For six years from January 1, 2018 until December 31, 2023, I played on the Beverly Hills Planning Commission (PC) without a helmet and have some recollections, insights and lessons learned that may be suitable for public consumption in a family newspaper (along with a few that are not).

Of all Beverly Hills commissions, the PC is unique in that it makes decisions that are final unless successfully appealed to the City Council, a very rare occurrence. Generally, the applications to the PC are for proposed developments that do not conform to our land use ordinances and cannot proceed without Planning Commission discretionary approval.

Every decision regarding a proposed project resulted for me in a temporary friend or permanent enemy or both. Many projects stir up great passion, for and against. Why is that? One of the first lessons that I learned is that Beverly Hills residents love their own neighborhood and resist any change. If there is an application to replace a four unit multifamily building with a six unit multifamily building, the nearby neighbors may come in and tell us that the project will destroy the neighborhood.

Who are the Planning Commissioners? Commissioners that I served with were Lori Greene Gordon, Joe Shooshani, Alan Block, Andy Licht, Myra Demeter, Tom Hudnut, Jeff Wolfe, Terry Kaplan and. Gary Ross. It takes special people who have the capability, time and energy to do the job. They also need a willingness to plan vacations and other aspects of life around twice monthly meetings.

All of my fellow commissioners took their responsibilities very seriously. These include reading lengthy staff reports, studying complex plans, making site visits and coming to meetings well prepared. All understood that if there was something that they did not understand they should call or email a staff member for an explanation or clarification. They did not come to meetings unprepared and waste time by asking questions that they could have answered earlier. Some Councilmembers should learn from this example.

Commissioners also need to have very thick skin. Many of our Commissioners were attacked for exercising judgment and doing their job by members of the community who do not know “how to disagree without being disagreeable.” Of course, those tactics are counter-productive.

Lessons Learned on the Planning Commission

My predecessor on the Commission was newly installed Councilmember Craig Corman who was and remains an outstanding example of how to perform public service.

Conduct of Hearings

Of course, often I did ask questions at the public hearings but, in doing so, I was guided by a trial lawyer’s rule about cross-examination – never ask a question that you do not know the answer to. Generally, I would ask questions to highlight a problem and/or to persuade at least two of my fellow commissioners to vote with me.

There were “political” differences between and among the Commissioners. Some never saw a project that they didn’t like; others were much more critical. I regarded myself as very tough on residential projects but not so much on projects in commercial areas. These principles conflict when dealing, for example, with projects where residential and commercial were side by side. On these, I would just flip a coin. (Just kidding)

Often, I would attempt to achieve a compromise that I thought could improve a project or resolve an issue. If a proponent of a project would agree to a change that could alleviate the need for a debate among the Commissioners (and one never knew how those would turn out) or resolve an issue entirely. If an application involved only two people, a proponent and an opponent, such as a view preservation issue, it was much better if we could forge an agreement than try to impose one. I would do everything I could to mediate the dispute to avoid the need for a decision. I would tell the parties that it would be best if they could agree because if the Commission imposed the decision neither one would like it. (It was important to phrase it that way than to say that “one of you won’t like it” because each party would think that you were referring to the other guy.) Once, we were dealing with next door neighbors who had fabulous $20M+ homes in the 800 block of the flats and who had a dispute over the height of the hedges between their two homes. I told them to take a deep breath, reflect on how lucky they were and reach a compromise. They did.

Live and (try to) Learn

My temperament was an issue. After a few months on the Commission, I received a call from Beverly Hills leader and icon, Judie Fenton . She said that I seemed to be doing a good enough job in addressing applications but that I often seemed to be “angry”. Subjectively, I felt that my anger was justified when I felt that someone was not being completely forthcoming or not addressing critical issues. But Judie was right – there was neither need nor justification for that. I resolved to behave myself in accordance with advice from one of my mentors, Frank Sinatra, who counseled “nice and easy does it every time.” For the most part these aspirations exceeded my nature which was to do it “my way.”

The discretion afforded to the Commissioners to permit projects that were subject to review was not unfettered. Under the Beverly Hills Municipal Code, we had authority to grant permission only if we could make required findings about the project. Typically, these findings related to maintaining the character or landform of an area and avoiding undue burden on those who lived or worked in the area. So, a word to the wise prospective developer, when addressing the PC it is best to focus on why we could make the specified findings and not so much on unrelated issues about how beautiful a project is or how wonderful a person the applicant is. We are all obliged to follow the law and all committed to vote on the project’s merits, not personal relationships.

Significant Projects – One BH and LVMH’s Cheval Blanc

During my term, we dealt with two very significant projects, One BH and LVMH’s Cheval Blanc Hotel. These very different projects were subjected to detailed review by the PC and, as we now know, the process led to very different results. Only the Council can enact or modify the code and the Planning Commission can only recommend for or against such changes. Also, where substantial changes are required, the City and the Developer will enter into a Development Agreement (DA) which typically provides additional terms and conditions for the development (such as, for example, a supplemental hotel occupancy tax) and a substantial fee to be paid to the City as the consideration for the permits.

One BH came first. At the time, DA’s were required to be submitted to the PC for the limited purpose of advising whether the development was consistent with the City’s General Plan. One BH included approximately 300 residential units and absent the DA would have been required under the Municipal Code to provide at least 10% “affordable” housing on site or elsewhere within the City. Under the DA that had been negotiated by two Councilmembers but had not yet been submitted to the entire council, One BH was required to pay a development fee of $100,000,000 but was relieved of any obligation to provide affordable housing.

When this came before us, three of the four participating commissioners (Commissioner Tom Hudnut was recused because he was a member of the Los Angeles Country Club which abutted the One BH site), expressed the view that the DA was not consistent with the General Plan’s requirements for affordable housing. Personally, I thought that the arrangement was at best “tone deaf” given that we were in the process of seeking approval of a Regional Housing Element (RHE) which approval required identification of sites for more than 1,600 units of affordable housing. The council nonetheless approved the DA as drafted.

Certainly, the council had every right to disregard the sentiments expressed by the three PC members. I should note, however, that this was the only occasion that I can recall from my six years where the council granted an appeal or varied from action of the PC. Unfortunately, however, certain members of the Council were not pleased at the temerity of Commission members who did not simply defer and pay homage so the matter did not stop there. Shortly thereafter the council amended the Municipal Code to take away from the PC any role in the review of draft DAs. This meant that the only opportunity for public discussion of a proposed DA would be in front of the council who would be reviewing (some would say“rubber-stamping”) what two of its members had drafted. This resulted in a substantial curtailment of meaningful public discussion for the next project.

The next project involving a DA was LVMH’s Cheval Blanc Hotel. This was subjected to great scrutiny by the PC. As a result, when it went to the council it was a much improved project. The two councilmembers who negotiated the DA with One BH also negotiated the Cheval Blanc DA but now this was not subject to review by the PC. This DA provided for a development fee of $28 million and no other consideration to the City even though it was substantially taller and substantially larger than provided by the Municipal Code.

As we now know the project was the subject of substantial public criticism. Much of that criticism was that Cheval Blanc was not paying enough. And a referendum financed by an outside union succeeded in defeating the project in a very close election. It is possible that had there been more public scrutiny of the DA in the context of PC hearings, the DA could have been revised and the result of the referendum would have been different. We will never know.

In any event, I am hopeful that the newly constituted council will restore to the PC the role of reviewing DAs for consistency with the General Plan.

Occasions for Planning

The first of the two substantial planning exercises was the drafting of a Mixed Use Ordinance that would provide for development of residential units in areas previously only for commercial development and standards for approval. This was stimulated by an application for a special overlay zone on the former Friars’ Club site on S. Santa Monica to allow “mixed use” consisting of residential units and some shops in an area zoned only for commercial use. In the past there had been several special overlay zones and I believed that it was best to create standards for mixed use development rather than deal with the issue on an ad hoc basis. I was able to persuade the PC that this was a project that we should pursue. The PC set up an ad hoc committee consisting of PC Chair Alan Block and me to work with the planning staff to draft a mixed use ordinance. Alan and I worked closely with City Planner Timmi Tway and others and crafted a draft ordinance that was enacted by the Council without substantial change. I was told by now Deputy City Manager Ryan Gohlich that this was the first time that something this significant had been done in many years.

While this was not the original intent, it turned out that the rezoning of many commercial properties for mixed use was very helpful when we later turned to the drafting of a RHE.

Another ad hoc was created to draft a RHE. This was a challenge. Creating a RHE that would be certified by the state given the requirement that the City identify more than 3,000 residential unit sites was not a walk in any park.. Here, too, we had an ad hoc PC subcommittee this time consisting of Demeter and me. For better or for worse, this proceeded very differently from the mixed use process. Specifically, the preparation of the City’s submissions was done by staff working with two outside consultants. Demeter and I were informed from time to time about draft submissions but had no substantive presubmission input. Within the last month, the state has certified our RHE. Notably, many of the housing sites relied upon to meet the City’s allocation, are in the mixed use overlay zone. This was a happy ending but one for which the City has committed to pay a very high price. That may be a subject for a future column.

I have many more tales from my time on the PC but I think that’s enough for now.

Peter Ostroff is a retired attorney and former Beverly Hills Planning Commissioner.