A Convincing Argument Why The Ray Hotel Shouldn't Get Height Variances Recommended By The Zoning Administator

Dennis Hathaway, a local builder, makes a pretty convincing argument why the Ray Hotel shouldn't qualify for any height variances, even the lower ones recommended in the ZA's findings. Check it out:

The city planning department has recommended allowing the proposed Ray Hotel in Venice to be built to a height of 45 ft., (40 ft. for the main building, 45 ft. for a roof deck with pool and patio) which is 50 per cent higher than the 30 ft. limit set by the Venice Specific Plan. The department’s report says that this exception to regulations is justified under legal criteria for granting variances because the project site presents difficulties that developers of similar sites in the area would not encounter. According to the report, the major difficulties are:

1. That the developer will preserve and incorporate into the hotel lobby part of an existing warehouse on the site that was used by Charles and Ray Eames as an office and studio for a number of years. This (according to the developer) entails technical difficulties that require extra height.

2. That someone building a purely commercial project on the site would have an easier time, because a hotel requires deeper lot line setbacks and therefore the added height is justified in order to achieve a desired density.

3. That the proposed project is “green,” proposing energy and water conservation, recycling, and preservation of significant open space.

Unfortunately, none of these justifications holds water. Firstly, the so-called Eames studio as it now exists is 654 sq. ft. and 12 ft. high, and the developer is proposing to only preserve 1/3 of that building’s length. So it’s obvious that it will be a very small part of the overall hotel complex, and therefore the claim that its preservation requires the hotel to pushed upward the equivalent of another story is hardly credible.

Secondly, the setbacks for a hotel building are clearly more restrictive than those for a purely commercial building, but these regulations don’t just apply to the Ray Hotel property, they apply to any property on which a developer wants to build a hotel. City ordinances say that an exception to Specific Plan, such as added height above the limit, can be granted only if conditions unique to the subject property make it impractical or unduly difficult to comply with regulations. There is no such unique condition on this property. In fact, to adopt the planner’s logic is to reach the conclusion that a developer wishing to building a hotel on any commercially zoned property in Venice is entitled to an exception from Specific Plan regulations. This is completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the regulations, and in fact absurd.

Thirdly, none of the justifications related to the “greenness” of the project have any legal standing as to the granting of relief from height limits and other regulations of the Specific plan. Furthermore, one might ask why developers should be given major concessions for doing something that is socially responsible. Given the realities of our environment, it might be reasonable to wonder why all developers shouldn’t be voluntarily doing these things on all projects, or even why they aren’t required to as a matter of law without any quid pro quo.