In a significant policy shift, Beverly Hills is reconsidering its stance on California’s “Builder’s Remedy,” a provision that allows developers to bypass local zoning laws in municipalities lacking state-approved housing plans. This development has profound implications for the city’s future urban landscape and housing availability.
Understanding the Builder’s Remedy
The Builder’s Remedy is rooted in California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA), designed to expedite housing development in regions failing to meet state housing requirements. Specifically, it permits developers to proceed with projects that include a minimum of 20% affordable housing units, even if these projects conflict with local zoning regulations, provided the municipality has not secured certification for its housing element.
Beverly Hills’ Initial Resistance
Historically, Beverly Hills has been resistant to the Builder’s Remedy. The city faced challenges in obtaining state certification for its housing element, leading to an influx of Builder’s Remedy applications. Notably, developer Leo Pustilnikov proposed a 19-story mixed-use project at 125-129 South Linden Drive, which became a focal point of contention. The city initially rejected this proposal, resulting in legal disputes.
A Shift Toward Compromise
Recently, Beverly Hills has shown a willingness to negotiate with developers. Between December and January, the city approved several Builder’s Remedy applications, including:
- An eight-story, 90-unit apartment building at 214-216 Hamilton Drive.
- A 12-story, 65-unit high-rise at 346 North Maple Drive.
- An 11-story, 25-unit project at 401 North Oakhurst Drive.
- An eight-story, 55-unit building at 232 North Tower Drive.
- A 14-story, 116-unit tower with a 60-room hotel at 9229 Wilshire Boulevard.
- A 20-story, 200-unit tower at 8844 Burton Way.
This change indicates the city’s recognition of the need to address housing shortages and comply with state mandates.
Exploring Ministerial Approvals
The Beverly Hills City Council is considering offering ministerial approvals to developers who agree to reduce the scale of their projects. This approach would streamline the approval process, allowing projects to proceed without extensive discretionary reviews, provided they meet specific criteria. The council is also deliberating on requirements such as prevailing wage or union labor for these projects.
Implications for Urban Development
This policy shift could lead to significant changes in Beverly Hills’ urban landscape. By collaborating with developers, the city aims to increase housing availability, particularly affordable units, while maintaining control over development aesthetics and scale. However, this approach necessitates careful planning to balance growth with the preservation of the city’s character.
Conclusion
Beverly Hills’ evolving stance on the Builder’s Remedy reflects a broader trend in California, where municipalities are grappling with state housing mandates and local control. As the city navigates this complex landscape, the outcomes will serve as a case study for other communities facing similar challenges in balancing development and preservation.