Business
Beverly Hills is dragging its heels on a new building. The governor says: Build it
California officials are turning the screws on the city of Beverly Hills, where approval of a new hotel and apartment complex is moving too slowly for state housing bosses and the governor.
The lightning rod is a planned mixed-use development near Wilshire Boulevard that has been brought forth under a state law intended to force cities to add more housing whether they like the proposals or not.
The 19-story building on Linden Drive by local developer Leo Pustilnikov would be big by Beverly Hills standards and include a 73-room hotel and restaurant on the first five floors. Plans call for the higher floors to contain 165 apartments including 33 units reserved for rental to lower-income households.
The project so far has failed to pass muster with city planning leaders, who say Pustilnikov hasn’t provided all the details about the project that the city requires to consider approval.
Pustilnikov has pioneered a novel interpretation of a state law known as the “builder’s remedy” to push cities to allow development projects at a size and scale otherwise barred under zoning rules.
As part of their efforts to tackle California’s housing shortage and homelessness crisis, legislators recently beefed up the law, by giving developers leverage to get large proposals approved so long as they set aside a percentage for low-income residents.
Last month the state Department of Housing and Community Development backed Pustilnikov in a “notice of violation” to the city, saying it was violating state housing laws by holding up the project.
“The City Council should reverse its decision and direct city staff to process the project without further delay,” the state notice said, referring to a council vote in June to delay the approval process.
Gov. Gavin Newsom piled on in a statement, saying that the city is violating the law by “blocking” the proposal and referring to opponents of the project as NIMBYs — a highly charged acronym for “not in my backyard” that refers to homeowners who resist development projects in their neighborhoods.
“We can’t solve homelessness without addressing our housing shortage,” the governor said. “Now is a time to build more housing, not cave to the demands of NIMBYs.”
Beverly Hills already faced pressure to approve the Linden project before the state’s letter. In June, Californians for Homeownership, a nonprofit affiliated with the California Assn. of Realtors, sued the city in Los Angeles County Superior Court for not advancing the development.
Some residents in the neighborhood south of Wilshire Boulevard are up in arms about the scale of the project that is designated to fill a parking lot at 125-129 S. Linden Drive between a five-story office building and low-rise apartment buildings.
“None of us are opposed to affordable housing,” said Kenneth A. Goldman, president of the Southwest Beverly Hills Homeowners Assn., but “you don’t have to be a NIMBY to say that’s just so far out of line.”
It would be almost four times taller than the five-story height limit the city has on its books and could threaten the neighborhood’s “quiet lifestyle,” Goldman said. The construction period would be “hell,” he added.
The city has until Sept. 20 to respond to state housing officials and indicated in a statement that the delay was due in part to Pustilnikov changing the original all-residential proposal to include the hotel. It is a switch that could offer a financial coup for the developer in a tourist-friendly city, where getting permission to build a new hotel is a tall order.
Last year Beverly Hills voters decided to rescind the City Council’s approval of an ultra-opulent hotel called Cheval Blanc on the edge of Rodeo Drive after French luxury retailer LVMH spent millions of dollars planning the project.
Of the Linden Drive proposal, the city said in a statement, “The project has not been denied.”
“What was originally submitted as a purely residential project has now morphed into a 73-room hotel and restaurant project with 35 fewer residential units, including a reduction of 7 affordable units,” it said.
When the application is complete, the city said, a public hearing will be held, followed by Planning Commission review and potential approval by the City Council.
That process may be complicated by Pustilnikov’s stated intention to sell his interest in the Linden Drive property as part of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding involving another of his real estate projects.
In 2018, Pustilnikov purchased a 50-acre parcel on the Redondo Beach waterfront that is the site of a defunct power plant. The property is controlled by entities owned by Pustilnikov and a business partner, Ely Dromy. Using the builder’s remedy law, the pair has advanced a massive mixed-use project for the site with 2,700 apartments as its centerpiece. In court documents, Pustilnikov estimates that the development, if completed, would be worth $600 million.
The effort has been stymied amid fights with the city of Redondo Beach, the California Coastal Commission and AES Corp., the owner of the power plant. In late 2022, AES threatened to foreclose on Pustilnikov. To stave that off, one of the entities that own the site filed for bankruptcy.
In a recent filing in the case, Pustilnikov and Dromy said they will sell the Linden property for $27.5 million to help preserve their ownership of the power plant site.
However, a representative for Pustilinkov, Adam Englander, said in a statement that is not necessarily the case.
Instead, more investors may be brought in to the Redondo Beach property and a developer with luxury hotel experience may become a partner in the Linden project, Englander said.
“It is not anticipated,” Englander said, that the Linden project “in its current form, will be sold prior to completion.”
Pustilnkov has put forward plans to build nearly 3,500 apartment units — 700 of them dedicated as low-income — across a dozen projects in Beverly Hills, Redondo Beach, Santa Monica and West Hollywood under the builder’s remedy. The Linden project is one of seven he’s planning in Beverly Hills alone.
The builder’s remedy provides few avenues for city councils to deny the developments. But because it’s legally untested and separate state environmental laws still apply, projects are not a slam dunk. None of Pustilnikov’s proposals have been approved.
Cities are subject to the law if they do not have state-approved blueprints for future growth. Every eight years, the state requires communities to design a zoning plan accommodating specific numbers of new homes, including those set aside for low- and moderate-income families.
In the current eight-year cycle, Beverly Hills struggled to get a plan that passed muster. Elected officials and residents balked at the city’s requirement to make space for 3,104 homes, saying that doing so would unalterably change the community’s character.
The city blew multiple deadlines and was sued by Californians for Homeownership. In December, a L.A. County Superior Court judge ruled that Beverly Hills could no longer issue any building permits — including those for pools, kitchen and bathroom remodels and other renovations — because of its failure.
The city appealed the ruling and continued to process permits in the meantime, but the decision sparked alarm among civic leaders. In May, the state approved a revised housing plan for Beverly Hills, ending the threat of the permit moratorium.
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
A former female staffer who worked for Beast Industries, the media venture behind the popular YouTube channel MrBeast, is suing the company, alleging she was sexually harassed and fired shortly after she returned from maternity leave.
The employee, Lorrayne Mavromatis, a Brazilian-born social media professional, alleges in a lawsuit she was subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s management and demoted after she complained about her treatment. She said she was urged to join a conference call while in labor and expected to work during her maternity leave in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, according to the federal complaint filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
“This clout-chasing complaint is built on deliberate misrepresentations and categorically false statements, and we have the receipts to prove it. There is extensive evidence — including Slack and WhatsApp messages, company documents, and witness testimony — that unequivocally refutes her claims. We will not submit to opportunistic lawyers looking to manufacture a payday from us,” Gaude Paez, a Beast Industries spokesperson, said in a statement.
Jimmy Donaldson, 27, began MrBeast as a teen gaming channel that soon exploded into a media company worth an estimated $5 billion, with 500 employees and 450 million subscribers who watch its games, stunts and giveaways.
Mavromatis, who was hired in 2022 as its head of Instagram, described a pervasive climate of discrimination and harassment, according to the lawsuit.
In her complaint, she alleges the company’s former CEO James Warren made her meet him at his home for one-on-one meetings while he commented on her looks and dismissed her complaints about a male client’s unwanted advances, telling her “she should be honored that the client was hitting on her.”
When Mavromatis asked Warren why MrBeast, Donaldson, would not work with her, she was told that “she is a beautiful woman and her appearance had a certain sexual effect on Jimmy,” and, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.”
Paez refuted the claim.
“That’s ridiculous. This is an allegation fabricated for the sole purpose of sparking headlines,” Paez said.
Mavromatis said she endured a slate of other indignities such as being told by Donaldson that she “would only participate in her video shoot if she brought him a beer.”
“In this male-centric workplace, Plaintiff, one of the few women in a high-level role, was excluded from otherwise all-male meetings, demeaned in front of colleagues, harassed, and suffered from males be given preferential treatment in employment decisions,” states the complaint.
When Mavromatis raised a question during a staff meeting with her team, she said a male colleague told her to “shut up” or “stop talking.”
At MrBeast headquarters in Greenville, N.C., she said male executives mocked female contestants participating in BeastGames, “who complained they did not have access to feminine hygiene products and clean underwear while participating in the show.”
In November 2023, Mavromatis formally complained about “the sexually inappropriate encounters and harassment, and demeaning and hostile work environment she and other female employees had been living and experiencing working at MrBeast,” to the company’s then head of human resources, Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother, according to the suit.
In her complaint, Mavromatis said Beast Industries did not have a method or process for employees to report such issues either anonymously or to a third party, rather employees were expected to follow the company’s handbook, “How to Succeed In MrBeast Production.”
In it, employees were instructed that, “It’s okay for the boys to be childish,” “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board in the video or do something stupid, let them” and “No does not mean no,” according to the complaint.
Mavromatis alleges that she was demoted and then fired.
Paez said that Mavromatis’s role was eliminated as part of a reorganization of an underperforming group within Beast Industries and that she was made aware of this.
-
Politics58 seconds agoTrump Cabinet member scraps Obama-era gender identity housing rule, cites ‘biological reality’
-
Health7 minutes agoRiley Gaines shares 5 wellness tips she swears by as a new mom: ‘Really powerful’
-
Sports13 minutes agoChiefs and Browns make first trade of 2026 draft and both eventually fill needs
-
Technology19 minutes agoHow Florida retiree lost $200K in fake PayPal refund scam
-
Business25 minutes ago
Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes
-
Entertainment31 minutes agoFormer Live Nation executive says he was fired after raising ‘financial misconduct’ concerns
-
Lifestyle37 minutes agoThey set out to elevate karaoke in L.A. — and opened a glamorous lounge that pulls out all the stops
-
Politics43 minutes agoHouse Oversight chair says some members support a Ghislaine Maxwell pardon