We all know that developers always ask for more than they expect to receive. The Caruso Project at 333 S. La Cienega is no exception. He fashioned a deal with Councilman Koretz, who totally failed to protect the quality of life of the 1200 plus residents who signed petitions against this project, for money. In doing so all the residents living in the community will now have to contend with the impact of traffic, pollution, visual blight and the most eggregous example of spot zoning this city has seen. We now have a new precedent of 185 foot high-rises on La Cienega. Paul Koretz is running for re-election. The question is, do we re-elect him or choose from the two candidates who are running for this office? The choice is yours!! Do you support “pay to play” or is it time for a change?


By Dick Platkin, BWHA Board Member

The Beverly Wilshire Homes Association (BWHA) has been a strong supporter of Measure S, the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, over the past year. These are some of our reasons:
First, if LA voters approve Measure S on March 7, they will force the City of Los Angeles to finally update its legally required but largely outdated General Plan. The many decades of City officials “planning” Los Angeles through the gyrations of speculative real estate markets would finally end.
Second, these General Plan updates must be based on extensive community meetings held on evening and weekends, not just comments on websites, a few public workshops, and daytime public hearings. Once the City Council adopts new General Plan Elements (chapters), future General Plan amendments can only apply to significant geographical areas, no longer to single parcels. Furthermore, these General Plan amendments must be based on a convincing case of public benefits, no longer just private gain. While the City of LA’s Charter already presents these stringent criteria for General Plan amendments, Measure S fortifies these Charter provisions to avoid any resumption of pay-to-play at City Hall.
Third, Measure S not only promotes transparency at City Hall, but also ensures that our elected officials properly govern a city of nearly 4,000,0000 residents and work force of 2,000,000 employees through a carefully prepared, updated, and properly implemented General Plan.
Fourth, Measure S also stops the City Council from adopting parcel level zoning and planning ordinances to feather the nest of their major campaign contributors. The L.A. Times calls this soft corruption because real estate interests engage in pay-to-play to obtain special treatment from elected officials for their properties. This is why these City Hall players have lead the charge against Measure S, including the four large real estate firms funding the no on S campaign: Westfield Shopping Centers, Palladium, Crescent Heights, and Eli Broad.
Fifth, because this is such an important voter initiative to curtail the outsized influence of big real estate companies at City Hall, there is ample reason why so many different groups already support or should support Measure S. This not only includes neighborhood groups, like the BWHA, but also labor, environmental, and affordable housing groups. It is high time for them to take a stand with their constituents, not their donors.
Since the anti-S campaign cannot fess-up and tell the truth “We want to stick with the status quo since it allows us to make sky-high profits through unplanned sky-high buildings.” Instead, they have resorted to a series of bogus claims that the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association wholeheartedly rejects:
Bogus Claim 1 – Measure S will stop development in Los Angeles: Simply wrong. Measure S would not impact any public works projects and only affects a small percentage of real estate projects, mostly luxury buildings. Each year LA’s Department of Building and Safety processes 100,000 permits. Of these, only about 600 projects involve the City Council legislative actions targeted by Measure S.
Bogus Claim 2 – Measure S is a housing ban. Also simply wrong. Many of LADBS’s 100,000 annual permits involve housing, and they will continue to be processed by-right. This includes residential projects built on commercial lots, where LA zoning laws permit by-right construction. Furthermore, about 80 percent of the 3,000 annual building permit cases that City Planning reviews do not involve any City Council legislative actions. These cases, too, are exempt from Measure S, as are 100 percent affordable housing projects.
Bogus Claim 3 – Measure S stops the construction of affordable housing. Totally wrong. Only 2 percent of new housing in Los Angeles is affordable, and according to the Department of City Planning’s Citywide Metric’s report, this 2 percent is built through density bonuses, not the parcel-specific City Council spot-zone change ordinances and spot-General Plan Amendments that Measure S targets.
Bogus Claim 4 – Measure S is a job killer. Also wrong. This claim is based on a Beacon Economics study paid for the big real estate companies funding the no on S campaign. But, it is built on a faulty assumption; if real estate firms can no longer obtain pay-to-play spot-zones for their unplanned projects in Los Angeles, they will bolt to other cities. There is no evidence for this claim. Nearby well-planned cities that do not engage in these unethical planning practices, such as Pasadena and Santa Monica, generate many construction jobs without dishing out spot-zone changes and General Plan amendments LA-style.
Bogus Claim 5 – Measure S promotes urban sprawl. This claim, too, is bogus. Los Angeles’s adopted General Plan is anti-sprawl, and Measure S calls for these official documents to be updated and then meticulously followed, not overturned on behalf of big developers with big pockets. Sustainability policies and programs are laced through the new Mobility Element, as well as the older elements, such as the General Plan Framework, Land Use, Air Quality, Open Space, and Conservation. Anyone who claims that a voter initiative to strengthen LA’s General Plan is really a stalking horse for sprawl has clearly never bothered to read the planning documents they so glibly malign.
Pro-S organizations, like the BWHA, now encounter newly minted bogus claims on a daily basis. We attempt to debunk them as quickly as we can. But, if you think we have missed one, send an email to


The Beverly Wilshire Homes Association has filed a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles regarding the Caruso project at 333 South La Cienega. It is one of the most egregious examples of spot zoning in the city of Los Angeles. This project will set a precedent that crushes our neighborhood and other neighborhoods throughout the city.
The city of Los Angeles continues to allow developers to build as much as they want at the expense of the quality of life for the residents who live here. Winning this lawsuit will stop the city from continuing this policy throughout LA.
Please contribute as little or as much as possible; whatever you give will be greatly appreciated. With your help, we can clean up our city and hold our elected officials accountable.



Real estate developer Rick Caruso’s luxury high rise tower at the former Loehman’s site – 333 S. LaCienega — perfectly illustrates how pay-to-play promotes bad city planning in Los Angeles. These are some of the reasons the Beverly Wilshire Homes Association (BWHA) first attempted to negotiate with the developer to produce a project that was compatible with the neighborhood. When that process eventually collapsed after many meetings, we saw no choice but to appeal the project and then move forward with a legal challenge. We know this is a David versus Goliath struggle in which the developer could outspend us a 1000:1, but the following reasons compel us to remain steadfast in our opposition.
• This high-rise project clashes with the character and scale of nearby areas: As should be obvious from the rendering above, this project does not comply with the legally required General Plan policies that the structure be consistent with the scale and character of the neighborhood’s residential area. More specifically, this project will be 165 feet high and have a Floor Area Ratio/FAR (i.e., building mass) of 6.0 on a lot where height is restricted to 45 feet and building mass is limited to an FAR of 1.5. As for compatible character, the proposed tower has a nautical design, reminiscent of a cruise ship, while the surrounding residential buildings have a Spanish Revival
architectural motif.
• Traffic congestion: The high-rise project is located at one of the most congested intersections in Los Angeles. Called the Bermuda Triangle, the site is the convergence point of San Vicente Boulevard, Third Street, LaCienega Boulevard, Burton Way, and LeDoux. No combination of street signs, signal lights, and traffic officers has managed to keep this intersection clear during rush hours, and the construction of an auto-centric luxury tower at this location can only make this bad traffic situation worse.
• Unconvincing public necessity: Los Angeles City Charter, Section 558, clearly states that for this project to qualify for a General Plan Amendment and zone change, it must conform to public necessity, convenience, general welfare, and good zoning practice. In this case, the tenants will be extremely rich, paying an average rent of $12,000 per month for lavish apartments in a building with five star amenities, including on-call luxury cars and drivers. These are certainly wonderful features for the 1 percent who can afford them, but the Wilshire Community Plan area has no demonstrated shortage of parcels that can accommodate such luxury apartments. The use of spot-zoning and spot-planning to jack up a 45-foot height limit to 165 feet may meet a private need to maximize profit, but it does not meet a public need. There is no public necessity for a spot-General Plan Amendment and spot-Zone Change to build a luxury apartment tower where it is strictly illegal and unwarranted. As for general welfare, the adjacent Cedars Sinai hospital had made multiple offers to the developer to lease the old Loehman’s building for a community cancer treatment center. That medical use, not a luxury high-rise, strikes us as major contribution to the general welfare.
• Poor Zoning Practices eliminate certainty: The related City Charter finding of good zoning practice is also sharply at odds with this project. The City Council must take three separate actions to legalize this project: a spot-zone change, a spot-height district change, and a spot-General Plan Amendment. Not only is City Charter Section 555 clear that such legislative actions must apply to socially and geographically significant areas (i.e., not single parcels), but these poor planning practices totally eliminate certainty from the planning process. When individuals, families, or companies move into an area, they have clear expectations of what can be legally built near their homes and businesses. But, spot-zoning completely removes this certainty. Cities like Los Angeles then become the Wild West. Spot-zoning through a City Council vote to permit a 165 foot high rise tower where 45 feet is the law eliminates all predictability from
the planning process. The zones and plan designations that people assumed about their neighborhood when they moved in can vanish at the snap of an elected officials’ and deep-pocketed developer’s fingers.
• Affordable housing hype: This project claims that it needs a major economic incentive, much greater building mass, to accommodate large luxury apartments, through LA’s Density Bonus Ordinance. More specifically, the developer intends to replace 13 of 145 luxury apartments with low-income units to build a much larger building. Yet the developer has owned this building site free and clear for many years, and he has no land acquisition costs. In this case, LA’s genuine need for more affordable housing has become a thin cover story for the construction of 130 luxury rental apartments where less than half of that figure is legally permitted.
• Misuse of on and off-site improvements: The project’s conditions of approval, as voted by the City Planning Commission and the City Council, include adjacent street trees, bicycle infrastructure, and a quasi-public fountain. Yet in nearby Los Angeles and Beverly Hills neighborhoods there are many existing pedestrian-oriented projects and corridors. Some have been built and operated as basic municipal services, not as spill over from mega-projects. Others are linked to by-right buildings that conform to plans and zones and that do not need City Council spot-zoning rescue ordinances to obtain public improvements.
• Bad Precedents: To justify height and mass far above legal limits, this project invokes other nearby buildings that exceed 45 feet. Yet, most of these other over-height buildings also required spot-zoning approval from elected officials. For example, one of these projects, across the street, at 8500 Burton Way, is a prototype for this project and is owned by the same developer. Yet, when it was permitted, its neighbors were told it would not become a precedent for more zone changes and General Plan Amendments. Nevertheless, the genie is now out of the bottle. If the City Council approvals prevail in court, it is only a question of time until nearby property owners make parallel requests. They will quickly realize that similar zone changes and General Plan Amendments can green light more lavish and lucrative high-rise apartment towers on their properties.
The take away from this project is that LA’s residents have no choice but eternal vigilance to stand-up to big real estate consortiums and their Little Helpers at City Hall. The BWHA needs technical and financial support from local residents to pursue administrative and legal challenges to this project. Therefore, we ask all readers to send in membership dues, as well as some extra to cover the costs for our legal challenges to this project.

Coming to our area…..


Beverly Wilshire Homes is delighted to announce that the Jewish Home for the Aged is building a satellite facility here in the Beverly/Fairfax community. They are building a six story structure on Beverly Blvd. between Crescent Heights and Laurel Ave. We welcome this community benefit to our area. They will have apartments for retirees and assisted living for alzheimer’s patients. We have been working with them on the design, etc. and are delighted to welcome them to our community.


Edin Park at the corner of Beverly and Edinburgh will be a food hall. The two story venue will include 50,000 square feet of space offering over 30 individual mini-restaurants, rooftop space and 1,500 square feet of communal dining. There will also be a large parking garage.

Chef Octavio Becerra of Acabar and Patina will oversee tenant selection. Visitors will order from all vendors tableside with out having to visit individual stalls. The location will offer alcohol and will include some health and fitness shops. Opening date is planned for the end of this year.