The project will transform a property at 9229 Wilshire Blvd. into a seven story mixed-use residential building. (photo by Tabor Brewster)

The Beverly Hills City Council on July 2 denied an appeal that opposed a project at 9229 Wilshire Blvd., and approved the development to move forward.

The project – which its developer calls “The Wilshire Flats” – is a seven story mixed-use building with 56 one- to four-bedroom units and 7,926 square feet of ground floor commercial space. Six of the units are reserved for very low-income housing, and the building also contains a rooftop amenity space which includes a pool, restrooms and canopy area. Plans include a two-level underground parking structure with 87 parking spaces and ground level parking with 16 spaces for commercial business use.

Under city code, a residential building in the proposed location on Wilshire Boulevard would typically be restricted to three stories and 38 housing units. However, because the development will include low-income units, it is allowed to exceed those standards. This is largely due to the density bonus law, a California law that allows a higher density of total units in buildings to incentivize developers to create more affordable housing.

The developers reserved six of the base 38 units for very low-income renters, which allows a 50% density bonus of 19 additional units.

In addition to more units and total floors, the building is also permitted to be closer to the alley in the rear. Though buildings are typically required to reserve six feet of space between the alley and structure, the development will not have any setbacks separating the building from the perimeter of the alley.

The project is being developed by real estate group Wilshire Skyline and was designed by architect Zoltan Pali, who also designed the Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts.

“The goal of the project is to create a vibrant, walkable mixed-use community to increase the availability of housing in the city within the vitality of an existing commercial corridor and without displacing any existing residential residents,” Wilshire Skyline CEO Alan Nissel said. “The project seeks to expand housing options for diverse socioeconomic renters in the city who wish to be transit-adjacent and who will benefit from a development in our urban core.”

The project will be one-third of a mile from the future Wilshire/Rodeo Metro station.

The Planning Commission unanimously approved the project on Feb. 8, with conditions imposed including street parking restrictions and a mandatory valet for retail operation.

“I realize for the people in the area this project will be a shock to the system,” planning commission vice chair Terri Kaplan said on Feb. 8. “My own belief is it is probably the first of what will become a wave of similar projects that are of a different scale than what we’re used to. But that’s the world we live in.”

Nearby resident Aria Ahdoot – whose home on North Maple Drive is immediately north of the project – filed an appeal on Feb. 22 of the Planning Commission’s approval. Ahdoot argued that the project should be denied for three reasons: the city erred in waiving height and rear setback requirements, proposed amenity space has potential to be converted into accessory dwelling units which would exceed allowed density, and the project does not qualify for categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA.

Ahdoot’s attorney, Kim Lewand Martin, presented the appeal to the City Council.

“I can’t stress this enough. [The] appellant is for affordable housing, not against it. They object to this particular project because it would severely and adversely impact the neighborhood in exchange for a pittance of supposedly qualifying housing. While not really affording affordable housing, it does have some pretty drastic impacts on safety, having to do with the alley … amongst other issues,” Lewand Martin said.

Members of the Ahdoot family and other nearby residents spoke against the project at the City Council meeting. Many expressed concerns over privacy and safety – particularly with an expected increase in use of the alley adjacent to the proposed project. The alley separates the commercial spaces on Wilshire Boulevard from the homes that sit along North Maple Drive and North Palm Drive.

However, Nissel stated that the alley was one of the reasons the location was chosen in the first place.

“We chose this particular location, 9229 Wilshire Blvd., for development because of its proximity to walkable retail and the unusually wide alley highway separating it from the residential neighbors to its north,” Nissel said. “The location is ideal for a mixed-use development, especially because it is on this dense corridor of Wilshire Boulevard just east of the retail triangle, and again because of its highway type alley and parkway between it and its northern neighbors.”

Lewand Martin objected to the applicant’s evaluation of the alley, stating that it is often used by pedestrians.

Some residents blamed the situation directly on the City Council for its alleged failure to approve a housing element for the 2021-29 cycle, which allows developers to take advantage of housing laws such as the density bonus. Overall, the city received 30 written comments in opposition of the project, and five in support.

The California Housing Defense Fund, a housing advocacy group, wrote a letter to the city on June 20 urging it to deny the appeal and approve the project.

“As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage,” the letter read. “New housing such as this is a public benefit. It will bring increased tax revenue, new customers to local businesses, decarbonization in the face of climate crisis and most importantly, it will reduce displacement of existing residents into homelessness or carbon-heavy car commutes. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in more urban areas as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the council to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.”

Although many residents opposed the project, the City Council ultimately denied the appeal and approved the project, citing housing laws restricting its options.

“Our discretion is severely constrained by state law,” Councilman Craig Corman said. “As we’ve heard, there’s no question under the state density bonus law the applicant is legally entitled to build 56 units on the site.”

The decision by the City Council to approve the project came shortly after a decision to deny the appeal of a builder’s remedy application at 125-129 S. Linden Drive. The previous decision spurred a lawsuit by housing advocacy group Californians for Homeownership, which alleged that the city violated state housing laws in its denial of the appeal for the project at 125-129 S. Linden Drive.