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

HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 22, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - AM PHF 0.89 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01AM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 63 463 22 128 929 143 18 408 15 63 562 181 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.4 4.4 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 26.9 3.0 5.5
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 71 520 25 144 1044 161 20 475 71 631 203 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 541 1781 1585 881 1781 1585 1781 1858 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 5.0 10.3 1.0 13.7 24.9 6.8 1.0 17.3 3.5 25.1 7.2 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 10.3 1.0 24.0 24.9 6.8 1.0 17.3 3.5 25.1 7.2 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 110 1183 527 272 1183 527 99 818 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.644 0.440 0.047 0.528 0.882 0.305 0.204 0.581 0.715 0.745 0.283 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 107.9 201.7 17.2 153.9 437.5 120.8 20.8 318.3 97.9 444.7 126.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 4.2 7.9 0.7 6.1 17.2 4.8 0.8 12.5 3.9 17.5 5.0 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 43.9 23.5 20.4 32.9 28.4 22.3 40.6 19.0 41.8 20.3 15.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 25.6 1.2 0.2 7.2 9.6 1.5 1.0 3.0 21.6 5.9 1.0 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 69.5 24.7 20.6 40.1 38.0 23.8 41.6 22.0 63.4 26.2 16.4 Level of Service (LOS) E C C D D C D C E C B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 29.7 C 36.6 D 22.8 C 26.9 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 30.7 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.00 A 1.60 B 1.31 A 1.98 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/22/2025 3:58:16 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - AM PHF 0.89 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01AM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 63 467 22 128 936 145 18 408 19 66 562 181 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.4 4.4 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 27.2 3.0 5.7
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 71 525 25 144 1052 163 20 480 74 631 203 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 537 1781 1585 878 1781 1585 1781 1855 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 4.7 10.4 1.0 13.8 25.2 6.9 1.0 17.6 3.7 25.1 7.2 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 10.4 1.0 24.2 25.2 6.9 1.0 17.6 3.7 25.1 7.2 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 108 1183 527 270 1183 527 99 816 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.655 0.444 0.047 0.532 0.889 0.309 0.204 0.588 0.749 0.745 0.283 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 109.2 203.4 17.2 154.6 443.3 10.2 20.8 322 107.7 444.7 126.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 4.3 8.0 0.7 6.1 17.5 0.4 0.8 12.7 4.2 17.5 5.0 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 44.1 23.5 20.4 33.0 28.5 22.4 40.6 19.0 41.9 20.3 15.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 26.9 1.2 0.2 7.3 10.1 1.5 1.0 3.1 26.7 5.9 1.0 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 71.0 24.7 20.6 40.3 38.6 23.9 41.6 22.1 68.6 26.2 16.4 Level of Service (LOS) E C C D D C D C E C B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 29.9 C 37.0 D 22.9 C 27.5 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 31.1 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.00 A 1.61 B 1.31 A 1.99 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:20:08 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 24, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Future - AM PHF 0.89 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01AM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 65 508 23 134 986 148 22 431 15 66 592 186 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.4 4.4 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 29.1 3.2 5.7
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 73 571 26 151 1108 166 25 501 74 665 209 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 509 1781 1585 841 1781 1585 1781 1859 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 2.8 11.5 1.0 15.6 27.1 7.0 1.2 18.6 3.7 27.2 7.5 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 11.5 1.0 27.1 27.1 7.0 1.2 18.6 3.7 27.2 7.5 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 96 1183 527 252 1183 527 99 818 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.764 0.482 0.049 0.597 0.936 0.316 0.250 0.613 0.749 0.784 0.291 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 127 220.3 18 172.6 491.9 125.8 25.6 338.7 107.7 481.6 130.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 5.0 8.7 0.7 6.8 19.4 5.0 1.0 13.3 4.2 19.0 5.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 44.7 23.9 20.4 34.7 29.1 22.4 40.7 19.3 41.9 20.9 15.5 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 43.3 1.4 0.2 10.0 14.8 1.6 1.3 3.4 26.7 7.2 1.0 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 88.0 25.3 20.6 44.7 43.9 24.0 42.0 22.7 68.6 28.1 16.5 Level of Service (LOS) F C C D D C D C E C B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 32.0 C 41.7 D 23.6 C 28.7 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 33.7 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.04 A 1.66 B 1.36 A 2.05 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/24/2025 11:42:43 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - AM PHF 0.89 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01AM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 65 512 23 134 993 150 22 431 19 69 592 186 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.4 4.4 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 29.4 3.2 5.9
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 73 575 26 151 1116 169 25 506 78 665 209 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 505 1781 1585 838 1781 1585 1781 1856 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 2.5 11.6 1.0 15.7 27.4 7.2 1.2 18.9 3.9 27.2 7.5 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 11.6 1.0 27.3 27.4 7.2 1.2 18.9 3.9 27.2 7.5 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 94 1183 527 251 1183 527 99 817 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.778 0.486 0.049 0.601 0.943 0.320 0.250 0.619 0.783 0.784 0.291 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 129.3 222 18 173.5 499.7 127.8 25.6 342.6 118.6 481.6 130.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 5.1 8.7 0.7 6.8 19.7 5.0 1.0 13.5 4.7 19.0 5.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 44.8 23.9 20.4 34.8 29.2 22.5 40.7 19.4 42.0 20.9 15.5 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 45.9 1.4 0.2 10.2 15.6 1.6 1.3 3.5 32.6 7.2 1.0 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 90.7 25.4 20.6 45.0 44.9 24.1 42.0 22.9 74.5 28.1 16.5 Level of Service (LOS) F C C D D C D C E C B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 32.3 C 42.4 D 23.8 C 29.3 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 34.3 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.04 A 1.67 B 1.36 A 2.06 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:26:36 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 22, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - PM PHF 0.99 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01PM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 119 1256 27 81 877 110 33 461 26 135 430 103 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.4 4.4 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 31.9 3.6 7.0
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 120 1269 27 82 886 111 33 492 136 434 104 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 627 1781 1585 437 1781 1585 1781 1853 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 10.0 29.9 1.1 0.0 19.9 4.5 1.6 18.2 5.0 14.9 3.5 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 29.9 1.1 29.9 19.9 4.5 1.6 18.2 5.0 14.9 3.5 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 150 1183 527 80 1183 527 99 815 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.803 1.072 0.052 1.023 0.749 0.211 0.337 0.603 1.378 0.512 0.145 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 189.3 736.2 19 188.7 345.1 80 35 331.8 359 279.1 59.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 7.5 29.0 0.7 7.4 13.6 3.2 1.4 13.1 14.1 11.0 2.4 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 42.1 30.1 20.4 45.0 26.7 21.6 40.9 19.2 42.5 17.5 14.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 35.1 47.9 0.2 107.0 4.4 0.9 2.0 3.3 221.1 2.2 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 77.2 77.9 20.6 152.0 31.1 22.5 42.9 22.5 263.6 19.7 14.8 Level of Service (LOS) E F C F C C D C F B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 76.8 E 39.4 D 23.8 C 68.3 E Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 56.8 E
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.66 B 1.38 A 1.35 A 1.60 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/22/2025 4:01:02 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - PM PHF 0.99 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01PM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 119 1263 27 81 883 111 33 461 33 140 430 103 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.4 4.4 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 31.9 3.6 7.0
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 120 1276 27 82 892 112 33 499 141 434 104 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 624 1781 1585 434 1781 1585 1781 1848 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 9.8 29.9 1.1 0.0 20.1 4.6 1.6 18.6 5.0 14.9 3.5 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 29.9 1.1 29.9 20.1 4.6 1.6 18.6 5.0 14.9 3.5 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 148 1183 527 80 1183 527 99 813 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.812 1.078 0.052 1.023 0.754 0.213 0.337 0.614 1.429 0.512 0.145 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 191.5 749.7 19 188.7 347.9 80.9 35 337.8 381.9 279.1 59.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 7.5 29.5 0.7 7.4 13.7 3.2 1.4 13.3 15.0 11.0 2.4 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 42.2 30.1 20.4 45.0 26.8 21.6 40.9 19.3 42.5 17.5 14.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 36.6 50.0 0.2 107.0 4.5 0.9 2.0 3.4 241.5 2.2 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 78.9 80.1 20.6 152.0 31.3 22.5 42.9 22.8 284.0 19.7 14.8 Level of Service (LOS) E F C F C C D C F B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 78.8 E 39.4 D 24.0 C 73.9 E Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 58.6 E
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.66 B 1.38 A 1.37 A 1.61 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:24:33 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 24, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Future - PM PHF 0.99 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01PM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 123 1332 28 84 937 114 36 499 27 140 460 106 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.5 4.5 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 31.9 3.8 7.0
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 124 1345 28 85 946 115 36 531 141 465 107 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 592 1781 1585 406 1781 1585 1781 1853 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 8.1 29.9 1.1 0.0 21.8 4.7 1.8 20.3 5.0 16.3 3.6 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 29.9 1.1 29.9 21.8 4.7 1.8 20.3 5.0 16.3 3.6 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 134 1183 527 80 1183 527 99 815 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.930 1.137 0.054 1.061 0.800 0.219 0.367 0.652 1.429 0.548 0.149 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 221.3 893.8 19.7 200 376.4 83.3 38.4 364.5 381.9 300.9 61.7 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 8.7 35.2 0.8 7.9 14.8 3.3 1.5 14.4 15.0 11.8 2.4 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 43.2 30.1 20.4 45.0 27.3 21.6 41.0 19.8 42.5 17.9 14.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 60.9 72.5 0.2 118.2 5.7 1.0 2.3 4.0 241.5 2.5 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 104.2 102.5 20.6 163.2 33.1 22.6 43.2 23.8 284.0 20.4 14.9 Level of Service (LOS) F F C F C C D C F C B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 101.1 F 41.6 D 25.1 C 71.9 E Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 67.4 E
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.72 B 1.43 A 1.42 A 1.66 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/24/2025 12:08:56 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - PM PHF 0.99 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Doheny / Burton File Name 01PM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 123 1339 28 84 943 115 36 499 34 145 460 106 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

5.0 30.6 6.2 29.9 0.0 0.0

3.6 3.6 3.6 4.1 0.0 0.0

0.4 1.6 0.4 1.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 3.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 9.0 44.8 10.2 46.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.1 5.1 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 4.5 4.5 4.3 0.0 4.3 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 31.9 31.9 3.8 7.0
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 124 1353 28 85 953 116 36 538 146 465 107 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 589 1781 1585 403 1781 1585 1781 1849 1781 1870 1585 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 8.0 29.9 1.1 0.0 21.9 4.8 1.8 20.7 5.0 16.3 3.6 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 29.9 29.9 1.1 29.9 21.9 4.8 1.8 20.7 5.0 16.3 3.6 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.06 0.44 0.06 0.45 0.45 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 132 1183 527 80 1183 527 99 814 99 848 719 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.941 1.143 0.054 1.061 0.805 0.221 0.367 0.662 1.480 0.548 0.149 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 224 909.3 19.7 200 379.5 84.1 38.4 371.3 405 300.9 61.7 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 8.8 35.8 0.8 7.9 14.9 3.3 1.5 14.6 15.9 11.8 2.4 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 43.3 30.1 20.4 45.0 27.4 21.7 41.0 19.9 42.5 17.9 14.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 63.8 74.9 0.2 118.2 5.9 1.0 2.3 4.2 262.2 2.5 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 107.1 104.9 20.6 163.2 33.3 22.6 43.2 24.1 304.7 20.4 14.9 Level of Service (LOS) F F C F C C D C F C B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 103.5 F 41.8 D 25.3 C 77.6 E Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 69.4 E
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 2.13 B 2.45 B 2.45 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.73 B 1.44 A 1.44 A 1.67 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:28:35 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - AM PHF 0.94 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02AM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 5 14 7 5 30 7 8 430 3 8 630 71
Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 2.9 3.5
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 28 45 466 3 754
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1729 1803 1855 1610 1831 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 0.9 1.5 13.3 0.1 27.9 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 624 646 1071 895 1058
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.044 0.069 0.435 0.004 0.713 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 17.8 29 241.2 1.3 448.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 0.7 1.2 9.5 0.1 17.7 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 11.8 8.9 15.1
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.1
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 13.1 8.9 19.2
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.3 C 20.5 C 13.1 B 19.2 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.0 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.53 A 0.56 A 1.26 A 1.73 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 11:38:20 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - AM PHF 0.94 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02AM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 5 14 7 5 30 7 8 434 3 8 630 71
Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 2.9 3.5
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 28 45 470 3 754
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1729 1803 1855 1610 1831 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 0.9 1.5 13.4 0.1 27.9 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 624 646 1071 895 1058
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.044 0.069 0.439 0.004 0.713 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 17.8 29 244 1.3 448.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 0.7 1.2 9.6 0.1 17.7 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 11.9 8.9 15.1
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 4.1
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 13.2 8.9 19.2
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.3 C 20.5 C 13.2 B 19.2 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.1 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.53 A 0.56 A 1.27 A 1.73 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:34:36 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Future - AM PHF 0.94 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02AM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 5 14 7 5 31 7 8 457 3 8 665 73
Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 2.9 3.5
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 28 46 495 3 794
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1728 1806 1855 1610 1832 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 0.9 1.5 14.4 0.1 30.4 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 624 647 1071 895 1058
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.044 0.071 0.462 0.004 0.750 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 17.8 29.6 257.9 1.3 487.6 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 0.7 1.2 10.2 0.1 19.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 12.1 8.9 15.6
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.9
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 13.5 8.9 20.5
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.3 C 20.5 C 13.5 B 20.5 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.0 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.53 A 0.56 A 1.31 A 1.80 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 11:50:11 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - AM PHF 0.94 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02AM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 5 14 7 5 31 7 8 461 3 8 665 73
Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 2.9 3.5
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 28 46 499 3 794
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1728 1806 1855 1610 1832 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 0.9 1.5 14.6 0.1 30.4 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 624 647 1071 895 1058
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.044 0.071 0.466 0.004 0.750 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 17.8 29.6 260.2 1.3 487.6 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 0.7 1.2 10.2 0.1 19.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 12.1 8.9 15.6
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 4.9
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.3 20.5 13.6 8.9 20.5
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.3 C 20.5 C 13.5 B 20.5 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.0 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.53 A 0.56 A 1.32 A 1.80 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:37:06 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - PM PHF 0.98 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02PM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 29 113 28 3 19 14 13 485 22 17 493 38 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.2 3.3
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 173 37 508 22 559
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1773 1745 1850 1610 1822 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 6.2 1.3 14.9 0.6 17.4 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 638 625 1069 895 1053
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.272 0.059 0.475 0.025 0.531 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 121.2 23.7 265.8 9.2 298.6 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 4.8 0.9 10.5 0.4 11.8 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.1 20.4 12.2 9.0 12.7
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.1 1.9
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 22.2 20.4 13.7 9.1 14.7
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.2 C 20.4 C 13.5 B 14.7 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.4 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.77 A 0.55 A 1.36 A 1.41 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 11:48:14 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - PM PHF 0.98 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02PM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 29 113 28 3 19 14 13 492 22 17 493 38 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.2 3.3
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 173 37 515 22 559
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1773 1745 1850 1610 1821 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 6.2 1.3 15.2 0.6 17.4 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 638 625 1069 895 1053
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.272 0.059 0.482 0.025 0.531 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 121.2 23.7 270 9.2 298.6 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 4.8 0.9 10.6 0.4 11.8 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.1 20.4 12.3 9.0 12.7
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.6 0.1 1.9
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 22.2 20.4 13.8 9.1 14.7
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.2 C 20.4 C 13.6 B 14.7 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.4 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.77 A 0.55 A 1.37 A 1.41 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:35:50 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Future - PM PHF 0.98 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02PM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 30 116 29 3 20 14 13 525 23 18 527 39 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.4 3.3
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 179 38 549 23 596
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1772 1749 1850 1610 1820 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 6.4 1.3 16.6 0.6 19.0 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 638 626 1069 895 1052
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.280 0.060 0.514 0.026 0.566 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 125.3 24.4 290.7 9.6 323 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 5.0 1.0 11.4 0.4 12.7 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.1 20.4 12.6 9.0 13.1
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.1 2.2
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 22.2 20.4 14.3 9.1 15.3
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.2 C 20.4 C 14.1 B 15.3 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.9 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.78 A 0.55 A 1.43 A 1.47 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 11:53:32 AM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - PM PHF 0.98 Urban Street Dohney Drive Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection Doheny / Dayton File Name 02PM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 30 116 29 3 20 14 13 532 23 18 527 39 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

50.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 35.0 35.0 55.0 55.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.4 3.3
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 179 38 556 23 596
Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1772 1749 1851 1610 1820 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 6.4 1.3 16.9 0.6 19.0 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.33 0.33 0.56 0.56 0.56
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 638 626 1069 895 1052
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.280 0.060 0.520 0.026 0.566 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 125.3 24.4 295 9.6 323 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 5.0 1.0 11.6 0.4 12.7 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.1 20.4 12.7 9.0 13.1
Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.1 2.2
Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 22.2 20.4 14.5 9.1 15.3
Level of Service (LOS) C C B A B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.2 C 20.4 C 14.2 B 15.3 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.9 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.78 A 0.55 A 1.44 A 1.47 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:39:04 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 22, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - AM PHF 0.86 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03AM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 54 480 21 113 1118 12 11 65 12 24 128 36 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.2
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.9 9.6
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 63 558 24 131 1300 14 102 219 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 431 1781 1610 865 1698 1610 1793 1573 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 10.0 8.1 0.7 9.3 14.9 0.4 3.9 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 24.9 8.1 0.7 17.3 14.9 0.4 3.9 7.6 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 231 1836 830 448 2627 830 527 645 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.272 0.304 0.029 0.293 0.495 0.017 0.194 0.339 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 53.2 147.8 11.2 87.6 233.5 6.1 77.4 146.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.1 5.8 0.4 3.5 9.2 0.2 3.1 5.9 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.2 12.5 10.7 17.5 14.2 10.6 25.7 19.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 2.9 0.4 0.1 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 25.1 12.9 10.8 19.1 14.8 10.7 25.9 20.2 Level of Service (LOS) C B B B B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 14.1 B 15.2 B 25.9 C 20.2 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.8 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.02 A 1.28 A 0.66 A 0.85 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/22/2025 4:22:06 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - AM PHF 0.86 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03AM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 54 490 21 117 1127 12 11 65 14 27 128 36 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 6.0 9.7
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 63 570 24 136 1310 14 105 222 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 426 1781 1610 855 1698 1610 1789 1533 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 10.1 8.3 0.7 9.8 15.1 0.4 4.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 25.2 8.3 0.7 18.1 15.1 0.4 4.0 7.7 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 228 1836 830 442 2627 830 527 630 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.275 0.310 0.029 0.307 0.499 0.017 0.199 0.353 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 53.6 151.3 11.2 92.1 235.9 6.1 79.2 149.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.1 6.0 0.4 3.7 9.3 0.2 3.2 6.0 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 22.4 12.6 10.7 17.8 14.2 10.6 25.7 19.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 3.0 0.4 0.1 1.8 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 25.4 13.0 10.8 19.6 14.9 10.7 25.9 20.2 Level of Service (LOS) C B B B B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 14.1 B 15.3 B 25.9 C 20.2 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 15.9 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.03 A 1.29 A 0.66 A 0.85 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:43:52 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 24, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Future - AM PHF 0.86 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03AM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 56 527 22 116 1183 14 12 68 12 27 132 37 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 6.1 9.9
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 65 613 26 135 1376 16 107 228 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 401 1781 1610 822 1698 1610 1789 1545 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 11.6 9.1 0.7 10.3 16.1 0.4 4.1 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 27.7 9.1 0.7 19.4 16.1 0.4 4.1 7.9 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 215 1836 830 421 2627 830 526 634 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.303 0.334 0.031 0.320 0.524 0.020 0.203 0.360 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 58.3 165.3 11.7 94.2 248.5 7.1 81.1 154 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.3 6.5 0.5 3.8 9.8 0.3 3.2 6.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 23.6 12.8 10.7 18.4 14.5 10.7 25.8 20.0 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 3.6 0.5 0.1 2.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.3 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 27.2 13.2 10.8 20.4 15.2 10.7 25.9 20.3 Level of Service (LOS) C B B C B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 14.4 B 15.6 B 25.9 C 20.3 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.1 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.07 A 1.33 A 0.66 A 0.86 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/24/2025 12:17:19 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - AM PHF 0.86 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03AM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 56 537 22 120 1192 14 12 68 14 30 132 37 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 6.2 10.1
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.8 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 65 624 26 140 1386 16 109 231 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 397 1781 1610 813 1698 1610 1786 1507 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 11.8 9.3 0.7 10.9 16.3 0.4 4.2 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 28.0 9.3 0.7 20.2 16.3 0.4 4.2 8.1 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 213 1836 830 416 2627 830 526 619 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.306 0.340 0.031 0.336 0.528 0.020 0.208 0.374 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 58.7 169.2 11.7 99 250.9 7.1 83 157.1 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.3 6.7 0.5 4.0 9.9 0.3 3.3 6.3 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 23.8 12.8 10.7 18.7 14.5 10.7 25.8 20.0 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 3.7 0.5 0.1 2.2 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 27.5 13.3 10.8 20.9 15.3 10.7 26.0 20.4 Level of Service (LOS) C B B C B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 14.5 B 15.7 B 26.0 C 20.4 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.2 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.08 A 1.34 A 0.67 A 0.87 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:46:57 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 22, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - PM PHF 0.97 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03PM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 84 1421 8 103 870 18 27 88 27 63 142 25 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 7.8 13.2
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 87 1465 8 106 897 19 146 237 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 631 1781 1610 368 1698 1610 1734 1287 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 8.4 30.5 0.2 16.0 9.3 0.5 5.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 17.7 30.5 0.2 46.4 9.3 0.5 5.8 11.2 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 340 1836 830 145 2627 830 514 538 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.255 0.798 0.010 0.731 0.341 0.022 0.285 0.441 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 61.9 470.6 3.7 154.2 153.2 8.1 113.7 166.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.5 18.5 0.1 6.2 6.0 0.3 4.5 6.7 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 18.0 17.9 10.6 40.1 12.8 10.7 26.4 20.4 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 1.8 3.7 0.0 27.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 19.8 21.6 10.6 67.5 13.2 10.7 26.7 21.0 Level of Service (LOS) B C B E B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 21.5 C 18.8 B 26.7 C 21.0 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.8 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.77 B 1.05 A 0.73 A 0.88 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/22/2025 4:34:10 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - PM PHF 0.97 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03PM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 84 1441 8 110 877 18 27 88 31 68 142 25 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.0 14.4
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.8 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 87 1486 8 113 904 19 151 242 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 626 1781 1610 360 1698 1610 1735 1251 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 8.5 31.2 0.2 15.3 9.4 0.5 5.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 17.9 31.2 0.2 46.4 9.4 0.5 6.0 12.4 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 338 1836 830 141 2627 830 514 525 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.256 0.809 0.010 0.804 0.344 0.022 0.293 0.462 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 62.2 481.7 3.7 176.5 154.4 8.1 115.5 173.4 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.5 19.0 0.1 7.1 6.1 0.3 4.6 6.9 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 18.1 18.1 10.6 40.9 12.8 10.7 26.4 20.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 1.8 4.0 0.0 36.8 0.4 0.0 0.3 0.6 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 19.9 22.1 10.6 77.7 13.2 10.7 26.8 21.3 Level of Service (LOS) B C B E B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 21.9 C 20.2 C 26.8 C 21.3 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 21.5 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.79 B 1.06 A 0.74 A 0.89 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:45:31 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 24, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Future - PM PHF 0.97 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03PM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 87 1502 8 106 929 20 29 91 28 67 147 26 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.0 14.2
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.9 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 90 1548 8 109 958 21 153 247 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 596 1781 1610 339 1698 1610 1730 1283 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 9.5 33.5 0.2 12.9 10.1 0.6 5.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 19.6 33.5 0.2 46.4 10.1 0.6 6.0 12.2 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 321 1836 830 129 2627 830 513 536 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.280 0.843 0.010 0.849 0.365 0.025 0.298 0.461 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 66.9 517.1 3.7 182.5 166.1 9 117.3 177 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.7 20.4 0.1 7.3 6.5 0.4 4.7 7.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 18.8 18.7 10.6 42.1 13.0 10.7 26.5 20.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 2.2 4.9 0.0 46.6 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 21.0 23.6 10.6 88.7 13.4 10.7 26.8 21.3 Level of Service (LOS) C C B F B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 23.4 C 20.9 C 26.8 C 21.3 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 22.5 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.85 B 1.09 A 0.74 A 0.90 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/24/2025 12:19:34 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction Los Angeles / Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - PM PHF 0.97 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 16:30 Intersection La Peer / Burton File Name 03PM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 87 1522 8 113 936 20 29 91 32 72 147 26 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

46.4 23.9 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.1 3.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 6 2 3 8 7 4
Case Number 5.0 5.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 14.3
Phase Duration, s 51.0 51.0 0.0 29.0 10.0 39.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 4.6 4.6 4.6 5.1 5.1 5.1
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0 4.3
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 8.2 15.4
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.9 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 1 6 16 5 2 12 3 8 18 7 4 14
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 90 1569 8 116 965 21 157 253 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 591 1781 1610 333 1698 1610 1732 1249 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 9.6 34.3 0.2 12.1 10.2 0.6 5.0 0.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 19.8 34.3 0.2 46.4 10.2 0.6 6.2 13.4 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.27 0.38 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 318 1836 830 125 2627 830 514 524 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.282 0.854 0.010 0.933 0.367 0.025 0.305 0.482 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 67.2 529.6 3.7 208.9 167.4 9 120.7 183.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.7 20.8 0.1 8.4 6.6 0.4 4.8 7.4 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 18.9 18.9 10.6 42.7 13.0 10.7 26.5 20.9 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 2.2 5.3 0.0 64.2 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 21.1 24.2 10.6 106.9 13.4 10.7 26.9 21.6 Level of Service (LOS) C C B F B B C C
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 24.0 C 23.3 C 26.9 C 21.6 C Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 23.7 C
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 1.71 B 1.71 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.86 B 1.09 A 0.75 A 0.90 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:48:31 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Los Angeles Time Period Existing - AM PHF 0.91 Urban Street Burton Way Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Robertson / Burton File Name 04AM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 76 378 94 156 1129 92 64 444 34 30 467 22 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

30.7 12.4 27.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.9 3.9 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.4 2.7 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 1 6 5 2
Case Number 5.0 5.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 4.0
Phase Duration, s 33.0 33.0 19.0 38.0 19.0 38.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.2 5.2 6.6 7.3 6.6 7.3
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 5.6 5.6 4.2 0.0 4.2 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 29.8 29.8 6.1 6.1
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.23
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 168 1393 140 120 833 84 89 488 51 90 564 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 659 1781 1585 388 1698 1585 1781 1870 1585 1781 1849 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 15.6 27.8 6.0 0.0 12.2 3.5 4.1 20.9 2.0 4.1 26.0 Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 27.8 27.8 6.0 27.8 12.2 3.5 4.1 20.9 2.0 4.1 26.0 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.14 0.34 0.34 0.14 0.34 Capacity ( c ), veh/h 194 1100 490 80 1574 490 245 638 541 245 631 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.862 1.266 0.287 1.503 0.530 0.171 0.362 0.765 0.093 0.366 0.893 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 232.4 1157.8 102.4 364.8 212 58.7 83.6 405.7 35.3 83.7 514.3 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 9.2 45.6 4.0 14.4 8.3 2.3 3.3 16.0 1.4 3.3 20.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 39.7 31.1 23.6 45.0 25.7 22.7 35.2 26.4 20.2 35.2 28.1 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 31.3 127.2 0.5 280.4 0.5 0.2 0.9 8.5 0.3 0.9 17.5 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 70.9 158.3 24.1 325.4 26.2 22.9 36.1 34.9 20.5 36.1 45.6 Level of Service (LOS) E F C F C C D C C D D
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 138.6 F 60.6 E 33.9 C 44.3 D Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 86.8 F
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.12 B 1.93 B 2.59 C 2.59 C
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.89 B 1.06 A 1.52 B 1.57 B
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:55:25 PM HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 04/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2025 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Existing - AM Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 1 0 4 3 0 27 9 509 22 20 671 26
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 5 33 10 22
Capacity, c (veh/h) 287 439 843 986
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 17.8 13.9 9.3 0.2 0.2 8.7 0.2
Level of Service (LOS) C B A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 17.8 13.9 0.3 0.5
Approach LOS C B A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 12:15:41 PM 05AM - Existing.xtw
HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 04/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2025 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Ex w/Proj - AM Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 1 0 6 3 0 27 9 509 22 20 682 26
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 8 33 10 22
Capacity, c (veh/h) 334 438 834 986
v/c Ratio 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 16.0 13.9 9.4 0.2 0.2 8.7 0.2
Level of Service (LOS) C B A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 16.0 13.9 0.3 0.5
Approach LOS C B A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 6:58:47 PM 05AM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xtw
HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 04/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2028 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Future - AM Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 4 0 4 3 0 28 9 582 23 21 745 29
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 9 34 10 23
Capacity, c (veh/h) 121 387 784 919
v/c Ratio 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.02
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 37.0 15.2 9.7 0.2 0.2 9.0 0.3
Level of Service (LOS) E C A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 37.0 15.2 0.3 0.5
Approach LOS E C A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 12:20:46 PM 05AM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xtw
HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 04/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2028 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Fut w/Proj - AM Peak Hour Factor 0.92
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 4 0 6 3 0 28 9 582 23 21 756 29
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 11 34 10 23
Capacity, c (veh/h) 141 385 775 919
v/c Ratio 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.02
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 32.6 15.2 9.7 0.2 0.2 9.0 0.3
Level of Service (LOS) D C A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 32.6 15.2 0.3 0.5
Approach LOS D C A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 7:02:04 PM 05AM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario 2.xtw
HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 4/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2025 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Existing - PM Peak Hour Factor 0.98
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 3 28 14 0 2 33 9 480 38 26 655 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 46 36 9 27
Capacity, c (veh/h) 199 490 906 1028
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.07 0.01 0.03
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.5 12.9 9.0 0.1 0.1 8.6 0.3
Level of Service (LOS) D B A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 28.5 12.9 0.3 0.6
Approach LOS D B A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 3:15:53 PM 05PM - Existing.xtw
HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 4/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2025 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Ex w/Proj - PM Peak Hour Factor 0.98
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 3 28 15 0 2 33 9 480 38 26 663 6
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 47 36 9 27
Capacity, c (veh/h) 200 489 899 1028
v/c Ratio 0.24 0.07 0.01 0.03
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 28.5 12.9 9.0 0.1 0.1 8.6 0.3
Level of Service (LOS) D B A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 28.5 12.9 0.3 0.6
Approach LOS D B A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 7:00:59 PM 05PM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xtw
HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 4/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2028 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Future - PM Peak Hour Factor 0.98
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 5 29 14 0 2 34 9 559 39 27 752 9
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 49 37 9 28
Capacity, c (veh/h) 147 429 829 958
v/c Ratio 0.33 0.09 0.01 0.03
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 41.3 14.2 9.4 0.2 0.2 8.9 0.3
Level of Service (LOS) E B A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.3 14.2 0.3 0.6
Approach LOS E B A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 12:22:52 PM 05PM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xtw
HCS Two-Way Stop-Control Report
General Information Site Information
Analyst AS Intersection Robertson / Dayton - Colgate
Agency/Co. Linscott, Law & Greenspan Jurisdiction Beverly Hills/Los Angeles Date Performed 4/29/2025 East/West Street Dayton Way - Colgate Avenue Analysis Year 2028 North/South Street Robertson Boulevard Time Analyzed Fut w/Proj - PM Peak Hour Factor 0.98
Intersection Orientation North-South Analysis Time Period (hrs) 0.25 Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Lanes
Major Street: North-South
Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments
Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Movement U L T R U L T R U L T R U L T R
Priority 10 11 12 7 8 9 1U 1 2 3 4U 4 5 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0
Configuration LTR LTR LTR LT TR
Volume (veh/h) 5 29 15 0 2 34 9 559 39 27 760 9
Percent Heavy Vehicles (%) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Proportion Time Blocked
Percent Grade (%) 0 0
Right Turn Channelized
Median Type | Storage Undivided
Critical and Follow-up Headways
Base Critical Headway (sec) 7.5 6.5 6.9 7.5 6.5 6.2 4.1 4.1 Critical Headway (sec) 7.56 6.56 6.96 7.56 6.56 6.26 4.16 4.16 Base Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 2.2 2.2 Follow-Up Headway (sec) 3.53 4.03 3.33 3.53 4.03 3.33 2.23 2.23 Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service
Flow Rate, v (veh/h) 50 37 9 28
Capacity, c (veh/h) 147 428 823 958
v/c Ratio 0.34 0.09 0.01 0.03
95% Queue Length, Q₉₅ (veh) 1.4 0.3 0.0 0.1
Control Delay (s/veh) 41.5 14.2 9.4 0.2 0.2 8.9 0.3
Level of Service (LOS) E B A A A A A
Approach Delay (s/veh) 41.5 14.2 0.3 0.6
Approach LOS E B A A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved. HCS™ TWSC Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 7:03:21 PM 05PM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario 2.xtw
HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - AM PHF 0.90 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06AM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 10 35 54 35 86 32 21 519 105 15 599 22 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.7 7.6
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 110 170 600 117 369 338 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1688 1699 1820 1610 1829 1680 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 11.3
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.7 5.6 21.3 3.5 11.1 11.3 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 700 710 951 805 956 840
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.157 0.239 0.631 0.145 0.386 0.402 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 66.9 106.8 370.4 59.4 210.5 199.2 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.7 4.3 14.6 2.4 8.4 8.0 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 17.9 18.5 16.6 12.1 14.0 14.1 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.4 1.2 1.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 18.0 18.6 19.7 12.5 15.2 15.5 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.0 B 18.6 B 18.6 B 15.3 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.2 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.67 A 0.77 A 1.67 B 1.07 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 12:24:14 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - AM PHF 0.90 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06AM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 10 35 54 35 86 32 21 519 105 15 606 26 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.7 7.6
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 110 170 600 117 376 343 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1688 1699 1819 1610 1830 1677 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 11.6
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.7 5.6 21.3 3.5 11.3 11.6 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 700 710 951 805 957 838
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.157 0.239 0.631 0.145 0.393 0.410 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 66.9 106.8 370.4 59.4 214.4 202.5 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.7 4.3 14.6 2.4 8.6 8.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 17.9 18.5 16.6 12.1 14.1 14.1 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.4 1.2 1.5 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 18.0 18.6 19.7 12.5 15.3 15.6 Level of Service (LOS) B B B B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.0 B 18.6 B 18.6 B 15.5 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.2 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.67 A 0.77 A 1.67 B 1.08 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 7:05:14 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Future - AM PHF 0.90 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06AM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 11 36 56 36 89 33 22 592 108 15 670 24 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.9 7.8
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 114 176 682 120 411 377 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1684 1699 1817 1610 1828 1681 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.6 0.0 13.0
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.9 5.8 26.2 3.6 12.7 13.0 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 699 710 950 805 956 840
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.164 0.247 0.718 0.149 0.430 0.449 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 69.9 110.8 442.4 61.2 235.2 222.8 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.8 4.4 17.4 2.4 9.4 8.9 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 18.0 18.6 17.7 12.2 14.4 14.5 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.1 4.7 0.4 1.4 1.7 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 18.0 18.7 22.4 12.5 15.8 16.2 Level of Service (LOS) B B C B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.0 B 18.7 B 20.9 C 16.0 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.5 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.68 A 0.78 A 1.81 B 1.14 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 12:27:31 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - AM PHF 0.90 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 8:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06AM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 11 36 56 36 89 33 22 592 108 15 677 28 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 5.9 7.8
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 114 176 682 120 418 382 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1684 1699 1816 1610 1829 1677 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.6 0.0 13.3
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 3.9 5.8 26.2 3.6 12.9 13.3 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 699 710 949 805 956 839
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.164 0.247 0.719 0.149 0.437 0.456 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 69.9 110.8 442.4 61.2 239.2 226.2 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 2.8 4.4 17.4 2.4 9.6 9.0 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 18.0 18.6 17.7 12.2 14.5 14.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.0 0.1 4.7 0.4 1.5 1.8 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 18.0 18.7 22.4 12.5 15.9 16.4 Level of Service (LOS) B B C B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.0 B 18.7 B 20.9 C 16.1 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 18.5 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.68 A 0.78 A 1.81 B 1.15 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 7:07:03 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Existing - PM PHF 0.95 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06PM - Existing.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 22 185 76 32 72 19 34 461 173 14 644 14 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 12.8 6.1
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 298 129 521 182 369 338 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1783 1623 1766 1610 1841 1689 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 11.3
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 10.8 4.1 17.4 5.7 11.1 11.3 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 737 681 926 805 962 844
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.404 0.190 0.563 0.226 0.384 0.400 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 200.2 79.4 312.1 97.4 211 198.9 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 8.0 3.2 12.3 3.9 8.4 8.0 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.1 18.1 15.6 12.7 14.0 14.1 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.7 1.2 1.4 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.2 18.1 18.1 13.3 15.2 15.5 Level of Service (LOS) C B B B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.2 C 18.1 B 16.8 B 15.3 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.9 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.98 A 0.70 A 1.65 B 1.07 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 12:26:29 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Ex w/Proj - PM PHF 0.95 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2025 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06PM - Existing with Project - Scenario 2.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 22 185 76 32 72 19 34 461 173 14 650 17 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 12.8 6.1
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 298 129 521 182 375 342 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1783 1623 1765 1610 1841 1686 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.0 11.5
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 10.8 4.1 17.4 5.7 11.3 11.5 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 737 681 925 805 962 843
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.404 0.190 0.563 0.226 0.389 0.406 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 200.2 79.4 312.1 97.4 213.8 201.6 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 8.0 3.2 12.3 3.9 8.6 8.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.1 18.1 15.6 12.7 14.1 14.1 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.0 2.5 0.7 1.2 1.5 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.2 18.1 18.1 13.3 15.3 15.6 Level of Service (LOS) C B B B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.2 C 18.1 B 16.8 B 15.4 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 16.9 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 0.98 A 0.70 A 1.65 B 1.08 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 7:08:38 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Future - PM PHF 0.95 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06PM - Future Cumulative Baseline.xus Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 24 191 78 33 74 20 35 538 178 14 739 16 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 13.3 6.3
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 308 134 603 187 422 387 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1619 1761 1610 1840 1689 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 4.5 5.9 0.0 13.4
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 11.3 4.3 22.1 5.9 13.1 13.4 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 736 680 923 805 962 844
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.419 0.197 0.654 0.233 0.439 0.458 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 206.9 82.2 375.1 100.5 242.2 228.7 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 8.3 3.3 14.8 4.0 9.7 9.1 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.3 18.1 16.6 12.7 14.5 14.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.1 3.6 0.7 1.5 1.8 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.4 18.2 20.2 13.4 16.0 16.4 Level of Service (LOS) C B C B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.4 C 18.2 B 18.6 B 16.2 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.9 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.00 A 0.71 A 1.79 B 1.16 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 12:28:45 PM HCS Signalized Intersection Results Summary
General Information Intersection Information
Agency Linscott, Law & Greenspan Duration, h 0.250
Analyst AS Analysis Date Apr 29, 2025 Area Type Other
Jurisdiction City of Beverly Hills Time Period Fut w/Proj - PM PHF 0.95 Urban Street Robertson Boulevard Analysis Year 2028 Analysis Period 1> 17:00 Intersection Robertson / Clifton File Name 06PM - Future Cumulative with Project - Scenario … Project Description 8844 Burton Way
Demand Information EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Demand ( v ), veh/h 24 191 78 33 74 20 35 538 178 14 745 19 Signal Information
Green
Yellow
Red

45.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cycle, s 90.0 Reference Phase 2
Offset, s 0 Reference Point End
Uncoordinated No Simult. Gap E/W On
Force Mode Fixed Simult. Gap N/S On
Timer Results EBL EBT WBL WBT NBL NBT SBL SBT
Assigned Phase 8 4 6 2
Case Number 8.0 8.0 7.0 8.0
Phase Duration, s 40.0 40.0 50.0 50.0
Change Period, ( Y+R c ), s 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Max Allow Headway ( MAH ), s 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0
Queue Clearance Time ( g s ), s 13.3 6.3
Green Extension Time ( g e ), s 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.0
Phase Call Probability 1.00 1.00
Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00
Movement Group Results EB WB NB SB
Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R
Assigned Movement 3 8 18 7 4 14 1 6 16 5 2 12
Adjusted Flow Rate ( v ), veh/h 308 134 603 187 428 391 Adjusted Saturation Flow Rate ( s ), veh/h/ln 1781 1619 1760 1610 1841 1687 Queue Service Time ( g s ), s 0.0 0.0 4.5 5.9 0.0 13.6
Cycle Queue Clearance Time ( g c ), s 11.3 4.3 22.1 5.9 13.3 13.6 Green Ratio ( g/C ) 0.39 0.39 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50
Capacity ( c ), veh/h 736 680 922 805 962 843
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ( X ) 0.419 0.197 0.654 0.233 0.445 0.464 Back of Queue ( Q ), ft/ln ( 95 th percentile) 206.9 82.2 375.1 100.5 245.1 231.2 Back of Queue ( Q ), veh/ln ( 95 th percentile) 8.3 3.3 14.8 4.0 9.8 9.2 Queue Storage Ratio ( RQ ) ( 95 th percentile) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Delay ( d 1 ), s/veh 20.3 18.1 16.6 12.7 14.6 14.6 Incremental Delay ( d 2 ), s/veh 0.1 0.1 3.6 0.7 1.5 1.8 Initial Queue Delay ( d 3 ), s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Control Delay ( d ), s/veh 20.4 18.2 20.2 13.4 16.1 16.5 Level of Service (LOS) C B C B B B
Approach Delay, s/veh / LOS 20.4 C 18.2 B 18.6 B 16.3 B Intersection Delay, s/veh / LOS 17.9 B
Multimodal Results EB WB NB SB
Pedestrian LOS Score / LOS 2.13 B 1.94 B 1.71 B 1.71 B
Bicycle LOS Score / LOS 1.00 A 0.71 A 1.79 B 1.16 A
Copyright © 2025 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved. HCS™ Streets Version 2023 Generated: 4/29/2025 7:10:05 PM ATTACHMENT 11
Construction Management Plan
(CMP)

SITE PLAN
1/16” = 1’-0”
A2.0 SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”
N

SITE PLAN

ALLEY CENTERLINE
77’-8”
74’-4”
45’-0”
48’-4”
21’-11” 44’-5”

CLARK DRIVE CENTERLINE

SWALL DRIVE CENTERLINE
Construction trailer offices
Full parking lane
Closure along Burton
Way for staging/loading
Tower Crane
8844 Burton Way
Construction Management
Plan
4/24/2025
Entrance Gate with
pedestrian/vehicular
signage
Entrance Gate with
pedestrian/vehicular
signage
Exit gate with
pedestrian/vechicular
signage
Exit gate with
pedestrian/vechicular
signage
Full sidewalk
closure along
Burton, Clark
and N Swall for
safety and
staging
Alleyway and
Clark sidewalk
closed for
staging and
deliveries area
8 foot high
construction fence,
typical
Full sidewalk
closure along
Burton, Clark
and N Swall for
safety and
staging
Truck Route for
excavation and
deliveries
(2) eastbound Burton
vehicular lanes and (1)
bike lane remain open
during construction
Full sidewalk
closure along
Burton, Clark
and N Swall for
safety and
staging
ATTACHMENT 12
AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption
City Compliance Analysis
City Analysis of Assembly Bill (AB) 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66(a)

1. Project Site Size – PRC Section 21080.66(a)(1)(B): The project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11) and the project site is less than five acres in size.

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

3. Urban Uses - PRC Section 21080.66(a)(3)(A-D): The project site is 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 one-quarter 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.

4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency – PRC Section 21080.66(a)(4)(A): Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11), the project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project and, pursuant to Government Code Section 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 Section 21080.66(a)(5): Pursuant to Government Code Section 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 Section 21080.66(a)(6): Pursuant to Government Code Section 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 Section 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 Section 21080.66(a)(8): The project does not include a hotel or transient use component.

ATTACHMENT 13
AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption
Applicant Compliance Analysis
Attachment 8
Evidence of Eligibility for CEQA Exemption Under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 I. Background
Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 was added to state law by Assembly Bill (“AB”) 130, which took effect on July 1, 2025. This law created an unqualified exemption from CEQA for projects that satisfy the enumerated criteria. It is not subject to any of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, or any other exceptions.

II. Eligibility
As demonstrated below, the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. The Project meets all of the requirements for this exemption:

1. Section 21080.66(a) – The Project is a “housing development project,” as defined in Government Code Section 65905.5(b) because it is a 100% residential project. (See Revised Plan Set in Attachment 3.)

2. Section 21080.66(a)(1) – The project site is 0.6147612 acres (26,779 sf) in size, which is not more than five acres. (See Revised DPR Application in Attachment 1 and Revised Plan Set in Attachment 3.)

3. Section 21080.66(a)(2) – The project site is located within the boundaries of the City of Beverly Hills, which is an incorporated municipality. (See Revised DPR Application in Attachment 1.)

4. Section 21080.66(a)(3) – The project site was previously developed with an urban use1: a twostory building that housed Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills’ religious school facilities.

Furthermore, at least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins2 parcels that are developed with urban uses: There is a commercial use to the east, an early education center and a temple to the southeast, a residential building to the south, residential buildings to the southwest and west, and commercial and residential buildings to the north across Burton Way. (See Attachment A, Exhibit C.1, of the original AB 1633 Notice.)

5. Section 21080.66(a)(4) – The proposed project is a builder’s remedy project, as defined in Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11). (See Section III.A of the original AB 1633 Notice letter.) Consequently, the project is deemed to be consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii): “Any project that complies with this paragraph [i.e., is a builder’s remedy project] shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, 1 “Urban use” is defined as “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.” (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(f)(3).)
2 “‘Adjoins’ includes parcels that are only separated by a street, pedestrian path, or bicycle path.” (Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(f)(1).)
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.”
In February 2025, HCD advised the City of San Jose that this code section is applicable to a project’s eligibility for a Class 32 CEQA exemption, which requires the project to be “consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a).) Specifically, HCD concluded: “[L]ead agencies cannot rely on subdivision (a) of CEQA Guidelines section 15332 to preclude a project that meets the definition of “builder’s remedy” pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(11), from utilizing a CEQA Class 32 infill exemption. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (f)(6)(D)(iii), a qualifying builder’s remedy project shall be deemed “consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan…for all purposes, and shall not be considered as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose [emphases added.]” It is HCD’s understanding that clause (iii) also applies to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a).”3 Here, as with the Class 32 Exemption, Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) results in the project meeting the criteria in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(4).

The fact that the Project is requesting a density bonus, incentives and concessions, and waivers and reductions of development standards under State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) does not impact the Project’s consistency with the general plan and zoning code.

Public Resources Code Section 21080.66(a)(4)(C) states: “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 is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program.”

6. Section 21080.66(a)(5) – The applicable density for the City of Beverly Hills under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is 30 units per acre.4 One half of the applicable density is 15 units per acre. The proposed project has a density of approximately 325 units per acre, which exceeds 15 units per acre.5 (See Revised DPR Application in Attachment 1 and Revised Plan Set in Attachment 3.)

7. Section 21080.66(a)(6) – The project satisfies the requirements specified in Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6). (See Section IV.C(iv)(1) of the original AB 1633 Notice.) 3 HCD Letter to Christopher Burton, dated February 7, 2025, entitled “City of San Jose, AB 1893 Builder’s Remedy and CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption – Letter of Technical Assistance,” p. 2. (Attached as Exhibit A to this Attachment.)
4 See HCD Memorandum dated June 9, 2005, entitled “Amendment of State Housing Element Law – AB 2348,” Appx. 1, p. 3, available at: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/activefunding/iigp/docs/ab2348stat04ch724.pdf. 5 The project site is 0.6147612 acres (26,779 sf) in size, and the project proposes 200 units.

8. Section 21080.66(a)(7) – The project site is currently vacant and therefore will not require the demolition of a historic structure. (See Revised DPR Application in Attachment 1.)

9. Section 21080.66(a)(8) – No portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. (See Revised DPR Application in Attachment 1 and Revised Plan Set in Attachment 3.)

10. Section 21080.66(b) – The Applicant agrees to participate in the tribal consultation process and to be bound by conditions of approval resulting from the tribal consultation process to the extent required by Public Resources Codes Section 21080.66(b).

11. Section 21080.66(c)(1) – A phase I environmental assessment has already been completed for the project. The assessment concluded that “No evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs), historical recognized environmental conditions (HREC), or controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs) was identified in connection with the subject property.” (See Attachment A, Exhibit D, to original AB 1633 Notice; quotation is from p. 20 of the exhibit.)

12. Section 21080.66(c)(2) – This provision does not apply because the Project is not located within 500 feet of a freeway. (See Exhibit B to this Attachment.)

13. Section 21080.66(d) – The Applicant agrees to the comply with the wage rate requirements in Public Resources Section 21080.66(d).

ATTACHMENT 14
Applicant Correspondence
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
October 20, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re: 8844 Burton Way – Response to Planning Commission Staff Report Dear Chair Wolfe and Honorable Commissioners:

We represent 8844 Burton Way LLC (“Applicant”), as co-counsel with Paul Hastings, in connection with the Development Plan Review and Density Bonus Permit applications for the housing development project at 8844 Burton Way (“Project”). We appreciate staff’s diligent work to move the Project forward and agree with the staff’s recommendation to approve the Project.

We write for two reasons. First, there are certain proposed conditions of approval that the City cannot legally impose on the Project. We have proposed revisions to these below. Second, the staff report and proposed resolution do not incorporate certain concessions and waivers of development standards that the Applicant requested in the Density Bonus Application, as supplemented in our recent letter dated October 10, 2025, and we are writing to request that these concessions and waivers be explicitly approved and considered in the Planning Commission’s review of the Project.

We look forward to the Planning Commission’s review of the Project at the upcoming October 21, 2025, hearing and respectfully request approval of the Project with the requested modifications discussed in this letter.

I. Limitations on City’s Authority to Impose Conditions The staff report correctly states that the Project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code § 65589.5) (“HAA”). As such, the City is limited in the conditions that it may impose. As relevant here, there are three guardrails applicable to conditions of approval that the City may impose on builder’s remedy projects:

Conditions Must Be Based on Objective Standards. The City “may only require the project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have been applied to the project had it been proposed on a site … that [would] allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A).) October 20, 2025

Page 2 ends

Conditions Must Not Render the Project Infeasible. The City may “not apply any individual or combination of objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies” to the Project that would have the effect of either (i) rendering the Project infeasible or (ii) precluding the Project “from being constructed as proposed by the applicant.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(B).)
“Feasible” is defined in the HAA as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(1).) To render the Project infeasible would mean to render it not feasible.
“Proposed by the applicant” is defined in the HAA 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 § 65589.5(h)(14).)
Conditions Must Not Target Builder’s Remedy Projects. The City may not “impose any requirement, process, practice, or procedure . . . that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(E).) In other words, the City cannot impose a condition on a builder’s remedy project that it does not apply to similar housing projects.

With these three principles in mind, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission either delete or modify proposed Conditions of Approval 15, 16, 20, and 21, as discussed below.

II. Requested Deletions and Modifications of Proposed Conditions A. Condition 15 and Condition 16 (Use Restrictions on Outdoor Space) Proposed Conditions 15 and 16 improperly limit residents’ use of outdoor space. These conditions are unnecessary and cannot be imposed as drafted. We request the deletion of Condition 15 and request the following revisions to Condition 16:

Amplified sound shall be prohibited on all outdoor open space areas, including the rooftop area, and outdoor common space terraces, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., and at all times on all private residential balconies provided for the Project. This condition shall be incorporated into the lease agreement for each residential tenant.

Practically, Conditions 15 and 16 are unnecessary. The Project is already required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance under the law and compliance with the law is also made a condition of approval under Condition 25. Further limiting residents’ use of outdoor space is not needed to protect neighboring properties from excessive noise.

Second, the conditions are inconsistent with the limits on the City’s authority to condition builder’s remedy projects. Neither is based on objective, quantifiable written development standards, conditions, or policies. We have been unable to locate any Beverly Hills Municipal Code requirement or October 20, 2025

Page 3 ends

other regulation that prescribes hours of operation for common open space areas in multifamily residential buildings or completely prohibits amplified sound.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that Condition 15 be deleted and Condition 16 be revised as shown above.

B. Condition 20 (Opaque or Translucent Balcony Barriers on Building’s Southside) Proposed Condition 20 improperly requires a four-foot tall translucent or opaque barrier on the balcony of each unit along or visible on the south elevation, and along any guardrail surrounding the rooftop and common outdoor living space along the south elevation. This proposed condition violates the HAA and cannot be imposed. We propose the following revisions:

A four-foot (4’) tall translucent or opaque clear 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. Hanging anything over the edge of any balcony shall be prohibited.

The HAA compels these changes because the condition: (i) is not based on any objective, quantifiable written development standard, condition, or policy; (ii) would render the project infeasible; and (iii) impermissibly targets a builder’s remedy project.

As to the first point, we have been unable to locate, and the staff report does not cite, any Beverly Hills Municipal Code requirement or other regulation or written policy that requires that residential balcony barriers be translucent or opaque. As such, this development standard is not an objective, quantifiable written development standard, condition, or policy.

Second, the condition would render the Project economically infeasible. Opaque balcony barriers along a significant portion of the Project’s façade would materially change the views available to the Project’s residents and block light. The use of transparent balcony barriers is standard in highquality multifamily residential construction and typically expected in such developments. Opaque barriers would create an unsightly condition by limiting views and light within the units, rendering the units substandard and not able to command the rent premium necessary to support the project’s construction. As a result, the marketability of a significant portion of the Project’s residential units would be materially affected by this condition, threatening the Project’s financial feasibility.

Third, Condition 20 is not a standard condition that is broadly applied to multifamily residential projects. For example, the other project on the agenda for the Planning Commission’s October 21, 2025, meeting is a multifamily project (not a builder’s remedy project) that includes balconies that face other residences, but the opaque or translucent condition for balconies is not proposed. Consequently, the City is targeting the Project, a builder’s remedy project, with a condition not otherwise applied to similarly situated projects and is exceeding its authority.

For all these reasons, Proposed Condition 20 must be changed as suggested above to permit clear balconies and remove the requirement that the installed barrier be translucent or opaque.

October 20, 2025

Page 4 ends

C. Condition 21 (Use of Barbeques)
Proposed Condition 21 prohibits the use of barbeque grills on the Project’s individual balconies and within the outdoor living space provided on the rooftop area and common outdoor space terrace areas. This proposed limit on what amenities may be provided to residents cannot be imposed and is unnecessary. We propose that outdoor grilling be prohibited on private balconies but allowed in common amenity spaces, as follows:

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.

As written, the condition cannot stand because it is not based on an objective standard in place as of the date of the Project’s preliminary application submittal and is discriminatory.

Furthermore, there is no practical reason to prohibit the use of outdoor grills and barbecues as enjoyed by other Beverly Hills residents. Being able to cook outside is one of the joys of Southern California living. Prohibiting residents from enjoying built-in grills and outdoor kitchens in common areas on the 4th, 11th, 25th, and 26th floors serves no purpose. As such, we respectfully request that the Commission revise Condition 21 as suggested above.

III. Clarification on the Requested Incentives and Waivers On September 29, 2025, the City provided a letter that identifies the inconsistencies of the Project with the applicable plans, programs, ordinances, standards, and requirements of the City of Beverly Hills pursuant to Government Code §65589.5(j)(2). We provided a response to this letter on October 10, 2025, in which we supplemented the request for waivers and incentives/concessions in the Applicant’s previously submitted Density Bonus Permit Application. With the addition of these supplemental waivers and incentives/concessions, the Project is in full compliance with all applicable City plans, programs, ordinances, standards, and requirements. On October 15, 2025, the City published a staff report and draft resolution for the Planning Commission hearing on the Project, which seemingly do not incorporate some of the concessions and waivers that the Applicant requested. Additionally, the draft resolution includes technical errors for which we request clarification to avoid confusion during subsequent reviews during plan check. These issues are as follows.

A. Side/Rear Setback Reductions and Balcony Encroachments along Burton Way The City’s September 29, 2025, letter states that the Project’s balconies are not a permitted encroachment into any required yard and identifies unpermitted balconies in the “required” front, side, and rear yards. Our October 10, 2025, letter includes requests for several waivers to address both the reductions of the required setbacks on the front (Clark Drive), side (Burton Way), and rear (Rear Alley) as well as requests to address the balcony encroachments into the required yards. The draft resolution includes Waivers 3, 4, and 9 to reduce the required setbacks on the applicable front, side, and rear yard, but only includes Incentive/Concession 2 to permit Encroachments in Front and Street Side Yard October 20, 2025

Page 5 ends

Setbacks for Balconies. We request clarification or modification of the draft resolution to ensure that the Project, as designed, will be permitted with the requested setback reductions and the proposed balcony encroachments into the required front, side, and rear yards.

B. Open Space
The City’s September 29, 2025, letter states that the Project does not comply with the Outdoor Living Space standards of BHMC § 10-3-2803, which include both private and common outdoor living spaces standards. The City’s letter states that the balconies are not sufficient to count as outdoor living space as they are 5’ instead of the required 6’ and also states that many of the outdoor living spaces do not meet the minimum dimensions such that they cannot count towards the required amount of outdoor living space for the Project. Our October 10, 2025, letter addresses both of these issues by including a request to reduce the amount of required outdoor living space, while still allowing the Project to provide excess non-code-compliant outdoor living space. The City’s draft resolution includes Waiver 6 allowing the balconies that are less than 6’ to count towards the outdoor living space requirements; however, this does not address the alleged deficiency in the dimensions for other nonbalcony spaces. We request clarification that this one waiver will provide relief to ensure that the Project, as designed, is compliant with all outdoor living space standards.

C. Rear Setback Reduction along Rear Alley
Waiver 9 in the draft resolution states “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 Burton Way.” (Emphasis added.) The rear setback is identified as the rear alley, but the last sentence states the reduced rear setback is along Burton Way. We request that this language be revised to specify the rear alley as the applicable property line from which to measure the reduced 10’-0” rear setback.

D. Modulation
The City’s September 29, 2025, letter states that the Project does not comply with two different modulation standards described in BHMC § 10-3-2806.C (Modulation) and BHMC §10-3-2806.E.3 (Modulation for Large Scale Multiple Residential Development). Our October 10, 2025, letter includes requests for two different waivers to address both standards. The City’s draft resolution includes Waiver 7 for a waiver of the modulation standards in BHMC § 10-3-2806.C. We request clarification that this one waiver will provide relief from all applicable modulation standards in the BHMC, including those in BHMC §10-3-2806.E.3.

E. Waiver 11
Finally, our requested Waiver 11, related to the standard in BHMC § 10-3-2809, is not directly addressed in the staff report or draft resolution. We request that the City either clarify that this is addressed through the waiver of the maximum building length, or else revise the draft resolution to explicitly approve this waiver request.

October 20, 2025

Page 6 ends

Thank you, again, for your review of the Project and your consideration of our requests.

Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
cc: Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
October 28, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Chair Jeff Wolfe and Members of the Planning Commission City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re: 8844 Burton Way – Response to Alternative Resolution; Request for Continuance (Case No. PL2400115)
Dear Chair Wolfe, Vice Chair Milkowski, and Commissioners Demeter, Kaplan, and Ross:

We write for two reasons concerning the above builder’s remedy project, which will provide 200 new homes including 22 new affordable homes for Beverly Hills’ current and future residents in the midst of a historic, region-wide housing crisis.

First, we write to request a continuance of the October 29, 2025, Planning Commission hearing to the earliest date the full Commission can hear the matter. We understand that all five Commissioners are unable to attend the October 29 meeting. It is important that all five Commissioners have the opportunity to vote on this matter. Therefore, we respectfully request that this matter be continued to the earliest available date on which all five Commissioners are available. If the earliest available date is after November 6, the Applicant agrees to extend the deadlines under the Permit Streamlining Act to that date to accommodate the Commission’s hearing.

Second, we write to respond to the alternative resolution the City published last Friday. As detailed in the attached, the Commission’s denial of the Project would be an illegal act. Adopting the alternative resolution would (i) violate state law, (ii) subject the City to at least $10 million in fines, and (iii) risk further loss of local zoning control. The Housing Accountability Act bars the Commission from disapproving the Project and from conditioning it as proposed in the original staff-prepared resolution. Here’s why.

1. Affordable Homes Now Distributed Across Entire Building. The project’s initial conceptual layout complied with the law by locating affordable homes on five floors and placing them consistent with market rate homes. But this issue is moot. Although the Applicant continues to have concerns about the economic feasibility of relocating the affordable homes, in consideration of the illegal denial threat, the Applicant is voluntarily proposing changes to the location of the affordable homes to even City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 2 ends

more broadly disperse them in the building and on even higher floors than other builder’s remedy projects the Commission has approved. (See Exhibit A.) As such, there is no basis to find that the Project violates state law.

2. The Project Does Not Have a Specific Adverse Health or Safety Impact Based on Written Public Health or Safety Standards. The allegations of increased fire risk due to the building’s height and increased emergency response times cannot be a basis to deny the project because: (i) the preponderance of the evidence confirms no such impacts; and (ii) there are no “objective, identified written public health or safety standards” on which the finding is based. Such allegations are merely conjecture and speculation. The alternative resolution directly contradicts the City’s top fire safety officials, ignores that projects of similar height are already provided with adequate fire services, and that there are a number of mechanisms in the Building Code and Fire Code to limit the spread of fires in highrise buildings. The project’s traffic study confirms no intersection delays (“0.1 to 3.6 seconds” delays anticipated). The preponderance of the evidence confirms the Project will not have any specific adverse impacts on public health and safety.

3. The Proposed Condition on the Project’s South Facing Balconies Are Illegal. Requiring translucent balconies on the southern elevation is illegal for four reasons. First, the City may only require the Project to comply with “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies.” The City has none. Second, the HAA prohibits conditions that could render the Project infeasible. Polaris Pacific, a well-known and highly regarded brokerage firm with extensive experience in the local rental market, opines that non-transparent balcony guardrails could reasonably result in “up to a 25 percent decline in value.” (See Exhibit C.) Third, this condition illegally targets the Project. Recently approved high-rise multifamily and hotel developments have been allowed clear balconies. These include the Rosewood, 9200 Wilshire Boulevard (Mandarin Oriental Hotel), and One Beverly Hills. The opaque/translucent balcony condition is a new and novel attempt to punish and target builder’s remedy projects. This violates the HAA.

Fourth, there is no nexus between the purported impact and the proposed condition. 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 places the new homes 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 look down at a neighbor. Balcony opacity, therefore, would provide no meaningful privacy benefit. It is an illegal condition.

For all these reasons and as detailed in the attached, the Commission cannot disapprove the project and cannot impose an illegal condition requiring translucent balcony railings.

Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 3 ends

ATTACHMENT
At the Planning Commission’s October 21, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a motion purporting to deny the Project subject to the Commission’s future adoption of written findings in support of such a denial, which the Planning Commission intends to consider at a special meeting on October 29, 2025. A new draft resolution with findings to deny the Project was made public on October 24, 2025. As described in detail in this letter, the Commission’s efforts to deny the Project at the October 21st meeting were illegal, constituted bad faith under the California Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), and disregarded the clear provisions of State housing law as well as the recommendation and advice of both the City’s planning staff and the City Attorney. If the Commission does not reverse course at the October 29th special meeting by approving the Project subject to legally appropriate conditions of approval, the Commission’s actions will likely lead to litigation against the City resulting in tens of millions of dollars of liability, and potential State intervention and loss of local zoning control.

We understand the Commission took issue with the Project’s size and scale. Several comments were made regarding the Commission’s lack of a good general “feeling” about the Project in one way or another. However, despite extensive discussion throughout the hearing regarding the overarching legal mandate to approve the Project as proposed, the Commission ultimately overlooked its legal obligation and made a decision obviously driven by emotion and its desire to delay and even halt the Project.

Less than a month ago, the City 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-time offender is significantly higher. Moreover, the legislature recently adopted and the Governor just signed into law Assembly Bill 712 (“AB 712”), which automatically imposes the same enhanced bad faith penalties (i.e., $10 million total) 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 the same Housing Element period. The City’s attempted denial of the Project would clearly constitute the City’s second such violation. 0F 1 We therefore urge you to reverse the denial, follow
the law, approve the Project and protect the City from crushing financial and potential regulatory penalties.

I. The Commission’s Stated Reasons for Denying the Project are Illegal A. The Commission’s Discretion to the Deny the Project is Extremely Limited As the Commission is well aware given the exhaustive discussion of this issue in the staff report and during the public hearing on the Project, as well as the Commission’s recent consideration and approval of multiple other similarly situated projects in the City, the City has extraordinarily narrow discretion to disapprove a builder’s remedy project. Specifically, the HAA (Gov. Code Section 65589.5) 1 Notably, the Burton Project has 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
October 28, 2025

Page 4 ends

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, but must instead be based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record. To be clear, the record includes the entire body of materials regarding the Project, including all Project-related technical studies, written findings, City staff analyses and staff reports, City departmental review comments, and staff’s responses to questions posed by the Commissioners. The City is obligated to weigh all of this evidence, and based on the preponderance of the evidence, must determine that the evidence on one side of an issue is greater than and outweighs the evidence on the other side.

Of the six available findings for denial of 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), (d)(4) (which applies to land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation), or (d)(5) and (d)(6) (which do not apply to builder’s remedy projects). Instead, based on the Commission’s adopted verbal motion at the October 21st hearing and the proposed denial resolution, the Commission appears intent on adopting written findings under subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3), 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 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.
(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.

On its own, 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 has completely failed to meet for 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 City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 5 ends

public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) … arise infrequently.”1F 2 By
adding this language to the HAA, the Legislature is making it clear to jurisdictions 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.” 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.”2F 3 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 and purpose of the HAA.

B. The Commission’s Non-Existent Grounds for Project Denial Having established the applicable legal background for the City’s review of a housing development project under the HAA, we turn to the Commission’s verbally stated grounds for seeking denial of the Project, as reiterated in the proposed denial resolution, none of which meet the requirements in the HAA.

Reason 1:3F
4 Violation of Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2), on the ground the Project clusters the affordable units in one location or locations, does not include any affordable units in the top 19 floors of the building, and locates the affordable units next to elevators and trash chutes, and the Applicant did not provide evidence as to why the Project’s economic feasibility requires the affordable units to be located as proposed.

This stated basis for denial of the Project does not meet the requirements under subsection (d)(2) as it does not pertain to an adverse public health and safety impact, and the Commission made no effort to allege that such an adverse public health and safety impact would occur (nor would the Commission have been able to support any such allegation, as no evidence whatsoever was offered regarding any “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” pertaining to the topic of affordable unit locations within the Project that would be based on any “objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions”). Accordingly, this stated reason for denial of the Project does not satisfy subsection (d)(2).

This stated basis for denial also does not meet the requirements of subsection (d)(3). First, the Project’s proposed arrangement of units does not violate Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2), which requires as follows: “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 plans presented to the City and discussed at the Commission’s hearing provide 200 total units on levels 4 through 24, including 14 extremely low-income (“ELI”) affordable units and 8 moderate income (“MI”) affordable units. Rather than locating all 22 affordable units on “a specific floor or an area on a specific 2 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(a)(3).
3 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(a)(2)(L).
4 The language of the Commission’s verbal motion seeking to deny the Project is taken from the City-provided transcription of the October 21st Planning Commission meeting, available here:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/TranscriptViewer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=10544.

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 6 ends

floor,” the plans locate the affordable units on 5 different stories (levels 4 through 8), as shown in the chart below.

The Health and Safety Code provision cited by the City was added by Assembly Bill 491 in 2022, and was primarily intended to ensure that residents of affordable units in mixed-income buildings had equal access to common building entrances and amenities as market-rate unit residents. The adopted statutory language specifically prohibits the location of affordable units on a single floor or in a specific area of a single floor; although the author of the bill could have gone beyond that regulation, the law as it exists does not require an equal dispersal of affordable units throughout the building, it does not require the same number of affordable units on each floor, it does not require the same amount of affordable units at the top of the building as are at the bottom of the building, and, finally, it does not prohibit the location of affordable units near elevators or trash enclosures. Consequently, there is no evidence that the Project violates the specifically drafted language of Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2), and the Commission did not seek to provide any such evidence to support its stated basis for denial of the Project.

The draft denial resolution states that “the Commission interprets the mandate [in the Health and Safety Code] 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.” (Draft Resolution §

7.2.) The actual effect of the Commission’s “interpretation” is the imposition of requirements that do not exist in state law. The Commission is not at liberty to “extend” actual state law requirements to encompass any other related policies that the Commission may want to impose, especially when such an interpretation is clearly a pretext for denying a housing project. There is no mystery as to how California courts would interpret this requirement or understand its intent. The California Supreme Court has stated repeatedly that “We begin with the statutory language because it is generally the most reliable indication of legislative intent.” (Miklosy v. Regents of Univ. of California, 44 Cal. 4th 876, 888 (2008).) Moreover, “If no ambiguity appears in statutory language, courts presume that the Legislature meant what it said, and the plain meaning of the statute controls.” (People v. Stanley, 54 Cal. 4th 734, 737 (2012).) Here, there is no ambiguity as to what is required by Health and Safety Code Section City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 7 ends

17929(a)(2), nor is there any evidence that the Project does not comply with the clear language of the statute.

In addition, there is no applicable objective legal standard that dictates precisely how and where to allocate the affordable units within a mixed-income development. Given the lack of such a standard, it is not surprising that there is little to no consistency regarding the location of the affordable units within the six builder’s remedy projects that have been approved by the Commission this month (i.e., 9467 W. Olympic, 352 S. Beverly, 9441 W. Olympic, 346 Maple, 401 N. Oakhurst, and 232 Tower). After a detailed review of the affordable unit placement in these projects, it is clear that a majority of the project applicants elected to place the affordable units in the lower portions of the building. Given that these projects were all recently approved, it shows the Commission is holding this Project to a different and completely arbitrary subjective standard, which is prohibited under the HAA.

Lastly, even if the Project did violate Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2) – which it clearly does not – this would in no way justify a denial of the Project. Instead, in that circumstance, the Commission would be obligated to condition the Project to relocate some of the affordable units within the building (again, assuming for the purposes of this hypothetical, that the current affordable unit locations are located on “a specific floor or an area on a specific floor,” which as the Project plans make clear, they are not). Subsection (d)(3) authorizes denial of Project where denial “is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply.” Clearly, denial is not required because, to the extent the City believes the Project does not comply with State or federal law (which again, it does comply with all such laws), there is a clearly feasible method to comply – the Commission could have simply conditioned the Project to disperse the affordable units across additional floors at recommended locations, to the extent the Commission believed such conditions are required to comply with State law. Making matters even worse, the City Attorney communicated this same information directly to the Commission at the hearing, instructing that the law requires “addressing the issue” (i.e., imposing a condition of approval) as opposed to using it as a basis to deny the entire project.4F
5 Despite this obvious fix, which subsection (d)(3) itself authorizes by noting the potential conditioning of projects to achieve compliance with State or federal law, and despite the City Attorney’s clear and correct legal advice provided at the hearing, the Commission instead chose to use this issue as pure pretext to deny the Project outright. This is both illegal and clear evidence of bad faith.

As stated at the hearing, the Applicant proposed the legally compliant locations of the affordable units based on financial feasibility considerations given the significant expense of constructing a building of this type and the future residential rents that are required to successfully operate the Project. Notwithstanding the increased costs, the Applicant’s remaining concerns with respect to Project feasibility,5F
6 and despite the fact that the Project clearly complies with Health and 5 See October 21, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, at approximately 5:23:51 in the video of the meeting, available at: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=10544. 6 The draft denial resolution states that “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).” (Draft Resolution § 7.2.). This claim, while an overstatement, is nevertheless rendered moot by the Applicant’s voluntary commitment to reconfigure the affordable units despite its continued, ongoing concerns about jeopardizing the Project’s economic feasibility.

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 8 ends

Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2) as originally proposed, for the purpose of removing this issue from the Planning Commission’s realm of concerns, the Applicant agrees to voluntarily relocate some of the Project’s affordable units so they are spread across a greater number of floors. Specifically, the Applicant now proposes affordable units disbursed on floors four (4) through eighteen (18), as opposed to only the first five residential levels. There are now no more than two affordable units proposed on a single floor. In addition, whereas the original plans showed all 22 affordable studio units, there are now 20 studio units, one 2-bedroom and one 3-bedroom affordable unit. The Applicant is also willing to voluntarily relocate some of the affordable units so that they are not adjacent to trash chutes.6F 7 (See
proposed update to residential unit count and revised floor plans, attached as Exhibit A). This distribution is more evenly spread out than many of the builder’s remedy projects previously approved by the Planning Commission, that concentrated the affordable units on the lower 50 percent of the building floors. Also, the placement of the affordable units near the trash chutes was apparently of no concern to the Commission for the 353 S. Beverly Blvd or 9467 W. Olympic Blvd projects which both included similar floor plan layouts.

Now that the plans have been updated to meet the Commission’s stretched and ad hoc interpretation of Health and Safety Code Section 17929(a)(2), this issue can in no possible way continue to be used as a basis for Project denial. To do otherwise would give new meaning to the term bad faith.

Reason 2: Lack of evidence as to why the Project’s economic feasibility requires transparent balcony barriers rather than opaque or translucent barriers.

This stated reason for denial neither identifies a specific, adverse impact under subsection (d)(2) nor alleges a violation of state or federal law under subsection (d)(3). As such it is per se an invalid basis However, it must be noted for the record that this statement in the draft resolution is blatantly pretextual and in no way represents the Commission’s actual reason for not addressing this issue through conditioning rather than denying the Project. In his statement of the motion for denial, which was seconded and adopted by the Commission, Commissioner Ross stated in no uncertain terms that he did not believe that relocating the affordable units would result in economic infeasibility:
“I would also move on the grounds of no evidence whatsoever of economic feasibility that [the Applicant] set forth despite our questions about what is the economic feasibility requiring tenants to be cloistered, the economic feasibility of needing transparent as opposed to opaque guard rails, despite repeated requests for that information. The applicant refused any such information and said that it was proprietary, wouldn't tell us what they did, who assisted in it, who prepared that economic feasibility study, whether there was anything in writing on that topic. I personally don't believe that there's anything like that that was done at the time at the relevant time period.”
In complete contradiction of the actual words of the motion, the draft denial resolution suggests that the Commission was in fact so convinced that reconfiguring the affordable units would make the Project infeasible that they believed they had no choice but to deny the Project. This is clearly false, misleading, and bad faith. 7 We should note that the Commission’s concern regarding units being located near trash rooms being somehow substandard lacks any merit. The trash rooms would be sealed, ventilated, climate controlled and sound proofed such that there is no material downside to living in a unit located near as opposed to at a distance from the trash room. In fact, the Applicant’s residents have noted that if anything there is a convenience benefit to living near the trash room as opposed to having to walk down the hall to dispose of trash or recycling. (See Letter from Nicole Browne, General Manager of Ten Thousand, located at 10000 Santa Monica Blvd, Los Angeles, in Exhibit B.) City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 9 ends

for denying the Project. City staff has apparently recognized this fact as this finding is not included in the draft denial resolution despite being stated in the motion for denial adopted at the Planning Commission meeting.

This reason for denial of the entire Project simply restates the Commission’s verbal discussion at the hearing of why the Applicant’s request to change the condition of approval related to the balcony barriers should not be granted. We vigorously disagree with the balcony barrier condition of approval as discussed in more detail in Section III below, but in no way can the fact the Applicant exercised its lawful right to object to a proposed condition be used as a basis for Project denial.

Reason 3: Health and safety issues raised by neighbors who described the demographics of the neighborhood and the need to have proximity and access to emergency services, including Cedars Sanai Hospital, and traffic issues that may impede access to emergency services.

This stated reason for denial does not cite any alleged violation of law that could support a denial finding under subsection (d)(3) and instead appears to be a last-ditch attempt by the Commission to manufacture a specific, adverse public health and safety impact to make the required finding for denial under subsection (d)(2). The purported public health and safety impact at issue here appears to have been derived from public testimony speculating about potential traffic congestion causing emergency service-related delays.

This stated reason for denial fails the requirements under subsection (d)(2) for multiple reasons.

First, as clearly spelled out by the statutory language, subsection (d)(2) requires a written finding, based on the preponderance of the evidence in the record, that the Project will result in 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 City Attorney recited this standard verbatim to the Commission multiple times during the hearing. He correctly noted the high bar nature of the finding, instructing that mere subjective Project concerns and unsupported objections fail the legal test. He even went so far as to instruct the Commission that potential concerns regarding the general “welfare”, which are normally relevant to the approval of a development project through exercise of the City’s police powers, are irrelevant in the HAA context. Despite the extensive education provided to the Commissioners regarding the HAA’s severe constraints on local control, the Commission failed to identify any objective written public health or safety standard that the Project allegedly conflicts with, much less identify any significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact that would result from a potential conflict or inconsistency with such a standard. Instead, only anecdotal and speculative public comments were offered during the hearing, which in no way constitute a sufficient basis to make this finding. The absence of any citation to a written standard in the draft denial resolution further emphasizes the clear illegality of this proposed finding.

Second, as Planning staff informed the Commission, there is ample evidence in the record that the Project will not have a detrimental impact on traffic or access to emergency services. Regarding construction-related traffic, the staff report states that “[C]onstruction 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.” Regarding project- City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 10 ends

related traffic, the staff report is clear that the Project would not substantially or adversely increase traffic delays at any of the studied intersections:

The draft denial resolution attempts to muddy the waters by reciting completely unsubstantiated, speculative and unquantified concerns about “limited ingress and egress” and “growing traffic congestion.” (Draft Resolution § 7.1.) The draft denial resolution also claims that the project will result in “significant new traffic” that will “lengthen response times for ambulances and fire services.” (Id.) None of these purported impacts are quantified or supported with any evidence. In reality, these claims are directly contradicted by the actual professional studies prepared for the Project that conclude the Project would increase local intersection delays by a mere “0.1 to 3.6 seconds.” The Commission was advised of these findings by a professional licensed traffic engineer by Planning staff during the last hearing and as part of the original staff report – yet they were conveniently ignored.

In short, the preponderance of the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that the Project will not result in substantial or adverse traffic effects and, consequently, Project-related traffic would not impact the ability of residents in the vicinity to access emergency services. And to reiterate, neither the Commission, nor City staff, nor any member of the public, demonstrated even the possibility of any “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions” occurring in connection with the Project. This stated reason for denial of the Project is groundless.

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 11 ends

Reason 4: Lack of evidence that fire services can adequately respond to a fire in parts of the building above 100 feet from the ground.

This stated reason for denial appears to be an additional attempt to identify a specific, adverse impact to public health and safety to make the finding for denial under subsection (d)(2). 7F 8 However, as
with Reason 3, the Commission failed again to identify any objective, identified written public health or safety standard that the Project allegedly conflicts with, nor has the Commission identified any significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact to public health or safety that could somehow result from the construction of a residential building over 100 feet in height. This fact is made even more glaringly obvious by the absence of any citation to a written public health or safety standard related to fire safety in the draft denial resolution.

The draft resolution attempts to put the burden of proof on the Applicant by stating that “[t]he Applicant has 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.” (Draft Resolution § 7.1.) Unfortunately for the Commission, state law could not be any more clear that the burden of proof is on the City to make the findings in subdivision (d) of the HAA:

If any city … denies approval … and the denial of the development or the imposition of conditions on the development is the subject of a court action which challenges the denial or the imposition of conditions, then the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body to show that its decision is consistent with the findings as described in subdivision (d). 8F 9 Lest there be any doubt, this requirement is stated again in Government Code Section 65589.6:

In any action taken to challenge the validity of a decision by a city … to disapprove a project … the city … shall bear the burden of proof that its decision has conformed to all of the conditions specified in Section 65589.5 [i.e. the HAA].

The draft denial resolution blatantly ignores this clear state law directive.

The only aspect of this Project the Commission points to as the source of this alleged adverse impact is the building’s height – no other aspects of the Project were called out when describing this stated reason for Project denial and no other aspects of the Project are identified in the draft denial resolution. Therefore, this reason for denial amounts to a conclusion by the Commission that all residential buildings taller than 100 feet may have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety and that there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid this impact without denial. This is preposterous and would mean that all buildings throughout the state that are taller than 100 feet – including the recently approved “One Beverly Hills” which stands taller than the Project (two towers at 410 and 369 feet) – are causing a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. Such an 8 As with Reason 3, it is beyond clear that this reason for denial also does not satisfy the requirements in (d)(3) as there is no state or federal law prohibiting buildings over 100 feet in height, nor was any such law cited by the Commission. The Project would be required to comply, and will comply, with all applicable Building and Fire Code standards.
9 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(i).

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 12 ends

interpretation directly conflicts the Legislature’s explicit intent that specific, adverse impacts under (d)(2) “arise infrequently.”
Furthermore, there is abundant evidence in the record, provided by the City’s own staff, demonstrating that the City’s Fire Department will be able to adequately respond to a fire in parts of the building above 100 feet from the ground. During the public hearing, 9F 10 Planning staff testified that they
had spoken with the City’s Fire Marshal and Deputy Fire Marshal, and these officials had no concerns about the Fire Department’s ability to provide firefighting and emergency services to the Project.

Specifically, Fire Department officials stated: (i) that there is sufficient area around the Project to stage a fire response, (ii) that the department has experience and knowledge regarding responding to fires in high-rise buildings, and (iii) that there a number of mechanisms in the Building Code and Fire Code to limit the spread of fires in high-rise buildings. Staff further testified that there are sufficient mechanisms to address fires that are above the reach of ladders and that these mechanisms are routinely employed in cities across the county that have substantial high-rise development. Other fire-safety mechanisms discussed by staff include fire sprinklers and fire-ratings for walls. Staff also testified that project plans would again be forwarded to and reviewed by the City’s Fire Department prior to construction and occupancy of the building. Staff further testified that the City already has buildings that exceed 100 feet along Wilshire Blvd. – including the Waldorf Astoria – and the City has been able to provide fire services to those projects.

It was also confirmed at the hearing by the City’s Public Works Department that the City has sufficient capacity regarding both water availability and water pressure to address fires in buildings at the height proposed by the Project. Staff specifically noted this issue had been studied as part of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and noted that a water capacity study would be required as part of the plan check process for the Project. In short, in response to direct questions by the Commission, the City’s staff provided evidence of extensive discussions with the City’s top Fire Department and other departmental officials as well as the conclusions of written studies indicating that the Project can be adequately served by fire services and there would be no adverse impacts regarding such fire and emergency services. Consequently, the Commission’s stated reason for denial of the Project that there is “no evidence” that fire services can adequately respond to a fire in parts of the building above 100 feet in height is completely without basis, and contrary to extensive expert evidence provided by the City’s professional staff at the very same hearing.

II. The Commission Acted in Bad Faith
“Bad faith” under the Housing Accountability Act includes, but is not limited to, “an action or inaction that is frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay, or entirely without merit.”10F 11 The Commission’s actions on October 21st are replete with examples of egregious bad faith.

The City’s staff report prepared for the Project clearly set forth the relevant standard of review for the Project as a builder’s remedy project and described the very strict limitations imposed on the Commission’s ability to deny the Project under the HAA. The Commission is also intimately familiar with builder’s remedy projects, having recently considered and approved multiple such projects proposed in 10 See October 21, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, starting at approximately 4:00:00 in the video of the meeting, available at: https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=10544. 11 Government Code Section 65589.5(l).

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 13 ends

the City. However, the Commission’s treatment of the Project differed greatly from those prior examples. It is fairly obvious that the reason for the disparate and discriminatory treatment is because this Project happens to be taller than the seven other recently approved builder’s remedy projects – which of course is irrelevant as far as the HAA’s legal protections are concerned.

Moreover, the Commission understood (and was repeatedly reminded of) the very high evidentiary burden that must be met to demonstrate the existence of a specific adverse public health and safety impact under subsection (d)(2). In addition, as reflected in the staff report and as discussed during the October 21st hearing, the Commission knew of the very restricted circumstances under which a jurisdiction may deny a housing development project for an alleged failure to comply with state or federal law under subsection (d)(3). As the City’s staff report explicitly states, “there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project” under either subsection (d)(2) or (d)(3) of the HAA.

Again, this was reiterated and reaffirmed multiple times during the hearing by the City Attorney.

However, notwithstanding the overwhelming preponderance of evidence in the record precluding the Commission from making findings of denial, the Commission instead elected to substitute its own judgment for the judgment and technical expertise of City staff, the City Attorney and the Fire Department and seek denial of the Project. It did so by adopting a verbal motion directing staff to return in one week with written findings supporting the Commission’s four alleged reasons for denial described above. As explained in this letter, none of these reasons are valid under the HAA, and each reason directly conflicts with the clear statutory requirements of subsections (d)(2) and (d)(3), as well as the HAA’s requirement that its provisions must be “interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” The Commission completely failed to heed the Legislature’s mandate and instead went fishing for any available reason to deny – instead of appropriately conditioning – the Project. This is unquestionably a bad faith action.

The Commission further acted in bad faith by refusing to re-open the public hearing to allow the Applicant to respond to the Commissioner’s concerns. Following the close of the public hearing, it became increasingly apparent that the Commission was seeking to identify grounds – any grounds – for denial of the Project in violation of State law. In an effort the address and rebut the Commission’s proposed bases for denial, the Applicant’s representatives made multiple requests to re-open the public hearing. This is a courtesy typically extended to applicants – particularly when they are about to address a very specific issue leading to a denial vote. Nevertheless, the Commission refused all requests, demonstrating a determination to move forward with the denial without allowing the Applicant the opportunity to provide additional evidence or to explain how the Commission’s concerns could be addressed through the imposition of conditions of approval rather than outright denial of the Project. To add insult to injury, one Commissioner suggested he was trying to delay the Project to essentially gain negotiation leverage over the Applicant, while ignoring the applicable HAA review standard.

Bad faith includes actions that are “entirely without merit.” While none of the Commission’s findings for denial have any merit, even the Commission cannot deny that its attempts at identifying specific, adverse impacts are entirely without merit. State law clearly states that such findings must be based on “objective, identified written public health and safety standards.” The Commission has never cited any written public health or safety standard to justify its findings and none are stated in the draft denial resolution. It is hard to imagine a more obvious violation of state law or a clearer indication of bad faith.

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 14 ends

If a court ultimately finds that the City acted in bad faith and ultimately refuses to approve the Project, the fines could total at least $50,000 per unit, resulting in a $10,000,000 penalty payment.11F 12 Fines could be further multiplied given this would be the City’s second court ordered HAA violation within this planning period.12F
13 We also note that with the passage of AB 712, a $10,000,000 penalty will be automatically assessed against the City ($50,000 per unit) for any repeated HAA violation – even if the court ultimately does not actually find bad faith in connection with the Project’s denial. Given the City’s recent loss in the Linden Drive project litigation, this would be the second court-determined HAA violation within the same Housing Element cycle, making AB 712’s enhanced penalties automatic. In addition, the State could elect to further penalize the City by referring the matter to the Attorney General’s office to seek more robust regulatory penalties that could include restrictions on the City’s local zoning control.

As described in this letter, and as clearly demonstrated by the proceedings of the Commission’s October 21st meeting, the City has unquestionably committed acts in bad faith and will be subject to enhanced penalties as a result.

III. Balconies
We discussed at length during the hearing that the proposed condition requiring opaque and translucent balconies on the southern elevation is an illegal condition. First, it is a development limitation untethered to any existing objective standard. The HAA states:
“A local agency may only require the project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. If the local agency has no general plan designation or zoning classification that would have allowed the density and unit type proposed by the applicant, the development proponent may identify any objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and policies associated with a different general plan designation or zoning classification within that jurisdiction, that facilitate the project’s density and unit type and those shall apply. 13F 14”
The City has no objective standard that requires opaque or translucent balconies. The closest City requirement we are aware of is a code standard requiring balcony treatment for ADUs which is clearly inapplicable to a multifamily residential high-rise housing development project at the Project’s proposed density and scale. Thus, imposing the proposed balcony requirement through a condition is a back door effort to impose an illegal code requirement on the Project in violation of the HAA.

Second, the HAA expressly prohibits conditions that could render the project infeasible. 14F 15 Given
the expense of constructing a high-rise all-concrete building of this type, the rent penalty associated with opaque/translucent balconies creates significant feasibility challenges. Polaris Pacific, a well-known and highly regarded brokerage firm with extensive experience in the local rental market notes “[t]he proposed use of non-transparent materials for the 42-inch guardrails would significantly limit visibility 12 Government Code Section 65589.5(l). 13 Government Code Section 65589.5(l). 14 Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(A). 15 Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i))(I).

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 15 ends

from inside the homes, reducing the primary views that contribute meaningfully to buyer perception and value.” Moreover, the Polaris Pacific analysis further opines that “[i]n comparable urban residential developments, view premiums have accounted for up to 35% of a home’s total value” and that it is “reasonable to anticipate up to a 25 percent decline in value for these homes as a result.” (See translucent balcony analysis from Polaris Pacific, attached as Exhibit C; see also Letter from Nicole Browne, General Manager of Ten Thousand, located at 10000 Santa Monica Blvd, Los Angeles, in Exhibit D). Thus, the prohibition on clear balconies on the south elevation has a verifiable and material impact on rents and therefore directly threatens the Project’s financial feasibility.

Lastly, this condition appears to be a new requirement imposed only recently by the City and only specifically on builder’s remedy projects.15F
16 The HAA prohibits the City and any other local agency from adopting policies or requirements that apply solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project. Many of the recently entitled and constructed high-rise multifamily and hotel developments in Beverly Hills have been allowed clear balconies including the Rosewood, 9200 Wilshire Boulevard (Mandarin Oriental Hotel), and the “One Beverly Hills” project. We have attached photographs of recently constructed projects in Beverly Hills that have been permitted clear balconies. (See Exhibit E.) The opaque/translucent balcony condition therefore represents a new and novel attempt to punish and target builder’s remedy projects, again in clear violation of the HAA. 16F 17 Putting aside the HAA’s limitations discussed above, the Commission may not impose any condition unless there is a basic legal nexus to the impact or concern it purports to address. Here the stated purpose (or nexus) for the balcony condition is that it would alleviate a privacy infringement on the neighboring residents. This makes little sense when you consider that (1) someone standing on the balcony could in theory just as easily look down at a neighbor and (2) all units have transparent windows that allow a resident to also look onto a neighboring property. What possible benefit then do visually obstructed balconies provide? Moreover, in this case the Project’s first residential level starts higher than the top level of the residential multi-family building located to the south. As a result, balcony opacity would provide no meaningful privacy benefit to the main adjacent neighbor. By comparison, the City’s restriction on clear balconies on an ADU located at the same elevation as immediately proximate residential single-family home(s) can be understood as providing some limited potential privacy benefit.

Thus, there is not even a basic legal nexus to impose this condition on the Project given the lack of any benefit or purpose based on the Project design and its relationship to the residential structure to the south.

IV. Conclusion
We are shocked at the Commission’s flagrant violation of state housing law. To seek to deny the Project on the heels of the City’s high profile loss in the Linden Drive project’s HAA litigation and after approving seven other similarly situated builder’s remedy projects clearly shows the Commission has (1) ignored the clear legal mandate to approve the Project as communicated by the staff report, the City Attorney, and as extensively discussed in the hearing, and (2) discriminated against this Project based on its height and scale which is not a proper basis to render a decision under the HAA. 16 Although the City also imposed a similar requirement on the 9945 Durant density bonus project, in that case the Project had already proposed non-clear balconies as part of the original Project design. 17 Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(E).

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 16 ends

Although not required by law, and despite the continued feasibility concerns stated at the hearing, the Applicant has voluntarily offered to disperse the affordable units to a greater degree throughout the building. If the Commission insists on finding this additional dispersal of affordable units to be a legal requirement based on its misreading of the applicable Health and Safety Code provision, it must now approve the Project and impose a condition of approval accepting the revised affordable unit distribution. The other stated grounds for denial – baseless alleged public health and safety impacts that directly contradict clear evidence in the record – patently violate the HAA’s explicitly high bar for legal disapproval of the Project. Finally, the opaque/translucent balcony mandate is an illegal condition in that it (1) is not based on any objective standard, (2) would significantly reduce potential rents thereby threatening project feasibility, (3) uniquely targets builder’s remedy projects given other recently constructed and approved projects have been permitted clear balconies, and (4) lacks a legitimate legal nexus given it provides no actual privacy benefit.

Should the Commission elect not to reverse its decision and approve the Project (without the poison pill balcony condition) the City will be put at grave financial and regulatory risk. Based on the above, we therefore respectfully request that the Commission adopt the original staff recommendation and findings for approval, subject to the revised affordable unit dispersal identified in Exhibit A, and with no condition prohibiting clear balconies on any building elevation at the Commission’s upcoming October 29st meeting.

Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 17 ends

Exhibit A
Updated Affordable Unit Information
City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 18 ends

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 19 ends

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 20 ends

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 21 ends

Exhibit B
Letter from Nicole Browne Regarding Trash Chutes
City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 22 ends

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 23 ends

Exhibit C
Polaris Pacific Analysis
City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 24 ends

Exhibit D
Letter from Nicole Browne Regarding Economic Impact of Financial Balconies City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 25 ends

City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 26 ends

Exhibit E
Photographs of Clear Balconies on Recently Constructed Projects in Beverly Hills 9200 Wilshire Boulevard (Mandarin Oriental Hotel)
City of Beverly Hills
October 28, 2025

Page 27 ends

Rosewood Balconies
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
October 29, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Chair Jeff Wolfe and Members of the Planning Commission City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re: 8844 Burton Way (Case No. PL2400115) – Revisions to Affordable Unit Mix Dear Chair Wolfe, Vice Chair Milkowski, and Commissioners Demeter, Kaplan, and Ross:

In anticipation of the Planning Commission hearing this afternoon on the proposed project at 8844 Burton Way (“Project”), and in consideration of the Commission’s concerns regarding the Project’s affordable units, the Applicant is electing to further revise the Project affordable units as discussed herein.

Specifically, as shown in the attached supplemental, revised unit mix table, the Applicant is electing (i) to increase the dispersal of the affordable units throughout the building, and (ii) to replace affordable studio units with affordable 2- and 3-bedroom units to ensure that the bedroom and bathroom count in the affordable units is comparable to those in the market-rate units. The attached unit mix table supersedes the unit mix table attached to our October 28, 2025, letter. These revisions go above and beyond State law and what the Commission requested at the October 21, 2025 hearing.

Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
City of Beverly Hills
October 29, 2025

Page 2 ends

Exhibit A
633 West Fifth Street
Suite 5880
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.557.7222
www.rpnllp.com
Dave Rand
213.557.7224
[email protected]
November 3, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Chair Jeff Wolfe and Members of the Planning Commission City of Beverly Hills
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
[email protected]

Re: 8844 Burton Way – Supplemental Responses to Draft Denial Resolution (Case No.

PL2400115)
Dear Chair Wolfe, Vice Chair Milkowski, and Commissioners Demeter, Kaplan, and Ross:

We write to address very briefly the alternative resolution for the 8844 Burton Way builder’s remedy project the Commission will consider on November 5, 2025, and which the State’s Housing & Community Development Department addressed in its October 28 letter to you. HCD 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.

If the Commission is found to have denied the project in violation of the law, the City will be subject to at least $10 million in enhanced fines. This is because (1) HCD has now notified the City of the potential violation and (2) this would constitute the City’s second violation this Planning period because the City violated multiple state housing laws regarding the Linden builder’s remedy project.

The alternative resolution provides two reasons for denying the project: (i) affordable home distribution; and (ii) alleged public health and safety impacts. The applicant’s revisions to the affordable home dispersal and the bedroom and bathroom counts render all concerns regarding Health and Safety Code Section 17929 and all other applicable laws moot. The remaining issue discussed by the Commission is health and safety impacts. Such impacts, among other things, must be significant, quantifiable, objective and written specific, adverse health and safety impacts. There are none.

City of Beverly Hills
November 3, 2025

Page 2 ends

A. The Alternative Resolution Fails All Requirements for Stating a “Specific, Adverse Impact”
The law defines a “specific, adverse impact.” Under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), general and speculative purported impacts are not “specific, adverse impacts.” Rather, a “specific adverse impact” is:
• Significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable; and • Based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards. 1 HCD’s letter confirms the health and safety concerns expressed in the alternative denial resolution fail to meet these requirements. Critically, the alternative resolution does not cite any objective and written public health or safety standard the project is alleged to violate. This is fatal. The Commission cannot adopt the alternative resolution.

1. No significant impacts. The record shows the project will result in traffic delays of “0.1 to 3.6 seconds.” There is no evidence of any public health or safety impact to the contrary.

2. No quantified impacts. The alternative resolution merely points to alleged “serious” fire risk and the alleged “lengthening” of emergency vehicle response times due. The only quantified study prepared by a third-party expert shows no traffic delays.

3. No objective standards. The alternative resolution’s references to “significant” impacts and “lengthen[ed]” response times are premised on the statement that “the Commission did not believe that sufficient evidence was provided” regarding fire safety. A “belief” is not an objective standard. And the evidence confirms no fire safety or health risks. • Staff confirmed the Fire Department reviewed the Project and found it to be safe from a fire life safety perspective.
• The Fire Department’s conclusion makes sense. The City has approved multiple buildings over 100 feet with no similar fire life safety concerns. The idea that a building over 100 feet compliant with the California Building and Fire Codes presents a safety risk is just silly.

4. The resolution does not cite any written public health and safety standards.

B. The Commission Must Approve Clear Balconies

1. The HAA prohibits the City from imposing any condition that renders the Project infeasible.2 Importantly, it is the Commission’s burden to prove that requiring opaque or translucent balcony barriers does not render the project infeasible. It is not the applicant’s burden to show the project is infeasible unless clear barriers are approved. 1 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(2).
2 Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(B).

City of Beverly Hills
November 3, 2025

Page 3 ends

• The City has produced no evidence to show that an opaque/translucent condition does not render the project infeasible. Whereas the applicant has provided substantial third-party expert evidence that prohibiting clear balcony barriers would significantly and negatively impact the project’s economic feasibility by reducing rents by twenty five percent or more.

Therefore, the Commission has not – and cannot – meet its burden of proof. The condition violates the HAA and cannot be imposed.

2. The HAA also outright prohibits the City from imposing any condition that is inconsistent with the project “as proposed by the applicant.”3 “Proposed by the applicant” includes a right to construct the building consistent with the “plans and designs submitted by the applicant . . . as well as amenity areas [and] open space. …”
• The Project plans show clear balconies. Balconies qualify as both amenity areas and private open space. The City is therefore legally barred from imposing a condition that would require opaque/translucent balconies – a significant alteration from the amenity/open space area as designed and shown on the Project plans.

3. The City lacks a basic legal nexus for imposing an opaque/translucent balcony condition. • The Project’s first residential level starts higher than the top level of the adjacent residential multi-family building located to the south. As a result, balcony opacity would provide no actual privacy benefit in this case. It also provides no privacy protection or benefit since nothing would prevent someone from standing over the balcony railing and looking down at a neighboring building.
3 Conditioning the project to include anything other than transparent balcony enclosures violates Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(B), which states:
(B)(i) 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:
(I) Render the project infeasible.
(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.
(ii) The local agency shall bear the burden of proof of complying with clause (i). “Proposed by the applicant” is defined under Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(14) 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.” City of Beverly Hills
November 3, 2025

Page 4 ends

C. Conclusion
The Commission is required to approve the Project and permit transparent/clear balconies.

Failure to do so will violate state law and could subject the City to additional state scrutiny, enhanced financial penalties, further loss of local zoning control, and further enforcement action from the Attorney General’s office.

Sincerely,
Dave Rand
Dave Rand
Partner
of RAND PASTER & NELSON, LLP
cc: Mr. David Snow, Deputy City Attorney
Mr. Edgar Arroyo, Senior City Planner
ATTACHMENT 15
Public Hearing Notice
City Clerk’s Office

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its meeting to he held on Wednesday, March 4, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:

APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S NOVEMBER 5, 2025

DECISION DENYING A I)EVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW 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, 200UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 8844 BURTON WAY.

On November 17, 2025, Adam Tartakovsky, on behalf of 8844 Burton Way LLC (“Applicant”), submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s November 5, 2025 decision denying a Development Plan Review for a project proposed pursuant to State Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)).

The proposed project consists of a new 26-story, 309’-6” tall, multi-family residential building, at 8844 Burton Way. The project includes 200 rental units, inclusive of 22 units allocated for lower and moderate income households, and a total of 316 parking spaces proposed within a subterranean and above-grade parking garage.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The 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.), theState CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. The project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66, which became effective on June 30, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 130, and applies to qualifying housing development projects that meet prescribed objective standards. Accordingly, the City Council will consider a recommendation to find the project statutorily exempt from further environmental review under CEQA.

City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1141f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org TM

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please he advised that pre-entry metal detector screening requirements are now in place at City I-Jail. Members of the public are requested to plan visits accordingly. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meeting through live wehcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings are broadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms. Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed.

These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.

Public Comment Participation:
• Oral Comment/Listen only: (310) 288-2288
• Email: ciy@biIllcg
• Video (during public comment only):
• To Watch Video Live: http://heverlyhilis.org/live or
• On-Demand: http://beverlyhiils.org/citycouncilmeetings • In-Person: Submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk at the meeting How to Submit Public Comment (Email/Video):

It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council/Parking Authority. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only thefirst three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a large number of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the City Clerk’s Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part of the record.

If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard, it will not be a part of the record. Public comment via video conference will be no longer than three (3) minutes per each individual comment, subject to City Council discretion based on the anticipated length in the meeting. Inperson speaker cards may be submitted to the City Clerk directly during the meeting.

Any interested person may participate in the meeting and be heard ol. present written comments to the City Council. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Council’s action in court, you may he limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.

In Person Participation:

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the above information on the location and time of this meeting.

City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t (310) 285-2400f(310) 385-0862 Beverlyllills.org If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Edgar Arroyo, Project Manager in the Planning Division at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected]. Please also contact us to add your email to the interested parties list for this proposal, so that important updates and notifications may he sent to you.

HUMA AHMEDCity Clerk
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of I3everly Hills will make reasonable efforts toaccommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-2400 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City Hall Council Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired.

City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t (310) 285-2400Ji310) 385-0862 BeverlyHills.org City Clerk’s Office
cBERL!RLY

NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Beverly Hills, at its meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 455 N. Rexford Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90210, will hold a public hearing to consider:

APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S NOVEMBER 5, 2025

DECISION DENYING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW AND DENSITYBONUS 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 ANEW 26-STORY, 200-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 8844 BURTON WAY.

The City Council public hearing for the project originally scheduled for Wednesday, March 4, 2026 is being rescheduled to the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.On November 17, 2025, Adam Tartakovsky, on behalf of 8844 Burton Way LLC (“Applicant”),submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s November 5, 2025 decision denying a Development Plan Review for a project proposed pursuant to State Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)).

The proposed project consists of a new 26-story, 309’-6” tall, multi-family residential building, at 8844 Burton Way. The project includes 200 rental units, inclusive of 22 units allocated for loxver and moderate income households, and a total of 316 parking spaces proposed within a subterranean and above-grade parking garage.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The 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, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Staff believes the project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66, which became effective on June 30, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 130, and applies to qualifying housing development City of Beverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 p (310) 285-1 141f(310) 858-5966 BeverlyHills.org projects that meet prescribed objective standards. Accordingly, the City Council will consider a recommendation to find the project statutorily exempt from further environmental review underCEQA.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please be advised that pre-entry metal detector screening requirements are now in place at City Hall. Members of the public are requested to plan visits accordingly. Members of the public may participate in the meeting by attending in-person or telephonically, and may view the meeting through live webcast or BHTV Channel 10 on Spectrum Cable. City Council meetings arebroadcast on local Beverly Hills television and on other media platforms. Anyone who participates at the meeting and/or enters the City Council Chamber is subject to having their image displayed.

These recordings will remain publicly accessible in perpetuity.

Public Comment Participation:
• Oral Comment/Listen only: (310) 288-2288• Email: [email protected] • Video (during public comment only): http://beverlyhills.org/comment • To Watch Video Live: http://heverlyhills.org/live or
• On-Demand: h.://beveiUls.orgLctycounci1mIns• In-Person: Submit a Speaker Card to the City Clerk at the meeting How to Submit Public Comment (Email/Video):

It is recommended that public written comments be submitted to the City Clerk’s office by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Public comments will also be taken during the meeting when the topic is being reviewed by the City Council/Parking Authority. Written comments should identify the Agenda Item Number or Topic in the subject line of the email. The City Clerk will read only thefirst three minutes (approximately 350 words) of a written comment. In the event of a large number of written comments on one item, written comments may be summarized by the CityClerk’s Office. The entire written comment shall be archived in full as part of the record.

Any interested person may participate in the meeting and be heard or present written comments to the City Council. According to Government Code Section 65009, if you challenge the Council’s action in court, you may he limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City, either at or prior to the public hearing.

City ofBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t (310) 285-2400f(310) 385-0862 BeverlyHills.org In Person Participation:

All interested persons are invited to attend and speak on this matter in person. Please see the aboveinformation on the location and time of this meeting.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Edgar Arroyo, Project Manager in the Planning Division at (310) 285-1138, or by email at [email protected]. Please also contact us to add your email to the interested parties list for this proposal, so that important updates and notifications may be sent to you.
cL
HUMA AHMEDCity Clerk
N Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act> the City of Beverly Hills will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require special assistance, please call (310) 285-2400 (voice) or (310) 285-6881 (TTY). Providing at least forty-eight (48) hours advance notice will help to ensure availability of services. City Hall, including the Council Chamber and Room 280A, is wheelchair accessible. The City HallCouncil Chamber and Room 280A are also equipped with audio equipment for the hearing impaired.

City ofBeverly Hills 455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210 t (310) 285-2400f(310) 385-0862 I BeverlyHills.org ATTACHMENT 16
Public Correspondence
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Edwin J. Vlessing < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2024 4:55 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo; Gerard Soussan; Ivy Liu
Subject: 8844 Burton Way , Beverly Hills
Attachments: 8844BurtonWayNoticeofPendingApplication.jpg CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Mr. Arroyo,
We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the proposed development in front of us, particularly the plan for a 20-story building at 8844 Burton Way. As homeowners at N Swall Dr, Unit , Beverly Hills, CA 90211, situated in the alley with all our windows facing the new development, we feel compelled to convey our reservations about the potential impact this development may have on our quality of life.

When we made the decision to invest our life savings in this condominium, it was with the understanding that the surrounding zoning regulations, as communicated to us by the City of Beverly Hills, would ensure a certain level of tranquility and light. Specifically, we were assured that any structures would be limited to four stories, and that the City would uphold this standard. The prospect of a 20-story building looming over our residence presents several significant concerns for us.

Firstly, the obstruction of sunlight and direct light into our living space, particularly our terrace, would significantly diminish our enjoyment of the property. Furthermore, as a cancer patient, maintaining a peaceful and quiet environment is essential to my well-being. The potential disruption caused by years of construction noise and dust would not only be detrimental to my health but also hinder my ability to engage in necessary daily activities, such as meditation.

Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the potential negative impact on property values in the area. Such a large development could lower the desirability and subsequently the value of surrounding properties, including our own.

Moreover, the proposed development could strain existing infrastructure, , roads, and public transportation. This could lead to increased traffic congestion, parking shortages, and burden on public services like schools and emergency response.

We also need to consider the environmental impact of this development. Increased pollution, loss of green space, and disruption to local are significant concerns that cannot be ignored.

Additionally, it is crucial to highlight the importance of community input in decisions that affect the neighborhood. There have been community meetings and petitions opposing the development, and we urge the City to listen to its residents' concerns.

We believe that there are better locations within the City of Beverly Hills for a property of this size, where a building like this would be more suitable. A 20-story building does not fit into the environment of our area and would have a profoundly negative impact on our daily lives.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We hope that you will consider our concerns and work with us to find a solution that benefits all parties involved.

Sincerely,
Edwin J. Vlessing
Meihong Liu Vlessing
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 2 1
Edgar Arroyo
From: Elliot Navab < >
Sent: Saturday, April 27, 2024 6:32 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: 8844 Burton Way
[You don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
CAUTION: External Sender
Use cauƟon when clicking links or opening aƩachments Hello Edgar, this is Elliot, I live on the corner of Burton Way and Swall and I have concerns regarding the new development that is being proposed. My concerns include 1. The increase of Traffic 2. Loud ConstrucƟon Noise 3. The Shadow and Sun obstrucƟon would block the view of the building I live as well as other peoples as well.

4. It will affect home values
These are some of my concerns and I would appreciate if I can be kept in the loop for future updates. If you can, please get back to me with the next commission meeƟng regarding this project. Thank you. My phone number will also be listed below
=
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Sara Willen < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 10:54 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: RE : Development plan Review to allow the construction of a new 20-story, 200-unit missed use development on Burton between Swall and Clark Drives.

CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
Dear Senior Planner Arroyo:

What a marvelous idea!
Having brought “Europe” to One Rodeo in the heart of the Golden Triangle, why not bring New York City to, well, Swall Drive, in the heart of the last affordable, middle-class and diverse neighborhood in Beverly Hills!
This is not only a coup for the people in Beverly Hills who clearly matter most – our developers – but inasmuch as now a 20-story 200 unit behemoth, a mere 16 stories higher than then its neighbors, is slated for multi-use, perhaps Temple Emanuel might even replace the religious school it knocked down on that lot. Or maybe the nearest commercial establishment, selling high-end kitchens, could expand! This certainly increases the City’s profile as a shopping, or perhaps educational, destination.

I’m so sorry, though, that in bringing NYC to a hitherto charming residential neighborhood of apartments, duplexes, and the occasionally architecturally misguided offerings of Donald Sterling, the developers cannot guarantee that it will not increase traffic. Now of course, the idea is all these people – the 160 who can afford the luxury apartments – will ride bikes or better still, use public transportation, because, isn’t that really wealthy people do, take the bus? True, there will be 40 “affordable” units, and perhaps these poor souls will use scooters or walk down to the subway or something. It doesn’t matter, though, because Beverly Hills doesn’t need to plan for “real” people – only, say, the 10 percent of the nation’s highest earners.

Which is why it is now time to consider that if Beverly Hills really needs more land to develop – more high-rises to house the rich – it’s time to get sensible: stop using the most densely populated areas, where the middle-class residential apartment and condo-dwellers reside along the city’s eastern-most edge, and look North… True North, yes, to the flats above Santa Monica or better still, above Sunset… There, huge lots provide homes for single families which, if used for 20-story buildings, could house thousands and thousands of wealthy people!
I urge, too, that the City Council to look around them – perhaps out of their own windows, across spacious lawns and pools, even perhaps to tennis courts and multi-car garages – and imagine how wonderful they’ll feel having a 20-story building on what was once their very own home! Or just how they’ll feel You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 2 living right next door to a 20-story building on their block! What’s good for the goose is, after all, good for the gander. No need to protect “privilege” – we’re all woke here.

So here’s to New York City on Swall Drive. Because it’s not enough to build mixed-use high-rises on major thoroughfares like Wilshire. Time to build them on Sunset Blvd! The future is finally here.

Respectfully,
S.R. Willen
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Patt and/or Arnie Sklar < >
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 8:00 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: 8844 Burton Way
CAUTION: External Sender
Use caution when clicking links or opening attachments
20 stories? Are you kidding? What happened to the small town feel, the village feel, of Beverly Hills? The 3 story limit has become flexible but 20 stories is way out of character. 4 or 5 stories, maybe; even 6 at most. But not 20 Arnie Sklar
N. Hamel Dr.

You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Joyce Trabulus < >
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2024 5:36 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Burton Way Proposed 20-Story Project. 8844 BURTON WAY BH 퓻퓼퓽 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER 퓻퓼퓽
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

MR ARROYOAs a homeowner at N Swall Drive I feel the urgent need to protest the dimensions design and use of this proposed 20 story monstrosity at 8844Burton Way
The current proposal will change our beautiful, tranquil, area with our good air and light and our way of life ; adding incredible amounts of traffic ,noise, and pollution It will change and possibly threaten the safety of our neighborhood, block the light in our ENTIRE north tower , add pollution from the above ground garages which also will take away the privacy of ALL the homeowners
This mixed use project is so totally inappropriate for this neighborhood. It will disrupt our peaceful environment and contribute to traffic congestion.

For all the homeowners who have spent their money to make this their home it will not only disrupt their lives but prevent them from selling their units; permanently damaging the prices of their homes And the construction of this project along with the senior citizen project around the corner on Clark and the proposed building on Burton and Robertson will make life, noise and traffic unbearable while they are being constructed
We are all for additional housing and low cost housing but this 20 story building has no place in this neighborhood
It’s an abomination and an attack on our homeowners for the greed and profit of a compony that does not value this neighborhood
There is nothing that tall anywhere in this area
It’s disgraceful
Please do not let our neighborhood be ruined
These are our homes and we love living here
Please send this to the planning board
Thanks so much
JoyceTrabulus
Joyce Bogart Trabulus
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Susan Karp < >
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 5:35 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Burton Way Proposed 20-Story Project - OBJECTION 퓻퓼퓽 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER 퓻퓼퓽
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Dear Mr. Arroyo,
As a neighbor to the proposed 20-story development at 8844 Burton Way, I would like to strongly object to this project. Not only is the location not zoned for such an immense building, but it will destroy the character of what is primarily a low-rise residential neighborhood. Increased traffic and noise from residents and retail visitors to this building will add to the already busy traffic on Burton Way and surrounding streets and the noise and pollution resulting from the years it will take to construct the building are unacceptable in this residential neighborhood.

Do not let the city amend the General Plan and Municipal Code to allow this immense structure. Keep this Beverly Hills neighborhood the quiet and peaceful place it has always been! Thank you,
Susan Karp
N. Swall Dr.

Beverly Hills
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Adrienne Forst < >
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 11:44 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Burton Way proposed development
[You don't oŌen get email from . Learn why this is important at hƩps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdenƟficaƟon ]
퓻퓼퓽 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER 퓻퓼퓽
Be cauƟous when clicking links or opening aƩachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing aƩempts.
>
>
> Good morning, Mr. Arroyo:
>
> This leƩer is to let you know my objecƟons to the 20 story building proposed on Burton Way between North Swall Dr.

And North Clark Dr.
>
> I’ve lived at N. Swall Drive for 37 years. This has always been a wonderful small neighborhood with a mixture of apartment buildings, condos and a few streets over, private homes. Any new construcƟon has always been between five and six stories…completely acceptable.
>
> Puƫng up a structure 20 stories high for mixed use, with parking for 227 cars (certainly not enough spaces for a building this large) is not acceptable in this neighborhood. >
> Please explain to me how this can enhance our neighborhood and what it will do to already heavy traffic on Burton Way and the adjacent side streets.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Adrienne Forst
> N. Swall Dr., #
> Beverly Hills, CA
>
>
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Mark Curiel < >
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 7:31 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Cc: Ashley Curiel
Subject: 8844 Burton Way - Proposed Development Project 퓻퓼퓽 CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER 퓻퓼퓽
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

Hi Edgar,
My wife Ashley and I are Beverly Hills homeowners residing at North Swall Drive.

We received your April 29 notice of pending application for the proposed development project at 8844 Burton Way.

Please place us on your interested parties list. Obviously, a 20-story skyscraper, which I believe would be the tallest building in Beverly Hills, has no place in the middle of a residential neighborhood.

My sense is a project of this size doesn’t even comply with BH zoning laws, and that the developer is likely seeking to exploit the so-called “Builders Remedy” rule as a loophole workaround. Either way, we object to the project as currently proposed. Thank you.

Mark Curiel
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important July 25, 2024
Re: 8844 Burton Way
To Whom it May Concern,
I moved into Swall Drive in the summer of 2011. I chose this particular building because it was in, and remains in a quiet and clean community, with moderate traffic and moderate building heights nearby.

To my astonishment and dismay, this may be about to change. The Beverly Hills Planning Commission and the City Council failed to comply with the State’s housing element law because of its missed deadline to do so. Due to its failure to act in a timely fashion, the City inadvertently endorsed Builder’s Remedy (the State rules for new projects) to aid developers to succeed in their endeavor to develop oversized buildings such as 8844 Burton Way and others.

Not only will the proposed Burton Way development remove all of the above amenities, but it will also bring noise and pollution to our neighborhood. The proposed 20 story mixed-use building will undoubtably create traffic, and thus noise, fumes, litter and trash, and further, impede the view on the north side of our building. In addition, parking on the street will be untenable; there is currently limited space for parked cars. However, it is the environmental impact that distresses me the most!
The Planning Commission and the City should take responsibility for their failure to act, and fight at the very least to replace the proposed mixed-use 20 story building with an 8 to 10 story condominium, including ample subterranean parking, and foliage surrounding it.

Carol Mallen

Renée Strauss
Swall Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA
June 27, 2024
Dear Ms. Myron,
I hope this message finds you well. We, the residents of , are reaching out to express our deep concerns regarding Crescent Heights Developer's proposed development at 8844 Burton Way. This project, as planned, poses significant issues for our community, and we urgently seek your intervention to ensure the preservation of our neighborhood's tranquility, beauty, and value.

Project Overview and Concerns
The proposed project is for a mixed-use 20-story building, significantly deviating from the existing zoning limit of Height District C: 5 stories, which has maintained the character of our section of Beverly Hills for decades.

Burton Way is not Wilshire Boulevard as we all know.

As you know, the proposed development includes:
- Four floors of low-income housing
- Two floors of retail space
- Three subterranean floors of parking
- Three above-ground floors of parking
While we understand the necessity for diverse housing solutions, the scale and nature of this project will drastically alter the character of our quiet neighborhood on Burton Way, Swall Drive, and Clark Drive. Here are our primary concerns:

1. Zoning Non-Compliance: The subject property is not located within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. When we purchased our properties, most of us knew the zoning in the area was a maximum of 4 or 5 stories, and our reasonable expectation was that no adjacent property could be built to any greater height.

2. Traffic and Noise: The increased traffic from retail visitors and residents of a 20-story building will significantly elevate noise levels, disrupt the peaceful environment, and contribute to traffic congestion.

3. Light and Exhaust Pollution: The building's height and design will block natural light and increase exhaust pollution from cars parked directly facing our balconies, deteriorating air quality. Additionally, with potentially three stories of above-ground parking, we anticipate more noise and exhaust fumes.

4. Privacy Issues: The planned parking facing the balconies of our residences poses a significant privacy concern, making it uncomfortable to use our balconies and enjoy our homes.

5. Property Value Decline: Introducing such a massive structure will decrease property values, affecting all homeowners in the vicinity. A 20-story building will certainly reduce our property value and is a form of inverse condemnation.

As you know, inverse condemnation occurs when a government action or regulation effectively takes private property without formally using eminent domain and without just compensation, as required by the Constitution. In real estate development, this can happen when government policies or decisions lead to significant negative impacts on a property’s value or usability.

For example, if a new zoning law or a nearby public project (like a high-rise building) significantly reduces our property’s value, light, and privacy or creates excessive noise and pollution, we might argue that the government has effectively "taken" our property. This would allow us to seek compensation through an inverse condemnation claim, arguing that the government’s actions have unfairly damaged our property without proper compensation.

Although the developer is not a public agency, California legislation has made this type of development possible, leading to similar detrimental effects on our property values.

6. Community Aesthetics: The proposed building's high-rise nature will overshadow the existing landscape, altering our neighborhood's visual appeal and aesthetic harmony. Again, Burton Way is not Wilshire Boulevard.

7. Environmental Impact: The proposed development will remove existing amenities and bring noise, pollution, and increased traffic to our neighborhood. The 20-story mixed-use building will undoubtedly create traffic congestion, noise, fumes, and litter and obstruct the view on the north side of our building. Street parking is already limited, and the environmental impact is particularly distressing.

City's Legislative Requirements
The City’s Senior Planner, Edgar Arroyo, has shared that the project would require several legislative changes, including amendments to the City's General Plan and Municipal Code, to allow for consideration of this project, including the proposed mixed-use of the property. Can this be confirmed? Historical Context and Compliance Issues
Notably, the developer purchased this property long before the claimed “Builder’s Remedy” developer loophole existed, fully aware of Beverly Hills zoning regulations. The Beverly Hills Planning Commission and the City Council failed to comply with the State’s housing element law due to a missed deadline. This failure inadvertently endorsed Builder’s Remedy, aiding developers in pushing oversized projects like 8844 Burton Way.

Community Actions and Requests

1. Legal Representation: Will the city hire an attorney who specializes in zoning and land use issues? They can help us understand the legal aspects of the proposed project and guide us through the process of challenging it.

2. Community Organizing: We are mobilizing other residents in our condo complex who are also opposed to the project. Strength in numbers can be influential in local politics and decision-making processes.

3. Public Hearings and Meetings: We will attend city council meetings, planning commission hearings, and any other public forums where the proposed project will be discussed. We aim to present our concerns, gather support from others, and make our opposition known to local officials. May we count on Edgar Arroyo to notify us of upcoming meetings that we may attend?

4. Environmental Impact Assessment: We rest assured that an environmental impact assessment will be conducted for the proposed project. This will highlight potential issues such as increased traffic congestion, strain on infrastructure, and environmental concerns, including hauling routes.

5. Political Lobbying: In this effort we are reaching out to local politicians and officials who have influence over zoning and land use decisions. We are expressing our concerns and seek your support in opposing the project.

6. Legal Challenges: Regarding legitimate legal grounds to challenge the project, such as violations of zoning regulations or other laws, is the city considering pursuing legal action through the courts?

7. Negotiation and Compromise: We are open to exploring the possibility of negotiating with the developers to reach a compromise that addresses some of our concerns while still allowing the project to proceed in a more acceptable form.

Additional Questions for the City from our Homeowners
- Is the city willing to share its policy (if there is one) for fighting Builder's Remedy projects?
- Who in the city government is supporting this fight?
- Is the city planning to file a lawsuit against Crescent Heights Development?
- Who in the city government should we, as concerned voters, target our lobbying efforts at?
- Has there been an authorization for the expenditure of city funds to engage in litigation? If so, how much?
- Do you know who was the law firm representing Santa Monica that prevailed against Builder's Remedy on certain projects? - Has the city contacted this law firm? Did it receive an appraisal of the likelihood of Beverly Hills prevailing? What was the cost of litigation to Santa Monica? Will the city allocate the required funds? - Will Builder's Remedy projects need environmental impact studies? - Is the city considering measures to provide additional protection to nearby neighbors from the hazards of high-rise construction and relief from the non-stop disruption of large construction projects? This could include limiting the number of days heavy equipment can make deliveries and requiring a full-time city inspector for projects over a certain size.

Recorded Session and Legal Context
In a recent Beverly Hills City Council Liaison meeting (Listen to this recorded session) it was mentioned the fact that developers are leveraging the Density Bonus Law, which the state incentivizes and requires city compliance. It was stated that Michael Forbes, the Director of Community Development, issues 5-6 thousand building permits annually.

Beverly Hills currently has 15-20 thousand rental units, with the state requesting an increase of approximately 18-20%. The Mayor expressed his concerns about this requested increase in percentage.

An agenda for a closed City Council session on Feb. 20 listed the threat of litigation as a matter of discussion. Is this still the case? Call to Action
We believe it is crucial for homeowners and community members to be heard. We aim to compile a collective objection to this project and present it at the upcoming City Planning Commission Meetings. We are urging all homeowners to respond with their interest in participating in our effort to oppose this project.

We have read through this correspondence from Edgar Arroyo to Thomas Faraut c/o Crescent Heights entitled:

BH PLANNING INCOMPLETE LETTER 4.24.24, which has been
instrumental in formulating this email.

We understand we can email our objections directly to Edgar Arroyo, the City of Beverly Hills' senior planner, at [email protected].

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Let’s work together to protect the integrity and value of our homes and neighborhoods.

Sincerely,
Renée Strauss
Edwin Vlessing
Swall Dr.

Beverly Hills, CA,
June 27th, 2024
Dear City Officials,
I trust this message finds you well. As a concerned resident of I am writing to urgently address the proposed development at 8844 Burton Way by Crescent Heights Developer.

This project presents significant challenges for our community, and I respectfully seek your immediate intervention to preserve the tranquility, beauty, and value of our neighborhood.

We are writing to express our deep concern regarding the proposed development in front of us, particularly the plan for a 20-story building at 8844 Burton Way. As homeowners at , Beverly Hills, CA , situated in the alley with all our windows facing the new development, we feel compelled to convey our reservations about the potential impact this development may have on our quality of life.

The prospect of a 20-story building looming over our residence presents several significant concerns for us.

Additionally, the proposed development would limit our ability to utilize our terrace for gardening and leisure activities, rendering it essentially unusable. This loss of amenity further compounds our reservations about the project. Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the potential negative impact on property values in the area. Such a large development could lower the desirability and subsequently the value of surrounding properties, including our own.

Moreover, the proposed development could strain existing infrastructure, roads, and public transportation. This could lead to increased traffic congestion, parking shortages, and a burden on public services like schools and emergency response.

We also need to consider the environmental impact of this development. Increased pollution, loss of green space, and disruption to local wildlife are significant concerns that cannot be ignored.

Project Overview and Concerns
The proposed development is a mixed-use 20-story building, which starkly contrasts with the existing zoning limit of Height District C, allowing only up to 5 stories. This deviation threatens the character of our community. Burton Way is not Wilshire Boulevard.

While we acknowledge the need for diverse housing solutions, the scale and nature of this project will irreversibly alter the character of our quiet neighborhood on Burton Way, Swall Drive, and Clark Drive. Our primary concerns include:

1. Zoning Non-Compliance: The property is outside the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. When purchasing my property, I was assured that zoning restrictions limited buildings to 4 or 5 stories. Exceeding this height violates our reasonable expectations and community standards.

2. Traffic and Noise: The influx of traffic from retail visitors and residents of a 20-story building will significantly increase noise levels, disrupt the peaceful environment, and exacerbate traffic congestion.

3. Light and Exhaust Pollution: The proposed building's height and design will obstruct natural light and increase exhaust pollution from vehicles facing our balconies, deteriorating air quality. Additionally, three stories of above-ground parking will add noise and exhaust fumes.

4. Privacy Issues: The planned parking structure facing our balconies poses a severe privacy threat, making it uncomfortable for residents to use their outdoor spaces.

5. Property Value Decline: The introduction of such a massive structure will decrease property values, adversely affecting all homeowners in the vicinity. This development represents a form of inverse condemnation.

6. Community Aesthetics: The high-rise nature of the proposed building will overshadow the existing landscape, compromising our neighborhood's visual appeal and aesthetic harmony.

7. Environmental Impact: The project will remove existing amenities and bring noise, pollution, and increased traffic, creating significant environmental and infrastructural strain. The development will also obstruct views, further diminishing the quality of life for residents.

City's Legislative Requirements
It is understood that the City's Senior Planner, Edgar Arroyo, indicated the project necessitates several legislative changes, including amendments to the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. Confirmation of this requirement is crucial.

Historical Context and Compliance Issues
It is important to note that the developer purchased this property with full knowledge of Beverly Hills' zoning regulations. The failure of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission and City Council to comply with the State's housing element law inadvertently facilitated this oversized project through the "Builder's Remedy" loophole.

Community Actions and Requests

1. Legal Representation: Will the city secure an attorney specializing in zoning and land use to guide us through the legal challenges of this proposed project?

2. Community Organizing: We are mobilizing residents within our condo complex to oppose this project, believing that collective action can influence local decision-making.

3. Public Hearings and Meetings: We plan to attend all relevant city council meetings and public forums. We request that Edgar Arroyo keep us informed about upcoming meetings to ensure our participation.

4. Environmental Impact Assessment: We insist on a thorough environmental impact assessment to highlight issues such as traffic congestion and infrastructure strain.

5. Political Lobbying: We are reaching out to local politicians and officials to garner support against this project, emphasizing our significant concerns.

6. Legal Challenges: We inquire if the city is considering legal action based on potential zoning regulation violations or other legal grounds.

7. Negotiation and Compromise: We remain open to negotiating with developers to find a compromise that addresses our concerns while allowing the project to proceed in a more acceptable form.

Recorded Session and Legal Context
Recent discussions in a Beverly Hills City Council Liaison meeting indicated that developers are exploiting the Density Bonus Law, compelling city compliance. Notably, the Mayor expressed concerns about the state-mandated increase in rental units. Furthermore, the agenda for a closed City Council session on Feb. 20 listed liti1Jm1D.i:1l-ffl'rE:a:fsas a topic. Is this still under consideration?
Edwin Vlessing
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: David Norouzi < >
Sent: Monday, July 1, 2024 4:39 PM
To: 11-Lester Friedman; 12-Sharona Nazarian; John Mirisch; 13-Craig Corman; City Clerk; 14-Mary Wells; WebCBH MAYORANDCITYCOUNCIL; Karen Myron; Planning Commission; Michael Forbes; Edgar Arroyo
Subject: 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 City officials,
I along with my sister are the owners of a condominium located at Swall, , in Beverly Hills. I am writing this email on our behalf, and in opposition to the proposed 20 story development at 8844 Burton Way. This project, as planned (20 stories), poses significant and detrimental issues for our community. More specifically, the basis of our objection is based on the following factors:

1. The project as proposed, will increase traffic in an already congested corridor,

2. The project will literally cast a shadow over the adjacent buildings and the light corridors of the adjacent buildings;

3. The project’s height and density are unprecedented from a zoning and planning standpoint at this location;

4. At the time the developer purchased the property it assumed that it would have to build a 5 story project. Using Builder’s Remedy to bypass the zoning ordinance will result in a huge windfall to the developer at the expense of the local residents.

Based on the foregoing, we are respectfully asking that you deny the project as proposed and require the developer to propose a 5-story building consistent with the zoning laws, and in line with the characteristics of the neighborhood.

Thank you for your assistance.

Regards,
David Norouzi
David Norouzi | Principal
Fenix Development, Inc.

Wilshire Blvd. |
Los Angeles, CA
O
F
M
E
Some people who received this message don't oen get email from . Learn why this is important 1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Jason BOYLE < >
Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 7:27 AM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Cc: Jamie MACDONALD
Subject: 8844 Burton Way (vacant lot)
Attachments:
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 City Officials,
I write on behalf of Pavoni LLC, an owner of an Apartment in Swall Drive, Beverly Hills.

I hope this message finds you well. As a property owner, we are writing to express our deep concerns regarding Crescent Heights Developer's proposed development at 8844 Burton Way. This project, as planned, poses significant issues for our community, and we urgently seek your intervention to ensure the preservation of our neighborhood's tranquillity, beauty, and value.

While we understand the necessity for diverse housing solutions, the scale and nature of this project will drastically alter the character of our quiet neighborhood on Burton Way, Swall Drive, and Clark Drive. Here are my primary concerns:

1. Zoning Non-Compliance: The subject property is not located within the Mixed-Use Overlay Zone. When I purchased my property, I knew the zoning in the area was a maximum of 4 or 5 stories, and my reasonable expectation was that no adjacent property could be built to any greater height.

4. Privacy Issues: The planned parking facing the balconies of our residences poses a significant privacy concern, making it uncomfortable to use our balconies and enjoy our homes.

7. Environmental Impact: The proposed development will remove existing amenities and bring noise, pollution, and increased traffic to our neighborhood. The 20-story mixed-use building will undoubtedly create traffic You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 2 congestion, noise, fumes, and litter and obstruct the view on the north side of our building. Street parking is already limited, and the environmental impact is particularly distressing.

Historical Context and Compliance Issues
It is noteworthy that the developer purchased this property long before the claimed “Builder’s Remedy” developer loophole existed, fully aware of Beverly Hills zoning regulations. The Beverly Hills Planning Commission and the City Council failed to comply with the State’s housing element law due to a missed deadline. This failure inadvertently endorsed Builder’s Remedy, aiding developers in pushing oversized projects like 8844 Burton Way.

Community Actions and Requests

5. Political Lobbying: In this effort, we are reaching out to local politicians and officials who have influence over zoning and land use decisions. We are expressing our concerns and seek your support in opposing the project.

Recorded Session and Legal Context
In a recent Beverly Hills City Council Liaison meeting it was discussed that developers are leveraging the Density Bonus Law, which the state incentivizes and requires city compliance. It was stated that Michael Forbes, the Director of Community Development, issues 5-6 thousand building permits annually. Beverly Hills currently has 15-20 thousand rental units, with the state requesting an increase of approximately 18-20%. The Mayor has expressed his concerns about this requested increase in percentage.

An agenda for a closed City Council session on Feb. 20 listed the threat of litigation as a matter of discussion. Is this still the case?
Call to Action
We believe it is crucial for homeowners and community members to be heard. We aim to compile a collective objection to this project and present it at the upcoming City Planning Commission Meetings. We are urging all homeowners to respond with their interest in participating in our effort to oppose this project.

We understand we can email our objections directly to Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner with the City of Beverly Hills, at [email protected].

3 Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Let’s work together to protect the integrity and value of our homes and neighborhoods.

Yours sincerely,

Jason Boyle

On behalf of Pavoni LLC, Owner of Apartment in Swall Drive, Beverly Hills.

Jason Boyle TEP MCSI
Phone:

Mobile:

Email:

Internet:
************************************************************ HSBC Trustee (C.I.) Limited
Registered Office: HSBC House, Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 1GT, Channel Islands Registration Number: 2535
Regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission to conduct Trust and Company Business HSBC International Trustee Limited, Jersey Branch
Branch Office: HSBC House, Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 1GT, Channel Islands Main Company Registered Office: PO Box 71, Craigmuir Chambers, Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands Registration Number: 1168
Regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission to conduct Trust and Company Business ************************************************************

RESTRICTED
-SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT!
This E-mail is confidential.
4 It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail.

Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free.

The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.

This email has been sent to you securely. This secure transmission was either delivered by Transport Layer Security between email systems or using Secure Email encryption powered by Proofpoint. 1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Ana Carola Brcek < >
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 4:23 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Cc: Lorna Leviste
Subject: 8844 Burton Way project discussion meeting on July 17. [You don't o
en get email from . Learn why this is important at
h
ps://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIden$fica$on ]
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cau$ous when clicking links or opening a
achments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing a
empts.

Dear Mr. Arroyo,
My name is Ana Carola Brcek and I have a condo at Swall Dr. unfortunately I will be out of town during the 7/17 discussion mee$ng. Nevertheless, I am reaching out to you and your office to express my opposi$on to the construc$on of the proposed project for 8844 Burton Way.

I do not support building a 20 story structure on that lot, as it would be totally out of character with the exis$ng buildings in the area. It would increase noise pollu$on, affect street parking, deplete electricity and water resources and change the mood and atmosphere of our nice neighborhood.

I appreciate your willingness to listen to our concerns and I hope that you will take into account my firm opposi$on to the construc$on of the aforemen$oned building structure.

Sincerely,
Ana C Brcek.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Cathi Rimalower < >
Sent: Friday, August 2, 2024 12:07 PM
To: Edgar Arroyo
Subject: 8844 Burton Way concerns
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

I am an owner at Swall Drive and attended your July 17, 2024, meeting. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us regarding our concerns about the 8844 Burton Way project. You patiently answered all our questions despite the many interruptions to your presentation.

I understand that the project is currently in the phase of submitting a Plan Development Review and still needs to be accepted as complete.

Like many of my neighbors, I am concerned about the plans that Crescent Heights submitted under the guise of the Builder’s Remedy provision. I have reviewed some of the documents included in the project submittal files, and my concerns are as follows:

1. Traffic and Parking I quickly reviewed the Transportation Impact Analysis that you provided. It concludes: "Application of the residential street segment threshold criteria from the City indicates that the analyzed street segments are not expected to exceed the City’s threshold criteria with the addition of the forecast Project traffic.” This defies common sense and logic. It is ludicrous to say that adding 200 units to our quiet neighborhood would not have a significant impact. The project plans for almost 500 parking spots! Both Clark and Swall are narrow streets that can barely support the traffic we have now.

Adding this burden to the traffic load from other proposed projects (8800 Burton Way, Wilshire and Robertson, Wilshire and Clark, 240 Clark, etc.) within a three-block radius would create a traffic nightmare for all.

If it hasn’t been done already, I urge the staff and members of the planning commission to visit our little street to see firsthand what the situation is.

2. Air and Noise Quality The above-ground parking structure will certainly affect the air quality and noise levels at the IV Seasons.

3. Police, Fire, Emergency, and Schools Adding 400 residents to this block will affect city services. One of the reasons I chose to live in Beverly Hills was to be in a small community with excellent services.

4. Changing the Quality of the Neighborhood A twenty-story building in our neighborhood will destroy the peace and quiet of our lovely community. Most of the residents of the IV Seasons are senior citizens. Right now, we can take a quiet walk without dodging cars and hearing unrelenting motor sounds.

A twenty-story building will block out light, one of the benefits of living in Southern California.

5. Master Plan and Zoning Laws While I wholeheartedly support providing more low-income housing, Crescent Heights is taking advantage of a brief period where there is a loophole to push through a project that is absolutely at odds with the smalltown, quiet residential lifestyle we all moved to this area to enjoy. This project would drastically force a high-rise, big-city behemoth onto the existing residents. The developer purchased the property planning for a four or five-story building. This is not a case of NIMBY; this would turn our lives upside down.

Thank you for your time. Please keep me informed about any updates.

Best,
2 Cathi
Cathi Rimalower
Sent from my iPhone
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Ari Bussel
Sent: Thursday, October 2, 2025 10:49 PM
To: CommentPC
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Correspondence / Written Comments from Public - 8844 Burton Way - Tue 10/21/2025 1:30PM
Attachments: TEBH 8844 Burton Way 251021 Hearing.pdf
 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.

To the Development Plan Review,

The following concerns and observations in this correspondence are respectfully submitted as part of the public comments regarding the proposed project in order to be part of the record and attached to the agenda report regarding this item and are not intended to be read at the meeting.

Always,
Ari Bussel

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
October 2, 2025
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
Dear Members of the Commission
Re: 8844 Burton Way (former TEBH) - Proposed 26-Story Multi-Family Residential Project Public Hearing, Tuesday, October 21, 2025
The following concerns and observations in this correspondence are respectfully submitted as part of the public comments regarding the proposed project in order to be part of the record and attached to the agenda report regarding this item.
1) The two story unique-architecture building which extended on the entire length of the block between Clark and Swall Drives on Burton Way was for decades Temple Emanuel of Beverly Hills. It was sold to a developer who (a) obtained recognition that it is NOT a historical structure / unique architecture and then immediately (b) rushed to demolish it. 2) The elimination of this building left the Temple (on Clark Drive) without a single parking space, for its staff, congregants, school or party-goers for its function facility that is open to the general public as a business (not restricted to Temple congregants only). When renewing the Temple’s permit for another five years, City staff has not seen the complete lack of parking as an issue, at least one that deserves certain conditions to be imposed on the Temple. Imagine any facility without a single parking space; not one.

Whatever arrangement was made, it results in added pressure to the neighborhood, be it on the limited number of parking spaces on the street or the multiple rounds of cars (with valet or without) trying to find a parking space or drive to / from a remote parking garage.

The buildings throughout the neighborhood are old and do not have sufficient parking themselves for their own occupants (since decades ago, when they were built, families had at most one car, now each family member likely has a car). So there is competition for a limited number of parking spaces. This will only be exacerbated with multiple new projects now under review. All the parking spaces around each of these projects will be eliminated due to the size and type of the projects, so a bad situation will become even worse. We have to remember that even when ample spaces are on-site, the tendency is for deliveries etc. to park on the street. This is most evidenced by a “loading zone” painted not that long ago in front of the ultra-luxurious 300 N Swall Drive.
3) In considering the proposed development, one must take into account (a) the Temple with its day school, religious activities and banquet facilities, (b) the Four Season and its 60 condos, each in the many millions, that has already seen a decline-in-value of tens of percentage points and an exodus of homeowners selling their units due to the proposed development, and (c) all the other neighbors, those without a megaphone / loudspeaker, who usually are the most affected.
4) Multiple projects are proposed for the rectangle between the SW corner of Burton Way and Robertson Blvd to the NE corner of Swall Drive and Wilshire Blvd. On this six block rectangle, there are at least six or seven major proposed projects which will multiply the density (structures build-up & number of people) several times over. This is like building on an island (imagine Japan or for that matter Tel Aviv). From one to two story buildings, a six block area is going to be so densely populated that a spillover will adversely affect the major arteries alongside it resides. The entire area will not be livable. 5) To keep things in perspective, when Goldrich and Kest (of blessed memories) built first 300 N Swall then 200 N Swall, when the complexes have 60 and 102 units respectively, they extended over two full city blocks. Now the proposed development is for 25% more units, built high into the skies - to 369’-6”. Maybe this is the future and not just a planned exploitation of a short window of opportunity when the City was not guarded (staff did not do its job and did not safeguard the City from the Builders Remedy that now invalidates more than a century of maintaining height and density in check; all gone in one “poof!”). 6) There should be an “area-wide” comprehensive consideration regarding these projects and their cumulative and total effects, for instance on traffic, parking, infrastructure (water, sewage, internet and communication, etc.) and on City services (such as 9-1-1, dispatchers, ambulances, fire and police, etc.). Is the current infrastructure sufficient to respond to and accommodate the additional needs? Two examples of effects on the neighborhood:
(a) Robertson Blvd (the border of said rectangle on the east) is now a one lane for north bound traffic, and it is a stand still or extremely slow moving during much of the day. Also, traffic escaping to the side streets (without proper calming mechanisms) adversely affects the community and poses a grave danger to children and pedestrians alike. All of this will be made worse, much worse.
(b) The construction of the old-age home on Clark resulted in numerous ambulance trips, which necessitated a special adjustment of sirens being turned off. Since another old-age facility is now one of the proposed projects, there will clearly be additional pressure on the BHFD required to respond when the employees at the facility are not allowed to help a person rise from the floor after falling, and Paramedics are called instead. [The same thing happens a block over on Burton Way in the City of LA.]
Two problem with an over-all, picture-wide, systematic review is that it negates the City staff culture. Everything for staff is stand alone, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. This is the prevailing culture and approach to “analyzing” projects. For instance, one Commission will convene to consider the upkeep of a public garden on Crescent Drive (adjacent to 100 N office building). Although everyone gathered - the commissioners, City staff and the public - is smart, they are instructed to completely ignore the proposed project (doubling the current office building and changing the original entitlements and restrictions) which triggered the hearing. Thus, for several hours, those in attendance could only talk about a “theoretical” upgrades to the public garden, as if it is a benevolent standalone act that comes out of thin air after hearing from the developer how dilapidated it is.

The child who wanted to shout, “but the King is naked” was hushed up, for common sense was kept outside the doors of the hall where the commission convened. It was not allowed to say the obvious: The developer is required, by the original entitlements, to upkeep the garden but fails to do so to the level that it desires. IF the City will give it a benefit worth tens of millions of dollars for perpetuity, then and only then it will be willing to upgrade the garden because it will benefit it (the developer) greatly. And so the hearing went on. 7) Experiences during the demolition: Are they indicative of the attitude of the developer / owner of 8844 Burton Way (Formerly TEBH)?
(a) No or insufficient protective measures against “pollution” (noise & dust / demolition degree released into the air) were made. Excuses were give (they are expensive, they are not required), which resulted in immense noise and dust clouds toward the neighboring buildings to the SE (Temple Emanuel Day School, as kids were there), SW and W (multifamily residential buildings) and directly to the N (multi family residential buildings on the other side of the street, but in the City of LA; these apparently can be ignored because they are outside of City limits).
[The only building that apparently did not experience any effect is the Four Seasons (300 N Swall Dr) which described the demolition as “quiet as a mouse.” [Their definition of a “mouse” apparently does not match the videos of the noise during demolition, but that might have something to do with the average age and medical condition of the residents in 300 N Swall Dr. At least one homeowner - since deceased - whose unit directly overlooked the demolition had to leave her unit for the duration of the ordeal, despite it being - according to the management of her association “quiet as a mouse").] Here is the Director of Community Development Department of the City of BH commenting:

QUOTE
It’s been quite a while and I hope you are doing well! We are currently working with the building owners to determine whether there is an ability to install the mentioned sound blankets. Please note that this is not a standard requirement for the demolition of structures, and as long as they are working during normal construction hours the City is somewhat constrained in mandating the installation of such sound blankets. This is especially true in this case as the current owner has not obtained any approvals for a replacement structure, so the City has not yet been in a position where conditions of approval can be imposed on the project.

Notwithstanding this limitation, please know that we are making our best effort to have the owner voluntarily install the blankets. Please let us know if you have additional questions.

UNQUOTE
(b) There was no proper oversight by the City. Staff did not answer the phone and did not return multiple phone calls and messages left for it. Then it outright refused to come to a site visit, since it is about ten blocks away walking distance, and when it was made to do so (after involvement by Councilmembers / the Mayor at that time), it arrived before work is allowed to start (i.e. before 8AM), left 15 minutes later and reported “everything is quite, nothing unusual observed.” If they only bothered to stay until the demolition work had started, an hour later and lasted for hours, they would notice what each person in the neighbored had experienced, as well as what was documented in videos. (c) This type of lack-of-oversight by City Staff is neither new nor unusual. For instance, when Somerset, 200 N Swall Drive complex of 102 units was built, asbestos was used. Except, it was illegal. Where was even the most basic oversight / code enforcement? Non-existent.

Why were eyes closed shut, one can only speculate. Similarly, it turned out many years after the project was completed and fully occupied that floors, walls and ceilings were not properly connected. These amazing findings all resulted in a very large (eight figure) monetary settlement between the developer and the homeowners, which hardly sufficed to bring the building to life-and-safety code requirements. (d) The attitude by City Staff (utterly refusing to leave their offices or to engage with the public and when forced to come on location deliberately dismissing any concern) was matched by that of the developer who himself (the properly owner) came and sat at the entrance to make sure everything was done properly in order to address neighbors’ concerns and complaints during demolition. It was a very welcomed and a most responsible attitude, except while he was sitting on Clark Drive, his trucks were illegally parked on Swall Drive and on Dayton Way, creating a nuisance to the residents and endangering anyone turning from Burton Way to Swall Drive or from Swall Drive to Burton Way. (e) There is one thing the developer mentioned at that time that was accurate: “There was a very short window of opportunity to establish things.” Somehow this was misconstrued to have something with the Pandemic. It turns out it had everything to do with “Builders Remedy.” It paved the way to a proposed 26 stories building in a neighborhood where the tallest buildings are 12 stories high (the two buildings of Four Seasons at Beverly Hills on Burton Way and Doheny Drive in Los Angeles).

No one will spend in excess of $30m to buy a property with prospects of building at most a three story building above ground (as is the case with 200N and 300N Swall Drive). The developer knew, planned and executed the acquisition, while City Staff sat inside their a/c offices, refusing to leave or to bother to answer the phone, and opened the flood gates to more than a dozen “Builders Remedy” projects that negate a century of village atmosphere and each and every project previously considered in the City. [Everyone likely remembers a certain referendum that cost millions, and these proposed buildings were not 26 stories into the skies.] These will forever change the City. [As a letter to the Editor in one of the local papers claimed, the very same staff has been promoted as a result.] (f) The entire area sits on top of deep-ground natural gas and oil fields. [Is there any connection to the fact that heavy vehicles - over 6k pounds - are not permitted to traverse the side streets directly across the proposed project? There was a reason for these signs to have been posted in the first place.] One may remember an eruption that happened at the NW corner of 3rd St and San Vicente (today a seven story parking structure of CedarsSinai, then the surface parking lot of Ralphs). [As underground fields that once were with oil or gas deposits are concerned, this is most significantly close to the proposed area with concentration of projects.]
The developer who already built a high rise in Century City clearly is aware of what is required to be earthquake ready or to build over oil or natural gas fields. Plans must be reviewed to ensure that at least on paper everything is required and addressed to ensure the immediate and long-term safety of the neighborhood. (g) Whether there are specific fault lines, the entire area experiences constant shakes, most of which are not even noticeable any more. Whether directly a result of the under-ground structures and/or the topography of the buildings that were built over the last 100 years, any noise or action on one side of Burton Way is unusually felt most noticeably on the other side.

Each demolition shock caused the buildings across the street to shake. In addition to the vibrations, the noise travelled in “shock waves.” Windows and doors moved from their sills and doors did not close as before. These movements, noise and dust pollution were all a direct result of and directly related to the demolition, with no barrier erected or measures to minimize the effects. Time was essence to the developer, and either there are no rules in place (there are, as similar-size demolitions, albeit in the City of Los Angeles, e.g. Sunset and Crescent Heights, used them to protect the neighbors, except in BH there was no need, as if such requirements do not exist; maybe they are State requirements and can be ignored or pushed to the side, such as what triggered the Builders Remedy; ignored as if they do not exist and have no ramifications whatsoever). (h) The complication is that neighbors, elderly or those with young families, do not seem to find a responsive ear, and the only overriding consideration seems to be that of the developer’s (e.g. “mitigation measures are too expensive”). Even when neighbors take action and call the City, City staff dismisses them and their concerns, as was the case throughout the demolition. What is worse, since one side of the street is BH and the other side is LA, those living across the street have essentially no recourse, thus the developer conveniently ignores them, their needs and concerns and any effect construction may have on them.
(i) The developer is envisioning a BIG, BEAUTIFUL MEGA STRUCTURE, similar to the one he built just looming on top of Beverly High. A building that has no place and has no equivalent in Beverly Hills. Whatever contributed to the present situation, that this mega-structure can be built without a say from the City, consideration to life and safety, to enforcing existing code and to ensuring that the impact on the neighbors, be they in BH or in LA, is minimized is the responsibility of the Commission and the Council.

Will the Commission be able to set conditions that are enforceable and mechanisms to make sure the developer is responsive and responsible?
For instance, if construction vehicles are parked in the neighborhood, there should be a telephone number, clearly posted and made known to anyone within a certain radius, with someone who can respond on the spot. Residents should not resort to calling the nonemergency police number and asking for an officer to respond.

Or, amplified noise levels or vibrations felt in the immediate vicinity (across the street) should be measured and corrected, and until they are corrected, work should not be permitted to continue.

If there are any other concerns or complaints, there should be a mechanism to have them registered alongside the resolution or action taken (with the time it took to address).

In short, there has to be oversight equal to the size and scope of the project, the first in the City.

This is a unique proposed development, essentially of the first “high rise” (even if it does not match the 40- or 42- story requirement for the technical definition) in the City. This is not a construction on Santa Monica or Wilshire Boulevards, rather in the middle of a residential neighborhood and immediately across from a day school and synagogue. There must be special advance planning and a team (by the City and the developer) who will be accessible continuously to properly record and immediately address any concern.

A BIG, BEAUTIFUL, ENORMOUS MEGA BUILDING is going to be built, no matter what the City says or does. It is a windfall of enormous amounts to a developer who knew a window of opportunity existed when the City staff and council did not pay attention. A 26-story multi-family residential building with a total of 200 dwelling units is proposed, more than doubling the number of units of the 200- and 300- N Swall Dr., the two adjacent blocks. This correspondence did not address ingress and egress, traffic flow (all the signs are based on a Temple that does not exist any more) or other factors. if issues for the duration of construction - noise, construction vehicles, pollution, etc. - be addressed in advance, then the impact on the neighborhood might be minimized. If left to the developer, the episode of demolition four years ago evidences the complete lack of tangible, effective measures. In essence, the builder (developer) was left to do as he wishes under the laissez-faire attitude of City staff.

This is the City’s responsibility toward its residents and toward the residents in the adjacent City who are directly affected by the proposed fait accompli development.

Always,
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Virginia Yates
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 11:08 AM
To: CommentPC
Cc:

Subject: Public Comment – 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.

As a 10-year resident of North Swall Drive, I am writing to share my concerns regarding the currently proposed development of 8844 Burton Way. When I moved to Swall Drive, 8844 Burton way was a much beloved youth center. Based on the most recent notification from BH, I understand that a developer is now proposing to build a 26-story luxury apartment building. This building will be over 10 stories higher than the tallest buildings in BH and over four times the residential zoning maximum. The opportunity to consider such a plan was opened up due to the Builder's Remedy which was put in place by the state with the good intention of helping to address California's affordable housing crisis.

I strongly urge Beverly Hills to aggressively challenge the current plans and require changes that would help the development to abide by the spirit of the Builder's Remedy and address significant concerns about environmental impact.

Here are my primary concerns:
 Violation of Intent: The updated proposal increases luxury density while reducing the number of affordable units. It manipulates a policy designed to expand affordable housing, not create loopholes for high-profit developments.
 Lack of Transparency: After some initial dialogue between BH and residents, communication about this project abruptly went silent at the start of this year. Significant changes, including a sixstory height increase and reduction of affordable units, were made without public notice or input.

This kind of closed-door revision strips residents from the process entirely and leads to questions about what or who is driving the decision making and whether the interests of BH residents are being prioritized and protected.
 Community Safety in the Event of Earthquake: This property is on the edge of a liquefaction zone. In the event of a significant earthquake, damages to this building (including falling debris and possible collapse) as well as the need to evacuate and respond to residents in a very dense footprint could be severely compromised with tragic consequences and catastrophic liability to the city for ignoring clear geological and environmental risks.  Community Impact: The proposed height and massing will significantly increase traffic and noise, reduce light and privacy, and permanently alter the character of the immediate environment. The public's assessment of potentially negative quality of life impacts of this development on the community may already explain stalled and plummeting 2025 Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 2 property values of apartments in what had been highly desirable neighboring buildings (see Zilllow). In terms of the bottom line for BH, this reduction in property values will lead to decreased overall revenue for the city, creating more burdens for a strained budget).

Beverly HIlls is a unique, wonderful, and welcoming place to live and its city council has always had the reputation for solid leadership responsive to community needs and with a long-term vision.

As a resident of BH, I support smart growth and, therefore, urge the Planning Commission to:
 Require a more meaningful percentage of affordable units  Significantly scale back excessive height and density of the proposed building  Ensure full transparency with BH residents going forward  Mandate construction mitigation measures for directly impacted buildings Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.

Sincerely,
Virginia Yates ( North Swall Drive, )
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Miranda Yates
Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 12:05 PM
To: CommentPC
Cc: Renée Strauss
Subject: Public Comment – 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.

As a resident of North Swall Drive, I am writing to share my concerns regarding the currently proposed development of 8844 Burton Way. My family has lived on Swall Drive - first as renters and then owners- for the past 30 years. Based on the most recent notification from Beverly Hills, I understand that a developer is now proposing to build a 26- story luxury apartment building. This building will be over 10 stories higher than the tallest buildings in Beverly Hills and over four times the residential zoning maximum. The opportunity to consider such a plan was opened up due to the Builder's Remedy which was put in place by the state with the good intention of helping to address California's affordable housing crisis.

Finding meaningful ways for all of us to address the LA housing crisis is an issue of deep importance to me as I have worked for my entire career in social service with families and children including 10 years with Covenant House California in Hollywood. I find this aspect of the project exploiting a public policy put in place to help people with low incomes, and instead lining the pockets of well resourced real estate developers, scandalous and incredibly offensive.
 Lack of Transparency: After some initial dialogue between BH and residents, communication about this project went silent at the start of this year. Significant changes, including a six-story height increase and reduction of affordable units, were made without public notice or input. This kind of closed-door revision leads to inevitable questions about what or who is driving the decision making and whether the interests of BH residents are being prioritized and protected. Among my immediate questions: After the project's initial 20-story design submission, there were a lot of questions about the feasibility and prospects of this project including whether the developer's submissions adhered to deadlines, what was the rationale of the developers for resubmitting in 2025 for an even larger project? Given the questions and pushback from BH community with regard to the 20-story design, why did the developers assume that an even more ambitious luxury housing project would get approved?  Community Safety in the Event of Earthquake: This property is on the edge of a liquefaction zone. In the event of a significant earthquake, damages to this building (including falling debris and possible collapse) as well as the need to evacuate and respond to residents in a very dense footprint with limited traffic flow could be severely compromised with tragic consequences and catastrophic liability to the city for ignoring clear geological and environmental risks.  Community Impact: The proposed height and massing will significantly increase traffic and noise, reduce light and privacy, and permanently alter the character of the immediate environment. Beverly HIlls is a unique, wonderful, and 2 welcoming place to live and its city council has always had the reputation for long-term vision and solid leadership responsive to community needs.

I support collective accountability and smart growth. I urge the Planning Commission to:
 Require a more meaningful percentage of affordable units  Significantly scale back excessive height and density of the proposed luxury unit building  Ensure full transparency going forward
 Mandate construction mitigation measures for directly impacted buildings Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments.

Sincerely,
Miranda Yates ( North Swall Drive, )
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Renée Strauss
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 11:58 AM
To: CommentPC
Subject: Public Comment on 8844 Burton Way Development Proposal OCT 21 MEETING  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 Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
As a resident of North Swall Drive, I am writing to express my deep concerns about the proposed 26-story development at 8844 Burton Way.

When I moved to this neighborhood, 8844 Burton Way was a vibrant and cherished youth center. A place that served the community. The most recent proposal to replace it with a 26- story luxury high-rise is out of scale, out of step with community needs, and out of alignment with the original intent of the Builder’s Remedy.

This proposed building would stand over 10 stories higher than any existing building in Beverly Hills and more than four times above the current residential zoning limits. It was introduced under the Builder’s Remedy, a state policy aimed at increasing access to affordable housing. Unfortunately, the current proposal undermines that goal while threatening community safety, livability, and transparency.

Key Concerns:

1. Misuse of Builder’s Remedy Intent
The updated plans significantly reduce the number of affordable units while increasing luxury density. This undermines the core goal of the Builder’s Remedy—expanding access to affordable housing—and instead appears to leverage the policy for private gain. For a city that cares about balanced, inclusive growth, this is not acceptable.

2. Lack of Transparency
After initial community dialogue in 2023, communication from the city regarding this project went silent. Then, without warning, the proposal resurfaced with major changes: a six-story increase in height and a reduction in affordable units. Residents were removed from the Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important 2 process entirely—denied the right to comment, question, or participate in decisions that directly affect our homes and neighborhood.

3. Earthquake Safety & Environmental Risk
The proposed site sits adjacent to a known liquefaction zone. In the event of a significant earthquake, the building’s massive height and density could pose serious danger—including falling debris, compromised emergency access, and a high risk of structural failure.

Proceeding with this scale of development in such a location places future residents and neighbors at unnecessary risk—and exposes the city to substantial liability.

4. Community Character & Quality of Life
This project would permanently alter the character of the neighborhood. The massing, scale, and height would overwhelm surrounding residential buildings, reducing privacy and light, and increasing traffic, noise, and strain on infrastructure. Preliminary data from Zillow already shows declining 2025 property values in adjacent buildings. This threatens not only our quality of life, but also city revenues.

5. Erosion of Public Trust
Regardless of how long we’ve lived here, residents deserve to be included in decisions that impact our city. Slipping in six extra stories without transparency sends a message that our voices don’t matter. We are voters. This is our city. We want thoughtful development—not backroom deals.

I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to:
 Require a meaningful percentage of affordable units in line with the spirit of the Builder’s Remedy
 Reduce the excessive height and density of the proposed project  Reestablish transparency with Beverly Hills residents in all future negotiations and decisions
 Mandate construction mitigation plans to protect neighboring buildings and residents
Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective. I care deeply about our community and hope the city will prioritize long-term livability, fairness, and safety over short-term profits.

Sincerely,

1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Jane Heller
Sent: Monday, October 6, 2025 3:40 PM
To: CommentPC
Subject: Comment on 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 Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
My husband and I are residents of N. Swall Drive, which, of course, would be right next door to the proposed development project. We strongly object not only to the project itself but to the way in which the city of Beverly Hills has handled it.

We have absolutely no problem with development at the site of Burton and Swall; we have expected there to be some sort of structure at that site. But a 26-story tower? Twenty-six stories? Talk about changing the character of the area! Has any member of the commission actually walked along Swall Drive and seen what a quiet neighborhood it is? A structure like the one being proposed would dwarf everything around it, causing traffic, noise, pollution, lack of light and a gross misuse of precious empty space, not to mention additional pressure on public services like police and fire departments.

But what bothers us most is the lack of transparency on the part of the city of Beverly Hills. At first, in 2023, there was some communication, but then silence. We assumed the project had been tabled or, at the very least, restricted — only to learn that the proposal was not only still viable but significantly worse:
six stories taller than previously discussed! Plus, there were fewer affordable units proposed.

We felt completely cut off from all discussion and had no opportunity to voice our strong concerns about our rights, our neighborhood, our very day-to-day existence.

People from all over the world hear “Beverly Hills” and they think of a community they aspire to be a part of. If they could see how shabbily the city has treated its neighbors, they’d stay away.

It pains us to write and submit this comment, but it’s necessary under the circumstances, Sincerely,
Jane Heller and Michael Forester
Jane Heller
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important

VIA EMAIL
October 8, 2025
Jeff Wolfe, Chair
Lou Milkowski, Vice Chair
Terri Kaplan, Commissioner
Myra Demeter, Commissioner
Gary Ross, Commissioner
Planning Commission
455 North Rexford Drive, Room 280A
Beverly Hills, California 90210
[email protected]
Edgar Arroyo, Planner
Community Development Department
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
[email protected]
Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 for the 8844 Burton Way Project (PL2400115)
Dear Chair Wolfe, Vice Chair Milkowski, Honorable Commissioners, and Mr. Arroyo:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in the City of Beverly Hills (“City”) regarding the 8844 Burton Way Project (PL2400115) (“Project”), proposed by 8844 Burton Way LLC (“Applicant”). The Project involves the construction of a new 26-story multi-family residential building containing 200 units with a height of 309’-6” located at 8844 Burton Way in the City of Beverly Hills. The Project is scheduled to be heard at the Planning Commission’s Special Meeting on October 21, 2025 at 1:30pm.

Through the recently-enacted Assembly Bill 130 (“AB 130”), the Applicant has sought to exempt the Project from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). AB 130 establishes a new statutory exemption from CEQA for qualifying infill housing projects. (See AB 130 § 59; Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66 [“PRC”].) As discussed below, AB 130 specifies construction labor standards for certain types of projects, including buildings taller than 85 feet, such as the proposed Project here. Therefore, under AB 130, SAFER respectfully requests that the City require the Applicant to: (1) employ a skilled and trained construction workforce; and (2) pay its construction workforce prevailing wages.

DISCUSSION
AB 130 states that the labor standards of Government Code § 65913.4(a)(8) [“Gov.

Letter Re: Required Use of Skilled and Trained Labor and Prevailing Wages under AB 130 8844 Burton Way Project
October 8, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

Beverly Hills City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Beverly Hills City Council
March 24, 2026