Waldorf Administrative Approval

1
Waldorf Administrative Approval

• Appearance of trying to avoid scrutiny within the
  public process.
• It seems Planning Commission review is being
  avoided at all costs. Why?
• Some staff has had an active and inappropriate
  role in suppressing relevant information.
• Some staffs interpretation of the Specific Plan
  elements is stretched to beyond the boundaries of
  what is reasonable.

2
Architectural Commission

• AC Chair specifically asked for before
  renderings of voter approved project.

• Some staff duly prepared this information.

• The Assistant Director ordered this information
  to be suppressed.

• Suppression of renderings clearly in conjunction
  with applicant.

3
Waldorf Administrative Approval

• Architectural Commission, June 18

4
Latest Waldorf design
5
Previous Waldorf design
6
Before
7
Previous Waldorf designs
8
Rush job at AC

• Glossing over of substantive changes.
• Architect changed (from Gwathmey to Gensler).
• AC received new designs the same day as the
  meeting.
• AC did not receive level of detail they normally
  require for final approval.
• Nonetheless, they were pushed to give final
  approval.
• Applicant confirmed twice at the AC meeting that
  the building stayed within the mass and the
  Specific Plan.

9
AC meeting

• Design showed to the AC did not, in fact, stay
  within the mass and Specific Plan of the
  original building, adding 4 feet of height.
• The applicants statement that the building
  stayed within the mass and Specific Plan of the
  original building presumes prior knowledge of the
  Directors decision which didnt officially
  take place until some 3 months later.
• Even if one accepts the additional height, the
  mass does NOT stay within the Specific Plan specs.

10
The pitch
11
The pitch to the voters
12
The new reality
13
The Wilshire side
14
Further Study should be required

• Solely on the basis of the railroading at the AC.
• Too many differences from original design.
• Wall-like façade on both Wilshire and Santa
  Monica.
• No pedestrian entrance(s) on Santa Monica Blvd.
• 9900 Retail is all on Santa Monica Blvd., so
  Santa Monica should be pedestrian-friendly.
• Some design differences are significant in and of
  themselves, but the cumulative differences are
  even greater.
• Unreasonable to suggest everything is minor.
• Unreasonable to rush through the AC, suppressing
  requested information.
• Elements of AC approval, in addition to outdoor
  dining, should be contingent upon approval of
  landscaping (garden-like quality of City).

15
Overall process unfair to public

• AC review process flawed staff collusion with
  applicant.
• Directors administrative modifications seem to
  have been made to avoid the public process.
• Directors decisions are arbitrary and not
  reasonable.
• The decision-making process has been further
  tainted by ethics violations.
• Double standards vs. rule following for
  residents.

16
Four feet is insignificant
17
The amendments are not minor

• Jon Laits June 4 letter says the proposed change
  will increase overall building floor area by
  approximately 7,000 square feet.
• Further The request for additional project
  square footage requires a formal amendment and
  public hearings before the Planning Commission
  and City Council. Additionally , any increase in
  the capacity of function rooms for the overall
  project and changes to the corner landscape
  element that serves to enclose this space for the
  restaurant use as illustrated in the updated
  project renderings requires formal plan
  amendments.
• The Director claims that there is no overall
  increase in square footage (after having subsumed
  the figure in the overall projects permitted
  SF). Directors information comes directly from
  the applicant.
• However, Tab A2 shows each Tower floor increases
  the SF by 1269, and the Podium increases by 593.

18
Outdoor dining/Ballroom Impacts

• No updated parking study about impacts of outdoor
  dining.
• Meeting rooms can be adjusted to create a single
  large ballroom (S. Healy Keene).
• MeetingsgtBallroom seems an intensification of
  use, despite same SF.
• Off-hand dismissal of need to evaluate is
  arbitrary.
• Further traffic studies would be required to
  address potential impacts, as suggested by Jon
  Lait.

19
Not just about height

• What is significant? Material? Substantial?
• Flawed process to allow the same person to decide
  criteria along with adherence to criteria.
• Like allowing someone to play a game, and make up
  the rules at the same time.
• Definitions are arbitrary seem to be taken from
  applicant in numerous cases (mezzanine, e.g.).
• Dismissal of need for further study
  (traffic/shade) arbitrary.
• Fiscal benefits overstated (hotel doesnt want to
  pay taxes on the same basis as other hotels in
  the City).
• Increase of 84,000 cubic feet (equivalent to a 44
  foot cube).
• 7461 SF of dining area would require 166 spaces
  (not 125).
• Kicking the can style of development not good
  policy.

20
Mezzanine is a story

• According to Section 10-3-100, BH Municipal Code
  (cited by the director), for non-residential
  zones a mezzanine is only NOT considered a story
  if
• a. The floor area ratio (FAR) on the site area,
  inclusive of the mezzanine, does not exceed 2.0
• b. The height of the building in which the
  mezzanine is located does not exceed forty five
  feet (45) in height, measured as set forth in
  this chapter or three (3) stories, whichever is
  less.
• Beverly Hills Municipal Code, Section 10-3-100

21
Amendment required for proposed changes

• The addition of a story can NOT be approved
  administratively.
• Eligibility of other changes can be called into
  question.
• Specific Plan 5.3 Although every effort has
  been made to include provisions in the Specific
  Plan that are clear, the necessity of
  interpreting such provisions in light of specific
  and unusual cases may occur from time to time.
  When such interpretations are necessary, the
  Director of Community Development shall be
  responsible for the interpretation of the
  provisions of the Specific Plan. The Director
  shall be the City administrator responsible for
  enforcing the regulations, site development
  standards and procedures set forth in the
  Specific Plan.
• The Director is claiming that de facto ALL
  alterations are specific and unusual because
  this project is governed by a Specific Plan.
  This is a tautology and is both unreasonable and
  illogical.

22
Notice of Pending Decision Incorrect

• Among other minor points, the posting
  specifies Minor modifications to the heights of
  each floor resulting in an overall height
  increase of approximately 4 feet.
• Podium height has been modified from 20 to
  12-8, a reduction in 7-4.
• By any reasonable definition, this is a
  significant modification of this specific floor.
• Mezzanine information incorrect, since a
  mezzanine in this case is an additional story.

23
Process matters

• AC Staff actively and inappropriately suppressed
  information specifically asked for by the
  Commission.
• Apparent coordination/collusion with applicant
  (definitions, etc).
• Determination and application of criteria
  favorable to applicant.
• Unreasonable and arbitrary findings.
• Ethics violations tainted process.
• Significant issues not addressed wall,
  streetscape, etc.
• Some individual changes, e.g. addition of a story
  and intensification of use (ballroom) significant
  in and of themselves. Cumulative effect is
  significant.
• Does not seem kosher. Tip of the iceberg?

24
Remedy

• Not advocating for or against proposed
  changes (though some raise questions).
• Put these elements through the public process
  without prejudice.
• Public trust in the process is important.
• Fairness is important, both to applicant and the
  public.

25
Before/After
26
Before/After
27
Lets listen