This Renegade California Developer Wants To Build a 2,300-Unit Megaproject in a NIMBY Stronghold
A never-before-used state law might make his plans bulletproof.
Shortly after news broke that Los Angeles developer Leo Pustilnikov was intent on acquiring and converting an aging power plant in the beachside community of Redondo Beach, California, into new shops and apartments, a business acquaintance offered him a strange form of congratulations.
"You must be smarter than me," the acquaintance told Pustilnikov at a New Year's event in the city's harbor, he recounts to Reason.
"Why?" asked Pustilnikov.
"Because Redondo only fucked me for $1 million," the friend responded. His point was not that the city was an easy place to build things.
Redondo Beach has developed a reputation as a growth-skeptical—its critics would say "not in my backyard" (NIMBY)—stronghold in Los Angeles and the state generally.
It's a place where local activists have called for erecting a "firewall" against unwanted development, and the typical home goes for $1.5 million. Despite occupying 1.5 miles of prime coastline along Santa Monica Bay, only 1,000 new homes have been permitted there within the past decade, according to federal permitting data.
A focal point for this growth opposition has been the gas-powered, smoke-belching AES power plant that's long been slated for closure. Its World War II–era technology sits idle most of the time. Environmentalists have taken issue with its use of ocean water to cool equipment, which damages marine life.
While state officials have kept pushing back the plant's closure date—arguing California's power grid needs all the spare capacity it can get—local residents, developers, and city officials have been sparring over what to replace it with.
The 51-acre, ocean-abutting site is an irresistible prize for builders. When the former AES plant owners put the property on the market in 2016, it attracted over 200 offers with already-signed confidentiality agreements, reported CoStar in 2020. A successful listing typically attracts 20 or 30 such offers.
"How many 50-acre sites do you have across the street from the water in a dense community adjacent to beaches and parks?" says Pustilnikov, who finalized the acquisition of the site that year for a reported $150 million.
Local "yes in my backyard" (YIMBY) activists have likewise argued in letters to the city that it's the perfect place to fit new housing without displacing existing residents and businesses.
Opposing that vision are many Redondo Beach residents and most of their elected officials. Six times now, city voters have passed referendums that either stopped commercial and residential development there or endorsed replacing the AES plant with a park instead.
"This is the worst place for residential, as there are no ways for the residents to go to their jobs," says Redondo Beach City Council Member Nils Nehrenheim, warning of nightmarish congestion if the site is turned into new housing. "What we need here is balanced development in Redondo Beach as a whole. We are park-poor because we are so dense."
This anti-development fervor suggests Pustilnikov would be pretty crazy, and certainly unsuccessful, for trying to put a 3-million-square-foot megaproject there. Yet, this is exactly what he's proposing.
In an application filed August 10, and first reported on by the local Daily Breeze, several companies linked to Pustilnikov and his business partner Ely Dromy requested permission to build a massive project called One Redondo. It would feature residential towers up to 200 feet tall, containing a total of 2,290 units. That would be complemented by roughly 800,000 square feet of office, commercial, and hotel space, and over 5,000 parking spaces.
Their application frankly acknowledges that housing "is not currently featured as a permitted or conditionally permitted use" on the site. But that's OK, they say, because nearly 500 units in the new development would be affordable apartments provided at below-market rates to low-income residents.
The inclusion of those affordable units triggers a never-before-used but potentially game-changing provision in California law called the "builder's remedy" that could make Pustilnikov's One Redondo project bulletproof to local opposition.
Despite its well-justified reputation for wrapping new housing construction in paralyzing red tape, California has several longstanding laws on the books that are intended to thwart local governments' throttling of new development.
That includes a requirement that cities periodically produce plans showing how they'll change their zoning laws to meet state-set housing production targets. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for setting those targets and then certifying that localities have come up with realistic plans, called "housing elements," for meeting them.
The state also created the builder's remedy to ensure housing gets built even if a local government fails to produce that housing element or allow enough housing to meet those targets.
In theory, the builder's remedy permits developers to construct projects of unlimited density anywhere in a city without an HCD-certified housing element, regardless of what the local government's zoning code says. Provided at least 20 percent of the new units are affordable for low-income renters or buyers, the city government can't say no to it.
This is exactly what Pustilnikov is trying to do in Redondo Beach.
The city had an October 2021 deadline for adopting a housing element that would allow for roughly 2,500 new homes. But the plan the city council approved was rejected by the HCD for not realistically meeting that target. In particular, the department took issue with the city projecting that existing offices and businesses would be shortly redeveloped into housing.
The city revised and resubmitted its housing element, which was rejected by the HCD again in April.
Enter Pustilnikov and his development partners. In August, they filed an application for the 2,300-unit project at the AES site. If it's approved, One Redondo will be the first successful builder's remedy project in California history. (Pustilnikov has a pending application for another builder's remedy project in Santa Monica.)
Despite the builder's remedy having been on the books since 1990, developers have universally shied away from its awesome red tape–cutting potential. A few reasons explain their hesitancy.
The housing element process that can trigger a builder's remedy has largely been a joke until recently. Cities often failed to file housing element plans without consequence. State officials rubber-stamped whatever elements were turned in.
The affordability requirements for builder's remedy projects also made these projects unprofitable, or at least unattractive.
Importantly, developers have also generally been loath to piss off city hall by trying to force through one project with a builder's remedy, knowing that it could mean their next one will be blocked.
"In the olden days, what was the special talent a developer had? The special talent was glad-handing. You got to be buddies with the city officials who had discretionary authority over your projects," said University of California, Davis law professor Christopher Elmendorf in an August Twitter Spaces event.
But all this is starting to change.
New state laws have forced cities to prepare more realistic housing elements. The HCD and a new army of YIMBY activists are more willing to call out their traditional housing element dirty tricks—like saying cemeteries and profitable grocery stores will be redeveloped into housing. This means more cities end up having noncompliant housing elements, opening a window for builder's remedy projects.
Rents have also gotten so high in California that developers can still make a tidy profit off a project in which a large percentage of units have to be offered at below-market rates. Lastly, some jurisdictions have garnered enough of an anti-housing reputation that developers see little benefit in trying to stay in their good graces.
Pustilnikov clearly thinks he has nothing to lose by playing nice.
"No one has projects in Redondo. I don't have to worry about Redondo," he says. One gets the impression that the motivations are partly personal. "The reason I chose not to work with the city is primarily out of my past experience trying to work with them, and their propensity to spread half-truths and outright lies," he adds in an email.
There's not a lot of love lost on the other side.
"Leo is a pure speculator and it's laughable that he would buy a piece of property and try to enforce his will onto this community," says Nehrenheim.
A registered Libertarian, Nehrenheim has twice now won elections on a platform of stopping overdevelopment and preventing the "Santa Monica-ization" of the city.
It's proven a popular message in Redondo Beach among an eclectic mix of supporters. His 2021 reelection campaign received donations from the local Sierra Club and the enthusiastic endorsement of the Libertarian Party Mises Caucus.
In an interview with Reason, Nehrenheim likens state laws that override local zoning controls to failed central planning schemes of old and a "Wall Street giveaway."
Redondo Beach, at 11,000 people per square mile, is already one of the densest coastal communities in the state, Nehrenheim notes. Adding more homes on the AES site would worsen already molasses-slow traffic, and cost the city the opportunity for much-needed green space once the power plant is closed, he says.
Nehrenheim also contends that Pustilnikov is just flat wrong about what state law would allow him to build on the AES site without the local community's consent.
This past week, the HCD at last certified Redondo Beach's twice-reworked housing element. With the city once again in the good graces of state housing officials, Nehrenheim argues its is under no obligation to approve a builder's remedy project.
Pustilnikov tells Reason in an email that because he filed his project application before the housing element was certified by the state, the builder's remedy still applies.
Elmendorf says that Pustilnikov is likely right on that point.
A 2019 law, S.B. 330 or the Housing Crisis Act, freezes the rules local officials can apply to a project once its sponsor files a preliminary application. The intent was to stop cities from changing regulations midstream to stop proposed developments that are already in the pipeline.
"There's a decent argument that if you file that preliminary application while the city's [housing element is] out of compliance, then it has to process your project as if it were out of compliance," says Elmendorf.
But, he cautions, a fatal blow to Pustilnikov's project could come from California's regulations on coastal development.
The decades-old California Coastal Act requires seaside localities to adopt plans governing what can be built in coastal zones. The California Coastal Commission has the discretion to reject projects in coastal zones as well. (It's a power the commission has zealously wielded against coastal property owners.)
"The question here is whether the local coastal plan is inconsistent with [Pustilnikov's] project," says Elmendorf. If it is, he says, the coastal regulations win out.
Brandy Forbes, community development director for Redondo Beach, says in an email that the AES site's zoning allows for a park or a power plant, but nothing else, and certainly not housing. Nehrenheim likewise argues that the site's nonresidential zoning makes it off limits for development, even under the Housing Crisis Act.
Pustilnikov says that it's not at all obvious that California's coastal regulations trump his builder's remedy project. He expects he and the city will eventually wind up in court, and that a judge will decide One Redondo's fate.
Any such ruling on the case could have major ramifications outside of Redondo Beach.
California's state government is showing an unprecedented interest in cracking down on what it sees as bad actor NIMBY local governments. The HCD and the California Department of Justice, under Attorney General Rob Bonta, have both created new units dedicated to enforcing state housing laws.
The HCD has been refusing to certify housing elements at an unprecedented rate this cycle. Bonta has also let enforcement letters fly against local jurisdictions trying to skirt recent upzoning bills by, in one instance, declaring the whole town a protected mountain lion sanctuary.
In August, the two departments turned heads when they announced an unprecedented audit of the nation's NIMBY capital, San Francisco, to determine why exactly its leaders keep shooting down new housing.
But it remains to be seen what practical effect this will actually have on enabling new housing production. On paper, there are a couple of sticks Bonta and the HCD can bring down on recalcitrant localities.
Cities out of compliance with state housing law can be stripped of affordable housing and infrastructure funds. But many of the jurisdictions most hostile to new development are small, wealthy suburbs that don't receive much of that money to begin with, and could afford to go without it. And even some YIMBY activists have questioned how politically practical it would be for the state to cut off large cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco from state funding.
State law gives courts the ability to appoint an expert to write a housing element for a city that's out of compliance. But that's a yearslong process and there's no telling how willing a judge would be to actually impose that solution.
That leaves the builder's remedy as the most immediate path for cutting through red tape in California's most anti-development jurisdictions relatively quickly.
It's a solution that has worked in East Coast states, particularly New Jersey. There, developers have made robust use of the builder's remedy to get housing approved. But the Garden State benefits from having pretty clear rules laying out the wheres, whys, and hows of its builder's remedy.
Swirling around California's builder's remedy law, meanwhile, is a fog of unanswered questions about what exactly it allows, how much control local governments retain over projects that make use of it, and how it interacts with other features of state law, including the aforementioned coastal regulations and state-mandated environmental review.
Pustilnikov concedes his Redondo Beach builder's remedy project raises more questions than it answers. But he says his past dealings with the city leave him few options other than rolling the dice on this uncertain solution.
"My experience in the last two years has resulted in me thinking there's really no other way other than letting my kids deal with it," he says. "Considering they're three, eight months, and negative three months, I'd figure I'd take a crack at it before they do."
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who cares? It will still be in California.
And even if it gets built (it won’t), housing prices won’t be affected.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (aof-12) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
———->>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
Law of supply and demand. What is needed are hundreds or thousands of these types of developments.
CA has population density of 252 per square mile; Redondo’s is 11,500 per square mile, close to USA average. San Fran is over 18,000 per square mile, second to only New York City. If either increased it to 250,000 per square mile, Reason would still be writing articles about one of them being the nations ‘capital’ of NIMBY.
Objection! … speculation.
I’m as of now becoming basically an extra $35,000 every month from home through way of way of doing somewhat genuine and clean on-line fine art ald03 from home. as of now be a piece of this test and collect additional cash online through way of way of related preparing on a particular
site — — — >>> http://www.richjobz4.blogspot.com/
The home people own is usually their biggest asset. If building something in the neighborhood lowers the value of that asset you can expect them to get upset. That’s why homeless housing is always promoted by people who don’t own homes in the area where they plan to put it.
Cheap housing that reduces the capital value of homes around the housing helps some at the expense of others. Put it in Beverly Hills then.
This is the kind of thinking that leads to regulations against painting front doors red and banning front yard vegetable gardens.
It’s fine to complain about government building houses; they should not, strictly from a libertarian standpoint. To complain only due to its affect on housing values is bullshit. My property, my choice. If I want to paint my front door red, grow veggies, or park cars in my front yard, that is nobody’s business unless it attracts rats and other vermin. If you want to control what I do with my property, buy it, or propose an easement; we’ll negotiate and see how much you think it’s worth to you.
If you want to argue that government houses for the poor lower your value and is a taking, I’m all for that. But make that argument, that government has no business building houses. Don’t make the argument that you have any moral right to control what your neighbors do. If my will leaves that house to a charity, with money to turn it into poor housing, that is none of your business.
First thought: why “federal permitting data”? Why do the feds collect permitting data? Are there federal permits to be had, or is this just the feds backing up state permitting data, or the feds collecting local data because the state won’t?
To track racial equity. Seriously.
I suppose so. It is the kind of crap government does; everything government does opens up new needs for more government control.
^This
At some point reasonable people must acknowledge that density has an upper limit. It sounds like Redondo Beach is full. But no one is allowed to have a reasoned and thought full discussion because the powers above have lost focus on reality by hyper focusing on social justice.
I don’t think there is anywhere in the US that has reached that limit. There are countries around the world that have higher density limits and do just fine. Density limits are just a NIMBY argument.
Up to their property line, yes; past that, no. They have the freedom to select property with neighbors they think will maintain a reasonable neighborhood but if they buy property adjacent to undeveloped land, they are gambling that it will stay undeveloped or be developed in a way they like. Some will lose that gamble.
I agree with you on principle. But The level to which local, state, and federal government determines who and where such development gets to be determined does cloud the clarity of such principle. Especially when they’re already mugging you with property taxes and determining what you can do on your own property.
Except this is land currently occupied by a power plant that would be removed creating …. more space for houses. It’s not full. The density is in areas outside this site.
I doubt very seriously there are any people living (legally) on the 51-acre powerplant site. Per the rendering, it’ll be almost 50% green space. Or do you think an abandoned powerplant is the best use for the space?
A _new_ powerplant might be the best use. CA has rolling blackouts every summer, but they’re closing powerplants without replacements _and_ moving towards requiring new houses and cars to be all-electric.
The Chicago Bears are deciding to move to Arlington Heights IL. They say no tax dollars will be used but public funds are needed for their planned entertainment center.
Is it just me, or does that plan look like Cabrini-Green…
My money’s on the NIMBY’s. They are very powerful in CA especially.
Same here. The whole state is controlled by the NIMBYs.
Good news is that reality is going to kick their asses eventually.
I think it was here on Reason that I read an article saying that some rich California residents were lamenting the inability to hire any contractors or landscapers because all such workers have to live so far away, they cannot serve the area because it is too expensive to drive there (obviously they can’t ride mass transit with a bunch of heavy power tools).
So, these ultra-powerful NIMBY homeowners won’t be able to maintain their expensive homes because they prioritized keeping their property values high at the expense of keeping their properties maintained.
The short term solution, of course, is to pony up the cash to make it worth the contractors’ time to drive in from hours away.
Build a 2,300-Unit Megaproject
There is no fucking way that sort of massive project will ever work. And probably no way it is even intended to work. It smells like a corporate entity looking for a huge government subsidy – or dumping all the predictable externalities of the project on surrounding govts/communities. Its not like this location is remotely used to dealing with density issues – so someone is going to screw someone else here.
Im sure the NIMBY opposition is a bunch of single family homeowners who are using their Prop 13 subsidies to strangle the local government and prevent all new housing. But seriously – is there no fucking intermediate housing between single family housing and some apartment skyscrapers? WTF
The cheapest 1-bedroom apartments I could find online in Redondo Beach were $1,725 and $1,920. It’s a two-story building. Most apartments are in the $2,500 to $3,500 range.
There’s one home for sale in Redondo Beach that’s less than a million bucks, and it’s $950,000. They run up to $4 million.
Apparently there is a citywide height limit there for new buildings of 32 feet. The vast majority of the city off the beach is single family zoning. 8.2% of the housing stock there was built post-2000 v 61.5% built pre-1980 (roughly Prop 13).
There are a ton of obvious reasons why this coastal city is contributing mightily to its own problems – and things will only get worse. Housing is probably only one of the problems – and traffic is another. But a giant developers phallus in the city is not the solution to anything – even when that IS the only ‘solution’ when all other land in the city is excluded from residential/housing development.
Is this one of those places propped up by FEMA insurance if half the beach goes underwater?
So where are the people who buy into this deal going to get 50 amps of reliable power at 120V per unit?
If the developer wanted to build a stockyard and slaughterhouse on the site, government should not prevent him because muh private property.
Apartments and condos are not stockyards.
Or slaughterouses.
This is NOT a NIMBY issue. There is a serious practicality of putting that many people on that small a space. I live within sight of this location – the addition of 2,000 + housing units would be a nightmare for this area. There are two roads leading to it – that’s 4 lanes of traffic in each direction. Adding potentially 4000+ cars (two per unit – most families here have two cars) every morning and every evening into what is already heavy LA traffic would make the area unlivable. This would also impact three other closely adjacent cities that have no say in the process of development.
It’s a simple libertarian principle: somebody with money that isn’t the government wants to screw over a lot of people, so it’s fine.
It’a simple libertarian principle – single-family homeowners don’t get to use the force of government to oppress renters and aspiring homeowners by restricting the supply of housing, thereby artificially driving up rents and home prices.
It’s
Then do this:
Gather together a bunch of people voluntarily and buy the property in question–do not buy it via taxpayers, because there will inevitably be people forced to participate against their will–and let it sit.
You can form whatever non-profit organization you like for the purpose. Call it a “historical site foundation” or whatever.
That’s a morally, ethically, legally right way to do it.
But it’s always easier to pin badges on people, hand them guns, and tell them to go make somebody do something against their will.
Ok ok I get the the point of the dispute and all but…. Why are they shutting down a power plant in the middle of an energy supply crisis?!?!
Re: “it’s laughable that he would buy a piece of property and try to enforce his will onto this community,” says Nehrenheim.”
Who’s this supposed Mises Caucus Libertarian that doesn’t seem to understand libertarianism at all and is a total fucking hypocrite?
If someone buys a piece of property, it is one’s exclusive right to enforce his will onto his own property, regardless of how the community feels about it.
On top of that, Nehrenheim’s position is utter hypocrisy, because the NIMBY property owners seem to think that they, by purchasing pieces of property, can now enforce their will on the community, specifically against Pustilnikov’s use of the piece of property he purchased but also against other members of the community that might do something they dislike.
How about we all just buy our own property and control our own property and stop trying to tell other people what to do with their own property?
NIMBY is a misnomer. It’s not their “backyard”. It’s the neighborhood, their neighbor’s backyard. NIMN is a better acronym – not in my neighborhood.
Just anothre Corporate/Government Encroachment , or outright theft of LOCAL control , to Bureaucrats and Corporations …Death to all Corporate Owners and their rat families …. thieves .
No, another single-family homeowner encroachment upon renters and aspiring homeowners ability to buy reasonably priced housing from developers.
Ability and right.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. (res-21) Thank goodness, I found this employment online and I was able to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
After reading this article:>>>> https://workofferweb24.netlify.app/
Let a free unimpeded market decide.