Beverly Hills City Council Rejects Appeal of Tower Drive Builder’s Remedy Project

The Beverly Hills City Council voted 4-0 on July 21 to reject an appeal challenging a proposed Builder’s Remedy development at 232 Tower Drive, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the eight-story residential project.

The decision allows Beachside Suites LLC and Oak Investment Company LLC to move forward with plans to replace an existing eight-unit apartment building with a 101-foot-tall development containing 55 apartments. Councilmember Sharona Nazarian was absent from the meeting.

The approximately 10,000-square-foot property is located in the city’s multifamily residential zone near the Los Angeles border and the Carthay Circle neighborhood. The proposed building includes 17 studio apartments and 38 one-bedroom units, with 11 apartments reserved for lower-income households.

Plans also call for approximately 8,867 square feet of balcony and rooftop open space and a one-level subterranean garage containing 13 parking spaces.

Although the project is located within one-half mile of the Wilshire/La Cienega Metro D Line station, it is not dependent on the completion of the station to qualify for reduced parking. Assembly Bill 2097 prevents the city from imposing minimum residential parking requirements on qualifying developments near major transit stops. The applicant is voluntarily providing the 13 spaces.

Why the Project Qualifies for Builder’s Remedy

The developer submitted its preliminary housing application in October 2023, when Beverly Hills did not have a housing element certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. The state certified the city’s housing element on May 1, 2024.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, qualifying affordable housing projects submitted while a city lacks a compliant housing element may invoke Builder’s Remedy protections. Those protections substantially restrict a city’s ability to deny a project based on local zoning rules governing matters such as height, density, setbacks and building mass.

The Beverly Hills Planning Commission approved the project on Oct. 23, 2025, by a 4-0 vote and imposed 64 conditions of approval. Commission Chair Jeff Wolfe recused himself because he owns property within 500 feet of the project site.

Kenneth Dusick subsequently filed an appeal on behalf of Carthay Beverly Hills Neighbors, a group representing residents on both sides of the Beverly Hills-Los Angeles boundary.

Neighbors Raise Parking and Safety Concerns

The appeal argued that the development would create adverse effects involving traffic, pedestrian safety, emergency access, construction activity, neighborhood character and an already limited supply of street parking. It also challenged the project’s environmental exemption and raised state and federal constitutional claims.

Dusick, who told the council he has lived on Schumacher Drive for approximately 50 years, argued that the development could not be evaluated separately from other approved projects in the area, including a proposed 34-story development at 8300 Wilshire Boulevard.

“We all want affordable housing, but it has to be safe and in a sensible and balanced way,” Dusick said.

Dusick submitted a transportation consultant’s report that he said provided substantial evidence of health and safety effects. He argued that insufficient on-site parking would cause motorists to circulate through nearby streets, increase delivery and rideshare traffic and interfere with emergency access.

The appellant also maintained that Assembly Bill 130, which provides an environmental exemption for qualifying infill housing projects, should not apply to an application filed before the law took effect. City staff and the applicant disputed that interpretation, noting that the environmental determination was made after the legislation became effective.

Several residents described Tower Drive as a short and heavily parked residential street with no alley behind the project. Speakers also expressed concern about construction trucks, trash collection, pedestrian activity near La Cienega Park and the project’s proximity to the Carthay Circle Historic Preservation Overlay Zone.

Ann Rubin, a board member of the Carthay Circle Neighborhood Association, urged the council to consider the development’s relationship to the surrounding low-rise neighborhood.

“It’s more than a shame that we would have to live with the negative impacts of this incompatible apartment building,” Rubin said. “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.”

Other speakers focused primarily on the proposed parking ratio. Tower Drive resident Jim Garrett said he did not oppose additional housing on the street but considered 13 spaces inadequate for 55 apartments.

The city received 19 written comments before or during the hearing. According to the summary read into the record, 15 opposed the development, three supported it and one offered a neutral recommendation concerning preservation of the existing building.

Applicant Says State Law Requires Approval

Land-use attorney Dave Rand, representing the developer, characterized the proposal as modest compared with other Builder’s Remedy applications submitted in Beverly Hills. He emphasized that 20% of the apartments would be deed-restricted for lower-income households.

“This is a baby Builder’s Remedy project compared to what you’ve seen in the past,” Rand said.

Rand argued that the neighbors’ concerns did not meet the Housing Accountability Act’s demanding standard for denial. Under the statute, the city would need evidence of a specific, quantifiable and unavoidable adverse effect on public health or safety, measured against an objective written standard, that could not be mitigated without making the development financially infeasible.

He also said the Carthay Circle historic district is adjacent to, but does not include, the Beverly Hills project site. The existing Tower Drive apartment building is not listed as a historic resource, he said.

When questioned about parking, Rand initially told the council that the applicant was comfortable with 13 spaces because the small apartments were intended to attract residents who did not own cars. Parking would be leased separately from the apartments, and residents of both affordable and market-rate units would have an equal opportunity to obtain a space.

Rand later offered to have the developer reconsider the plans and explore adding parking if the hearing were continued. However, he would not promise that other components of the project would remain unchanged, saying design or financial adjustments could become necessary.

The council declined the offer, with members expressing concern that a continuation could result in a revised application with fewer affordable units or other substantial changes under newer Builder’s Remedy provisions.

Council Criticizes Project but Finds No Basis for Denial

City staff acknowledged that the building conflicts with Beverly Hills development standards and is out of scale with its surroundings. Staff nevertheless concluded that those conflicts could not legally support denial of a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project.

Staff also determined that the city’s locally adopted transportation thresholds did not identify a significant traffic impact from a 55-unit development and that the project qualified for the Assembly Bill 130 exemption from further California Environmental Quality Act review.

Councilmember Lester Friedman sharply criticized the design and parking plan but said the arguments presented did not meet the legal threshold required to deny the project.

“I’m not happy with this project at all,” Friedman said. “I think it’s an awful project. I think that the size of the units are basically the size of a hotel room.”

Vice Mayor Mary Wells said the building did not fit the street and acknowledged that Tower Drive is already affected by density, traffic and limited parking.

“Of course, we wouldn’t want to approve it. It doesn’t fit in,” 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.”

Wells said the standard imposed by the Housing Accountability Act was too high for the council to make those findings. She instead proposed additional construction conditions intended to protect residents and pedestrians.

Councilmember Rebecca Pynoos similarly described the proposal as “severely flawed,” citing its relationship to the street, the lack of parking and apartments measuring less than 400 square feet.

“The design is flawed. It doesn’t fit in with the character of Tower at all,” Pynoos said. “It has nothing to do with the street it is on.”

Pynoos said she nevertheless agreed that the council was required to uphold the project under state law.

Mayor Craig Corman said the development would have parking, traffic, shadow and aesthetic consequences. He concluded, however, that the appeal had not established the kind of project-specific impact measured against an objective health or safety standard that would legally justify denial.

“If there was a legal ground to deny this, believe me, I would take it,” Corman said. “If there was an arguable legal ground, I would take it. But I don’t see it.”

Corman also warned that denying the development could expose Beverly Hills to litigation, attorney fees, possible financial penalties and further scrutiny from the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

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

He said he was unwilling to “play Russian roulette” with the city’s housing element certification.

Construction Conditions Added

Before voting, the council expanded the project’s conditions of approval to address construction-related concerns raised by residents.

The amended conditions prohibit construction workers from parking on Tower Drive, Willaman Drive, Schumacher Drive or surrounding residential streets. Construction vehicles generally must approach and leave the site through the portion of Tower Drive north of the property, connecting with Wilshire Boulevard.

If southbound construction traffic is authorized, the city may require traffic-control personnel or pedestrian crossing guards near Tower Drive and Gregory Way.

Construction staging, deliveries and lane closures must be coordinated with trash collection. Deliveries generally may not begin before 10 a.m., while lane and road closures are prohibited during the morning and afternoon peak periods unless the city’s building official approves an exception based on construction feasibility.

When an exception is granted, the developer must provide advance notice on Tower Drive and establish a website where interested residents may register for construction notifications.

Additional conditions require the developer to keep sidewalks unobstructed, prevent construction personnel from congregating in the public right-of-way, maintain construction fencing and signage, promptly remove graffiti and repair construction-related damage to sidewalks, curbs, gutters, aprons and other public infrastructure.

The final motion denied the appeal, found the project exempt from further environmental review and approved the development plan review with the amended conditions. Friedman made the motion, which received a second before passing unanimously among the four council members present.

The vote completes the project’s local entitlement appeal process. A construction start date has not been announced.