WRITTEN PUBLIC
COMMENTS RECEIVED
Item E-6
1.Richard and Lozeau Drury on behalf of SAFER
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living and working in the City of Beverly Hills (“City”) regarding rescinding Resolution No. 24-R-13515 denying the appeal of staff’s incomplete application determination regarding a Builder’s Remedy Project for the 125-129 South Linden Drive Project (“Project”). The project proposes the construction of a 19-story, mixed use development with 165 dwelling units and a hotel with 73 guestrooms. located at 125-129 S. Linden Drive in the City of Beverly Hills, which is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 25, 2026 as Agenda Item E-6. The city contends that the project may be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This is incorrect. The city has been ordered to process the project application pursuant to the so-called Builder’s Remedy. The Builder’s Remedy is part of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). The HAA does not exempt projects from CEQA. (Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1245, 1250, 1261-62,
citing Gov.Code, § 65589.5, subd. (e) [“Nothing in this section shall be construed ... to relieve the local agency from ... complying with the [CEQA]”.) The HAA “pegs its applicability to the approval, denial or conditional approval of a ‘housing
development project’ [citations], which, as previously noted, can occur only after the EIR is certified.” (Schellinger Brothers v. City of Sebastopol, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at 1262.) The HAA has a “savings clause” fully preserving the city’s authority under CEQA.
The court held that therefore, the city may take as long as is necessary to complete CEQA review, and the HAA timelines do not even begin until after CEQA review is completed. The court stated:
the Housing Accountability Act has no provision automatically approving EIRs if local action is not completed within a specified period… there is no indication the Legislature meant to modify or accelerate CEQA's procedures… Again, the indications are to the contrary. The Housing Accountability Act expressly states that “Nothing in this section shall be construed ... to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081... or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act....” (Gov.Code, § 65589.5, subd. (e).) But it specifically pegs its applicability to the approval, denial or conditional approval of a “housing
development project” (id., subds. (d)(3), (5)(A), (h)(5)(A), (i), (k), (l )), which, as previously noted, can occur only after the EIR is certified. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15090(a).) That obviously has not occurred here.
The project is also not exempt from CEQA review pursuant to the newly enacted AB 130. AB 130 specifically excludes any project that includes hotel uses. The project has 73 hotel rooms, and is therefore not subject to AB 130. Therefore, CEQA review is required prior to approval of the project.
Item F-1
1. Stuart Rosen
Do NOT turn Burton Way and the city into a Wilshire Corridor! This “carpetbag” developer bought this property and initially was permitted to develop it into a 4-story building that conformed to the cities approved existing laws. Then due to the city’s irresponsibility we got Builders Remedy.
Developer then made plans for a 20-story skyscraper w/ minimal amount of low-income housing units, then greed set in and they upped it to 26 stories with the SAME number of low-income units.
The city’s response is ‘our hands are tied”. At some point, you the city council have to stop pretending this is complicated. Everyone in this room can see what’s happening. You’re being asked to approve a 26-story tower based on old numbers, the developers created their own traffic report, sliced-up impacts, and paperwork that never imagined anything like this. And instead of fixing the problems, the City keeps repeating the same line: “our hands are tied.”
No. They’re not. You’re choosing this.
And here’s the part you really need to hear: people in this community are paying attention. They’re reading the
documents. They’re talking to each other. They’re not fooled by the spin, and they’re not scared of the word “lawsuit.” If anything, you’re motivating them.
Because when a City ignores CEQA this blatantly,
residents don’t shrug — they organize. They file. They fight back.
And they win.
So let’s talk about legacy, because that’s what this vote actually decides. Years from now, nobody is going to remember the staff report or the speeches or the excuses. They’re going to remember that this Council looked straight at obvious CEQA violations — baseline problems, piecemealing, bad tiering, no recirculation, no evidence — and pushed the project through anyway.
Your legacy won’t be “we had no choice.”
Your legacy will be: we ignored the law, ignored the
neighborhood, and walked Beverly Hills into court with our eyes wide open.
And the worst part? You can’t say you weren’t warned. You were warned — clearly, calmly, and in plain English — by the very people you’re supposed to represent.
2. Abbie Berstein, Arsen Avagyan, Avi Samelson, Benjamin Wendel, Brett Hollenbeck, Britney Baker, Carey Bennett, Christopher Nelson, Eddie Isaacs, Eduardo Borba, Helen
Eigenberg, Joaquin Domingo, Joe Goldman, Katherine Aker, Linda Howie, Yolanda Berumen
I am writing to express strong support for the proposed residential project at 8844 Burton Way. This 26-story development on a currently vacant site would deliver 200 new homes, including 22 affordable units, plus 316 parking spaces. It is being advanced under California's Builder's Remedy law to help address our state's ongoing housing shortage. Burton Way is one of Beverly Hills' widest and most appropriate corridors for multifamily housing, already featuring mid- and high-rise residential buildings and hotels. This project fits the area's character while bringing much-needed housing to a community that has built relatively little in recent decades. Approving this development would help meet regional housing needs, promote inclusivity, and invigorate an important part of the city. Thank you for your leadership and for considering this project favorably. I urge you to move forward to help solve our housing crisis and follow the law!
3. Adam Friedman, Alexandra Pugachoff, Alexia Meneely,
Allama Arrington, Anahita Gheytanchi, Andrew Arceri,
Antoine Wakim, Apour Moradi, Audrey
Linden, [email protected], Brenda Smith, Charlo
Crossley Fortier, Cheryl Mendoza,PhD., Cipra Nemeth, Donna McQuery [email protected], Douglas Nichols, Erika
Shepler, Everett Wise, Gina Nalbandian, Glenda
Lugay, Halev Yorly, Harpster Harpster, Howard Celnik, Jamie Como, Jared Chilstrom, Jessica Fugate, Jonathan Dupin,
Lisa Ansell, Lois Evans, Lucas Granger, Narjiey Kazmi,
Penelope Morel, Trinao Williams
I'm writing to urge you to approve the proposed housing project at 8844 Burton Way. Beverly Hills is one of the wealthiest, most desirable communities in Southern California, but it has long failed to build its fair share of housing. This project—200 homes on a currently vacant lot, including 22 units reserved for lowerincome residents—is exactly what our region needs. California's housing crisis is real, and it affects families across the income spectrum. Projects like this one add homes for working families, ease pressure on rents throughout the region, and help ensure that people can afford to live near the jobs and opportunities that cities like Beverly Hills provide. Additionally, denying this project isn't just bad policy—it's against the law. California's Housing Accountability Act requires cities to approve projects like this one unless they can point to specific, documented evidence that it poses a serious threat to public health or safety. Beverly Hills' own city staff confirmed there is no such evidence in the record. The state housing department has already warned the city that a denial would violate state law and could result in significant fines, mandatory project approval, and even the loss of local zoning control, triggering yet another round of Builder’s Remedy projects. Please do the right thing for our community and our region. Vote yes on 8844 Burton Way.
4. Arnie Sklar
At their first presentation to the Planning Commission the applicant said “we want to bring luxury apartments to Beverly Hills.” That’s what this project is about: how many luxury apartments can they force onto Beverly Hills and to hell with current residents. They put in a minimum number of low
income units to assert that state law allows them to do whatever they want regardless of City limitations. It's not about low income housing--the original proposal was 10 stories and 20 low income units. Whether the Applicant is correct, and any questions about what the law means, is not up to them and not up to Staff, including staff city attorney, or a state agency—you should get advice from an outside real estate litigator. I can’t say whether the Applicant is violating the letter of the law they assert, but I can say they are violating the spirit of the law. It’s called the Builder’s Remedy law, but they are using it as the Builder’s WINDFALL law.
It is worth noting that the plans circulated by Staff showed 2 full floors with no dwelling units. That strikes me as odd and, frankly, suspicious. You should want to know why they want to build 26 stories when only 24 are occupied. The Applicant bought the property from Temple Emanuel. I am told by a Temple official that the Temple asked the Applicant what they are planning to build. I am told the Applicant said a 5-story apartment building. If this proposed project is built it should be named the Pinocchio Building. I don’t have to tell you this proposed building would be an eyesore in the neighborhood. It is a slap in the face of Beverly Hills. The rhetorical question for the Applicant is: do you want to be a good neighbor or do you want to be the obnoxious relative that no one wants to be around but we can’t get rid of it.
5. Bruce and Rebecca Houman (summarized,comment over
1300 words)
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. 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.
6. Charles Iantorno
I am writing to express strong support for the proposed residential project at 8844 Burton Way. Approving this development would help meet regional housing needs, promote inclusivity, and invigorate an important part of the city. A fair city means approving housing, not blocking it. Thank you for your leadership and for considering this project favorably. I urge you to move forward to help solve our housing crisis and follow the law and our constitutions!
7. Donna McQuery
Just because you live in Beverly Hills does not mean you are above the law! Other people have the right to live in a decent neighborhood too! I hope your council does the right, correct thing and follow the LAW! None of you are any better than anyone else!
8. Sonja Trauss, executive Director , Yimby Law (Printed for Council)
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB-330). City Council has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when making policy decisions.
YIMBY Law is concerned that the City of Beverly Hills might refuse to honor a valid SB 330 preliminary applications.
The 8844 Burton Way proposal would provide 200 new homes to Beverly Hills, with 20% designated as affordable housing.
This represents a significant increase from the base density of 31 units. At 26 stories, the project would provide much-needed housing in a high-demand area, directly addressing the region’s ongoing housing shortage. Wilshire Avenue projects
were submitted in December of 2023, deemed complete after many delays as of January 10, 2025. On November 5, 2025, the Planning Commission voted to deny this proposal.
Today, this Council must overturn the Planning Commission’s denial. That denial was based on reasoning that cannot be applied to Builder’s Remedy projects. The Commission’s doubts about feasibility are utterly irrelevant under California law.
Knowing this, the Commission tried to characterize traffic impacts as safety standards so that it had a legitimate reason for denial. It failed.
As your staff have already informed, you, denials of Builder’s Remedy projects are limited to circumstances where the hearing body can cite specific, adverse impacts based on prewritten health and safety standards. The Beverly Hills Fire Department themselves provided evidence that vague traffic concerns pose no safety threat. California law is quite unambiguous about this type of purposeless obstruction, and the many penalties Beverly Hills could face as a result. Approving this appeal and allowing the project to move forward are the only legal options before the City.
As Beverly Hills has failed to comply with state law, it does not have discretion to deny these projects. As California’s Department of Housing and Community Development informed the City on December 2, 2024, you are not free to disapprove this compliant project.2 The Project proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Builders’ Remedy, therefore, you must approve the
application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above.
Should Beverly Hills fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced.
I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.
9. Jesse Zwick Southern California Director, Housing Action Coalition (708 words)(printed for Council)
The Housing Action Coalition (HAC) writes in strong support of the proposed 200-unit residential project at 8844 Burton Way currently before the City Council on appeal following the Planning Commission's November 5 denial. HAC is a statewide nonprofit that advocates for policies and projects that increase housing production across California. We urge the Beverly Hills City Council to approve this project both on its own merits and because anything less would constitute a violation of state law that carries serious consequences for the city.
Beverly Hills Needs This Housing
The project proposed by Crescent Heights would deliver 200 new homes on a currently vacant parcel in one of the most job-rich, amenity-rich, and transit-accessible communities in Southern California. Beverly Hills is precisely the kind of high-opportunity city where new housing is urgently needed and where the barriers to production have historically been highest. Approving this project is an opportunity for Beverly Hills to demonstrate that it takes its housing obligations seriously.
Beyond the market-rate units, the project includes 22 deedrestricted affordable homes at deeply affordable income levels— housing for families who could not otherwise afford to live in Beverly Hills. These are not token concessions; they are a meaningful contribution to the region's affordable housing stock and a direct benefit to the households who will live there. At a moment when Southern California faces a profound affordability crisis, Beverly Hills should be welcoming this kind of investment, not blocking it.
Denial Would Violate State Housing Law—and Carry Real
Consequences
The City Council must also be clear-eyed about the legal stakes.
This project was filed under the Builder's Remedy (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5)) because Beverly Hills lacked a state-certified Housing Element when the preliminary application was submitted in December 2023. That status unlocks protections under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that are not discretionary—they are mandatory. Under the HAA, a local agency may not deny or condition a qualifying project in ways that render it infeasible unless it can make specific, written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record.
The California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) has made this unmistakably clear. HCD sent a Letter of Technical Assistance to the Planning Commission ahead of its October 29 hearing, and followed with a Notice of Potential Violation (NOPV) dated November 20, 2025, after the Commission recommended denial anyway. In that letter, HCD found that neither the dispersal of affordable units nor the alleged health and safety concerns raised by Commissioners constitute legally sufficient grounds for denial under the HAA. Critically, the City's own staff and city attorney reached the same conclusion, stating in the October 21 Planning Commission Report 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.”
The City Council should understand what a denial would mean in practice. Under state law, cities that violate the HAA face consequences that are neither abstract nor minor:
•Court-ordered project approvals, stripping the City of any further say over the project's design or conditions.
•Mandatory fines starting at $10,000 per unit—which can be tripled to $30,000 per unit or quintupled to $50,000 per unit in cases involving bad faith or a pattern of violations. For a 200-unit project, that exposure reaches into the tens of millions of dollars. •Payment of the developer's attorney fees, adding further financial liability to Beverly Hills taxpayers.
•Potential referral to the California Attorney General, and in the most serious cases, loss of local zoning authority.
HCD has explicitly reminded the City of its enforcement authority over the HAA and State Density Bonus Law, and has indicated it may refer this matter to the Attorney General if Beverly Hills' actions are found to be out of compliance.
The Path Forward Is Clear
Beverly Hills has an opportunity tonight to do the right thing—for the families who would call this building home, for the region's housing supply, and for the city's own legal and fiscal standing.
The Housing Action Coalition urges the City Council to follow the guidance of HCD, the recommendation of city staff, and the requirements of state law, and to approve the 8844 Burton Way project as proposed.
10. Sigal Bussel
I respectfully urge you to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the proposed 26-story high-rise at 8844 Burton Way. I am a lifelong resident of Beverly Hills. I grew up in this community and live near the proposed site. This issue is deeply personal to me. My parents, now in their late eighties, live just across the street. The safety, health, and daily quality of life of my parents - and the many seniors in this neighborhood - would be directly affected by this project.
The proposed development sits at the heart of one of the most senior-dense areas of our city. Within a two-block radius are multiple assisted living and senior housing communities, along with a significant elderly population in nearby residential buildings.
These residents depend on fast, unobstructed access to
Cedars- Sinai Medical Center, just half a mile away.
Burton Way and Robertson Boulevard serve as primary
emergency corridors for emergency response vehicles to CedarsSinai. Yet traffic congestion along these routes has become severe. For the past few months, I documented recurring gridlock, with traffic blocking intersections and backing up for blocks. I also documented frequent emergency vehicle responses nearby — a clear demonstration that emergency activity in this area is not hypothetical, but a daily reality. (Selected images attached.) In cardiac and stroke-related emergencies, minutes matter.
Adding a 26-story, high-density tower will inevitably increase traffic and further burden intersections that already experience frequent congestion and documented accidents. Emergency response times along Burton Way have at times approached eight minutes - double the four-minute national standard - placing residents at unacceptable risk.
This is not an opposition to growth, but a call for responsible, context-sensitive planning that reflects infrastructure limits and the needs of a vulnerable population whose health and safety depend on efficient emergency access.
The Planning Commission’s denial reflects a clear understanding of these realities. I respectfully ask you to uphold the Commission’s decision and deny the appeal. The well-being of our aging neighbors - and of families like mine - depends on it.
11. Dylan Casey and James Lloyd, (California
Housing Defense)( Has been printed for council)
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”)
writes regarding item F1 on the agenda for the March
24, 2026 Council meeting: entitlement approvals for a proposed 200-unit housing development project at 8844 Burton Way, which includes 14 extremely low-income units and eight moderateincome units. We urge the City 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.)
Beverly Hills’s Housing Element was not in substantial
compliance3 with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted. The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed.
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130 (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66).
Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
Should the Council persist in denying the project, 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.) 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-fl ung 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.
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.
12. Thomas White
The proposed project is opportunistic and wholly
incompatible with the longstanding low-rise community standards which have for many decades enabled and preserved the
livability, unique character and prosperity of our city. Approving it would further and unacceptably accelerate the destruction of our quality of life and devalue our lifestyle brand, which is for the present famous throughout the world – but for only so long as we maintain the qualitative basis for its establishment. For decades we have been a fully built out community, with finite borders. Beverly Hills would be permanently damaged by further increases in our already excessive and unsustainable levels of building and population density. Such proposed expansion is neither necessary nor desirable. We therefore urge you in the strongest way possible to reject this appeal and reaffirm the City’s just denial of this grossly overreaching and unwanted project.
13. Steve Mayer
Please permit this communication to focus on a material error in both the Agenda Report and the Draft Resolution.
As a consequence, this project may not be able to benefit from AB 2097, which defines “Transit Priority Projects.” That legislation affects both aesthetic and parking impacts. AB 2097 applies only if the project is within a ½ mile of a “Major Transit Stop.” In both the Agenda Report and the Draft Resolution, there is a statement that is incorrect:
In regards the Project’s proximity to a major transit stop, evidence in the record was provided to accurately demonstrate that the Project site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop located at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard, where two bus lines with a frequency of service of 20 minutes or better during morning and afternoon peak commute periods intersect (Metro Bus Lines 14 and 16).
[Page 11 of the Agenda Report; Page 31 of the Resolution] San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard Is Not A
Major Transit Stop
Lines 14 and 16 do not intersect.
During the November 5, 2025, it was pointed out in both oral communication and the submittal of a modified map from the Applicant’s Local Transit Assessment (Exhibit A), that there is no major transit stop at San Vicente and Beverly.
Further, Lines 14 and run parallel, as exemplified in a Southern California Association of Goverments map (Exhibit B)
A Major Transit Stop is one of three things, the last of which is “The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” (PRC 21067.93) The Vehicle Code defines an intersection as “… two
highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.” (VEH 365) There is yet another state map which purportedly shows “Major Transit Stops” (Exhibit C). In fact, the map only has bus stops. If a map that Staff relied upon is different from other “qualified” maps that are inconsistent and/or contain incorrect information, it is not hard evidence. Therefore, San Vicente and Beverly cannot irrefutably qualify as a Major Transit Stop.
Is Third and La Cienega A Major Transit Stop?
Maybe, Maybe Not.
The “Local Transportation Assessment” as submitted by
the Applicant has the Major Transit Stop as Lines 16 and 105 intersecting at La Cienega and Third.
The question is whether the location is within 1/2 mile, as required by AB 2097 Two written commenters stated that the project was more than a one-half mile from a major transit stop. On that basis, further examination was conducted for the November 5th
meeting.
The problem is very simple. It depend how Google Maps is interpreted. The November 5th Google Maps measurement stated it was more than nine feet more than one-half mile from the property.
The problem with Google Maps, according to Google, is that it can be off by 3 to 10 meters. In turn, GIS maps can be off by a similar amount.
The “gold” standard is a proper land use survey, by a licensed surveyor. Since November, either the City and/or the Applicant could have had the land survey completed. The Applicant just spent tens of thousands of dollars on a financial analysis about opaque balconies. Couldn’t they spread some petty cash on an accurate land survey?
There is sufficient written evidence that Third and La Cienega may not be within a half mile. Therefore, a finding of denial can be made.
There is compelling evidence that this may not be a Transit Priority Project.
That means, that since neither Staff or the Applicant can prove that it is not a Transit Priority Project, If it does not qualify under AB 2097, the proposed project needs to reduce the number of units, increase the parking and aesthetics come back into play.