B0785-1767\3236608v3.doc
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: April 21, 2026
Item Number:
To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Laurence S. Wiener, City Attorney
David M. Snow, Assistant City Attorney
Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 25-R-13547 DENYING
THE APPEAL OF STAFF’S INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
DETERMINATION REGARDING A BUILDER’S REMEDY
PROJECT AT 140 SOUTH CAMDEN DRIVE
Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution
2. Resolution No. 25-R-13547
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution rescinding Resolution No. 25-R13547 (Attachment 1).
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends adopting a resolution that rescinds Resolution No. 25-R-13547, by which the City Council denied an appeal of an incomplete application determination for the “Builder’s Remedy” project at 140 South Camden Drive. A settlement agreement regarding this project, entered into by the Applicant and the City, requires that Resolution No. 25-R-13547, a copy of which is included as Attachment 2, must be rescinded.
DISCUSSION
Wilshire Camden, LLC (the property owner and applicant, referred to hereafter as “Applicant”) filed a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Tree Removal permit applications for a new 15-story, 194’ tall, housing project with a total of 27 rental units, which includes a mix of condominiums and rental units, as well as six affordable units, and four subterranean levels designated for mechanical parking to accommodate 44 vehicles Meeting Date: April 21, 2026
B0785-1767\3236608v3.doc
(the “Project”) at 140 South Camden Drive. The Applicant submitted the DPR application as a “Builder’s Remedy” project, which relied on the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), codified in Government Code § 65589.5 as in effect at that time, by providing at least 20 percent of the total units in the development to lower income households. Following a review of the Project applications, the City deemed the applications incomplete by letter dated and delivered to the Applicant on October 3, 2024. The Applicant submitted a timely appeal and provided a second formal application submittal on December 31, 2024. On January 30, 2025, the City deemed the second formal application submittal to be incomplete.
On March 4, 2025, following a hearing on the matter, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-R-13547, denying the Applicant’s appeal of the October 3, 2024 incomplete application determination and upholding the City’s incomplete application determination on various grounds.
On June 3, 2025, the Applicant filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, alleging four causes of action related to the Project’s applications.1 On December 23, 2025, the City and the Applicant entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims related to the Applicant’s writ petition.
The settlement agreement provides, among other things, that the City Council must rescind Resolution No. 25-R-13547 and process the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The recommended action has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), rescission of the prior resolution regarding the application’s completeness is exempt from CEQA as an administrative governmental activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
No public notice is required for this matter, however, a courtesy notice has been sent to the list of interested parties for this Project, and the Applicant has been informed of this agenda item.
FISCAL IMPACT
Rescission of the City Council’s prior action will not result in any fiscal impacts to the City.
1 Californians for Homeownership, Inc. filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate in the same Court on May 30, 2025 with causes of action related to this Project. The City and Californians for Homeownership, Inc. have also settled that case.
Laurence S. Wiener
City Attorney
Approved By
Attachment 1
Docusign Enve’ope ID: C8F9A399-C071 -4770-AC29-50239B5930FF RESOLUTION NO. 26-R-______
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFBEVERLY HILLS RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 25-R13547 DENYING THE APPEAL OF STAFF’S INCOMPLETEAPPLICATION DETERMINATION REGARDING ABUILDER’S REMEDY PROJECT AT 140 SOUTH CAMDENDRIVE The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills herby finds, resolves and determines as follows:
Section 1. Wilshire Camden, LLC (the property owner and applicant, referred to hereafter as “Applicant”) filed a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit, VestingTentative Tract Map, and Tree Removal permit applications for a new 15-story, 194’ tall, housingproject with a total of 27 rental units, which includes a mix of condominiums and rental units, as well as six affordable units, and four subterranean levels designated for mechanical parking to accommodate 44 vehicles (the “Project”) at 140 South Camden Drive.
Section 2. Following a review of the Project applications, the City deemed the applications incomplete by letter dated and delivered to the Applicant on October 3, 2024. The Applicant submitted a timely appeal and provided a second formal application submittal on December 31, 2024. On January 30, 2025, the City deemed the second fonrial application submittal to be incomplete.
Section 3. On March 4, 2025, following a hearing on the matter, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 25-R-13547, denying the Applicant’s appeal of the October 3, 2024 incomplete application determination and upholding the City’s incomplete application determination.80785- 1767\3 236607v3.doc
Docusign Envelope ID: C8F9A399-C071 -4770-AC29-50239B5930FF Section 4. On June 3, 2025, the Applicant filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, alleging four causes of action related to the Project’s applications. On December 23, 2025, the City and the Applicant entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all claims related to the Applicant’s writ petition. The settlement agreement provides, among other things, that the City Council shall rescind Resolution No. 25-R-13547 and process the project.
Section 5. In compliance with the settlement agreement’s provision that Resolution No. 25-R-13547 shall be formally rescinded, the City Council hereby rescinds Resolution No. 25- R-13547 in its entirety.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption ofthis resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.
Adopted:
CRAIG A. CORMANMayor of the City of Beverly Hills,California ATTEST:__________________________(SEAL)HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
LAURENCE S. WIENER NANCY HURT-COFFEYCity Attorney City Manager -2-
B0785-1767\3236607v3.doc
idocusign
Certificate Of CompletionEnvelope Id: C8F9A399-C071-4770-AC29-50239B5930FF Status: Sent Subject: For April 21 CC Meeting -Please DocuSign Resolution Rescinding Council Action re 140 S. CamdenSource Envelope:
Document Pages: 2 Signatures: 1 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Shani Parker
AutoNav: Enabled 455 N. Rexford Drive
Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) [email protected] lP Address: 208.87.235.180
Record Tracking
Status: Original Holder: Shani Parker Location: DocuSign 4/13/2026 2:12:30 PM SParkerrwglaw.com
Signer Events Signature TimestampDavid M. Snow for Sent: 4/13/2026 2:24:12 PM [email protected] Resent: 4/14/2026 10:21:02 AMSecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication Viewed: 4/14/2026 11:13:19 AM (None) Signed: 4/14/2026 11:13:31 AM Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device Using lP Address: 2a04:4e41:2801:d259::661c:d259
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Anthony Rodstein Sent: 4/14/2026 11:13:34 [email protected] Purchasing Services ManagerCity of Beverly Hills (Finance Department) Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Nancy Hunt [email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Craig A. Corman
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication(None)Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Huma Ahmed
[email protected] Level: Email, Account Authentication(None)Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature TimestampEditor Delivery Events Status Timestamp Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status TimestampCertified Delivery Events Status Timestamp Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Jon Giardiello Sent: 4/14/2026 11:13:32 AM
[email protected]
__________________________
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Shani Parker Sent: 4/14/2026 11:13:33 [email protected] _________________________ Viewed: 4/14/2026 12:00:56 PMCity of Beverly HillsSecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication (None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Donna Mohan
dmohanbeverlyhillsorg
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
City Clerks [email protected] Level: Email, Account Authentication(None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature TimestampEnvelope Summary Events Status TimestampsEnvelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 4/13/2026 2:24:12 PMPayment Events Status Timestamps Attachment 2
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 RESOLUTION NO. 25-R- 13547
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFBEVERLY HILLS DENYING AN APPEAL OF STAFF’SOCTOBER 3, 2024 INCOMPLETE APPLICATION DETERMINATION AND UPHOLDING THE CITY’SINCOMPLETE APPLICATION DETERMINATION, ANDFINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills herby finds, resolves and determines as follows:
Section 1. Wilshire Camden, LLC (the property owner, applicant, and appellant, referred to hereafter as “Appellant”) has filed a Development Plan Review, Density Bonus Permit,Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Tree Removal Permit applications (Formal Application Submittal) for a new 15-story, 194’ tall, housing project with a total of 27 rental units, which include a mix of condominiums and rental units, as well as six affordable units, and foursubterranean levels designated for mechanical parking to accommodate 44 vehicles (the “Project”)at 140 South Camden Drive (the “Project Site”). The City determined that the submittal date was September 3, 2024, which the Appellant has contested. The Appellant submitted the applicationsas a “Builder’s Remedy” project, which relies on the provisions ofthe Housing Accountability Act(“HAA”), codified in Government Code Section 65589.5, by providing at least 20 percent of the total units in the development to lower income households.
Section 2. The City completed its review of the Project applications and deemed the applications incomplete by letter dated and delivered to the Appellant on October 3, 2024. Also, on October 3, 2024, Appellant first asserted to the City that the applications were deemed complete by operation of law, arguing that the City failed to meet the 30-day application completeness CITY 1150
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 review deadline set forth in the Government Code Section 65943(a). Appellant’s argument is based on their assertion of an August 30, 2024 application submittal date.
Section 3. On Friday, October 16, 2024, Masoud “Max” Netty, on behalf of Appellant, submitted a timely appeal of the City’s October 3, 2024, incomplete determination with all appealfees paid, in accordance with BHMC Section 1-4-303 A., seeking City Council review of Citystaff’s October 3, 2024, incomplete application determination. As documented in the incomplete application determination letter, staff determined that the application was incomplete for failure toaddress items listed in the City’s Commercial, Mixed Use, and Multi-Family Residential(“Planning Application”) checklist and Vesting Tentative Map application required forcompleteness. The appeal was filed pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(c), which stipulates that the City must provide a process for an applicant to appeal to the City’s governing body and the governing body is required to provide a final written determination within 60 daysof receiving the appeal. If a final written determination is not issued by the City within 60 days,the application would be deemed complete and eligible for processing despite the missing requiredapplication materials.
On Monday, November 5, 2024, the City and the appellant’s legal counsel mutually agreed on extending the State’s 60-day time limit for the City to make a determination on the appeal, extending the deadline to February 28, 2025, pursuant to Government Code Section 65943(d).
However, after receiving the 2nd Formal Application Submittal materials on December 31, 2024,the City and the appellant mutually agreed to further extend the deadline to March 31, 2025, to allow staffsufficient time to assess and determine whether the 2nd Formal Application Submittal was complete. However, the 2nd Formal Application Submittal was once again deemed incomplete on January 30, 2025.
2 CITY 1151
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 Section 4. The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Friday, February 7, 2025, to property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the Project Site. An on-site notice was also posted on the Project Site on Friday, February 7, 2025. Additionally, the appeal hearing was noticed in the Friday, February 7,2025 edition of the Beverly Hills Courier and the Thursday, February 13, 2025 edition of theBeverly Hills Weekly. Courtesy emails were sent to all interested parties advising them of theappeal hearing date. On March 4, 2025, the City Council considered the appeal petition at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing.
Section 5. This appeal has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 etseq.), and the environmental regulations of the City (collectively “CEQA”)). Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code ofRegulations, Title 14, Section 1 5378(b)(5)), administrativeactivities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in theenvironment, including determinations of application completeness, are exempt from CEQA.
Therefore, the City Council hereby finds that this appeal of application completeness is exempt from further review under CEQA.
Section 6. Based upon the evidence contained in the record on this matter, the City Council hereby denies the appeal of City staff’s October 3, 2024, incomplete applicationdetermination and upholds staff’s incomplete application determination and related appeal issues as set forth herein for the Project for the following reasons, each of which is a separate andindependent basis for the City Council’s denial of the appeal:
A. The pro/ect was not deemed complete by operation oflaw on September 30, 2024. 3 CITY 1152
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1-A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 Submission Date. The 1st Formal Application Submittal materials were emailed to the City on Friday, August 30, 2024 at approximately 12:32 PM. After reviewing the application materialsto verify that the submittal package contained the minimum materials required for filing with the City (e.g., property ownership authorizationldocumentation and public notification materials),City staff generated an invoice at approximately 4:20 PM for the required fees and provided it to the Appellant via email. The fees were ultimately paid at 5:30 PM on Friday, August 30, 2024, outside of regular business hours (which are from 8:00 AM — 5:00 PM on Fridays), meaning staffcould not confirm receipt until the next business day. It is important to note that, in accordance with the City’s longstanding practice, payment of the required application fees is the action that determines the date a project is submitted. Further, it is the City’s longstanding policy thatapplications received after hours are considered to be submitted the next business day. As a result, the City considers the official submission date of the subject application to be the next business day, Tuesday, September 3, 2024, since City Hall was closed for the weekend on Saturday, August 30, 2024, and Sunday, September 1, 2024, and in observance of Labor Day Monday, September 2, 2024.
Additionally, per the City’s stated policy, electronic planning applications and electronic project resubmittals are not considered received until they have been acknowledged by a Planning Division staff member. This disclaimer is included in all Planning Division email correspondence,including on the specific correspondence from City staff to the applicant on August 30, 2024, andis consistently applied to all electronic project submissions. Because staff was unavailable to acknowledge the payment after business hours on August 30, 2024, the application could not beconsidered received until the next business day, September 3, 2024. 4 CITY 1153
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 Standard departmental practice was followed on the intake of the PA. On September 3, 2024 at 8:02 AM, staff confirmed to Principal Planner Cindy Gordon that the application fee for the 1St FA Submittal had been paid. At approximately 2:19 PM Principal Planner Gordon sent an email to staff assigning the Project based on the confirmed receipt of payment and, consistent withCity policy, confirmed that the official submittal date was Tuesday, September 3, 2024. On September 5, 2024, staff emailed the applicant team and their legal counsel informing them that the application was officially received by the City on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, following payment after the close of business on Friday, August 30, 2024 and to expect to receive comments at the end of the 30-day review period on Thursday, October 3, 2024. Both the project architectand the Appellant’s legal counsel responded and acknowledged City staff’s September 5, 2024email and did not contest the City’s timeline or assert that the completeness review period had begun earlier.
Thus, the first time the City was made aware of Appellant’s submittal date argument was on October 3, 2024, the exact day staff had informed the applicant team to expect completeness review comments. On that date, the City received a letter from the Appellant’s legal counsel asserting that the application had been “deemed complete by operation of law on September 30, 2024” because the City did not issue an incomplete letter by September 29, 2024, which the Appellant asserts was the final date of the 30-day review period. However, the City completed its review and sent the review letter on October 3, 2024, which is within 30-days of September 3,2024, submittal date. An initial version of the letter was sent at 4:58 p.m., followed by a revised letter at 7:03 p.m.
5 CITY 1154
Docusign Lnvelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 The appeal letter makes various arguments regarding the 30-day statutory period for review of development applications for completeness, however, those arguments turn on the threshold question of whether the submittal date is September 3rd or August 30th.
In support of its argument, Appellant cites a December 7, 2023, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Letter or Technical Assistance to the City of Berkeley (the “Berkeley Letter”), however, the facts at issue in that letter are readily distinguishable. First, the City of Beverly Hills does not have a “ready to review” application procedure akin to the one described in the HCD letter. HCD states that “[Berkeley’s] application intake review processappears to be a completeness review consistent and subject to the [Permit Streamlining Act] because the [Berkeley] requires all the application checklist items be provided in this process.” (Berkeley Letter at p. 2.)
Whereas the process described in the Berkeley Letter appears to have required an application to be subject to a full completeness review prior to acceptance of the application, theCity of Beverly Hills has no such requirement or procedure.
Further, in the Berkeley Letter, HCD states that the “time it takes for a project to achieve ‘ready to review’ status is indefinite and may exceed 30 calendar days.” (HCD Letter, at p. 2.) In this case, staff generated the invoice within hours of the applicant/appellant seeking to submit itsapplication. The City’s submittal process is typical, in that submittals must include both the application materials and the required fee. Appellant seems to suggest that an applicant could“submit” an application without a fee, and expect the City to conduct its completeness review, and incur the associated costs, without any certainty that the fee will ever be paid. This scenario iscontrary to the well settled principle that cities can require applicants to pay fees to cover the costs for processing planning and land use applications.
6 CITY 1155
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 Appellant also suggests that the Beverly Hills calendared the 30-day completeness review period based on business days, rather than calendar days. This is not so. Community Development staff is very well aware that the 30-day completeness review period is measured in calendar days, since that is what the statute requires. The fact that the statute is silent as to after hour submissionsin no way precludes a policy and practice like the City’s, which is necessary and appropriate for the City’s implementation of the Permit Streamlining Act.
While the City has a policy regarding timing for application submittals, it has not found it necessary to adopt a policy deeming correspondence from the City to an applicant after the closeof business as having been sent the following day. Once the submittal date is determined,Government Code Section 65943(a) provides 30 calendar days from that date for the City to provide its completeness review determination, and nothing in the statute or City policy dictatesthat the response be provided prior to the close of business. Appellant has provided no legal authority in support of its position, and the City very clearly provided its response within 30 calendar days of the September 3, 2024, submittal date, exactly as it said it would in the September 5, 2024, correspondence to the Appellant. Further, the City initially issued an incompletenessletter at 4:58 p.m., which is within business hours. Thereafter, a revised letter with a minor revision was sent at 7:03 p.m. on October 3, 2024. Thus, to the extent that the 7:03 p.m. letter was untimely,the City relies on the letter issued at 4:58 p.m. and foregoes the historic resource issue added tothe 7:03 p.m. version of the letter, thus rendering Appellant’s after hours transmittal argumentmoot.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council hereby finds that the submittal date was properly determined to be September 3, 2024, that the incompleteness letter sent on October 3, 7 CITY 1156
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 2024 was timely, and that the 1St Formal Application Submittal has not been deemed complete byoperation of law.
B. The requirement to conduct an Initial Environmental Study has not been triggered because the application remains incomplete.
The City issued its initial incomplete application determination letter regarding the 1St Formal Application Submittal within the 30-day period provided by Government Code Section65943(a), on October 3, 2024. Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the application was not deemed complete by operation of law.
Additionally, the City’s determination letters for this project, including specifically the October 3, 2024, letter that is the subject of this appeal, clearly indicate which items need to be submitted and/or resolved in order to deem the application complete. In summary, the followingPlanning Application and Vesting Tentative Map checklist requirements were not satisfied in the applicant’s September 3, 2024, 1St Formal Application Submittal, and were memorialized in the City’s October 3, 2024, letter:
1. Title Page: The architectural plans did not include the correct project address, ownership address, and did not provide accurate information on development standards (Correction No. 3.c.l).
2. Site Plan: The architectural plans did not include the property’s square footage, dimensions of all existing structures, and the size and species of existing trees.Additionally, it did not show all code-required and proposed setbacks or include allanticipated improvements to the public right-of-way (Correction No. 3.c.3). 8 CITY 1157
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384
3. Floor Plans: The architectural plans included dens that would be considered bedrooms so the bedroom type count needed to be updated to reflect the correct unit types and afloor area blocking study was not included (Correction No. 3.c.4).
4. Roof Plan: The architectural plans did not include the location of proposed gutters and downspouts (Correction No. 3 .c.5).
5. Adjacent Property Information: The architectural plans did not provide information regarding adjacent properties to the east and the distances to all neighboring properties and structures (Correction No. 3.c.6).
6. Elevations/Renderings/Sections: The architectural plans did not include existing building elevations from all directions, did not specify how building height was determined, did not include information regarding any proposed architectural featuresand exterior light fixtures, and did not include all code-required and proposed setbacks(Correction No. 3.c.7).
7. Landscape Plans: The architectural plans did not include images of proposed plant species, clear distinctions between hardscape and landscape areas in the front yard area, details regarding any proposed lighting, and an elevation with proposed landscaping (Correction No. 3.c.8).
8. Environmental and /Technical Studies/Plans: Missing a Trip Generation Analysis, a Construction Management Plan, preliminary Grading, Drainage, and Erosion ControlPlan, and a Low Impact Development Plan (Correction 3 .e).
9. Historic Resource Assessment: Report was not provided (Correction No. 3.f).
10. Other Supporting Studies and Information: Missing a complete Density Bonus Supplemental Form with justification for incentives/concessions, and waivers, a 9 CITY 1158
Docusign Lnvelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 compliant Inclusionary Housing Plan, a Parking Study that analyses the proposed automated parking system, Required Findings for all requested entitlements, and a complete shade and shadow study (Correction No. 3.g).
11. Building Code Compliance: Analysis was not provided (Correction No. 3.h).12. Vesting Tentative Map: A complete application was not provided (Correction No. 3.2) Notably, Appellant does not challenge any of these incompleteness items in its appeal.
Because the application was incomplete and did not address all requirements of the Planning Application checklist and Vesting Tentative Map, an environmental assessment in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the City’s environmental regulationswas not initiated.
Subsequent to the appellant’s submittal of the appeal, the applicant submitted a 2’’ Formal Application Submittal with additional information and revised plans to the City on December 31, 2024, which were partially responsive to the City’s October 3, 2024, incomplete letter. Staff reviewed the resubmittal and in this second round of review again deemed the application incomplete on January 30, 2025, for failure to address the following Planning Application checklist requirements:
1. Title Page: The correct project address and ownership address were still missing.
2. Site PlanlElevations: All code-required and proposed setbacks with dimensions were still missing.
3. Blocking study: Was still missing information.
10 CITY 1159
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384
4. Adjacent property Information: Adjacent property information to the east and distances to neighboring properties and structures was still missing.
5. Architectural Details: Callouts, cut sheets, and photos of architectural features were again not included.
6. Construction Management Plan: Was not submitted.7. Density Bonus Supplemental Form: Was still incomplete.
8. Inclusionary Housing Plan: Did not meet compliance requirements.
9. Shade and Shadow Study: Winter sun charts were still missing.
10. Vesting Tentative Map: A Title Policy was not provided.
If and when all required application materials are submitted, and the project application is deemed complete, environmental review ofthe project would be initiated.
The City Council finds that the 1st Formal Application Submittal was incomplete based on the Applicant’s failure to submit the foregoing information, individually and collectively.
C. The City no longer requires General Plan and Zoning Amendment applications for Builder’s Remedy pro/ects.
At the time the appeal was filed, the City’s position remained that requiring the legislative actions did not mean that the City was denying or disapproving the project, but rather was ensuring that any inconsistencies with the existing General Plan and Zoning Ordinance could be analyzedand resolved through the entitlement review process, which protects due process rights of neighbors as well. This good faith position was supported by a technical assistance memorandum issued to the City of Compton by the Department of Housing and Community Development onMarch 28, 2024. In a subsequent letter from HCD to the City ofBeverly Hills dated June 26, 2024, 11 CITY 1160
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 HCD changed its position, and instead asserted that local agencies could not require legislativeamendment applications for Builder’s Remedy projects.
Further, Assembly Bill 1893 (AB 1893), which became effective on January 1, 2025, amended the Housing Accountability Act to address the treatment of Builder’s Remedy projects by local agencies. AB 1893 expressly prohibits cities from requiring a General Plan amendment or zone change for Builder’s Remedy projects.
Therefore, on December 27, 2024, the City notified the Appellant that the submission of General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment applications would no longer be required to reconcile builder’s remedy projects’ inconsistencies with applicable plans and ordinances. As aresult, the lack of these applications would no longer be considered a basis to determine the application incomplete, to the extent that the project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. In light of the City’s determination in this regard, this basis for appeal is moot.
C. 1. The ]S! Formal Application Submittal Filed by the Applicant Exceeded the Scope of the Preliminary Application (PA), and a Conforming Application was Not Filed within the 180- day period required by Government Code Section 6594.1 (e)(])1 Deviation from the PA. As stated in the City’s October 3, 2024 incomplete application determination letter, on March 15, 2024, the property owners, submitted a PA pursuant to Government Code Section 65941.1 for a housing development. However, the September 3, 2024 1St Formal Application Submittal deviated from the PA by including a vesting tentative tract map, which was not identified in the PA.
The Vesting Tentative Tract map submitted for an airspace subdivision and condominium units as part of the Formal Application Submittal is a key deviation from the PA. The formal ‘It should be noted that Government Code Section 65941.1 was amended effective January 1,2025, which amendments included re-lettering subsection (d)(1) to (e)(1). 12 CITY 1161
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 project application includes a mix of for-sale condominiums and rental units, whereas only rental units were contemplated in the PA. The PA, however states: “No approvals under the Subdivision Map Act are requested.”
Government Code Section 65941.1 requires preliminary applications to include all of the information listed in that paragraph (a) including “(12) Whether any approvals under the Subdivision Map Act, including, but not limited to, a parcel map, a tentative map, or a condominium map, are being requested.” Because the PA Project, on the face of the application,states there is no subdivision contemplated, and because a subdivision map is proposed as an integral part of the formal project application, the project is inconsistent with the PA, and is notwithin the scope of the rights vested by the PA.
As pointed out in prior correspondence to HCD, the qualifier “all of’ was deliberately added during the legislative process as part of the Assembly Amendments on June 12, 2019, to “[c]larify that all the elements of the initial application must be included in the initial application in order for the rules to lock (it is not clear in the current language).” At the same time, Section65941.1(c) was also amended to begin “After submittal of all of the information required by subdivision (a)...” (Emphasis added.) Finally, as part of the final Assembly amendments on August 12, 2019, Section 65941.1(d) was amended to tie the 180-day period in which to submit a formal development project application to the submission of “a preliminary application with all the information required by subdivision (a). . . .“ (Emphasis added.) Taken together, these changes evidence a clear legislative intent for a preliminary application to vest rights in a project only if all of the project information required by 65941.1 (a)( 1 )-( 17) is included in the application, and any subsequent development application must include the information contained in the preliminary application. Accordingly, when there 13 CITY 1162
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 are omissions ofrequired information in a preliminary application, and a subsequent developmentconflicts with the information included in the preliminary application, the City Council believes the most reasonable interpretation is that each ofthe 17 informational items required under Section 65941.1(a) must match up with what is in a subsequent project application for the subsequent application to enjoy vested rights. Any other interpretation would eviscerate the legislature’s stated intent for a preliminary application to include all of the required information before rights can vest in a project; Section 65941.1(c) is thus more properly seen as a safe harbor for adjusting the size of the project, which often occurs as a project goes through development.
For the foregoing reasons, the City Council concludes that staff has correctly determined in good faith that the 140 South Camden Drive project is a different project than the PA Project because ofthe omission ofsubdivision information. In furtherance ofthe City’s good faith efforts in applying and implementing the preliminary application statutes, the City Council has opted not to pursue what it believes would be good faith arguments for loss of PA vesting rights for Appellant’s failure to include complete density bonus, concession, and waiver information asrequired by Government Code Section 6594 l.1(a)(l 1)), and historic resource information as required by Government Code Section 65941. l(a)(9).Therefore, the PA is not valid as to the formalproject application because it failed to include all of the information required by Govt. Code Section 65941.1 (a), and specifically, did not include the subdivision information required bySection 65941.1 (a)(12). While conceptually, the PA could remain applicable to a project that did not include a subdivision, the 180-day deadline within which to submit such an application expiredon September 11, 2024.
Although the City Council has found the application incomplete, to the extent that the Preliminary Application lapsed, the City finds that when the formal application was filed, the City 14 CITY 1163
Docusign Lnvelope ID: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 had a housing element in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law, and that the project contemplated under the formal application is inconsistent with both the City’s zoning ordinances and General Plan based on, among other things, the building’s height and density.
Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the PA has lapsed in September 2024, and that the Project no longer qualifies as a builder’s remedy project. /1/
I/I
15 CITY 1164
Docusign Envelope ID: EBD88CO1-A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption ofthis resolution and shall cause this resolution and her certification to be entered in the Book of Resolutions of the Council of this City.
Adopted: March 4, 2025
(,tsfr J.
LESTER J. FRIEDMAN,
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills,
California
V
ATTEST: I
1f
\ ezL4L
JMA AHMED (SEAL)
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
J4Ll
LAURENCE S. WIENER NANCY HUNT-COFFEYCity Attorney City Manager 16 CITY 1165
idocusign
Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: EBD88CO1 -A2CE-4F7F-97D6-3DE7058FF384 Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: Resolution_14OSCAMDEN_CC_FINAL_AMENDED.pdf Source Envelope:
Document Pages: 16 Signatures: 4 Envelope Originator:
Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 1 Evelin Welch
AutoNav: Enabled 455 N. Rexford Drive
Envelopeld Stamping: Enabled Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada) ewelchbeverlyhills.org P Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original Holder: Evelin Welch Location: DocuSign 3/17/2025 3:57:58 PM [email protected]
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Laurence S. Wiener Sent: 3/17/2025 4:03:29 PM
[email protected] Viewed: 3/18/2025 3:34:42 PMSecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication Signed: 3/18/2025 3:35:05 PM(None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 192.5.3.140
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Mandy Jiang Sent: 3/18/2025 3:35:06 PM
mjiangbeverlyhills.org Viewed: 3/18/2025 4:19:01 PM
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication Signed: 3/18/2025 4:19:09 PM (None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Nancy Hunt-Coffey Sent: 3/18/2025 4:19:10 PMnhuntcoffeybeverlyhilIs.org JtUA-& €Ai—Ct1R11 Viewed: 3/18/2025 7:29:45 PMCity Manager Signed: 3/18/2025 7:30:28 PMSecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication (None) Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using lPAddress: 198.245.189.181
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Lester J. Friedman . Sent: 3/18/2025 7:30:29 PM
[email protected] (,t-stt.r j. VI44OtA, Viewed: 3/19/2025 11:34:13 AM Security Level: Email, Account Authentication Signed: 3/19/2025 11:34:37AM (None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 172.90.225.198
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
CITY 1166
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer EventsEditor Delivery Events
Agent Delivery Events
Intermediary Delivery EventsCertified Delivery Events
Carbon Copy Events
Keith Sterling
[email protected] Level: Email, Account Authentication(None) Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Adrianne Tarazon
[email protected]
Executive Assistant to City CouncilPolicy & ManagementSecurity Level: Email, Account Authentication(None)Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Megan [email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Not Offered via Docusign
Witness Events
Notary Events
Envelope Summary Events
Envelope Sent
Certified Delivered
Signing CompleteCompleted
Payment Events
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using lPAddress: 198.245.189.154
Signature
StatusStatusStatus
StatusStatus
r COPIED
Signature
SignatureStatus
Hashed/Encrypted
Security CheckedSecurity Checked
Security Checked
Status
Timestamp
TimestampTimestamps
3/17/2025 4:03:29 PM3/19/2025 1:53:58 PM
3/19/2025 1:54:09 PM3/19/2025 1:54:10 PM
Timestamps
Signer Events
Huma Ahmed
[email protected] Level: Email, Account Authentication(None) Signature Timestamp
Sent: 3/19/2025 11:34:41 AM
Viewed: 3/19/2025 1:53:58 PM
Signed: 3/19/2025 1:54:09 PM
TimestampTimestamp
Timestamp
Timestamp
Timestamp
Timestamp
Sent: 3/19/2025 11:34:39 AM
Sent: 3/19/2025 11:34:40 AM
Sent: 3/19/2025 1:54:10 PM
COPIED
COPIED
CITY 1167