From the

Letter from Stacy Marks,
former Chairperson of the
Beverly Hills Planning Commission

I was on the Planning Commission, along with four other commissioners, and we studied the Beverly Hilton expansion for over seven months. Mr. Yukelson, whose letter was in the Weekly last week, did not study the Hilton expansion as a Planning Commissioner since he was not a commissioner at that time.

Our Commission held 10 public hearings and heard testimony from the public, staff and the applicant. We read thousands of pages of technical studies, Environmental Impact Reports, staff reports, letters from citizens and materials provided by the applicant. In addition we had several site visits.

I am compelled to write this letter to set the record straight after being approached by people with erroneous information and seeing incorrect information in print.

First - You may have received glossy brochures alluding to the Planning Commission being unanimous in approving the Beverly Hilton project. This is FALSE and DECEPTIVE. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the proposed massive and overscaled project of three towers.

 Secondly, this is NOT a hotel project that adds financial benefits to the city. It is a condo project that adds huge benefits to the developer's pocket from the quick return of their investment upon the sale of the condos. City Council and Planning Commissioners agreed about the benefits of having an additional luxury hotel in our city since we receive a major portion of our city's revenue from hotels and the impacts to traffic are not as great as other uses. The Hilton project results in a NET DECREASE of hotel rooms after the Waldorf Astoria is built. More than half of the new development proposed is for the condos. The developer argues that they needed condos to make this project financially feasible. However, the Montage Hotel (a true 5-star hotel) only has 10% of their development as condos. If indeed the developer needs to over build this site to make it economically profitable to him, why are we the taxpayers footing the bill for an oversized project that will permanently be there because he may not have made such a good deal purchasing the property.

Third, Beverly Hills can satisfy its state housing requirements without these added condos. Also, when weighing the impacts of the phased construction and additional traffic to El Rodeo elementary school and residents, is this where we want to add additional condos that we may not need, especially in this market?

Fourth, the amount of open space needs to be clarified. The Hilton says that they will reduce the area of their nine-acre property that is covered by buildings from 67% to 47%. A twenty percent reduction is not much when you consider how much of the area viewed from the streets will be covered by concrete and that all three new towers are adjacent to streets. Also, the Hilton never gives you a sense of how much green you will actually see from the exterior, not much. The site plan shows only small strips of green. Finally, what about the open air/sky space? When you look at the Hilton now and see blue sky around it, you won't see much after the three towers are completed, since the three towers flank the Hilton and one tower is 9 stories higher than the Hilton, and the other is 4 stories higher. The truth is the Hilton expansion will be a walled in concrete fortress if Measure H passes.

Fifth, the currently proposed Hilton project expansion is incredibly larger and taller than what was even proposed to us or studied in the EIR. After countless hours of deliberation, the Planning Commissioners were unanimous in removing the condo tower A across from El Rodeo School. In return, we agreed to give the developer a few more floors to his condo tower B. The Commissioners were very clear that the additional floors were granted ONLY because we were saying no condo tower A. However, in no case did the Planning Commission ever agree to the current proposal of 18 floors in condo tower B.

Sixth, the Planning Commission was unanimous to have free parking for all 700 to 800 employees. We have conditioned every commercial project before us with the same requirement so that the employees will not park instead in our residential neighborhoods, our free city parking lots or feed the meters. Currently, the proposed project has completely eliminated that condition.

Seventh, the Planning Commission was unanimous to have 4 levels of parking to meet the needs of the current hotel, the new hotel, condo residents in tower B, and guests. This condition was also completely eliminated in the current proposed project.

Eighth, most of the traffic enhancements proposed by the Hilton were already being discussed by City Council irrespective of this project. Traffic improvements to this site would be a requirement imposed on any developer wanting to build on a site that is at one of the most congested intersections.

Ninth, the Planning Commission was supportive of having a redeveloped project on this site - one that is scaled down. If we allow this developer to overbuild on this site, then why have a Planning Commission at all make recommendations based on the interests of the City and residents, and why have any building codes?

If all we are concerned with is the financial benefits to the City without heeding to a unanimous recommendation by the Planning Commission, then the logical conclusion would be to let every developer make the same argument that they too should be allowed to build towering towers because the City will make a lot of money from it. As residents, we are smarter than that.

I strongly urge voters to vote NO on Measure H. Despite the Hilton's threats, the Hilton project will not be dead. It will be resubmitted (if not by this developer, then another) to the Planning Commission with a different and smaller project that is more in keeping with the character of Beverly Hills. By voting NO, we will get all of the projected financial benefits without the burdens of a massive condo expansion. The Hilton expansion is just too big.

 Stacy Marks

Former Chairperson Beverly Hills Planning Commission

Reprinted with the kind permission of Stacy Marks and the Beverly Hills Weekly