The eight-story building in Beverly Hills’ southeast neighborhood will include 11 units reserved for affordable housing. (rendering courtesy of Oak Investment Company LLC/Beachside Suites LLC)

The Beverly Hills City Council on July 21 denied an appeal challenging a proposed eight-story, 55-unit builder’s remedy housing development at 232 Tower Drive, concluding state housing law left the city with no legal basis to overturn the project despite widespread neighborhood opposition. The 4-0 City Council vote upheld the Planning Commission’s October 2025 approval of the project.

Mayor Craig Corman said that although he was unhappy with the project and its possible impacts on the neighborhood, the city had no choice but to approve the project due to state housing laws.

“If there was a legal ground to deny this, believe me I would take it. If there was an arguable legal ground, I would take it. But I don’t see it,” Corman said, adding that a denial would likely prompt a lawsuit which could cost the city money in addition to placing it in poor standing with the California Department of Housing and Community Development, potentially jeopardizing the city’s housing element certification.

He likened denying the project to playing “Russian roulette” with the city’s housing certification.

“We have been sued before and lost,” Corman added. “We have other issues we have to deal with, with HCD, so it is not a risk that I’m willing to run.”

The project, proposed by Oak Investment Company LLC and Beachside Suites LLC, will replace an existing eight-unit apartment building with an eight-story, 101-foot-tall residential building containing 55 apartments, including 11 units reserved for low- and very low-income residents. The development will include 17 studio apartments, 38 one-bedroom units, 8,867 square feet of outdoor balcony and rooftop space and a single-level subterranean garage with 13 parking spaces. The project directly borders the Carthay Circle neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles

The proposal qualified for California’s builder’s remedy provisions because the developer submitted a preliminary application in October 2023, before the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified Beverly Hills’ housing element on May 1, 2024. Under the Housing Accountability Act, qualifying builder’s remedy projects may bypass local zoning and general plan requirements if cities cannot make specific findings required by state law to deny them.

The Planning Commission approved the project in a 4-0 vote on Oct. 23, 2025. Commission Chair Jeff Wolfe recused himself because he owns property within 500 feet of the development site. The decision was appealed by Kenneth Dusick on behalf of Carthay Beverly Hills Neighbors, prompting a City Council review.

Several residents of the neighborhood spoke against the project at the July 21 City Council meeting.

“It’s more than a shame that we would have to live with the negative impacts of this incompatible apartment building,” said Ann Rubin, a board member of the Carthay Circle Neighborhood Association. “Such buildings belong on Wilshire and in commercial corridors. Builder’s remedy or not, this is unconscionable on the part of the developer and such a tragedy for Beverly Hills – that excels on excellent planning and respect for the community. The massing is out of scale and the design is out of context. The project backs up to small, one-story, single-family homes on Schumacher. We have no alley.”

She added that the effects will be exacerbated when combined with the recent approval of a 34-story tower nearby at 8300 Wilshire Blvd.

In the appeal, Carthay Beverly Hills Neighbors argued the project would create significant impacts on traffic, pedestrian safety, parking, emergency vehicle access and neighborhood character. The appeal also contended the project failed to satisfy required findings under the city’s development standards, should undergo additional environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and raised constitutional concerns over the application of the state’s builder’s remedy law.

In a report, city staff rejected each of those arguments, concluding the city lacks sufficient legal grounds to deny the project under state housing law. Staff noted the site is located within one-half mile of the Wilshire/La Cienega Metro D Line station, making it exempt from local minimum parking requirements under Assembly Bill 2097. Although no parking would be required, the applicant proposed providing 13 parking spaces.

Staff also determined the project qualifies for a statutory CEQA exemption under Assembly Bill 130 and concluded there is insufficient evidence to support findings necessary to deny a builder’s remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act.

Although the staff report acknowledges the project conflicts with the city’s General Plan and exceeds local development standards for height, density, setbacks, parking and building massing, staff concluded those inconsistencies cannot legally serve as the basis for denying a qualifying builder’s remedy project. The report states the proposed building is out of scale with surrounding development and raises concerns about privacy, shade and neighborhood compatibility, but concludes those issues do not satisfy the strict findings required under state law.

In addition to Corman, council members expressed significant concern over the project but ultimately agreed that the city’s hands were tied.

“Of course, we wouldn’t want to approve it, it doesn’t fit in,” Vice Mayor Mary Wells said. “The question that we are faced with and what we’ve been going around and around about is whether or not we can make the findings to deny this project. Because of that, the bar is so high based on the Housing Accountability Act. It is not within our realm to be able to deny the project.”

“I’m not happy with this project at all. I think it’s an awful project. The size of the units are basically the size of a hotel room, and it’s just not going to be able to be financed, in my opinion,” Councilman Lester Friedman said.

“Unfortunately I agree with my colleagues in terms of having to make these findings today and having to approve a project I think is severely flawed,” Councilwoman Rebecca Pynoos said. “The design is flawed, it doesn’t fit in with the character of Tower at all, it has nothing to do with the street it is on. The tiny unit size – microunits that are less than 400 square feet, less than 20-by-20 – I don’t know who’s going to live in those.”

Councilwoman Sharona Nazarian was absent from the meeting.

Dave Rand, a representative for the developers, told the council that developers would consider returning to the council at a later date with a proposal that included additional parking. However, Rand would not commit to not substantively changing other aspects of the project if parking increased, and the council thus rejected his offer.

Rand ultimately welcomed the council’s vote.

“We were pleased that the City Council, even though they weren’t delighted about it, decided to follow state law and approve the project as the law clearly compelled them to do,” Rand said. “There was no question about the legality of the approval … We’ve come a long way since the early days of builder’s remedy in Beverly Hills.”

The project is one of several large builder’s remedy developments proposed in Beverly Hills after the city’s housing element temporarily fell out of compliance with state law in 2023 and early 2024, allowing developers to invoke provisions of the Housing Accountability Act that significantly limit local governments’ ability to deny qualifying housing projects.