Residents Against Overdevelopment
Builder's Remedy Catastrophy
Housing Element Failures and Resulting Builder's Remedy Projects
up to 31 Stories High
(Revised 10-18-24)
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, but 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 Builders' 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 following 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 setting forth projects which are still in the approval process. The city used to indicate which projects on the list were Builder's Remedy projects. Then staff decided to make their errors less obvious so instead of labeling projects as Builder's Remedy projects, they would put a small asterisk after the address, and at the bottom they would include another small asterisk with an explanation that it was a Builder's Remedy project. Sometimes they just referred to the Government Code Section which governs Builder's Remedy projects so residents would not understand. And sometimes they would just add the asterisk without another asterisk to explain what the asterisk means as was done on the September 19, 2024 projects link, the link for which was e-mailed on that date:
Many people 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?
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 precent council members Lester Friedman, Sharona Nazarian, and John Mirisch.
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, was 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 was 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.
4. There are claims that the State was particularly hard on Beverly Hills.
5. It was suggested that staff intentionally made minimal additions to each housing element submission to allow for future reversals (though this seems unlikely due to unit replacement requirements).
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 a developer to build an 8 story building in a 3 story mixed use zone at 9229 Wilshire, adjacent to single family homes because city personnel were desperate to finally get the housing element passed, and wanted to include 56 more units. So when this development came before the Planning Commission, the assistant city attorney advised the planning commissioners, who wanted to bring down the height of the over-sized building, that the planning commissioners were required by case law to approve the development. That was untrue.
Shortly thereafter, when the matter was called up before the council, the city attorney advised the council members that they were required by case law to approve the development--again untrue.
At the appeal hearing, since it had become known that case law did not require the approval of such a tall building in a 3 story mixed use zone, 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 not gotten the housing element timely approved.
Although the city has attempted to oppose builder's remedy projects, and has been accused of not furthering housing development, city staff point to the 9229 Wilshire development in the neighborhood the city threw under the bus, as evidence that the city favors more housing.
In any event, 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.