission hearing on the Project was held on October 21, 2025. At this meeting, a majority of the Commissioners expressed an intent to deny the Project and requested that staff prepare a resolution with written findings for denial to be considered ata continued hearing on October 29, 2025. Staff prepared a draft denial resolution as directed, and a hearing was held on October 29th. However, prior to any deliberations on the draft denial resolution, the October 29 hearing was continued to November 5, 2025, and the Commission directed staff to provide both a draft denial resolution and a draft approval resolution so that no further continuances would be needed. At the November 5 hearing, the Commission voted 3-2 to ostensibly adopt the Denial Resolution (even though the stated denial justifications by the Commission majority departed from the actual written denial findings outlined in the Denial Resolution).

A. The Location of Affordable Units
Section 7(2) of the Denial Resolution states that the Project violates Health and Safety Code 17929(a)(2), which reads as follows:
“Gov. Code Section 65589.5(a)(3).

Gov. Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(L).

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 5
A mixed-income multifamily structure shall not isolate the affordable housing units within that structure to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor.

The Project originally presented to the Planning Commission had affordable units on five floors — floors 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 — and therefore obviously did not isolate the affordable units to “a specific floor.” Furthermore, following the October 21 hearing, the Applicant voluntarily changed the location of the affordable units..6 Consequently, the Project considered by the Commission on November 5 had affordable units on fourteen floors — floors 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 — even further contradicting any possible claim that the affordable units were isolated to “a specific floor.” The Denial Resolution also finds the Project violates this state law by locating the affordable units adjacent to elevators and trash chutes. In response to the Commission’s concern, and prior to the November 5 hearing, the Applicant voluntarily relocated affordable units so they were not adjacent to elevators and trash chutes..7 Furthermore, the draft approval resolution prepared by staff for the November 5 hearing included a condition of approval (Condition 10) requiring that “the affordable units shall be distributed in similar proportion to the proximity to garbage chutes, elevator shafts, and utilityclosets, as the market rate units.” Notably the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) noted in a pointed letter to the Commission dated October 28, 2025 (“October HCD Letter”) that the Project asproposed did not violate Health and Safety Code Section 17929 and the desire for greater dispersal of affordable units was not a legitimate basis for Project denial. Regardless, the Applicant nevertheless voluntarily further dispersed the affordable units and changed the affordable unit mix. As a result ofthese preceding events and voluntary Project changes, the Commission effectively dropped these concerns at the November 5th hearing and none of the Commissioners cited a violation of Health andSafety Code 17929(a)(2) as a ground for denying the Project. In short, the Project currently does not (and never did) violate Health and Safety Code 17929(a)(2) and, despite statements in the Denial Resolution to the contrary, none of the Commissioners that voted to deny the Project cited this as a reason for their denial.

B. Health and Safety
Two health and safety concerns are cited in the Denial Resolution (Section 7(1)). Both of these concerns have been completely refuted by evidence submitted to the record prior to the Commission hearing and directly by the City’s own Fire Marshal and Planning Staff. The first concern is that the City’s Fire Department will not be able to adequately address an upper floor fire in the building due to the building’s height. The second concern is that traffic resulting from the Project will result in increasedresponse times for emergency vehicles.

These concerns were squarely addressed and refuted during the November 5 hearing. During the hearing, the City’s Fire Marshal, Trevor Richmond, explained in detail how the City’s Fire Department 6 See the Applicant’s letters to the Planning Commission dated October 28, 2025, and October 29, 2025, includedas Attachments C and D to the Staff Report for the November 5, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, anddiscussed on pages 1 and 2 of the same Staff Report.

See the Applicant’s letter to the Planning Commission dated October 28, 2025, included as Attachment C to the Staff Report for the November 5, 2025, Planning Commission meeting.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 6
would combat a fire in a 26-story building..8 Following this explanation, Vice Chair Milkowski asked if the Fire Marshal had any concerns about traffic along Burton Way, to which the Fire Marshal responded:
“You know, traffic is a pretty common occurrence in the City of Beverly Hills and one of the things we have to our advantage is red lights and sirens. So often we’ll find ourselves, you know, driving into opposing traffic, using our horns, using our sirens, to get around that traffic. Prior to this meeting I had an opportunity to meet with our EMS director to look at our response times from any area in the City of Beverly Hills to Cedar Sinai for critical care patients, the ones that are most at risk of passing away, and I didn’t find one single dispatch time — code 3, red light and sirens, two-seaters — of more than six minutes.”
The following exchanges then took place between Chair Wolfe and Fire Marshal Richmond:9 Wolfe: “Do you have any concerns related to fighting a fire at a building such as this, or response times? We’ve heard a lot from the residents in concerns about that. I am concerned about that. That’s why I wanted to ask it of the experts.

Do you have any specific concerns related to those issues with respect to a 26-story building on this site?”
Richmond: “So let me say, I’m also encouraged by the interest in public safety and I find it reassuring, especially being in this profession so long. To answer your question, Commissioner, no I don’t.”
Furthermore, the Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) prepared for the Project concludes that the Project would increase local intersection delays by a mere “0.1 to 3.6 seconds.” This is cited in theStaff Report for the October 21 hearing. Furthermore, Commissioner Kaplan asked during the November 5 hearing whether the traffic report had been peer-reviewed by the City..1° Planning Staff then confirmed that the report had been reviewed by the City’s Public Works Department, and that the Public Works Department did not have any concerns about the report or the methodology used to reach the conclusions in the report.

Finally, the October HCD Letter affirmed that there was no evidence in the record that could support a finding that the Project would create a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health of safety” Given these events and the testimony from the Fire Marshal and confirmation from City PlanningStaff that the traffic assessment was accurate, the Commission effectively dropped these health andsafety concerns at the November 5th hearing and none of the Commissioners cited either fire safety concerns or increased emergency response times as a ground for denying the Project.

Even if these concerns had been cited by the Commissioners who voted to deny the Project, they would have clearly failed to satisfy the criteria for a “specific, adverse impact” as required in subsection (d)(2) of the HAA. Neither the Commission nor the Denial Resolution has ever identified any aspect of the Project that would have a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, 8 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 2:43:00.

See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 2:46:30. ‘° See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 1:18:15.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025

Page 7 ends

identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date theapplication was deemed complete.” C. The Commissioner’s Verbally Stated Reasons for Project Denial Are Illegal Each of the three Commissioners who voted to deny the Project gave different reasons for their vote. All are illegal.

1. Commissioner Ross
In his verbal deliberations,.11 Commissioner Ross gave two primary reasons for denying the Project.

First, Commissioner Ross cited what he called “feasibility,” which appeared to be, essentially, his belief that the Project could be denied because its height and size went beyond what was required to make the Project economically feasible. Commissioner Ross had previously noted during the November5th hearing that the originally proposed Project was shorter than the revised Project (20 stories rather than 26 stories) but included more affordable units than the revised Project (40 lower income affordable units rather than 22 affordable units, consisting of 14 extremely low and 8 moderate income units).

Based on this Project history, Commissioner Ross appeared to conclude that the Applicant had no need to increase the height to 26 stories to make the Project economically feasible. As he stated, “I don’t believe the developer needs the waivers and concessions and height in order to justify a mere 22 [affordable] units.”.’2 He then reasoned, apparently, that because a smaller and/or shorter Project could be economically feasible, the Commission therefore had the legal right to deny the Project as proposed.

This stated ground for denial does not identify any specific, adverse impact of the Project nor any actual law that the Project would violate. There is no law or public health andsafetystandard requiring that a building may only be approved if it is as short and small as economically feasible.

Furthermore, to the extent Commissioner Ross’s comments are interpreted as a denial of the Project’s requested waivers and concessions under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915) (“SDBL”), they again severely miss the mark. There is no standard in SDBL requiring that a waiver or concession shall only be approved if it is necessary to make the project economically feasible. That isnot the test.

Rather, a request for a concession may only be denied if the City establishes and finds based on substantial evidence, that a concession (a) would not result in identifiable and actual costs reductions; (b) would have a specific, adverse impact; or (c) would be contrary to state or federal law..13 A prior proposed project is irrelevant to each of these findings.

Regarding waivers, the City may not apply any development standard that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development..14 In short, nothing whatsoever in state See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 3:34:00. 12 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 3:36:00. 13 Gov. Code Section 65915(d)(1).
“ Gay. Code Section 65915(e)(1).

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025

Page 8 ends

law permits a City to deny a requestfor a concession or waiver because it is not needed to make the project economically feasible.

Second, Commissioner Ross expressed doubts that the Project is located within a half mile of a major transit stop (despite being shown maps to the contrary) and apparently believed that this justified the complete denial of the Project. 15 Commissioner Ross did not identify any specific, adverse impact related to whether the Project is within a half mile of a major transit stop.

The proximity of the Project to a major transit stop is potentially relevant for two reasons. First, when calculating the permissible density of a builder’s remedy project, the HAA affords an additional 35 units per acre to projects within a half mile of a major transit stop. However, the HAA also affords an additional 35 units per acre to projects that are (i) in a very low vehicle miles traveled (VMT) area or (ii) a high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.”16 Planning Staff confirmed during the November 5 hearing that the Project is located in both a low VMT area and a high or highest resource area.17 Consequently, even if the Project is not within ahalf mile of a major transit stop, which it undeniably is and any suggestion to the contrary is specious, the Project is still entitled to the density it proposes.

Proximity to a major transit stop also impacts the City’s ability to impose minimum parking requirements on a project. Under AB 2097, the City may not impose any minimum parking standards on a project that is “located within one-half mile of public transit.” “Public transit” is defined as a “major transit stop,” which includes the “intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”18 AB 2097 does not give any specific instructions for how the half mile distance is to be measured;’9 therefore, the clear and straightforward meaning of the statute is that the distance should be measured as a straight line from the project site to the major transit stop.

HCD issued guidance on AB 2097 in January 2025, which states that “The distance to a major transit stop is measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed project to any point on the parcel or parcels that make up the property upon which a major transit stopis located.”.20 This guidance was read to the Commission by Planning Staff during the November 5 hearing. Planning Staff further stated that it is the City’s standard practice to measure the half mile distance as a straight line from point A to point B.
15 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 3:38:00.16 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C)(ii)(Il) & (III). 17 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 2:50:00. 18 Gov. Code Section 65863.2(a) & (e)(5); Pub. Res. Code Section 21155 & 21064.3(c).19 Some state statutes include specific methods for measuring the distance to a major transit stop, but AB 2097 does not. For example, during the November 5 meeting, Planning Staff cited state ADU law, which prohibits a local agency from imposing any parking standards for an accessory dwelling unit “[w]here the accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half of one mile walking distance of public transit.” (Gov. Code Section 66322(a)(1).) The fact that “walking distance” is sometimes used in state statutes to measure distance but was not used in AB 2097 indicates that the standard straight-line method of measurement was intended in AB 2097. 20 California Department of Housing and Community Development, “Technical Advisory On the Implementation of AB 2097, Prohibition on Minimum Parking Requirements (Statutes of 2022),” dated January 2025, p. 6, question 9, available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/pol icy-and-research/ab-2097-ta.pdf.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 9
During the November 5 hearing, Planning Staff showed the Commission the City’s internal-use GIS map showing half-mile radii from all major transit stops in the City, which showed that the Project site is within a half mile of the major transit stop at the intersection of San Vicente Blvd and Beverly Blvd..21 The Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) prepared for the Project also determined that the Project site is located within a half mile of a second major transit stop located at the intersection of La Cienega Blvd and 3rd Street.22 In short, the Project site is located within a half mile of a major transitstop as determined by state law, HCD, the City’s internal GIS maps and uniform method of measurement for all City projects, and the Local Transportation Assessment prepared for the Project. There is simply no evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the City is prohibited from imposing a minimum parkingrequirement on the Project.

2. Commissioner Demeter
In her verbal deliberations,.23 Commissioner Demeter’s primary reason for denial was, in essence, the same a Commissioner Ross’s “feasibility” argument. In her deliberations, Commissioner Demeter made the following statements: “I do think the word ‘feasibility’ comes in here. ... If it was feasible for 20 stories with 40 affordable, it should be feasible with 24, 22. So I could not approve thewaiver that they are requesting on the basis of feasibility, because you can’t tell me that previously it was feasible for you to build it and now it’s not.”.24
This is not a legal basis for denying a project under the HAA or for denying requested concessions or waivers under SDBL — including the proposed height. What may have been proposed previously is completely irrelevant. It is a red herring basisfor Project denial.

3. Vice Chair Milkowski
In his verbal deliberations,.25 Vice Chair Milkowski stated he would vote to deny the project because it would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. As grounds for this claim he stated: “I believe that the project conflicts with the City’s General Plan use designation and zoning development standards, including density, outdoor living space, height ..., the building setbacks, the length of building requirements, permissible encroachments, and the paving setbacks. For that reason, I will vote to deny this project.”
This basis for denial fails to meet the requirements of the HAA for multiple reasons. First, the definition of “specific, adverse impact” in the HAA clearly specifies that “The following shall notconstitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) Inconsistency with the zoningordinance or general plan land use designation.”.26 Therefore, Vice Chair Milkowski’s grounds for finding a specific, adverse impact are all explicitly prohibited under the law as they rely on either a conflict with the General Plan land use designation or conflicts with development standards in the City’s zoning 21 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 2:32:15.22 Local Transportation Assessment prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG), p. 17-18. 23 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 3:34:00. 24 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 3:41:30. 25 See video of the November 5, 2025, meeting at approximately 3:44:00. 26 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)(A).

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 10
ordinance. Moreover, Vice Chair Milkowski failed to articulate how any of these conflicts with City standards would actually result in a specific, adverse impact to health and safety.

Furthermore, the Applicant requested and is entitled to relief from all City development standards with which the Project conflicts through either concessions or waivers under SDBL. Vice Chair Milkowski did not consider any of these requests nor did he state any basis for denying these requests.

Thus, he failed to come anywhere close to meeting the SDBL’s high bar for legal denial.

4. The Commission Minority Understood and Followed the Law It is worth noting that while the three-member Commission majority ignored applicable binding law, the two dissenting members clearly understood their legal obligation to approve the Project. For example, Chairman Wolfe, after disclosing that he has read the applicable state housing laws and cases in depth, and consulted with the City Attorney on multiple occasions and asked multiple questions, acknowledged that:

Wolfe: “If given the opportunity I will vote to support this project simply because I don’t believe the law has given me the opportunity to deny it.”.27 Commissioner Kaplan went further noting that while she may disagree with the builder’s remedy, herposition as a Commissioner obligates her to follow the law.

Kaplan: “I am not aware of any finding in the law that would allow me to deny merely as pretext to get this in front of the City Council... So because Ifeel my most importantfunction . .. as a Commissioner is to follow the law, in this case Ifeel the law leaves me no choice but to vote to approve the Project.” 28 *******
In summary, the three Planning Commissioners who voted to deny the Project did not state any valid bases for denying the Project during their verbal deliberations. Moreover, the Commission majority’s verbal denial justifications completely veered from the denial findings in the written Denial Resolution. This is not surprising given the testimony and evidence presented before and after the hearing made it impossible for the Commission to actually adopt the Denial Resolution justifications with a straight face. Consequently, the Commission went on a fishing expedition looking for any possible basis to reject the Project. Ultimately the denial was devoid of any legitimate legal or evidentiary basis and therefore must be overturned.

IV. The City Council Must Approve Transparent Balcony Barriers The proposed Project includes clear (transparent) balcony barriers. This will allow the residents of the building to enjoy the view, which would otherwise be blocked by translucent or opaque balcony barriers. The draft approval resolution considered by the Planning Commission conditioned the Project 27 See video of November 5th Planning Commission hearing, at approximately 3:52:30 28 See video of November 5 Planning Commission hearing, at approximately 3:32:59.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 11
to use translucent or opaque balcony barriers instead of clear barriers (Condition 20). This condition is illegal and may not be imposed by the City, for three reasons.

A. The Project Must Be Approved As Proposed
Under the HAA, the City may not prohibit clear balcony barriers unless it finds the clear balcony barriers will either (i) result in a specific, adverse impact to public health or safety, or (ii) are required to comply with state or federal law. Neither of these findings can be made and therefore prohibiting clear balcony barriers is illegal. The HAA provides as follows:29 Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following:
(II) Preclude a project that meets the requirements allowed to be imposed by subparagraph (A), as modified by any density bonus, incentive, or concession, or waiver or reduction of development standards and parking ratios, pursuant to Section 65915, from being constructed as proposed by the applicant.3° The Project as proposed by the Applicant includes clear balcony barriers. The City has never found nor could it find that clear balcony barriers will create a specific, adverse impact or violate state or federal law (the only potentially applicable findings in subsection (d) of the HAA). Therefore, the City must allow the Project to have clear balcony barriers. This settles the issue, but there are also two additional and independent reasons why the City must approve clear balcony barriers, discussed below.

B. Prohibiting Clear Balcony Barriers Will Render the Project Economically InfeasibleUnder the HAA, the City may not impose a condition on the Project that would render the Project economically infeasible unless it finds that either (i) the Project will have a specific, adverse impact to public health or safety if the condition is not imposed, or (ii) imposing the condition is required in order to comply with state or federal law. The HAA provides as follows:31 Except as authorized by paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (d), a local agency shall not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, writtendevelopment standards, conditions, and policies to the project that do any of the following:
(I) Render the project infeasible.
29 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)(ll).
° “As proposed by the applicant” is defined as “the plans and designs as submitted by the applicant, including, but not limited to, density, unit size, unit type, site plan, building massing, floor area ratio, amenity areas, open space,parking, and ancillary commercial uses.” (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(h)(14).) The balconies are both “amenity areas” and “open space” and the plans and designs show clear balcony barriers. 31 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)(l).

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 12
The Applicant has provided substantial evidence to the City that requiring translucent or opaque balcony barriers, rather than clear barriers, could result in up to a 25% decrease in the rental value of the units because it would limit the views from inside the units..32 To be clear, even if the City concluded non transparent balcony barriers would not render the Project infeasible, the City still could not impose non transparent balcony barriers based on the discussion in IV.A, above.

C. There Is No Legal Nexus or Practical Basis for Imposing the Balcony Condition Finally, there is no legal nexus or practical basis for requiring non-transparent balcony barriers.

Opaque balcony barriers will not increase privacy for adjacent developments. The building’s first residential floor is higher than the closest residential use and the height of the other floors place thenew homes at a substantial distance from existing residences. Further, to the extent any such sightlines may exist, someone standing on the balcony or looking out their window could still look down at a neighbor regardless of whether the balcony barrier is transparent. Balcàny opacity, therefore, would provide no meaningful privacy benefit. Consequently, this condition is illegal.

In summary, there are three independent reasons why prohibiting clear balcony barriers would violate state law. Consequently, the City must approve the clear balcony barriers as proposed by the Applicant.V. Conclusion
The October HCD Letter clearly confirmed the following:
• There is no legitimate legal basis to deny the project on public health and safety grounds or otherwise and the project must be approved.
• The City could be subject to penalties and a referral to the Attorney General’s office for an enforcement action should it illegally disapprove the project..33 The City recently lost a high-profile builder’s remedy lawsuit in connection with its attempted denial of a project on Linden Drive. Although the developer prevailed in that case, the City managed to avoid bad faith penalties. Should the City roll the dice for the second time on a baseless and clearly unlawful denial of a second builder’s remedy project, the likelihood of the court finding bad faith by a two-timeoffender is significantly higher. Moreover, the legislature recently adopted and the Governor recently signed into law Assembly Bill 712, which automatically imposes the same enhanced bad faith penalties (i.e., $10 million total for this Project) for violations of State housing law — without the need to actually find bad faith — simply if the court determines the jurisdiction committed a second HAA violation within 32 See Polaris Pacific Analysis and Letter from Nicole Browne, included as Exhibits C and D to our letter datedOctober 28, 2025, which was included as Attachment C to the Planning Commission Staff Report for the November 5 hearing.

HCD Letter to Michael Forbes entitled “City of Beverly Hills — 8844 Burton Way — Letter of Support and Technical Assistance,” dated October 28, 2025. Notably, the Burton Project had already been the subject of a Notice of Violation letter (along with multiple other projects) issued to the City by the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). See HCD Letter to Michael Forbes entitled “Beverly Hills Builder’s Remedy Applications — Notice of Violation,” dated December 2, 2024.

City of Beverly Hills
November 17, 2025Page 13
the same Housing Element period. The City’s attempted denial of the Project would clearly constitute the City’s second such violation.

We therefore urge you to overrule the illegal denial of the Project by the Planning Commission, follow the law, approve the Project as proposed, and protect the City from crushing financial and potential regulatory penalties.

Sincerely,
Vacie
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
cc: Dave Snow, Deputy City Attorney
Edgar Arroyo, Senior PlannerBenjamin Hanlin, Paul Hastings ATTACHMENT 3
October 21, 2025
Planning Commission Report
(w/o Attachments)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1000 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Resolution
B. Required Findings
C. State Statues
D. General Plan Policies
E. AB 130 CEQA Exemption – Staff’s Analysis
F. AB 130 CEQA Exemption – Applicant’s Analysis
G. Public Notices
H. Public Correspondence
I. Local Transportation Assessment (LTA)
J. Construction Management Plan (CMP)
K. Project Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment)
Report Author and Contact Information:

Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1138
[email protected]
Meeting Date: October 21, 2025
Subject: 8844 BURTON WAY
Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit (PL2400115) Request for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), to allow for the construction of a new 26-story, 200-unit multi-family residential development. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Project Applicant: 8844 Burton Way LLC
Project Representative: Thomas Faraut (c/o Crescent Heights) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
The proposed project involves a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Density Bonus Permit to allow for the construction of a 26-story, 309’-6” tall, multi-family residential development with 200 dwelling units at the property located at 8844 Burton Way (the “project site”). The project application has been filed pursuant to the “Builder's Remedy” provisions of Government Code §65589.5(d)(5). The project site is located within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density.

This report details the physical context of the property and its vicinity; outlines the findings that are required to be made for the requested entitlements; and analyzes key project issues, which include: the proposed use of the property in relation to the adjacent residential uses, physical characteristics of the subject property, parking, and discussion on applicable state law Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 2 of 22 ends

requirements related to Builder’s Remedy and density bonus projects. Based on analysis contained in this report, staff’s recommendation is to conditionally approve the project.

BACKGROUND
File Date 3/25/2024
Application Complete 7/31/20251
Subdivision Deadline N/A
CEQA Recommendation Statutory Exemption for Infill Housing (Assembly Bill (AB) 130) (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.66)
CEQA Deadline and Permit
Streamlining
30 days from conclusion of Native American Tribal
Consultation (PRC §21080.66(b))
Conclusion of Tribal Consultation: October 7, 2025
Applicant(s) Thomas Faraut (c/o Crescent Heights)
Owner(s) 8844 Burton Way LLC
Representative(s) Dave Rand – Rand Paster Nelson LLP
Olivia Joncich – Rand Paster Nelson LLP
Registered Legislative Advocates2 Brian Wright-Bushman – Rand Paster Nelson, LLP Lauren Glaser – Paul Hastings LLP
Benjamin Hanelin – Paul Hastings LLP
Prior Planning Commission Action None
Prior City Council Action None

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address(es) 8844 Burton Way
Assessor’s ID No. 4335-020-009
Zoning District R-4 – Multiple Residential Zone
General Plan High Density – Multi-Family Residential
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant
Lot Dimensions & Area 243’ x 110’ (≈ 26,779 Square Feet (SF)) Year Built N/A
Historic Resource N/A
1 The original version of the project was deemed complete on January 10, 2025. A revised version of the project, submitted on March 12, 2025, was subsequently deemed complete on July 31, 2025, after City review. 2 Registered advocate search run on October 8, 2025.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 3 of 22 ends

Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North R4 – Multiple Dwelling Zone (City of Los Angeles: MultiFamily Residential Buildings) South R-4 – Multiple Residential Zone (Multi-Family Residential Buildings)
East C-3 – Commercial Zone (Retail, Service Commercial, Car Rental)
R-4 – Multiple Residential Zone (Religious and
Institutional: Temple Emanual of Beverly Hills)
West R-4 – Multiple Residential Zone (Multi-Family Residential Buildings)
C-3 – Commercial Zone (Office)
Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) North Swall Drive / North Clark Drive Adjacent Alleys Rear - 20’ Wide One-Way Alley (Westbound Traffic Only – Enter on North Clark Drive and Exit on North Swall
Drive)
Parkways & Sidewalks Burton Way: 12’-6” from curb face to property line North Swall Drive: 12’-6” from curb face to property line North Clark Drive: 12’-6” from curb face to property line Parking Restrictions Burton Way:
• Four (4) Hour Parking: 8:00 A.M. 6:00 P.M.
• No Parking: Mondays from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
(South Side of Street)
North Swall Drive:
• No Parking: 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. Daily
• No Parking: Thursdays from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00
A.M. (East Side of Street)
North Clark Drive:
• No Parking Anytime (West Side of Street)
Nearest Intersection Burton Way and North Swall Drive / North Clak Drive Circulation Element Burton Way – Arterial Street
North Swall Drive – Local Street
North Clark Drive – Local Street
Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 4 of 22 ends

Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is a 26,779 SF lot located along the south side of the 8800 block of Burton Way (Fig. 1), within the R-4 Multiple Residential Zone. The project site is currently a vacant lot that was previously developed in 1963 with a two-story school building (Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills) and a single-level subterranean parking structure that was demolished in 2021. The site is bordered by Burton Way to the north, a 20’-foot wide one-way alley to the south, North Swall Drive to the west, and North Clark Drive to the east.

The area surrounding the project site is characterized by a mix of commercial, religious, institutional, and residential uses. To the north of the project site, across the Burton Way median, the area is developed with multi-family residential apartment buildings located in the city of Los Angeles that range from two to four stories in height. To the south, separated by a 20’-wide alley, are multi-family condominium developments (IV Seasons and Somerset), which range from four to five stories, within the City’s R-4 Zone. To the east, across North Clark Drive, is commercial development consisting of retail, service commercial, and car rental uses within the C-3 Zone and, immediately to the southeast, a synagogue and school (Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills) located in the R-4 Zone. To the west, across from North Swall Drive, the area is developed with a mix of multi-family residential (apartment and condominiums) and commercial uses (office), within the R-4 and C-3 Zones.

Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery
Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 5 of 22 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of a new 26-story, 309’-6” tall, multi-family residential apartment building with 200 rental dwelling units (Fig. 2). Of the 200 dwelling units proposed, 22 units would be restricted affordable units with 14 units restricted for rental to extremely low-income households and eight units restricted for rental to moderate income households, with the following unit types proposed:
• 38 Studio (Efficiency) Units: Ranging from 645 SF – 936 SF o 14 Extremely Low-Income Units
o 8 Moderate-Income Units
o 16 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
• 86 Two-Bedroom Units (Market Rate): Ranging from 1,382 SF – 1,585 SF • 76 Three-Bedroom Units (Market Rate): Ranging from 1,853 SF – 1,942 SF Fig. 2: Project Rendering Facing East Along Burton Way
Source: LARGE architecture
The project would provide 316 parking spaces, with the parking areas located above grade, through the use of mechanical parking lifts (“stackers”) on Levels 2 and 3, and within a three level subterranean parking garage. Vehicular access to the parking areas is provided along North Clark Drive. A total of 42,226 SF of open space will be provided through a combination of private outdoor living space located on balconies facing Burton Way and the rear alley, and common outdoor Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 6 of 22 ends

living space in terraces located on the fourth, 11th, and 26th floors, and on the rooftop of the building.

The proposed project requires discretionary approval from the Planning Commission.

Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy
Enacted in 1982 and more recently amended, the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code (GC) §65589.5); hereafter the “HAA”) is state law that establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs.

Additionally, the HAA includes a provision that allows developers to bypass local zoning and general plan rules when a local government’s housing element is out of compliance with state law (“Builder’s Remedy”). The HAA limits the City’s ability to disapprove a housing development project and provides specific findings for disapproval based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record. These findings are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j) and are detailed further in this report.

On December 15, 2023, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (“PA”) to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by HCD. Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on March 25, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). The original project included a 20-story mixed-use building with 20% of the proposed 200 dwelling units (40 units) reserved for lower income households (with a mix of lowincome and very low-income units). The application for the original project was deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025. While this project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on May 1, 2024, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to housing element certification.

On March 12, 2025, the applicant revised the project to its current form, which increased the size and scale of the project but retained the same number of proposed units as the original project.

The applicant increased the height of the project from 20 stories (223’-4”) to 26 stories (309’-6”), which included a revised DPR application and a new Density Bonus Permit request. Additionally, the applicant revised the project to utilize recent changes to the HAA and state Builder’s Remedy law that went into effect on January 1, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 18863 and 18934
. The new bills clarified existing law within the HAA, provided alternative standards for projects, and reduced the affordability requirements for certain housing projects. Accordingly, the number of affordable units was revised for the current version of the project and now includes 22 affordable units (14 extremely low-income units and eight moderate-income units) in-lieu of the 40 affordable units previously proposed, which meets the reduced affordability requirements of AB 1893 (GC §65589.5(h)(3)(C)).
3 Assembly Bill 1886, Alvarez. Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1886 4 Assembly Bill 1893, Wicks. Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals: required local findings. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1893 Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 7 of 22 ends

Density Bonus
As part of the applicant’s amended project, the applicant submitted a Density Bonus Permit application requesting concessions and waivers of the applicable development standards. AB 1893 provides the ability for Builder’s Remedy projects to request a density bonus and qualify for incentives, concessions, and waivers pursuant to GC §65589.5(f)(1).

Under State Density Bonus Law, applicants of residential projects of five or more units are entitled to a density bonus and is determined pursuant to state law based on the number of affordable units and the level of affordability of those units. The proposed project includes a density bonus and a “stacked” density bonus, which can allow a total of density bonus of up to 100% if the project meets specific affordability thresholds. The affordable housing units required under the City’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance also count as affordable housing units to qualify for density bonus under state law. The project density calculation is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1: PROJECT DENSITY CALCULATION
General Plan Density 50 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) Builder’s Remedy Density
(3x General Plan Density per GC 65589.5(h)(11)(C)(i)(II)) 50 du/ac
x 3
150 du/ac
Additional 35 du/ac Density
(For Projects within One-Half Mile of a Major Transit Stop per GC 65589.5(h)(11)(C)(ii))
150 du/ac
+ 35 du/ac
185 du/ac (= Base Density)
Project Site Base Density Unit Calculation
(Lot Size: 26,779 SF / 0.615 acres)
114 Units1
(185 du/ac x 0.615 ac = 113.775 “total units”)
Standard Density Bonus Percentage 50% Density Bonus
(for 12% Extremely Low Income Units (14 Units))
Standard Density Bonus Additional Units 57 Units
(114 Units x 50% = 57 Standard DB Units)
Stacked Density Bonus Percentage 25% Density Bonus
(for 7% Moderate-Income Units (8 Units))
Stacked Density Bonus Additional Units 29 Units1
(114 Units x 25% = 28.5 Stacked DB Units)
Total allowable density
114 Base Density Units
57 Units (1st Density Bonus @ 50%)
+ 29 Units (2nd Density Bonus @ 25%)
200 Total Units
1 Pursuant to GC §65915(f)(5), "All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the next whole number.” The project would allocate 12% of the units for extremely low-income households (14 units) for the initial density bonus and 7% of the units for moderate-income households (eight units) for the stacked density bonus. The affordability ratios proposed for the project qualify the project for a standard density bonus of 50% and a stacked density bonus of 25%, for a total density bonus of 75%.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 8 of 22 ends

Based on the level of affordability provided for the project, the proposed mixed-income housing development project is entitled to up to five (5) development concessions, which result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or for rents of a project’s affordable housing units. Separately, an applicant may also request waivers from development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Concessions and waivers must be granted unless such a request would cause a specific adverse public health or safety impact, harm historical property, or would be contrary to any state or federal laws. Waivers do not count as a concession and there is no limit on the number of development standard waivers that may be requested or granted provided each would preclude development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted. Accordingly, the project includes the following concession and waiver requests:

Concessions

1. Parking Dimensions:
a) Request to reduce the required minimum parking stall size, from 9’-0” x 19’-0” to 8’-6” x 18’-0”.
b) Request to reduce the required driveway aisle widths for portions of the parking structure, from 26’ to between 20’ to 22’.

2. Encroachments in Front and Street Side Yard Setbacks: Balconies: BHMC §10-3-2811.C establishes permissible encroachments for balconies within a required front and street side setback, which allows balconies to encroach a maximum of 3’-0” into the required setback. The applicant is requesting a concession allow for the balconies to encroach 9’- 2” into the required front yard setback along North Clark Drive.

3. Encroachments in Front and Street Side Yard Setbacks: Basement Garages: BHMC §10- 3-2811.E establishes permissible encroachments for basement garages within a required front and street side setback, which allows the basement garage to encroach into a require front and street side yard setback, provided that the garage is located 2’-0” lower than the grade of the sidewalk. The applicant is requesting a concession to locate the basement garage above the 2’-0” depth required.

4. Paving: BHMC §10-3-2813 establishes the maximum allowable paving in the front yard of a property in the R-4 zone, which is limited to a maximum of one (1) paved walkway not exceeding 5’-0” in width. The applicant is requesting a concession to allow one (1) walkway that exceeds 5’-0” in width along North Swall Drive and up to three (3) walkways along North Clark Drive, two of which will exceed 5’-0” in width.

Waivers

1. Building Height and Stories: BHMC §10-3-2804 establishes the allowable building height for development in the R-4 Zone, which allows for a maximum of five (5) stories with a maximum height of 55’-0”. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a 26-story building with a height of 309’-6”.

2. Length of Building: BHMC §10-3-2809 establishes the maximum length of a building in the R-4 zone, which is limited to 175’ in either width or depth and requires physical separation Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 9 of 22 ends

of portions of the building in excess of 175’. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a building with a width of 204’-6” along Burton Way, without providing the required building separation.

3. Front Setback: BHMC §10-3-2806 establishes the required front setback for a property in the R-4 zone, which requires a 31’-0” setback along North Clark Drive. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced front setback of 20’-10” along North Clark Drive.

4. Street Side Setback: BHMC §10-3-2807 establishes the required street side setback for a property in the R-4 zone, which requires a 9’-0” minimum setback along Burton Way. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced street side setback of 6’-3” along Burton Way.

5. Outdoor Living Space: BHMC §10-3-2803 establishes the required amount of outdoor living space and the required minimum dimensions for the outdoor living space for development in the R-4 Zone, which requires a minimum dimension of 6’-0” for areas to be counted toward private outdoor living space. The applicant is requesting a waiver to provide private outdoor living space within balconies that are less than 6’-0” in area.

6. Modulation: BHMC §10-3-2806(C) establishes the front modulation required for a building, which requires an additional 5’-0” setback beyond the required front setback line for an area to be counted toward the required modulation of a building. The applicant seeks a waiver of the modulation setback and area requirements.

7. Additional Modulation for Large Scale Multiple Residential Developments: BHMC §10-3- 2806(C) establishes the front modulation required for a building, which requires additional modulation for a total of 12,647.5 SF of modulation and the modulation to be proportionally distributed between the elevation that faces the principal street and the elevation that faces the principal street. The applicant is requesting a waiver to provide up to 4,830 SF of modulation, less than the amount requires per code and without a proportional distribution along the street frontages.

8. Rear Setback: BHMC §10-3-2808 establishes the required rear setback for a property in the R-4 zone, which requires a 15’-0” minimum setback along the property line abutting the alley at the rear of the property. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced rear setback of 10’-0” along the rear property line abutting the alley.

9. Building Height and Stories: The City’s General Plan provides that development proposed on properties within the High Density – Multi-Family Residential land use designation is allowed a maximum height of 60’-0”. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a building with a height of 309’-6”.

As further detailed in the analysis section of this report, this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589 and as such, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project or the requested concessions or waivers based on the finding to deny a project.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 10 of 22 ends

Inclusionary Housing
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-4803, a minimum of 10% of the units in a newly constructed rental residential development shall be rented to and occupied by very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income households. The proposed 200-unit project would require a total of 20 affordable units to meet this requirement. The 22 affordable units proposed for the project (14 extremely low-Income and eight moderate-income units) comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

Shade and Shadow Study
A shade and shadow study was prepared by the applicant and included in the set of plans for the project (Attachment K). The study shows that the project would cast shade shadows to properties located to the southeast and southwest in summer months and to the northeast and northwest in winter months, impacting the access to natural light to these properties. However, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Pursuant to PRC §21099(a)(7), a transit priority area is defined as an area within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The project site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop located at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, where two bus lines with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or better intersect (Metro Bus Lines 14 and 16). Accordingly, the project’s aesthetic impacts are not subject to evaluated under CEQA as these impacts cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment. Further, as discussed below, the project qualifies for a statutory CEQA exemption, which does not include consideration of any potential shade/shadow impacts.

Parking
Pursuant to GC §65863.2 (AB 2097)5, a public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit. As noted in the previous section, the project site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop and the City is preempted from applying its standard parking requirements pursuant to state law. While the applicant is not required to provide any minimum amount of parking for the project, the project includes a total of 316 parking spaces. Based on the number of parking spaces provided, the project would result in a ratio of 1.5 parking spaces per unit. The parking provided on-site would be unbundled, pursuant to Civil Code (CC) §1947.1 (AB 1317)6
, which requires an owner of a residential property consisting of 16 or more units located in the County of Los Angeles to unbundle parking from the price of rent. Tenants desiring parking would be able to add parking as part of their lease for an added cost. The option to lease a parking space would be made available to all tenants, regardless of income level and would be subject to availability.7
5 Assembly Bill 2097, Friedman. Residential, commercial, or other development types: parking requirements. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097 6 Assembly Bill 1317, Wendy Carrillo. Unbundled parking.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1947.1.&lawCode=CIV 7 Civil Code Section 1947.1 includes certain exceptions from the unbundling requirement for 100% affordable housing projects, projects that receive low-income housing tax credits or financing from tax-exempt bonds pursuant to a program administered by the California Housing Finance Agency, and any unit that is leased to a tenant who receives a federal housing assistance voucher issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f), including a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 11 of 22 ends

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS8
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
• Development Plan Review
A Development Plan Review (DPR) is required pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3100 to allow the construction of a new 26-story multi-family residential building. • Density Bonus Permit
Pursuant to Section 65915 of the California Government Code, a Density Bonus is required to allow an additional number of units that may be constructed on site in addition to certain incentives/waivers from development standards to accommodate the provision of 22 proposed affordable housing units.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES9
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project are included as Attachment D, although, as discussed below, the HAA limits the City’s ability to address project inconsistencies with the General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines10 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a statutory exemption pursuant to §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on June 30, 2025 with the passage of AB 13011, is applicable to certain housing development projects that meet prescribed objective standards. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider finding the project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).

An assessment of the project’s eligibility for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) is provided in Attachment E. Additionally, the applicant has provided materials and studies in support of the statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) (Attachment F).

In consideration of this statutory CEQA exemption, PRC §21080.66(b) requires the City to provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the project, its location, and the project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. The City provided notification via certified mail and email on July 16, 2025 to eight Native American tribes and received consultation requests from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and 8 Pursuant to Government Code §65905.5(a), the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. This is the first hearing on this project. 9 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1065/General-Plan 10 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ 11 Sec. 59 of Assembly Bill 130, Committee on Budget. Housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130 Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 12 of 22 ends

the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. City staff met with representatives of each Native American tribe and conditions memorizing the tribes request have been incorporated in the draft resolution (Attachment A). The City concluded tribal consultation on October 7, 2025.

Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7), the City is required to approve or disapprove the project within 30 days from the conclusion of the Native American tribal consultation process.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The notice for this project (Attachment G), summarized in Table 2, was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in BHMC §10-3-2.5, et. seq.

TABLE 2. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Notice Type Notice Date
Notice of Pending Application
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 4/29/2024 • Mailed Notice (100’ radius; via tracked courier) N/A
• On-site Posted Notice 4/29/2024
Notice of Public Hearing
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 9/24/2025 • On-site Posted Notice 9/24/2025
• Newspaper Notice
Beverly Hills Courier
Beverly Hills Weekly
N/A
N/A
Applicant Outreach Efforts
No known outreach efforts.

Public Comment
Staff has received numerous inquiries regarding processing of the application and public correspondence related to the project. All public correspondence is included as Attachment H.

ANALYSIS12
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary action requested by the applicant. This section is intended to provide a detailed analysis of the project to assist the Planning Commission in assessing whether a project is able to meet the required findings for the requested entitlements. The specific findings that must be made in consideration of the project are provided as Attachments B and C to this report.

Denial of Housing Development Projects. The HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, if they wish to deny a 12 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 13 of 22 ends

housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing conditions on a project that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” These potential findings that could be made to disapprove a project are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j).

The potential findings in GC §65589.5(d) apply to “housing development projects for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” which is a defined in GC §65589.5(h)(3). This project falls within that definition because the project dedicates 7% of the units (14 units) to extremely low-income households and is considered “housing for mixed-income households.” (GC §65589.5(h)(3)(C)(i)(I).) Findings or determinations based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard require that the City weigh the evidence in the record and conclude that the evidence on one side outweighs and is more than the evidence on the other side (i.e., that a particular claim is more likely true than not true).

Based on this standard, staff’s analysis of each potential finding that could be relied on for a potential denial of this housing development project is provided below.

A. Findings for Denial or Conditioning of Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or ModerateIncome Households (Government Code Section 65589.5(d))

1. The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(1)) On May 1, 2024, HCD certified the City’s Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. In this housing cycle, the City is tasked with creating a regulatory environment and identifying sites that would facilitate the production of 3,104 dwelling units, 504 units of which would be reserved for extremely low-income households, 504 units reserved for very low-income households, 680 units reserved for low-income households, 602 units reserved for moderate income households, and 814 reserved for above moderate-income households.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 14 of 22 ends

The project proposes a total of 200 dwelling units, which includes 22 deed-restricted affordable units. Of these 22 units, 14 units (7%) would be reserved for extremely lowincome households and eight units (4%) would be reserved for moderate income households. Based on current housing production figures during this housing cycle, a total of two moderate income housing units have been permitted and no extremely low-income units have permitted13. While the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element, the City has not yet met or exceeded its share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the current planning period for the income category proposed for the project. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

2. The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
a. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. b. The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)) The proposed project conflicts with general plan land use designation and zoning development standards, including density, outdoor living space, height, building setbacks, length of building requirements, permissible encroachments, and paving of setbacks. However, as noted in GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), any inconsistency with the City’s zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety for which the City may use in consideration of the denial of the proposed housing development project. It should be noted that the standard is for “public health or safety” and not “welfare”. Additionally, the project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, or a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the project do not appear to demonstrate that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that would necessitate mitigation. Further, additional research has been performed as to whether there are any applicable objective written health or safety standards that would apply to this project and would warrant denial or reductions in density and has identified no such standards on which a denial pursuant to this 13 2024 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report - https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=10213&meta_id=636011 Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 15 of 22 ends

finding could be justified. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

3. The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(3))
Research into relevant state and federal laws has been performed and there is no basis on which to find the project to be out of compliance and thus has no basis on which to rely to make this finding. As the project is consistent with state housing law and no specific state or federal law preempts approval of the project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

4. The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(4))
The project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes. Improvements required for the project would require that the applicant upgrade any existing water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed building as part of project construction. As part of the building plan check process, the applicant would be required to submit studies showing the adequacy of existing water and wastewater facilities, and any upgrades to these utilities would be upgraded at the expense of the applicant. Furthermore, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has evaluated water demand, wastewater treatment capacity, and the ability to serve future housing units to accommodate to the City’s obligations under RHNA. The analysis in the UWMP has projected that sufficient capacity exists to serve the number 3,104 units anticipated during the 2021-2029 housing element planning cycle and through 2030. As this project is not on land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation and there is no evidence showing that water and wastewater facilities are inadequate to serve the project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

Page 16 of 22 ends

rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderateincome households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
b. If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5))
The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (PA) on December 15, 2023, in order to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time. On this date, the City did not have a certified Housing Element. For purposes of implementing this state law, the application is deemed complete on the date the PA is submitted. Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on March 25, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). As this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA), there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

6. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(6))
Consistent with the analysis provided for the finding required by GC §65589.5(d)(5), as this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA) there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 17 of 22 ends

B. Findings Required for Denial of a Housing Project that is Consistent with Applicable Plans, Standards, or Other Similar Provisions Based on the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1))

1. When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
a. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(a)) Pursuant to the HAA (GC §65589.5(h)(6)(E)), a Builder’s Remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. Similarly, GC §65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.” Per GC §65589.5(h)(5), “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a PA to vest the right of a project prior to the submittal of a formal application. While the project as designed conflicts with general plan and zoning development standards, including height, density, building setbacks, modulation, outdoor living space, paving standards, and parking, this project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and is considered statutorily compliant with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria because the PA for this project was submitted on December 15, 2023, prior to the City’s Housing Element certification.

Additionally, while materials submitted for this project show that the project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which to deny the project. Aesthetic impacts of a project associated with privacy and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard. Similarly, construction traffic impacts would be temporary, and any traffic Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 18 of 22 ends

control measures implemented would be consistent with City requirements for development projects and would be removed at the end of project construction.

Construction noise impacts would also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays.

Furthermore, the project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, in a delineated earthquake fault zone, in a special flood hazard area, or in a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the project do not appear to demonstrate that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to construction workers or future occupants of the residential development. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds. b. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(b)) While the project is anticipated to have aesthetic and temporary constructionrelated traffic and noise impacts, the noted impacts do not appear to constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to merit disapproval of the proposed housing development project. Furthermore, pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

Development Plan Review. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3104, the Planning Commission’s review of a Development Plan Review application is based on the following findings:
• The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

The project site is designated as Multi-Family Residential – High Density in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation allows for multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre and at a maximum height of 60’- 0”. The proposed project is a new 26-story, 200-unit, multi-family residential development with a height of 309’-6”. As designed, the project far exceeds the development potential outlined in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Under the applicable density standards, a total of 31 units would be permissible at the project site, with a maximum height of 60’-0”.

Additionally, the project appears to be in conflict with several goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, including: LU 1.1 (Scale of the City), LU 2.1 (City Places:

Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors), LU 2.10 (Development Transitions and Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 19 of 22 ends

Compatibility), LU 3.1 (Conservation), LU 5.1 (Neighborhood Conservation), LU 5.7 (Neighborhood Transitions), and LU 7.1 (Character and Design).

As designed, the project does not maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the residential and commercial areas in the vicinity of the project. The proposed height of 26 stories and 309’-6” height disrupts the established scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood characterized by oneand two-story commercial buildings to the east, a four-story apartment building to the west, two- to four-story apartment buildings to the north, and a five-story condominium development to the south. The project’s reduction in front setback along North Clark Drive from 31’-0” to 21’-10”, street side setback along Burton Way from 9’-0” to 6’-3”, and rear setback from 15’-0” to 10’-0”, prevents an effective transition between neighboring properties. The proposed units in the project include balconies along the north and south elevations, along with common open spaces on the fourth, 11th, 25th , 26th floor, and the rooftop area which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the project, creating privacy concerns that are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to assure functional and visual transitions between different densities. The project’s scale, reduced building setbacks, and lack of building modulation on streetfacing elevations do not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the neighboring residential and commercial uses. Based on the foregoing, this proposed project is not consistent with the City’s general plan. Thus, the finding cannot be made that the project is consistent with the General Plan. However, while the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, the HAA requires that a Builder’s Remedy project be considered consistent and in compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, and such inconsistencies do not provide a basis for denial of the project. • The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

The project is severely out of scale with existing development immediate adjacent to the project, which includes one- and two-story commercial buildings to the east, a four-story apartment building to the west, two- to four-story apartment buildings to the north, and a five-story condominium development to the south. The project’s reduced front and street-side setbacks, and lack of building modulation does not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the scale of neighboring properties. The placement of the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential and commercial properties.

The proposed units in the project include balconies along the north and south elevations, along with common open spaces on the fourth, 11th, 25th , 26th floor, and the rooftop area which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would appear to adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the project and would not promote harmonious development of the area. Thus, this finding cannot be made. In light of the issues Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 20 of 22 ends

presented in this finding, the project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.
• The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

The project proposal involves the construction of a new multi-family residential building and does not include any commercial development. As a result, this finding is not applicable.
• The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

Although the project appears to be exempt from CEQA, the City’s CEQA thresholds of significance inform whether impacts would be considered significantly adverse for the purposes of this finding. Based on the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation impacts, the project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA) and within Low VMT generating area. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary as it relates to VMT. Additionally, while not required for CEQA, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the project to evaluate level of service (LOS) impacts during peak hours at signalized intersections. The intersections evaluated as part of this study were located at:

1. Doheny Drive and Burton Way

2. Doheny Drive and Dayton Way

3. La Peer Drive and Burton Way

4. Robertson Boulevard and Burton Way

5. Robertson Boulevard and Dayton Way

6. Robertson Boulevard and Clifton Way
The TIA determined that the increases in intersection delays at the study intersections is not expected to exceed the City’s operations criteria at any of the six study intersections and that the project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. Therefore, no transportation improvement measures are required or recommended. The LTA determined that the increases in intersection delays at the study intersections would be relatively small (0.1 to 3.6 seconds) and that the project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections. The minor increases in delay at the study intersections fall below the thresholds established by the City for identifying potential adverse conditions at locations operating at LOS D or worse, so no improvements would be required at the study intersection as a result of the project.

The Construction Management Plan (CMP) submitted for the project identifies the need for several construction-related closures of public right-of-way areas (Attachment J). The impacted areas include sidewalk closures along North Swall Drive, North Clark Drive, and Burton Way, parking lane closures along Burton Way, and alley closures at the rear of the property for staging and construction. Any use of public rights-of-way are subject Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 21 of 22 ends

to separate City approvals. While the project has the potential to create adverse traffic impacts, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards as of result of the proposed closures of public right-of-way surrounding the project site, a detailed CMP would require review by the City and measures would be implemented to minimize impacts associated with the temporary closures of the public right-of-way and the use of the right-of-way for construction staging. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard. • The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

The project is designed in conflict with general plan and zoning development standards, including density, outdoor living space, height, building setbacks, length of building requirements, permissible encroachments, and paving of setbacks. While the aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), the materials provided for the project also demonstrate that the project would cast shade shadows to single-family, multi-family, and commercial properties located to the east, west, and southeast and southwest in summer months and to the north, northeast and northwest in winter months, impacting the access to natural light to these properties.

Furthermore, the project includes balconies along the south elevation which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on existing multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project appears to be detrimental to the general welfare. Thus, the finding that the project will not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare cannot be made.

While staff believes that some of the above outlined DPR findings cannot be made, the City is obligated to approve the project because, as described above, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to make the necessary findings in the HAA as grounds to deny the project. However, the DPR analysis provides subjective findings that are basis for certain conditions of approval that staff is recommending in the draft resolution (Attachment A), as outlined in the following section.

Additional Considerations. While not specifically required for project approval, staff has provided additional information that the Planning Commission may take into account in consideration of the project.

State Housing Laws
Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7) the City is required to take action on the project within 30 days following the end of tribal consultation which concluded on October 7, 2025. As discussed above, pursuant to GC §65957 this deadline could be extended by up to 90 days pursuant to a written agreement between the applicant and the City. Further, pursuant to GC §65905.5, the City is limited to five total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. In order to retain sufficient public hearings for Architectural Review and any Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 21, 2025

Page 22 of 22 ends

potential City Council review, it is recommended that the Planning Commission complete their review of this project in two meetings or less.

Recommended Conditions of Approval
While only the objective standards can be the basis for project denial, there is some authority to impose conditions on a project to further compliance with subjective standards, provided that the conditions do not have the effect of lowering density, which could have the effect of making the project infeasible to develop.

Staff has included project-specific conditions in the draft resolution (Attachment A) for the Planning Commission to consider as part of their review of the project. The conditions are intended to address the findings related to the DPR in order to minimize impacts related to existing and anticipated development, traffic/pedestrian safety conflicts, and the welfare of the surrounding area. These project-specific conditions are consistent with conditions imposed on similar residential developments approved by the Commission, and include:
• Limitation on common outdoor living space hours (Condition No. 15) • Amplified sound prohibition in common outdoor living spaces areas, including balconies, outdoor terraces, and the rooftop of the building. (Condition No. 16) • Construction of a 6’-0” tall sound barrier on the south side of the common outdoor living space areas (Condition No. 19)
• Translucent or opaque barriers on all balconies abutting residential properties (Condition No. 20)
• Prohibition on the use of barbeque grills on individual balconies and within the open space on the common outdoor terraces and on the rooftop. (Condition No. 21) • Installation of parabolic mirrors, light system, and vehicle stop signs at the ingress and egress points to the parking area and loading area (Condition No. 22) • Routing of construction-related traffic toward Wilshire Boulevard (Condition No. 39.e) • Installation of a 12’ tall temporary construction barrier around the project site (Condition No. 41)

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Review and Density Bonus Permit for the proposed Builder’s Remedy project at 8844 Burton Way, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

Report Reviewed By:

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENT 4
October 29, 2025
Planning Commission Report
(w/o Attachments)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1000 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Resolution
B. October 21,2025 Planning Commission Report (without attachments) Report Author and Contact Information:

Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1138
[email protected]
Meeting Date: October 29, 2025
Subject: 8844 BURTON WAY
Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit (PL2400115) A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills denying a request for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), to allow for the construction of a new 26-story, 200-unit multi-family residential development. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the resolution also finds the Project exempt from further review under CEQA. Continued from the October 21,2025 Planning Commission special meeting.

Project Applicant: 8844 Burton Way LLC
Project Representative: Thomas Faraut (c/o Crescent Heights)

BACKGROUND
The proposed project involves a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR) and Density Bonus Permit to allow for the construction of a 26-story, 309’-6” tall, multi-family residential development with 200 dwelling units at the property located at 8844 Burton Way (the “project site”). The project application has been filed pursuant to the “Builder's Remedy” provisions of Government Code §65589.5(d)(5). The project site is located within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density.

On October 21, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at the meeting. Based on the Commission’s review of the project, the Commission made a motion to deny the project (4-1) and directed staff to prepare a denial resolution memorializing the Commission’s findings (Attachment A) for consideration at the October 29, 2025 special meeting. For reference, a copy of the October 21, 2025, Planning Commission report is provided as Attachment B.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b)(5) and Section 15270 of the Guidelines, a project that is rejected or disapproved by a public Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
October 29, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

agency is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
On October 21, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the meeting to the special meeting of October 29, 2025, to consider the resolution denying the project. As a courtesy, staff notified interested parties via email regarding the continued meeting.

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider the attached resolution memorializing the Commission direction to deny a Development Review and Density Bonus Permit for the proposed Builder’s Remedy project at 8844 Burton Way.

Report Reviewed By:

Cindy Gordon, AICP
Project Manager
ATTACHMENT 5
November 5, 2025
Planning Commission Report
(w/o Attachments)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1000 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Draft Denial Resolution
B. Draft Approval Resolution
C. October 28, 2025 Applicant Letter
D. October 29, 2025 Applicant Letter
E. AB 130 CEQA Exemption – Staff’s Analysis
F. Public Correspondence
G. October 21, 2025 Planning Commission Report (without attachments) H. October 29, 2025 Planning Commission Report (without attachments) Report Author and Contact Information:

Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1138
[email protected]
Meeting Date: November 5, 2025
Subject: 8844 BURTON WAY
Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit (PL2400115) Request for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), to allow for the construction of a new 26-story, 200-unit multi-family residential development. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Continued from the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission special meeting.

Project Applicant: 8844 Burton Way LLC
Project Representative: Thomas Faraut (c/o Crescent Heights)

On October 21, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the project at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at the meeting. Based on the Commission’s review of the project, the Commission made a motion (4-1) directing staff to prepare a denial resolution memorializing the Commission’s findings (Attachment A) for consideration at the October 29, 2025 special meeting.

Subsequently, on October 28, 2025, Dave Rand, on behalf of 8844 Burton Way LLC (the “applicant”) submitted correspondence (Attachment C) requesting the project be continued to a future meeting to allow for all Planning Commissioners to be available to consider revisions to the project proposed in response to concerns expressed by the Commission at the October 21st Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
November 5, 2025

Page 2 of 4 ends

meeting. The letter proposed a revised unit dispersal for the affordable units, while continuing to maintain the position that the original configuration complied with State law, and further expressed their disagreement with the Commission direction to deny the project and with any condition of approval requiring translucent or opaque balcony faces.

As it pertains to affordable housing unit distribution, the applicant has more broadly dispersed the units throughout the building and included a portion of the required affordable units on higher floors. The original version of the project located the affordable units on the fourth through eighth floors of the building and concentrated their placement toward the center of the structure, near the elevator and trash chutes that service the building. Additional correspondence submitted by the applicant on October 29, 2025 (Attachment D), proposed further revisions to the project’s affordable unit distribution, and replaced a large portion of the affordable studio units with affordable two- and three-bedroom units such that the bedroom and bathroom count of the affordable units is comparable to the market rate units. A comparison of the affordable unit distribution between the original and revised iterations of the project is provided in Table 1.

TABLE 1: PROPOSED UNIT DISPERSAL
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OCTOBER 28TH REVISION OCTOBER 29TH REVISION

MARKET ELI MI MARKET ELI MI MARKET ELI MI
LEVEL 24 5 -- -- 5 -- -- 5 -- --
LEVEL 23 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 22 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 21 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 20 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 19 9 -- -- 9 -- -- 9 -- --
LEVEL 18 9 -- -- 9 -- 1 10 -- --
LEVEL 17 9 -- -- 9 -- 1 9 -- 1
LEVEL 16 9 -- -- 9 -- 1 9 -- 1
LEVEL 15 9 -- -- 9 -- 1 9 -- 1
LEVEL 14 9 -- -- 9 1 -- 9 -- 1
LEVEL 13 9 -- -- 9 1 -- 8 1 1
LEVEL 12 7 -- -- 7 1 -- 6 1 1
LEVEL 11 7 -- -- 7 1 -- 6 1 1
LEVEL 10 9 -- -- 9 2 -- 9 1 1
LEVEL 9 9 -- -- 9 2 -- 10 1 --
LEVEL 8 10 -- 4 9 2 -- 10 1 --
LEVEL 7 10 4 -- 9 2 -- 9 2 --
LEVEL 6 10 4 -- 9 2 -- 9 2 --
LEVEL 5 8 3 -- 7 -- 2 7 2 --
LEVEL 4 4 3 4 8 -- 2 8 2 --
SUBTOTAL 178 14 8 178 14 8 178 14 8
TOTAL 200 200 200
All affordable units highlighted in YELLOW.

MARKET – Market Rate Unit | ELI – Extremely Low Income Unit | MI – Moderate Income Unit Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
November 5, 2025

Page 3 of 4 ends

The latest iteration of the project detailed on the applicant’s October 29th letter now proposes the dispersal of the affordable units across the fourth through 17th floors of the building. The revised affordable unit mix now includes four studio units and 10 two-bedroom units provided for extremely low-income households, and eight three-bedroom units provided for moderate income households. This proposal supersedes the original unit mix that previously included 22 affordable studio units, consisting of 14 studio units for extremely low-income households and eight studio units for moderate income households. Both the original and revised proposal continue to provide the 22 affordable units required for the project.

At the October 29th special meeting, the Commission reopened the public hearing to consider the applicant’s continuance request. After consideration, the Commission made a motion (4-0) to continue the project to the special meeting of November 5, 2025 to consider the applicant’s proposed revisions to the project. Additionally, in recognition of the limited number of available meetings for continued deliberations, the Commission directed staff to return with both a resolution to deny the project (Attachment A), consistent with the direction provided at the October 21st meeting, and a resolution to approve the project (Attachment B), should the applicant’s proposed revisions address concerns previously express by the Commission regarding the distribution of affordable units.

Copies of the October 21, 2025 and October 29, 2025, Planning Commission reports are provided as Attachment G and H, respectively.

If the Planning Commission elects to adopt the resolution denying the project, then pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080 (b)(5) and Section 15270 of the Guidelines, the denial of the project would be exempt from further CEQA review as a project that is rejected or disapproved by a public agency, which is statutorily exempt from the requirements of CEQA.

If the Planning Commission elects to adopt the resolution approving the project, then the project would be statutorily exempt pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on June 30, 2025 with the passage of AB 130, is applicable to certain housing development projects that meet prescribed objective standards. An assessment of the project’s eligibility for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) is provided in Attachment E.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
On October 29, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the meeting a date certain (November 5, 2025). As a courtesy, staff notified interested parties via email regarding the continued meeting.

Additionally, all public correspondence received for the project to date has been provided for the Commission’s consideration as Attachment F.

Planning Commission Report
8844 Burton Way
November 5, 2025

Page 4 of 4 ends

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission reopen the public hearing, review the revised project, discuss the attached resolutions to approve or deny the project, and either:
1) Adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Review and Density Bonus Permit for the proposed Builder’s Remedy project at 8844 Burton Way, and find the project exempt from CEQA; or,
2) Adopt the attached resolution denying a Development Review and Density Bonus Permit for the proposed Builder’s Remedy project at 8844 Burton Way Report Reviewed By:

Cindy Gordon, AICP
Project Manager
ATTACHMENT 6
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2104
RESOLUTION NO. 2104

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS DENYING A DEVELOPMENT

PLAN REVIEW AND DENSITY BONUS PERMIT FOR A

PROJECT UTILIZING STATE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT BUILDER’S REMEDY PROVISIONS FOR A PROPOSED
26-STORY, 200-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 8844 BURTON WAY (PL2400115)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Thomas Faraut, on behalf of 8844 Burton Way (collectively the “Applicant”), has submitted an application for a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), seeking approval of a new 26-story, multi-family residential development with above grade and subterranean parking. The Project includes a request for a Density Bonus Permit to allow for certain incentives/concessions (hereafter, referred to as concessions) and waivers from development standards based on the inclusion of 22 affordable housing units (the “Project”). The Project includes 200 units, consisting of 178 market rate units, 14 extremely low-income units, and eight moderate income units. Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §§10-3-3100.A and 10-3-1524, a Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit are required for the new multi-family residential development.

Section 2. The Project site is a 26,779 SF lot located along the south-side of the 8800 block of Burton Way, within the City’s R-4 Multiple Residential Zone. The Project consists of the construction of a new 26-story multi-family residential building, with 200 dwelling units. The Project would redevelop a vacant residentially zoned lot with the construction of a new Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -2-
multi-family residential apartment building. The Project would have a maximum height of 26- stories and 309’-6”. The Project would provide 38 efficiency units (studios) ranging from 645 square feet (SF) to 936 SF; 86 two-bedroom units ranging from 1,382 SF to 1,597 SF; and 76 three-bedroom units ranging from 1,853 SF to 1,942 SF. The new building would have front setbacks of 20’-10” along North Clark Drive and 17’-6” along North Swall Drive, a side setback of 6’-3” along Burton Way, and a rear setback of 10’-0” abutting the alley at the rear of the Project site. Approximately 42,226 SF of open space would be provided through a combination of common and outdoor living space on balconies facing Burton Way and the rear of the property, and terraces located on the fourth, 11th, 26th floor, and rooftop of the building. Additionally, a total of 316 parking spaces would be provided above grade and as subterranean levels, with the parking lifts used on the second and third level parking floors. Vehicular access to the Project’s parking areas would be provided from North Clark Drive.

The Project also proposes and seeks the following as it pertains to density bonus laws:

Density Bonus: The Project utilizes State density bonus standards to request concessions and waivers of development standards to facilitate the Project in exchange for the provision of affordable housing. The Project would provide a total of 22 affordable dwelling units (14 extremely low-income units and eight moderate-income rate units), pursuant to Government Code Sections 65915, and 65589.5(f)(1). The Project seeks a density bonus, along with concessions and waivers, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(3), by dedicating a minimum of 12% of the total units (14 units) to extremely low income households and seven percent (7%) of the total units (eight units) to moderate income households.

Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -3-
Development Concessions/Waivers: The concessions and waivers requested by the Applicant are as follows:

Concessions:

2. Encroachments in Front and Street Side Yard Setbacks: Balconies: BHMC §10-3-2811.C establishes permissible encroachments for balconies within a required front and street side setback, which allows balconies to encroach a maximum of 3’-0” into the required setback. The Applicant is requesting a concession allow for the balconies to encroach 9’-2” into the required front yard setback along North Clark Drive.

3. Encroachments in Front and Street Side Yard Setbacks: Basement Garages:

4. Paving: BHMC §10-3-2813 establishes the maximum allowable paving in the front yard of a property in the R-4 zone, which is limited to a maximum of one (1) paved walkway not exceeding 5’-0” in width. The Applicant is requesting a concession to allow one (1) walkway that exceeds 5’-0” in width along North Swall Drive and up to three (3) walkways along North Clark Drive, two of which will exceed 5’-0” in width.

Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -4-
Waivers:

1. Building Height and Stories: BHMC §10-3-2804 establishes the allowable building height for development in the R-4 Zone, which allows for a maximum of five (5) stories with a maximum height of 55’-0”. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a 26-story building with a height of 309’-6”.

3. Front Setback: BHMC §10-3-2806 establishes the required front setback for a property in the R-4 zone, which requires a 31’-0” along North Clark Drive. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a reduced front setback of 20’-10” along North Clark Drive.

5. Paving: BHMC §10-3-2813 establishes the maximum allowable paving in the front yard of a property in the R-4 zone, which is limited to a maximum of one (1) paved walkway not exceeding 5’-0” in width. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow one (1) walkway that exceeds 5’-0” in width along North Swall Drive and up to three (3) walkways along North Clark Drive, two of which will exceed 5’-0” in width.

6. Outdoor Living Space: BHMC §10-3-2803 establishes the required amount of outdoor living space and the required minimum dimensions for the outdoor living space for development in the R-4 Zone, which requires a minimum dimension of 6’-0” for areas Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -5-
to be counted toward private outdoor living space. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to provide private outdoor living space within balconies that are less than 6’-0” in area.

The Applicant seeks a waiver of the modulation setback and area requirements.

8. Additional Modulation for Large Scale Multiple Residential Developments:

BHMC §10-3-2806(C) establishes the front modulation required for a building, which requires additional modulation for a total of 12,647.5 SF of modulation and the modulation to be proportionally distributed between the elevation that faces the principal street and the elevation that faces the principal street. The applicant is requesting a waiver to provide up to 4,830 SF of modulation, less than the amount requires per code and without a proportional distribution along the street frontages.

10. Building Height and Stories: The City’s General Plan provides that development proposed on properties within the High Density – Multi-Family Residential land use designation is allowed a maximum height of 60’-0”. The Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow a building with a height of 309’-6”.

Section 3. On December 15, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (the “PA”) to vest the rights of the Project under Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period under which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the Applicant submitted a Development Plan Review application on March 25, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in Government Code Section 65941.1(e)(1). The application for the Project was originally deemed complete by the City on January 10, 2025. On March 12, 2025, the Applicant revised the Project, which included a revised Development Plan Review application and new Density Bonus Permit, and increased the size and scale of the Project but retained the same number of proposed units as the original Project. The revised Project was deemed complete by the City on July 31, 2025. While this Project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under state Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”), because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to housing element certification, thus vesting rights at that time pursuant to HAA Section 65589.5(o)(1).

Section 4. This Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the Guidelines, a project that is disapproved or rejected by a public agency is statutorily exempt -6-
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -7-
from the requirements of CEQA. Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds the denial of the Project to be exempt from further environmental review.

Section 5. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on September 24, 2025, to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, extended to the block face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on September 24, 2025. On October 21, 2025, October 29, 2025, and November 5, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing
Section 6. The Housing Accountability Act, Government Code Section 65589.5 paragraphs (d) and (j), sets forth specific findings that must be made in order to deny housing projects. In considering the Project and HAA findings for denial or conditioning of housing affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households to lower density, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d), the Planning Commission considered whether it could make any of the following findings:

1. The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -8-
categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.

Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -10-
b. If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.

6. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(6))
Section 7. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d), as set forth in Section 5 above:

1. The Project conflicts with the City’s general plan land use designation and zoning development standards, including density, outdoor living space, height, building Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -11-
setbacks, length of building requirements, permissible encroachments, and paving of setbacks. GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A) prohibits the denial of a proposed housing development project for any inconsistency with the City’s zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation unless the Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. The materials submitted for the Project, and contained in the record of proceedings, demonstrate that as proposed, the Project will have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

The Applicant has failed to show that Project’s height will not create a serious and unmitigated risk to occupant safety in the event of a fire and the Commission did not believe that sufficient evidence was provided in the record to conclude that emergency services can safely and effectively operate at the heights the 26-story Project would require.

Additionally, the Project is located in an area already burdened by limited ingress and egress, and growing traffic congestion. The addition of a 26-story building with 200 additional residential units will result in significant new traffic from resident and visitor vehicles, delivery, refuse, or moving trucks, and curbside activity that will further constrict roadway access, lengthening response times for ambulances and fire services and thereby creating a threat to resident safety. The impact will be particularly acute for the area’s concentration of existing elderly residents who regularly rely on rapid medical response and transport. Accordingly, the Planning Commission finds that, taken together, the Project’s obstruction of emergency access and the lack of verified fire service capacity above 100 feet creates a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety thus warranting denial pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2). Further, the Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -12-
Planning Commission finds that there is no feasible way to avoid the specific adverse impact without significantly decreasing the height and density of the project, which, based on the Applicant’s testimony, will render the Project infeasible.

2. Research into relevant state and federal laws has shown that denial of the Project is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate- income households. Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2) provides that “a mixed-income multifamily structure shall not isolate the affordable housing units within that structure to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor.” The purpose of this provision is to prevent the physical or social segregation of lower-income residents within mixed-income developments, and thus the Commission interprets the mandate to extend to ensuring that affordable housing units are integrated, equitable, and comparable in quality and location to market-rate units within the same project.

Here, the Applicant confines all 22 proposed affordable units to the bottom five floors of the structure. In a large 26-story development, the confinement of all affordable units to the bottom five floors “isolates” the units by setting them apart from the remaining 21 stories of market-rate housing, which constitutes a vertical segregation of the affordable units from the vast majority of the market-rate units that the statute intended to prevent.

Additionally, the placement of all affordable units adjacent to elevators, service elevators, and trash chutes further compounds the violation by relegating affordable residents to specific areas on the floor, specifically to areas that are less desirable and more congested or noisy. In doing so, Applicant treats affordable tenants differently in a way Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -13-
that signals inferior status or marginalizes them within the building’s layout. Locating affordable units exclusively near service areas reinforces a separate and unequal design scheme inconsistent with Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2).

Further, at the October 21, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant testified that redistributing the affordable units in a different way within the building would render the Project financially infeasible, and as such the Planning Commission finds there is no feasible method to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2), thus warranting denial pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(3).

Section 8. In considering the Project and findings for denial of a housing project that is consistent with applicable plans, standards, or other similar provisions based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings:

Section 9. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), as set forth in Section 7 above:

1. The Project will have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety and fails to comply with state law for the reasons set forth in Section 6 of this Resolution.

Section 10. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the requested Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit for the construction of a 26-story, 200-unit multi-family residential development Project with above-grade and subterranean parking at 8844 Burton Way.
///
///
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E -15-
Section 11. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered into the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.

Adopted: November 5, 2025
Jeff Wolfe
Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Michael Forbes, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

David M. Snow
Assistant City Attorney
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2104 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on November 5, 2025, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:

AYES: Commissioners Ross, Demeter, Vice Chair Milkowski NOES: Commissioner Kaplan, Chair Wolfe
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
________________________________

KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Docusign Envelope ID: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 210DF6F0-DF45-4D32-B5B4-8D533BFB7D1E Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: PC Reso 2104 - 8844 Burton Way.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 16 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Evelin Welch
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.181
Record Tracking
Status: Original
11/10/2025 8:42:56 AM
Holder: Evelin Welch
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Karen Myron
[email protected]

COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,

CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 11/10/2025 8:45:33 AM
Viewed: 11/10/2025 1:21:07 PM
Signed: 11/10/2025 1:23:40 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Jeff Wolfe
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 98.149.55.76
Sent: 11/10/2025 1:23:41 PM
Resent: 11/13/2025 3:14:14 PM
Viewed: 11/16/2025 4:42:27 PM
Signed: 11/16/2025 4:43:00 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Dave Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 72.219.162.164
Sent: 11/16/2025 4:43:01 PM
Resent: 11/17/2025 7:57:29 AM
Resent: 11/17/2025 2:03:47 PM
Resent: 11/17/2025 2:04:03 PM
Resent: 11/19/2025 11:02:44 AM
Resent: 11/19/2025 11:03:59 AM
Resent: 11/19/2025 11:04:36 AM
Resent: 11/20/2025 8:01:56 AM
Resent: 11/24/2025 7:47:27 AM
Resent: 11/25/2025 12:15:36 PM
Resent: 12/1/2025 8:02:37 AM
Resent: 12/1/2025 8:59:43 AM
Viewed: 12/1/2025 9:00:28 AM
Signed: 12/1/2025 9:00:37 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Michael Forbes
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.181
Sent: 12/1/2025 9:00:39 AM
Resent: 12/1/2025 9:01:06 AM
Viewed: 12/1/2025 9:59:21 AM
Signed: 12/1/2025 9:59:44 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 11/10/2025 8:45:33 AM
Envelope Updated Security Checked 11/17/2025 2:03:46 PM Envelope Updated Security Checked 11/17/2025 2:03:46 PM Envelope Updated Security Checked 11/19/2025 11:03:58 AM Envelope Updated Security Checked 11/19/2025 11:03:58 AM Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/1/2025 9:59:21 AM Signing Complete Security Checked 12/1/2025 9:59:44 AM
Completed Security Checked 12/1/2025 9:59:44 AM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 7
State Statutes
State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65589.5
65589.5.
(d) For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project.

The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
(A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
Findings for Denial or Conditioning of
Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or
Moderate-Income Households
(Government Code Section 65589.5(d))
(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan.
(A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderateincome households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project.

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65589.5
65589.5.
(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
Findings Required for Denial of a Housing
Project that is Consistent with Applicable
Plans, Standards, or Other Similar
Provisions Based on the Preponderance
of the Evidence Standard
(Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1))

® STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LEGISLATIVE AUTHENTICATED
~7,'t,:i}X ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
State of California

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Section 21080.66
21080.66. (a) Without limiting any other statutory or categorical exemption, this division does not apply to any aspect of a housing development project, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65905 .5 of the Government Code, including any permits, approvals, or public improvements required for the housing development project, as may be required by this division, if the housing development project meets all of the following conditions:
(1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the project site is not more than 20 acres.
(B) The project site or the parcel size for a builder's remedy project, as defined in paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, or the project site or the parcel size for a project that applied pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code as it read before January 1, 2025, is not more than five acres.
(2) The project site meets either of the following criteria:
(A) Is located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality. (B) Is located within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. (3) The project site meets any of the following criteria:
(A) Has been previously developed with an urban use.
(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
( C) At least 7 5 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
(D) For sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
( 4) (A) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program as defined in Section 30108.6. For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, and any applicable local coastal program, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent. (B) If the zoning and general plan are not consistent with one another, a project shall be deemed consistent with both if the project is consistent with one. (C) The approval of a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project Assembly Bill 130
CEQA Statutory Exemption
(Public Resources Code
Section 21080.66)

is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program.
(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code.
( 6) The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph ( 6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code.
(7) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the Government Code.
(8) For a project that was deemed complete pursuant to paragraph ( 5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. For the purposes of this section, "other transient lodging" does not include either of the following:
(A) A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local law. (b) (1) (A) A local government shall provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the proposed project, its location, and the project's potential effects on tribal cultural resources pursuant to one of the following deadlines:
(i) Within 14 days of the application for the project being deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code. (ii) For projects whose applications were deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code before July 1, 2026, within 14 days of notifying the local government that the project is eligible to be exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(B) The formal notification shall include all of the following:
(i) Detailed project information to help inform the consultation, including site maps, proposed project scope, and any known cultural resource studies. (ii) Contact information for the local government.
(iii) Contact information for the project proponent.
(iv) Notice that the California Native American tribe has 60 days to request consultation with the local government pursuant to this subdivision. (2) (A) Each California Native American tribe has 60 days to notify the local government that it accepts the invitation to consult.
(B) If a California Native American tribe chooses not to accept the invitation to consult, or does not notify the local government of its decision within 60 days, the consultation shall be considered to have concluded.

(3) (A) Within 14 days of receiving the notification that the California Native American tribe has elected to consult, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2), the local government shall initiate the consultation.
(B) During the consultation, the local government shall act in good faith to identify whether a tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed project and shall give deference to the tribal information, tribal knowledge and customs, and the significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe. (C) The project proponent may participate in the consultation with the approval of the California Native American tribe if the project proponent agrees to engage in good faith and comply with the confidentiality requirements of Sections 7927.000 and 7927.005 of the Government Code, subdivision (d) of Section 21082.3, subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, and any confidentiality standards adopted by the California Native American tribe participating in the consultation.
(D) The consultation shall seek to find measures that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.
(E) The local government shall document the results of the consultation. (F) The consultation shall conclude within 45 days of initiation, subject to a one-time 15-day extension upon request by a participating California Native American tribe.
(4) The local government shall include, as binding conditions of the project approval, all of the following:
(A) Any enforceable agreements reached during the project consultation. (B) All of the following measures, unless there is mutual agreement between the California Native American tribe and the project proponent not to include the measure as a binding condition:
(i) Upon request by a California Native American tribe, the project shall include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities, as follows:
(I) The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor. (II) The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant's site access and workplace safety requirements.
(111) The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the project. (ii) Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes. (iii) All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Section 21083.9. (iv) A California Historical Resources Information System archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search shall be completed for the project site.

(v) A Sacred Lands Inventory request shall be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission.
(vi) The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe. (vii) An application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
(5) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A) "California Native American tribe" has the same meaning as defined in Section 21073.
(B) "Enforceable agreement" means an agreement between the local government, project proponent, and any California Native American tribe that has engaged in consultation pursuant to this subdivision regarding the methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource identification, treatment, and protection, including consideration of avoidance. Compliance with the enforceable agreement shall be a required condition of approval for the project and its terms must be enforceable against the project proponent by the local government and the California Native American tribe.
(C) "Tribal cultural resource" means a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, including a Native American sanctified cemetery, Indian cemetery, or Indian burial area, or an object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is any of the following:
(i) Included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.
(ii) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(iii) Identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred place pursuant to Section 5097.94 or 5097.96.
(iv) Included in a local tribal register.
( c) (1) (A) The local government shall, as a condition of approval for the development, require the development proponent to complete a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) If a recognized environmental condition is found, the development proponent shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity.
(C) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy.

(D) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy. (2) For any housing on the site located within 500 feet of a freeway, all of the following shall apply:
(A) The building shall have a centralized heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system.
(B) The outdoor air intakes for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system shall face away from the freeway.
(C) The building shall provide air filtration media for outside and return air that provides a minimum efficiency reporting value of 16.
(D) The air filtration media shall be replaced at the manufacturer's designated interval.
(E) The building shall not have any balconies facing the freeway. (d) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, all construction workers employed in the execution of a housing development project exempt from this division pursuant to this section where 100 percent of the units within the development project are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate, regardless of whether the housing development project is a public work. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, the labor standards of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code shall apply to buildings over 85 feet in height above grade in any housing development project exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding any other law, the labor standards of Article 4 ( commencing with Section 65912.130) of Chapter 4.1 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code shall apply for projects of 50 units or greater in the City and County of San Francisco that are not covered by paragraph (2), for any construction craft where at least 50 percent of the units in market-rate multifamily housing projects that received their certificate of occupancy between 2022 and 2024, inclusive, were built by workers that were paid not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages. (B) For purposes of this section, "market-rate multifamily housing development project" means a housing development project of greater than 10 units where less than 95 percent of the units are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C) (i) The eligibility of this subparagraph, by classification, will be determined by the Department of Industrial Relations and published on its internet website by January 1, 2026.

(ii) In making a determination of eligibility pursuant to this subparagraph, the Director of Industrial Relations shall obtain and consider data from the labor organizations and employers or employer associations concerned no later than October 1, 2025.
(iii) To determine the number of market-rate multifamily housing projects that received their certificate of occupancy in a given year, the Department of Industrial Relations shall use the annual progress report data as reported by the jurisdiction pursuant to Section 65400 of the Government Code.
(4) The provisions of Section 218.8 of the Labor Code shall extend to the development proponent in addition to the direct contractor or subcontractor. For purposes of this paragraph, "development proponent" shall mean a developer who submits the housing development project application to a local government that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(5) (A) A joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) may undertake any of the following on a housing development project that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section:
(i) Bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction against a contractor or subcontractor at any tier on behalf of construction workers employed by the contractor or subcontractor on a housing development project that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section to enforce Section 226 of the Labor Code. A contractor is not subject to an action pursuant to this subparagraph due to the failure of a subcontractor to comply with Section 226 of the Labor Code.
(ii) Bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of an affected employee against an employer for damages as if Division 4 ( commencing with Section 3200) of the Labor Code did not apply, if the employer fails to secure the payment of compensation as required by Article 1 ( commencing with Section 3 700) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Labor Code.
(iii) In addition to the remedies set forth in Section 7028.3 of the Business and Professions Code, on proper showing by a joint labor-management cooperation committee of a continuing violation of Chapter 9 ( commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code by a person who constructs a housing project and does not hold a state contractor's license in any classification, an injunction shall issue by a court specified in Section 7028.3 of the Business and Professions Code at the request of the joint labor-management cooperation committee, prohibiting that violation.
(B) For any action brought pursuant to this paragraph, the court shall award a prevailing joint labor-management committee its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred maintaining the action.
(C) An action brought pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed within one year of a local government issuing a certificate of occupancy for the housing development project or for the portion relating to the action.
(D) This paragraph shall apply only to violations that occur on the site of construction of the housing development project.

(e) This section does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code.
(f) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:
(1) "Adjoins" includes parcels that are only separated by a street, pedestrian path, or bicycle path.
(2) "Construction worker" means one performing onsite work associated with construction, including work involving alteration, demolition, building, excavation, renovation, remodeling, maintenance, improvement, repair work, and any other work as described by Chapter 9 ( commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and other similar or related occupations or trades. (3) "Urban use" means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
(Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 22, Sec. 59. (AB 130) Effective June 30, 2025.) ATTACHMENT 8
General Plan Policies
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES1
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project include the following:

Land Use Element Policies
• Policy LU 1.1 – The Scale of the City. Although implicit in any discussion of the future of the City, the importance of scale must be underscored. As long as the City is able to regenerate itself within the general framework of the existing scale, it will offer an environment which is becoming increasingly unique in the Westside. • Policy LU 2.1 – City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors. Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces. • Policy LU 2.4 – Architectural and Site Design. Require that new construction and renovation of existing buildings and properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and construction practices, landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City’s distinctive image and complement existing development.
• Policy LU 2.10 – Development Transitions and Compatibility. Require that sites and buildings be planned, located, and designed to assure functional and visual transitions between areas of differing uses and densities by addressing property and height setbacks, window and entry placement, lighting, landscape buffers, and service access. • Policy LU 3.1 – Conservation. Conserve existing residential neighborhoods, and nonresidential areas where new development builds on and enhances the viability of existing business sectors that are the City's strengths, promotes transit accessibility, is phased to coincide with infrastructure funding and construction, and designed to assure transitions and compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhoods. • Policy LU 3.2 – Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs. Meet State requirements to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, contingent upon the ability to maintain the qualities that distinguish and contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City's fiscal resources.
• Policy LU 5.1 – Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City's residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City's identity, economic value, and quality of life. • Policy LU 5.2 – Infill and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form and scale.
• Policy LU 5.7 – Neighborhood Transitions. Regulate the setback, rear elevation design of buildings, and landscaping of backyards where neighborhoods of differing housing type and density abut to assure smooth transitions in scale, form, and character. 1 Document available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1067/General-Plan-Document • Policy LU 7.1 – Character and Design. Require that multi-family dwellings and properties be designed to reflect the high level of architectural and landscape quality that distinguishes existing neighborhoods. These may provide for:
a) Building facades and entrances that directly address the street, including the use of stoops, porches, and recessed entries;
b) Modulation of building volume and masses, avoiding the effect of blank continuous walls; and,
c) Setback of the ground floor from the sidewalk to provide privacy, a sense of security, and to leave room for landscaping while being open and contributing to a quality pedestrian environment.
• Policy LU 16.10 – Affordable Housing. Support the development of affordable housing as required by state law.

ATTACHMENT 9
November 20, 2025
HCD Notice of Potential Violation
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 20, 2025
Michael Forbes
Director of Community Development
City of Beverly Hills
Via: [email protected]
455 N Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Michael Forbes:

RE: City of Beverly Hills – 8844 Burton Way – Notice of Potential Violation The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) sent a Letter of Technical Assistance to the Beverly Hills Planning Commission ahead of its consideration of the proposed project at 8844 Burton Way (“Project”) on October 29, 2025.

Despite HCD’s guidance, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Project.

This Notice of Potential Violation (NOPV) serves to remind the City of its obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and specifically the requirements for making findings of denial ahead of the City Council hearing for the Project.

Background
HCD understands that the proposed Project includes 200 units, of which 22 units will be restricted to low-income households. The project site is located within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density. The preliminary application for the Project was filed pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), as the City did not have a compliant housing element when a preliminary application was submitted on December 23, 2023. A full development application was then submitted on March 25, 2024. The original application submittal was deemed complete on January 10, 2025, with a revised version deemed complete on July 31, 2025. The revision did not change the overall unit count but did include modifications to height (expanding from 20 to 26 stories) and number of affordable units (reducing from 40 to 22 units). The reduction in affordable units is consistent with the updated affordability requirements under Assembly Bill 1893 (2024), Chapter 268 (Cal.

Stat. 2024).
1 The Project also qualified under State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) and applied for several waivers and concessions, including reduced setbacks and parking dimensions, as well as the aforementioned increase in height. 1 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3)(C).

Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development, City of Beverly Hills

Page 2 ends

Beverly Hills City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Beverly Hills City Council
March 24, 2026