
The project would be 309 feet tall and 26 stories. (rendering courtesy of Crescent Heights)
The developer of a 26-story builder’s remedy project at 8844 Burton Way that was denied by the Beverly Hills Planning Commission has appealed the decision to the City Council.
The Planning Commission voted 3-2 on Nov. 5 to deny the project. Commissioners expressed concerns over the project’s feasibility, reduction in affordable housing units and alleged fire safety concerns due to its size.
However, in its appeal letter dated Nov. 17, the developer argued that the project was unlawfully denied, and added that the City Council must overrule the decision under California housing law.
Dave Rand, an attorney representing the developer, highlighted two letters from the the California Department of Housing and Community Development to the city of Beverly Hills. HCD most recently sent the city a letter on Oct. 28 stating that certain requests from the Planning Commission for the project were not substantial cause for a denial.
“We are hopeful that the City Council will follow the law, and follow HCD’s clear direction that was communicated in not one, but two letters to the city on this question, and approve the project,” Rand said.
The 200-unit project was created by Crescent Heights, Inc., a development group responsible for several high-rise projects in Los Angeles including the 40-story building at 10000 Santa Monica Blvd. in Century City. The Burton Way project was initially proposed at 223 feet tall and 20 stories. However, changes in March and July by the developer increased the size of the project to 309 feet tall and 26 stories.
The development exceeds usual city height and density restrictions due to the builder’s remedy, a state provision that allows private developers to bypass local code regulations when a project contains at least 13% affordable housing. The provision takes effect when a municipality’s housing element – a state-mandated outline of zoning for affordable housing within the city – is out of compliance.
The city of Beverly Hills’ housing element for the 2021-29 cycle was out of compliance for approximately three years between 2021-24. The preliminary application for the development at 8844 Burton Way was submitted to the city in December 2023.
Although the updated project still included affordable housing units, the number of affordable units was reduced from 40 lower income units to 14 extremely low-income units and eight moderate income units. The changes were made following updates in California’s housing laws which reduce the minimum number of affordable housing units necessary to qualify for builder’s remedy status.
The project has been opposed by neighbors due to its size and height. Nearby resident Janet Fox said the City Council should uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, and the community will not relent in its effort to prevent the project from being built.
“We are reviewing and processing the appeal consistent with our standard appeal procedure,” Beverly Hills Director of Community Development Michael Forbes said. “A City Council hearing date has not yet been scheduled.”
Rand said if the City Council upholds the commission’s denial of the project at 8844 Burton Way, the developer plans to file litigation.
Rand previously represented the developer for a similar builder’s remedy project at 125-129 S. Linden Drive, which became the subject of a lawsuit that alleged the city unlawfully denied the project. In August, a judge ruled in favor of the developer, forcing the city to process the development application. Following the judge’s ruling, the developer doubled the project’s size from 19 to 36 stories.



1 Comment
“ Commissioners expressed concerns over the project’s feasibility, reduction in affordable housing units and alleged fire safety concerns due to its size.
However, in its appeal letter dated Nov. 17, the developer argued that the project was unlawfully denied, and added that the City Council must overrule the decision under California housing law. “
The developers sound like jerks. Fire safety concerns due to its size. How about addressing that? Seems pretty serious. But instead they argue being “unlawfully denied?” Either the writing is bad or these attorneys are absolute lunatics.
SAFETY!!!!!!