Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Update On Ray Hotel Hearing Before The WestLA Planning Commission

Wednesday, August 1st, at 4:30 PM

HENRY MEDINA WEST L.A. PARKING ENFORCEMENT FACILITY
11214 W. EXPOSITION BOULEVARD, SECOND FLOOR, ROLL CALL ROOM
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 90064

First, I wanted everyone to know I've started a blogsite about the Ray Hotel. Hopefully, this will act as a clearing house of information about the project as it winds its way through the planning process. Most of the emails I've sent out will be archived here.

www.venicerayhotel.blogspot.com

Second, I just learned the Ray developers are sufficiently freaked out about the Zoning Administrator's report that they've asked for a continuance to postpone. Unfortunately, the only people with the authority to grant that continuance are the commissioners themselves at the meeting. Which means we still have to show up because we won't know until 4:30 - at the earliest - whether or not they will agree.

So sorry to drag you all out for something that might not happen, but it would be awful if the commissioners insisted on proceeding and nobody from the Venice community was there to defend our neighborhood.

Friday, July 27, 2007

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.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Zoning Administrator Finds That Ray Hotel Should Not Receive Most Exemptions To VSP For Height and Density

The following is a summary of Zoning Administrator's report on the Ray Hotel. The ZA's recommendations will go before the WLAPC for it's August 1st hearing. The ZA's findings aren't final and can be ignored or altered by the Commissioners.


"The proposed project has become a point of contention in the Venice community galvanizing a major letter writing campaign that has flooded this Hearing Officer’s e-mail. Most of the issues presented have been addressed in the findings as part of this report. The applicants’ did meet with the some members of the community prior to the public hearing through the Grass Roots Venice Neighborhood Council and other private meetings. Although these pre-public hearing meetings are not required as part of the City Planning process, they are often very important in gauging local reaction and resolving issues before proceeding to the Planning Commission. It is apparent that not everyone was involved in this process nevertheless many were able to respond through the Planning Department proceedings................

Over 160 letters (majority e-mails) have been received with comments of the proposed project. Approximately 50 letters have been received in support of the project. Supporters express the need for a hotel in Venice, the design of the building and its LEED elements, and the reputation of the applicant as a quality hotelier.

Approximately 110 letters have been received against the project. Opposition to the project is based on excessive height, increase in traffic and parking impacts, compromising the regulations of the Venice Coastal Specific Plan, and uncooperative applicant (not willing to meet the needs of the community) ........

Many of those opposed to the requests are not necessarily opposed to a hotel on this site.



RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. Disapprove Specific Plan Exceptions for the following:

a. a project with a varying height from 40 feet 6 inches to a maximum of 55 feet;
b. to permit four roof access structures to exceed 100 square feet;
c. to permit a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.06:1.


2. Approve Specific Plan Exceptions for the following:

a. a project with a maximum height of 40-feet 6-inches for guest room floors, and 45-feet for the roof top pool deck;

b. clear roof railings that are 42 inches in height;

c. an open landscaped courtyard with a depth of approximately 77 feet from Abbot Kinney and a depth of approximately 55 feet from Hampton Drive.

3. Approve a Conditional Use to (1) permit the sale and consumption of a full line of alcohol in conjunction with the restaurant use which includes an outdoor patio area, (2) permit the sale and consumption of a full line of alcohol in conjunction with the hotel including the lobby bar, meeting rooms, and lounge areas (3) to permit a full line of alcoholic beverages to be provided in liquor cabinets to be located with the hotel guest rooms, and (4) to permit the sale of a full line of alcoholic beverages by way of room service, subject to Conditions of Approval, subject to Conditions of Approval.

4. Approve Conditional Use to permit a hotel located within 500 feet of an residential zone, subject to Conditions of Approval.

5. Approve Coastal Development Permit.

6. Approve Project Permit Compliance, as Conditioned, with the Venice Coastal Specific Plan.

7. Approve Mello Act Compliance Review.

8. Approve Site Plan Review.

9. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ENV 2006-9485-MND.

10. Adopt the attached Findings.

11. Advise the applicant that, pursuant to California State Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City shall monitor or require evidence that mitigation conditions are implemented and maintained throughout the life of the project and the City may require any necessary fees to cover the cost of such monitoring.

12. Advise the applicant that pursuant to State Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, a Fish and Game Fee and / or Certificate of Fee Exemption is now required to be submitted to the County Clerk prior to or concurrent with the Environmental Notice of Determination (NOD) filing."

Friday, July 20, 2007

We need WRITTEN LETTERS by Tuesday, June 24

I've now learned that we need to provide written copies of any letters we want to send about the project to the West LA Planning Commission no later than Tuesday, July 24.

YOU MUST PROVIDE ELEVEN (11) COPIES OF YOUR LETTER. ONE FOR THE FILE AND 10 FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.

Make sure that you include the case # APCW 2006-9483-SPE-CDP-CU-SPP-SPR-MEL

For any of you who haven't sent in their letters yet, I will be happy to collect them and hand-deliver them to City Hall on Tuesday. PLEASE HAVE THEM ON MY PORCH NO LATER THAN 12 NOON ON TUESDAY, JULY 24.

My address is 758 Palms Blvd. - It's a small white house with green trim at the corner of Palms and Oakwood. I will put out a cardboard box for your letters. Please don't knock on the door, you'll drive my poor dogs nuts..............;-)

West LA Planning Commision Hearing August 1st.

Wednesday, August 1st, at 4:30 PM
HENRY MEDINA WEST L.A. PARKING ENFORCEMENT FACILITY
11214 W. EXPOSITION BOULEVARD, SECOND FLOOR, ROLL CALL ROOM
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, 90064

To submit your comments:

The project's file number: APCW 2006-9483-SPE-CDP-CU-SPP-SPR-MEL. It must be included at the top of any correspondence.

James Williams - james.k.williams@lacity.org or fax 213-978-1029 - West LA Planning Commission
Mike Bonin - mike.bonin@lacity.org - Councilman Rosendahl's chief of staff
Greig Asher - grieg.asher@lacity.org - Councilman Rosendahl's Planning Director
Marina Martos - marina.martos@lacity.org - Councilman Rosendahl's Assistant Planning Director
Mark Antonio Grant - mark.grant@lacity.org - Councilman Rosendahl's Venice Deputy
The Venice Neighborhood Council - board@grvnc.org
The Venice Neighborhood Council Land Use and Planning Committee - lupc@grvnc.org


Back in June, I sent out an email alerting everyone about a new 57-room luxury hotel being proposed for the corner of Abbot Kinney and Brooks (one block away from Main Street). Well, I have more information about the project, and contact information for anyone interested in giving input.

I met privately with the developers on Monday night. What I heard greatly concerned me because essentially they are proposing to put a small piece of the Sunset Strip on Abbot Kinney. Frankly, it appears our neighborhood is going to get absolutely killed on parking and traffic. As currently proposed, the developers are providing 88 parking spaces for a 57 room hotel, 80 seat restaurant, 24 seat screening room, 12 seat conference room, 3 bars, a day spa, two retail spaces (museum and surf shop), and all their employees.

Let's look at those numbers again.

57 room hotel
80 seat restaurant (which can, and probably will, hold much more if you account for the bar areas)
12 seat conference room
24 seat screening room
3 bars,
2 retail spaces (museum and surf shop)
1 day spa
an unknown number of employees.

88 parking spaces

If any one of those facilities - the hotel, the restaurant, the bars - are at capacity, the hotel will simply run out of parking spaces and their valet service will be forced to park cars on residential streets - just like every other valet service on Abbot Kinney. Worse, because these situations won't be considered "special events", but everyday overflow, hotel management will have no obligation to apply for a permit or arrange for additional parking as they would for a wedding or reception.

They are also asking to build a project higher and denser than anything surrounding it - 55' tall ( 20' taller than what's allowed by the Venice Specific Plan) and with a FAR (density) of 2.06:1, which is 37% denser than what's currently allowed.

Then there's the traffic. As I told you before in my previous email, the project is expect to generate 757 additional car trips a day. But I learned something in the mean time. Another hotel is set to break ground across the street. That's right, another hotel. This one, an extended stay hotel that I understand asked for no variances, has already gone through the planning process and is set to break ground next year.

So throw a couple of hundred car trips for that project on top of the 757 for the Ray Hotel, and now you're talking nearly a thousand extra car trips a day generated by these two projects.

Folks, I have no problem adding a hotel to Abbot Kinney, and I find the idea of building a "green" hotel such as the Ray very attractive. But my concern is the developer is using "green technology" to encourage the community and our city planners to look past the negative aspects of this project. This hotel sailed through the neighborhood council last year (with very little input from the community) largely because the developer made numerous promises to utilize " green" technology in the building process. So far, these are just promises. The Ambrose Group won't receive sustainable ratings until after construction is completed. And in the mean time, they're using this rating as a shield. Take parking for instance. The developer claims they can't include more parking because LEEDS - the agency granting the "green" certification - won't let them. The theory being that it would discourage cars and encourage public transportation. Of course this is completely counterintuitive, since all it will do is encourage people to park on the neighboring streets instead.

So, while I think the "green" aspects of this building are extremely attractive, is it worth the tradeoff? Is it "green" to build a project that is out of scale with the neighborhood? Is it "green" to generate more traffic and parking overflow than the neighborhood can handle?

Why can't "green" translate into both sustainability and compatibility for the neighborhood?

When I raised my concerns to the developer, she stated that her one building shouldn't be held responsible for all the traffic and parking problems on Abbot Kinney. But according to sources inside the architect/development community, every developer on the Westside is watching this case to see if it's going to trump the Venice Specific Plan. So the hotel may be green, but its effect is going to be concrete - lots of it.

If this is what we're dealing with, then we have to start asking the hard questions. This project does not exist in a vacuum.

_____________________________________


SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK:
Will the Ray be disqualified from receiving any LEEDS rating if it increases parking, or will it just have accept a lower rating?
What is their capacity in the public areas?
Is the green area in the front to be used as a patio for an outdoor bar & restaurant? Current renderings show this space as a park-like space with a tree out front, but does not indicate how it would be utilized.
What are the restrictions on the liquor license?
What is their security? Will the outdoor areas (roof pool area and bar/restaurant patio) be open for liquor service late into the night?
When asked about the bar in the lobby, the developer focused on it being used during the day for breakfast items. This seemed disengenuous. Ask if they would accept that liquor not be served in the lobby.
Ask if the patio and roof would be closed at 10:00 p.m. due to noise considerations.
Ask if there will be music outside and if so until what time? Will live music be permitted?

Welcome

This blog has been set up to help Venetians learn about the Ray Hotel, a 57-room luxury "green" hotel being proposed for the corner of Abbot Kinney Blvd. and Brooks Ave. Posts will be added as the hotel makes its way through the planning process. Please check in often for updates.