In the Jan. 28 Study Session, the City Council discussed the potential implementation of a ministerial permit process for proposed Builder’s Remedy projects.
At present, the city is processing active applications for 14 Builder’s Remedy projects that were submitted before the adoption and certification of the city’s housing element on May 1, 2024.
These projects are being processed as discretionary land use entitlements, with their projected height and density exceeding the city’s existing development standards. Residents and community members alike expressed objection to the proposed projects both in the Jan. 28 Study Session and in the past, voicing concerns that the new developments, if built to their current dimensions, would be vastly out of scale in Beverly Hills.
However, if the city can implement a ministerial permit process, then they would be able to incentivize developers to redesign projects to be more in line with the scale of existing developments in the city. Ministerial actions do not require the city to exercise any discretion in approving or denying an application or permit, providing all applicable objective criteria are met. So, a ministerial permit process would sidestep the conventional discretionary process that proposed developments are subject to.
Presently, all mixed-use and multifamily development projects require approval of a discretionary development plan review and typically a density bonus permit, too. These discretionary processes are usually expensive for developers, with costs ranging anywhere from $50,000 to over $250,000 once all environmental checks and balances are made. They are also time-consuming and lengthy in nature, with the average time taken from project submittal to hearing around six months to one year.
Over recent years, the practical benefits of a discretionary process to the city have been diminished due to the introduction of new regulations in state law intended to benefit housing developers and limit a jurisdiction’s ability to deny a project that may otherwise be out of scale with the area. As a result, the city of Beverly Hills has had limited ability to modify or deny projects in response to public input.
Hence, with benefits to both developers and the city, a ministerial permit process would prove an advantageous solution to both maintaining the current scope of the city’s landscape and promoting the progress of new housing developments.
The ministerial process would provide certainty to developers for a reduced process timeline and no requirement for review under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA. A ministerial process would also eliminate a public hearing process and have no appeal provisions. So, developers may be willing to reduce the size and scale of their projects in exchange for the benefits to timeline and cost.
Councilmembers expressed concern that a ministerial process may increase resident dissatisfaction as it prevents the opportunity for a public hearing or ability to appeal projects.
The council reviewed the current objective development standards put forth by city staff, which include a potential height limit of eight stories (current Builder’s Remedy project applications range from eight to 20 stories), massing and modulation standards and limitations on the use of rooftop and outdoor open spaces.
The aim of the Study Session was for the council to provide direction as to whether they would like to proceed with this process, as well as whether a ministerial permit process would apply only for Builder’s Remedy projects or to all proposed developments.
Councilmember Mary Wells supported the idea of a ministerial process, but only for Builder’s Remedy projects. She said a ministerial process would allow the city to be “proactive rather than retroactive” in its response to Builder’s Remedy projects. At the time of writing, no other city has been successful in a lawsuit against a Builder’s Remedy project, so a reactive approach to development applications may not yield a favorable response for Beverly Hills, either. The consequences of excess litigation against Builder’s Remedy projects could prove more severe, too. If the city loses multiple cases, it may risk losing its housing element certification altogether, which would open the doors to more Builder’s Remedy project applications.
“From my understanding, this is what we’re looking for,” Wells said. “It’s a solution for the Builder’s Remedy projects which, right now, we have very little control over … I think at a minimum we should consider this and take it to the Planning Commission and have them address this.”
“By creating a ministerial permit process, it doesn’t mean every Builder’s Remedy project is going down this path. But some may choose it, and then it may be a better compromise for all of us,” she added.
Councilmember Craig Corman agreed that the ministerial permit process is worth pursuing for Builder’s Remedy projects. “Given the cost benefit, I see this as a potential benefit to the city. I don’t love the ministerial project process, and I certainly wouldn’t apply it to anything other than Builder’s Remedy projects because I do think there is value in having the community voice their opinions. But I am supportive of exploring this,” he said.
The next stage for the ministerial permit process will be a public hearing before the Planning Commission, followed by a second public hearing before the City Council before the potential adoption of a new ordinance.