Westwood plan stumbles on hotel dispute: whether a 350-room hotel can be built remains a question.

Westwood plan stumbles on hotel dispute

Is the Westwood Horizons Hotel actually a hotel or is it a congregate care facility?

The answer to that question will more than likely determine the fate of a $100 million hotel-office-retail project being proposed by Nansay USA Inc. for a fouracre site directly across the street from the Westwood Horizons.

Some say it might even determine the fate of Westwood Village itself, or at least postpone the urgently needed urban design changes planned for the maligned village.

The Westwood Horizons, a former UCLA dormitory built in the 1960s, has for the past 15 years rented its 270 rooms almost exclusively to senior citizens on a month-to-month basis.

The complex is owned by David Roberts, former chairman of Unity Savings, a local thrift that was seized by federal regulators just last month.

Roberts is claiming his complex is a hotel; Nansay and city officials are insisting it's not.

The bitter dispute, now in the courts, has arisen as a result of two provisions contained in the new Westwood Village Specific Plan, which is expected to be approved by the Los Angeles City Council within the next 60 days.

One of those provisions requires that no two hotels be situated within 500 feet of each other. The other specifies that a maximum of 350 hotel rooms be situated in the Westwood Village Specific Plan area, a one-square-mile area bounded by Gayley, Tiverton and Le Conte avenues and Lindbrook Drive.

Roberts insists his Westwood Horizons complex is a hotel and that precludes Nansay from building its 350-room luxury inn across the street.

Nansay and city officials say the new village specific plan, four-and-a-half years in the making, was specifically designed to include Nansay's proposed hotel.

"During the entire four and a half years this plan was being discussed, not once did Mr. Roberts or one of his representatives come forward and say, `Hey, wait a minute, we're a hotel,'" said T.C. Wang, Nansay's vice president and director of development.

Nansay and city officials further claim Roberts is merely using the new specific plan as leverage to extort money from Nansay.

"This whole issue is a ruse on the part of the Westwood Horizons to get some economic advantage at the expense of one of their neighbors," asserted Los Angeles City Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, whose district includes Westwood. "It's disingenuous, and it's holding up the desperately needed implementation of the Westwood Village Specific Plan."

Roberts' attorney, Kenneth Bley of Castle, Cox & Nicholson, confirmed that his client had offered to drop the whole matter for $20 million. Nansay offered him $500,000 instead, at which point Roberts sued.

Bley explained that Roberts' request for $20 million, far from extortion, was merely an offer to sell his valuable right to convert the Westwood Horizons into a hotel.

"At some point in the future, Mr. Roberts may very well want to convert the Westwood Horizons into a full-service hotel," Bley explained. "And there's nothing in the law that requires him to give up that right for free."

Yaroslavsky countered that Roberts' hotel "right" was artificially created by ambiguities in the new Westwood Village Specific Plan.

To clarify those ambiguities, Yaroslavsky has submitted an amendment to the specific plan aimed at preventing Roberts from converting his complex into a full-service nightly hotel.

Bley, on behalf of Roberts, argued that Yaroslavsky's amendment violates municipal codes and flies in the face of recent state court rulings.

"The purpose of the proposed changes (amendment) is to benefit Nansay at the expense of Mr. Roberts," Bley stated. "And according to a 1981 California Supreme Court ruling, `A city cannot unfairly discriminate against a particular parcel of land, and the courts may properly inquire as to whether the scheme of classification has been applied fairly and impartially in each instance.'"

Bley pointed out that passing an amendment aimed solely at restricting the Westwood Horizons to operating as a residential hotel is far from impartial.

Nansay is expected to file its reply to Roberts' lawsuit this week. The deadline is March 29.

Nansay's top local exec Wang insisted his firm has no intention of redesigning its $100 million project to exclude the hotel.

"If we were to replace that hotel with retail or office space it would become a typical inward-facing mall, which would defeat the whole purpose," Wang said. "This project is meant to encourage the movement of pedestrian traffic out into the village."

Yaroslavsky agreed. "Westwood has become an outdoor festival for teenagers," the councilman said. "We need to bring more `suits and ties' into the village; it desperately needs a more-heterogenous population. If you have 350 hotel rooms catering to adults, that can be accomplished."