Item F-1 — Beverly Hills City Council, July 21, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: July 21, 2026
Item Number:

To: Honorable Mayor & City Council
From: Cindy Gordon, AICP, Assistant Director of Community Development/City Planner
Edgar Arroyo, Project Manager
Subject: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S OCTOBER 23, 2025

DECISION APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A

PROJECT UTILIZING STATE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
BUILDER’S REMEDY PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65589.5(D)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A NEW EIGHTSTORY, 55-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 232 TOWER DRIVE; AND

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW

FOR A PROJECT UTILIZING STATE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY
ACT BUILDER’S REMEDY PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(D)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A
NEW EIGHT-STORY, 55-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 232 TOWER DRIVE, AND FINDING THE

PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
Attachments: 1. Draft City Council Resolution

2. Appeal Petition Form

3. October 23, 2025, Planning Commission Report (w/o attachments)

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2101

5. State Statutes

6. Required Findings

7. General Plan Policies

8. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment

9. Construction Management Plan (CMP)

10. AB 130 Statutory CEQA Exemption – City Compliance Analysis

11. Replacement Unit Determination

12. Public Hearing Notice
Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 2 of 11 ends

13. Public Correspondence

14. Project Plans

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Hold a de novo public hearing to consider the appeal, and,

2. Adopt a resolution approving the project (i.e., denying the appeal) and finding the project exempt from CEQA.

INTRODUCTION
The subject of this appeal is a proposed multi-family residential development located at 232 Tower Drive. The project proposes a total of 55 dwelling units in an eight-story building with a height of 101’-0”. A total of 13 parking spaces would be provided in a single-level subterranean parking structure with access from Tower Drive. Of the 55 dwelling units, 11 units would be deed-restricted affordable units designated for rental to lower-income (lowincome and very low-income) households. The proposed project includes the following unit types:
• 17 Efficiency Units (Studios): Ranging from 392 SF – 396 SF o 4 Lower-Income Units
o 13 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
• 38 One-Bedroom Units: Ranging from 563 SF – 618 SF
o 7 Lower-Income Units
o 31 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
A total of 8,867 SF of open space is proposed through a combination of private outdoor living space on balconies and common outdoor living space on the rooftop.

Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy
On October 5, 2023, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application (PA) for a Housing Development Project (“PA”) to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, including the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on April 2, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in Government Code (GC) §65941.1(e)(1). The application was deemed complete by the City on December 27, 2024. While the project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to Housing Element certification.

For context, the term “Builder’s Remedy” generally refers to certain findings pursuant to the HAA that must be made for a local agency to disapprove a qualifying housing development project meeting certain affordability requirements, and which findings require a certified housing element (GC §65589.5(d)(1) and (5)). Under these circumstances, state law imposes specific limitations on a city’s authority to deny a project proposing Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 3 of 11 ends

“housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households”, even if that project is inconsistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations.

Enacted in 1982 and more recently amended, the HAA establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs. The HAA limits the City’s ability to disapprove a housing development project and provides specific findings for disapproval based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record. These findings are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j) and are provided as Attachment 5.

Replacement of Protected Units
Pursuant to GC §66300.6, the City shall not approve a housing development project that will require the demolition of one or more residential dwelling units unless the project will create at least as many residential dwelling units as will be demolished. Additionally, state law requires the replacement of any protected units1 as part of the new project. The project would demolish an eight-unit apartment building built in 1940 and replace it with the proposed 55-unit housing development project, providing a net increase in the number of units that currently exist at the site.

As part of the City’s Replacement Unit Determination (RUD) process, the project was determined to require the replacement of six units at affordable levels (four very lowincome units and two low-income units) (Attachment 11). While the applicant has not yet designated specific units in the project for each required affordable income category, the applicant would be required to designate the required affordability levels for the affordable units prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the project, consistent with the City’s RUD.

Additionally, the RUD determined that one existing three-bedroom unit was occupied by an income-verified very low-income household. Pursuant to state replacement unit requirements, the project is also required to provide a replacement three-bedroom unit in the new project. As currently designed, the project only provides affordable units as studio and one-bedroom units. The Planning Commission’s October 23, 2026 approval (Attachment 4) included a condition requiring the applicant to reconfigure the project to provide at least one, three-bedroom unit reserved for very low-income households to comply with the RUD and state replacement unit requirements (Condition No. 9 of Resolution No. 2101). A similar condition has been carried over in the draft resolution (Attachment 1) for the Council’s consideration as Condition No. 9.

Planning Commission Discussion
On October 23, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to review the project (Attachment 3). At the hearing, the Commission heard public comment, which included testimony and correspondence both in support of and opposition to the 1 Pursuant to GC §66300.5(h), “Protected Units” means any of the following:
• Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years. • Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years. • Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low income households within the past five years.
• Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 within the past 10 years.

Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 4 of 11 ends

proposed project. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 2101 (4-0) approving the project, subject to 62 specific conditions of approval (Attachment 4).

Appeal Filed
On November 6, 2025, Kenneth Dusick, on behalf of Carthay Beverly Hills Neighbors, submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision (Attachment 2). The appeal stayed the Planning Commission’s approval of the project pending a final decision on the appeal by the City Council.

The following grounds are taken directly from the appellant’s November 6, 2025 appeal petition:
1) The Project Poses Specific Adverse Impacts
2) The Legally Required Findings Under Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) §10- 3-3100 Cannot Be Made with Supporting Substantial Evidence 3) The Project’s Approval Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
4) The Project’s Approval Violated Constitutional (both state and federal) Protections

DISCUSSION
The following is an analysis of the points raised in the appellant’s appeal petition.

Appellant Appeal Ground No. 1:
“The Project Poses Specific Adverse Impacts”
The appellant asserts that the proposed project would have specific, adverse impacts upon public health or safety and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impacts. The appellant asserts that impacts related to traffic and pedestrian safety, parking, emergency access, and aesthetics will occur to substantiate their concerns.

As to traffic and pedestrian safety, the appellant notes that the project would generate significant vehicular traffic on residential streets, which they believe are unable to handle the increased traffic volume and would add significant traffic and congestion on Gregory Way and other streets. Regarding parking, the appellant asserts that the project provides 13 parking spaces and falls short of providing parking in the amount otherwise required by the City’s parking requirements, creating circulation conflicts, emergency vehicle access concerns, and quality of life degradation as a result of the parking deficiency.

Regarding emergency access impacts, the appellant asserts that inadequate parking, along with increased project density, would impact emergency response times and vehicular access to the neighborhood, and that reduced building setbacks along Tower Drive create obstructions that impact the visibility of emergency vehicle operators. Lastly, regarding aesthetics, the appellant contends that the project would result in the irreparable degradation of the established community aesthetic, privacy, lighting, and air circulation, including potential shading impacts to neighboring properties.

Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 5 of 11 ends

City Response to Appeal Ground No. 1
The City is limited by state law in the review of specific aspects of the project, including concerns related to parking and aesthetics impacts of the project. Pursuant to GC §65863.2 (AB 2097)2, a public agency is preempted from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit. Similarly, pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. A transit priority area is defined as an area within ½ mile of a major transit stop, pursuant to PRC §21099(a)(7).

The project site is located within ½ mile of the recently opened Wilshire/La Cienega D Line Metro Station, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. While the applicant is not required to provide any parking for the project due to AB 2097, the project includes a total of 13 parking spaces that would be unbundled3from the price of rent and made available to all tenants, regardless of income level, subject to availability. Because the applicant seeks to avail themselves of reduced state parking provisions, the project site and any future tenant would be ineligible from participating in and parking within a preferential parking district, as required pursuant to BHMC §7-3-205.5. This information is required to be disclosed to a prospective tenant so that they are able to make an informed decision on whether the development meets their housing needs.

Regarding traffic impacts, the project materials included a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment (Attachment 8), as well as trip generation figures for existing and future conditions to evaluate potential traffic-related impacts. As detailed in the assessment, based on the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation impacts, the project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted thresholds because it is located within a low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for residential projects and also located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA). As such, this project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Additionally, because this housing development project qualifies for a statutory exemption from the Californian Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) (AB 130), traffic-related concerns and are not considered an environmental impact and are not subject to further CEQA review.

Furthermore, the assessment projected that the project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (3 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (8 inbound trips and 6 outbound trips). Based on the above weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation forecast, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was not required, as the project is forecasted to generate less than 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

The project is also not anticipated to have adverse impacts to pedestrian safety or emergency access, either during construction or once the project is in operation. While intermittent and temporary closures of portions of the public right-of-way are anticipated as part of project construction, all temporary closures would be subject to the City’s review and approval of a Construction Management Plan (Attachment 9) to ensure proper pedestrian circulation and emergency access is provided during construction. Post2 Assembly Bill 2097, Friedman. Residential, commercial, or other development types: parking requirements. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097 3 Assembly Bill 1317, Wendy Carrillo. Unbundled parking. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1947.1.&lawCode=CIV Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 6 of 11 ends

construction, all temporary partial closures would be removed and any affected access restored. The draft resolution includes conditions intended to address and minimize impacts related to existing and anticipated development, traffic/pedestrian safety conflicts, and the welfare of the surrounding area, including conditions regulating the operation and use of outdoor living areas, opacity of balconies, improvements to on-site vehicular circulation, and construction-related measures.

Lastly, while materials submitted for this project show that the project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which the City could rely to deny the project. Aesthetic impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard. Similarly, construction traffic impacts would be temporary, and any traffic control measures implemented would be consistent with City requirements for development projects and would be removed at the end of project construction. Construction noise impacts would also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays. Furthermore, the HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, if they wish to deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderateincome housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing conditions on a project that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” These potential findings that could be made to disapprove a project are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j). An analysis of these findings is provided in the October 23, 2025 Planning Commission report (Attachment 3) and the draft resolution (Attachment 1) for the Council’s consideration, which conclude that there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

Appellant Appeal Ground No 2:
“The Legally Required Findings Under Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) §10-3-3100 Cannot Be Made with Supporting Substantial Evidence”
The appellant contends that the project is inconsistent with the City's General Plan and that substantial evidence was provided in the October 23, 2025 Planning Commission report to demonstrate that the project would adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the project and would not promote harmonious development of the area. The appellant further contends that the Planning Commission was incorrectly advised that notwithstanding the fact that the legally mandated findings under BHMC §10- 3-3100 cannot be made, that the City must nonetheless approve the project because it qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project. Additionally, the appellant asserts that a local agency has the ability to require a qualified Builder’s Remedy project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need, pursuant to GC §65589.5(f)(1), and that the City erred in its approval of the project.

Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 7 of 11 ends

City Response to Appeal Ground No. 2
As detailed in the October 23, 2025 Planning Commission report (Attachment 3), the HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, in order to defensibly deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing conditions on a project approval that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” While staff believes, and the Planning Commission concurred in adoption of Resolution No. 2101, that some of the DPR findings cannot be made, the City is nonetheless obligated to approve the project because there is no evidence in the record that would support project denial. However, the DPR analysis forms the basis for certain conditions of approval that staff is recommending in the draft resolution (Attachment 1). Additionally, while a local jurisdiction has the ability to apply objective standards in the review of a project, the HAA includes provisions that allow developers of a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project to bypass local zoning and general plan rules when a local government’s housing element is out of compliance with state law. Thus, while all of the required DPR findings cannot be made in support of project approval, there does not appear to be substantial evidence in the record, or in the appellant’s submittal, that would support denial of the project pursuant to the denial findings provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j).

Appellant Appeal Ground No 3:
“The Project’s Approval Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)”
The appellant argues that the Planning Commission’s October 23, 2025 determination that the project was statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was in error, and that a Builder’s Remedy project cannot override compliance with CEQA. Specifically, the appellant asserts that application of the recently adopted CEQA exemption under Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.66 (AB 130) is not applicable to this project, as the project was submitted prior to June 30, 2025, the effective date of the CEQA exemption, and cites Government Code (GC) §65589.52(o), which states that “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application…was submitted”.

Accordingly, the appellant asserts that the preparation of an initial study pursuant to CEQA is necessary to determine project impacts to the adjacent Carthay Circle Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ) area located to the east of the project site, within the City of Los Angeles.

City Response Appeal Ground No. 3
Effective on June 30, 2025, the State adopted major legislative changes to CEQA that created statutory exemptions for qualifying urban infill housing developments to accelerate and streamline the regulatory approval process (AB 1307F 4 ). The October 23, 2025 Planning
Commission report and the resolution provided analysis on whether the project qualified for the statutory exemption and the criteria detailed in PRC §21080.66(a). Based on the City’s assessment of the applicable criteria, the project qualifies for a statutory exemption 4 Sec. 59 of Assembly Bill 130, Committee on Budget. Housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 8 of 11 ends

from CEQA.

While the appellant argues that AB 130 is not applicable because it became effective after the PA and DPR application were submitted, the provisions of AB 130 are applicable to all qualifying housing development projects under review by a local jurisdiction. Provisions in state law that limit the ability to apply only the specific ordinances, policies, and standards in place when a PA for a housing development project was submitted apply only to a local jurisdiction’s review of a project, and does not limit the future application of state law, which has continued to evolve over the past six years to address the state legislature’s concerns regarding housing availability, affordability, and production.

Further, to qualify for this statutory exemption, the project cannot require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a PA was submitted (PRC §21080.66(a)(7)). While the project site is currently developed with an eight-unit apartment building and garage structure that were built in 1940, neither structure was identified to be on a national, state, or local historic register.

Additionally, the project does not propose the demolition of any structure located within the Carthay Circle HPOZ. As the project meets the criteria to be eligible for the statutory CEQA exemption and does not propose the demolition of a structure on a national, state, or local historic register, no further environmental review is required.

Appellant Appeal Ground No. 4:
“The Project’s Approval Violated Constitutional (both state and federal) Protections.”
The appellant argues that approval of the project under state Builder's Remedy provisions violates constitutional due process protections and improperly overrides local land use authority, and with public hearings on the project serving little value because the City had little to no discretion on the denial of the project. Further, the appellant asserts that the application of state Builder's Remedy provisions in this case is arbitrary and capricious because the City had made multiple good-faith attempts to secure Housing Element certification from the state, with previous state Housing Element submittals being substantially compliant with state law.

The appellant maintains that neighboring residents, particularly those in the adjacent Carthay Circle HPOZ, should not be affected by actions imposed by the state while the City of Beverly Hills worked on obtaining state certification of its Housing Element because they had no role in the City's certification process and are not represented by the City.

Further, the appellant argues that Builder's Remedy was intended to address noncompliant jurisdictions and should not be applied in a manner that negatively impacts neighboring cities and historic districts, with those actions undertaken by the state potentially violating the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

City Response to Appeal Ground No. 4
In the context of a Builder’s Remedy project, the HAA establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs. Additionally, the HAA includes provisions that allow developers to bypass local zoning and general plan rules when a local government’s housing element is out of compliance with state law. While the City worked diligently to address comments received by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), projects Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 9 of 11 ends

submitted prior to Housing Element certification, which occurred on May 1, 2024, were subject to state Builder’s Remedy provisions. Additionally, recent amendments to state law adopted under AB 18865, which were declaratory of existing law, have further clarified that a local jurisdiction’s housing element is only considered to be in substantial compliance with state law when HCD or a court decision determines that the housing element is compliant (GC §65589.03).

State law and subsequent amendments, along with recent court decisions regarding the applicability of Builder’s Remedy provisions, have made it clear that the City is substantially limited in its discretion to deny a qualifying project. Further, while the City is limited in denying a Builder’s Remedy project, the City has provided public notice of the project and scheduled meetings (mailed and posted on the project site) consistent with City noticing requirements. The feedback provided by the public at the October 23, 2025 Planning Commission meeting helped guide the Commission’s consideration of the project and led to the adoption of several conditions of approval that were intended to address potential project impacts, without the effect of lowering the density of the project or making the project infeasible, in compliance with state law. Lastly, the City has preserved the right of due process for both the applicant and the public and has processed the project in compliance with state and local requirements, inclusive of the appeal filed by the appellant.

Further, staff does not believe that approval of the project would effect a taking of private property because the action does not change any regulations regarding the allowed uses of nearby properties and does not deprive any property owner of all economic value of their property. Further, the action does not involve any physical intrusion or public occupation of private property.

SUMMARY / CONCLUSION
Staff does not believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to support any of the findings required in the HAA to defensibly deny the proposed Project. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the project, deny the appeal, and adopt the draft resolution conditionally approving a DPR for the project.

In addition those conditions originally adopted by the Planning Commission and consistent with the Council’s recent review of similar multi-family housing projects, additional conditions have been included in the draft resolution (Attachment 1) regarding the peer review of geotechnical and structural reports, verification from to utility providers to serve the Project site, verification of adequate water supply and fire low capacity, sewer and storm drain improvements, vibration monitoring, maintaining safe access for adjacent properties, and Fire Department review (Conditions Nos. 25 - 32).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines6(California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a). This exemption, which 5 AB 1886, Alvarez. Housing Element Law: substantial compliance: Housing Accountability Act. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB1886 6 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 10 of 11 ends

became effective on June 30, 2025 with the passage of AB 1307, is applicable to certain housing development projects that meet prescribed objective standards. Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council find the project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).

An assessment of the project’s eligibility for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) is provided in Attachment 10.

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The Notice of Public Hearing for the appeal hearing was mailed on Wednesday, July 1, 2026 to property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius (extended to the block face) from the project site (Attachment 12). An on-site notice was also posted on the project site on July 1, 2026. Further, courtesy emails were sent to all interested parties advising them of the appeal hearing date.

Public Comment
All public correspondence is included as Attachment 13 to this report.

STATE HOUSING LAW CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to GC §65905.5, the City is limited to five total public hearings on a housing development project after it has been deemed complete. Pursuant to this section, a public hearing continued to another date by the City is counted as one of the five allotted public hearings.

The Planning Commission’s consideration of the project on October 23, 2025 has utilized one of the five available public hearings provided by state law. City Council consideration of the appeal and de novo public hearing on July 21, 2026 will constitute the second of five available public hearings for the project.
7 Sec. 59 of Assembly Bill 130, Committee on Budget. Housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130 Meeting Date: July 21, 2026

Page 11 of 11 ends

FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation in this report does not have significant budget or fiscal impacts for the City beyond staff time. Costs associated with this appeal have been paid for by the appellants through application fees.

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Approved By
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft City Council Resolution
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 26-R-________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROJECT UTILIZING
STATE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BUILDER’S

REMEDY PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65589.5(d)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A NEW
EIGHT-STORY, 55-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 232 TOWER DRIVE, AND FINDING THE

PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Dave Rand, on behalf of Oak Investment Company LLC and Beachside Suites LLC (collectively the “Applicant”), has submitted a Development Plan Review application utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65589.5(d)(5), seeking approval of a new eight-story, multi-family residential development with subterranean parking at 232 Tower Drive. The Project includes 55 dwelling units, consisting of 44 market rate units and 11 lower-income units (the “Project”). Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3100.A, Development Plan Review is required for the new multi-family residential development.

Section 2. The Project site is a 10,046 square-foot (SF) lot located along the east side of the 200 block of Tower Drive, within the R-4, Multiple Residential Zone. The Project consists of the construction of a new eight-story multi-family residential development with 55 dwelling units, which requires the demolition an eight-unit apartment building built in 1940 and detached garage structure. As designed, the Project will provide efficiency units (studios) ranging from 392 SF to 396 SF and one-bedroom units ranging from 563 SF to 618 SF, and is required to provide -2-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
one, three-bedroom unit to comply with state replacement unit provisions. Approximately 8,867 SF of open space will be provided through a combination of common and outdoor living space on balconies facing the south and west elevations, and on the rooftop of the building. The Project will provide 13 parking spaces within a one-level subterranean garage. Vehicular access to the subterranean parking areas will be provided from along Tower Drive.

Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the Applicant submitted a Development Plan Review application on April 2, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in Government Code Section 65941.1(e)(1). The Project was deemed complete by the City on December 27, 2024.

While the Project was deemed complete after the City’s housing element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the state Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) because the Applicant submitted the PA associated with this Project prior to housing element certification, thus vesting rights at that time pursuant to HAA Section 65589.5(o)(1).

Section 4. On October 23, 2025, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings after which it adopted Resolution No. 2101, approving the Development Plan Review application to allow for construction of the Project.

Section 5. On November 6, 2025, a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was filed by Kenneth Dusick, on behalf of Carthay Beverly Hills Neighbors (the -3-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
“Appellant”), in accordance with BHMC §1-4-301 et seq., seeking City Council review of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project.

Section 6. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on July 1, 2026 to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, extended to the block face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on July 21, 2026.

On July 21, 2026, the City Council considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing.

Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing.

Section 7. GC §65589.5 paragraphs (d) and (j) set forth specific findings that must be made in order to deny housing projects. In considering the Project and HAA findings for denial or conditioning of housing affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households to lower density, pursuant to GC §65589.5(d), the City Council considered whether it could make any of the following findings:

1. The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the -4-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.

3. The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate- -5-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.

5. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. a. This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
b. If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter -6-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.

6. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (GC §65589.5(d)(6)) Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to GC §65589.5(d), as set forth in Section 7:

1. On May 1, 2024, HCD certified the City’s Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. In this housing cycle, the City was tasked with creating a regulatory environment and identifying sites that would facilitate the production of 3,104 dwelling units, 504 units of which would be reserved for extremely low-income households, 504 units reserved for very low-income households, 680 units reserved for low-income households, 602 units reserved for moderate income households, and 814 reserved for above moderate-income households.
-7-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
The Project proposes a total of 55 dwelling units, which includes 11 deedrestricted affordable units reserved for lower-income households. Based on current housing production figures during this housing cycle, a total of 277 market rate units and 54 lower income units have been permitted. While the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element, the City has not yet met or exceeded its share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the current planning period for the income category proposed for the Project. Accordingly, the City is unable to deny the Project on these grounds.

2. The Project conflicts with general plan land use designation and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking. However, as noted in GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), any inconsistency with the City’s zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety upon which the City may base consideration of the denial of the proposed housing development project. It should be noted that the standard is for “public health or safety” and not “welfare.” Additionally, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, or a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the Project, including the appeal, do not appear to demonstrate that the Project will have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that will necessitate mitigation. Further, additional research has been performed as to whether there are any applicable objective written health or safety standards that would apply to this Project and would warrant denial or reductions in density and the City has not identified any such standards on which a denial pursuant to this finding could be justified. -8-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

3. Research into relevant state and federal laws has been performed and there is no basis on which to find the Project to be out of compliance and thus the City has no basis on which to rely to make this finding. As the Project is consistent with state housing law and no specific state or federal law preempts approval of the Project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

4. The Project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes. Improvements required for the Project will require that the Applicant upgrade any existing water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed building as part of Project construction. As part of the building plan check process, the Applicant will be required to submit studies showing the adequacy of existing water and wastewater facilities, and any upgrades to these utilities will be required at the expense of the Applicant. Furthermore, the City’s 2020 and 2025 Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) evaluated water demand, wastewater treatment capacity, and the ability to serve future housing units to accommodate to the City’s obligations under RHNA. The analysis in the UWMPs projected that sufficient capacity exists to serve the number 3,104 units anticipated during the 2021-2029 housing element planning cycle and through 2030 and beyond. As the Project is not on land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation and there is no evidence showing that water and wastewater facilities are inadequate to serve the Project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.
-9-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc

5. The Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (PA) on October 5, 2024 in order to vest the rights of the Project under the applicable provisions at the time. On this date, the City did not have a certified Housing Element. For purposes of implementing this state law, the application is deemed complete on the date the PA is submitted. Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the Applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on April 2, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). As this Project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA), there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

6. Consistent with the analysis provided for the finding required by GC §65589.5(d)(5), because the Project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA) there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

Section 9. In considering the Project and findings for denial of a housing project that is consistent with applicable plans, standards, or other similar provisions based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, pursuant to GC §65589.5(j)(1), the City Council considered whether it could make the following findings:

1. When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed -10-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
a. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
b. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Section 10. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to GC §65589.5(j)(1), as set forth in Section 9:

1.a. Pursuant to the HAA (GC §65589.5(h)(6)(E)), a Builder’s Remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. Similarly, GC §65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or -11-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.”
Per GC §65589.5(h)(5), “deemed complete” means that the Applicant has submitted a PA to vest the rights of a project prior to the submittal of a formal application.

While the Project as designed conflicts with general plan and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking, this Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and is considered statutorily compliant with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria because the PA for this Project was submitted on October 5, 2024, prior to HCD certification of the City’s Housing Element.

Additionally, while materials submitted for this Project show that the Project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the Project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which the City could rely to deny the Project. Aesthetic impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard. Similarly, construction traffic impacts will be temporary, and any traffic control measures implemented will be consistent with City requirements for development projects and will be removed at the end of Project construction. Construction noise impacts will also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays.
-12-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, in a delineated earthquake fault zone, in a special flood hazard area, or in a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the Project do not appear to demonstrate that the Project will have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to construction workers or future occupants of the residential development. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that enables the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

1.b. While the Project is anticipated to have aesthetic and temporary construction-related traffic and noise impacts, the noted impacts do not appear to constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to merit disapproval of the proposed housing development Project. Furthermore, pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

Section 11. In considering the request for approval of a Development Plan Review, pursuant to §10-3-3104 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the City Council considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:

1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely -13-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Section 12. After conducting a de novo public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings to approve a Development Plan Review for the Project, and deny the appeal based upon an independent review of the evidence contained in the record. The City Council hereby makes the following findings regarding the Project:

1. The Project site is designated as Multi-Family Residential – High Density in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation allows for multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre and at a maximum height of 60’-0”. The Project is a new eight-story, 55-unit, multi-family residential development with a height of 101’-0”. As designed, the Project far exceeds the development potential outlined in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Under the applicable density standards, a total of 12 units would be permissible at the Project site, with a maximum height of 60’-0”.

Additionally, the Project appears to be in conflict with several goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, including: LU 1.1 (Scale of the City), LU 2.1 (City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors), LU 2.10 (Development Transitions and Compatibility), LU 3.1 (Conservation), LU 5.1 (Neighborhood Conservation), LU 5.7 (Neighborhood Transitions), and LU 7.1 (Character and Design). -14-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
As designed, the Project does not maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the residential and commercial areas in the vicinity of the Project. The proposed height of eight stories and 101’-0” disrupts the established scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood characterized by oneto two story single-family residences and two- to four-story multi-family buildings. The placement of the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential properties. The Project includes balconies along the south and west elevations, which may have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns that are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to assure functional and visual transitions between different densities. The Project’s scale and reduced building setbacks on the west elevation do not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the two- to four-story residential uses to the surrounding the Project site. Based on the foregoing, the Project is not consistent with the City’s general plan. Thus, the finding cannot be made that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. However, while the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, the HAA requires that a Builder’s Remedy project be considered consistent and in compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, and such inconsistencies do not provide a basis for denial of the Project.

2. The Project is severely out of scale with existing development immediately adjacent to the Project, which includes one- to- story single family residences and two- to four-story multi-family residential buildings. The Project’s scale and lack of building -15-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
modulation do not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the surrounding residential uses in the vicinity of the Project. The placement of the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential properties. The Project include balconies along the south and west elevations, which may have direct view of open spaces and windows on existing singlefamily and multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the Project may adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the Project and will not promote harmonious development of the area. Thus, this finding cannot be made. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.

3. The Project proposal involves the construction of a new multi-family residential building and does not include any commercial development. As a result, this finding is not applicable.

During the weekday PM peak hour, the Project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (8 inbound trips and 6 outbound trips). Based on the above weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation forecast, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) is not -16-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
required, as the Project is forecasted to generate less than 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

The Construction Management Plan (CMP) submitted for the Project identifies the need for several construction-related closures of public right-of-way areas.

The impacted areas include Tower Drive and parking lane closures during project duration and one traffic lane closure. Any use of public rights-of-way are subject to separate City approvals. While the Project has the potential to create adverse traffic impacts, pedestrianvehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards as a result of the proposed closures of public right-of-way adjacent to the Project site, a detailed CMP will require review by the City and measures will be implemented to minimize impacts associated with the temporary closures of the public right-of-way. Therefore, the Project will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard.

5. The Project is designed in conflict with general plan and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking. While aesthetic impacts of a project associated with privacy and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard, the materials provided for the Project also demonstrate that the Project will cast shadows on the multi-family residential buildings located to the north and the northwest and on single-family residential buildings to the east in summer months, and on multi-family residential buildings to the north and northwest and on singlefamily residential buildings in the winter months, impacting access to natural light to these -17-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
properties. Furthermore, the Project includes balconies along the south and west elevations, which may have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the finding that the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare cannot be made. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.

Section 13. The City Council has considered the Appellant’s grounds for appeal and finds as follows:

1. The Project Poses Specific Adverse Impacts. The City is limited by state law in the review of specific aspects of the Project, including concerns related to parking and aesthetics impacts of the Project. Pursuant to GC §65863.2 (AB 2097), a public agency is preempted from imposing or enforcing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit. Similarly, pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. A transit priority area is defined as an area within ½ mile of a major transit stop, pursuant to PRC §21099(a)(7).

The Project site is located within ½ mile of the recently opened Wilshire/La Cienega D Line Metro Station, located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. While the Applicant is not required to provide any parking for the Project due to AB 2097, the Project includes a total of 13 parking spaces that would be unbundled from the price of rent and made available to all tenants, regardless of income level, subject to availability. Because the Applicant seeks to -18-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
avail themselves of reduced state parking provisions, the Project site and any future tenant would be ineligible from participating in and parking within a preferential parking district, as required pursuant to BHMC §7-3-205.5. This information is required to be disclosed to a prospective tenant so that they are able to make an informed decision on whether the development meets their housing needs.

Regarding traffic impacts, the Project materials included a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) assessment, as well as trip generation figures for existing and future conditions to evaluate potential traffic-related impacts. As detailed in the assessment, based on the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation impacts, the Project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted thresholds because it is located within a low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for residential projects and also located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA). As such, this Project is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. Additionally, because this housing development project qualifies for a statutory exemption from the Californian Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) (AB 130), traffic-related concerns and are not considered an environmental impact and are not subject to further CEQA review.

Furthermore, the assessment projected that the Project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (3 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour.

During the weekday PM peak hour, the Project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (8 inbound trips and 6 outbound trips). Based on the above weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation forecast, a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) was not required, as the Project is forecasted to generate less than 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
-19-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
The Project is also not anticipated to have adverse impacts to pedestrian safety or emergency access, either during construction or once the Project is in operation.

While intermittent and temporary closures of portions of the public right-of-way are anticipated as part of Project construction, all temporary closures would be subject to the City’s review and approval of a Construction Management Plan to ensure proper pedestrian circulation and emergency access is provided during construction. Post-construction, all temporary partial closures would be removed and any affected access restored. The draft resolution includes conditions intended to address and minimize impacts related to existing and anticipated development, traffic/pedestrian safety conflicts, and the welfare of the surrounding area, including conditions regulating the operation and use of outdoor living areas, opacity of balconies, improvements to on-site vehicular circulation, and construction-related measures.

Lastly, while materials submitted for this Project show that the Project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the Project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which the City could rely to deny the Project. Aesthetic impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard.

Similarly, construction traffic impacts would be temporary, and any traffic control measures implemented would be consistent with City requirements for development projects and would be removed at the end of Project construction. Construction noise impacts would also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 -20-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays. Furthermore, the HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, if they wish to deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing conditions on a project that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” These potential findings that could be made to disapprove a project are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j). An analysis of these findings is provided in the October 23, 2025 Planning Commission report and for those reasons, and the reasons in this Resolution the City Council concludes that there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

2. The Legally Required Findings Under Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) §10-3-3100 Cannot Be Made with Supporting Substantial Evidence. As detailed in the October 23, 2025 Planning Commission report, the HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, in order to defensibly deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing conditions on a project approval that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” -21-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
While the City Council finds, and the Planning Commission concurred in adoption of Resolution No. 2101, that some of the DPR findings cannot be made, the City is nonetheless obligated to approve the Project because there is no evidence in the record that would support Project denial. However, the DPR analysis forms the basis for certain conditions of approval that staff is recommending in the draft resolution. Additionally, while a local jurisdiction has the ability to apply objective standards in the review of a project, the HAA includes provisions that allow developers of a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project to bypass local zoning and general plan rules when a local government’s housing element is out of compliance with state law. Thus, while all of the required DPR findings cannot be made in support of Project approval, there does not appear to be substantial evidence in the record, or in the appellant’s submittal, that would support denial of the Project pursuant to the denial findings provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j).

3. The Project’s Approval Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Effective on June 30, 2025, the State adopted major legislative changes to CEQA that created statutory exemptions for qualifying urban infill housing developments to accelerate and streamline the regulatory approval process (AB 130). The October 23, 2025 Planning Commission report and Planning Commission resolution provided analysis on whether the Project qualified for the statutory exemption and the criteria detailed in PRC §21080.66(a). Based on the City’s assessment of the applicable criteria, the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption from CEQA.

While the Appellant argues that AB 130 is not applicable because it became effective after the PA and DPR application were submitted, the provisions of AB 130 are -22-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
applicable to all qualifying housing development projects under review by a local jurisdiction. Provisions in state law that limit the ability to apply only the specific ordinances, policies, and standards in place when a PA for a housing development project was submitted apply only to a local jurisdiction’s review of a project, and does not limit the future application of state law, which has continued to evolve over the past six years to address the state legislature’s concerns regarding housing availability, affordability, and production.

Further, to qualify for this statutory exemption, the Project cannot require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a PA was submitted (PRC §21080.66(a)(7)). While the Project site is currently developed with an eight-unit apartment building and garage structure that were built in 1940, neither structure was identified to be on a national, state, or local historic register. Additionally, the Project does not propose the demolition of any structure located within the Carthay Circle HPOZ. As the Project meets the criteria to be eligible for the statutory CEQA exemption and does not propose the demolition of a structure on a national, state, or local historic register, no further environmental review is required.

4. The Project’s Approval Violated Constitutional (both state and federal) Protections. In the context of a Builder’s Remedy project, the HAA establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs. Additionally, the HAA includes provisions that allow developers to bypass local zoning and general plan rules when a local government’s housing element is out of compliance with state law. While the City worked diligently to address comments received -23-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), projects submitted prior to Housing Element certification, which occurred on May 1, 2024, were subject to state Builder’s Remedy provisions. Additionally, recent amendments to state law adopted under AB 1886, which were declaratory of existing law, have further clarified that a local jurisdiction’s housing element is only considered to be in substantial compliance with state law when HCD or a court decision determines that the housing element is compliant (GC §65589.03).

State law and subsequent amendments, along with recent court decisions regarding the applicability of Builder’s Remedy provisions, have made it clear that the City is substantially limited in its discretion to deny a qualifying project. Further, while the City is limited in denying a Builder’s Remedy project, the City has provided public notice of the Project and scheduled meetings (mailed and posted on the Project site) consistent with City noticing requirements. The feedback provided by the public at the October 23, 2025 Planning Commission meeting helped guide the Commission’s consideration of the Project and led to the adoption of several conditions of approval that were intended to address potential Project impacts, without the effect of lowering the density of the project or making the Project infeasible, in compliance with state law. Lastly, the City has preserved the right of due process for both the Applicant and the public and has processed the Project in compliance with state and local requirements, inclusive of the appeal filed by the Appellant. Further, City Council does not believe that approval of the Project would effect a taking of private property because the action does not change any regulations regarding the allowed uses of nearby properties and does not deprive any property owner of all -24-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
economic value of their property. Further, the action does not involve any physical intrusion or public occupation of private property.

Section 14. The Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in CEQA (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §§15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on July 1, 2025 with the passage of Assembly Bill 130, and subsequently amended, is applicable to certain housing development projects that meet the following prescribed objective standards.

1. Project Site Size (PRC §21080.66(a)(1)(B)): The Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project as defined in GC §65589.5(h)(11) and the Project site is less than four acres in size.

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

3. Urban Uses (PRC §21080.66(a)(3)(A-D)): The Project site is developed with urban uses; at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; at least 75% of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses; and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.

4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency (PRC §21080.66(a)(4)(A)): Pursuant to GC §65589.5(h)(11), the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and, pursuant to GC §65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the City’s General Plan and Beverly Hills Municipal Code.
-25-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc

5. Minimum Density (PRC §21080.66(a)(5)): Pursuant to GC §65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), for a jurisdiction such as Beverly Hills that is in a metropolitan county, sites must allow at least 30 units per acre. AB 130 requires that a project provide at least one-half of the applicable minimum density, which is 15 dwelling units per acre.

The Project satisfies this requirement.

6. Environmental Conditions (PRC §21080.66(a)(6)): Pursuant to GC §65913.4(a)(6), the Project site is not located in any of the following areas, nor meets the requirements for projects located in such an area: a coastal zone, prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, wetlands, a very high fire hazard severity zone, a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, a regulatory floodway, lands identified for conservation, habitat for protected species, or land under conservation easement.

7. Historic Resource (PRC §21080.66(a)(7)): The Project does not involve the demolition of any structure listed on a national, state, or local historic register prior to the date of preliminary application submittal.

8. Hotel or Transient Use (PRC §21080.66(a)(8)): The Project does not include a hotel or transient use component.

Therefore, the City Council hereby finds the Project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).

Section 15. Pursuant to PRC §21080.66(b)(1)(A), the City provided formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project site as an invitation to consult on the Project, its location, and the Project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, based on consultation -26-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
between the City and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the City has conditioned approval of the Project pursuant to PRC §21080.66(b)(4).

Section 16. Based upon the evidence contained in the record on this matter, including the analysis of Appellants grounds for appeal as set forth in the Agenda Report which are incorporated as the Council’s findings on the appeal, and the findings set forth herein, the City Council hereby denies the appeal and approves the requested Development Plan Review associated with the construction of an eight-story, 55-unit multi-family residential development Project with above-grade and subterranean parking at 232 Tower Drive, subject to the following conditions:

Project-Specific Conditions

1. This approval is for those plans submitted to the City Council on July 21, 2026, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.

2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development or their designee. A significant change to the approved Project shall be subject to Planning Commission review, or the City Council on appeal.

Construction shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein or as modified by the City Council or Director of Community Development or their designee.

3. The City Council provides that the Planning Commission reserves jurisdiction relative to traffic, parking, loading, light, and noise issues and the right to impose additional conditions as necessary to mitigate any other unanticipated impacts caused by the Project as they arise. In the event that the Project is found to result in any -27-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
unanticipated impacts and a hearing is scheduled to review the Project, the full cost of the review hearing and implementation of any additional conditions or mitigation measures shall be paid by the Property Owner.

4. Project Plans are subject to compliance with all applicable zoning regulations, except as may be expressly modified herein. Project plans shall be subject to a complete Code Compliance review when building plans are submitted for plan check.

Compliance with all applicable Municipal Codes is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Further, the Project shall comply with all prerequisites to the issuance of a demolition permit as set forth in the Municipal Code and these conditions of approval before any such demolition permit shall be issued.

5. The Applicant shall provide an updated rooftop operations plan to comply with Project conditions. The updated rooftop operations plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or their designee.

6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials, and finish of the building and landscaping shall be subject to the City’s architectural review process.

7. The property shall not be eligible for participation in the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program, or any other City-established parking program. The Applicant shall disclose this information to all prospective building tenants prior to entering into a lease agreement.

8. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. Any modification to landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or their designee for a consistency determination with the original approval. -28-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc

9. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the Project shall be operated as a rental property and shall maintain a minimum of 11 affordable dwelling units designated for occupancy by lower-income households. The Applicant shall designate the affordability levels for each lower-income unit consistent with the City’s December 18, 2024, Replacement Unit Determination (RUD), prior to issuance of a building permit to construct the Project. The affordable units shall include at least one (1) three-bedroom unit reserved for rental by very low-income households. The Project shall also comply with all applicable replacement unit provision in state law. All replacement units shall be of equivalent size as units being replaced, as defined in Government Code (GC) Section 66300.5(d). The City of Beverly Hills or its designee shall be responsible for administering these units. Affordability of these units by said households shall be guaranteed for a minimum of 55 years and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for a minimum of 55 years in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(3) or its successor statute.

10. The Applicant shall record covenants and/or deed restrictions as determined by the City Attorney to ensure that the rental price of the affordable housing units does not exceed an amount determined to be affordable to lower-income households. Lower-income households are defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 50079.5, and the California Department of Housing and Community Development provides a process for determining affordable housing costs. The covenants and/or restrictions on the affordable housing shall be in effect for a period of not less than 55 years.

11. An inclusionary housing agreement which includes provisions and terms for meeting the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements shall be -29-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
approved by the city manager and city attorney and recorded as a deed restriction against the property prior to issuance of either a grading or building permit, whichever comes first.

12. The occupants of the affordable housing units within the Project shall have the same access to the common entrances, common areas, and amenities, including parking, as the occupants of the market-rate housing units and the affordable housing units shall not be isolated to a specific floor or an area on a specific floor. This will also include the use of the rooftop residential amenities. Further, the affordable housing unit shall have the same number and type of appliances as the market rate housing units, which shall include, at a minimum, one (1) refrigerator, one (1) stove, one (1) washer, and one (1) dryer.

13. To mitigate potential noise impacts to neighboring residents, the use of all common outdoor areas, including the rooftop deck, shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. Signage indicating such restrictions shall be installed on the rooftop.

14. Amplified sound shall be prohibited on all outdoor open space areas, including the rooftop area and all balconies provided for the Project.

15. Lighting on the Project site, including rooftop areas, shall comply at all times with the Beverly Hills Municipal Code’s restrictions on lighting of premises.

16. All outdoor living spaces for the Project, including those provided on balconies and the rooftop areas shall only be made available for use by Project residents and their guests; guests must be accompanied at all times by a Project resident.

17. A six-foot (6’) tall sound barrier with a sound attenuation rating of STC 40 or greater shall be installed on the sides of the common outdoor living space provided on -30-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
the rooftop area facing residential properties to the north, south, and east. The Applicant shall provide an updated rooftop plan to show compliance with the Project conditions. The updated rooftop plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or their designee prior to the issuance of a building permit.

18. A four-foot (4’) tall translucent or opaque barrier shall be installed on the balconies of every unit along the south elevation and along any guardrail surrounding the common outdoor living space for the Project along the north, south, and east elevations.

Hanging anything over the edge of any balcony shall be prohibited.

19. The use of barbeque grills shall be prohibited on the individual balconies of the residential units of the building and on the outdoor living space provided on the rooftop area.

20. A parabolic mirror, light system and vehicle stop sign shall be installed at the parking egress point in order to ensure visibility for exiting vehicles and to warn pedestrian traffic of exiting vehicles; no sound shall be utilized for the warning system.

Such features shall not be placed in or project into the City’s public right-of-way.

21. A total of 13 parking spaces must be maintained on site.

22. The Project shall operate at all times in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of light, noise, activities, parking, or other actions.

23. The Project shall operate at all times in compliance with Municipal Code requirements for Noise Regulation.

24. These Project-specific conditions of approval shall be incorporated into each residential lease/rental agreement and accepted by each tenant. Further, annually, the -31-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
Project’s leasing agent or agents shall submit an affidavit that they have read and are aware of these conditions of approval.

25. Prior to the issuance of a building permit and a shoring permit, all geotechnical and structural reports shall be submitted to the Community Development Department and an independent third-party peer review of those reports, paid for by the Applicant, shall be conducted and provided to the City for its approval. The reports shall address and include an analysis related to fault investigation, liquefaction, methane and flooding and evacuation. In addition, any identified risks shall be fully mitigated with engineered solutions verified by peer review.

26. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall provide written verification to the Director of Community Development from Southern California Edison confirming it has capacity to serve the Project.

27. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall be required to ensure that all Southern California Edison required off-site or system upgrades are complete and operational.

28. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Beverly Hills Fire Department, that adequate water supply and fire flow capacity is available for the Project.

29. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall complete, at Applicant’s cost, any required sewer or storm drain improvements that are necessary to ensure there is no increased flood risk from the Project as determined by the City Engineer.
-32-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc

30. The Applicant shall conduct real-time monitoring of vibration that occurs during excavation activities and provide bi-weekly reports to the Building and Safety Division.

31. The Applicant shall maintain continuous and safe access to the adjacent properties surrounding the Project during all phases of construction and its subsequent operation. The Applicant shall submit its plans for continuous and safe access to the Community Development Department for review and approval by the Director of Community Development.

32. The final building design and operations shall be submitted to the Fire Department for their review and approval to ensure full compliance with emergency access, response capability, and operational safety standards for a high-rise structure prior to building permit and occupancy.

California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions

33. The Applicant shall include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project, pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(i) or its successor statute, as follows:
a. The consulting California Native American tribes shall designate a monitor.
b. The tribal monitors shall comply with Applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements.
c. The Applicant shall compensate each tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural -33-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the Project.

34. The Applicant, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(b)(4)(B)(ii) or its successor statue, shall avoid any tribal cultural resources where feasible, in accordance with PRC §21084.3(a). In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the Applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.

35. Pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(iii) or its successor statute, all treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner by the Applicant, consistent with PRC §21083.9.

36. Pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(iv) or its successor statute, the Applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the Project site.

Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

37. The Applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(v) or its successor statute. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

38. The Project shall comply with Health and Safety Code (HSC) §§7050.5 and 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the -34-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
affected California Native American tribe, pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(vi) or its successor statue.

39. The Applicant shall provide an application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the Project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the Project, pursuant to PRC §21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(vii) or its successor statute.

40. Additional California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Requested by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation:
a. TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
i. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any grounddisturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
ii. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe.

Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American -35-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
(ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the Project Applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
iii. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the Project Applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the Project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the Project Applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the Project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
b. TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non Ceremonial)
i. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
-36-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
c. TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
i. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the Project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code §7050.5 shall be followed. ii. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code §5097.98(d)(1) and (2). iii. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods. iv. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Environmental Assessment Conditions

41. The Applicant shall complete a Phase I environmental assessment, as defined in the Health and Safety Code (HSC) §78090, and submit the assessment to the City for review, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(A) or its successor statute.

42. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the Applicant shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in HSC §78095, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(B) or its successor statute.

43. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current -37-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(C) or its successor statute.

44. If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, pursuant to PRC §21080.66(c)(1)(D) or its successor statute.

Construction Labor Conditions

45. Unless the height of the Project is reduced so that it is at or below 85’-0”, pursuant to PRC Section 21808.66(d) or its successor statute, the Applicant shall comply with the construction labor standards in GC 65913.4(a)(8) and enter into contracts with licensed contractors for construction of the Project. The Applicant shall certify compliance with these standards, including prevailing wage requirements, to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall comply with these labor provisions throughout Project construction.

Construction-Related Conditions

46. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and such Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the earlier of the issuance of a demolition or the issuance of a building permit. The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum the following:
a. Written information about the construction parking arrangements and hauling activities at different stages of demolition and construction to be -38-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works and the Building & Safety Division.
b. Information regarding the anticipated number of workers, the location of parking with respect to schedules of the demolition and construction period, the arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of operation, designation of construction staging area and other pertaining information regarding construction related traffic.
c. The proposed demolition and construction staging for this Project to determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for demolition, deliveries, etc., to the subject site. d. Information on proposed temporary or permanent closures of public right-of-way areas, includes sidewalks, street lanes, parking areas, and alleys. e. Construction-related traffic, including vehicles used for hauling and delivery of materials, shall utilize only those streets identified on the City’s map of approved heavy haul routes, with vehicles required to exit the site toward Wilshire Boulevard, to the north of the Project site. Additionally, no construction-related vehicles may utilize that portion of Tower Drive located south of the Project site.

47. The Applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.
-39-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc

48. Prior to the initiation of construction at the Project site, the Applicant shall install a temporary construction sound barrier at the northern, southern, eastern, and western property lines that shall be at least 12’ tall and that shall have a minimum STC rating of 32. The Applicant shall locate all stationary noise sources as far away from the north, south, and east property lines as feasible.

49. The Applicant shall post the names and telephone numbers of two construction representatives for the Project and a City contact on all construction fence signs. The phone numbers shall be manned at all times during construction hours.

50. The Applicant shall provide electric vehicle charging stations for the Project, including electric vehicle charging stations for required handicap accessible parking spaces, as required by all applicable California Green Building Code requirements.

51. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid.

52. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

53. The Applicant shall remove and replace all curbs and gutters adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

54. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall -40-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or their designee) is first obtained.

55. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security deposit to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by the Director of Public Works (or their designee) and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Development.

56. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations performed under any permits issued by the City.

57. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.

58. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

59. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the subject site. No such installations will be allowed in any City right-of-way.

60. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.

61. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system through the existing connections available to the subject site, unless otherwise approved -41-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
by the City Engineer, and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

62. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s water system through the existing water service connection unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter installation will also require approval from the City Engineer. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

63. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline.

64. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards and shall be paid for by the Applicant. No privately-owned structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

Standard Conditions

65. RECORDATION. This resolution approving this Development Plan Review shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit.

The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the City Council decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees -42-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving a Development Plan Review shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180-day period, grant a written waiver from the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant.

66. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review: The exercise of rights granted in such approvals shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date of approval of this resolution, as provided for in BHMC §10-3-207.A., unless otherwise extended.

67. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in enforcement action by the City until such violation is abated or the entitlement granted herein is revoked pursuant to §10-3-258 of the BHMC, or its successor regulation. All costs incurred by the City as a result of abatement of a violation on the property shall be reimbursed by the party in breach of this resolution.

68. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project.

69. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgements and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected -43-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgements, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the City Council’s action, this approval and the City Council actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgement, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees, or for any claim alleging a violation of a Housing Reform Law. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determination herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
///
-44-
B0785-0009\3277608v1.doc
Section 17. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this 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. CORMAN
Mayor of the City of Beverly Hills,
California
ATTEST:
_______________________________(SEAL)

HUMA AHMED
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

LAURENCE S. WIENER
City Attorney

RYAN GOHLICH
City Manager
ATTACHMENT 2
Appeal Petition Form
4 APPEAL PETITIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE WIThIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE DECISION

APPEAL TO COMMISSION
O€OCIL c1e one)
PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY 11.4.2025
Date
In accordance with the appeals procedure as authorized by the provisions ofthe Beverly Hills Municipal Code, the undersigned hereby appeals from the decision of The Planning Commission (Official, Board Commission, or City Council involved) rendered on October 23, 2025 ; which decision consisted of: The grounds submitted for this appeal are as follows: (WARNiNG: State gjj groundsfor appeaL Describe how decision is inconsistent with law. Use extra paper fnecessary.) Please find enclosed.

The undersigned discussed the decision being appealed with:

Edgar Arroyo 11.4.2025
____
on
_____________________________
(Department Head(s) hivolved) Date
It is requested that written notice ofthe time and place for the hearing on this appeal before the City Council be sent to:

Kenneth Dusick (see attachment) 731 Schumacher Drive, Los Angeles CA 90048 Name Address
‘Siture of appealing party
731 Schumacher Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90048
Address
310-308-2497
Telephone Number & Fax Number
Fee Paid O(j , c3t) (For City Clerk’s use) DATE RECEIVED (timestamp below):

LOG NO. ‘S’% ‘25 Written Notice mailed to appellant:

Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Cnv Otcç&1i\t Involved Department

APPEAL TO BEVERLY HILLS CITY COUNCIL
232 Tower Drive
Development Plan Review (PL2400 129)
1 Appellants: Carthay Beverly Hills Neighbors, a large group of owners and residents surrounding the proposed Project and in the immediate neighborhood that would be most immediately impacted thereby; Kenneth Dusick; James Davis-Siegel (743 ShumacherDrive, Los Angeles, CA 90048); John Matthew Duling (230 5. Tower Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90211); Philip R. Bluestein (220 5. Tower Drive, Beverly Hills, 90211); and Brandon Kaplan (Apartment 5 at 230 S Tower Dr, Beverly Hills, CA 90211).

Project: An eight-story, 101’ tall, multi-family residential development with 55 dwelling units and 13 parking spaces, at the property located at 232 Tower Drive (the “Project”).

Prefatory Statement:

The Appellants support a thoughtful and balanced approach to city planning that achieves the goal of providing additional and affordable housing for citizens, while at the same time maintaining the beauty, lifestyle and culture of the historic urban environment and its unique, diverse neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the state legislature, in its“wisdom,” has adopted arbitrary, unlawful, and destructive legislation that is likely todestroy the very environment it is allegedly trying to protect. Appellants believe that most of the members of this Council realize that this is exactly what is happening. The situation our communities confront comes close to mimicking the well-worn metaphor of “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” The state has arbitrarily abandoned all accepted planning practices in an effort to create more housing, while at the same time making theneighborhoods belonging to its citizens and future residents almost unlivable. “We cannot make the findings in a normal manner and that is because we are constrained by state law that wipes out all the things we usually look for or require. We cannot consider shade and shadow. We cannot consider height. We cannot consider setbacks. These are all important things... We cannot take into.., consideration the historic property.” [Emphasis added.]
“Speaking for myself and I believe I speak for my other commissioners... I do not “like” any of the Builders’ Remedy projects because I think they lack sensitivity to thescale and character of our city... So, I find myself again.., in a position where I cannot make any of the findings we normally would make to a project... The state has preemptedus, they’ve cooped our discretion.” [Emphasis added.] Planning Commissioner Kaplan October 23, 2025, hearing. “It doesn’t fit with any of the findings. It conflicts with the general plan... living space, height, setbacks. . . etc I find it very difficult since it’s not consistent with theneighborhood, with parking, with all the different things.” Planning Commissioner Detmer October 23, 2025, hearing
2 The problems are (already) real. As the Councilmembers must know, if one heads north from the 10 freeway on La Cienega Blvd. at almost any time of day, bumper to bumper traffic begins somewhere between Pico Blvd. and Olympic heading to Beverly Hills. It is with this knowledge and background that we must rationally find the appropriateremedy to halt what might become our urban tragedy.

Accordingly, in approving the Project, the Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion for the following reasons:

1. The Project Poses a Specific Adverse Impacts
The Project, as proposed, would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact, as proposed. Substantial evidence supports the followingspecific, adverse impacts arising from the Project:

Traffic and Pedestrian Safety. The Project would generate significant vehicular traffic on residential streets unable to handle its generated volume. With La Cienega Park and multiple schools in the immediate vicinity, increased traffic poses quantifiable risks to child safety, a concernsupported by objective traffic safety standards and pedestrian conflict analysis. Traffic conditions around the neighborhood have grown unconscionably worse over the years. The Project will add significantly to traffic and congestion along adjacent streets, most notably Gregory Waywhere parents pick up their children at the park daily.

Furthermore, by evaluating this project singularly, in a vacuum, the City has failed to recognize the cumulative impacts of several similar projects pending before the City. Appellants understand that there are applications for projects on Hamilton Drive (a street that is also immediately across Gregory Way from the park, and two short blocks from this project); a prospective 20+ story building at Wilshire and San Vicente; a major project on La Cienega just south of Olympic; and more structures to be built on Olympic Blvd. Any evaluation of the risks to health (e.g., added air pollution in residential communities) and safety (e.g., intense increases in traffic density, movement as well as parking obstructions) must include a comprehensive, integrated review of all the projects submitted and reasonably anticipated.
ii. Parking Deficiency: The Project proposes 13 parking spaces for 55 residential units, a ratio of 0.24 spaces per unit. This falls short of the City’s objective parking standards and will result in spillover parking onto adjacent residential streets, creating circulation conflicts, emergency vehicle access concerns, and quality-of life degradation for existing residents. Multiple 3 surrounding streets already have parking issues. Added vehicles without adequate parking will result in drivers becoming preoccupied with looking for parking spaces and becoming less attentive to pedestrians and othervehicles. This will create significant unsafe conditions for children and other pedestrians crossing the street and going to and from nearby La Cienega Park.
iii. Emergency Access: Inadequate parking, combined with increased density, creates quantifiable risks to emergency response times and vehicle access in a neighborhood where street parking is already constrained.Furthermore, the requested intrusion upon the normal setbacks on TowerDrive will create obstructions to the visibility of emergency vehicle operators.
iv. Aesthetics: The development will result in the irreparable degradation of established community aesthetics, privacy, lighting, and air circulation, asspecifically enumerated in the Planning Department’s report, and furthersubstantiated by the applicant’s submittal documents, including the Shade Report.

2. The Legally Required Findings Under Beverly Hills Municipal Code (“BHMC”) §10- 3-3100 Cannot Be Made with Supporting Substantial Evidence As set forth in the Planning Department’s report, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and substantial evidence supports the conclusions that the Project will adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the Project and would not promote harmonious development of the area. Additionally, the Project will create significant adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards.

The Planning Commission was advised that notwithstanding the fact that the legally mandated findings under BHMC §10-3-3100 cannot be made with substantial supporting evidence, the City must nonetheless approve the Project because of Builder’s Remedy. This is incorrect. Government Code §65589.5(f)(1) specifically requires the City to require compliance with BHMC §10-3-3100: nothing in this section shall be construedto prohibit a local agency from requiring a housing development project to comply with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies. In other words, Government Code §65589.5(f)(1) permits cities to require Builder’s Remedy projects to comply with “objective, written development standards, conditions, andpolicies” that are “appropriate to, and consistent with, meeting” regional housing needs.

The standards must “facilitate and accommodate development” but need not abandon all compatibility requirements. The City’s failure to require compliance with objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies is error pursuant to Government Code §65589.5(f)(1).
4 If the developers wanted to build a 100 story, 1,000-foot-high tower with 55 units, surely the city would have the discretion to deny such as not compatible with objective development policies. And, if that is the case, it necessarily follows that the city should likewise have the rational discretion to reject a plan to build a 101-foot edifice that has norelationship to the surrounding communities and arbitrarily adds scores of vehicles withno adequate parking placing unreasonable and dangerous burdens on the surrounding streets and infrastructure. The Housing Accountability Act is codified as part of the Housing Element Article of the Government Code. The Least Cost Zoning Law, which was enacted as a companion to the Housing Element Law, provides that a city shall not be required to zone any parcel in an urbanized, residential area for “densities that exceed those on adjoining residential parcels by more than 100%.” (Gov’t. Code § 65913.1(b).) This is clearly an implied limitation on the density of a Builder’s Remedy project.

There is a further implied limitation in the sometimes termed “Mullin” densities for lower-income units (30 dwellings/acre in metropolitan areas). The Housing Element Law deems zoning that finds this density appropriate for lower-income housing. (Gov’t Code§ 65883.2(c)(3).)

3. The Project’s Approval Fails to Comply with the Requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
Government Code §65589.5(e) provides that Builder’s Remedy does not override compliance with CEQA or other mandatory requirements: (e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to ... relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findingsrequired pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

Government Code §65589.5(e) further provides: Nothing in this section shall be construed to relieve the local agency from complying with... the California Environmental QualityAct (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).

In this case, the Planning Commission found that the Project should be approved with a statutory exemption under CEQA adopted as a part of AB 130 (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.66(a)). This finding is in error.

Public Resources Code PRC §21080.66(a) became effective on June 30, 2025.

Under the law, a “housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect” at the time the developer submitted a “preliminary application” for the project. Government Code §65589.5(o). Furthermore, in California, a statute is presumed to operate prospectively. Quarty v. Doe /(2012) 53Cal.4tI 945, 955.

In this case, the preliminary application for the Project was submitted on October 5, 2023. Therefore, PRC §21080.66(a) is not applicable. 5 Furthermore, the Project fails to qualify for the criteria set forth in PRO §21080.66(a).

An initial study under CEQA is necessary, particularly with regard to historic resources. This Project is immediately adjacent to the Carthay Circle Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ). CEQA requires review and analysis of impacts to historical resources and their immediate surroundings, including indirect impacts which may occur through alteration of such immediate surroundings.

4. The Project’s Approval Violates Constitutional (both state and federal) Protections.

The statements made by some of the members of the Planning Commission, that the body has little or no discretion under Builders’ Remedy, results in elevating form over substance, making the “hearing” nothing but a fiction, denying due process.

The City of Beverly Hills submitted three Housing Element applications before the fourth submission was accepted by the State. This Builders’ Remedy Project was submitted shortly before the fourth Housing Element was approved. However, as the City’s first three Housing Element submissions were substantially compliant, it would be a denial of substantive due process to punish surrounding residents with unlimited Builders’ Remedy sanction for such an immaterial and incidental error, particularly for those residents living on immediately adjacent properties in the HPOZ protected Carthay Circle neighborhood. Those Carthay landowners live in the City of Los Angeles, (notably, a charter city which has protections under the well-documented home-rule prerogatives that should trump drastic Builders’ Projects such as the one in the present case). Carthay residents who are not represented by the Beverly Hills government will be drastically and directly negatively affected by this Project. The sanction of Builders’ Remedy was intended to punish recalcitrant jurisdictions, not adjacent cities (and historically preservedneighborhoods such as Carthay) who should not suffer the consequences of inadvertent failures of third parties to comply with Housing Element requirements after multiple goodfaith attempts.

The law abhors defaults even by those directly responsible for excusable neglect.

In this case, the residents of Carthay Circle played no role in the failure to timely obtain approval of the Housing Element. Due process requires that citizens not be subjected to the arbitrary exercise of governmental power. Everything about the Builders’ Remedy, as applied in this case, is both arbitrary and capricious for all the above-stated reasons.

Commissioner Detmer stated at the hearing that she was a member of the subcommittee for the Housing Element. She described every single submission as a “masterpiece.” She stated that the state did not come through with its promises and further that there was a “bias” toward Beverly Hills.
6 Beverly Hills’ zoning laws arise from the police power granted to states and local governments. This allows cities to regulate land use within their jurisdictions to promote the public welfare (Sacramentans for Fair Planning v. City of Sacramento, 37 Cal.App.5th 698 (2019)). The California Constitution grants cities . . . the authority to make localordinances that are not in conflict with general laws (Cal.Const. Art. 11, § 7). This broadauthority is subject to constitutional limitations, including the requirement that zoning regulations must be reasonably necessary and related to the public welfare (Friends of Davis v. City of Davis, 83 Cal.App.4th 1004 (2000)). Builders’ Remedy has arbitrarily abrogated the power of the City of Beverly Hills guaranteed by the California Constitution.

The state’s arbitrary and reckless ordered erasure of zoning restrictions constitutes a Taking under the Constitution in that it materially damages the surrounding properties to the Project. In Dolan v. City of Tigard, the Supreme Court held that land use regulations must be roughly proportional to the public interest they seek to advance to avoid constituting a taking (Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)). If a state law compels a city to rezone in a way that undermines the city’s ability to protect public welfare (e.g., by allowing incompatible land uses that harm community safety or character), as it has done in the present case, this demonstrably constitutes a taking.

The Takings Clause intersects with the city’s constitutionally guaranteed zoning (“police”) mentioned above. While zoning is a valid exercise of police power, a state law that overrides local zoning to impose less restrictive standards is unreasonable if it lacks a sufficient public purpose or fails to balance the interests of affected property owners.

See for e.g., Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978)). A state law that forces a city to rezone in a way that disproportionately harms certain property owners or lacks a clear public benefit fails the applicable tests. As was soprofoundly articulated by the above quoted Planning Commissioners, the present Project fails to fulfill any of the normal findings that are required for approval. The current Project fails to satisfy any rational standard in attempting to balance the goals of the legislature with the Projects disastrous impacts on our cities and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Appellants are continuing their investigation and will introduce additional facts, evidence and legal theories in support of this Appeal.
7 ATTACHMENT 3
October 23, 2025
Planning Commission Report
(w/o Attachments)
City of Beverly Hills
Planning Division
455 N. Rexford Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210
TEL. (310) 285-1000 FAX. (310) 858-5966
Planning Commission Report
Attachment(s):

A. Applicant’s Extension Request
B. Draft Resolution
C. Required Findings
D. State Statues
E. General Plan Policies
F. AB 130 CEQA Exemption – Staff’s Analysis
G. Public Notices
H. Public Correspondence
I. Replacement Unit Determination (RUD)
J. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment
K. Construction Management Plan (CMP)
L. Project Plans (Provided as a Separate Attachment)
Report Author and Contact Information:

Edgar Arroyo, Senior Planner
(310) 285-1138
[email protected]
Meeting Date: October 23, 2025
Subject: 232 TOWER DRIVE
Development Plan Review (PL2400129)
Request for a Development Plan Review utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), to allow for the construction of a new eight-story, multi-family residential development with 55 dwelling units. Pursuant to the provisions set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission will also consider finding the project exempt from further review under CEQA.

Project Applicant: Oak Investment Company LLC and Beachside Suites LLC Project Representative: Dave Rand (Rand, Paster, Nelson LLP) Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing, receive testimony on the project, adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

REPORT SUMMARY
The proposed project involves a request for a Development Plan Review (DPR) to allow for the construction of an eight-story, 101’ tall, multi-family residential development with 55 dwelling units, at the property located at 232 Tower Drive (the “project site”). The project application has been filed pursuant to the “Builder's Remedy” provisions of Government Code GC) §65589.5(d)(5). The project site is located within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone, and has a General Plan designation of Multi-Family Residential – High Density.

This report details the physical context of the property and its vicinity; outlines the findings that are required to be made for the requested entitlements; and analyzes key project issues, which include: the proposed use of the property in relation to the adjacent uses, physical characteristics of the subject property, parking, and discussion on applicable state law requirements related to 3-1
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 2 of 19 ends

Builder’s Remedy projects. Based on analysis contained in this report, staff’s recommendation is to conditionally approve the project.

Separately, on October 1, 2025, Olivia Joncich (Rand, Paster & Nelson, LLP), on behalf of Oak Investment Company LLC and Beachside Suites LLC, submitted a request for a 90-day extension on the processing of the project (Attachment A). Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7) the City is required to take action on the project within 30 days following the end of tribal consultation which concluded on October 10, 2025. Pursuant to GC §65957 this deadline could be extended by up to 90 days pursuant to a written agreement between the applicant and the City. Staff understands that the applicant may be contemplating changes to the project. At this point, staff has not agreed to the requested extension because, pursuant to Government Code Section 65905.5 the City is limited to holding no more than five public hearings in its consideration of a housing development project.

Continuance of this matter to a future date would use one of the five allowed hearings because Section 65905.5 (a) states in relevant part that “[i]f the city… continues a hearing subject to this section to another date, the continued hearing shall count as one of the five hearings allowed under this section.” Since the Planning Commission, City Council (if appealed), or Architecture and Design Review Commission may require more than one meeting in their consideration of this project, the City believes all five meetings should be preserved for substantive project consideration.

Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the Commission proceed with consideration of the project. At the hearing, however, the Commission can consider whether it believes an extension of the action deadline is warranted.

BACKGROUND
File Date 4/2/2024
Application Complete 12/27/2024
Subdivision Deadline N/A
CEQA Recommendation Statutory Exemption for Infill Housing (Assembly Bill (AB) 130) (Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.66)
CEQA Deadline and Permit
Streamlining
30 days from conclusion of Native American Tribal
Consultation (PRC §21080.66(b)). Consultation ended
10/10/2025.

Applicant(s) Oak Investment Company LLC and Beachside Suites LLC Owner(s) Oak Investment Company LLC and Beachside Suites LLC Representative(s) Dave Rand – Rand, Paster & Nelson, LLP Olivia Joncich – Rand, Paster & Nelson, LLP
3-2
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 3 of 19 ends

Registered Legislative Advocates1 Angelica Donaghy – Axiom Advisors Group, LLC Marcia Lewis Smith – Lewis Smith Media
Adam Englander – Englander Knabe & Allen
Brian Wright-Bushman – Rand Paster & Nelson, LLP
Prior Planning Commission Action None
Prior City Council Action None

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING
Property Information
Address(es) 232 Tower Drive
Assessor’s ID No. 4333-030-009
Zoning District R-4 – Multiple Residential Zone
General Plan Multi-Family Residential – High Density
Existing Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential (Eight-Unit Apartment Building) Lot Dimensions & Area 50.25’ x 200.84’ (≈ 10,046 Square Feet (SF)) Year Built 1940
Historic Resource No
Protected Trees/Grove None
Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses
North, South, and West R-4 – Multiple Residential Zone (Apartments and Condominiums)
East R1– One-Family Zone in City of Los Angeles (SingleFamily Residential) Circulation and Parking
Adjacent Street(s) Tower Drive
Adjacent Alleys None
Parkways & Sidewalks Tower Drive: 12’ from curb face to property line Parking Restrictions Tower:
• No Stopping – Monday: 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.
• No Parking: All Hours (Exempt with Permit)
1 Registered advocate search run on October 1, 2025.
3-3
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 4 of 19 ends

Nearest Intersection Wilshire Boulevard and Tower Drive Gregory Way and Tower Drive
Circulation Element Tower Drive – Local Street
Wilshire Boulevard – Major Arterial
Gregory Way – Local Street
Project Site and Neighborhood Character
The project site is a 10,046 SF lot located along the west side of the 200 block of Tower Drive (Fig. 1), within the R-4, Multiple Residential Zone. The project site is currently developed with an eight-unit apartment building and two detached garages for six vehicles built in 1940. The area surrounding the project site is characterized by single-family and multi-family residential uses. To the north, south, and west of the project site, the project is surrounded by multi-family apartment and condominium buildings ranging from two to four stories, within the R-4 Zone. To the east, the project site directly abuts one- to two-story single-family residential properties located in the City of Los Angeles, within the R1, One-Family Zone.

Fig. 1: Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: Google Earth Pro Aerial Imagery
3-4
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 5 of 19 ends

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of the construction of a new eight-story, 101’-0” tall, multi-family residential apartment building that includes 55 dwelling units (Fig. 2). A total of 11 dwelling units (20% of the units) would be reserved for lower-income (low-income and very low-income) households, with the following unit types proposed:
• 17 Efficiency Units (Studios): Ranging from 392 SF – 396 SF o 4 Lower-Income Units
o 13 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
• 38 One-Bedroom Units: Ranging from 563 SF – 618 SF
o 7 Lower-Income Units
o 31 Above-Moderate Units (Market Rate)
The project would provide 13 parking spaces within a subterranean parking garage. Vehicular access to the subterranean parking areas will be provided from Tower Drive. A total of 8,867 SF of open space is proposed through a combination of private outdoor living space on balconies for the units and common outdoor living space provided on the rooftop. The proposed project requires discretionary approval from the Planning Commission.

Fig. 2: Project Rendering: Southeast View along Tower Drive Source: Ottinger Architects
3-5
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 6 of 19 ends

Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy
Enacted in 1982 and more recently amended, the Housing Accountability Act (Government Code (GC) §65589.5); hereafter the “HAA”) is state law that establishes limitations on a local government’s ability to deny, lower the density of, or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective standards and contribute to meeting housing needs.

Additionally, the HAA includes a provision that allows developers to bypass local zoning and general plan rules when a local government’s housing element is out of compliance with state law (“Builder’s Remedy”). The HAA limits the City’s ability to disapprove a housing development project and provides specific findings for disapproval based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record. These findings are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j) and are detailed further in this report.

On October 5, 2023, the applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (“PA”) to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period during which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on April 2, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). The application was deemed complete by the City on December 27, 2024. While the project was deemed complete after the City’s Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the HAA because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this project prior to housing element certification.

The project would demolish an eight-unit apartment building built in 1940 and replace it with the proposed 55-unit housing development project. The project includes a total of 11 units that would be reserved for rental to lower-income households. On December 18, 2024, the City issued a Replacement Unit Determination (RUD) to assess the number of replacement units required for the project, which determined that a total of six replacement units were required (four very lowincome units and two low-income units) (Attachment I). While the applicant has not yet designated specific units in the project for each required affordable income category, the applicant would be required to designate the required affordability levels for the affordable units prior to the issuance of a building permit to construct the project, consistent with the City’s RUD. In total, the project would be required to provide a minimum of four very low-income units and two low-income units, in compliance with the HAA and state replacement unit law. 2 Pursuant to GC §66300.5(h), “Protected Units” means any of the following:
• Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past five years. • Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past five years. • Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low income households within the past five years. • Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 within the past 10 years. 3-6
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 7 of 19 ends

Inclusionary Housing
Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) Section 10-3-4803, a minimum of 10% of the units in a newly constructed rental residential development shall be rented to and occupied by very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income households. The proposed 55-unit project would require a total of six affordable units to meet this requirement. The 11 lower-income units proposed for the project comply with the City’s inclusionary housing requirements.

Shade and Shadow Study
A shade and shadow study was prepared by the applicant and included in the set of plans for the project (Attachment L). However, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Pursuant to PRC §21099(a)(7), a transit priority area is defined as an area within ½ mile of a major transit stop. The project site is located within ½ mile of the future Wilshire/La Cienega D Line Metro Station at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and North La Cienega Boulevard. Accordingly, the project’s aesthetic impacts are not subject to evaluation under CEQA as these impacts cannot be considered significant impacts on the environment. Further, as discussed below, the project qualifies for a statutory CEQA exemption, which does not include consideration of any potential shade/shadow impacts.

Parking
Pursuant to GC §65863.2 (AB 2097)3, a public agency shall not impose or enforce any minimum automobile parking requirement on a residential development project if the project is located within one-half mile of public transit. As noted in the previous section, the project site is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop and the City is preempted from applying its standard parking requirements pursuant to state law. While the applicant is not required to provide any minimum amount of parking for the project, the project includes a total of 13 parking spaces. Based on the number of parking spaces provided for the residential units, the project would result in a ratio of

0.23 parking spaces per unit. The parking provided on-site would be unbundled, pursuant to Civil Code (CC) §1947.1 (AB 1317)4
, which requires an owner of a residential property consisting of 16 or more units located in the County of Los Angeles to unbundle parking from the price of rent.

Tenants desiring parking would be able to add parking as part of their lease for an added cost.

The option to lease a parking space would be made available to all tenants, regardless of income level and would be subject to availability.5
3 Assembly Bill 2097, Friedman. Residential, commercial, or other development types: parking requirements. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB2097 4 Assembly Bill 1317, Wendy Carrillo. Unbundled parking.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1947.1.&lawCode=CIV 5 Civil Code Section 1947.1 includes certain exceptions from the unbundling requirement for 100% affordable housing projects, projects that receive low-income housing tax credits or financing from tax-exempt bonds pursuant to a program administered by the California Housing Finance Agency, and any unit that is leased to a tenant who receives a federal housing assistance voucher issued under Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1437f), including a federal Department of Housing and Urban Development Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing voucher. 3-7
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 8 of 19 ends

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS6
As proposed, the project requires the following entitlements:
• Development Plan Review
A Development Plan Review (DPR) is required pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3100 to allow the construction of a new eight-story multi-family residential building.

GENERAL PLAN POLICIES7
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project are included as Attachment E, although, as discussed below, the HAA limits the City’s ability to address project inconsistencies with the General Plan.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines8 (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the project appears to qualify for a statutory exemption pursuant to §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on June 30, 2025 with the passage of AB 1309
, is applicable to certain housing development projects that meet prescribed objective standards. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider finding the project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).

An assessment of the project’s eligibility for a statutory exemption pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a) is provided in Attachment F.

In consideration of this statutory CEQA exemption, PRC §21080.66(b) requires the City to provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the project, its location, and the project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. The City provided notification via certified mail and email on July 31, 2025, to eight Native American tribes and received a consultation request from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council. City staff met with a representative of the Native American tribe and conditions memorializing the tribe’s request have been incorporated in the draft resolution (Attachment B). The City concluded the tribal consultation process on October 10, 2025. Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7), the City is required to approve or disapprove the project within 30 days from the conclusion of the Native American tribal consultation process.
6 Pursuant to Government Code §65905.5(a), the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. This is the first hearing on this project. 7 Available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1065/General-Plan 8 The CEQA Guidelines and Statute are available online at https://lci.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/ 9 Sec. 59 of Assembly Bill 130, Committee on Budget. Housing. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB130 3-8
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 9 of 19 ends

PUBLIC OUTREACH AND NOTIFICATION
The notice for this project (Attachment G), summarized in Table 1, was provided pursuant to the requirements set forth in BHMC §10-3-2.5, et. seq.

TABLE 1. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION TABLE
Notice Type Notice Date
Notice of Pending Application
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 6/17/2024 • Mailed Notice (100’ radius; via tracked courier) N/A
• On-site Posted Notice 6/17/2024
Notice of Public Hearing
• Mailed Notice (500’ radius + block face; via first class mail) 10/3/2025 • On-site Posted Notice 10/7/2025
• Newspaper Notice
Beverly Hills Courier
Beverly Hills Weekly
N/A
N/A
Applicant Outreach Efforts
No known outreach efforts.

Public Comment
Staff has received numerous inquiries regarding processing of the application and public correspondence related to the project. All public correspondence is included as Attachment H.

ANALYSIS10
Project approval, conditional approval, or denial is based upon specific findings for the discretionary action requested by the applicant. This section is intended to provide a detailed analysis of the project to assist the Planning Commission in assessing whether a project is able to meet the required findings for the requested entitlements. The specific findings that must be made in consideration of the project are provided as Attachments C and D to this report.

Denial of Housing Development Projects. The HAA constrains local government authority to disapprove a housing development project by imposing strict findings that the City must make, based on the “preponderance of the evidence” in the record, if they wish to deny a housing development project that is affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income housing. These requirements also apply when the City is considering imposing conditions on a project that would “lower density”, which is broadly defined in GC §65589.5(h)(8) to include “any conditions that have the same effect or impact on the ability of the project to provide housing.” These potential findings that could be made to disapprove a project are provided in GC §§65589.5(d) and 65589.5(j).
10 The analysis provided in this section is based on draft findings prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Planning Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to modify the findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report.
3-9
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 10 of 19 ends

The potential findings in GC §65589.5(d) apply to “housing development projects for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” which is a defined in GC §65589.5(h)(3). This project falls within that definition because the project dedicates 20% of the units (11 units) to lowerincome households and is considered “housing for mixed-income households.” (GC §65589.5(h)(3)(c)(i)(I).) Findings or determinations based on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard require that the City weigh the evidence in the record and conclude that the evidence on one side outweighs and is more than the evidence on the other side (i.e., that a particular claim is more likely true than not true).

Based on this standard, staff’s analysis of each potential finding that could be relied on for a potential denial of this housing development project is provided below.

A. Findings for Denial or Conditioning of Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or ModerateIncome Households (Government Code Section 65589.5(d))

1. The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(1)) On May 1, 2024, HCD certified the City’s Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. In this housing cycle, the City is tasked with creating a regulatory environment and identifying sites that would facilitate the production of 3,104 dwelling units, 504 units of which would be reserved for extremely low-income households, 504 units reserved for very low-income households, 680 units reserved for low-income households, 602 units reserved for moderate income households, and 814 reserved for above moderate-income households.

The project proposes a total of 55 dwelling units, which includes 11 deed-restricted affordable units reserved for lower-income households. Based on current housing production figures during this housing cycle, a total of 192 market rate units and 21 3-10
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 11 of 19 ends

lower income units have been permitted11. While the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element, the City has not yet met or exceeded its share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the current planning period for the income category proposed for the project. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

2. The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
a. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. b. The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2)) The proposed project conflicts with general plan land use designation and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking. However, as noted in GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), any inconsistency with the City’s zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety for which the City may use in consideration of the denial of the proposed housing development project.

It should be noted that the standard is for “public health or safety” and not “welfare”.

Additionally, the project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, or a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the project do not appear to demonstrate that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that would necessitate mitigation. Further, additional research has been performed as to whether there are any applicable objective written health or safety standards that would apply to this project and would warrant denial or reductions in density and the City has not identified any such standards on which a denial pursuant to this finding could be justified. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

3. The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income 11 2024 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Report - https://beverlyhills.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=49&clip_id=10213&meta_id=636011 3-11
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 12 of 19 ends

households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(3))
Research into relevant state and federal laws has been performed and there is no basis on which to find the project to be out of compliance and thus has no basis on which to rely to make this finding. As the project is consistent with state housing law and no specific state or federal law preempts approval of the project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

4. The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(4))
The project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes. Improvements required for the project would require that the applicant upgrade any existing water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed building as part of project construction. As part of the building plan check process, the applicant would be required to submit studies showing the adequacy of existing water and wastewater facilities, and any upgrades to these utilities would be upgraded at the expense of the applicant. Furthermore, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has evaluated water demand, wastewater treatment capacity, and the ability to serve future housing units to accommodate to the City’s obligations under RHNA. The analysis in the UWMP has projected that sufficient capacity exists to serve the number 3,104 units anticipated during the 2021-2029 housing element planning cycle and through 2030. As this project is not on land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation and there is no evidence showing that water and wastewater facilities are inadequate to serve the project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

Page 13 of 19 ends

b. If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5))
The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (PA) on October 5, 2023, in order to vest the rights of the project under the applicable provisions at the time. On this date, the City did not have a certified Housing Element.

For purposes of implementing this state law, the application is deemed complete on the date the PA is submitted. Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on April 2, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). As this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA), there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

6. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(6))
Consistent with the analysis provided for the finding required by GC §65589.5(d)(5), as this project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA) there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

B. Findings Required for Denial of a Housing Project that is Consistent with Applicable Plans, Standards, or Other Similar Provisions Based on the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1))

Page 14 of 19 ends

proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
a. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(a)) Pursuant to the HAA (GC §65589.5(h)(6)(E)), a Builder’s Remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. Similarly, GC §65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.” Per GC §65589.5(h)(5), “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a PA to vest the right of a project prior to the submittal of a formal application. While the project as designed conflicts with general plan and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking, this project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project and is considered statutorily compliant with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria because the PA for this project was submitted on October 5, 2023, prior to HCD certification of the City’s Housing Element.

Additionally, while materials submitted for this project show that the project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which the City could rely to deny the project. Aesthetic impacts of a project associated with privacy, and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard. Similarly, construction traffic impacts would be temporary, and any traffic control measures implemented would be consistent with City requirements for development projects and would be removed at the end of project construction. Construction noise impacts would also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays.

Furthermore, the project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), on a hazardous waste site, in a delineated earthquake fault zone, 3-14
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 15 of 19 ends

in a special flood hazard area, or in a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the project do not appear to demonstrate that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to construction workers or future occupants of the residential development. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to deny the project on these grounds. b. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1)(b)) While the project is anticipated to have aesthetic and temporary constructionrelated traffic and noise impacts, the noted impacts do not appear to constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to merit disapproval of the proposed housing development project. Furthermore, pursuant to PRC §21099(d)(1), aesthetic impacts of a residential project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.

Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to deny the project on these grounds.

Development Plan Review. Pursuant to BHMC §10-3-3104, the Planning Commission’s review of a Development Plan Review application is based on the following findings:
• The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

The project site is designated as Multi-Family Residential – High Density in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation allows for multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre and at a maximum height of 60’- 0”. The proposed project is a new eight-story, 55-unit, multi-family residential development with a height of 101’-0”. As designed, the project far exceeds the development potential outlined in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Under the applicable density standards, a total of 12 units would be permissible at the project site, with a maximum height of 60’-0”.

Additionally, the project appears to be in conflict with several goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, including: LU 1.1 (Scale of the City), LU 2.1 (City Places:

Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors), LU 2.10 (Development Transitions and Compatibility), LU 3.1 (Conservation), LU 5.1 (Neighborhood Conservation), LU 5.7 (Neighborhood Transitions), and LU 7.1 (Character and Design).

As designed, the project does not maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the residential and commercial areas in the vicinity of the project. The proposed height of eight stories and 101’-0” disrupts the established scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood characterized by one- to two story single-family residences and two- to four-story multi-family buildings. The placement of 3-15
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 16 of 19 ends

the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential properties. The proposed units in the project include balconies along the south and west elevations, which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the project, creating privacy concerns that are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to assure functional and visual transitions between different densities. The project’s scale and lack of building modulation on the west elevation do not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the twoto four-story residential uses to the surrounding the project site. Based on the foregoing, this proposed project is not consistent with the City’s general plan. Thus, the finding cannot be made that the project is consistent with the General Plan. However, while the project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, the HAA requires that a Builder’s Remedy project be considered consistent and in compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, and such inconsistencies do not provide a basis for denial of the project. • The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

The project is severely out of scale with existing development immediately adjacent to the project, which includes one- to- story single family residences and two- to four-story multi-family residential buildings. The project’s scale and lack of building modulation does not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the surrounding residential uses in the vicinity of the project. The placement of the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential properties. The proposed units in the project include balconies along the south and west elevations, which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on existing single-family and multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would appear to adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the project and would not promote harmonious development of the area. Thus, this finding cannot be made. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.
• The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

The project proposal involves the construction of a new multi-family residential building and does not include any commercial development. As a result, this finding is not applicable.
3-16
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 17 of 19 ends

• The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

Based on the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation impacts, the project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for residential projects and located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA), the project’s residential component is screened out from completing a VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact (Attachment J).

The project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (3 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (8 inbound trips and 6 outbound trips). Based on the above weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation forecast, it is concluded that a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) would not be required, as the project is forecasted to generate less than 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

The Construction Management Plan (CMP) submitted for the project identifies the need for several construction-related closures of public right-of-way areas (Attachment K).

The impacted areas include Tower Drive street and parking lane closures during project duration and one traffic lane closure. Any use of public rights-of-way are subject to separate City approvals. While the project has the potential to create adverse traffic impacts, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards as of result of the proposed closures of public right-of-way surrounding the project site, a detailed CMP would require review by the City and measures would be implemented to minimize impacts associated with the temporary closures of the public right-of-way and the use of the right-of-way for construction staging. Therefore, the proposed project would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrianvehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard. • The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

The project is designed in conflict with general plan and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking. While aesthetic impacts of a project associated with privacy and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard, the materials provided for the project also demonstrate that the project would cast shadows on the multi-family residential buildings located to the north and the northwest and on single-family residential buildings to the east in summer months, and on multi-family residential buildings to the north and northwest and on single-family residential buildings in the winter months, impacting access to natural light to these properties. Furthermore, the project includes balconies along the south and west elevations, which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project appears to be 3-17
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 18 of 19 ends

detrimental to the general welfare. Thus, this finding that the Project will not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare cannot be made.

While staff believes that some of the above outlined DPR findings cannot be made, the City is obligated to approve the project because, as described above, 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. However, the DPR analysis provides subjective findings that are basis for certain conditions of approval that staff is recommending in the draft resolution (Attachment B), as outlined in the following section.

Additional Considerations. While not specifically required for project approval, staff has provided additional information that the Planning Commission may take into account in consideration of the project.

State Housing Laws
Pursuant to GC §65950(a)(7) the City is required to take action on the project within 30 days following the end of tribal consultation which concluded on October 10, 2025. Pursuant to GC §65957, this deadline could be extended by up to 90 days pursuant to a written agreement between the applicant and the City. Further, pursuant to GC §65905.5, the City is limited to five (5) total public hearings on a housing project after it has been deemed complete. In order to retain sufficient public hearings for Architectural Review and any potential City Council review, it is recommended that the Planning Commission complete their review of this project in two meetings or less.

Recommended Conditions of Approval
While only the objective standards can be the basis for project denial, there is some authority to impose conditions on a project to further compliance with subjective standards, provided that the conditions do not have the effect of lowering density, which could have the effect of making the project infeasible to develop.

Staff has included project-specific conditions in the draft resolution (Attachment B) for the Planning Commission to consider as part of their review of the project. The conditions are intended to address the findings related to the DPR in order to minimize impacts related to existing and anticipated development, traffic/pedestrian safety conflicts, and the welfare of the surrounding area. These project-specific conditions are consistent with conditions imposed on similar residential developments approved by the Commission, and include:
• Limitations on common outdoor living space hours (Condition No. 13) • Amplified sound prohibition in common outdoor living spaces areas, including balconies and the rooftop of the building. (Condition No. 14)
• Construction of a 6’-0” tall sound barrier on the north, south, and west sides of the common outdoor living space areas on the rooftop (Condition No. 17) • Translucent or opaque barriers on all balconies abut residential properties (Condition No. 18)
3-18
Planning Commission Report
232 Tower Drive
October 23, 2025

Page 19 of 19 ends

• Prohibition on the use of barbeque grills on individual balconies and within the common outdoor living space on the rooftop. (Condition No. 19) • Installation of parabolic mirrors, light system, and vehicle stop signs at the ingress and egress points to the parking areas (Condition No. 20)
• Routing of construction-related traffic toward Wilshire Boulevard (Condition No. 37.e) • Installation of a 12’ tall temporary construction barrier around the project site (Condition No. 39)

NEXT STEPS
It is recommended that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and adopt the attached resolution conditionally approving a Development Plan Review for the proposed Builder’s Remedy project at 232 Tower Drive, and find the project exempt from CEQA.

Alternatively, the Planning Commission may consider the following actions:

1. Consider the applicant’s extension request and continue the hearing to a date (un)certain, consistent with permit processing timelines.

2. Approve the project with modified findings and/or conditions of approval.

Report Reviewed By:

Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
3-19
ATTACHMENT 4
Planning Commission Resolution
No. 2101
RESOLUTION NO. 2101

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A

DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW FOR A PROJECT UTILIZING
STATE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT BUILDER’S

REMEDY PROVISIONS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65589.5(D)(5), TO ALLOW FOR A NEW
EIGHT-STORY, 55-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AT 232 TOWER DRIVE (PL2400129)
The Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills hereby finds, resolves and determines as follows:

Section 1. Dave Rand, on behalf of Oak Investment Company LLC and Beachside Suites LLC (collectively the “Applicant”), has submitted a Development Plan Review application utilizing state Housing Accountability Act Builder’s Remedy provisions, pursuant to Government Code (GC) Section 65589.5(d)(5), seeking approval of a new eight-story, multifamily residential development with subterranean parking at 232 Tower Drive. The Project includes 55 dwelling units, consisting of 44 market rate units and 11 lower-income units (the “Project”). Pursuant to Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC) §10-3-3100.A, Development Plan Review is required for the new multi-family residential development.

Section 2. The Project site is a 10,046 square-foot (SF) lot located along the east side of the 200 block of Tower Drive, within the City’s R-4, Multiple Residential Zone. The Project consists of the construction of a new eight-story multi-family residential development with 55 dwelling units. The project would demolish an eight-unit apartment building built in 1940 and replace it with the proposed housing development project. The Project will provide 17 efficiency units (studios) ranging from 392 SF to 396 SF and 38 one-bedroom units ranging from 563 SF to Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -2-
618 SF. Approximately 8,867 SF of open space will be provided through a combination of common and outdoor living space on balconies facing the south and west elevations, and on the rooftop of the building. The project would provide 13 parking spaces within a one-level subterranean garage. Vehicular access to the subterranean parking areas is provided from along Tower Drive.

Section 3. On October 5, 2023, the Applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (the “PA”) to vest the rights of the Project under the applicable provisions at the time, which includes the period under which the City’s Housing Element was pending certification by California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the Applicant submitted a Development Plan Review application on April 2, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in Government Code Section 65941.1(e)(1). The application for the Project was deemed complete by the City on December 27, 2024. While this Project was deemed complete after the City’s housing element was certified by HCD on May 1, 2024, the Project qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project under the state Housing Accountability Act (the “HAA”) because the applicant submitted the PA associated with this Project prior to housing element certification, thus vesting rights at that time pursuant to HAA Section 65589.5(o)(1).

Section 4. The Project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.), and the environmental regulations of the City. Upon review, the Project qualifies for a statutory exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) §21080.66(a). This exemption, which became effective on June 30, 2025, with the passage of Assembly Bill 130, is Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -3-
applicable to certain housing development projects that meet the following prescribed objective standards.

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

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

3. Urban Uses (PRC Section 21080.66(a)(3)(A-D)): The Project site is developed with urban uses; at least 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses; at least 75% of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses; and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.

4. General Plan and Zoning Consistency (PRC Section 21080.66(a)(4)(A)):

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(11), the Project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project and, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii), is deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the City’s General Plan and Beverly Hills Municipal Code.

5. Minimum Density (PRC Section 21080.66(a)(5)): Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), for a jurisdiction such as Beverly Hills that is in a metropolitan county, sites must allow at least 30 units per acre. AB 130 requires that a project provide at least one-half of the applicable minimum density, which is 15 dwelling units per acre. The Project satisfies this requirement.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -4-

6. Environmental Conditions (PRC Section 21080.66(a)(6)): Pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6), the Project site is not located in any of the following areas, nor meets the requirements for projects located in such an area: a coastal zone, prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, wetlands, a very high fire hazard severity zone, a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, a regulatory floodway, lands identified for conservation, habitat for protected species, or land under conservation easement.

7. Historic Resource (PRC Section 21080.66(a)(7)): The Project does not involve the demolition of any structure listed on a national, state, or local historic register prior to the date of preliminary application submittal.

8. Hotel or Transient Use (PRC Section 21080.66(a)(8)): The Project does not include a hotel or transient use component.

Therefore, the Planning Commission hereby finds the Project exempt from further review pursuant to PRC §21080.66(a).

Section 5. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(b)(1)(A), the City provided formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the Project site as an invitation to consult on the Project, its location, and the Project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources. Accordingly, based on consultation between the City and the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and the Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -5-
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council, the City has conditioned approval of the Project pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(b)(4).

Section 6. Notice of the Project and public hearing was mailed on October 3, 2025, to all property owners and residential occupants within a 500-foot radius of the property, extended to the block face. An on-site posted notice was displayed on the property beginning on October 7, 2025. On October 23, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the application at a duly noticed public hearing. Evidence, both oral and written, was presented at said hearing.

Section 7. The Housing Accountability Act Section 65589.5 paragraphs (d) and (j) set forth specific findings that must be made in order to deny housing projects. In considering the Project and HAA findings for denial or conditioning of housing affordable to very low-, low-, or moderate-income households to lower density, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d), the Planning Commission considered whether it could make any of the following findings:

1. The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -6-
housing development project. The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards.

3. The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -7-
method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderateincome households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.

5. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan. a. This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
b. If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -8-
include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583.

6. On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(6))
Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d), as set forth in Section 7 above:

1. On May 1, 2024, HCD certified the City’s Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on March 18, 2024. In this housing cycle, the City is tasked with creating a regulatory environment and identifying sites that would facilitate the production of 3,104 dwelling units, 504 units of which would be reserved for extremely low-income households, 504 units reserved for very low-income households, 680 units Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -9-
reserved for low-income households, 602 units reserved for moderate income households, and 814 reserved for above moderate-income households.

The Project proposes a total of 55 dwelling units, which includes 11 deedrestricted affordable units reserved for lower-income households. Based on current housing production figures during this housing cycle, a total of 192 market rate units and 21 lower income units have been permitted. While the City has an adopted and certified Housing Element, the City has not yet met or exceeded its share of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) for the current planning period for the income category proposed for the Project. Accordingly, the City is unable to deny the Project on these grounds.

2. The Project conflicts with general plan land use designation and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking. However, as noted in GC §65589.5(d)(2)(A), any inconsistency with the City’s zoning ordinance or the general plan land use designation shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety for which the City may use in consideration of the denial of the proposed housing development project. It should be noted that the standard is for “public health or safety” and not “welfare”. Additionally, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, a delineated earthquake fault zone, a special flood hazard area, or a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the project do not appear to demonstrate that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety that would necessitate mitigation. Further, additional research has been performed as to whether there are any applicable objective written health or safety standards that would apply to this Project and Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -10-
would warrant denial or reductions in density and the City has not identified any such standards on which a denial pursuant to this finding could be justified. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

3. Research into relevant state and federal laws has been performed and there is no basis on which to find the Project to be out of compliance and thus has no basis on which to rely to make this finding. As the Project is consistent with state housing law and no specific state or federal law preempts approval of the Project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

4. The Project is not proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes. Improvements required for the Project would require that the applicant upgrade any existing water and wastewater facilities to serve the proposed building as part of Project construction. As part of the building plan check process, the applicant would be required to submit studies showing the adequacy of existing water and wastewater facilities, and any upgrades to these utilities would be upgraded at the expense of the applicant. Furthermore, the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has evaluated water demand, wastewater treatment capacity, and the ability to serve future housing units to accommodate to the City’s obligations under RHNA. The analysis in the UWMP has projected that sufficient capacity exists to serve the number 3,104 units anticipated during the 2021-2029 housing element planning cycle and through 2030. As this Project is not on land zoned for agricultural or resource preservation and there is no evidence showing that water and wastewater facilities are inadequate to serve the Project, there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -11-

5. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Application for a Housing Development Project (PA) on October 5, 2024 in order to vest the rights of the Project under the applicable provisions at the time. On this date, the City did not have a certified Housing Element. For purposes of implementing this state law, the application is deemed complete on the date the PA is submitted. Subsequent to the submittal of the PA, the applicant submitted a Development Plan Review (DPR) application on April 2, 2024, within the 180-day statutory period detailed in GC §65941.1(e)(1). As this Project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA), there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

6. Consistent with the analysis provided for the finding required by GC §65589.5(d)(5), as this Project qualifies under the Builder’s Remedy provisions of GC §65589.5 (HAA) there is no evidence in the record to enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

Section 9. In considering the Project and findings for denial of a housing project that is consistent with applicable plans, standards, or other similar provisions based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings:

1. When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -12-
housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
a. The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
b. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Section 10. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the findings required for denial of a project pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1), as set forth in Section 9 above:

1.a. Pursuant to the HAA (GC §65589.5(h)(6)(E)), a Builder’s Remedy project shall be deemed to comply with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete. Similarly, GC §65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) provides that Builder’s Remedy projects “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -13-
other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.”
Per GC §65589.5(h)(5), “deemed complete” means that the applicant has submitted a PA to vest the rights of a project prior to the submittal of a formal application.

Additionally, while materials submitted for this Project show that the Project is anticipated to have privacy, shade and shadow, and construction traffic and noise impacts to existing residential development in the vicinity of the Project site, these impacts do not appear to create a specific, adverse impact based on written objective standards on which the City could rely to deny the Project. Aesthetic impacts of a Project associated with privacy, and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard. Similarly, construction traffic impacts would be temporary, and any traffic control measures implemented would be consistent with City requirements for development projects and would be removed at the end of Project construction. Construction noise impacts would also be temporary and regulated by the City’s limitation on construction hours, which limits Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -14-
construction activities for projects to the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., with construction prohibited on weekends and holidays.

Furthermore, the Project site is not located within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ), a hazardous waste site, in a delineated earthquake fault zone, in a special flood hazard area, or in a regulatory floodway and materials submitted for the Project do not appear to demonstrate that the Project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to construction workers or future occupants of the residential development. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

1.b. While the Project is anticipated to have aesthetic and temporary construction-related traffic and noise impacts, the noted impacts do not appear to constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety to merit disapproval of the proposed housing development Project. As the City does not have any local objective standards regulating shade and shadow impacts of project, these impacts could not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the record that would enable the City to deny the Project on these grounds.

Section 11. In considering the request for approval of a Development Plan Review, pursuant to §10-3-3104 of the Beverly Hills Municipal Code (BHMC), the Planning Commission considered whether it could make the following findings in support of the Project:

1. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

2. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -15-

3. The nature, configuration, location, density, height, and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

4. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

5. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

Section 12. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows with respect to the Development Plan Review:

1. The Project site is designated as Multi-Family Residential – High Density in the City’s General Plan. This land use designation allows for multi-family residential development with a maximum density of 50 dwelling units per acre and at a maximum height of 60’-0”. The proposed Project is a new eight-story, 55-unit, multi-family residential development with a height of 101’-0”. As designed, the project far exceeds the development potential outlined in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element. Under the applicable density standards, a total of 12 units would be permissible at the project site, with a maximum height of 60’-0”.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -16-
As designed, the Project does not maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the residential and commercial areas in the vicinity of the Project. The proposed height of eight stories and 101’-0” disrupts the established scale and massing of the surrounding neighborhood characterized by oneto two story single-family residences and two- to four-story multi-family buildings. The placement of the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential properties. The proposed units in the Project include balconies along the south and west elevations, which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns that are inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan to assure functional and visual transitions between different densities. The Project’s scale and lack of building modulation on the west elevation do not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the two- to four-story residential uses to the surrounding the Project site. Based on the foregoing, this proposed Project is not consistent with the City’s general plan. Thus, the finding cannot be made that the Project is consistent with the General Plan. However, while the Project is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan, the HAA requires that a Builder’s Remedy project be considered consistent and in compliance with applicable objective general plan and zoning standards in effect at the time an application is deemed complete, and such inconsistencies do not provide a basis for denial of the Project.

2. The Project is severely out of scale with existing development immediately adjacent to the Project, which includes one- to- story single family residences and two- to four-story multi-family residential buildings. The Project’s scale and lack of building Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -17-
modulation does not provide a smooth transition in scale, form, and character with the surrounding residential uses in the vicinity of the Project. The placement of the windows and the orientation of open spaces planned for the development are oriented toward neighboring residential properties. The proposed units in the Project include balconies along the south and west elevations, which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on existing single-family and multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the Project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the proposed Project would appear to adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity of the Project and would not promote harmonious development of the area. Thus, this finding cannot be made. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.

3. The Project proposal involves the construction of a new multi-family residential building and does not include any commercial development. As a result, this finding is not applicable.

4. Based on the City’s thresholds of significance for transportation impacts, the Project is screened out from providing a traffic analysis per the City’s adopted Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) thresholds because it is located within a low VMT generating traffic analysis zone (TAZ) for residential projects and located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA), the Project’s residential component is screened out from completing a VMT analysis and is presumed to have a less than significant VMT impact. The Project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (3 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the Project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (8 inbound trips and 6 outbound trips). Based on the Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -18-
above weekday AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation forecast, it is concluded that a Local Transportation Assessment (LTA) would not be required, as the project is forecasted to generate less than 50 net new peak hour vehicle trips during both the weekday AM and PM peak hours.

The Construction Management Plan (CMP) submitted for the Project identifies the need for several construction-related closures of public right-of-way areas.

The impacted areas include Tower Drive street and parking lane closures during project duration and one traffic lane closure. Any use of public rights-of-way are subject to separate City approvals. While the project has the potential to create adverse traffic impacts, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, and pedestrian safety hazards as a result of the proposed closures of public right-of-way surrounding the project site, a detailed CMP would require review by the City and measures would be implemented to minimize impacts associated with the temporary closures of the public right-of-way and the use of the rightof-way for construction staging. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicles conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazard.

5. The Project is designed in conflict with general plan and zoning development standards, including density, minimum floor area for dwelling units, outdoor living space, height, setbacks, modulation, permissible encroachments, paving, and parking. While aesthetic impacts of a project associated with privacy and shade and shadow impacts are not based on any objective City standard or any written federal, state, or local public health or safety standard, the materials provided for the Project also demonstrate that the Project would cast shadows on the multi-family residential buildings located to the Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -19-
north and the northwest and on single-family residential buildings to the east in summer months, and on multi-family residential buildings to the north and northwest and on singlefamily residential buildings in the winter months, impacting access to natural light to these properties. Furthermore, the Project includes balconies along the south and west elevations, which would have direct view of open spaces and windows on neighboring multi-family residential buildings in close proximity to the project, creating privacy concerns. Based on the foregoing, the finding that the Project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare cannot be made. In light of the issues presented in this finding, the Project has been conditioned to address the above noted impacts.

Section 13. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Development Plan Review associated with the construction of an 11-story, 55-unit multi-family residential development Project with subterranean parking at 232 Tower Drive, subject to the following conditions:

Project-Specific Conditions

1. This approval is for those plans submitted to the Planning Commission on October 23, 2025, a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval.

2. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development or her/his designee. A significant change to the approved Project shall be subject to Planning Commission review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans approved herein or as modified by the Planning Commission or Director of Community Development or their designee.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -20-

3. The Planning Commission reserves jurisdiction relative to traffic, parking, loading, lighting, and noise issues and the right to impose additional conditions as necessary to mitigate any other unanticipated impacts caused by the Project as they arise.

In the event that the Project is found to result in any unanticipated impacts and a hearing is scheduled to review the Project, the full cost of the review hearing and implementation of any additional conditions or mitigation measures shall be paid by the Property Owner.

6. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the design, materials, and finish of the building and landscaping shall be subject to the City’s architectural review process.

7. The property shall not be eligible for participation in the City’s Residential Parking Permit Program, or any other City-established parking program.

8. Landscaping shall be maintained for the life of the Project in substantial compliance with the landscape plan included in the approved plans. Any modification to Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -21-
landscaping shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director or their designee for a consistency determination with the original approval.

9. Unless otherwise approved by the City, the Project shall be operated as a rental property and shall maintain a minimum of 11 affordable dwelling units designated for occupancy by lower-income households. The applicant shall designate the affordability levels for each lower-income unit consistent with the City’s December 18, 2024, Replacement Unit Determination (RUD), prior to issuance of a building permit to construct the Project. The affordable units shall include at least one (1) three-bedroom unit reserved for rental by very low-income households. The Project shall also comply with all applicable replacement unit provision in state law. All replacement units shall be of equivalent size as units being replaced, as defined in Government Code (GC) Section 66300.5(d). The City of Beverly Hills or its designee shall be responsible for administering these units.

Affordability of these units by said households shall be guaranteed for a minimum of 55 years and subject to a recorded affordability restriction for a minimum of 55 years in accordance with California Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(3) or its successor statute.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -22-

11. An inclusionary housing agreement which includes provisions and terms for meeting the requirements of the City’s inclusionary housing requirements shall be approved by the city manager and city attorney and recorded as a deed restriction against the property prior to issuance of either a grading or building permit, whichever comes first.

13. To mitigate potential noise impacts to neighboring residents, the use of all common outdoor areas, including the rooftop deck, shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.. Signage indicating such restrictions shall be installed on the rooftop.

14. Amplified sound shall be prohibited on all outdoor open space areas, including the rooftop area and all balconies provided for the Project.

15. Lighting on the Project site, including rooftop areas, shall comply at all times with the Beverly Hills Municipal Code’s restrictions on lighting of premises.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -23-

17. A six-foot (6’) tall sound barrier with a sound attenuation rating of STC 40 or greater shall be installed on the side of the common outdoor living space provided on the rooftop area facing residential properties to the north, south, and east. The Applicant shall provide an updated rooftop plan to show compliance with the Project conditions. The updated rooftop plan shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development or their designee.

Hanging anything over the edge of any balcony shall be prohibited.

19. The use of barbeque grills shall be prohibited on the individual balconies of the residential units of the building and on the outdoor living space provided on the rooftop area.

20. A parabolic mirror, light system and vehicle stop sign shall be installed at each parking egress point in order to ensure visibility for exiting vehicles and to warn pedestrian traffic of exiting vehicles; no sound shall be utilized for the warning system.

Such features shall not be placed in or project into the City’s public right-of-way.

21. A total of 13 parking spaces must be maintained on site.

22. The Project shall operate at all times in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of light, noise, activities, parking, or other actions.

23. The Project shall operate at all times in compliance with Municipal Code requirements for Noise Regulation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -24-

24. These Project-specific conditions of approval shall be incorporated into each residential lease/rental agreement and accepted by each tenant. Further, annually, the Project’s leasing agent or agents shall submit an affidavit that they have read and are aware of these conditions of approval.

California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions

25. The Applicant shall include tribal monitoring prior to all ground-disturbing activities associated with the construction of the Project, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(i) or its successor statute, as follows:
a. The consulting California Native American tribes shall designate a monitor.
b. The tribal monitors shall comply with Applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements.
c. The Applicant shall compensate each tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the Project.

26. The Applicant, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(b)(4)(B)(ii) or its successor statue, shall avoid any tribal cultural resources where feasible, in accordance with PRC Section 21084.3(a). In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the Applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -25-

27. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(iii) or its successor statute, all treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner by the Applicant, consistent with PRC Section 21083.9.

28. Pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(iv) or its successor statute, the Applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the Project site.

Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

29. The Applicant shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(v) or its successor statute. Documentation demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of building permits.

30. The Project shall comply with Health and Safety Code (HSC) Sections 7050.5 and 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(vi) or its successor statue.

31. The Applicant shall provide an application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the Project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the Project, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66 (b)(4)(B)(vii) or its successor statute.

32. Additional California Native American Tribal Consultation Conditions Requested by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation:

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -26-
a. TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities
i. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.
ii. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.
iii. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -27-
applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.
b. TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/Non Ceremonial)
i. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery shall cease (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.
c. TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and
Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
i. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. ii. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2). iii. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -28-
iv. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Environmental Assessment Conditions

33. The Applicant shall complete a Phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 78090, and submit the assessment to the City for review, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(c)(1)(A) or its successor statute.

34. If a recognized environmental condition is found, the Applicant shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in HSC Section 78095, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(c)(1)(B) or its successor statute.

35. If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(c)(1)(C) or its successor statute.

36. If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the City issues a certificate of occupancy, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(c)(1)(D) or its successor statute.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -29-
Construction Labor Conditions

37. Unless the height of the Project is reduced so that it is at or below 85’-0”, pursuant to PRC Section 21808.66(d) or its successor statute, the Applicant shall comply with the construction labor standards in GC 65913.4(a)(8) and enter into contracts with licensed contractors for construction of the Project. The Applicant shall certify compliance with these standards, including prevailing wage requirements, to the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The Applicant shall comply with these labor provisions throughout Project construction.

Construction-Related Conditions

38. The Applicant shall submit a Construction Traffic Management Plan to the Community Development Department for review and such Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be approved by the City’s Traffic Engineer prior to the earlier of the issuance of a demolition or the issuance of a building permit. The Construction Management Plan shall include, at a minimum the following:
a. Written information about the construction parking arrangements and hauling activities at different stages of demolition and construction to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division of Public Works and the Building & Safety Department.
b. Information regarding the anticipated number of workers, the location of parking with respect to schedules of the demolition and construction period, the arrangements of deliveries, hauling activities, the length of time of operation, designation of construction staging area and other pertaining information regarding construction related traffic.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -30-
c. The proposed demolition and construction staging for this Project to determine the amount, appropriate routes and time of day of heavy hauling truck traffic necessary for demolition, deliveries, etc., to the subject site. d. Information on proposed temporary or permanent closures of public right-of-way areas, includes sidewalks, street lines, parking areas, and alleys. e. Construction-related traffic, including vehicles used for hauling and delivery of materials, shall utilize only those streets identified on the City’s map of approved heavy haul routes, with vehicles required to exit the site toward Wilshire Boulevard, to the north of the Project site. Additionally, no construction-related vehicles may utilize that portion of Tower Drive located south of the Project site.

39. The Applicant shall obtain all required permits from the Community Development Department and the Public Works Department for the placement of construction canopies, fences, etc., for the construction of any improvements in the public right-of-way, and for use of the public right-of-way for staging and/or hauling certain equipment and materials related to the Project.

40. Prior to the initiation of construction at the Project site, the Applicant shall install a temporary construction sound barrier at the northern, southern, eastern, and western property lines that shall be at least 12’ tall and that shall have a minimum STC rating of 32. The Applicant shall locate all stationary noise sources as far away from the north, south, and east property lines as feasible.

41. The Applicant shall post the names and telephone numbers of two construction representatives for the Project and a City contact on all construction fence signs. The phone numbers shall be manned at all times during construction hours.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -31-

42. The Applicant shall provide electric vehicle charging stations for the Project, including electric vehicle charging stations for required handicap accessible parking spaces, as required by all applicable California Green Building Code requirements.

43. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all applicable Park and Recreation Facilities Taxes required by the Municipal Code shall be paid.

44. The Applicant shall remove and replace all public sidewalks adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

45. The Applicant shall remove and replace all curbs and gutters adjacent to the Project site that are rendered defective as a result of Project construction, as determined by the City Engineer.

46. The Applicant shall protect all existing street trees adjacent to the subject site during construction of the Project. Every effort shall be made to retain mature street trees. No street trees, including those street trees designated on the preliminary plans, shall be removed and/or relocated unless written approval from the Public Works Department and the City Engineer (or their designee) is first obtained.

47. Removal and/or replacement of any street trees shall not commence unless and until the Applicant has provided the City with an improvement security deposit to ensure the establishment of any relocated or replaced street trees. The security amount will be determined by the Director of Public Works (or their designee) and shall be in a form approved by the Director of Community Development.

Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -32-

48. The Applicant shall remove and reconstruct any existing improvements in the public right-of-way damaged during construction operations performed under any permits issued by the City.

49. Condensation from HVAC and refrigeration equipment shall drain to the sanitary sewer, not curb drains.

50. The Applicant shall provide that all groundwater discharges to a storm drain. All ground water discharges must have a permit (NPDES) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Connection to a storm drain shall be accomplished in the manner approved by the City Engineer and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works.

51. The Applicant shall provide for all utility facilities, including electrical transformers required for service to the proposed structure(s), to be installed on the subject site. No such installations will be allowed in any City right-of-way.

52. The Applicant shall underground, if necessary, the utilities in adjacent streets per requirements of the Utility Company and the City.

53. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s sanitary sewer system through the existing connections available to the subject site, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, and shall pay the applicable sewer connection fee. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

54. The Applicant shall make connection to the City’s water system through the existing water service connection unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The size, type, and location of the water service meter installation will also require approval Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -33-
from the City Engineer. The costs of any upgrades necessary to provide the Project with utility connections shall be the responsibility of the Applicant.

55. Any streets surrounding the Project site that are damaged as a result of Project construction shall be repaved and restored to the street centerline.

56. All survey monuments, streetlights, and underground utilities, and any existing offsite improvements affected by the construction shall be re-established according to the City standards and shall be paid for by the Applicant. No privately-owned structures or improvements are permitted within the public right-of-way without an encroachment permit.

Standard Conditions

57. APPEAL. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within fourteen (14) days of the Planning Commission action by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the City Clerk’s office.

An appeal fee is required.

58. RECORDATION. This resolution approving this Development Plan Review shall not become effective until the owner of the Project site records a covenant, satisfactory in form and content to the City Attorney, accepting the conditions of approval set forth in this resolution. The covenant shall include a copy of this resolution as an exhibit.

The Applicant shall deliver the executed covenant to the Department of Community Development within 180 days of the Planning Commission decision. At the time that the Applicant delivers the covenant to the City, the Applicant shall also provide the City with all fees necessary to record the document with the County Recorder. If the Applicant fails to deliver the executed covenant within the required 180 days, this resolution approving a Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -34-
Development Plan Review shall be null and void and of no further effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Director of Community Development may, upon a written request by the Applicant, submitted prior to the expiration of the 180-day period, grant a written waiver from the 180-day time limit for a period of no more than 180 days if, at the time of the request, the Director determines that there have been no substantial changes to any federal, state or local law that would affect the Project. Regardless of the timelines set forth in this condition, in no event shall a building permit be issued prior to the recordation of the covenant.

59. EXPIRATION. Development Plan Review: The exercise of rights granted in such approvals shall be commenced within three (3) years after the date of approval of this resolution, as provided for in BHMC §10-3-207.A., unless otherwise extended.

60. VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS: A violation of any of these conditions of approval may result in enforcement action by the City until such violation is abated or the entitlement granted herein is revoked pursuant to Section 10-3-258 of the BHMC, or its successor regulation. All costs incurred by the City as a result of abatement of a violation on the property shall be reimbursed by the party in breach of this resolution.

61. APPROVAL RUNS WITH LAND. These conditions shall run with the land and shall remain in full force for the duration of the life of the Project.

62. INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY. Indemnity, Duty to Defend and Obligation to Pay Judgements and Defense Costs, Including Attorneys’ Fees, Incurred by the City. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, agents, and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) from and Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -35-
against any claims, damages, actions, causes of actions, lawsuits, suits, proceedings, losses, judgements, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees or court costs) in any manner arising out of or incident to the Planning Commission’s action, this approval and the Planning Commissions actions, related entitlements, or the City’s environmental review thereof. The Applicant shall pay and satisfy any judgement, award or decree that may be rendered against City or the other Indemnitees in any such suit, action, or other legal proceeding. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall reasonably cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to reasonably cooperate in the defense, the Applicant shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City or the Indemnitees. The City shall have the right to select counsel of its choice. The Applicant shall reimburse the City, and the other Indemnitees, for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Nothing in this condition shall be construed to require the Applicant to indemnify Indemnitees for any claim arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees. In the event such a legal action is filed challenging the City’s determination herein or the issuance of the approval, the City shall estimate its expenses for the litigation. The Applicant shall deposit said amount with the City or, at the discretion of the City, enter into an agreement with the City to pay such expenses as they become due.
///
///
///
Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 -36-
Section 14. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall certify to the passage, approval, and adoption of this resolution, and shall cause this resolution and his/her Certification to be entered into the Book of Resolutions of the Planning Commission of the City.

Adopted: October 23, 2025
Lou Milkowski
Vice Chair of the Planning Commission of the
City of Beverly Hills
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Michael Forbes, AICP
Secretary of the Planning Commission
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

David M. Snow
Assistant City Attorney
Michael Forbes, AICP
Director of Community Development
Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS )
I, KAREN MYRON, Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Beverly Hills, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2101 duly passed, approved and adopted by the Planning Commission of said City at a meeting of said Commission on October 23, 2025, and thereafter duly signed by the Secretary of the Planning Commission, as indicated; and that the Planning Commission of the City consists of five (5) members and said Resolution was passed by the following vote of said Commission, to wit:

AYES: Commissioners Kaplan, Ross, Demeter, Vice Chair Milkowski NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSED: Chair Wolfe
________________________________

KAREN MYRON
Recording Secretary of the
Planning Commission
City of Beverly Hills, California
Docusign Envelope ID: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 Certificate Of Completion
Envelope Id: 0732BAAE-7F9A-4A5B-BDBC-3E41368CE781 Status: Completed Subject: Complete with Docusign: PC Reso 2101 - 232 Tower Dr.pdf Source Envelope:

Document Pages: 37 Signatures: 5 Envelope Originator:

Certificate Pages: 2 Initials: 0 Karen Myron
AutoNav: Enabled
EnvelopeId Stamping: Enabled
Time Zone: (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
455 N. Rexford Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
[email protected]
IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Record Tracking
Status: Original
12/2/2025 3:05:42 PM
Holder: Karen Myron
[email protected]
Location: DocuSign
Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Lou Milkowski
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address:
2603:8001:7400:54c1:a523:4f68:f0f1:688b
Sent: 12/2/2025 3:21:26 PM
Viewed: 12/4/2025 1:53:59 PM
Signed: 12/4/2025 1:54:33 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
David M. Snow
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Drawn on Device
Using IP Address: 72.219.162.164
Sent: 12/4/2025 1:54:34 PM
Viewed: 12/4/2025 2:24:23 PM
Signed: 12/4/2025 2:24:35 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Cindy Gordon for
[email protected]
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.166
Sent: 12/4/2025 2:24:36 PM
Viewed: 12/8/2025 8:38:26 AM
Signed: 12/8/2025 8:40:37 AM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
Karen Myron
[email protected]

COMM DEV COMMISSION SPECIALIST,

CD-PLANNING
City of Beverly Hills
Security Level: Email, Account Authentication
(None)
Signature Adoption: Pre-selected Style
Using IP Address: 198.245.189.181
Sent: 12/8/2025 8:40:39 AM
Viewed: 12/8/2025 5:33:12 PM
Signed: 12/8/2025 5:43:10 PM
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:

Not Offered via Docusign
In Person Signer Events Signature Timestamp
Editor Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Agent Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Intermediary Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Certified Delivery Events Status Timestamp
Carbon Copy Events Status Timestamp
Witness Events Signature Timestamp
Notary Events Signature Timestamp
Envelope Summary Events Status Timestamps
Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 12/2/2025 3:21:26 PM
Certified Delivered Security Checked 12/8/2025 5:33:12 PM Signing Complete Security Checked 12/8/2025 5:43:10 PM
Completed Security Checked 12/8/2025 5:43:10 PM
Payment Events Status Timestamps
ATTACHMENT 5
State Statutes
State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65589.5
65589.5.
(d) For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households, or an emergency shelter, a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project or emergency shelter, or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project or emergency shelter infeasible, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to one of the following:
(1) The jurisdiction has adopted a housing element pursuant to this article that has been revised in accordance with Section 65588, is in substantial compliance with this article, and the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation pursuant to Section 65584 for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project, provided that any disapproval or conditional approval shall not be based on any of the reasons prohibited by Section 65008. If the housing development project includes a mix of income categories, and the jurisdiction has not met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need for one or more of those categories, then this paragraph shall not be used to disapprove or conditionally approve the housing development project.

The share of the regional housing need met by the jurisdiction shall be calculated consistently with the forms and definitions that may be adopted by the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 65400. In the case of an emergency shelter, the jurisdiction shall have met or exceeded the need for emergency shelter, as identified pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. Any disapproval or conditional approval pursuant to this paragraph shall be in accordance with applicable law, rule, or standards. (2) The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:
(A) Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation. (B) The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
Findings for Denial or Conditioning of
Housing Affordable to Very Low-, Low- or
Moderate-Income Households
(Government Code Section 65589.5(d))
(3) The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible.
(4) The housing development project or emergency shelter is proposed on land zoned for agriculture or resource preservation that is surrounded on at least two sides by land being used for agricultural or resource preservation purposes, or which does not have adequate water or wastewater facilities to serve the project. (5) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan.
(A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderateincome households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) If the local agency has failed to identify a zone or zones where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit, has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, or has failed to demonstrate that the identified zone or zones can accommodate at least one emergency shelter, as required by paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, then this paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve an emergency shelter proposed for a site designated in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any action in court, the burden of proof shall be on the local agency to show that its housing element does satisfy the requirements of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583. (6) On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project.

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE
Section 65589.5
65589.5.
(j) (1) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

AUTHENTICATED

ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
Findings Required for Denial of a Housing
Project that is Consistent with Applicable
Plans, Standards, or Other Similar
Provisions Based on the Preponderance
of the Evidence Standard
(Government Code Section 65589.5(j)(1))

® STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LEGISLATIVE AUTHENTICATED
~7,'t,:i}X ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL
State of California

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE
Section 21080.66
21080.66. (a) Without limiting any other statutory or categorical exemption, this division does not apply to any aspect of a housing development project, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 65905 .5 of the Government Code, including any permits, approvals, or public improvements required for the housing development project, as may be required by this division, if the housing development project meets all of the following conditions:
(1) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the project site is not more than 20 acres.
(B) The project site or the parcel size for a builder's remedy project, as defined in paragraph (11) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code, or the project site or the parcel size for a project that applied pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code as it read before January 1, 2025, is not more than five acres.
(2) The project site meets either of the following criteria:
(A) Is located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality. (B) Is located within an urban area, as defined by the United States Census Bureau. (3) The project site meets any of the following criteria:
(A) Has been previously developed with an urban use.
(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
( C) At least 7 5 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses.
(D) For sites with four sides, at least three out of four sides are developed with urban uses and at least two-thirds of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.
( 4) (A) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, as well as any applicable local coastal program as defined in Section 30108.6. For purposes of this section, a housing development project shall be deemed consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning ordinance, and any applicable local coastal program, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project is consistent. (B) If the zoning and general plan are not consistent with one another, a project shall be deemed consistent with both if the project is consistent with one. (C) The approval of a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code shall not be grounds for determining that the project Assembly Bill 130
CEQA Statutory Exemption
(Public Resources Code
Section 21080.66)

is inconsistent with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, or local coastal program.
(5) The project will be at least one-half of the applicable density specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2 of the Government Code.
( 6) The project satisfies the requirements specified in paragraph ( 6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code.
(7) The project does not require the demolition of a historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or local historic register before the date a preliminary application was submitted for the project pursuant to Section 65941.1 of the Government Code.
(8) For a project that was deemed complete pursuant to paragraph ( 5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code on or after January 1, 2025, no portion of the project is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. For the purposes of this section, "other transient lodging" does not include either of the following:
(A) A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident's use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local law. (b) (1) (A) A local government shall provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the proposed project, its location, and the project's potential effects on tribal cultural resources pursuant to one of the following deadlines:
(i) Within 14 days of the application for the project being deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code. (ii) For projects whose applications were deemed complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5 of the Government Code before July 1, 2026, within 14 days of notifying the local government that the project is eligible to be exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(B) The formal notification shall include all of the following:
(i) Detailed project information to help inform the consultation, including site maps, proposed project scope, and any known cultural resource studies. (ii) Contact information for the local government.
(iii) Contact information for the project proponent.
(iv) Notice that the California Native American tribe has 60 days to request consultation with the local government pursuant to this subdivision. (2) (A) Each California Native American tribe has 60 days to notify the local government that it accepts the invitation to consult.
(B) If a California Native American tribe chooses not to accept the invitation to consult, or does not notify the local government of its decision within 60 days, the consultation shall be considered to have concluded.

(3) (A) Within 14 days of receiving the notification that the California Native American tribe has elected to consult, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2), the local government shall initiate the consultation.
(B) During the consultation, the local government shall act in good faith to identify whether a tribal cultural resource could be affected by the proposed project and shall give deference to the tribal information, tribal knowledge and customs, and the significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe. (C) The project proponent may participate in the consultation with the approval of the California Native American tribe if the project proponent agrees to engage in good faith and comply with the confidentiality requirements of Sections 7927.000 and 7927.005 of the Government Code, subdivision (d) of Section 21082.3, subdivision (d) of Section 15120 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, and any confidentiality standards adopted by the California Native American tribe participating in the consultation.
(D) The consultation shall seek to find measures that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.
(E) The local government shall document the results of the consultation. (F) The consultation shall conclude within 45 days of initiation, subject to a one-time 15-day extension upon request by a participating California Native American tribe.
(4) The local government shall include, as binding conditions of the project approval, all of the following:
(A) Any enforceable agreements reached during the project consultation. (B) All of the following measures, unless there is mutual agreement between the California Native American tribe and the project proponent not to include the measure as a binding condition:
(i) Upon request by a California Native American tribe, the project shall include tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities, as follows:
(I) The California Native American tribe shall designate the monitor. (II) The tribal monitor shall comply with applicant's site access and workplace safety requirements.
(111) The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the project. (ii) Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes. (iii) All treatment and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner, consistent with Section 21083.9. (iv) A California Historical Resources Information System archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search shall be completed for the project site.

(v) A Sacred Lands Inventory request shall be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission.
(vi) The project shall comply with Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code and Section 5097.98, including immediate work stoppage upon discovery of human remains or burial grounds, and treatment in accordance with applicable law and in consultation with the affected California Native American tribe. (vii) An application of tribal ecological knowledge into habitat restoration efforts undertaken by the project as applicable to the specific environmental context and conditions of the project.
(5) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
(A) "California Native American tribe" has the same meaning as defined in Section 21073.
(B) "Enforceable agreement" means an agreement between the local government, project proponent, and any California Native American tribe that has engaged in consultation pursuant to this subdivision regarding the methods, measures, and conditions for tribal cultural resource identification, treatment, and protection, including consideration of avoidance. Compliance with the enforceable agreement shall be a required condition of approval for the project and its terms must be enforceable against the project proponent by the local government and the California Native American tribe.
(C) "Tribal cultural resource" means a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, including a Native American sanctified cemetery, Indian cemetery, or Indian burial area, or an object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that is any of the following:
(i) Included or eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or the National Register of Historic Places.
(ii) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
(iii) Identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as a sacred place pursuant to Section 5097.94 or 5097.96.
(iv) Included in a local tribal register.
( c) (1) (A) The local government shall, as a condition of approval for the development, require the development proponent to complete a phase I environmental assessment, as defined in Section 78090 of the Health and Safety Code. (B) If a recognized environmental condition is found, the development proponent shall complete a preliminary endangerment assessment, as defined in Section 78095 of the Health and Safety Code, prepared by an environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity.
(C) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed or any effects of the release shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy.

(D) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to levels required by current federal and state statutory and regulatory standards before the local government issues a certificate of occupancy. (2) For any housing on the site located within 500 feet of a freeway, all of the following shall apply:
(A) The building shall have a centralized heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system.
(B) The outdoor air intakes for the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning system shall face away from the freeway.
(C) The building shall provide air filtration media for outside and return air that provides a minimum efficiency reporting value of 16.
(D) The air filtration media shall be replaced at the manufacturer's designated interval.
(E) The building shall not have any balconies facing the freeway. (d) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, all construction workers employed in the execution of a housing development project exempt from this division pursuant to this section where 100 percent of the units within the development project are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be paid at least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the Labor Code, except that apprentices registered in programs approved by the Chief of the Division of Apprenticeship Standards may be paid at least the applicable apprentice prevailing rate, regardless of whether the housing development project is a public work. (2) Notwithstanding any other law, the labor standards of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the Government Code shall apply to buildings over 85 feet in height above grade in any housing development project exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding any other law, the labor standards of Article 4 ( commencing with Section 65912.130) of Chapter 4.1 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code shall apply for projects of 50 units or greater in the City and County of San Francisco that are not covered by paragraph (2), for any construction craft where at least 50 percent of the units in market-rate multifamily housing projects that received their certificate of occupancy between 2022 and 2024, inclusive, were built by workers that were paid not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages. (B) For purposes of this section, "market-rate multifamily housing development project" means a housing development project of greater than 10 units where less than 95 percent of the units are dedicated to lower income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(C) (i) The eligibility of this subparagraph, by classification, will be determined by the Department of Industrial Relations and published on its internet website by January 1, 2026.

(ii) In making a determination of eligibility pursuant to this subparagraph, the Director of Industrial Relations shall obtain and consider data from the labor organizations and employers or employer associations concerned no later than October 1, 2025.
(iii) To determine the number of market-rate multifamily housing projects that received their certificate of occupancy in a given year, the Department of Industrial Relations shall use the annual progress report data as reported by the jurisdiction pursuant to Section 65400 of the Government Code.
(4) The provisions of Section 218.8 of the Labor Code shall extend to the development proponent in addition to the direct contractor or subcontractor. For purposes of this paragraph, "development proponent" shall mean a developer who submits the housing development project application to a local government that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section.
(5) (A) A joint labor-management cooperation committee established pursuant to the federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 175a) may undertake any of the following on a housing development project that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section:
(i) Bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction against a contractor or subcontractor at any tier on behalf of construction workers employed by the contractor or subcontractor on a housing development project that is exempt from this division pursuant to this section to enforce Section 226 of the Labor Code. A contractor is not subject to an action pursuant to this subparagraph due to the failure of a subcontractor to comply with Section 226 of the Labor Code.
(ii) Bring an action in a court of competent jurisdiction on behalf of an affected employee against an employer for damages as if Division 4 ( commencing with Section 3200) of the Labor Code did not apply, if the employer fails to secure the payment of compensation as required by Article 1 ( commencing with Section 3 700) of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 4 of the Labor Code.
(iii) In addition to the remedies set forth in Section 7028.3 of the Business and Professions Code, on proper showing by a joint labor-management cooperation committee of a continuing violation of Chapter 9 ( commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code by a person who constructs a housing project and does not hold a state contractor's license in any classification, an injunction shall issue by a court specified in Section 7028.3 of the Business and Professions Code at the request of the joint labor-management cooperation committee, prohibiting that violation.
(B) For any action brought pursuant to this paragraph, the court shall award a prevailing joint labor-management committee its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred maintaining the action.
(C) An action brought pursuant to this paragraph shall be filed within one year of a local government issuing a certificate of occupancy for the housing development project or for the portion relating to the action.
(D) This paragraph shall apply only to violations that occur on the site of construction of the housing development project.

(e) This section does not affect the eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 of the Government Code.
(f) For purposes of this section, the following terms apply:
(1) "Adjoins" includes parcels that are only separated by a street, pedestrian path, or bicycle path.
(2) "Construction worker" means one performing onsite work associated with construction, including work involving alteration, demolition, building, excavation, renovation, remodeling, maintenance, improvement, repair work, and any other work as described by Chapter 9 ( commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and other similar or related occupations or trades. (3) "Urban use" means any current or previous residential or commercial development, public institution, or public park that is surrounded by other urban uses, parking lot or structure, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.
(Added by Stats. 2025, Ch. 22, Sec. 59. (AB 130) Effective June 30, 2025.) ATTACHMENT 6
Required Findings
ARTICLE 31. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW
10-3-3104: STANDARD OF REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW APPLICATIONS:

Except as provided in this section for development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the reviewing authority shall approve a development plan review application only if it makes all of the following findings:

A. The proposed plan is consistent with the general plan and any specific plans adopted for the area.

B. The proposed plan will not adversely affect existing and anticipated development in the vicinity and will promote harmonious development of the area.

For those proposed plans to be located in the C-5 Zone that are reviewed by the Planning Commission, the commission shall consider the factors set forth in section 10-3-2021 of this chapter as part of the commission's determination regarding whether a project will promote harmonious development of the area.

C. The nature, configuration, location, density, height and manner of operation of any commercial development proposed by the plan will not significantly and adversely interfere with the use and enjoyment of residential properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

D. The proposed plan will not create any significantly adverse traffic impacts, traffic safety hazards, pedestrian-vehicle conflicts, or pedestrian safety hazards.

E. The proposed plan will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.

In approving a development plan application, the reviewing authority may impose such conditions as it deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety and general welfare.

With regard to development plans to be located in the C-5 Zone and to be reviewed by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the review of the Director shall be ministerial and limited to whether such building conforms to the requirements of the C-5 Zone. (Ord. 11-O-2615, eff. 12-16-2011) ATTACHMENT 7
General Plan Policies
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES1
The General Plan includes numerous goals and policies intended to help guide development in the City. Some of the policies relevant to the Planning Commission’s review of the project include the following:

Land Use Element Policies
• Policy LU 1.1 – The Scale of the City. Although implicit in any discussion of the future of the City, the importance of scale must be underscored. As long as the City is able to regenerate itself within the general framework of the existing scale, it will offer an environment which is becoming increasingly unique in the Westside. • Policy LU 2.1 – City Places: Neighborhoods, Districts, and Corridors. Maintain and enhance the character, distribution, built form, scale, and aesthetic qualities of the City's distinctive residential neighborhoods, business districts, corridors, and open spaces. • Policy LU 2.4 – Architectural and Site Design. Require that new construction and renovation of existing buildings and properties exhibit a high level of excellence in site planning, architectural design, building materials, use of sustainable design and construction practices, landscaping, and amenities that contribute to the City’s distinctive image and complement existing development.
• Policy LU 2.10 – Development Transitions and Compatibility. Require that sites and buildings be planned, located, and designed to assure functional and visual transitions between areas of differing uses and densities by addressing property and height setbacks, window and entry placement, lighting, landscape buffers, and service access. • Policy LU 3.1 – Conservation. Conserve existing residential neighborhoods, and nonresidential areas where new development builds on and enhances the viability of existing business sectors that are the City's strengths, promotes transit accessibility, is phased to coincide with infrastructure funding and construction, and designed to assure transitions and compatibility with adjoining residential neighborhoods. • Policy LU 3.2 – Fair Share of Regional Housing Needs. Meet State requirements to accommodate the City's fair share of regional housing needs, contingent upon the ability to maintain the qualities that distinguish and contribute to the livability of the City and not unduly burden the City's fiscal resources.
• Policy LU 5.1 – Neighborhood Conservation. Maintain the uses, densities, character, amenities, and quality of the City's residential neighborhoods, recognizing their contribution to the City's identity, economic value, and quality of life. • Policy LU 5.2 – Infill and Replacement Housing. Accommodate new and renovated housing within existing neighborhoods that is consistent with contextual parcel sizes, densities, built form and scale.
• Policy LU 5.7 – Neighborhood Transitions. Regulate the setback, rear elevation design of buildings, and landscaping of backyards where neighborhoods of differing housing type and density abut to assure smooth transitions in scale, form, and character. 1 Document available online at https://www.beverlyhills.org/1067/General-Plan-Document • Policy LU 7.1 – Character and Design. Require that multi-family dwellings and properties be designed to reflect the high level of architectural and landscape quality that distinguishes existing neighborhoods. These may provide for:
a) Building facades and entrances that directly address the street, including the use of stoops, porches, and recessed entries;
b) Modulation of building volume and masses, avoiding the effect of blank continuous walls; and,
c) Setback of the ground floor from the sidewalk to provide privacy, a sense of security, and to leave room for landscaping while being open and contributing to a quality pedestrian environment.
• Policy LU 16.10 – Affordable Housing. Support the development of affordable housing as required by state law.

ATTACHMENT 8
Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) Assessment
O:\JOB_FILE\4611\memo\4611-M1.docx
City of Beverly Hills March 28, 2024
Jason A. Shender, AICP
Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers
1-24-4611-1
232 S. Tower Drive Residential Project – Trip Generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Assessment
This memorandum has been prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (“LLG”) to provide a trip generation and Vehicle Miles Traveled (“VMT”) screening assessment for the proposed residential project (“Project”) located at 232 S. Tower Drive in the City of Beverly Hills (“Project Site”).

Briefly, based on the methodology set forth in the City of Beverly Hills California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Thresholds1(“CEQA Transportation Thresholds”), it is concluded that based on the characteristics of the Project and the low forecast net new trip generation, the Project screens out from a formal VMT assessment, as well as a non-CEQA Local Transportation Assessment (“LTA”). This trip generation and VMT screening assessment provides: 1) a description of the existing setting; 2) a description of the proposed Project; 3) a summary of the proposed Project trip generation forecasts; 4) verification that the Project Site is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop (“MTS”) to support preparation of a Sustainable Communities Project Exemption pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151.1 or other applicable CEQA exemption; and 5) a VMT screening assessment for the proposed Project.

Existing Setting
The Project Site is located at 232 S. Tower Drive in the City of Beverly Hills (“City”).

The Project Site is comprised of one legal lot, assigned Assessor Parcel Numbers (“APN”) 4333-030-009, and is generally bounded by multifamily residential buildings to the north and south, S. Tower Drive to the west, and single-family homes to the east. The Project Site and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1. An aerial photograph of the Project Site is displayed in Figure 2.

The Project Site comprises approximately 10,042 square feet (0.23 acre) and is improved with a two-story multifamily residential building containing a total of eight (8) apartment dwelling units. Vehicular access to the existing Project Site is provided via one driveway along the east side of S. Tower Drive, at the southwesterly portion of the Project Site. 1 City of Beverly Hills California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Transportation Thresholds, City of Beverly Hills, October 2019.

City of Beverly Hills
March 28, 2024

Page 2 ends

O:\JOB_FILE\4611\memo\4611-M1.docx
The Project Site is located within a high-quality transit area (“HQTA”) in Connect SoCal2, the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (“RTP/SCS”)3 of the Southern California Association of Governments (“SCAG”) and is currently served by local and commuter bus lines via stops located within convenient walking distance along Wilshire Boulevard, La Cienega Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, San Vicente Boulevard, and other nearby streets. Transit service in the Project vicinity is currently provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“Metro”) and the Antelope Valley Transit Authority (“AVTA”).

Project Description
The Applicant proposes to remove the existing improvements on the Project Site and construct an eight-story residential building with 55 residential apartment dwelling units (including 11 low-income units). The Project will provide 14 vehicular parking spaces onsite in a one-level subterranean parking garage. Vehicular access to the Project will be provided via one driveway along the east side of S. Tower Drive, at the southwesterly portion of the Project Site. Construction and occupancy of the Project is proposed to be completed by the year 2028. The site plan for the Project is shown in Figure 3.

Project Trip Generation
Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed Project during the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis, were estimated using rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (“ITE”) Trip Generation Manual.4 The following trip generation rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the Project:
 Apartments: ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing [Mid-Rise]) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the Project.

In addition to the trip generation forecasts for the Project (which are essentially an estimate of the number of vehicles that could be expected to enter and exit the Project Site access points), an adjustment was made to the trip generation forecast based on the Project Site’s 2 Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Association of Governments, September 3, 2020.
3 Senate Bill 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, requires that Metropolitan Planning Organizations (“MPO”) develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning.

SCAG is the region’s MPO.
4 Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, Washington, D.C., 2021.

City of Beverly Hills
March 28, 2024

Page 3 ends

O:\JOB_FILE\4611\memo\4611-M1.docx
existing land uses. The existing land use includes a two-story multifamily residential building containing a total of eight (8) apartment dwelling units. Trips associated with the existing apartment dwelling units were subtracted from the projected Project trips to account for the existing environmental condition. ITE Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing [Low-Rise]) trip generation average rates were used to estimate the trip reduction related to the existing apartment dwelling units.

In addition, a forecast was also made of the transit trips that will be generated by the Project in lieu of trips by the private automobile. The Project Site is within a half-mile radius of the La Cienega Boulevard / Olympic Boulevard intersection, an MTS included in Connect SoCal, SCAG’s RTP/SCS. The La Cienega Boulevard / Olympic Boulevard intersection is served Metro Local Lines 28 and 105. Additionally, the Project Site is served by many local bus lines and regional/commuter bus lines via stops located within convenient walking distance along Wilshire Boulevard, La Cienega Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, San Vicente Boulevard, and other nearby streets. Additionally, construction of the Metro D Line (Purple) Extension Transit Project (“PLE”) is ongoing in the vicinity of the Project Site. Section 1 of the PLE includes the Wilshire/La Cienega Station, which will be accessible via an entrance at the northeast corner of the La Cienega Boulevard / Wilshire Boulevard intersection. The Wilshire/La Cienega Station entrance will be located approximately 0.26-mile northwest of the Project Site. Metro currently estimates service on the Section 1 segment of the PLE will begin in 2025; three years prior to the estimated completion and occupancy of the Project. As the Project Site is within onequarter mile of an MTS, and within one-half mile of the future Wilshire/La Cienega Station, a transit adjustment of 15% has been utilized.

The trip generation forecast for the Project is summarized in Table 1. As presented in Table 1, the Project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (3 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the Project is expected to generate 14 net new vehicle trips (8 inbound trips and 6 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the Project is forecast to generate 166 net new daily vehicle trip ends (approximately 83 inbound trips and 83 outbound trips) during a typical weekday.

Major Transit Stop Analysis
The Project qualifies as a Transit Priority Project (“TPP”) under Senate Bill 375 (“SB 375”) as it is located within one-half mile of an MTS. For a TPP to meet the transit proximity criteria required by SB 375, the project must be located within one-half mile of a "major transit stop” or “high-quality transit corridor” (HQTC) included in a regional transportation plan. (Public Resources Code Section 21155(b).). An HQTC is defined as a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. (Id.). An MTS is defined as a site containing: 1) an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, 2) a ferry terminal served by wither a bus or rail transit station, or 3) the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service City of Beverly Hills
March 28, 2024

Page 4 ends

O:\JOB_FILE\4611\memo\4611-M1.docx
interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commuter periods. (Public Resources Code Section 21064.3).

SCAG’s Connect SoCal plan is the official regional transportation plan for the SCAG area. As described herein, Connect SoCal identifies the Project Site as being located within a HQTA, which is defined as the area within one-half mile of an MTS or HQTC.

Accordingly, as reflected by the adopted Connect SoCal plan, the Project Site meets the transit proximity requirements required by Public Resources Code Section 21155(b).

The Project Site’s qualifying transit proximity can be further confirmed through an analysis of nearby transit headways. The Project Site is served by many local and commuter bus lines, including Metro Local Lines 28 and 105. Both lines have headways of 15 minutes or less during the peak periods and provide stops at the La Cienega Boulevard / Olympic Boulevard intersection, located within a half-mile radius of the Project Site. Figure 4 depicts Metro Local Lines 28 and 105, as well as the stops serving these bus lines located within a half-mile radius of the Project Site.

Metro Local Line 28 provides daily service eastbound and westbound along Olympic Boulevard from the Avenue of the Stars / Santa Monica Boulevard intersection in the Century City area of the City of Los Angeles to the Vignes Street / Cesar E. Chavez Avenue intersection in Downtown Los Angeles. Metro Local Line 105 provides daily service from the San Vicente Boulevard / Santa Monica Boulevard intersection in the City of West Hollywood to the Santa Fe Avenue / Vernon Avenue – Pacific Boulevard intersection in the City of Vernon. In the Project Site vicinity, Metro Local Line 105 runs in the northbound and southbound directions along La Cienega Boulevard.

Page 83 ends

Beverly Hills City CouncilJuly 21, 2026

Beverly Hills City Council
July 21, 2026