In extensive questioning, the Council asked the development team about accessibility to the project’s vaunted public gardens, management of the gardens, and concerns over a timeshare-style fractional ownership offering. The Beverly Hills City Council has moved forward with public hearings on the historic proposed One Beverly Hills project, a luxury hotel and condominium development that would reshape the city’s western Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard gateways. The Council was unable to complete the approval process at the May 27 meeting and agreed to meet again on June 1 at 2:30 p.m. In an earlier meeting, the Mayor had expressed concern that the design forced anyone coming from Santa Monica Boulevard to enter the gardens through a courtyard elevator located inside the property, which Wunderlich suggested might not be “particularly welcoming.” But on Thursday, Wunderlich announced a pending change that would allow the public to enter from Santa Monica Boulevard via an elevator and ramp immediately accessible to pedestrians. Mayor Robert Wunderlich revealed a late-breaking change to the project’s southern access. He pointed to higher EMS fees in comparable cities like London, Paris, New York, and San Francisco ranging from 5.95% to 15% and suggested that the project could shoulder higher fees for the purpose of affordable housing. Despite the nine-figure public benefit fee, the EMS fees, and the municipal surcharge, Mirisch argued that the development would not be paying its fair share to the city, especially in terms of affordable housing. These would generate revenues for Beverly Hills “in perpetuity” after their implementation, according to Director of Community Development Ryan Gohlich.Ĭity staff who helped negotiate the agreement, along with City Council liaisons Vice Mayor Lili Bosse and Councilmember Lester Friedman, characterized the agreement as historic in the benefits afforded to the city.īob Baradaran, an attorney who served as special counsel to the city for the project, described the package of public benefits as “the most lucrative and richest direct public benefit package in favor of any city in the state of California and probably the country.”īut Councilmember John Mirisch raised concerns about the arrangement. In the development agreement, the city would receive 2% on first time sales and then 3% on subsequent sales. Along with that, the project would pay EMS fees to the city, which help the city recoup the revenue lost by allowing residential developments on commercial sites. The project would also apply a 5% municipal surcharge (essentially a higher Transient Occupancy Tax) to the new Wilshire Building luxury hotel rooms and, in 2030, to the Beverly Hilton starting. The unprecedented sum would absolve the development from the responsibility of providing affordable housing, as is required by the city’s Interim Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.Īs stated in the draft agreement, “Developer’s Public Benefit Contribution under this Agreement fully satisfies any and all affordable housing fees, or exactions, that are applicable to the Project during the Term.” The marquee item of the draft development agreement, negotiated by an ad hoc team of city staff, council members, and attorneys, is a $100 million public benefit fee.

In return, the city can extract certain demands from the developer as concessions. The agreement assures the developer that the city will not change pertinent regulations during the term of the agreement and will grant certain entitlements that would otherwise conflict with the city’s codes (excessive height, for instance). The Council then turned to the project’s draft development agreement.Ī development agreement functions as a contract between the city and the developer–in this case, Oasis West Realty and Cain International. The move came to light through Planning Commission Chair Peter Ostroff, who detailed the communication in a comment to the City Council. The meeting picked up with an apology from Oasis West Realty CEO Beny Alagem, one of the project’s developers, who accepted responsibility for a letter sent by his attorney that pressured two residents to withdraw a public comment critical of him. Update: The Beverly Hills City Council sat for another marathon meeting about the One Beverly Hills project on May 27.

Architect of beverly hills hotel