Divided WeHo City Council Votes to Move Forward with 8899 Beverly Project

An architect's rendering of the proposed design of the north-facing facade of  the 8899 Beverly buidling.
An architect’s rendering of the proposed design of the north-facing facade of the 8899 Beverly buidling.

In a three-to-two vote the West Hollywood City Council last night agreed to let the controversial redevelopment of the 8899 Beverly Blvd. building move forward.

Council members John D’Amico and Lauren Meister voted against the project. It was supported by Council members John Duran and John Heilman and Mayor Lindsey Horvath.

The approval is conditioned on the developer’s agreement not to let any of the units be used for short-term rentals or as corporate apartments. They also will be required to hold a public meeting to review with local residents the design for the north-facing side of the building, which faces a neighborhood of single-family homes. The developer must apply for and receive a building permit within 18 months. And the $4.25 million the developer agreed to give to the city in exchange for the exemption to the existing zoning ordinance and General Plan must be used for actual public benefits, not subsidizing the building’s Madeo restaurant while the building is under construction, for which the developer had proposed to spend more than $1 million. Finally, the nine houses that the developer proposes to build on Rosewood Drive behind the building must meet the design standards of the renovated 8899 Beverly building.

The project involves converting the office building between Robertson and Almont into 52 condominiums and 15 apartments for low- and moderate-income people. The proposal has been controversial because it would almost double the size of the existing 90,000-square-foot building and change the use of a building that already doesn’t conform with the city’s General Plan or the zoning for the site. The project also includes construction of nine single-family houses behind the building.

The 10-story building was constructed in 1962, 22 years before West Hollywood was incorporated as a city. Because of its size the building didn’t comply with the city’s General Plan when it was adopted in 2011 or the zoning for the area, which limits commercial buildings in the area to three stories and a smaller mass on the 1.7 acre lot. Thus the developer has to request an exception that in the form of a “special plan” that applies different zoning standards that those used for surrounding buildings.

Councilmember John Heilman acknowledged that the project doesn’t conform with the General Plan or the zoning ordinance, But, Heilman said, “there are a lot of things about this project that enhance the community and benefit the residents.” Because it will be converted from office to residential use, “it actually decreases parking demand, it decreases traffic generation, even with the increased size of the building. It decreases the impact of the building.” Heilman also praised the addition of housing for low-income people.

Heilman, along with Councilmember Duran, said that a smaller alternative doesn’t seem to be financially feasible for the developer. Duran said the condominiums likely would appeal to affluent young professionals moving into West Hollywood. While she voted for the project, Mayor Horvath said she was concerned that the public benefits proposed by the developer might not be what the community really wants, noting that traffic calming and dealing with increased water rates might be issues to focus on.

Councilmember Meister arguing strongly against the project. “We are taking a non-conforming building, and we’re making it even more non-conforming,” she said. Meister also said the project doesn’t meet state requirements that specific exemptions to a city’s General Plan must be consistent with the General Plan. And she said the cash the developer proposes to pay the city for the exemption “is sending the wrong message: ‘You can buy a specific plan’.”

Councilmember D’Amico echoed her concerns. “We now know that for the price of three condos and an election, you can buy a specific plan,” he said, referring to the estimated average value of $1 million for each of the condos and the $3 million Townscape Partners, the developer, is offering as a bonus separate from its proposed subsidy for Madeo and a $1 million contribution to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. “… We know that these people invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the makeup of this Council, ” he said. Townscape and its managing partners were among the largest contributors in recent City Council elections, giving money not only to individual candidates but to independent campaign expenditure committees that supported John Heilman and to an unsuccessful campaign to fight a limit on City Council members terms.

The developer is a partnership between Townscape, a Beverly Hills real estate development firm, and Angelo Gordon & Co. of New York City. They purchased the building and its accompanying parking lot in July 2012, for $38.5 million. Townscape first applied for a special exception to the city’s General Plan and zoning ordinance in December 2012. The project quickly drew opposition from residents of West Hollywood West, a neighborhood composed largely of single-family homes that sits just to the north of the project. Those residents objected to what they saw as potential traffic and parking issues and to Townscape’s plans then to build 13 townhouses and a recreation center with a pool and apartments for low-income people on the parking lot behind the 8899 Beverly Blvd. That parking lot fronts on Rosewood Avenue, where the neighborhood of single-family homes begins, and residents argued that the buildings didn’t conform with the look of the neighborhood.

At its meeting in August 2014, the city’s Planning Commission rejected a revised proposal by Townscape that replaced the townhouses with single-family homes and backed away from a controversial plan to deny low-income tenants access to the swimming pool, which some of them would have been able to view from their apartments.

Townscape appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. In its appeal it offered a package of almost $3.5 million in public benefits, which the Council is allowed to consider. They included construction of a small park on Bonner Drive near the intersection of Robertson and Beverly boulevards (valued at $1 million), contributing $2 million to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, spending $250,000 to improve landscaping along Beverly Boulevard and Rosewood Avenue, donating $100,000 to the city’s Urban Arts program, contributing $32,000 in membership dues to the West Hollywood West Neighborhood Association. Townscape said it also would spend $1.25 million to renovate Madeo, the restaurant now located in the building, with that expense including compensating the owners for lost business while the restaurant is closed and paying Madeo employees during that time.

But the Council in September 2014 asked the city’s planning staff to work with Townscape to try to reduce the size of the proposed project and to analyze the benefit to the city of the extras that Townscape was offering.


newest oldest
Notify of
WeR1B
Guest
WeR1B

Get ready for the lawsuit.

Manny
Guest
Manny

“NEWSFLASH” Jim…..Be careful not to give away too much. This project could have had more AH units (spread throughout the building, as REQUIRED) and more “more-affordable” open market units. The City Council held all the cards and they chose to approve an inferior project. BREAKING NEWS Jim….When someone moves into a SFH neighborhood that abuts parcels which, since 1984, are zoned for 4 stories…..yes they should expect that rule to remain in place. Doubling 8899 Beverly is like building another 9 story building. That’s not ok……But the City Council chose to ignore that. Maybe you should not be so quick… Read more »

Jim Chud
Guest
Jim Chud

Ya know, I wish some of the council members and other people who complain about the creation of a ‘poor floor’ would ask the potential residents – i.e. us lower income folks, if that bothers us one little bit, NEWSFLASH:: IT DOESN’T BOTHER US AT ALL – ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE SIZES AND PROPOSED FINISHES FOR THESE UNITS. iT’S THE RICHEST ‘POOR FLOOR’ I KNOW. I WISH ALL OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS IN THIS TOWN WERE THAT POOR. I don’t think I have ever run into a more unreasonable, entitled group of local residents in my life. To even… Read more »

Aaron Bauder
Guest
Aaron Bauder

Million-dollar “affordable housing”. Zoning regulations dismissed by paid-for Council members. Business as usual in corporate playland, shadow-of-its-former-self WeHo.

JJ
Guest
JJ

Right on Chris!

Manny
Guest
Manny

@Karen O’Keefe……Actually Karen, what the neighbors didn’t want was the “poor door” project-like separation and exclusion from amenities that was previously offered by this developer. Indeed those conditions were removed, under pressure, but it was the developer’s choice (along with approval from those three council members) to now only offer 15 AH units instead of 20 (or the required 20% of floor area) and put all of them on the same floor instead of a more equitable spread throughout the building. (as required) The city paid $7,000,000 cash (from parking fees) for the Walgreen’s site. If that property ends up… Read more »

Wesley McDowell
Guest
Wesley McDowell

What the three did was tote the water for the really big Weho money and that ain’t those of us who live here!

Karen O'Keefe
Guest
Karen O'Keefe

Hi Manny, The percent I was referring to was the percent of homes, not square feet — though I did get it off by 1%. Fifteen units is just over 24% of 62 units. The article itself says $2 million had to be given to the affordable housing trust. Did it get it wrong? It also shows that the Council required an increase in the public benefits from $3.5 million to $4.25 million. I’m supporting more affordable housing in general — though yes, sooner is better — and $2 million and 15 units (making up 24% of all units) is… Read more »

Manny
Guest
Manny

@Karen O’Keef….I’m surprised at you. In the past you’ve been so much better informed on these pages. What the three Council Members that you’re championing did is give the developer the privilege (it was not their right) to add 82,000sf to a building so that they can sell $75,000,000 (conservative retail price) worth of ultra-luxury condominiums. (not that there’s anything wrong with that… “urbanists who fly to New York and Paris for the weekend” need housing too) For a price of $1,564,000 (NOT $2,000,000 as you say) those same three Council Members agreed to look the other way and allow… Read more »

Karen O'Keefe
Guest
Karen O'Keefe

Good for the City Council — or three members of it, at least. We have a severe housing shortage in this region, and a severe shortage of affordable housing. Fifteen units is over 25% of the total and $2 million dollars in the affordable housing trust is extremely important. NIMBYist insistence on single family homes and only very short buildings has restricted new housing and drove up housing rates, while contributing to crowding and homelessness. We need more units and we need more modern housing that is accessible to people with disabilities and is safe in earthquakes. It’s basic supply… Read more »

Manny
Guest
Manny

@Chris Sanger…..You use NIMBY with a bad connotation. There is nothing inherently wrong with fairly protecting your backyard….who else will?

Yes, I know that the two council members you refer to were open to a real useful solution. A solution that the city could be proud of.

I can only speak for myself (but i’m confident others feel the same way)….there never was, or is, a “total opposition” to anything that can improve, enhance, revitalize and serve the community well.

Chris Sanger
Guest
Chris Sanger

Manny – I respect your input here. Question – do you think there is a chance in the world that the two NIMBYite members living nearby were open to this, or that (particularly Meister’s case) total opposition was likely?