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

Code”] apply to buildings over 85 feet in height for any housing development project that otherwise qualifies for a CEQA exemption under AB 130. (PRC § 21080.66(d)(2); AB 130 § 59(d)(2).) Here, the Project will be 26-stories and over 309 feet, thereby triggering the labor standards of Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8).

I. The Applicant must employ a skilled and trained construction workforce to build the Project.

Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i) states, inter alia, that the developer for any project over 85 feet tall shall enter construction contracts with prime contractors only if the contract contains an enforceable commitment that the prime contractor and subcontractors at every tier will use a skilled and trained workforce, as defined in Public Contract Code § 2601(d), to perform work on the project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation, as defined in PCC § 2601(a), in the building and construction trades. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(F)(i)(I).) Public Contract Code § 2601(d) [“PCC”] defines a “skilled and trained workforce” as a workforce that meets the following conditions, among others:
(1) All workers performing work in an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades are either skilled journeypersons or apprentices registered in an apprenticeship program approved by the chief.
(2)(A) For work performed on or after January 1, 2017, at least 30 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation. This requirement shall not apply to work performed in the occupation of teamster. . . .
(2)(D) For work performed on or after January 1, 2020, at least 60 percent of the skilled journeypersons employed to perform work on the contract or project by every contractor and each of its subcontractors at every tier are graduates of an apprenticeship program for the applicable occupation, except that the requirements of subparagraph (A) shall continue to apply to work performed in the following occupations: acoustical installer, bricklayer, carpenter, cement mason, drywall installer or lather, marble mason, finisher, or setter, modular furniture or systems installer, operating engineer, pile driver, plasterer, roofer or waterproofer, stone mason, surveyor, teamster, terrazzo worker or finisher, and tile layer, setter, or finisher.
(PCC § § 2601(d).) PCC § 2601(a) defines an “apprenticeable occupation” as an occupation for which the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards of the Department of Industrial Relations had approved an apprenticeship program pursuant to California Labor Code § 3075 [“CLC”] before 2014.

Here, because the Project building will be 26-stories, exceeding 85 feet tall, the Applicant Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 8844 Burton Way Project
October 8, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

must use a skilled and trained workforce at every tier to perform work on the Project that falls within an apprenticeable occupation in the building and construction trades.

II. The Applicant must pay its construction workforce prevailing wages for the Project.

For any development that is not entirely a public work, Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A) requires, inter alia, that all construction workers employed in the execution of the subject project be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations under CLC §§ 1733 and 1733.9.

However, apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate. (Gov.

Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(i).) Additionally, the development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance of the work and shall also provide notice of all contracts for the performance of the work to the Department of Industrial Relations for the portions of the development that are not a public work. (Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(8)(A)(ii).)
Here, because the Project is not a wholly public work and will be over 85 feet tall, the Applicant must pay all its construction workers prevailing wages.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the City must require the Applicant to use a skilled and trained construction workforce and pay its construction workforce prevailing wages, in compliance with the labor standards set forth in AB 130. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Hayley Uno

LOZEAU DRURY LLP
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Jay Dolinky
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 11:22 AM
To: CommentPC
Subject: Public Comment Opposing Proposed Development at 8844 Burton Way  CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER 
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Dear Members of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development at 8844 Burton Way. As a nearby resident at Burton Way, I am deeply concerned about the negative impacts this project would have on the surrounding neighborhood.

The proposed 26-story height is entirely out of scale with the character of Burton Way, which is defined by mid-rise residential buildings and a walkable, community-oriented feel. Allowing a tower of this magnitude would significantly alter the visual and architectural rhythm of the street, creating a disruptive and unbalanced presence.

Additionally, the project would likely generate substantial traffic congestion in an already heavily used corridor. Burton Way is a major connector between Beverly Hills and Los Angeles, and the increased density and vehicle volume from such a large development would put further strain on local infrastructure, pedestrian safety, street parking availability and quality of life for nearby residents.

As a point of comparison, the Four Seasons Residences — a prominent and recent luxury development just blocks away — stands at 12 stories. That project, while still quite large, fits far more appropriately within the neighborhood context. The 8844 Burton Way proposal should not exceed this scale, particularly in a residential corridor that was never intended to accommodate high-rise towers.

I respectfully urge the Commission to reject this proposal or require significant modifications that align better with the scale, traffic capacity, and aesthetic values of the surrounding community.

Please include this email in the public record for the project and keep me informed of all future meetings and decisions regarding this development.

Sincerely,
Jay Dolinky
Owner and Resident, Burton Way
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important 1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Ralph Bell
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2025 2:40 PM
To: CommentPC
Subject: 8844 Burton Way building project
[Some people who received this message don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER 
Be cauƟous when clicking links or opening aƩachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing aƩempts.

Hello
Please see the following leƩer from me.

Thank you
Ralph Bell
Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, This leƩer serves as a formal and unequivocal statement of opposiƟon to the proposed high-rise development at 8844 Burton Way. While we acknowledge the need for housing and development within the city, the current proposal represents a massive, unprecedented, and fundamentally incompaƟble deviaƟon from the established zoning, scale, and character of this neighborhood and the City of Beverly Hills as a whole.

The core of our objecƟon rests on the overwhelming discrepancy in height and massing:

1. Severe Non-Conformity with Established Urban Fabric and Zoning:

The surrounding area is defined by a consistent, moderate scale, primarily consisƟng of buildings in the 4- to 5-story range. The proposed structure, at 26 stories and approximately 309 feet 6 inches in height, is completely out of context.

This height disparity is not a marginal increase but a colossal excepƟon that threatens to enƟrely redefine—and degrade—the established aestheƟc and human scale of the area. It will create an abrupt, jarring visual disconƟnuity that is inappropriate for this locaƟon.

2. NegaƟve AestheƟc and Visual Impact:

The proposed 309-foot structure will not integrate into the cityscape; it will dominate it. It will stand as a monolithic outlier, creaƟng an aestheƟc blight and acƟng as a severe visual impediment. The project’s sheer height ensures it will overshadow adjacent properƟes and businesses, altering view corridors and negaƟvely impacƟng the sense of place that current residents and business owners value. This scale is enƟrely inconsistent with the architectural and character standards Beverly Hills strives to maintain.

3. Precedent Seƫng and Comprehensive Planning Failure:

Approving a structure of this scale sets a dangerous precedent for future development throughout the city, potenƟally leading to a paƩern of opportunisƟc high-rise proposals that circumvent the spirit of current zoning and planning standards. If the current zoning is intended to create a 4- to 5-story built environment, a 26-story building fundamentally subverts the comprehensive planning goals for the area.

4. Quality of Life and Infrastructure Concerns:

While acknowledging the inclusion of parking, a project of this density and magnitude will undoubtedly impose substanƟal new burdens on local traffic flow, transit infrastructure, and public services that require thorough and independent review beyond the scope of the developer’s analysis.

We urge the Planning Commission to prioriƟze the preservaƟon of the City’s cohesive character and scale. This proposal is an overreach in height and density that sacrifices neighborhood compaƟbility for maximizing development yield.

We respecƞully request that the Planning Commission unanimously reject the proposed development at 8844 Burton Way and mandate a redesign that is appropriately scaled, compaƟble with the surrounding 4-5 story neighborhood, and consistent with the long-term, comprehensive planning goals of the City of Beverly Hills. 2 Thank you for your Ɵme and careful consideraƟon of this vital maƩer.

Sincerely,
Ralph Bell (Concerned ciƟzen, property owner Beverly Hills, CA) Ryan Bell
Beverly Hills, CA
October 10, 2025
Beverly Hills Planning Commission
Subject: Formal Opposition to Proposed Development at 8844 Burton Way Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, This letter conveys my formal and absolute opposition to the planned development at 8844 Burton Way. Despite recognizing the importance of new housing, the sheer scale of the current proposal makes it a massive and incompatible outlier. It constitutes a fundamental breach of the established zoning and the characteristic scale and aesthetic of the surrounding Beverly Hills neighborhood.

The core of our objection rests on the overwhelming discrepancy in height and massing:

1. Severe Non-Conformity with Established Urban Fabric and Zoning:

The surrounding area is defined by a consistent, moderate scale, primarily consisting of buildings in the 4- to 5-story range. The proposed structure, at 26 stories and approximately 309 feet 6 inches in height, is completely out of context. This height disparity is not a marginal increase but a colossal exception that threatens to entirely redefine—and degrade—the established aesthetic and human scale of the area. It will create an abrupt, jarring visual discontinuity that is inappropriate for this location.

2. Negative Aesthetic and Visual Impact:

The proposed 309-foot structure will not integrate into the cityscape; it will dominate it. It will stand as a monolithic outlier, creating an aesthetic blight and acting as a severe visual impediment. The project’s sheer height ensures it will overshadow adjacent properties and businesses, altering view corridors and negatively impacting the sense of place that current residents and business owners value. This scale is entirely inconsistent with the architectural and character standards Beverly Hills strives to maintain.

3. Precedent Setting and Comprehensive Planning Failure:

Approving a structure of this scale sets a dangerous precedent for future development throughout the city, potentially leading to a pattern of opportunistic high-rise proposals that circumvent the spirit of current zoning and planning standards. If the current zoning is intended to create a 4- to 5-story built environment, a 26-story building fundamentally subverts the comprehensive planning goals for the area.

4. Quality of Life and Infrastructure Concerns:

While acknowledging the inclusion of parking, a project of this density and magnitude will undoubtedly impose substantial new burdens on local traffic flow, transit infrastructure, and public services that require thorough and independent review beyond the scope of the developer’s analysis. This will disrupt traffic, noise, and the environment for years while being built and beyond, something that has not been researched thoroughly enough to make an informed decision. The increase in traffic alone may require additional streetlights, stoplights, street parking (that doesn’t exist), new bus routes, new bike lines, and potentially even a widening of Burton Way, since the area was not designed to include the drastic increase in population density and traffic. Where is the research that supports the claim that the city is equipped to handle this?
I urge the Planning Commission to prioritize the preservation of the City’s cohesive character and scale. This proposal is an overreach in height and density that sacrifices neighborhood compatibility for maximizing development yield.

I respectfully request that the Planning Commission unanimously reject the proposed development at 8844 Burton Way and mandate a redesign that is appropriately scaled, compatible with the surrounding 4-5 story neighborhood, and consistent with the long-term, comprehensive planning goals of the City of Beverly Hills.

Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this vital matter.

Sincerely,
Ryan Bell
Concerned Resident & Property Owner
From: Jim Cohen
To: CommentPC
Subject: Project at 8844 Burton Way
Date: Friday, October 17, 2025 10:38:12 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.
>
>
> Needless to say, the proposed project at 8844 Burton Way is not wanted or needed. >
> Most importantly, it is inconsistent with the relatively low rise residential in Beverly Hills. >
> It will dominate the neighborhood and the skyline.
>
> It will bring unwanted congestion to the area.
>
> A tall structure should be near a commercial area and much closer to Century City. >
> The City of Beverly Hills does not have the resources, electricity water, gas, fire protection, police, > citizen protection, and personnel to service this type of project and will have to acquire them at great > expense, unless the increased costs can be borne by the developer. >
> Traffic will be horrendous and uncontrollable.
>
> Parking will be horrendous and uncontrollable.
>
> Construction, including congestion, dust, debris, dirt and noise will be horrendous and uncontrollable. >
> The project provides for a minimum amount of low income units and a questionable problem for people > wanting to live there.
>
> The project has no redeeming values for the people living in the area or for the people who may live there in the future.
>
> The entry to the on-site and underground parking should be on Burton Way or traffic on the side streets and alley will be congested.
>
> Can Beverly Hills make the Housing Plan retroactive, and if so, will this have positive consequences? >
> If nothing can be done to prevent or modify this building, please restrict the construction and operating management
> activities, in order to make the situation more reasonable. >
> Thank you
>
>
>
>
>

1 Formal Comment Letter: 8844 Burton Way Project Opposition

BRUCE AND REBECCA HOUMAN
N. Swall Drive.

Beverly Hills, Ca. 90211
E-MAIL :
10/20/2025
To:

Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Project at 8844 Burton Way (PL2400115), Request for Denial or Significant Modification
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I write as a long-term resident of Beverly Hills to express strong opposition to the proposed 26- story residential tower at 8844 Burton Way. While we support responsible housing growth, this project’s scale, massing, and infrastructure burden pose clear risks to public safety, traffic circulation, and neighborhood access.

1. Emergency Access and Fire-Life Safety
Both Clark Drive and Swall Drive are narrow residential streets, unsuited for heavy emergency or construction traffic. The project’s proposed 26-story height will require high fire-flow rates and substantial hydrant pressure. Existing infrastructure, as outlined in the City’s technical appendices, is outdated and undersized for such demand.

Fire engines and ladder trucks cannot safely maneuver within the current street geometry, nor can they stage effectively in the event of fire or medical emergency. This constitutes a “specific, adverse impact on public health and safety” under Government Code §65589.5(d)(2) and provides lawful grounds for denial or redesign.
2 2. Access and Circulation Impacts
The project sits between two constrained residential streets and across from Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills, a vital community institution with frequent pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Increased congestion during and after construction will severely impede safe access for worshippers, residents, and emergency responders.

The developer’s traffic study fails to adequately address peak-hour queuing, drop-off and pickup congestion, and potential gridlock during major temple events. This violates the City’s objective circulation standards and undermines pedestrian safety.

3. Water Supply and Sewer Infrastructure Deficiency
City data show that portions of the water and storm-drain systems serving this area predate 1940.

A 26-story tower with 200 units will overtax local water pressure and sewer capacity. Without upgraded mains and booster systems, the project cannot ensure adequate fire-flow or wastewater handling—posing direct safety and public health risks.

4. Construction Impacts and Temple Access
Temple Emanuel is located directly across Clark Drive and will be heavily affected by construction staging, noise, and traffic diversions. The City must require a full Construction Traffic Management Plan and restrict heavy vehicle movement to Burton Way only. Access to the temple and surrounding neighborhood must remain open and safe throughout construction.

6. Cedars-Sinai Emergency Access and Regional Medical Impact The project site lies within immediate proximity of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, one of the busiest hospital campuses in Los Angeles County. Cedars-Sinai’s emergency department and 3 trauma center routinely operate at or near full capacity, serving not only Beverly Hills but also neighboring West Hollywood, Los Angeles, and the greater region.

Introducing a vertical community of 200 residential units and 26 stories within such close proximity to an already overburdened regional medical hub will significantly intensify traffic congestion on primary access routes to Cedars-Sinai, including Burton Way, San Vicente Boulevard, and Third Street. This will obstruct emergency vehicle movement and delay patient access to urgent care services.

The cumulative effect of increased population density and roadway congestion from this project may directly impede timely access to critical emergency care. Such interference with hospital access constitutes a serious public safety hazard and, under Government Code §65589.5(d)(2), represents a “specific, adverse impact” on public health and safety. The City is legally authorized to deny or require substantial modification of the project based on these findings.

If the project cannot meet these standards, the City should deny it under Government Code §65589.5(d)(2) as posing a specific adverse impact on public safety and infrastructure adequacy.

Sincerely,
Bruce Houman

6. Cedars-Sinai Emergency Access
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center serves as a critical regional hospital, often operating at full capacity. The proposed density at this site will further congest Burton Way, San Vicente, and adjacent corridors, potentially delaying access for emergency vehicles and patients. This is a clear public safety concern under Government Code §65589.5(d)(2).

Requested Actions
I respectfully urge the City to:
• Require a full environmental review (EIR) before any approval; • Deny the SCPE exemption;
• Enforce the City’s Objective Design Standards to reduce the building’s height and massing; • Protect access to Temple Emanuel during all phases of construction and occupancy; • Verify that water, sewer, and storm-drain systems can safely accommodate this project; and • Evaluate the cumulative impact on Cedars-Sinai access and emergency response routes.

If the project cannot meet these safety and infrastructure standards, it should be denied under Government Code §65589.5(d)(2) as posing a specific adverse impact on public health and safety.

Thank you for your consideration.
--
Nicole S. Houman, Esq.

From: Maya Hazen Manshel
To: CommentPC
Cc: Miyoko Hazen
Subject: Public Comment – Opposition to 8844 Burton Way Project (PL2400115) - Maya Manshel & Miyoko Hazen Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 11:46:09 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Dear Mayor Nazarian and city council members,
My name is Maya Manshel, and I am submitting this comment on behalf of my mother, Miyoko Hazen, a resident of North Swall Drive, as well as myself, a Beverly Hills resident.

We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed 26-story tower at 8844 Burton Way. The tallest buildings in this area are five stories, and this project would completely overwhelm a quiet residential neighborhood that was never intended to support a high-rise of this scale.

If approved, the community will endure years of construction noise, dust, vibration, and traffic congestion. Streets that are now safe and walkable would become clogged with trucks and equipment, creating daily disruption and safety hazards for residents. Beyond the inconvenience, this kind of prolonged construction will also cause a decline in property values, punishing homeowners who have invested in maintaining the character and livability of this wonderful neighborhood.

Swall and Clark Drives are narrow residential streets used by families walking children and pets. They cannot safely handle construction or post-construction traffic. We urge the City to keep all construction access on Burton Way and to install permanent safety posts or barriers to prevent cut-through access onto Swall and Clark.

This project also raises significant fire-safety and infrastructure concerns. A building of this height requires hydrant pressure, water flow, and emergency access that do not currently exist. Fire engines and ladder trucks cannot safely stage on Swall or Clark, and the area’s sewer and water systems, some more than 80 years old, were never designed to handle the additional demand from 200 new units. Under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2), these conditions create a specific, adverse risk to public health and safety, giving the City the legal authority to deny or substantially redesign the project.

We respectfully request that the City:
• Require a full Environmental Impact Report before any approval. • Require a Traffic Impact Report addressing construction staging, congestion, and post-occupancy traffic. • Publish both reports online for public review and comment. • Reduce the project’s height to a maximum of five stories to align with the neighborhood context. • Protect residents and pedestrians by enforcing clear construction access restrictions.

We are not opposing housing. We are asking for balance, safety, and transparency. Beverly Hills has always stood for thoughtful, responsible development, and we ask you to uphold those values here.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Maya Manshel
Resident of Beverly Hills
On behalf of Miyoko Hazen, Swall Drive, Beverly Hills, CA Subject: Public Comment on 8844 Burton Way Development Proposal Richard Goldstone
POA for Felice Goldstone
Homeowner at Swall Drive
UnitUnfortunately, I am unable to attend this afternoon’s meeting. It would be my hope to have you read this into the record at tonight's meeting or allow me to speak via conferencing.

My family has continuously lived in Beverly Hills since we moved from New York in 1970. My mother recently moved (in March) from N Swall Drive which abuts the site of the proposed 26-story tower at 8844 Burton Way. We had to recently move her because she can no longer live alone. She lived in Unit- which has now become unsalable due to the proposed development and its uncertainty. Her unit directly faces the impending 26 story building from the center of her building.

The unit will be completely closed in around the tower blocking all daylight exposure. Not to mention the daily disruption for 3+ years to complete the construction for a project of this scale in a densely populated area. We are not the only homeowners in this situation.

In addition to spending over $15K per month for her care, we have a condominium unit that costs us $5K per month just to maintain with no sale in sight. My parents worked their entire lives and now we are stuck with a financial liability that represented a significant portion of their hard-earned savings and investment. We were dependent on these funds to pay for her care at the end of her life.

The strain on public resources such as schools, fire, traffic, parking, water resources, will be astronomical. This pace of development will diminish those resources and services. It is irresponsible. Development and change will be good for the city of Beverly Hills only if it is responsibly managed and FUNDED by all of us.

We accept that a building will be built and it is the developers right to do so. Whatever project if finally built, we expect the City to stand by its citizens for something that was preventable. It is our request that the City require the developers to protect our quality of life and entitlement during a construction period. The developer should be held to account for all economic externalities that are caused by it’s development, especially for those of us that will staring right into a construction site for at least 3 years.

It is my hope that the city will find another way forward to balance development that is measured and responsible to all citizens including those who will dwell in these new developments. Given the city's improper management of complying with the state it would be the responsible and accountable thing to do.

2. Government Code § 65589.5 – Adverse Health and Safety Impacts When Commissioners asked about denial grounds, the Deputy City Attorney misquoted an irrelevant part of the code and claimed no basis existed. A resident attending the meeting had to look up the code and correct the record by citing the relevant part of the statute: Projects can be denied if the preponderance of evidence shows adverse health, safety, and environmental impacts to the area.

While each issue identified below may not, individually, rise to the level of preponderance of the evidence, when examined cumulatively, these health and safety concerns create clear and irrefutable grounds for denial. The following issues have not been adequately investigated:
a. Fire Safety: Can the Beverly Hills Fire Department respond to a 300-foot residential tower? Recent high-rise fires in Los Angeles have demonstrated catastrophic risks, especially under wind conditions. Staff made one phone call to the Fire Department rather than conducting a thorough analysis. b. Seismic Risk: The project abuts a liquefaction zone. No investigation has assessed the impacts of a 300-foot structure on residences within or adjacent to the building during seismic events.
c. Traffic and Emergency Access: The developer intends to use the narrow alley between Clark and Swall as the primary access route during 30+ months of construction (for staging and heavy vehicles) and to permanently post it for deliveries, resident vehicles, and building access after construction. They intend to permanently use the alley for egress and ingress to the building rather than Burton Way.

A Day School and Temple on Clark sit directly across from this alley, where children are dropped off and picked up daily, and where congregants and residents use the temple daily.

Using an alley as a main thoroughfare in a residential area likely violates the safety codes.

Clark and Swall are narrow streets; Burton Way access (standard for buildings this size) was not utilized.

This configuration creates dangerous bottlenecks for fire trucks, police, and ambulances in emergency situations.
d. Air Quality and Noise: This is the only residential building in Beverly Hills with open-air, above-ground parking. The exposed parking structure with mechanical lifts faces 300 N. Swall units only 40 feet away, plus apartment buildings, and the Temple School on Swall and Clark. No study has assessed:

Vehicle emissions and particulate matter are dispersed at elevation directly into four floors of residential units across the alley, as well as onto Swall Drive and Clark Drive.

Noise pollution from continuously operating electric parking lifts.

Health impacts on children at the adjacent school.

3. Economic Feasibility Claims Are Unsubstantiated
The developer cites "economic feasibility" but provides no evidence, claiming information is "proprietary." Yet three other Beverly Hills Builder's Remedy projects demonstrate feasible alternatives:
946 Olympic: 8 stories, 105 units (21 affordable), underground parking 9441 Olympic: 13 stories (143 ft), 75 units (15 affordable), underground parking
333-335 S. Beverly: 8 stories (85 ft), 135 units (27 affordable), underground parking
These buildings provide a higher percentage of affordable units, and these units are at least one-bedroom units (not studios).

This developer planned a 20-story building with 40 affordable units. The current proposal adds 6 stories while reducing the number of affordable units to 22 studios.

When the developer purchased the property in 2019, they advised neighbors that the building would be 4 to 5 stories tall, a project they deemed feasible at the time.

Upon purchase, the developer knew they would need to obtain variances to build anything exceeding the 45-foot height limit and understood they would be subject to zoning laws, CEQA, and other legal requirements. What percentage of profit loss justifies claiming economic infeasibility and demanding such an excessive height to provide merely 22 affordable units? When the Planning Commission requested documentation of economic feasibility, the developer claimed the information was proprietary. If other developers can build shorter buildings with underground parking and more affordable units, why can't this one?
The plans for 8844 Burton Way reveal two completely empty floors and considerable unallocated square footage throughout the building. The developer confirmed at the Planning Commission meeting that this space is reserved for luxury amenities, including private dining areas, panoramic viewing lounges, workspace areas, and recreational facilities. This is a luxury residential tower masquerading as affordable housing, not a project genuinely designed to serve low and extremely low-income residents.

4. Builder's Remedy Requires Unit Size Parity
State law mandates affordable units match the size distribution of market-rate units. The developer's representative suggested changes at the Planning Commission meeting that were not reflected in the submitted plans, namely that the building's only studios will be affordable housing units. This violates the parity requirement and must be verified and corrected before any approval.

Conclusion
We are now in the position of being subject to these health and safety concerns because the city failed to present a timely, acceptable housing element to the state.

The city instead had presented a pro forma plan, which they could not correct to the state's satisfaction until the Builder's Remedy law came into effect. Residents should not be punished for the City's administrative failure by approving a project that:

Violates fair housing integration requirements
Creates documented health and safety hazards
Exploits Builder's Remedy for maximum profit with minimum affordable housing
Sets a dangerous precedent at twice the height of any existing Beverly Hills building
The burden should not fall on residents to become legal experts and conduct exhaustive research. We respectfully ask you, as our elected representatives, to direct staff to conduct proper due diligence and deny this project until it meets legal requirements and community safety standards.

Thank you for your service and consideration.

Respectfully,
Janet Fox
Renée Strauss

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Edgar Arroyo
Commen!PC
FW: We"re getting "East Winged"!
Tuesday, October 28, 2025 11:40:01 AM
Forwarding additional correspondence for 8844 Burton Way.

Edgar Arroyo
Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Office: (310) 285-1138 I Fax: (310) 273-0972
E-mail: [email protected]
NOTE: Planning applications and project resubmittals are currently accepted via email. However, planning applications and project resubmittals are not considered received by the City until such submittal is acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. If you have questions regarding the status of your planning application, please call 310-285-1000 and ask to speak to a planner. If you have questions about the status of your project resubmittal, please reach out to your assigned planner directly.

From:

Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:34 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]>
Subject: We're getting "East Winged"!
I You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important & CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER &
EdgarThis letter will be short and NOT sweet.

Their own braggadocios picture shows their skyscraper in the midst of what we hope will still be a quiet neighborhood.

We have lived at■ N. Swall for 30+ years. We chose it because it was a quiet safe neighborhood now threatened and promised by wealthy "carpet bagger" from Miami (actually theirs is silk} to build the TALLEST and most densely populated building in Beverly Hills. Why? Their original application was 20 stories, then by the magic of who knows what it, the skyscraper got increased by 6 stories. Ask carpetbagger Mr. Kahn who lives at 512 N. Sierra how this was accomplished and would he like a skyscraper in his backyard.

This project got OK”d because of promised low income units. What are their sizes and what is low?
Drive down Burton Way on any afternoon. Overwhelming traffic, to say nothing about parents wanting to pick up their children at Temple Emanuel.

This skyscraper if permitted will be the end of the Beverly Hills community.

I hope a class action lawsuit will not be necessary- 1,000’s of homeowners and renters will be impacted by this project.

Stuart and Susan Rosen
N. Swall
From: Stuart Rosen > On Behalf Of Stuart Rosen
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 10:03 AM
To: Stu >
Subject:

Sent from my iPhone

1 Formal Comment Letter: 8844 Burton Way Project Opposition

BRUCE AND REBECCA HOUMAN
N. Swall Drive. Apt
Beverly Hills, Ca.

E-MAIL :
10/23/2025
To:

Mayor and Members of the City Council, and
members of Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Via email: [email protected]
Re: Project at 8844 Burton Way (PL2400115), Request for Denial or Significant Modification
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

2. Access and Circulation Impacts
The project sits between two constrained residential streets and across from Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills, a vital community institution with frequent pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

Increased congestion during and after construction will severely impede safe access for worshippers, residents, and emergency responders.

3. Water Supply and Sewer Infrastructure Deficiency
City data show that portions of the water and storm-drain systems serving this area predate 1940.

5. Storm Drain and Flooding Concerns
Beverly Hills’ storm-drain system is already burdened. Additional impervious surfaces and excavation for underground parking will increase runoff and flood risk. Without clear stormwater retention and treatment measures, this project threatens compliance with state stormwater discharge permits (MS4) and CEQA hydrology thresholds.
3 6. Cedars-Sinai Emergency Access and Regional Medical Impact The project site lies within immediate proximity of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, one of the busiest hospital campuses in Los Angeles County. Cedars-Sinai’s emergency department and trauma center routinely operate at or near full capacity, serving not only Beverly Hills but also neighboring West Hollywood, Los Angeles, and the greater region.

7. Geotechnical & Structural Mass Concerns (Bearing Pressure, Settlement, and Neighbor Safety)
A 26-story tower concentrates an immense vertical load onto the ground. In practical engineering terms, this translates to contact bearing pressure at the foundation–soil interface (typically measured in kips per square foot, “ksf”), not just “weight per square inch.” Without substantial excavation and an appropriately engineered foundation system (e.g., deep piles/caissons, mat foundation with ground improvement, or a hybrid system), the risk of excessive and differential settlement increases—potentially causing unsafe instability for nearby homes, buildings, streets, and utilities.

Specific concerns and required analyses:
• Site-specific geotechnical report quantifying soil and groundwater conditions, liquefaction, settlement, and allowable bearing pressures.
• Foundation concept disclosure including contact pressures, settlement predictions, and adjacent structure impact analysis.
• Excavation, shoring, and dewatering plan with lateral movement control and real-time monitoring.
• Ground–structure interaction modeling to analyze stress propagation to neighboring parcels. 4 • Construction vibration and noise control plan with PPV thresholds for adjacent buildings. • Peer review requirement by independent third-party geotechnical and structural engineers.

Code and standard compliance (at minimum):
• California Building Code (CBC) Chapters 16, 17, and 18. • ASCE 7 for load combinations and seismic/wind design. • ACI 318 and AISC 360 as applicable for concrete and steel design. • CEQA EIR with detailed Geology/Soils and Construction Risk sections.

Has this ever been done? Before approval, the applicant should provide documented precedents of similar 26-story towers on comparable sites demonstrating measured settlements within safe limits and no harm to neighboring structures. Without such data, the City should find that this project presents a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety under Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2).

Requested Actions
We respectfully urge the City Council to:
• Require complete fire and infrastructure analysis prior to approval; • Deny the SCPE (CEQA exemption) until a full Environmental Impact Report is prepared; • Enforce compliance with Objective Design Standards to reduce mass and height; • Protect Temple Emanuel’s access through construction and operation phases; • Ensure that sewer, water, and storm-drain systems are demonstrably adequate; • Evaluate the project’s cumulative impact on Cedars-Sinai emergency access and regional medical services capacity.
• Require a full EIR with Geology/Soils and settlement modeling. • Mandate independent geotechnical and structural peer review before entitlement. • Publish foundation pressures and predicted settlements with allowable limits and trigger thresholds.
• Impose protective conditions such as property surveys, real-time monitoring, and stop-work triggers
If the project cannot meet these standards, the City should deny it under Government Code §65589.5(d)(2) as posing a specific adverse impact on public safety and infrastructure adequacy.

Sincerely,
Bruce Houman
sender: Mourad Yacoub

just because it was done in the past does not make it the right way.

Sample Finding
## The Planning Commission hereby further finds and determines as follows:

The number of dwelling units of the Project as proposed includes 35 units under Government Code as being within one-half mile of a Major Transit Stop. Considering the context and purpose, the appropriate way to measure the distance under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C)(ii) is the shortest walking distance.

The shortest walking distance between the closest point of the parcel and the nearest Major Transit Stop is 0.5704 mile—greater than one half (0.50) mile.

The proposed 200 units exceeds the Total Allowable Density of 164 units.

From: Trenton Steindorf
To: CommentPC
Subject: Public Comment – Support for 8844 Burton Way (Item 1) & 9229 Wilshire Blvd (Item 3) Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:10:27 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Dear Planning Commission,
I support the Builders Remedy projects at 8844 Burton Way and 9229 Wilshire Blvd. These applications will help the city meet state housing requirements and deliver development consistent with the high standards of Beverly Hills.

Sincerely,
Trenton Steindorf

1 Karen Myron
Subject: FW: 10/29 - Public Comment - Uphold the Planning Commission’s Resolution to Deny 8844 Burton Way – Protect Resident Health, Safety & Infrastructure Attachments: Summary_Health_and_Safety_Impacts_8844_Burton_Way_UPDATED.pdf _____________________
Karen Myron
Commission Specialist
Community Development Department
310-285-1126
From: Maya Hazen Manshel
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Karen Myron <[email protected]>
Cc: CommentPC <[email protected]>; Miyoko Hazen ; City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 10/29 - Public Comment - Uphold the Planning Commission’s Resolution to Deny 8844 Burton Way – Protect Resident Health, Safety & Infrastructure
 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER 
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Thank you for letting me know, Karen! I have revised the email so it addresses the planning commission and NOT the city council. Thank you so much!! Here’s what I’d like read into the record please:
****************
Dear Chair Wolfe and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission, My name is Maya Manshel, and my mother lives two buildings down from 8844 Burton Way, directly within the zone most affected by the proposed 26-story project now before you.

I am writing to respectfully urge you to uphold the resolution as submitted and reaffirm your previous denial of the 8844 Burton Way project. This is not about opposing housing — it is about protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the residents who already live in this quiet, aging community.

Attached is a photo I took this Monday on Swall, showing an elderly man with his nurse strolling with a walker while separately a fire truck and ambulance tended to a resident at Four Seasons North, 300 N.

Swall. This image captures a typical day in our neighborhood, where many residents are older and depend on safe, unobstructed access for emergency services.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 The proposed 26-story tower would bring years of unavoidable construction noise, dust, diesel emissions, and vibration, directly across from senior-heavy buildings. The California Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2)) gives you clear authority to deny or condition any project that would cause a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety. This project meets that definition.

The California Health and Safety Code §46000(f)-(g) further guarantees that every Californian is entitled to a peaceful and quiet environment free from noise that may be hazardous to their health or welfare. A 26-story construction site in a low-rise residential pocket plainly violates that standard.

Even after construction, the project’s above-ground parking structure would emit vehicle exhaust at the same height as the windows of the adjacent five-story building, creating ongoing exposure to carbon monoxide and particulate pollution.

Under state housing law, it remains the City’s responsibility to ensure that critical infrastructure — including pipes, pumps, and sewers — can safely accommodate this level of density. To date, no infrastructure capacity analysis has been shared with the public, and moving forward without this data could expose both the City and its residents to unnecessary harm.

We understand the pressures created by state housing mandates, but those mandates do not require you to sacrifice health, safety, or infrastructure integrity. You have both the authority and the duty to uphold your resolution and protect the well-being of this neighborhood.

Thank you for your time, your diligence, and your continued service to this community.

Warm regards,
Maya Manshel
Attachments:

1. Photo – 300 N. Swall (Elderly Resident & Emergency Responders)

2. Health & Safety Impact Summary
On Oct 29, 2025, at 11:12 AM, Karen Myron <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your comment, it will be included in the meeting record.

Please be advised, today’s meeting is a Planning Commission meeting, not a City Council meeting. _____________________
Karen Myron
Commission Specialist
Community Development Department
310-285-1126

Beverly Hills City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Beverly Hills City Council
March 24, 2026