A new mixed-use development project set to replace the former Bank of America at Crescent Heights and Santa Monica Boulevard heads to the Planning Commission this week. If approved, the seven-story structure will bring both commercial space and much-needed housing to the bustling Santa Monica/Fairfax Transit District commercial sub-area.
Spanning approximately 82,510 square feet, the development at 8025 Santa Monica will house commercial spaces alongside essential amenities such as a residential lobby, mechanical rooms, storage areas, and laundry rooms on its ground floor. A two-level subterranean garage is planned to provide parking for 107 vehicles. The design incorporates a total of 110 residential units distributed across floors two through seven, with an array of options from micro studios to two-bedroom apartments. Fifteen of these units will be set aside as affordable housing.
The Santa Monica/Fairfax Transit District is already a hub of commercial and transit activities, described in the General Plan as an area supporting diverse commercial uses. The development aims to further enrich the local business ecosystem, which currently includes service and retail businesses catering to both the local community and transit users.
The project recently underwent a rigorous review by the Planning Commission Design Review Subcommittee, which focused on various aspects including the need for additional amenities, interior design considerations for smaller units, and the architectural elements like balconies and fenestration. While the subcommittee raised questions on the livability of the micro units, it was generally appreciative of the project’s design, believing that it would provide a much-needed boost to housing availability and enhance the aesthetics of the busy intersection where it is located.
The project seeks three concessions via the State Density Bonus Law: additional building height beyond the current 55 feet limit, elimination of the 35-feet height limit for the rear of the building, and a reduction in the minimum separation between commercial and residential structures at the rear of the property. These concessions aim to make the project financially viable while still meeting social housing objectives.
Urban design and architectural elements are also a critical part of the project. The building is designed to have an active street front, although over 30% of its frontage will be non-commercial due to requirements like vehicular entry and side yards. The façade is expected to be a dynamic element that changes its visual appeal throughout the day, thanks to a passive design strategy involving a basket-weave approach using projections and recessions, as well as screens and balconies.
One notable concern, however, is the quality of life in the residential units. The staff report mentions that units facing the internal courtyard would experience different living conditions than those facing the Hollywood Hills to the north. While the project aims to make the best use of available space with its elevated courtyard design, there are concerns about the amount of natural light that will reach the second level, which could be in shade for a majority of the year.
The internal layout of the residential units has also garnered attention. In an era where “micro-living” is gaining popularity, the design of smaller units becomes crucial. The units need to be more than just small spaces; they should be livable spaces that accommodate various lifestyle needs. The developer plans to customize these units with extensive built-in cabinets and casework to address concerns about their livability.
Environmental considerations have not been ignored. The project boasts of terraced rooftop spaces with landscaped areas that align with the city’s climate action and sustainability goals. However, the ground level could benefit from more permeable spaces and canopy trees, as it currently lacks in these aspects.
The staff report concludes with a call to action for the project to be as inclusive and sustainable as possible. It emphasizes that the commercial component should aim to fill gaps in the existing market rather than duplicate what’s already available. This is particularly important as the small sizes of many residential units mean residents will likely use community spaces as extensions of their homes.
In essence, this development has the potential to be a cornerstone project for the city, not just in terms of housing and commercial opportunities but also in aligning with broader social and environmental goals. The project is now awaiting final approval from the Planning Commission, and if it goes through, it could set a precedent for how mixed-use developments can effectively balance commercial interests with social responsibility and environmental sustainability.
The Planning Commission meets at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 7. Click below to sign up to speak at the meeting or to leave an e-comment.
[…] West Hollywood’s Planning Commission approved a demolition Thursday night for 8025 Santa Monica Boulevard, making way for the construction of a new seven-story mixed-use development. […]
Truly a stunning architectural specimen, unlike anything West Hollywood has ever beheld, focusing on the classical notions of intricacy, proportions & symmetry. Classic WeHo, that includes the use of mathematically precise ratios of height & width, combined with the harmonious influence of similar renowned local works of structural genius. Aesthetically comparable to the ageless rectangular boxes with carports on stilts, so common south of Santa Monica Blvd.
Not sure I would refer to this as Classic West Hollywood. It appears derivative of Low Country design from South Carolina with an infusion of John Portman Atrium concepts. Looks promising.
First, dealing in West Hollywood will take like 5 years to get rid of the Bank building. Then the developers will probably run out of money with no loans. Just look at the French Quarter. Still not built. Get real, the economy sucks under the Biden crime family! Second, it’s been 10 years since Townscape bought 8150 Sunset. Which borders West Hollywood on the south, exits into Havenhurst Drive in Weho. That’s why they had to pay $2 million plus, a terrible negotiation on the behalf of West Hollywood, to dump all their sewage into West Hollywood and for the… Read more »
The developers have several projects going in Hollywood and appear well financed.
Is the public likely to see Mr. Seymour in action on Thursday? Or will he appear as usual as facilitator not adding much to the conversation and simply collecting his consulting fee?
Mr. Seymour poo-poos the questions from the peasants. I’ve heard him say many a time at many a meeting, “I’m not here as a representative of this project.” Oh really? Then what in h– are you doing there?
While I am all for new apartment development I am not in favor of the ever changing height adjustments asked for. Why can’t developers stay within the City’s guidelines? Where is the traffic study to see how this area will be effected? This project is way too tall for the neighborhood. I also want to hold these developers to a timeline to actually build prior to approval. So many projects in West Hollywood sit for years without any construction. French Market Melrose Triangle work has stalled and no sign of work beginning again Santa Monica and La Cienaga mixed use… Read more »
Don’t forget the gravel pit known as the southwest corner of SMB and Crescent Heights. The city owns that property and can’t seem to get anything done with it. They can’t pave it over for a parking lot. They can’t lay grass and plant some trees. It has been a pathetic eyesore for years. It’s time to put a hold on any new considerations until we do something about the blight caused by paused developments. I think city hall has some ‘splainin’ to do to residents.
👏👏👏
100% agree!
While the City is now promising housing on this site, I suggest that the residents simply open up the fence and occupy the site. In the spirit of Berkeley’s “People’s Park”, we can dig out the weeds and create an off leash dog park; at least the residents can get some use out of this long dormant “investment”.
How about a building at that site of only micro-apartments? No, I haven’t thought this through, so there may be lots of reasons this might not be a good idea, but it would provide housing for low income people and may be a way around the requirement that existing and new buildings provide set-asides. Parking might be one problem because I suppose every unit would have to have an assigned parking space, but ….. just a thought off the top of my head.
….. or, rent these micro-apartments at the market rate, rather than to take the place of “set-asides” in conventional buildings. The rent would be much lower than a one-bedroom but it would still be a for-profit business for some investor, and it would provide for “up-and-coming” young people who we need in WeHo.
Alan, I intended to send you an addendum to my Reply to you but I unintentionally sent it to myself. Please check it out.
The developers are usually eager to get their projects completed, it’s the City that’s being lazy. It’s not reasonable to hold developers to a schedule either, especially in the world we live in. Materials aren’t always readily available, or sometimes there are unforeseen conditions. A project like the French Market, for example, will have all kinds of surprises during construction. Only a psychic would be able to predict the schedule impacts.
Add the John Reed Fitness Center at the old 24 Hour Fitness to that list. Now that Sprouts is gone and that women’s club above it has closed that whole block is pretty much kaput!
They were just seen putting on the new sign for John Reed and have announced an opening sometime this winter. It’s coming! (and will hopefully add some life to that block)
There is the unanswered question of whether or not these sites may remain more profitable as sellable entitlements as opposed to development as planned. This in itself is a murky situation the public has little knowledge of. Opinions are only opinions, we need facts please.
You think this is too tall for the area? Give me a break. WeHo is already dense and we’re in desperate need of more housing. There are literally no negatives to this.
I like this developer to follow the building zone parameters that all sites have to comply within The City . I am not against developments and maximum heights as zoned. I do not agree to just extend the heights on a whim. Remove the 7th floor and make the commercial spaces into residential. We already have an abundance of commercial space available.
Will they build this before the French Market project?
https://wehoonline.com/2022/02/02/french-market-breaks-ground-today/
A good article for WeHoville would be a breakdown of the campaign donations to every city council member by every construction company/building developer currently trying to get their projects approved.
The info is available on Weho.org under City Clerk/Elections.
Love the feature – click here – at the bottom of the article.
Whose idea?
Seems the review covered substantial issues.
I would be worried about natural light also.
“Micro units” In every other city in America they are referred to as studio apartments. At least I hope they won’t any more “micro” than that.
There is a size minimum, but I cannot find it online.
I have never seen them called anything similar to- or even- studio apartments anywhere. You??
I don’t understand the question……But, new long-term residential studio apartments, aka micro units(?), should not be smaller than 500 sf. Building anything smaller is substandard housing and cruel human warehousing.
I have a friend in New York City (Chelsea) who paid a lot of money to buy a 400 sq. ft. condo. And he works from home!
In the midwest they are called “bachelor” apartments, in the east they are called “single” apartments, and 400 square feet is the minimum in some areas.
California Building Code section R304 puts the minimum at 220 square feet plus a bathroom and a closet. So essentially around 275, though that’s not set in stone.
Nothing wrong with smaller spaces; we need all different types of housing for all different types of people. These would be perfect for someone moving to Weho without a lot of stuff.
….. so, about the size of a college dorm room!
From Rent Control to Affordable housing in Weho…The Old Redlining Attitude with having High Rent was even keeping White People from Living in West Hollywood !
It might have been helpful to know if the “residential units” are apartments or condos. Other than the 15 “affordable housing” units, we don’t know. And we really need those giveaway freeloader units, cause Weho just can’t get enough people here who can’t afford to live here. The city complains about a lack of housing, but do they ever wonder if they didn’t have this “affordable housing” nonsense, perhaps hundreds of units would be built every year?
It says in the article that they are apartments. You just needed to get your bit about “freeloaders”, didn’t you?
The article said “from micro studios to two-bedroom apartments”. Micro studios is a vague term which could be condos or apartments, and because it was poorly written, I wouldn’t assume “two-bedroom apartments” meant apartments, and might actually have meant condos. I still don’t know what the project is going to be. But thanks for giving me an opportunity to bring up the freeloaders who will be in the 15 so-called “affordable units”. Maybe they should live out in Pacoima and commute into Weho for their $19.08 an hour busboy jobs cleaning up your dirty dishes, so you don’t have to.
back with the negativity i see
The bagpiper location
Actually, She blows her pipes at the triangle in front — so she can keep blasting away!