fbpx Skip to main content

Beverly Hills, an affluent city near Los Angeles, is embroiled in a lawsuit for blocking a proposed affordable housing development. This legal action highlights the increasing use of the builder’s remedy provision in California’s housing laws to address local resistance to new housing projects.

Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit backed by the California Association of Realtors, filed the lawsuit in late June against the city of Beverly Hills. The lawsuit stems from the city council’s decision to reject a 165-unit multifamily development near the upscale Golden Triangle retail area.

The project, proposed by SLH Investments, includes 20% of the 165 apartments designated as affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents. Additionally, the development plans include a 73-room hotel. SLH Investments’ principal, Leo Pustilnikov, has leveraged the builder’s remedy provision in similar cases across California to counteract city opposition.

Under the builder’s remedy provision of the California Housing Accountability Act—also known as the “anti-NIMBY law”—cities that fail to meet state-mandated housing goals are required to approve developments even if they do not align with local zoning rules.

Beverly Hills initially denied the project in 2023, citing the application as incomplete and not aligning with the city’s general plan and zoning code. The lawsuit challenges this denial, aiming to force the city to comply with state housing requirements.

Californians for Homeownership has previously won a lawsuit against Beverly Hills for failing to meet state mandates for affordable housing production. The nonprofit’s latest legal action underscores its commitment to addressing the housing crisis through litigation.

Matthew Gelfand, in-house counsel for Californians for Homeownership, criticized Beverly Hills for its continued resistance to housing development. “We won our last case against Beverly Hills because their housing plans were unreasonable and unlikely to produce affordable housing,” Gelfand said. “Now, with a real plan on the table, the city said, ‘no.’ We had no choice but to return to court.”

Pustilnikov expressed confidence that the lawsuit will succeed. “The city’s action gives Californians for Homeownership an easy path to another victory,” he stated.

The city’s general plan designates the Linden Drive property for “high-density” use, but Beverly Hills has refused to approve the proposed 19-story building, including the mixed-use aspect with a hotel. Beverly Hills City Attorney Larry Wiener defended the city’s stance, asserting that the development proposal remains incomplete and does not conform to the city’s planning and zoning rules.

The property in question is currently a surface parking lot. A trial-setting conference for the case is scheduled for October 3 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The builder’s remedy argument in California is gaining traction. In April, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge reinforced its application, ruling that La Canada Flintridge must approve a proposal for 80 apartments due to its noncompliant housing element.

SOURCE: CoStar News

Author admin

More posts by admin