Following a contentious back-and-forth between Beverly Hills City Councilmembers and a lawyer representing an applicant for a proposed Builder’s Remedy project on South Camden Drive, the council at its March 4 meeting denied the applicant’s appeal to overturn an incompleteness determination.
The development in question is proposed for 140 S. Camden Drive. The residential building, at 194 feet high, would include 27 condominiums and rental units as well as four subterranean parking levels. Six of the buildings’ units would be designated as affordable housing.
The final application for the project was submitted by Wilshire Camden, LLC, on Aug. 30, 2024. The city responded with an incompleteness determination on Oct. 3, 2024.
The appeal hinged primarily on a state law requiring local governments to determine whether an application is complete within 30 calendar days of its submission. If they fail to do so, the application is deemed complete by default.
According to the applicant, who was represented at the council meeting by attorney Ryan Leaderman of the law firm Holland & Knight, the city was in violation of the law by not issuing its determination within 30 days of Aug. 30.
City staff indicated that as a matter of policy, applications are not deemed submitted until city staff acknowledges receipt and fees are paid, at which point the 30-day review process begins. Additionally, applications and fees submitted after business hours are considered received on the next business day.
Wilshire Camden submitted the fees for its application at 5:30 p.m. on Aug. 30, 2024. The city’s business hours ended at 5 p.m. on that day, which happened to be the start of the Labor Day weekend, rendering Sept. 3, 2024, the next business day.
An acknowledgment of receipt was sent to the applicant on Sept. 3, 2024. Therefore, according to the city, its response on Oct. 3, 2024, was timely.
Leaderman and members of the council debated the issue for nearly two hours. In addition to broad legislative intent and specific statutory provisions, Leaderman emphasized that his client’s substantial application fee was paid within 30 minutes of receiving an invoice from the city on Aug. 30. He also pointed out that the city’s own response on Oct. 3, 2024, was delivered two minutes before the close of business and then superseded by another response that came more than two hours after close of business. The city, said Leaderman, would appear to apply the “close of business rule” only to the applicant, and not itself.
For its part, city staff emphasized that its policies regarding the start of the 30-day review process and business hours are longstanding.
To that end, Councilmember Mary Wells queried staff over where those policies are posted, and when they are first seen by an applicant.
“That’s at the bottom of every email that’s sent by a current planner in the department,” said Masa Alkire, the assistant director of city planning. “Any time that any individual—for example, Mr. Leaderman—communicates with one of our planners, he would have seen that note at the bottom.”
Another staff member added that the information is also on the application page on the city’s website.
Turning her comments to Leaderman, Wells noted that when he received the acknowledgment of receipt on Sept. 3, 2024, he did not contest it. She also said that this was not the first time Leaderman had submitted such paperwork to the city, implying that he knew about the city’s policies.
Calling the city’s policies “arbitrary,” Leaderman in turn proposed a hypothetical scenario in which city staff could deliberately withhold acknowledgment of receipt.
“A city could play games by not determining or not acknowledging [an application],” he said. “[Our] application was submitted, and it should not be contingent upon someone recognizing or acknowledging that it was submitted.”
Later in the meeting, when explaining his reasons for denying Wilshire Camden’s appeal, Councilmember Craig Corman suggested that Leaderman deliberately withheld an objection to the email sent to Wilshire Camden on Sept. 3, 2024, which stated that the review process would end on Oct. 3, 2024.
“There was never any objection,” said Corman. “It was only as if the applicant was lying in wait, thinking, ‘Well, this is an argument I can pull out if I need it.'”
Prior to the city’s official denial of the appeal, Leaderman noted that his client would be willing to take the case to court.
“We don’t wish to pursue litigation,” he said. “We want to build housing. But staff’s treatment in this situation is just not right, and what it’s done is, it’s inviting lawsuits from advocates who want housing in the city. I think there’s a better way of doing this, not to necessarily litigate, but we will litigate if we have to.”
Leaderman later clarified his position in a statement to the Courier, which read: “We believe that the city acted unlawfully on Tuesday night in its denial of the project. We are exploring all legal options and will respond accordingly.”
