The city of Beverly Hills has responded to a Superior Court judge’s ruling last week regarding the Builder’s Remedy project at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. On Aug. 12, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Curtis A. Kin found the city in violation of the state’s Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act in its dealings with the project developers, 9300 Wilshire and Leo Pustilnikov.
At issue is a 19-story development that will include 165 residential units, 33 of which will be designated as affordable for lower-income households. It will also include a hotel with 73 rooms and a hotel restaurant. A spokesperson for 9300 Wilshire and Pustilnikov characterized the ruling as a “vindication” that will “bring much needed housing, at various income levels, to the city.”
In contrast, Beverly Hills City Attorney Laurence Wiener said that the city is “very disappointed” with the ruling.
“We believe that we had legitimate, good faith arguments that this development lost its privileges under the ‘builders remedy’ law and needed to conform to our general plan and zoning laws,” he told the Courier in a statement. “It is unfortunate that the state has seen fit to take a good deal of local zoning out of the hands of cities and mandated higher density in order to promote more affordable housing.”
The application for the 125-129 S. Linden Drive project was first submitted to the city in a preliminary application in October 2022. A developmental plan review (DPR) application was submitted by the developer in April 2023, which contained some changes to the initial plan.
The DPR was deemed incomplete by the city, setting off a series of communications between the developer and city staff. According to the Aug. 12 ruling, at least six letters of incompleteness were sent to the applicant by the city.
Many, if not all, of those letters stated that the project no longer qualified for Builder’s Remedy protections, alleging that the preliminary application had lapsed.
In June 2024, the state’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) sent a letter to the city refuting its claim that the preliminary application had lapsed and directing the city to process the project. HCD then sent a notice of violation to the city in August 2024, stating that Beverly Hills’ “failure to accept the application for processing is in violation of state housing law,” according to Kin’s ruling.
In December 2024, HCD sent a second notice of violation regarding the city’s overall practice of processing Builder’s Remedy projects. The department wrote that a “preliminary application remains vested unless the number of residential units or square footage of construction changes by 20 percent or more.”
Two lawsuits were filed against the city regarding the Linden Drive project, both requesting a writ of mandate to compel the city to approve the project. The first was filed in June 2024 by Californians for Homeownership, Inc., and the second was filed in September 2024 by 9300 Wilshire. The complaints were consolidated in Kin’s ruling.
Builder’s Remedy projects have proven contentious in Beverly Hills. Because the projects are often out of compliance with the city’s size, height and density regulations, some residents and elected officials have argued that they do not conform to the rest of the city.
The city has received applications for 14 Builder’s Remedy projects. At least six developers of those projects have filed lawsuits against the city, including the Linden Drive developers, challenging determinations made against them by the city.
Other projects have received incomplete notifications, and still more are engaged in back-and-forth communication with city staff regarding the necessity of Environmental Impact Reviews.
The decision in the Linden Drive lawsuit is expected to set a precedent for other complaints regarding Builder’s Remedy projects in Beverly Hills.
