Builder's Remedy Catastrophy

Inexcusable Housing Element Failures and Resulting

Builder's Remedy Projects

up to 31 Stories High

Our city was given approximately two years to prepare and file an acceptable housing element with the state, demonstrating where about 3,000 housing units could potentially be built. The requirement was not to build these units--only to make provisions to allow for their potential construction.

Failure to timely file an acceptable housing element by late 2021 would allow developers to utilize Builder's Remedy laws, enabling them to build without regard to our height limits and zoning, provided their projects included 20% affordable housing.

Here's a timeline for 2 1/2 years of the city's repeated failures to get our housing element accepted ollowing the 2 years the city had to prepare the housing element:

1. October 2021: First unacceptable filing

2. September 2022: Second unacceptable filing

3. March 2023: Third unacceptable filing

4. October 2023: Fourth unacceptable filing

5. February 2024: Fifth filing finally accepted by the state

As a consequence of these failures, developers were able to initiate 19 Builder's Remedy projects throughout 2022, 2023, and early 2024, which projects significantly violate our established height limits and zoning regulations:

31 stories, 1 project, 8364 Wilshire

20 stories, 1 project, 8844 Burton Way

19 stories, 1 project, 125-9 S. Linden

15 stories, 2 projects, 140 S. Camden and 145 S. Rodeo

14 stories, 2 projects, 211-17 S. Hamilton and 9229 Wilshire

12 stories, 3 projects, 346 N. Maple, 8800 Wilshire and 8820 Wilshire

11 stories, 1 project, 401 N. Oakhurst

10 stories, 2 projects 9430 Olympic and 9441 Olympic at Beverly Drive

9 stories, 1 project, 8222-6 Olympic

8 stories, 5 projects, 201 S. Arnaz, 353 S. Beverly, 214-16 S. Hamilton,

9467 Olympic, 232 S. Tower

The city sends out a link to the current projects list. The city used to indicate which projects were Builder's Remedy projects. Then staff decided to try to make their failures less obvious so instead of labeling projects as Builders' Remedy projects, they would put a small asterisk after the address, and at the bottom they would include another small asterisk indicating Builder's Remedy. Sometimes they just referred to the Government Code Section which governs Builder's Remedy projects so residents would not understand. And sometimes they just added an asterisk without another asterisk to explain what the asterisk meant.

Many residents would like to know who is to blame for 4 housing element filing failures occurring over 2 1/2 years, and whether it resulted from incompetence or intentional conduct which may have been encouraged by builder's remedy developers.

Who is to blame? And why did it take the city years to encourage adaptive re-use of existing commercial buildings--which should have been the city's first move? And why did it take the city years to encourage the building of ADU's? Is it because council majority members did not want more ADU's built in their own neighborhoods?

1. Former council majority members are rumored to have directed unsuccessful housing element actions. Council Members during this time period were former council members Lili Bosse and Julian Gold, and present council members Lester Friedman, Sharona Nazarian, and John Mirisch who was not a member of the council majority.

2. Ryan Gohlich, now the Assistant City Manager, was the Director of Community Development in 2021, and Timmi Tway was the Assistant Director of Community Development. In 2022 Timmy Tway, who left city employment in 2023, became the next Director of Community Development, with Masa Alkire serving as the Assistant Director of Community Development. The next and present Director of Community Development since 2023 is Michael Forbes, with Masa Alkire remaining as the Assistant Director of Community Development.

3. Planning Commissioners Peter Ostroff and Myra Demeter co-chaired the Planning Commission Ad Hoc Committee on the housing element filing.

Despite the resulting substantial damage to our city, its skyline, our neighborhoods, our property values, and quality of life, council members will not initiate an inquiry to determine responsibility and whether the failures were due to negligence or intentional actions. So staff members and others who were incompetent or who may have intentionally sabotaged the housing element filing will continue to enjoy their generous salaries, benefits, and reputations.

There has also been collateral damage such as the city allowing developers to build taller builders than are required by law. For instance, the city was so desperate to finally get the housing element passed, that when 9229 Wilshire came before the planning commission and the developer wanted to build an 8 story building in a 3 story mixed use zone, adjacent to single family homes, the assistant city attorney falsely dvised the planning commissioners, who wanted to bring down the height of the building, that the planning commissioners were required by case law to approve the 8 story development. Thereafter, when the matter was called up before the council, the city attorney falsely advised the council members that they were required by case law to approve the development.

By the time of the appeal hearing, it had become known that case law did not require the approval of such a tall building in a 3 story mixed use zone, however staff impressed upon council members that the 56 units had been included in the housing element. What was not said but understood, was that if units are removed from the housing element, they must be replaced. The city could not replace the units at the time, so the council members were urged to and did approve the development, throwing that neighborhood under the bus because the city had failed to get the housing element timely approved.

Additional collateral damages is all of the money that has had to be expended by the city to oppose Builder's Remedy projects.

Too much damage has been done to the city to let it go absent a determination of the individuals responsible for the housing development failures.

(Revised 4-14-25)