Re “No resolution reached on mixed use in Beverly Hills,” Oct. 29 issue

Thank you for covering this important matter in the Beverly Press. About 90% of the Beverly Hills residents who provided input are against the mixed-use ordinance because once commercial property is zoned for mixed use, our existing excellent building, height, density and parking standards will forever be superseded by the state’s substandard building standards. Due to the state density bonus program, developers will be entitled to up to three additional stories of height and density, other building concessions and incentives, and reduced parking or even no parking requirements depending upon what is built.

Beverly Hills City Council Member Julian Gold, whose re-election was assured by $80,000 of real estate interest PAC money, was aggressive in his efforts to try to push the mixed-use ordinance through. He was unconcerned that some of the answers provided by staff were both uncertain and inaccurate, and that there were many important questions which required answers before an intelligent decision could be made.

Gold claimed that the city was “under the gun” to create housing and attempted to instill fear that if the ordinance was not passed immediately, the state would take action to create housing.

Similarly, Beverly Hills Planning Commission Chair Peter Ostroff, “the representative of developers” per one council member, also urged the immediate passing of the mixed-use ordinance. He claimed that passing the ordinance was “mission critical” to get the state to certify the city’s housing element plan to meet RHNA requirements.

Despite their adamant calls for urgency, the city’s housing element plan is not even due for another year, which was only reluctantly admitted by Planning Commission staff upon questioning.  

Unfortunately, some of our Beverly Hills city representatives are representing developers instead of the residents. For instance, Ostroff railed against Council Member Mirisch’s suggestion that our city should share in any of the increased property values gained by owners of rezoned commercial property. And, our Planning Commission has failed and refused to investigate any other ways to meet RHNA housing requirements which would be beneficial rather than detrimental to our residents. For instance, the planning Commission could help residents create accessory dwelling units since homeowners are entitled to have up to three housing units – a house, an ADU within the house and a guest house.

RHNA housing requirements could also be met by adaptive re-use of existing buildings which have adequate parking, benefiting commercial property owners with current vacancy problems.

The truth is that Ostroff and Gold just want to make a huge gift to developers, referred to by Mirisch as corporate welfare, at the expense of the residents. Gold and Ostroff also want to rush the ordinance through during the pandemic to make it more difficult for residents to undertake a needed referendum signature gathering effort so the residents can vote on the mixed use ordinance.

And, as one may have guessed, neither Gold nor Ostroff live anywhere near the areas they seek to inflict with mixed-use overlay zones, increased height and density, and great parking problems, all of which they like to refer to as “vibrancy.”

Darian Bojeaux

Beverly Hills