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

Summary – Health & Safety Impacts of 8844 Burton
Way
Overview
The proposed 26-story development at 8844 Burton Way would generate unavoidable construction and post-construction impacts that meet the threshold of a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety under Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2). Key Findings

1. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
– Chronic noise, dust, vibration, and emissions affecting residents and workers. – These impacts are unavoidable even with standard mitigation.

2. Health Impacts
– Respiratory hazards: Fine dust and silica particles cause asthma, silicosis, COPD, and lung cancer. – Noise-induced stress: Violates Health & Safety Code §46000, guaranteeing Californians a quiet environment.
– Psychological distress: Multi-year disruption increases stress and anxiety, particularly among seniors.

3. Safety Impacts
– Falling debris: Inherent danger in high-rise construction. – Traffic disruption: Machinery and trucks block Swall, Clark, and Burton Way, delaying emergency response.
– Structural instability: Deep excavation threatens nearby foundations. – Polluted runoff: Excavation runoff may contaminate stormwater with oil and cement slurry.

4. Air Emissions & Infrastructure
– Above-ground parking structure: Vehicle exhaust vents at the same height as nearby residential windows, exposing neighbors to harmful emissions.
– Infrastructure responsibility: Under state housing law, it is the City’s responsibility to ensure that critical infrastructure — including wastewater and storm systems — can safely handle this level of density. To date, no infrastructure capacity analysis has been shared with the public, and proceeding without that data could expose both the City and its residents to unnecessary risk.

Legal Standards Cited
– Gov. Code §65589.5(d)(2): Authorizes denial if a project causes a “specific, adverse impact on public health or safety.”
– Health & Safety Code §46000(f)-(g): Declares Californians’ right to a peaceful and quiet environment free from hazardous noise.

Conclusion
The 8844 Burton Way project poses specific, significant, and unavoidable risks to public health and safety. The City retains both the legal authority and obligation to uphold the Planning Commission’s denial and require a safer, lower-scale redesign.

I respectfully request the opportunity to provide further testimony at the upcoming public hearing. This project carries serious implications for our community, and I urge the City Council to carefully consider these concerns before making any final decisions.

Sincerely,
Noushin Ahobim
Direct:

Submitted at the Planning Conmissipn maetrng of
By C-14t’v1e4’± C-vu4o
#of Pages: X(
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Parking Structure Concerns
The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting • Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solution that meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Conclusion
We support California’s housing goals, but not at the expense of safety, sound planning, and community standards. We trust this Council to require meaningful revisions that protect residents while advancing responsible development.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#NAME:_______________
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency AccessAccording to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#NAME:

Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observedinadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Conclusion
We support CaIifornias housing goals, but not at the expense of safety, sound planning, and community standards. We trust this Council to require meaningful revisions that protect residents while advancing responsible development.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#__
NAME: 7) ,%Xk’f/(9 2’
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.Affordable Housing IntegrationThe clustering of all 22 affordable studio units exclusively on lower floors near refuse chutes and elevators contradicts the intent of Builder’s Remedylegislation. The developer’s own plans reveal two completely empty floors, and at the Planning Commission meeting, the developer confirmed multiplespaces designated for private dining, yoga, gyms, and recreational facilities.This is a 200-unit luxury project exploiting Builder’s Remedy for financial gain—not affordable housing. Concentrating 22 studios on undesirable floors while reserving premium space for amenities is discriminatory and aflagrant misuse of the law. True integration requires distributing affordable units throughout the building. We request revised plans that comply withboth the letter and spirit of fair housing law.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#NAME/%4 i%u44-Th
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observed inadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency AccessAccording to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Parking Structure Concerns
The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting • Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solutionthat meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#_ ___
NAME: Z4/5 /?t/1/3/c
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Sincerely,The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#_
NAME: LEM
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
NAME:________________________
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creatingunacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.Affordable Housing Integration
The clustering of all 22 affordable studio units exclusively on lower floors near refuse chutes and elevators contradicts the intent of Builder’s Remedylegislation. The developer’s own plans reveal two completely empty floors, and at the Planning Commission meeting, the developer confirmed multiplespaces designated for private dining, yoga, gyms, and recreational facilities.This is a 200-unit luxury project exploiting Builder’s Remedy for financial gain—not affordable housing. Concentrating 22 studios on undesirable floors while reserving premium space for amenities is discriminatory and aflagrant misuse of the law. True integration requires distributing affordable units throughout the building. We request revised plans that comply withboth the letter and spirit of fair housing law.

Parking Structure Concerns
The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting• Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solutionthat meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#_NAME:__________________
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
vVe respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

This creates critical emergency access issues. La Peer Drive, one block away, is already Beverly Hills’ narrowest street—unsuitable for emergency vehicles. Robertson Boulevard to Cedars-Sinai is chronically congested.Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
Ve urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceDtable risk for residents and neiohborinci oroDerties in the event of fire.

Affordable Housing Integration
The clustering of all 22 affordable studio units exclusively on lower fioors near refuse chutes and elevators contradicts the intent of Builder’s Remedy legislation. The developer’s own plans reveal two completely empty floors, and at the Planning Commission meeting, the developer confirmed multiple spaces designated for private dining, yoga, avms. and recreational facilities.

Conclusion
Ne suDport California’s housing goals, but not at the expense of safety, souna Dianning, and community standards. We trust this Council to require meaningful revisions that protect residents while advancing responsible development.

Thank you for your thoughiful consideration.

Sincereiy.

The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNI ___________
NAME:________ //,4’’; L’
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

This is a 200-unit luxury project exploiting Builder’s Remedy for financialgain—not affordable housing. Concentrating 22 studios on undesirable floors while reserving premium space for amenities is discriminatory and a flagrant misuse of the law. True integration requires distributing affordable units throughout the building. We request revised plans that comply with both the letter and spirit of fair housing law.Parking Structure Concerns The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting • Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solutionthat meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNI
NAME:
____________________
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit—We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

This is a 200-unit luxury project exploiting Builder’s Remedy for financial gain—not affordable housing. Concentrating 22 studios on undesirable floors while reserving premium space for amenities is discriminatory and aflagrant misuse of the law. True integration requires distributing affordable units throughout the building. We request revised plans that comply withboth the letter and spirit of fair housing law.Parking Structure Concerns The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting• Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solution that meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT __________
NAME:
______________________
(‘QgJ
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
NAME:

Traffic & Emergency AccessAccording to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creatingunacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
S
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNI __________ NAME:______________
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observed inadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Parking Structure Concerns
The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting • Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solutionthat meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
NAME:___________________
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

I
Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observedinadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.

Traffic & Emergency AccessAccording to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

I
This creates critical emergency access issues. La Peer Drive, one block away, is already Beverly Hills’ narrowest street—unsuitable for emergency vehicles. Robertson Boulevard to Cedars-Sinai is chronically congested.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creatingunacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.Affordable Housing Iptegration
The clustering of all 22 affordable studio units exclusively on lower floors near refuse chutes and elevators contradicts the intent of Builder’s Remedylegislation. The developer’s own plans reveal two completely empty floors, and at the Planning Commission meeting, the developer confirmed multiple spaces designated for private dining, yoga, gyms, and receational facilities.

This is a 200-unit luxury project exploiting Builder’s Remedy for financial gain—not affordable housing. Concentrating 22 studios on undesirable floors while reserving premium space for amenities is discriminatory and aflagrant misuse of the law. True integration requires distributing affordable units throughout the building. We request revised plans that comply with both the letter and spirit of fair housing law.Parking Structure Ccncerns The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting• Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solutionthat meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Conclusion
We support CaIifornia’ housing goals, but not at the expense of safety, sound planning, and community standards. We trust this Council to require meaningful revisions that protect residents while advancing responsible development.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
NAME: ______I
I
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,,
The H
UNIT#
NAME: 136)i2,A.’
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT ___________
(7 NAME: <-I
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Affordable Housing Integration
The clustering of all 22 affordable studio units exclusively on lower floors near refuse chutes and elevators contradicts the intent of Builder’s Remedy legislation. The developer’s own plans reveal two completely empty floors, and at the Planning Commission meeting, the developer confirmed multiple spaces designated for private dining, yoga, gyms, and recreational facilities.This is a 200-unit luxury project exploiting Builder’s Remedy for financialgain—not affordable housing. Concentrating 22 studios on undesirable floors while reserving premium space for amenities is discriminatory and a flagrant misuse of the law. True integration requires distributing affordable units throughout the building. We request revised plans that comply with both the letter and spirit of fair housing law.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNI __________
NAME/
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Conclusion
p
We support California’s housing goals, but not at the expense of safety, sound planning, and community standards. We trust this Council to require meaningful revisions that protect residents while advancing responsible development.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
/725
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builders Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset CondosDear Council Members, We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observed inadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

This is a 200-unit luxury project exploiting Builder’s Remedy for financial gain—not affordable housing. Concentrating 22 studios on undesirable floors while reserving premium space for amenities is discriminatory and a flagrant misuse of the law. True integration requires distributing affordable units throughout the building. We request revised plans that comply withboth the letter and spirit of fair housing law.Parking Structure Concerns The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting • Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solution that meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNI
________
NAME:

Traffic & Emergency AccessAccording to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Parking Structure Concerns
The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting• Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solution that meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#_ _______
NAME: A2-,4i J’AOaS
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observed inadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Conclusion
0 We support California’s housing goals, but not at the expense of safety, sound planning, and community standards. We trust this Council to require meaningful revisions that protect residents while advancing responsible development.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#_ _________
NAME:

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Converting this alley into a high-traffic corridor adds a dangerous bottleneck that could impede fire trucks and ambulances when seconds matter. We urge denial of this access plan.

Rooftop BBQ Denial
We urge denial of the rooftop BBQ concession on a 26-story building.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#_ ________
NAME:

Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observed inadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Parking Structure Concerns
The proposed open-air mechanical stacking system is unprecedented in Beverly Hills residential zones and presents three critical issues:
• Air Quality: Continuous vehicle emissions and idling during stacking operations
• Noise: Mechanical lift operations in an outdoor setting• Precedent: No comparable structure exists in our residential areas We request a fully enclosed, sound-insulated, ventilated parking solution that meets Beverly Hills standards. Additionally, all construction staging, contractor parking, and equipment storage should be prohibited on Swall Drive, Clark Drive, Burton Way, and the alley.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
______
/:////77,1X
NAME:

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observed inadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Conclusion
F
We support California’s housing goals, but not at the expense of safety, sound planning, and community standards. We trust this Council to require meaningful revisions that protect residents while advancing responsible development.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, So erset
UN
_________
/
NAME: /
Public Comment — In Advance of City Council Vote on 8844 Burton Way Builder’s Permit — We Encourage Denial
To: The Honorable Beverly Hills City Council
From: Homeowners at N. Swall Drive, Sommerset Condos
Dear Council Members,
We respectfully submit our concerns regarding the proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 8844 Burton Way.

Safety & Construction Standards
During the developer’s Temple Emanuel demolition, we observed inadequate safety protocols—insufficient sound barriers and debris containment despite minimal sheeting. We request that any approval include enforceable safety and environmental requirements with regular compliance monitoring.Traffic & Emergency Access
According to developer Elliot Kahn, this one-way alley will serve as a large construction vehicle staging for the projected 30+ month build.

Post-completion, it will become a primary thoroughfare for UPS, FedEx, Amazon deliveries, and resident vehicle ingress/egress.

Beverly Hills fire equipment cannot reach that height, creating unacceptable risk for residents and neighboring properties in the event of fire.

Sincerely,
The Homeowners of N. Swall Drive, Sommerset
UNIT#
NAME:________________
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.

From: David @ Sharp Capital
To: CommentPC
Subject: Public Comment – Support for 8844 Burton Way (Item 1) & 9229 Wilshire Blvd (Item 3) Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 11:51:15 AM
Dear Planning Commission,
I support the Builders Remedy projects at 8844 Burton Way and 9229 Wilshire Blvd.

These developments are 30–40% smaller than state law permits and are located in ideal, high-traffic corridors suited for increased density. This is the kind of balanced and thoughtful growth Beverly Hills should support.

Sincerely,
David J. Shophet
S Crescent Drive
Beverly Hills, CA
--
"DJ" - DAVID J. SHOPHET Principal
Sharp Capital
w:
a:

South Beverly Drive, Ste.

Beverly Hills, CA
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.

From: Sam Zaman
To: CommentPC
Subject: 8844 Burton way
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 12:09:26 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Dear planning commission,
As the owner of Black & White Rent a Car located at Burton way, I wanted to share my support for the proposed project at 8844 Burton way. Having been here for over 30 years, I’ve seen how much potential this area has, and I think this project would be a much needed boost for the neighborhood.

More people living along Burton way means more customers, and more life on the street. That helps local businesses like mine and contribute to keeping this part of Beverly Hills active and thriving. It’s the kind of investment s everyone in the long-run residents, business owners and city itself need.

Beverly Hills needs to continue growing in a smart, balanced way, and I believe this project fits that vision.

Thank you
Sam Zaman
p: +
s: www.bwrentacar.com e:

Beverly Hills | Santa Monica | LAX Airport
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.

From: Matt Gelfand on behalf of [email protected]
To: CommentPC; Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Correspondence from Californians for Homeownership Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:11:17 PM
Attachments: 2025-10-29 - Californians Letter re Agenda Item 1.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Hello,
Please provide the attached comments to the Planning Commission in connection with Agenda Item 1 on its agenda.

If able, we ask that the following statement be read into the record in lieu of reading the letter:

We have reviewed the Commission’s proposed findings of denial for this project. Considered in the context of the world as it exists in 2025, the Commission’s proposed findings are preposterous. Professional firefighters in the year 2025 can, of course, fight a fire in a 26-story building. Professional traffic engineers in the year 2025 can, of course, figure out how to accommodate ingress and egress from a 26-story building. There are dozens of taller buildings in Southern California, hundreds in California, and thousands in the United States.

Indeed, there are at least a dozen such towers within a few blocks of the courthouse where our lawsuit will be heard, if the City makes the puzzling decision to deny this project. Is the City really prepared to argue to a court sitting in the heart of downtown Los Angeles that all of downtown Los Angeles is a disaster waiting to happen?
Were your findings supported by fact, our region, state, and country would be riddled by horrible tragedies every year. But they are not, because high-rise buildings are perfectly safe, and modern roads are perfectly capable of handling the light traffic from a 200-unit residential tower.

The City has no lawful basis for denying this project. If the City nevertheless does so, we will sue the City. We have already won two lawsuits against the City, and we have three more pending. Please do not force us to file a sixth.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
--
Matthew Gelfand
Counsel, Californians for Homeownership
[email protected]
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California’s housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools.

MATTHEW GELFAND, COUNSEL
[email protected]
TEL: (213) 739-8206
October 29, 2025

VIA EMAIL
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills
455 North Rexford Dr
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Email: [email protected]; [email protected] RE: October 29, 2025 Meeting, Agenda Item 1
8844 Burton Way (PL2400115)
To the Planning Commission:

Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) organization devoted to using legal tools to address California’s housing crisis. We are writing regarding the project proposed for 8844 Burton Way, a project subject to the builder’s remedy under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), Government Code section 65589.5.

As you’re aware, builders remedy projects generally cannot be denied, even for failure to comply with local objective standards. It appears based on the draft resolution you are considering that the City nevertheless plans to deny this project based on a “specific, adverse impact upon the health or safety” under the HAA. Under the HAA, the City cannot deny the project on this basis unless the project would have a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2).) As a threshold matter, the City fundamentally misunderstands the law. The draft resolution complains that “the Commission did not believe that sufficient evidence was provided in the record” that the project will not have an adverse impact. That’s not how this works. The City, not the applicant, bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the project will have an adverse impact. (Gov. Code §§ 65589.5(d), 65589.6.) Additionally, considered in the context of the world as it exists in 2025, the Commission’s proposed findings are preposterous. Professional firefighters in the year 2025 can, of course, fight a fire in a 26-story building. Professional traffic engineers in the year 2025 can, of course, figure out how to accommodate ingress and egress from a 26-story building. There are dozens of taller buildings in Southern California, hundreds in California, and thousands in the United States.

Page 2 ends

prepared to argue to a court sitting in the heart of downtown Los Angeles that all of downtown Los Angeles is a disaster waiting to happen?
Were your findings supported by fact, our region, state, and country would be riddled by horrible tragedies every year. But they are not, because high-rise buildings are perfectly safe, and modern roads are perfectly capable of handling the light traffic from a 200-unit residential tower.1 In litigation under the HAA, a project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4).) And “[i]t is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety . . . arise infrequently.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3).) In the context of the real world we live in—a world filled with safe high-rise buildings—the City will never be able to meet its burden in litigation based on findings that preposterously assign grave potential harms to a garden-variety residential mid-rise.

In any event, each of the purported impacts2 identified in the proposed findings fail to meet the standards of the HAA:

1. Building’s height and fire safety.
a. Significant impact. The City has not demonstrated that the building’s height would have any impact on health and safety, because a modern building built to modern building codes are perfectly safe, and a modern fire department is perfectly capable of fighting a fire at such a building, as they would any of the existing high-rise buildings in the City or Los Angeles, or at any of the other recently-approved or under construction buildings in the City, such as the One Beverly Hills towers.
b. Quantifiable impact. The City has made no attempt to quantify this impact. c. Direct impact. To the extent that the City’s claim is that its existing firefighting capability cannot accommodate this project (despite accommodating the many 1 Indeed, the modern traffic control literature indicates that slower-moving roads, such as those with induced traffic, are safer. And despite the City’s effort to paint this project as more dangerous than the City’s many office mid- and high-rises because it is residential, residential uses are far less impactful than other forms of use.
2 In addition to the purported health and safety findings described below, the City appears to be taking the position that the project violates Health and Safety Code Section 17929. It plainly does not, and a denial on that basis would be a violation of the HAA.

October 29, 2025

Page 3 ends

similar existing or approved buildings in the city), that impact is indirect. The City must just fix its firefighting capacity, not deny the project. d. Unavoidable impact. The City has not demonstrated that it has considered any way of avoiding this impact, let alone satisfying its obligation to consider every reasonable mitigation and demonstrate that no reasonable mitigation exists. e. Objective, identified written public health standards, polices, or conditions.

The city has not identified any height-related public health standard that the project violates, either timely or in its draft denial resolution.

2. Traffic impacts.
a. Significant impact. The City has not demonstrated any impact on health and safety of the traffic generated by the project. The roads around the project are perfectly capable of accommodating the modest traffic generated by a 200-unit residential project, as they are for any of the existing high-rise buildings in the City, or any of the other recently-approved or under construction buildings in the City, such as the One Beverly Hills towers.
b. Quantifiable impact. The City has made no attempt to quantify this impact. c. Direct impact. To the extent that the City’s claim is that its existing roadways cannot accommodate this project (despite accommodating the many similar existing or approved buildings in the city), that impact is indirect. The City must just fix its roads, not deny the project.
d. Unavoidable impact. The City has not demonstrated that it has considered any way of avoiding this impact, let alone satisfying its obligation to consider every reasonable mitigation and demonstrate that no reasonable mitigation exists. e. Objective, identified written public health standards, polices, or conditions.

The city has not identified any traffic-related public health standard that the project violates, either timely or in its draft denial resolution.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand

Oct 29, 2025
City of Beverly Hills
Room 280A, 455 North Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, California 90210
Re: Proposed Disapproval of 8844 Burton Way
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Beverly Hills Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) writes regarding public hearing item number 1 on the agenda for the October 29, 2025 Planning Commission meeting: permit approvals for a proposed 200-unit housing development project at 8844 Burton Way, which includes 14 extremely low-income units and eight moderate-income units. We urge the Planning Commission to approve the project, as is required by the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”).

Under the HAA,
1 a city may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least a certain percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1) 2 .) This statutory provision temporarily
suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) 2 These code section numbers correspond to the HAA as it existed when the preliminary application for the project at issue was submitted (i.e. before AB 1893 went into effect). 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA.

However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under the previous version of the law.
360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
Beverly Hills’s Housing Element was not in substantial compliance 3 with state law when the
preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted. The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed.

The City is proposing to deny the project for several reasons.

First, the City wishes to deny the project because it is tall. From page 14 of the staff report:

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

However, in the event of a disapproval, the HAA puts the burden of proof on the City regarding health and safety impacts. (id. at subd. (i).) The City has not provided any evidence that the City’s fire department could not provide adequate services to the building.

Further, the City has an automatic aid agreement with the Los Angeles Fire Department.

There are many buildings of equivalent height in Los Angeles.

Second,the City states that the project will create a specific, adverse effect on public health and safety from its increased traffic, which the City states will lengthen emergency response times.

There is no evidence in the record to support this assertion, though the City bears the burden of proof under the HAA and must ensure the record establishes that a preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of the City’s finding. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d).) Further, there is no evidence that more densely populated, developed cities have longer emergency response times. On the contrary, denser cities often have the population and tax base to support greater emergency response capabilities. The project will contribute an enormous amount of property tax revenue to the City, thus allowing it to enhance its emergency services.

Third, the City proposes to disapprove the project because of a provision of Health and Safety Code section 17929, subdivision (a)(2), which states that “a mixed-income multifamily 3 In a letter to the City dated May 12, 2023, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) found that the City’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element, adopted February 21, 2023, does not substantially comply with State Housing Element law. The City’s Housing Element remained out of legal compliance as of fall 2023, as confirmed by the September 12, 2023 Los Angeles County Superior Court ruling in Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Beverly Hills, Case No. 23STCP00143 (attached).
2 of 4
structure shall not isolate the affordable housing units within that structure to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor.”
However, the building has not isolated the affordable units to a “specific floor” or “an area on a specific floor.” The units are spread out over five floors of the building. Five floors is not a specific floor. Each of the five floors also has market rate units on the same floor, thus these units are not segregated.

Further, the City must show that “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.” (id. at subd. (d)(3).) The burden of proof is on the City to show this. (Id. at subd (i).) The applicant’s testimony regarding financial feasibility is not sufficient evidence given that the burden of proof is on the City to show that there is no feasible method to comply.

Finally, the result of this disapproval will be to exclude the proposed lower-income residents from the City entirely. This disapproval would result in enhanced segregation, not desegregation.
⬢⬢⬢
The HAA allows housing organizations like CalHDF to bring an enforcement suit. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(2).) If an enforcement lawsuit brought by a housing organization is successful, the locality must pay the organization’s attorneys’ fees and costs. (Ibid.) The City’s HAA findings are paper-thin. Making these findings will result in one of two outcomes: the Council will have to approve the project on appeal, wasting everyone’s time; or the City will be on the losing end of litigation, resulting in a senseless waste of taxpayer dollars.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, decarbonization in the face of climate crisis – and most importantly, it will provide badly-needed affordable and multifamily housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in more urban areas as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the Council to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
3 of 4
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
4 of 4
• FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
SEP 12 2023
David W. Slayton, Exeartive Officeritlerk of Court

CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP, INC.,
vs.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS,
Petitioner,
Respondent.

Case No. 23STCP00143

RULING ON VERIFIED FIRST

AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDATE
Dept. 82 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin)
Petitioner Californians for Homeownership, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondent City of Beverly Hills to adopt a revised housing element pursuant to Government Code§ 65754.

I. Factual Background
The State of California requires each city to have a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development" of the city. (Gov. Code§ 65300.)1 Each general plan must have a housing element.(§ 65302(c).) The housing element consists of 'standards and plans for housing sites in the municipality that 'shall endeavor to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.' [Citations.]" (California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, 444; see also § 65580 [legislative findings concerning housing element law].)
"A municipality must review its housing element for the appropriateness of its housing goals, objectives, and policies and must revise the housing element in accordance with a statutory schedule." (Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 222, citing§ 65588(a), (b).) "The interval between the due dates for 1 All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise specified.
1 the revised housing element is referred to as a planning period or cycle, which usually is eight years." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 222, citing§ 65588(e)(3), (f)(l).) "A revised housing element's assessment of needs must quantify the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, which includes the locality's proportionate share of regional housing needs for each income level." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing § 65583(a)(l).) "The projected regional housing needs for a planning period are determined by the HCD [Department of Housing and Community Development] in consultation with regional 'councils of government."' (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing§§ 65584(a) & (b), 65584.01, 65588(e)(3).) "Based on the HCD's regional housing needs determination, each regional council of governments adopts a 'final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need' among the cities and counties within its region." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing§ 65584(b).) For the 2021-2029 planning period, the City Council of respondent City of Beverly Hills ("City") adopted a housing element on October 12, 2021 and submitted it for review to HCD. (JR 776.) On January 14, 2022, HCD determined that the · housing element did not fully comply with the housing element law and provided necessary revisions. (JR 1309-16.)
On September 28, 2022, the City submitted a revised housing element to HCD. (JR 776.) On November 28, 2022, HCD determined that the revised housing element did not fully comply with the housing element law and provided necessary revisions. (JR 1318-24.)
On February 21, 2023, after having revised the September 2022 housing element, the City adopted the revision. (JR 5.) On February 21, 2023, petitioner • Californians for Homeownership, Inc., who monitors local compliance with the housing element law, sent a letter to the City asserting that the revised housing element was inadequate for reasons identified by HCD and petitioner. (JR 1584-85.) On May 12, 2023, HCD determined that the housing element does not substantially comply with housing element law. (RJN Ex. B.)
II. Procedural History
On January 18, 2023, petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of mandate.

On May 24, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, petitioner filed a verified first amended petitioner for writ of mandate.

On June 22, 2023, during the trial setting conference, the Court set the hearing on the instant petition for September 12, 2023.

On July 14, 2023, petitioner filed an opening brief. On August 15, 2023, respondent filed an opposition. On August 31, 2023, petitioner filed a reply. 2 III. Request for Judicial Notice
Petitioner's requests for judicial notice are ruled on as follows:
• Exhibit A (September 15, 2017 Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 1397 (2017- 2018 Session))- GRANTED (Evid. Code§ 452(c); Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742, 751, fn. 4)
• Exhibit B (May 12, 2023 Letter from HCD to City) - GRANTED (Evid. Code § 452(c))
• Exhibit C (Staff Report for June 22, 2023 Meeting of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit D (Minutes of June 22, 2023 Meeting of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit E (Resolution No. 1907 of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit F (2022 Form 10-K for Creative Media & Community Trust Corporation (Excerpts)) - DENIED
• Exhibit G (June 10, 2020 Memorandum of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, Entitled "Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook")- GRANTED (Evid. Code§ 452(c))
• Exhibit H (City of Gardena's 2021-2029 Housing Element, Table C-1) - GRANTED (Evid. Code § 452(c))
With respect to denying the request for judicial notice of Exhibits C, D, E, and F, the Court notes these exhibits are extra-record evidence petitioner presents to demonstrate that certain sites listed in the sites inventory of the housing element are improperly included. For the reason stated in section V.C below, this is improper.

The exhibits are accordingly irrelevant. (Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 ["Although a court may judicially notice a variety of matters (Evid. Code, § 450 et seq.), only relevant material may be noticed"].) IV. Standard of Review
CCP § 1085(a) provides: "A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to 3 which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person."
"Any action brought by any interested party to review the conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the court's review of compliance with the provisions of this article shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of this article."(§ 65587(b); see also§ 65751.) Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 237, internal citations omitted.) "[A] city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative enactment, something which is generally entitled to some deference." (Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191.) "If the municipality has substantially complied with statutory requirements, we will not interfere with its legislative action, unless that action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support." (Ibid.) The challenging party has the burden to demonstrate that the housing element is inadequate. (Ibid.)
V. Analysis
A. This Dispute is Not Moot
As a preliminary matter, respondent asserts that the City anticipates adopting a revised housing element in November of this year to address concerns about the current housing element. (Wiener Deel. ,r 2.) However, there is no guarantee that a .revision will be completed by November or that the City will adopt a revision at that time, or at any time thereafter. The Court can only rule based on the current housing element. The instant petition is entitled to preference. (§ 65752.) Further, if the Court were to enter judgment in favor of petitioner, the housing element law provides deadlines for the City to address the deficiencies in the housing element and to submit the revision to HCD. (§ 65754(a).) If respondent were to appeal, the appeal would be given preference also. (§ 65752.) Accordingly, there is no reason to delay ruling on the merits of the operative first amended petition.

B. Whether Sites Inventory Meets Statutory Requirements

1. Realistic Development Capacity
The inventory in a housing element must "specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing." (§ 65583.2(c).) For a city that does not require a 4 minimum residential density, 2 the city "shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for [each] site ... will be accommodated." (§ 65583.2(c)(l).) As part of the calculation," [t]he number of units calculated ... shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities." (§ 65583.2(c)(2).) An "assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs" shall include an "analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels ... including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development." (§ 65583(a)(5).)
To demonstrate that its inventory is adequate, respondent relies on a Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("Overlay Zone") adopted by ordinance on November 17, 2020, where the maximum residential density within the zone was increased from O in commercial areas to 79.2 units/acre. (JR 200, 209.) The Overlay Zone spans the length of the City from east to west and partially north to south, along its largest commercial corridors, including Wilshire Boulevard, Robertson Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, South Doheny Drive, and South Beverly Drive. (JR 125; see also JR 213 [map of Overlay Zone].) In the housing element, the City describes the purported benefits of the Overlay Zone: "This wide-scale rezoning allows for the creation or conversion of non-residential space into residential units, and therefore will create all net new housing, since it does not involve the displacernent of any existing occupied housing/residents." (JR 125.)
Respondent argues that the maximum residential density exceeds the minimum 30 units per acre that is statutorily deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income individuals. (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv).) Respondent also argues that existing commercial buildings in the Overlay Zone may obtain a permit to convert to a mixed-use building and obtain relief from having to comply with standards concerning parking requirements, loading facilities, outdoor living space, commercial-residential transitional setbacks, or height limits if compliance is physically infeasible. (JR 1636; see also Chen Deel. Ex. G [Beverly Hills Municipal Code ("BMMC") § 10-3-1888].) The vacancy rates for commercial buildings also purportedly create an incentive for commercial building owners to convert their buildings to mixed-use projects. (JR 201.)
2 It is undisputed Beverly Hills does not mandate a minimum residential density.
5 For commercial properties listed in the sites inventory of the housing element that were designated for conversion or indicated as having conversion potential (JR 229-34), to calculate the total number of units on the site, the City multiplied the total parcel size by the maximum allowable residential density.3 However, the total parcel size listed in the sites inventory refers to land area, not the square footage of ·the existing building that can accommodate residential units. Contrary to respondent's contention, the sites inventory does not account for floor area capacity; the sites inventory lists the height limit of the building, not the number of stories to be converted to residential use. (See, e.g., JR 229 [column name is "Height Limit (stories)," 233 [8500 Wilshire Blvd. described as "8 story building- conversion," but height limit is 3 stories].) As a result, for buildings to be converted to mixed use, the housing element does not demonstrate how the number of units indicated in the sites inventory will be accommodated, as required by section 65583.2(c)(l).

Moreover, as petitioner points out in the reply, most of the sites in the City's sites inventory are not designated as conversions or potential conversions. (JR 229-

34.) For sites not indicated as conversions, any construction of residential units is subject to land use and building controls. For example, multi-family developments are subject to height limits from three to five stories. (JR 153-54.) Any building in the Overlay Zone must include commercial uses on the ground floor, and residential uses on the first floor within the first 40 feet from the street are prohibited. (BMMC §§ 10- 3-1877(C), 10-3-1879.) Moreover, each multi-family development must have at least 200 square feet for each dwelling unit, excluding front yards, balconies, and pedestrian accessways. (BHMC §§ 10-3-1886, 10-3-2803.)
The sites inventory contains no adjustment based on land use controls for new construction, as required by section 65583.2(c)(2). Rather, like the sites designated as conversions, the number of units for each site is calculated based on the land area multiplied by the maximum residential density. Moreover, the housing element contains no meaningful consideration and analysis of the governmental constraints on the development of housing, as required by § 65583(a)(5). Rather, the City relies on prior approved and proposed developments in arguing in conclusory fashion that "the current standards are not inhibiting development of housing." (JR 158-159, 203-

04.) Accordingly, the housing element, including the sites inventory, fails to account for the realistic development capacity for the sites listed in the inventory.

With respect to respondent's contention that the maximum residential density exceeds the density set forth in section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), this only means that the 3 For example, for 8730 Wilshire Blvd., the parcel size is 11,863 square feet. (JR 233.) There are 1/43,560 acres in one square foot. (See https://www.britannica.com/science/acre-unit-of-measurement [43,560 square feet in 1 acre].) 11,863 square feet multiplied by 1/43,560 acre per square foot is 0.27 acres.

0.27 acres multiplied by 79.2 units per acre is approximately 21 units. 6 City does not have to provide an analysis demonstrating how its adopted density accommodates its share of the regional housing need for lower income households. (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(A-B).) However, the City still must adjust the number of units for each site based on the realistic development capacity of the site under section 65583.2(c)(l) and (c)(2) and provide an "analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the ... development of housing for all income levels" under section 65583(a)(5).

Petitioner also argues that the City designated the majority of the sites on the sites inventory as 100% low-income or 100% moderate-income housing without explaining the basis for such designation. (OB at 10:6-7.) Petitioner further argues that the City did not adjust the unit counts based on "typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction," as required by section 65583.2(c)(2). (OB 10:7-8.) Petitioner, however, does not reference any statute that requires an explanation for the basis for the low-income or moderate-income housing designation. The housing element law only requires that the City specify "the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing" and demonstrate "how the number of units determined for that site ... will be accommodated." (§ 65583.2(c), (c)(l).) The sites inventory indicates the total number of units for each site. (JR 229 ["Total Units" column].) By indicating the number of units that are designated as low-income or moderate-income housing, the City also indicates "whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing [or] moderate-income housing." (JR 229 ["Lower" and "Mod" columns].) While the City did not explain how the total number of units will be accommodated for the reasons stated above, the designation of housing as low-income or moderate-income is not deficient.

Nevertheless, it is not apparent from the sites inventory whether the City adjusted the numbers for low-income and moderate-income housing based on "typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction." (§ 65583.2(c)(2).) By multiplying the land area by the maximum residential density of 79.2 units per acre and designating all housing as low- or moderate-income housing, the City assumes that all units built on the site will be low-income or moderate-income housing. The City does not account for the possibility that only a certain percentage of the housing on the site will be designated for residents with low- or moderate-income. A revised housing element would need to contain an adjustment based on typical densities at similar affordability levels.

In sum, with respect to realistic development capacity, the housing element is deficient for the following reasons: (1) for conversions, the sites inventory calculates the total number of units based on a product ofland area and the maximum residential density without accounting for the floor area of the building; (2) the sites 7 inventory does not contain any adjustments based on land use controls for new construction; (3) the housing element contains no analysis of the governmental constraints on the development of housing; and (4) the sites inventory does not contain any adjustments based on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at similar affordability levels in the City.

2. Nonvacant Sites
For nonvacant sites, the housing element law imposes the following additional requirement:
[T]he city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.
(§ 65583.2(g)(l).)
Petitioner argues that the City does not explain how its methodology relates to the sites it has included or excluded in the sites inventory. For underutilized nonvacant sites, respondent explains that it selected sites that were more likely to be redeveloped or converted based on evidence of a lack of investment in the property, such as a lack of maintenance or lack of recent upgrades and improvements; parcels with underutilized improvements; and parcels with existing commercial buildings that are higher than 3 stories but whose floor plan is conducive to residential conversion. (JR 202-03, 210-11.) Respondent also explains that existing uses do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because the creation of the Overlay Zone creates opportunities for residential development; conversion from non-residential to residential use costs less than new construction; and high residential property values in the City create financial incentives for residential development. (JR 209-10.) However, respondent discusses its methodology for determining development potential generally, without engaging in any site-specific analysis.

Respondent contends that it need not engage in an analysis of the methodology of the development potential for each site. The Court disagrees. Section 8 65583.2(g)(l) states that, for nonvacant sites, "the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential." Reading the subdivision as a whole, the City is required to provide an explanation of the methodology for each site in the sites inventory. Among the factors that the methodology must consider are "the current market demand for the existing use" and "an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development." (§ 65583.2(g)(l).) These factors necessarily relate to specific sites and cannot be discussed generally. Because the Legislature included these factors, the Legislature surely intended that the City provide "an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential" for each site.

Without a site-specific analysis, it is unclear how the methodology was applied. For example, as petitioner points out in the opening brief, the City purports to have excluded commercial buildings that contained medical uses and car dealerships from the sites inventory. (JR 210.) However, the sites inventory includes medical buildings and car dealerships. (See, e.g., JR 229-30 [153 S. Doheny Dr., 239 S. La Cienega Blvd., 8833 W. Olympic Blvd., 8845 W. Olympic Blvd., 9134 W.

Olympic Blvd.].) The City does not explain how the existing use does not serve as an impediment to residential development.

For the foregoing reasons, with respect to section 65583.2(g)(l), the housing element is deficient because the City did not provide an explanation of the · methodology used to determine the development potential for each site, including a discussion of the factors probative of likelihood of redevelopment set forth in section 65583.2(g)(l).

Further, the sites inventory shows that the City is meeting all of its share of the need for lower-income housing through nonvacant sites. Accordingly, section 65583.2(g)(2), quoted below, is implicated: •
In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
(§ 65583.2(g)(2).)
• 9
For nonvacant sites, the "Field Notes/Existing Conditions & Analysis for Keeping/Removing" column in the sites inventory only indicates the existing use of the site and whether the site is designated for conversion or has conversion potential. (JR 229-34.) The City does not engage in any discussion of occupancy rates, lease terms, viability of the business operating at the sites. Nor does the City present any other discussion demonstrating that the existing use for each site "does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element."(§ 65583.2(g)(2).) Without any evidence concerning the existing use of each site, the existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development. (Ibid.)
Respondent maintains that Culver City and Gardena obtained HCD approval based on a chart similar to its sites inventory. However, unlike Beverly Hills, Gardena's sites inventory sets forth the existing use of each site and why the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. (Reply RJN Ex. B; cf.

Chen Deel. Ex.Bat 71 [listing criteria used in selection of sites].) With respect to Culver City, the sites inventory does not set forth the reason why the existing use is likely to be discontinued. (Chen Deel. Ex. A at Appendix B.) However, elsewhere in the housing element, Culver City discusses sites that present opportunities for development based on positive responses from property owners and developers. (Chen Deel. Ex. A at B-9 to B-10.) Unlike Beverly Hills, Culver City discussed how the existing use at certain sites would not impede residential development. Beverly Hills did not engage in any site-specific analysis concerning how the existing use would not impede additional residential development.

Respondent contends that the Court of Appeal in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193 determined that no site-specific analysis concerning the methodology used to determine development potential and additional development factors is required. This is not quite accurate. In Martinez, the Court of Appeal found that section 65583.2(g)(l) "does not mandate the City 'specify the additional development potential for each [nonvacant] site within the planning period and ... provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential' in the housing element itself." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 248-49, emphasis added.) While specification of the additional development potential for each site does not have to be part of the housing element, the City still must demonstrate the additional development potential for each site. In Martinez, for example, the City of Clovis provided evidence outside of the housing element to demonstrate the development potential of a nonvacant site. (Id. at 249-51.) Here, there is no analysis of the additional development potential for each site listed in the sites inventory in the housing element or elsewhere. Further, the housing element does not contain findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses of nonvacant sites are likely to be discontinued, as required by section 65583.2(g)(2) .•
10 In sum, with respect to nonvacant sites, the housing element is deficient for the following reasons: (1) the City did not provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential for each site in the sites inventory, including a discussion of the factors probative of likelihood of redevelopment set forth in section 65583.2(g)(l); and (2) the City fails to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the existing use for each site in the sites inventory does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element.

C. Specific Sites
Petitioner also contends that certain sites were improperly included in the sites inventory. (OB at 15:6-17:1.) Petitioner maintains that the City did not make the findings based on substantial evidence that are required to rebut the presumption under section 65583.2(g)(2) that the existing use will impede additional residential development. (Reply at 4:13-14.)
However, in contending that additional residential development is not possible on certain sites, petitioner relies on extra-record evidence. For example, for 55 North La Cienega, the sites inventory indicates that the property will have 70 low-income units. (JR 229.) However, petitioner presents a Planning Commission Report and meeting minutes to assert that the City's Planning Commission approved development on the site with only 11 units of very low-income housing. (Gelfand Deel. Exs. C at 1, D at 3-4.)
"[W]here the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence." (Cinema West, LLC v. Baker (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 194, 208.) Petitioner cannot challenge the inclusion of sites in the inventory based on extra-record evidence.

Ironically, petitioner would have the Court consider the propriety of certain sites based on extra-record evidence, but then bar respondent from presenting extrarecord evidence to rebut petitioner's argument. (Reply at 4:18-5:13.) With respect to sites which petitioner contends are unlikely to disappear based on their existing use (OB at 16:21-17:2; JR 1557-58), the Court already finds that respondent did not make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use for each nonvacant site in the sites inventory is likely to be discontinued. The City must make such findings in revising the housing element. 11 VI. Conclusion
The petition is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), petitioner shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment and proposed writ of mandate. •
Date: September 12, 2023 ,t:::_::_ HON. CURTIS A. KIN
12 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.

From: Thomas A. White
To: CommentPC
Subject: Comment on Agenda Item 1 (Burton Way), Planning Commission Meeting of October 29th, 2025.

Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025 1:45:30 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Planning Commission Members –
On behalf of the Municipal League of Beverly Hills, we compliment the Commission majority on its vote to disapprove the pending Burton Way project, and fully support Beverly Hills residents to preserve their quality of life and our collective rejection of building and population overdensification in our City.

Accordingly, please approve the Draft Resolution before you this afternoon.

Thank you.

The Municipal League of Beverly Hills
by: Thomas A. White
Chairman
Board of Governors

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
October 28, 2025
Michael Forbes
Director of Community Development
City of Beverly Hills
Via: [email protected]
455 N Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Dear Michael Forbes:

RE: City of Beverly Hills – 8844 Burton Way – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is aware that the Beverly Hills Planning Commission will be considering the proposed project at 8844 Burton Way (“Project”) on October 29, 2025. This letter serves to remind the City of its obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and specifically the requirements for making findings of denial. It should be noted that a previous Notice of Violation (NOV) dated December 2, 2024, was sent to the City on this project – and several others – but highlighted separate issues.1 HCD commends the City on adhering to HCD guidance and subsequently accepting the application.

Background
HCD understands that the Project proposes constructing 200 units on the site, of which 22 units will be restricted to low-income households. The project site is located within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and has a General Plan designation of MultiFamily Residential – High Density. The preliminary application for the project was filed pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provisions of Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (d)(5), as the City did not have a compliant housing element at the time of application submittal on December 23, 2023. A full development application was then submitted on March 25, 2024. The original application submittal was deemed complete on January 10, 2025, with a revised version deemed complete on July 31, 2025. The revision did not change the overall unit count but did include modifications to height (expanding from 20 to 26 stories) and number of affordable units (reducing from 40 to 1 These issues included the inability for the City to require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for an application qualifying under Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5), as well as the ability for an application to maintain vesting through multiple 90-day review periods as defined in Gov. Code, § 65941.1, subd. (d)(2).

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

Page 2 ends

22 units). The reduction in affordable units is consistent with the updated affordability requirements under Assembly Bill 1893.
2 The Project also qualified under State Density
Bonus Law (SDBL) and applied for several waivers and concessions, including reduced setbacks and parking dimensions, as well as the aforementioned increase in height.

Analysis
HCD understands that the Planning Commission may be contemplating making findings of denial based on inadequate dispersal of affordable units and impacts to health and safety.

Below, HCD addresses these issues and reminds the City of the requirements of making such findings for a project qualifying under the HAA. Because the Project is a builder’s remedy project, it qualifies as “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.”3 The HAA provides that a local agency may not disapprove such housing or condition approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible unless it makes appropriate findings, “based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record….”4 Dispersal of Affordable Units
The HAA and SDBL do not contain specific dispersal requirements. However, Health and Safety Code section 17929 provides that a project is required to disperse affordable units on more than one floor. Section 17929 also requires that a mixed-income multifamily structure provide occupants of the affordable housing units and occupants of the marketrate housing units with equal access to common entrances, areas, and amenities. While these are the minimum requirements, state law does not prohibit a jurisdiction from adopting regulations or setting forth conditions of approval that require more expansive dispersal requirements.

HCD applauds the Planning Commission’s motivation to enhance equity for future residents, but dispersal requirements that are not required by state law and not found in the City’s objective standards cannot serve as a basis for denial.5 Instead, the City may consider working with the applicant to condition approval on improving dispersal as long as the condition does not render the project infeasible.6 In fact, HCD understands that the applicant is willing to further disperse the affordable housing units. 2 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(3)(C).
3 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(11)(A). See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(11) for the definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.” 4 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d).
5 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(6)(A). See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(9) for the definition of “objective.”
6 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d). See also Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (h)(12) for the definition of “condition approval.”
Michael Forbes, Director of Community Development, City of Beverly Hills

Page 3 ends

Impacts to Health and Safety
HCD is aware that the City also raised concerns of impacts to public health and safety for the Project at the October 21, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. However, a housing development project qualifying under the HAA that meets all objective standards7 (except those lawfully modified via SDBL concessions and waivers) may only be denied if the City makes written findings, supported by a preponderance of evidence on the record, that (1) a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety would result and (2) mitigation of the adverse impact is not possible.
8 The HAA defines a “specific, adverse impact” as a
“significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.”9
HCD understands the two main concerns related to impacts to health and safety are traffic impacts and emergency services access due to the height of the building. However, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was prepared for the Project to evaluate level of service (LOS) impacts during peak hours at signalized intersections. The LTA determined that increases in intersection delays at relevant intersections are not expected to exceed the City’s operations criteria and that the Project is not expected to substantially or adversely increase delays at any of the study intersections.10 In other words, there is no “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact” related to traffic found in the study or any submitted materials.

Similarly, HCD is not aware of any evidence in the record that would suggest that emergency access to all floors of the building would be an issue. As a reminder, “the burden of proof shall be on the local legislative body” to make the findings contained in subdivision (d) of the HAA.11 Without such documentation, there is not sufficient evidence to support making the findings of denial. Furthermore, City staff already confirmed as much in the October 21, 2025 Planning Commission Report, stating that “there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to make the necessary findings in the HAA as grounds to deny the project.”
Conclusion
The Planning Commission should be mindful of the stringent requirements for making findings of denial under the HAA as it considers the Project. If the Planning Commission is 7 The Project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project under the HAA and, according to the October 21, 2025, Planning Commission Report, is consistent with objective standards in the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code.
8 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).
9 Id.
10 Beverly Hills Planning Commission Report (October 21, 2025), available at https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=57&clip_id=10544&meta_id=656582. 11 Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (i).

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

Page 4 ends

unable to meet these requirements, HCD urges the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the Project at the proposed density, with the proposed concessions and waivers. The City may request further dispersal requirements but should do so, at most, as a condition of approval.

Additionally, HCD reminds the City of its enforcement authority over the HAA, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions to determine consistency with these laws. If HCD finds that a jurisdiction’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of state law.

If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Bentley Regehr at [email protected].

Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Sigal Bussel
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 1:45 AM
To: CommentPC; Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Written Public Comments - 8844 Burton Way - Wed 11/5/2025 (EMAIL 1 of 2) [Some people who received this message don't oen 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 Members of the Planning Commission,
I am wri$ng to urge the Commission to uphold its decision to deny the proposed 26-story development at 8844 Burton Way. I am a lifelong Beverly Hills resident who grew up in this community and lives near the proposed project. My parents, now in their late-80s, live just a short distance away as well. I am deeply concerned about the impact this development would have on the safety and quality of life of my parents and the many seniors who call this neighborhood home.

Our area carries a significant senior popula$on. The proposed site sits in the heart of one of the city’s most senior-dense neighborhoods, surrounded by assisted living communi$es and residen$al buildings with elderly popula$ons. Within a two-block radius of the proposed 8844 Burton Way development are several assisted living communi$es, including: The Pinnacles at Burton - North (8757 Burton Way), The Pinnacles at Burton - South (8750 Burton Way), The Watermark at Beverly Hills (220 N. Clark Dr.), and the planned 55 unit assisted living facility the Margaux Beverly Hills (244–256 N. Clark Dr.). A short distance away on Crescent Drive is also Sunrise of Beverly Hills (201 N. Crescent Dr.) and the Beverly Hills Senior Housing (225 N. Crescent Dr.) These facili$es, along with the significant senior popula$on in the surrounding residen$al buildings, depend on rapid access to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, located just over half a mile away. The impact of this project would directly affect emergency response $mes and access to cri$cal medical care for these residents.

Burton Way and Robertson Boulevard are primary emergency corridors for ambulances and fire response traveling between the west side of Beverly Hills and Cedars Sinai. Unfortunately, the traffic along Burton Way and Robertson has become increasingly unbearable. What used to be a three-minute drive to my parents’ home can now take over 15 minutes in late aernoons. Between October 22 and November 4, 2025, I documented recurring traffic conges$on along Burton Way. These photos, included in Appendix A, illustrate consistent gridlock, oen extending through intersec$ons and blocking turning lanes. I also include in Appendix B photographs of emergency vehicles responding to calls at 300 N.

Swall Drive, 200 N. Swall Drive, and The Pinnacles at Burton. These images demonstrate that emergency ac$vity in the area is not hypothe$cal — it is a daily occurrence. The number and frequency of 9-1-1 emergency vehicle responses in this area should be readily available from both the City of Beverly Hills and the City of Los Angeles. Also, there have been numerous accidents at the two nearest intersec$ons – Burton Way & La Peer and Burton Way & Robertson. Some of these accidents have been documented and there is also correspondence with the City about the accidents at these intersec$ons in recent years.

Adding a high-density, 26-story building in this loca$on will increase vehicle volume and intensify delays for ambulances and fire engines a
emp$ng to navigate Burton Way and Robertson to reach Cedars-Sinai Hospital. In an emergency, even a two- or three-minute delay can be life threatening and adversely determine outcomes for cardiac or stroke-related incidents.
2 In conclusion, the issue here is not one of opposi$on to housing or growth — it is about ensuring that development decisions respect the safety and medical needs of exis$ng residents, par$cularly seniors who are already vulnerable.

The Planning Commission’s prior decision to deny this project was well-founded, based on a thorough understanding of the neighborhood context, infrastructure limita$ons, and emergency response reali$es. Upholding that decision reaffirms the City’s commitment to responsible urban planning and community welfare.

I respecMully urge the Commission to uphold its decision to deny the 8844 Burton Way project, protec$ng both the livability and safety of the aging popula$on in our neighborhood.

Thank you for your con$nued service and a
en$on to the health and safety of the residents of Beverly Hills.

Sincerely,
Sigal Bussel
Resident, Beverly Hills

PLEASE FIND THE APPENDICES IN A SEPARATE EMAIL
Appendix A: Traffic Conges$on Documenta$on (Oct 22 – Nov 4, 2025) Appendix B: Emergency Response Documenta$on (300 N. Swall Drive, 200 N. Swall Drive, and The Pinnacles at Burton) 1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Sigal Bussel
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 1:47 AM
To: CommentPC; Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Written Public Comments - 8844 Burton Way - Wed 11/5/2025 (EMAIL 2 of 2 -

APPENDICES)
[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.

A
achments available un$l Dec 5, 2025
A
ached please find appendices for wri
en public comments from Sigal Bussel.

Click to Download
<h
ps://ddec1-0-enctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/click$me/v1/query?url=h ps%3a%2f%2fwww.icloud.com%2fa
achment%2f%3fu%3dh
ps
%253A%252F%252Fcvws.icloud%2dcontent.com%252FB%252FASld1$zYkiV%2dBTP5QBd788n5LShAZrXJ1hVTWrGh2ncy 58Pk%5fmcr3k%5f%252F%2524%257Bf%257D%253Fo%253DAkG4rR4SCk0cu8IFiagZYYLGukcbwHS%5f2jktF2HVs3WM%2 526v%253D1%2526x%253D3%2526a%253DCAogBSfFSD9yAD4JoA7P2y7ceGEs2wnxp4mUYQWWLA8KctESdhC%2d4qabp TMYvvKh764zIgEAKgkC6AMA%5fwSz9flSBCRtKFaBJyveT9qJfvqzgWJTue3sSuOlWmfJ3gNhIEAU%5S%5f3fGRKBWM8lY1d 119jmRyJb7NmegYbGM8Jr%5fNUUDlAr6JN6Gy5pj0dZaQCkux9WlhL1JGgrI%2526e%253D1764928026%2526fl%253D%2 526r%253D95C025E8%2d5521%2d4942%2d80CA%2dBDC5D14096DB%2d1%2526k%253D%2524%257Buk%257D%2526 ckc%253Dcom.apple.largea
achment%2526ckz%253D6FF1361E%2d5E4E%2d47CB%2d8D32%2d35EA46AD450D%2526p %253D179%2526s%253DvYY9aHTAbJT9bRC5mjwpBx0PvFE%26uk%3djNb23PTXhwen%5fRYGCaD%5fPg%26f%3dBH%5fL e
er%2520Re%25208844%2520Burton%5fAppendix%2520A%2520FNL.zip%26sz%3d23366640&umid=7b597167-4b01- 43c5-8129-8e7882407c28&rct=1762336030&auth=6589424f4a292f7f8607aebfa0d130ef683d309c363f65403663997a87b1b90d22d4f514cU148e>BH_Le er Re 8844 Burton_Appendix A FNL.zip

23.4 MB
Click to Download
<h
ps://ddec1-0-enctp.trendmicro.com:443/wis/click$me/v1/query?url=h ps%3a%2f%2fwww.icloud.com%2fa
achment%2f%3fu%3dh
ps
%253A%252F%252Fcvws.icloud%2dcontent.com%252FB%252FATo5DT0ptJBAzbYqg9WTgKqvIH6WAdtI1PPhMZ12nrLRlm 1d9YOfxr30%252F%2524%257Bf%257D%253Fo%253DAo%2dd7hS9JsDFcNFAcP6SIol9t%5fX%5fqL1rx7I5pA%2dbkhRD%2 526v%253D1%2526x%253D3%2526a%253DCAogaIB0kE3dgxKXkAmT60I4nS4UmlDs80CXU5LHxG%2dMLASdhCt4aabpT MYrfGh764zIgEAKgkC6AMA%5f337yKZSBK8gfpZaBJ%5fGvfRqJZ3%2dbAzdualNmhO7LjhVKw2S1gMiEzbYzR55BKudgYh1H axek%5f5yJUaaeHbKXtEbA5qToon%5f5WEUyHkZce2yeJQoWhRwnxDgfdosfQY%2526e%253D1764928026%2526fl%253D %2526r%253DE8982F8C%2d7CE9%2d44CB%2d9649%2d3D3125295716%2d1%2526k%253D%2524%257Buk%257D%25 26ckc%253Dcom.apple.largea
achment%2526ckz%253D6FF1361E%2d5E4E%2d47CB%2d8D32%2d35EA46AD450D%252 6p%253D179%2526s%253DI%2drHXRPiGvG8f1iRaIKmTdPXx0%26uk%3d6UAs2jI71DeZpXOhGOujkw%26f%3dBH%5fLe

er%2520Re%25208844%2520Burton%5fAppendix%2520B.zip%26sz%3d7327637&umid=7b597167-4b01-43c5-8129- 8e7882407c28&rct=1762336030&auth=6589424f4a292f7f8607aebfa0d130ef683d309ce7fa35d04eccdd6744fe57d0f80d9ccc93f79362>BH_Le er Re 8844 Burton_Appendix B.zip

7.3 MB=

APPENDIX A
Traffic Congestion Documentation (Oct 22 – Nov 4, 2025) The following photographs were taken at the corner of Burton Way and N. Swall Drive next to the proposed development at 8844 Burton Way.

APPENDIX B
Emergency Response Documentation
The following photographs were taken at 300 N. Swall Drive, 200 N. Swall Drive and at the memory care facility The Pinnacles at Burton - North 8757 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.

From: Stephanie Kluft
To: CommentPC
Subject: 8844 Burton Way Project
Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 11:07:22 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
Dear Commissioners,
It has become clear the developers of 8844 Burton Way will change their answers to anything you want to hear in order to get your approval. They have stood before you and outright lied. They have not reached out to the neighborhood and as a resident at 200 N Swall, we have not been contacted and our board has never heard from the developers.

The City of Beverly Hills is failing to meet its burden under Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A), which requires a preponderance of evidence demonstrating whether a housing project would create specific, adverse impacts on public health or safety. Instead of independently investigating evidence of the impact, the City relied entirely on the developer's paid reports — on fire safety, traffic, infrastructure, air quality, and seismic risk — without commissioning a single independent review.

This directly contravenes the established precedent in Honchariw v.

County of Stanislaus (2011), which held that a city must make its own independent findings rather than merely adopting conclusions from studies provided by developers. Similarly, multiple California Renters Legal Advocacy (CaRLA) cases interpreting the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) reaffirm that municipalities must rely on objective, identified, and written development standards, not discretionary staff opinions, as required under Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(1).

Please do more research and conduct an independent study to see the reality of how this will negatively impact our community.

If you are unwilling to do that and this project moves forward, please consider the following conditions:

Limit all public spaces for residents only, not for rent or lease.

Limit delivery times for the building
Require the building to provide a dog park or green space for their pets to not add to the neighborhood
Do not extend any permit parking to staff or residents of the building During construction:

Measure Dust levels and contain them to not filter into the neighborhood Measure and contain Noise levels
Measure vibrations through a structural engineer
Do not allow parking for construction workers on swall, clark or burton way Do not allow construction vehicles or staging of materials on Swall, Clark or Burton Way
thank you
To: Beverly Hills Planning Commission and City Attorney Re: 8844 Burton Way Project - Constitutional Concerns and Evidence of Specific Adverse Impacts
Dear Commissioners and City Attorney,
We are writing to formally present evidence and legal concerns regarding the 8844 Burton Way project that we believe require your immediate attention and independent review before any final decision is made.

We support affordable housing that reflects the law's true intent: serving low- and extremely low-income families, as well as average working families, and providing genuinely affordable homes. The 8844 Burton Way project does the opposite — 89% luxury units, incomplete plans with missing interior walls, worsening 8-minute emergency response times, above-ground parking degrading air quality, and seismic risk. Additionally, Assistant City Attorney mischaracterizations and misinterpretations of state and administrative law have misinformed this Commission and the public record.

These failures are not unique to Beverly Hills; they're symptoms of a statewide pattern of politically driven housing laws that now include SB 158, which revises BR (Government Code Section 65589.5) and is currently facing constitutional challenges.

CITY ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
The City of Beverly Hills is failing to meet its burden under Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A), which requires a preponderance of evidence demonstrating whether a housing project would create specific, adverse impacts on public health or safety. Instead of independently investigating evidence of the impact, the City relied entirely on the developer's paid reports — on fire safety, traffic, infrastructure, air quality, and seismic risk — without commissioning a single independent review.

This directly contravenes the established precedent in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011), which held that a city must make its own independent findings rather than merely adopting conclusions from studies provided by developers. Similarly, multiple California Renters Legal Advocacy (CaRLA) cases interpreting the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) reaffirm that municipalities must rely on objective, identified, and written development standards, not discretionary staff opinions, as required under Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(1).

This abdication of the City's duty undermines the statutory requirement for objective evaluation and the City's fundamental responsibility to protect its residents.

Meanwhile, senior staff overseeing housing compliance have been promoted internally despite the City's delayed Housing Element certification — a delay that left Beverly Hills vulnerable to Builder's Remedy filings for nearly two years. Rather than acknowledging the procedural failures that allowed developers to exploit that gap, City leadership advanced the very staff responsible for those delays into higher management positions. This reflects a culture of self-preservation over accountability — protecting bureaucracy at the expense of residents and public trust.

The City's Housing Element was adopted on March 18, 2024, and formally certified by the state on May 1, 2024, without any revision or modification.

That certification came after the window for filing under the Builder's Remedy had opened, enabling developers to submit projects under relaxed oversight.

The result is a City that protects its bureaucracy over its residents — and a community left vulnerable to the consequences of staff negligence.

LOCAL IMPACT: EMERGENCY RESPONSE, AIR QUALITY, AND

RESIDENT SAFETY
The fire station is less than one mile from this project site in Beverly Hills.

Despite that proximity, emergency response times already fail national safety standards, reaching eight minutes at 4:15 PM on weekdays—double the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 standard of four to six minutes for cardiac emergencies. Transport to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, located just 0.6 miles away, already takes 4-6 minutes in peak traffic.

What happens to emergency transport when a 26-story building with 200 units and 316 parking spaces is dropped into a residential neighborhood of 2-5 story buildings, like docking the Carnival Panorama at Avalon Harbor on Catalina Island? Streets already take 8 minutes for fire response and 4-6 minutes to reach the hospital in peak traffic. How does this massive development not make that worse?
Just down the block from the proposed development are a primary day school, two senior living facilities (with a third planned), where one building alone generated 19 emergency calls requiring paramedics and fire engines year-to-date.

This project will directly and unavoidably worsen these conditions by:
● Adding 200 residential units, generating hundreds of vehicle trips from 316 parking spaces during peak hours
● Blocking the 40-foot emergency access alley for 3+ years during construction
● Permanently converting the alley into a delivery and access thoroughfare post-completion
● Increasing cumulative traffic burden in an area already serving vulnerable populations
● Requiring the City to issue residential parking permits to occupants, oversaturating parking in the immediate vicinity, and further burdening surrounding neighborhoods
Under Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A), cities may deny housing projects that would create "a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety" supported by substantial evidence. As affirmed in Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011), substantial evidence under the Housing Accountability Act requires more than developer-funded reports—it requires objective, independent analysis.

The actual evidence includes:
● 8 minutes current response time (documented)
● Less than 1 mile to fire station (verified)
● 4-6 minutes to Cedars-Sinai in peak traffic (0.6 miles away) ● 19 emergency calls from just ONE building on the adjacent street YTD (documented)
● No independent emergency response analysis (confirmed) INADEQUATE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND ACTUAL CONGESTION:

The developer's traffic study analyzed only Clark Drive and focused solely on intersection delays—it never examined emergency vehicle response times through the four surrounding streets that serve this area: Clark, Swall, Clifton, and Burton Way.

Residents have documented photo and video evidence showing severe existing congestion that the developer's study ignored:
● Traffic is regularly backed up from Doheny Drive to Robertson Boulevard on multiple streets.
● Clifton Way has become an alternate route, with up to 30 cars backed up across multiple stop signs from Swall to Doheny during peak hours.
● Emergency vehicles navigating these streets face delays that the developer's study never analyzed or disclosed
This incomplete analysis fails the "substantial evidence" requirement. The developer cherry-picked one street for analysis, while ignoring the actual congestion on the three surrounding streets that emergency vehicles must navigate. How can the City approve a project based on a traffic study that examines only 25% of the affected street network and ignores emergency response entirely?
We have photo and video evidence documenting these quantifiable impacts that meet the statutory standard—yet the City has commissioned no independent emergency response analysis and no comprehensive traffic study examining all four surrounding streets.

These are not speculative concerns; they are actual risks that the City failed to independently verify. The City Attorney and his Assistant City Attorney, an alleged land use expert, have not properly advised the Commission that this evidence would satisfy the legal standard for denial under state law.

THE INCOMPLETE APPLICATION SCANDAL
The developer hasn't presented complete plans. Penthouse units are shown with no interior walls—described as "tenant customization." Stop right there. This is supposed to be a RENTAL project. Renters don't customize interior walls—luxury CONDO buyers do.

Builder's Remedy 2.0 requires rentals to remain rentals for a period of 55 years. Is the developer banking on that law changing? Are they sending lobbyists to Sacramento right now to shorten that term so they can flip these to condos in a few years? Why else would rental penthouses have no walls for "customization"?
And here's the bigger problem: Entire floors are shown as empty space—no layouts, no specifications. Yet the developer tells the Commission that these floors will have viewing outlooks, workstations, lounge areas, private dining spaces, Pilates studios, yoga studios, and gyms.

Wait—this is supposed to be AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Just 22 affordable units out of 200 total. Why does a building claiming to provide affordable housing have entire empty floors reserved for resort-style luxury amenities that the developer won't even design?
The Commission is being asked to approve blank floors based on the developer's promise of luxury features to be added later. How can fire safety analysis be valid when floor layouts don't exist? This is a luxury building masquerading as affordable housing—and the developer won't even complete the plans to show the full extent of the luxury they're building.

NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING—IT'S LUXURY EXPLOITATION
The developer is building 14 extremely low-income units and 8 moderate-income units—the bare minimum required by law to exploit the Builder's Remedy and gain massive density bonuses. That's 22 affordable units representing just 11% of the project. The remaining 178 units—89% of the total—are luxury market-rate apartments designed to maximize developer profit.

The luxury amenities tell the story: private dining rooms, dedicated workspaces, viewing landings, Pilates and yoga studios, multiple fitness centers, a rooftop pool, BBQ areas, and high-end common areas throughout the building. Parking is charged separately. These features justify premium rents that exclude average-income earners entirely.

What's missing? Housing for middle-income working families—people who make too much to qualify for the 22 affordable units but cannot afford the 178 luxury units. The developer provides the minimum affordable housing required to bypass local zoning regulations, then builds maximum luxury to maximize profit. Working families are shut out completely. ● 22 affordable units (11%) - MINIMUM REQUIRED BY LAW
● 178 luxury units (89%) - MAXIMUM PROFIT
● Middle-income housing: ZERO
● Luxury amenities: EXTENSIVE (Pilates studios, rooftop pool, private dining)

ABOVE-GROUND PARKING DEGRADES AIR QUALITY / ALLEY

CONVERTED TO NEW THOROUGHFARE
The project includes an above-ground parking structure that is not completely enclosed, featuring mechanical lifts for double-stacking vehicles. This parking structure will directly face surrounding residential buildings at the unit level, concentrating vehicle emissions up to approximately 50 feet in the air—directly into neighboring homes, a school across the street, and senior facilities with residents who are vulnerable to respiratory issues.

This is unprecedented in Beverly Hills: To date, all other Builder's Remedy projects have been proposed with subterranean parking, and no other residential buildings in Beverly Hills have open-air above-ground parking structures facing residential units. This design contradicts state housing policy goals of preventing air quality deterioration—yet the City has performed no environmental impact studies on concentrated parking emissions in an area where elderly residents and schoolchildren are directly exposed.

The 40-foot one-way alley behind the project serves as a critical emergency access route for surrounding properties, including senior facilities. During construction (three-plus years), this alley will be blocked with staging equipment and heavy machinery, cutting off emergency vehicle access while response times already exceed safe limits.

However, the impact doesn't end when construction is finished. The developer has stated on the record that post-completion, they intend to utilize this one-way alley for permanent building ingress, egress, and commercial deliveries for the 200-unit tower. This narrow residential alley was never designed to serve as a primary access route for a 26-story building.

The developer's plan will effectively transform a residential alley into an east-to-west thoroughfare—creating an entirely new "street" and cut-through route where none existed before. The cumulative effect:
constant delivery trucks, resident vehicles, service traffic, and through-drivers seeking shortcuts will funnel through a residential alley serving elderly facilities, degrading both air quality and emergency access in perpetuity.

ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY MISINTERPRETED THE LAW OR

INTENTIONALLY MISLED THE COMMISSION
The City Attorney's role is to provide accurate legal counsel to the Planning Commission. Most planning commissioners are not attorneys or land use experts—they rely entirely on the City Attorney's legal guidance to understand their authority under state law.

October 21 Meeting:

At the October 21 meeting, the Assistant City Attorney incorrectly cited the statute governing the Commission's authority to deny a Builder's Remedy project. His misstatement of law suggested the Commission lacked legal grounds for denial when, in fact, the statute explicitly provides the City with legal means to make findings to deny a project based on specific adverse impacts on public health and safety. It was not until an audience member was recognized and corrected the record by explaining the actual statutory language that commissioners learned they possessed the legal authority to deny. The Assistant City Attorney apologized for the error.

This is critical: when the City Attorney misquotes the law, commissioners cannot identify the error and may fail to exercise the legal authority they actually possess, potentially approving a project that the law allows them to deny.

October 29 Meeting:

The Assistant City Attorney failed to clearly advise the Commission on the legal effect of their vote. When commissioners asked what they should vote on, the Assistant City Attorney directed them to vote on directing staff to prepare a resolution of denial, without explicitly explaining to the commissioners or the audience that, under state law, a resolution of denial must be in writing.

By not explaining this critical requirement, the Assistant City Attorney misled commissioners into believing they were voting on denial, when in fact they were merely voting to continue the matter until a written denial resolution could be prepared and presented. A vote to "direct staff to prepare a denial resolution" is legally tantamount to a continuance—not a denial.

Had the Assistant City Attorney properly advised the Commission that their vote was procedurally a continuance and not a substantive denial, the commissioners and the public would have understood the actual legal effect of their action. Instead, his incomplete instruction created confusion about what was actually being decided and misled commissioners about the legal consequences of their vote.

DEVELOPER'S CREDIBILITY DESTROYED
On October 21, the developer stated for the record that redistributing efficiency (studio) affordable units throughout the building would be "economically infeasible." This statement was used to justify concentrating affordable units together on less desirable lower floors and excluding comparable one- and two-bedroom units.

On October 28—just one week later, facing a 4-1 vote toward denial—the developer suddenly submitted revised plans redistributing affordable units up through the 17th floor of the building, doing exactly what they had reported was "economically infeasible." Now, the units were no longer studios but included one and two bedrooms.

When commissioners asked about economic feasibility and how the developer determined what was or wasn't feasible, the developer replied that it was proprietary information—refusing to provide any substantiation for claims that had been used to justify segregating low-income residents.

October 28: The Balcony "Poison Pill"
The developer also demanded clear/translucent balconies instead of the opaque balconies originally proposed. When questioned, the developer threatened the Commission that they would not be able to proceed with the project if the Commission did not approve translucent balconies, calling this their "poison pill." The developer implied that without translucent balconies, they would not be able to build the building economically.

The Pattern:

This proves one of two things: either the developer misled the Commission about infeasibility on October 21 to justify segregating low-income residents and continues to weaponize "economic infeasibility" claims to extract concessions, or the revised project is actually infeasible and won't pencil out financially.

The developer claims economic infeasibility when they don't get what they want, then suddenly finds feasibility when facing denial. They refuse to provide financial substantiation, calling it "proprietary," while using unsubstantiated feasibility claims to manipulate Commission decisions.

Either way, the developer's credibility is questionable.

THE CITY IS REFUSING TO UPHOLD AND PROTECT THE

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF ITS CITIZENS
Each new version — Builder's Remedy 1.0, 2.0, AB 130, AB 131, and now SB 158 — shifts the goalposts to favor developers with political access.

This continual rewriting of law undermines due process, equal protection, and local self-governance under both the California and U.S. Constitutions.

The latest iteration, i.e., SB 158, is part of a broader pattern of politically motivated lawmaking where developers, supported by legislators, keep piggybacking new housing bills and applying them retroactively to projects already underway — including those in Los Angeles County and right here in Beverly Hills.

We are seeing the direct impact locally.

In Beverly Hills, the developer of 8844 Burton Way is revising plans mid-process to align with each new legislative adjustment — taking advantage of Sacramento's evolving statutes to bypass local zoning, environmental review, and safety requirements.

These same retroactive tactics are being used across Los Angeles, eroding community oversight and forcing cities to comply with laws that keep changing after projects are filed.

This is how Sacramento's political maneuvering becomes our local crisis:
laws are rewritten after the fact to benefit well-connected developers while cities like ours lose the ability to protect residents' safety, air quality, and neighborhood character — and more importantly, to provide needed lowand extremely low-cost housing and attainable housing to help alleviate the so-called housing crisis. Developers should not be permitted to build luxury, high-rent towers that average-income earners can't afford. They are building for the wealthy and discriminating against everyone else. This is unconstitutional.

The City Had Viable Alternatives But Failed to Act Responsibly Beverly Hills' own Housing Element, certified by the state in May 2024, identified three city-owned or city-controlled sites that could accommodate 557 low-income housing units: the Credit Union Site at 9268-9298 W Third St., the Gale Yard Sites at 8401-8423 Wilshire Blvd., and the Reeve Metro Site at 9430 Wilshire Blvd. (atop a Metro construction site at Wilshire/La Cienega). The City had direct control over these parcels and could have proactively worked with developers to create appropriate, genuinely affordable housing on city-controlled land with proper planning, infrastructure analysis, and community input. Instead, the City's failure to certify its Housing Element for nearly three years left Beverly Hills vulnerable to Builder's Remedy projects that bypass all local controls on private parcels in established residential neighborhoods. The City's own inaction created the crisis and then failed to protect residents from its consequences.

The State cannot keep rewriting the rules retroactively to favor politically connected developers. It is unconstitutional — and Los Angeles and Beverly Hills are now living proof of the damage.

If confirmation were needed that this legislative manipulation has reached an unconstitutional extreme, look to Senate Bill 158.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle (Emily Hoeven, Nov 2025) and federal court filings in The Mission LLC v. State of California et al., SB 158 was drafted so narrowly that it applies to only one housing project in the entire state — a proposed apartment complex in Santa Barbara, within the district of State Senator Monique Limón, who personally acknowledged authoring the provision.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 158 earlier in October, claiming it would "clarify" reforms exempting most urban infill projects from CEQA.

In reality, the bill selectively reinstates CEQA only for projects meeting absurdly specific criteria:
"Cities with more than 85,000 but fewer than 95,000 residents, located in counties with populations between 440,000 and 455,000, and only if the parcel lies within wetlands."
This language has no rational statewide purpose and was written to protect a single district — a clear act of special legislation, prohibited under both the California and U.S. Constitutions.

The developer has now filed suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking declaratory relief and asking the court to rule the law unconstitutional before its effects take effect. Like the developer who has used the BR as a shield, he is now using it as a sword. The City of Beverly Hills should file a constitutional challenge seeking declaratory relief challenging the constitutionality of Builder's Remedy 2.0. The City does not need to wait for actual harm from this building before defending its residents—declaratory relief exists precisely for this purpose.

This is how the City is failing to support residents' rights. The onus should be on the City—not residents—to gather supporting documents, conduct independent analyses, and pursue legal remedies, such as declaratory relief, to protect the community. Residents should not be forced to compile documents, correct misquoted statutes, and build the case for denial that the City itself is obligated to make. Yet the City provides no independent verification, no legal advocacy, and no constitutional protection—instead leaving residents to defend themselves while Builder's Remedy laws override local safety standards and deny residents due process.

APPOINTED VS. ELECTED: WHO DECIDES FOR THE COMMUNITY?
The Planning Commission members who may approve this project are appointed, not elected. They do not answer to voters, yet their decision — if

November 3, 2025
Dear Chair Wolfe and other members of the Planning
Commission:

I am writing to let you know my thoughts on the application for your approval of a massive “residential” structure at 8844 Burton Way (8844).

I know that you are under tremendous pressure to approve given the arguments by the applicant’s talented counsel and by a recent letter from the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). I urge that you resist that pressure.

The nature and background of this project are central to this analysis.

These thoughts may be relevant to other revised Builder’s Remedy projects that present similar issues but have not come before you yet.

The key self-defeating feature of the 8844 application before you is that it proposes to provide far fewer affordable units (twenty-two [22] instead of forty [40]) in a much larger building (twenty-six [26] stories instead of twenty [20]) than this applicant proposed for this site a short time ago.

The California “Builder’s Remedy” law was amended effective January 1, 2025 by AB1893. That amendment lowered
requirements for inclusion of affordable housing but retained the provision that, with some limitations, Builder’s Remedy projects are subject to the City’s written development standards unless exempted from complying with those standards by concessions or waivers. Because there is no basis for waiving the limitations on building height to allow this propoed 26 story building, the application should be denied.

Allow me to explain.

The initial application for this project, consisted of the Preliminary Application submitted on or about December 15, 2023 and was followed by a Development Plan Review application filed on or about March 25, 2024. (The Initial Applications). These Initial Applications proposed a twenty (20) story, two hundred (200) unit project with forty (40) affordable units. The forty (40) affordable units were the minimum that were required by Builder’s Remedy law at the time for a two hundred (200) unit building.

Those Initial Applications were revised on or about March 12, 2025 and the applicant now seeks approval for a 200 unit building but has increased the height to from twenty (20) to twenty-six (26) stories and reduced the number of affordable units from forty (40) units to merely twenty-two (22).

There is a one word explanation for the proposed height increase:

Greed.

Importantly, the application requests that you grant four concessions to vary from Beverly Hills rules and nine waivers of Beverly Hills rules. Not coincidentally, twenty-two (22) affordable units were the minimum required after the enactment of AB 1893 referenced above for approval of a 200 unit building. The application for a 200 unit building with a height of twenty-six (26) stories/over 300’ tall offering the bare minimum number of affordable units is now before you.

I respectfully request that you deny this application for three independently dispositive reasons.

First, the applicant has requested that the City grant four concessions for permissions to vary from City zoning laws and rules and nine waivers of zoning laws. An applicant is entitled to up to five concessions (plus up to two additional concessions under AB1893) which it claims result in “identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents of a project’s affordable housing units.” Further, a Builder’s Remedy applicant is entitled to an unlimited number of waivers from development standards that “have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development at the densities allowed or with the concessions permitted.”
If concessions and waivers were irrelevant to Builder’s Remedy projects as some have argued, such a provision for extra concessions in the case of Builder’s Remedy projects would not have been included.

The applicant is principally relying on the Builder’s Remedy law as modified by AB 1893, particularly as it pertains to the minimum number of affordable units. Notably, even prior to the enactment of AB 1893, the Builder’s Remedy law allowed a City to apply local development standards subject to concessions and waivers.

See California Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(1,2).

A developer providing affordable units is entitled to request concessions or waivers of development standards that would otherwise limit, among other things, project density or height.

We know, from the earlier application that committed to provide forty (40) units in a twenty (20) story building on this 8844 site, that the applicant cannot credibly claim that it is not financially or physically feasible to provide a mere twenty-two (22) units unless it is entitled to build a twenty-six (26) story structure.

In order for the City to grant or deny requests for waivers and concessions, the City bears a burden to show, in substance, that they are not necessary to provide the affordable housing that is offered. Often, that is an insurmountable burden because the City does not have access to and cannot demand that the developer demonstrate, for example, that any of the concessions or waivers are necessary to make the project financially or structurally feasible. Absent such evidence, it is difficult for the City to carry its burden of proof and at least present a prima facie case that the waivers and/or concessions sought are unnecessary.

This situation is different from other proposals that you have reviewed.

Here, the City can carry its burden to show, based on the evidence that the applicant has put in the record, that the extraordinary height is not necessary to make the project financially or physically feasible. Specifically, two of the waivers sought by the applicant are that the City waive the applicable five story/55’ height limit (prescribed by both the zoning rules and General Plan) to allow a building that is twenty-six (26) stories/309’ tall with only twenty-two (22) affordable units.

But we know, based on the applicant’s Initial Applications, that it could financially and physically provide forty (40) affordable units in a twenty (20) story building. Therefore, the applicant clearly doesn’t need an additional six stories to provide only slightly more than half of what it proposed to include in a building six stories shorter.

For that reason alone, the applicant is not entitled to the two requested waivers relating to building height and for that reason the application should be denied.

Moreover, if the applicant needed only twenty (20) stories to provide forty (40) affordable units, it is highly unlikely that twenty (20) stories would be needed to provide the twenty-two (22) affordable units now on offer. Using simple arithmetic, reducing forty (40) affordable units originally proposed for the twenty (20) story building to twenty-two (22) affordable units now proposed should allow a reduction of the number of stories required to eleven (11) without compromising financial or physical feasibility.

It is possible that other concessions or waivers that this applicant is now seeking, such as extending the length of the building or reducing various setbacks, are more aggressive than what would have been needed for the twenty (20) story building. That information was not available to me but I urge you to inquire into it. To the extent that there are such instances, those requests should also be denied for the same reason (they are not needed for financial or physical feasibility).

Second, the construction of a twenty-six (26) story building in this location poses very serious threats to the residents of the area and the City. Various provisions of the California Government Code and the Health & Safety Code also bear on this issue.

Those require denial of applications that pose specific and identifiable adverse impacts on health and safety.

The Commission has received evidence of numerous adverse impacts stemming from the height of the building, unhealthy omissions from the open above ground parking structure that faces existing residences, fire and seismic issues, hazards to numerous elderly residents in the vicinity including two nearby assisted living residences, access to health care at CSMC and other nearby locations.

Other members of the public have identified threats and hazards that this proposal presents. You should give all of these serious consideration.

The Commission also identified the improper concentration of the affordable units and their placement in undesirable locations.

While the applicant insisted that it was not financially feasible to locate the twenty-two (22) affordable units in locations in the building other than initially proposed, it has subsequently changed that tune (and further undermining its credibility) and submitted a variety of proposals for moving them notwithstanding their insistence that relocation was not possible. Who knows where the applicant’s shifting contradictory contentions will settle.

Taken in their totality, these issues require denial of the project.

Third, our Commissioners are not required to and should not subordinate their own judgment about the rules to the opinions of others. The applicant is entitled to its opinions about the law as is HCD (whose input may be discounted as apparently the agency was not informed of the important prior application by the applicant who sought the agency’s letter) and, for that matter, the Beverly Hills City Attorney.

The task of parsing through the maze of the Housing
Accountability Act as amended and further amended is an unusually challenging one. If one looks hard enough, one will find a provision that supports almost everything save for whether the earth is flat. The easy path is to grant the application and avoid litigation and hope that market factors will prevent the insertion of this monolith into a residential neighborhood. But you should not allow that complexity to feel constrained to follow easy answers from advocates who seek to tell you what is required by applicable law.

After all, according to basic principles of jurisprudence, what is or is not the law is simply a prediction about what a particular court will decide about a specific issue. And Yogi Berra taught us that “predictions are risky, especially when they are about the future.” Mr. Berra likely would have noted that principle is particularly applicable in the case of the muddled maze that is the Housing Accountability Act.

As a former Planning Commissioner, I learned a great deal about land use in Beverly Hills. Personally, I regard this proposed structure as so grotesquely out of scale and scope for our community that I cannot believe that construction of this giant building which is demonstrably unnecessary to provide a mere 22 affordable units is what our state legislature intended.

For that reason, coupled with the others stated above, I could not vote to approve this project. I hope that you agree.

Sincerely,
Peter Ostroff

1 Edgar Arroyo
From: Sigal Bussel
Sent: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 1:45 AM
To: CommentPC; Edgar Arroyo
Subject: Written Public Comments - 8844 Burton Way - Wed 11/5/2025 (EMAIL 1 of 2) [Some people who received this message don't oen 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.

I respecMully urge the Commission to uphold its decision to deny the 8844 Burton Way project, protec$ng both the livability and safety of the aging popula$on in our neighborhood.

Thank you for your con$nued service and a
en$on to the health and safety of the residents of Beverly Hills.

Sincerely,
Sigal Bussel
Resident, Beverly Hills

A
achments available un$l Dec 5, 2025
A
ached please find appendices for wri
en public comments from Sigal Bussel.

7.3 MB=

If you are unwilling to do that and this project moves forward, please consider the following conditions:

Limit all public spaces for residents only, not for rent or lease.

Outlook
8844 Burton Way
From Mendel Shusterman
Date Wed 11/5/2025 11:30 AM
To CommentPC <[email protected]>
2 attachments (212 KB)
Outlook-hqw4mos0; Letter for Crescent Heights.pdf;
ב
ס
"
ד
November 5, 2025
Dear commission,
I started our congregation in March of 1979. We have been part of the fabric of Beverly Hills for close to half a century. We believe in the growth of our city and strongly look forward to it.

Crescent Heights is committed to excellence, and we know they have the right values in mind.

We welcome the needed housing into our community and urge you to approve the project.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at or at
should you require any additional information.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Yosef Y. Shusterman
Chabad of Beverly Hills
Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA
בס" ד
November 5, 2025

Dear commission,

I started our congregation in March of 1979. We have been part of the fabric of Beverly Hills for close to half century. We believe in the growth of our city and strongly look forward to it.

Crescent Heights is committed to excellence, and we know they have the right values in mind.

We welcome the needed housing into our community and urge you to approve the project.

Please do not hesitate to contact me at or at
should you require any additional information.

Sincerely,
Rabbi Yosef Y. Shusterman
Chabad of Beverly Hills

Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA
Outlook
8844 Burton Way
From Steven Kelman
Date Wed 11/5/2025 12:37 PM
To CommentPC <[email protected]>
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] ⚠️ CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER ⚠️
Be cautious when clicking links or opening attachments. Verify the sender's email address and be on the lookout for phishing attempts.

To whom it may concern,
I am a long time resident and builder in Beverly Hills I would like to see a beautiful projects adding more housing to our community so that the future generations have place here. This project would be good for the city. I oppose the project that’s going in on Beverlywill/Beverly Drive & Olympic because of the location of the residential and commercial and traffic impact. I hope you listen to my suggestions.

Best,
Steven Kelman
Sent from my iPhone
⚠️ 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.

Outlook
Formal Comment Letter: 8844 Burton Way Project Opposition From
Date Sun 11/9/2025 11:41 AM
To Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]>
1 attachment (193 KB)
8844_Burton_Way_Opposition_Letter_Updated.pdf;
You don't often get email from Learn why this is important Good morning Mr. Arroyo:

Please find attached our Formal Comment Letter regarding the 8844 Burton Way Project Opposition.

The content of the letter speaks for itself. We wish to express our serious concern that this project appears to be rushed under state mandates, with insufficient consideration of the health, safety, and general welfare of existing residents living in immediate proximity to the proposed development.

We urge the City to conduct a comprehensive and transparent evaluation before proceeding further.

Based on our review, we are confident that, under current municipal codes and applicable regulations, this project cannot lawfully qualify for a building permit given the existing conditions of the surrounding streets, traffic congestion, soil stability, and limited infrastructure capacity.

We respectfully request that this correspondence and the attached comment letter be entered into the official public record for this project.

Bruce Houman
From: Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2025 11:01 AM
Cc: Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]>
Subject: 8844 Burton Way: Upcoming Meeting on 10/29/2025 - Report Available Importance: High
You are receiving this message because you have previously expressed interest in the proposed project at 8844 Burton Way.

Good Morning:

On October 21, 2025, the Planning Commission held a meeting to consider the proposed multi-family residential project at 8844 Burton Way. At the meeting, the Commission made a motion to deny the proposed project and directed staff to return with a resolution memorializing their decision for consideration at an upcoming meeting scheduled for Wednesday, October 29, 2025.

As such, the Planning Commission continued the meeting to a specific date and will meet to consider the resolution on Wednesday, October 29, 2025 at 1:30 P.M.

The report for this item is now available on the City’s website using the links provided below. This item is the first project on the agenda, as it continued from a previous meeting.

Agenda:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?event_id=4fe76826-186b-4035-adce1154684873b0 Report:
https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=7830&meta_id=656726 Additional meeting information is included in the meeting agenda, including information on how to participate. Feel free to forward this information to any member of the public who may be interested.

If you have any questions regarding this project, feel free to contact me.

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

The City keeps a copy of all E-mails sent and received for a minimum of 2 years.

All retained E-mails will be treated as a Public Record per the California Public Records Act, and may be subject to disclosure pursuant to the terms, and subject to the exemptions, of that Act.
1 Formal Comment Letter: 8844 Burton Way Project Opposition

BRUCE AND REBECCA HOUMAN
N. Swall Drive.

Beverly Hills, Ca.
10/23/2025
To:

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

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

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

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

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

3. Water Supply and Sewer Infrastructure Deficiency
City data show that portions of the water and storm-drain systems serving this area predate 1940. A 26-story tower with 200 units will overtax local water pressure and sewer capacity. Without upgraded mains and booster systems, the project cannot ensure adequate fire-flow or wastewater handling—posing direct safety and public health risks.

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

5. Storm Drain and Flooding Concerns
Beverly Hills’ storm-drain system is already burdened. Additional impervious surfaces and excavation for underground parking will increase runoff and flood risk. Without clear storm-water retention and treatment measures, this project threatens compliance with state stormwater discharge permits (MS4) and CEQA hydrology thresholds.

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

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

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

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

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

Code and standard compliance (at minimum):
• California Building Code (CBC) Chapters 16, 17, and 18. 4 • ASCE 7 for load combinations and seismic/wind design. • ACI 318 and AISC 360 as applicable for concrete and steel design. • CEQA EIR with detailed Geology/Soils and Construction Risk sections.

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

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

Sincerely,
Bruce Houman
⚠️ 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.

Outlook
Former TEBH / 8844 Burton Way // Fwd: A Request - Burton Way x La Peer, the scene of accidents From Ari Bussel
Date Wed 11/12/2025 2:00 PM
To Edgar Arroyo <[email protected]>
Cc 6-Laurence Wiener <[email protected]>
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important Dear Commissioners,
During the hearings about the former TEBH / 8844 Burton Way proposed 26-story tall building, staff pointed out that the developer conducted a traffic study and concluded there will be no effect on traffic flow or the neighborhood upon completion of 200 more dwelling units. * Is it possible that staff will rely solely on the words of a developer and not conduct a proper study or carry out its own independent analysis? * How is it possible there will be no adverse effect when just the proposed structure will house more than the total number of residents in the 200- and 300- Swall and Clark Drives?
* Should the PC not consider multiple projects in the immediate one block to two block vicinity rather than treat each piecemeal as a standalone? * Is staff even aware that in the afternoon / early evening, traffic comes to a stand still on Burton Way going eastward? * Also, the number of accidents both at La Peer and Burton Way and Robertson and Burton Way, over a period of years, seems to indicate a rooted problem.

Below is one correspondence with the City from 2023.

Just this past Sunday, a multi-car collision resulted in a nine minute wait for the BHFD and Ambulance to arrive. Nine minutes in a City that boasts a maximum of four minute response time anywhere in the City. Nine minutes on a bright Sunday with no traffic.

If we go back a few years before 2023, it was staff, in its infinite wisdom, who noted that accidents at La Peer and Burton Way do not add up to sufficient evidence of anything wrong (but a new arrow for turning was instituted).

Does someone have to die in a collision before something will be done, until someone will take the matter seriously? How severe should injuries be? If the injured is a child or the elderly, would it matter? Commissioner Kaplan was most concerned about the cost of possible litigation (which she quantified at a few thousands of dollars). How about possible lawsuits against the City due to its knowing and apparently ignoring (or dismissing or simply doing nothing re) the accidents that keep happening at Burton Way and La Peer?
And how can one conclude there will be no (adverse) effect on traffic / circulation as a result of a new residential building with hundreds of occupants replacing a two story synagogue with none?
The accident this past Sunday reminds us that the City must protect its residents and cannot rely on statements by interested developers.

There is plethora of written evidence and correspondence over years regarding traffic issues; seemingly exactly as the law requires.

As you continue to consider (and mostly approve) new projects in the rectangle bounded by Wilshire Blvd in the South, Burton Way in the North, Swall Drive in the West and Robertson Blvd in the East, please come for a site-visit. You may “discover” what every user knows:
* traffic going northbound on Robertson (one lane) is horrendous; * traffic going eastbound on Burton Way (two lanes) is standstill; * at times it may take 15 minutes simply to traverse Burton Way along La Peer Drive; * the addition of multiple large-scale projects will impact the area to a point of spillover further around, like concentric circles, for the one lane on Robertson and two lanes on Burton Way are already at capacity and cannot handle additional traffic.

Nine Minutes Response Time to traverse ten blocks on a Sunday with no traffic:

Always,
Ari Bussel
Begin forwarded message:

From: Ari Bussel
Subject: A Request - Burton Way x La Peer, the scene of accidents Date: July 12, 2023 at 5:25:53 PM PDT
To: WebCBH CITYMANAGER <[email protected]>
Dear Nancy,
Several years ago, after witnessing several collisions at the intersection of La Peer and Burton Way, I called the City. The following is not a quote, but the answer (which I seem to remember was - astonishingly - even in writing) stated there was not enough evidence to do anything! Apparently no one was injured badly enough or died to necessitate, to that person’s view, any action - not even a most cursory on-site investigation.

Since that time, a change was instituted: a green arrow for a left turn when driving north or south bound on La Peer Drive. [In line with the answer I previously received, this was a miracle of miracles.] Instead of “solving” the root-cause of the collisions, matters became much worse. Every few weeks, there is another collision.

One involved a car with a male driver and an older asian lady in the passenger seat, on their way to work at their restaurant, where the car completely flipped while turning from Burton Way to La Peer going south. There were many of us who responded, and interestingly, a doctor who lives close by remarked about the very high frequency of such accidents. [My sister followed up with them at the hospital; they were both alive and recovering; glad to be alive.] This took place on the 22nd of November 2022.

Then there was a car that completely flipped going eastbound on Burton Way; and yesterday a “lighter” accident also in the same direction.

These are just three incidents in recent months; there were more. In most, police and fire / paramedics respond, and later a tow-away truck. The police and fire are usually from both LA & BH (yesterday it was only BH). Traffic in one direction is diverted, while the other side becomes a spectator’s sport / viewing platform.

There is something “unique” in this intersection, different from Doheny or Robertson (both are wider) or Willaman or Rexford or Palm or Foothill. La Peer is the narrowest street in the City, and maybe drivers entering or exiting that street are anxious / nervous / angry / apprehensive.

Maybe there is another reason, which an engineer can identify (curvature / angle of turn / something else).

But clearly the left turn arrows now part of two of the lights is neither the cause nor the solution. If anything, the frequency of accidents has increased after its installation (which followed the “there is not enough evidence to support …” amazing response).

The reason would not be careless drivers and disregard to the law, for if that were the case, why at this intersection time after time and not at the very same intersection a few blocks to the east or the west.

May it be possible to have someone professional and experienced inspect the intersection and evaluate, possibly getting to the root cause of what is happening? If one were able to identify correctly the cause, measures could be instituted to minimize or eliminate the collisions at this location (e.g. cameras?).

I can attest that to witness a car flip, call and wait for emergency response and try to excavate people from a car that completely flipped is horrible. Why? Because “these people” could have been me or you, or someone we love. They are not just “strangers” that drove carelessly or disregarded the rules of the road.

Also to hear the “boom” and realize there is yet another accident, happening time after time after time, and remember the smart/wise/idiotic answer “there is not enough evidence to support any need to do anything” reminds us the real need to take action, corrective action if only one can identify the cause.

Thank you very much for having someone look into this request - it may save lives, or at the very least minimize casualties as well as the need for emergency response time after time after time.

Always,
Ari Bussel
Yesterday, 7/11/2023
May 2, 2023

November 23, 2022
[Some of the many firefighters who responded that day were extremely helpful on a different assignment of “HELPING OTHERS AT A TIME OF NEED” - an Amazon driver in need - a congratulatory note was sent to Chief Barton for his people good deed.]

Unagendized Public Comment
Good evening, Mayor and Members of the
Council.

I’m speaking this evening as a resident
regarding the proposed project at 8844 Burton
Way, which was denied by the Planning
Commission and is now the subject of an
appeal by the applicant.

Although this matter is not on tonight’s agenda,
residents believe it is important to raise a
procedural issue now, before an appeal hearing
is scheduled.

Residents intend to appear in opposition to the
developer’s appeal and in support of the
Planning Commission’s denial. To do so
meaningfully, residents must have access to the
full administrative record underlying the City’s
review of the project.

This project is among the largest Builder’s
Remedy proposals the City has confronted, and
it raises complex legal and policy issues with
implications beyond a single site. That scale
and complexity make it especially important that
residents have access to the full record and
adequate time to prepare their response.

For that reason, residents have submitted
Public Records Act requests seeking internal
communications, analyses, and other materials
that relate directly to the evaluation of the
application and the Planning Commission’s
decision.

Until those records are produced, residents are
at a disadvantage in an appeal brought by a
well-resourced applicant who has had
professional teams engaged throughout the
process.

And even once the records are produced,
residents must be afforded sufficient time to
review and evaluate them before an appeal
hearing is calendared. At minimum, that means
time to review the materials in full, consult as
needed to understand their significance, and
prepare an informed response. Because the
scope and volume of the requested records are
not yet known, reasonableness must be tied to
full production of those records and a
meaningful opportunity for review, consistent
with basic due process principles.

Residents therefore respectfully request that,
when the City considers calendaring the
developer’s appeal of 8844 Burton Way, it do so
only after the Public Records Act requests have
been fully responded to and residents have had
reasonable time to review the materials.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

ATTACHMENT 17
Project Plans
JUNE 27, 2025
8844 BURTON WAY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW - REVISION 4
8844 BURTON WAY, BEVERLY HILLS, CA
A01 1/4” = 1’-0”

PROJECT

INFORMATION
727$/
727$/
727$/

&2'(5(48,5('9(+,&8/$53$5.,1*
678',2 3(581,7
81,77<3( 48$17,7< 5(48,5(0(17 727$/
%('5220 3(581,7
678',2
/
3(581,7
%('5220 3(581,7

*8(67 3(581,7
3529,'('9(+,&8/$53$5.,1*
67$1'$5'

7$1'(0
&203$&7

67$&.(5
833(5

67$&.(5
/2:(5

$&&(66,%/(

$&&(66,%/(
9$1

5(48,5('(93$5.,1*63$&(6
(963$&(6 2)3529,'('3$5.,1*
(9&663$&(6 2)3529,'('3$5.,1*
)7:,'($,6/(1(;772
)7:,'((963$&(
48$17,7< 5(48,5(0(17
727$/

727$/
([Iώѱώ(³(a([´ώ[i®ώIb
ia( aIώѱώai"((ώIb
ia(
5(6,'(17,$/81,7&2817

0$5.(7 (/, 0, 678',2 678',2(/, 678',20, 678',2
/
678',2
/
0, %(' %('
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

727$/
727$/
678',2
/

&2'(5(48,5('23(163$&(
81,77<3( 48$17,7< 5(48,5(0(17 727$/

%('5220
678',2
6)3(581,7

23(163$&(&$/&8/$7,21
%('5220
/(9(/ $5($
522)'(&.
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

727$/
*5266%8,/',1*$5($
/(9(/ $5($

522)

72:(5 *$5$*(
72(/(9$725

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/3

/(9(/3
/(9(/3

/(9(/

/(9(/

ALTA SURVEY
A02 1

VICINITY MAP

NO SCALE
BASIS OF BEARINGS:

THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE SIDELINE OF BURTON WAY AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO 7005, M.B. 72-028 AS N 89°53'00" E FLOOD ZONE:

FLOOD ZONE X- AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PLAIN PER FIRM COMMUNITY PANEL NO 06037C1585F DATED 09-26-2008.

SITE AREA:
26,774 SQ. FT.± OR 0.61 ACRES±
GARAGE PARKING SPACES:
79 SPACES

PROPERTY LINE

CENTERLINE
WALL

STREET LIGHT
SIGN

FIRE HYDRANT

BUILDING ROOF LINE

WATER VALVE

WATER METER

STREET LIGHT PULL BOX

SEWER MAN HOLE

EDISON MAN HOLE

FLAG POLE

CLEAN OUT
LEGEND:

JOB NO. 19-5004
SCALE: 1" = 10'
DATE: MAY 16, 2019
DRAFTED: SDN
ROW

LOT LINE
COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE PREPARED BY:

CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
725 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 200, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017, TITLE OFFICER: KARL DALY TEL: (213) 622-4157
ITEMS PER SCHEDULE B OF COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE NO. 00113695-021-JH5-KD, DATED 06-17-2019 ITEM NO. FOR RECORDED DATA
NOTE: THIS CONDENSATION OF SCHEDULE B EXCEPTIONS ITEMS IN THE P.T.R. IS PREPARED FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE PERSONS USING THIS SURVEY.

FOR FULL DETAILS OF TITLE ITEMS, REFER TO THE COMPLETE REPORT AND TO THOSE DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO THEREIN.

SURVEYOR'S NOTE:

CHRIS NELSON & ASSOCIATES HAS RELIED SOLELY ON THE ABOVE-MENTIONED TITLE COMMITMENT NO. 00113695-021-JH5-KD PREPARED BY CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY TO LOCATE TITLE MATTERS SHOWN HEREON UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. CHRIS NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. MAKES NO STATEMENT AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE HEREON REFERENCED TITLE REPORT.

FURTHER ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE ADVISED THAT LIENS, TAXES, C.C. & R'S, TRUST

DEEDS, COUNTY CONDITIONS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, STANDARDS OR POLICIES HAVE

NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THIS SURVEY OTHER THAN AS NOTED HEREON, AND THEN ONLY TO THE EXTENT ADDRESSED HEREON.

NOTES OF SPECIFIC INTEREST
1) MINOR IRRIGATION DEVICES, I.E. SPRINKLERS, PIPING, CONTROLLERS, LANDSCAPE, LOCAL AREA DRAINS AND TIMERS, VALVE BOXES, ETC. EXIST ABOUT THE PROPERTY. SUCH ITEMS

MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SURVEYED AND NO REPRESENTATIONS IS MADE TO THEIR LOCATION OR RELATION TO PROPERTY LINES.

SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT:

TO CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, CH AQUISITIONS 2, LLC AND 8844 BURTON WAY, LLC, AND CITIBANK, N.A.:

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT IS BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 2016 MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR

ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEYS, JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS IN 2016, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 8 AND 9 OF TABLE A THEREOF. THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON MAY 16, 2019.

CHRIS NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC

CHRIS NELSON
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOTS 62, 63, 64, 65, AND 66, OF TRACT NO. 7005, IN THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 72, PAGE 28 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

APN: 4335-020-009
I. TAXES OR ASSESEMENTS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN AS EXISTING LIENS BY THE RECORDS.

II. ANY FACTS, RIGHTS, OR INTERESTS OF CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS.

III. EASEMENTS, LIENS OR ENCUMBRANCES, OR CLAIMS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN IN PUBLIC RECORDS.

IV. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN AREA, ENCROACHMENTS, ETC V. UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS, RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS, WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER.

VI. ANY LIEN OR RIGHT TO LIEN FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR MATERIAL NOT SHOWN BY PUBLIC RECORDS.

VII. DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES, ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS.

A. PROPERTY TAXES, WHICH ARE A LIEN NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2019-2020.

B. THE LIEN OF SUPPLEMENTAL OR ESCAPED ASSESSMENTS OF PROPERTY TAXES, IF ANY

1. WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER, WHETHER OR NOT DISCLOSED BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.

2. COVENANT (ATTENDANT PARKING) JULY 20, 1962, INST. NO. 4377, O.R.

3. COVENANT (FOR USE OF SUBSIDEWALK SPACE) JULY 20, 1962, INST. NO. 4378, O.R.

4. OIL AND GAS LEASE FOR THE TERM THEREIN PROVIDED WITH CERTAIN COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS, TOGETHER WITH EASEMENTS SEPTEMBER 20, 1965, INST. NO. 2879, O.R.

5. TITLE COMPANY MATTERS

6.-8. INTENTIONALLY DELETED

12. MATTERS WHICH MAY BE DISCLOSED BY AN INSPECTION AND/OR BY INQUIRY OF THE PARTIES IN POSSESSION THEREOF.

13. ANY RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR INTERESTS THAT MAY EXIST OR ARISE BY REASON OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS DISCLOSED BY A MAP DATED MAY 23, 2019 OF AN ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY COMPLETED MAY 6, 2019 PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE RESPOSIBLE CHARGE OF CHRIS NELSON LS 6385, OF/FOR CHRIS NELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC., PROJECT NO. 19-4845.

A. WALLS ON THE WEST SIDE OF LOT 66 EXTEND 0.05 FEET AND 0.07 FEET ONTO SWALE DRIVE.

B. BUILDING ROOF LINE ON SURVEYED PROPERTY EXTENDS ONTO SWALE DRIVE.

C. WALLS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SURVEYED PROPERTY EXTEND 0.17 FEET, 0.35 FEET, 0.29 FEET, AND 0.31 FEET ONTO BURTON WAY.

D. A WALL ON THE EAST SIDE OF LOT 2 EXTENDS 0.08 FEET ONTO CLARK DRIVE.

E. BUILDING ROOF LINE ON SURVEYED PROPERTY EXTENDS ONTO CLARK WAY.

ALTA NOTE:

THIS ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY WAS PREPARED SOLELY FOR LAND TITLE PURPOSES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR DESIGN. PRIOR TO, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, USING THIS

SURVEY FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PROVIDED INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP, AND ELEVATIONS, IF ANY ARE PROVIDED, BE REVIEWED AND VERIFIED.

CHRIS NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. RELEASES THEMSELVES FROM ANY INFORMATION NOT

DISCLOSED HEREON WHICH COULD ULTIMATELY RESULT IN ALTERNATE AND/OR INSUFFICIENT DESIGN CRITERIA.

NOTES:

1. BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON IS RECORD PER TRACT NO. 7005, M.B. 72-28

2. LANDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION DEVICES MAY EXIST WITHIN THE PROPERTY AND ARE NOT SHOWN.

3. TREE LINE CANOPIES ARE PICTORIAL, AND MAY NOT REFLECT TRUE DRIP LINES.

4. IF RETAINING WALLS OR SIMILAR STRUCTURES ARE TO BE DESIGNED FROM TOPOGRAPHY

SHOWN HEREON, THE ELEVATIONS OF CRITICAL POINTS CONTROLLING THE DESIGN MUST BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO ADOPTION OF FINAL DESIGN.

5. ATTENTION: IF THIS MAP IS PROVIDED IN AN ELECTRONIC FORMAT (IE: CAD) AS A COURTESY

TO A CLIENT, THE DELIVERY OF THE ELECTRONIC FILE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE DELIVERY OF OUR PROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT. ONLY THE SURVEYOR'S SIGNED AND SEALED PAPER PRINT OR PDF FORMATTED DRAWING CONSTITUTES OUR PROFESSIONAL WORK PRODUCT. IN THE EVENT

THAT THE ELECTRONIC FILE IS ALTERED, THE SURVEYOR'S SIGNED AND SEALED PRINT OR PDF

FORMATTED DRAWING MUST BE REFERRED TO FOR THE ORIGINAL AND CORRECT SURVEY INFORMATION. CHRIS NELSON AND ASSOCIATES, INC., SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY

MODIFICATION MADE TO THE PROVIDED CAD FILE, OR FOR ANY PRODUCTS THAT HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM THE CAD FILE, WHICH ARE NOT REVIEWED, SIGNED AND SEALED BY US. 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8

CABLE TV PULL BOX

INSIDE FACE OF WALL AT GARAGE

BUILDING LINE

METAL FENCE

1.5'WIDE CONC & BRICK WALL

WITH ARCHWAY W/ OPENING
DATED: JULY 26, 2019

GAS VALVE
PREPARED BY:

SHEET NO.

OF 1 SHEET

REVISION NOTES

DATE DESCRIPTION BY
PREPARED FOR:

REVISED SURVEY PER CLIENTS REQUEST 06-17-2019 SDN
06-18-2019 REVISED SURVEY PER PRO-FORMA OF TITLE POLICY SDN 06-18-2019 REVISED SURVEY PER CLIENTS REQUEST SDN07-25-2019 REVISED SURVEY PER TITLE COMMITEMENT DATED 06-17-2019 SDN

RENDERING
AERIAL VIEW LOOKING EAST ALONG BURTON WAY A03

RENDERING
AERIAL VIEW LOOKING WEST A04

RENDERING
VIEW LOOKING WEST A05

RENDERING
A06
ENTRANCE ON CLARK DR.

RENDERING
A07
ENTRANCE ON SWALL DR.

OPEN SPACE

DIAGRAMS
A08 AS

INDICATED
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
213
45 LEVEL 4 OPEN SPACE
LEVEL 1 OPEN SPACE
LEVEL 5 OPEN SPACE
LEVEL 6-8 OPEN SPACE LEVELS 9-10, 13-23 OPEN SPACE
727$/
727$/
678',2
/

&2'(5(48,5('23(163$&(
81,77<3( 48$17,7< 5(48,5(0(17 727$/

%('5220
678',2
6)3(581,7

23(163$&(&$/&8/$7,21
%('5220
/(9(/ $5($
522)'(&.
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

OPEN SPACE

DIAGRAMS
A09 AS

INDICATED
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
12 33
LEVEL 24 OPEN SPACE LEVEL 25 OPEN SPACE
LEVEL 26 OPEN SPACE LEVEL 27 / ROOF OPEN SPACE
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
56 LEVEL 11 OPEN SPACE LEVEL 12 OPEN SPACE
727$/
727$/
678',2
/

&2'(5(48,5('23(163$&(
81,77<3( 48$17,7< 5(48,5(0(17 727$/

%('5220
678',2
6)3(581,7

23(163$&(&$/&8/$7,21
%('5220
/(9(/ $5($
522)'(&.
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

FLOOR AREA

DIAGRAMS
AS
INDICATED A10
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
2 1
3 4 5
LEVEL 4 FLOOR AREA
LEVEL 1 FLOOR AREA
LEVEL 5 FLOOR AREA
LEVEL 6-8 FLOOR AREA TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (LEVELS 9-10, 13-23) 727$/
)/225$5($6&+('8/(
/(9(/ $5($
/(9(/
522)'(&.
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

FLOOR AREA

DIAGRAMS
A11 AS

INDICATED
727$/
)/225$5($6&+('8/(
/(9(/ $5($
/(9(/
522)'(&.
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/
/(9(/

/(9(/

/(9(/

SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”
3 4
5 6
LEVEL 24 FLOOR AREA LEVEL 25 FLOOR AREA
LEVEL 26 FLOOR AREA LEVEL 27 / ROOF FLOOR AREA
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0” 1 2 LEVEL 11 FLOOR AREA LEVEL 12 FLOOR AREA

SITE PLAN

DIAGRAMS
A12 AS

INDICATED
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”
02 01

SITE PLAN - TOWER
SITE PLAN - L1
83'
PRINCIPLE BUILDING AREA: 85'-9"
PRINCIPLE BUILDING AREA: 197'-6"
PRINCIPLE BUILDING AREA: 197'-6"
PRINCIPLE BUILDING AREA: 85'-9"
REQUIRED AREA OF MODULATION FOR 5 OR MORE STORIES

PRINCIPAL BUILDING AREA (THAT PORTION OF A SITE AREA NOT INCLUDED WITHIN A FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD.) = 16,928 SF AM = 16,928 SF X 0.04% = 677 OR 1,500 SF WHICHEVER IS LESS.

AM = 677 SF
ADDITIONAL MODULATION PER BHMC:

AM = 85’-9” X 5 FEET X 5 STORIES = 2,144 SF
TOTAL MODULATION AREA PER BHMC:
677 SF + 2,144 SF = 2,821 SF
PROVIDED MODULATION AREA:

LEVELS 2-25 = 0 SF
LEVEL 26 = 4,830 SF
TOTAL = 4,830 SF

SITE PLAN

DIAGRAM
A13 AS

INDICATED
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”
REQUIRED AREA OF MODULATION FOR 5 OR MORE STORIES

PRINCIPAL BUILDING AREA (THAT PORTION OF A SITE AREA NOT INCLUDED WITHIN A FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD OR REAR YARD.) = 16,928 SF AM = 16,928 SF X 0.04% = 677 OR 1,500 SF WHICHEVER IS LESS.

AM = 677 SF
ADDITIONAL MODULATION PER BHMC:

AM = 85’-9” X 5 FEET X 5 STORIES = 2,144 SF
TOTAL MODULATION AREA PER BHMC:
677 SF + 2,144 SF = 2,821 SF
PROVIDED MODULATION AREA:

LEVELS 2-26 = 0 SF
LEVEL 27 / ROOF = 4,830 SF
TOTAL = 4,830 SF
01 SITE PLAN - TOP FLOOR
56'-4"

ADDITIONAL AREA OF
MODULATION: 4,830 SF
PRINCIPLE BUILDING AREA: 197'-6"
PRINCIPLE BUILDING AREA: 85'-9"

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
1/4” = 1’-0”
A2.0A

SITE SECTIONS
SCALE: 3/64”=1’-0” SCALE: 3/64”=1’-0”

EAST-WEST SITE SECTION NORTH-SOUTH SITE SECTION

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
A2.P3
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
P3 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
A2.P2
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
P2 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.P1

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
P1 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.1

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L1 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.2

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L2 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.3

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L3 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.4

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L4 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.5

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L5 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.6

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L6-8 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.9

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L9-10 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.11

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L11 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.12

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L12 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
13-23 FLOOR PLAN
A2.13

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.24

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L24 PENTHOUSE PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.25

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L25 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.26

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L26 FLOOR PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
A2.R

FLOOR PLANS
3/32” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N

ROOF PLAN
B
C
C
A A
B
1/16” = 1’-0”
A3.0

BUILDING

ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”

NORTH ELEVATION
WALL TYPE 1 BALCONY GUARDRAIL

ROOF DECK GUARDRAIL

ALUM WINDOW WALL
W/ PAINTED MULLION COVERS INSULATED ALUM SLAB COVER EQUAL

SIGHT LINE VENTS AS REQUIRED

FACE MOUNTED GLASS GUARDRAILS
42” AFF

W/ PTD ALUM TOP RAIL
GLASS GUARDRAILS 5’ AFF

W/ PTD ALUM TOP RAIL
W1
WALL TYPE 2

ALUM STORE FRONT

PTD FINISH
W2
WALL TYPE 4

PTD ALUM PANEL W/ LOUVERS AS

REQUIRED
W4
WALL TYPE 5

FROSTED GLASS SCREEN OR

SIMILAR
W5
WALL TYPE 3

WOOD PRINT METAL
W3
B1
B2

DOOR TYPES

WALL TYPES
W1
W2
W5
W6
W3
B1
B2

WOOD PRINT METAL

GLASS GUARDRAIL

FROSTED GLASS

SCREEN OR SIMILAR

STOREFRONT GLAZING

ALUMINUM WINDOW

WALL SYSTEM
1/16” = 1’-0”
A3.1

BUILDING

ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”

SOUTH ELEVATION

ALUMINUM PANEL

WOOD PRINT METAL

GLASS GUARDRAIL

FROSTED GLASS

SCREEN OR SIMILAR

ALUMINUM WINDOW

WALL SYSTEM
W1
W4
W5
W3
B1
B1
B2
1/16” = 1’-0”
A3.2

BUILDING

ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0” SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”

WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION

WOOD PRINT METAL

ALUMINUM WINDOW

WALL SYSTEM

GLASS GUARDRAIL

FROSTED GLASS

SCREEN OR SIMILAR

STOREFRONT GLAZING
W1
W5
W3
B1
B2
1/16” = 1’-0”
A3.3

BUILDING

SECTIONS
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”

SECTION A-A
1/16” = 1’-0”
A3.4

BUILDING

SECTIONS
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”

SECTION A-A
1/16” = 1’-0”
A3.5

BUILDING

SECTIONS
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”

SECTION B-B
A4.0

SOLAR STUDY -
SUMMER
6 AM
12 PM
9 AM
3 PM
9 PM
6 PM
SUMMER 6-21
1/4” = 1’-0”

SOLAR STUDY -
WINTER
A4.1
6 AM
12 PM
9 AM
3 PM
9 PM
6 PM
WINTER 12-21
3/16” = 1’-0”

DOOR SCHEDULE
A4.2
KKZ >Kd/KE
>
sd/KE t/d, ,
/',d D/E͘>
ZKW

E/E' &/Z
Zd/E' ,ZtZ
KKZDd
Z/>
^ϭ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E ,D
^Ϯ
EdZz>K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϯ tͬ && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϰ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϱ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϲ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E ,D
^ϳ
EdZz>K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϴ tͬ & ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϵ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϬ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϭ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E ,D
^ϭϮ
EdZz>K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϯ tͬ & ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϰ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϱ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E ,D
^ϭϲ
EdZz>K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϳ tͬ & ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϴ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
^ϭϵ > ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
Ϯ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϯ tͬ ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϰ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϱ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϲ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϳ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϴ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϵ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϬ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϭ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
ϭϮ >K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϯ tͬ && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϰ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϱ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϳ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϴ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϵ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϮϬ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
Ϯϭ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
ϮϮ >K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
Ϯϯ tͬ && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϰ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϱ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϲ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϳ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϴ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
Ϯϵ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϯϬ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
ϯϭ >K^
d & ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϯϮ tͬ

ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϯϯ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϯϰ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϯϱ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϯϲ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϯϳ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϯϴ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
Ϯ >K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϯ tͬ && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϰ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϲ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϳ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϴ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϵ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϮϬ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϭ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϮ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϯ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϰ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϱ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
ϭϲ >K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϳ tͬ && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϴ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϵ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϮϬ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϭ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϮϮ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϯ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϰ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϯϱ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
Ϯϲ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϱ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
ϭϲ >K^
d && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭϳ tͬ && ϲΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϴ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϭϵ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϮϬ
ZKKD ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϭ >K^
d && ϲΖͲϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
ϮϮ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϯ >K^
d ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ Ͳ ,t
Ϯϰ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϯϱ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
Ϯϲ d, ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ,t
ϭ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
Ϯ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
ϯ
EdZz ϯΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϳΖ Ͳ ϬΗ ϮΖ Ͳ ϴΗ ϮϬ D/E͘ ,D
,K> KW
E
ϮϬ D/E͘
ϵϬ D/E͘
ϵϬ D/E͘
ϮϬ D/E͘
KKZ ^,
h>
Ͳ hE/d /Ed
Z/KZ z hE/d dzW

hE/d dzW
^ϭ
^d/Z s
^d
^d/Z
dZ^, ZKKD
hE/d dzW
ϰ
KKZ ^,
h>
Ͳ KDDKE Z
^

>
sdKZ >Kz

>
dZ/>
hE/d dzW
Ϯ
hE/d dzW
ϯ
hE/ddzW
ϭ
hE/ddzW
Ϯ
hE/ddzW
ϯ
hE/d dzW
^Ϯ
hE/d dzW
^ϯ
hE/d dzW
6
hE/d dzW
ϯ
hE/d dzW
ϭ
hE/d dzW
ϭ
hE/d dzW
Ϯ
1/4” = 1’-0”
L01
1 1
A C01
A C01
C01 A
C CP1
CP1 C
2 A C01 A C01
E
E
E E
E
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”

GROUND FLOOR LANDSCAPE
N
PAVING CALCULATIONS:

FRONT YARD PAVING ON CLARK:

FRONTAGE = 4,177 SF
TOTAL LANDSCAPE IN FRONT YARD = 2,247 SF
TOTAL HARDSCAPE IN FRONT YARD = 1,930 SF
1 1 1 1 1
E

GROUND FLOOR

LANDSCAPE PLAN
1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
L25 AMENITY LANDSCAPE
N
B P01
P01 B
B P01
E
E
L02
L25 LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
L26 AMENITY LANDSCAPE
N
B P01
P01 B B P01
E
E
L03
L26 LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”

ROOF AMENITY LANDSCAPE
N
B P01
P01 B
B P01 E
E E E
E P01 B E
P01 B
L04

ROOF LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N

GROUND FLOOR LIGHTING

SYMBOL ITEM PRODUCT QUANTITY FINISH MANUFACTURER

LIGHTING SCHEDULE

UPLIGHT

WALL LIGHT

DOWNLIGHT
MP-ECO20SFL-BZ
UN-LED20W-BZ
N I C-1TW9WDMWFW1S0
BRONZE

METALLIC
BRONZE

METALLIC

STAINLESS
STEEL

FX LUMINAURE

BOLD LIGHTING GROUND FLOOR

LIGHTING PLAN
L05
1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L25 AMENITY LIGHTING

SYMBOL ITEM PRODUCT QUANTITY FINISH MANUFACTURER

LIGHTING SCHEDULE

UPLIGHT

WALL LIGHT

DOWNLIGHT
MP-ECO20SFL-BZ
UN-LED20W-BZ
N I C-1TW9WDMWFW1S0
BRONZE

METALLIC
BRONZE

METALLIC

STAINLESS
STEEL

FX LUMINAURE

FX LUMINAURE
BOLD LIGHTING 25TH FLOOR

LIGHTING PLAN
L06
1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N
L26 AMENITY LIGHTING

SYMBOL ITEM PRODUCT QUANTITY FINISH MANUFACTURER

LIGHTING SCHEDULE

UPLIGHT

WALL LIGHT

DOWNLIGHT
MP-ECO20SFL-BZ
UN-LED20W-BZ
N I C-1TW9WDMWFW1S0
BRONZE

METALLIC
BRONZE

METALLIC

STAINLESS
STEEL

FX LUMINAURE

FX LUMINAURE
BOLD LIGHTING 26TH FLOOR

LIGHTING PLAN
L07
1/4” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 3/32”=1’-0”
N

ROOF AMENITY LIGHTING

SYMBOL ITEM PRODUCT QUANTITY FINISH MANUFACTURER

LIGHTING SCHEDULE

UPLIGHT

WALL LIGHT

DOWNLIGHT
MP-ECO20SFL-BZ
UN-LED20W-BZ
N I C-1TW9WDMWFW1S0
BRONZE

METALLIC
BRONZE

METALLIC

STAINLESS
STEEL

FX LUMINAURE

BOLD LIGHTING ROOF LIGHTING
PLAN
L08

Beverly Hills City CouncilMarch 24, 2026

Beverly Hills City Council
March 24, 2026