Venice Residents Urge the VNC to Reject theAbbot Kinney Hotel Complex As Proposed

OVERVIEWOn behalf of the hundreds of Venice residents who have written to this board, signed the Change.org petition or who are in attendance tonight to raise our voices in opposition to the Hotel Complex as proposed for 1033 Abbot Kinney Blvd, we urge you to reject the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Committee regarding this project for the following reasons:

1) LUPC’s findings are based on incomplete and/or misleading information.

2) The project as proposed violates the Venice Specific Plan - it is not compatible in mass, scale, or character with the existing neighborhood.

3) The project as proposed creates dangerous development precedents for all of Venice.

4) The project as proposed creates significant unresolved parking issues.

5) The project as proposed creates significant unresolved traffic issues.

6) The project as proposed will have a detrimental affect on public safety for the nearby residences and Westminster Elementary School.

1) LUPC’s FINDINGS ARE BASED ON INCOMPLETE AND/OR MISLEADING INFORMATION

Vital documentation - including the developer’s application for Conditional Use Permits (CUP) to operate a hotel within 500 feet of a school/residential area and for expanded alcohol use, as well as other relevant documents were never entered into the public record or uploaded by LUPC to www.cityhood.org.

These documents were never referred to in the committee’s staff report or motion. For instance, never discussed was the number of on-site employees referred to in the Alcohol CUP application, the maximum occupancy of the hotel complex, and the actual number of restaurant seats proposed for the entire project - all information we obtained from the missing documents after we went downtown and obtained a copy of the original application file the developers submitted to the Planning Department.

Yet in his staff report dated 12/15/13, LUPC member John Reed states the report was based on documentation the developers provided. Subsequent conversations with committee Chair Jake Kaufman confirms committee members based their vote on Reed’s report and the documents provided by the developers to write that report.

But because the committee didn’t have all the relevant documentation, they simply weren't able to do their jobs properly. LUPC should have taken into account the conditions those Conditional Use Permits were meant to address, including the impact a 24-hour/7 day a week hotel operation as well as the sale of alcohol from 9am-2am, 7 days a week would have on neighborhood residents and the Westminster Elementary School. But they didn’t.

Incomplete documentation meant incomplete deliberations and incomplete findings.

2) THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED VIOLATES THE VENICE SPECIFIC PLAN - IT IS NOT COMPATIBLE IN MASS, SCALE OR CHARACTER WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.

As proposed, the developers will consolidate an unprecedented 8 lots* on Abbot Kinney Blvd and Electric Ave. to create a 69,477 sq ft hotel complex. This dwarfs anything else in the neighborhood.

The developers claim their hotel complex is comparable to other projects in the neighborhood, including the residential units at 1113 and 1200 Electric Ave, the Three-Square mixed-used development at 1121 Abbot Kinney Blvd and Frank Murphy’s artist-in-residence building at 1212 Abbot Kinney Blvd. They aren’t even close. These four projects COMBINED only equal 7 lots and would fit into the Abbot Kinney Hotel Complex with over 5,500 sq ft to spare. Further, LUPC’s motion to approve the Hotel Complex claims the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan and Venice LUP contain no definitions for “scale”, “character and mass”, “compatible in character”, or “compatible in scale and character with the existing neighborhood”. These words and phrases appear in the VCZSP and Venice LUP no less than 32 times - their intent and definition could not be clearer, and are all dependent on that last phrase, “compatible in scale and character with the existing neighborhood”.Put another way, the VCZSP and Venice LUP instructs us that Scale, Character, Mass and Compatibility are all defined by measuring proposed projects against the existing neighborhoods themselves. As such, the Abbot Kinney hotel complex as currently proposed is in no way compatible in mass, scale and character with the existing neighborhood.

0

17,500

35,000

52,500

70,00069,477

24,116

19,378

11,3669,000

How Does the Scale of the Hotel Compare to Other Projects On Abbot Kinney?

NU

MB

ER

OF

SQ

UA

RE

FE

ET

1212 Abbot Kinney (2 lots)

1121 Abbot Kinney (3 lots)

1200 Electric (1 lot)

ABBOT KINNEY HOTEL(8 lots)

1113 Electric (1 lot)

* It’s our understanding the developers are claiming they are only consolidating 3 lots, not 8 lots. We do not believe this claim is factual for the following reasons:

• The developer’s own application to the Planning Department lists 8 separate address : 1101 Electric, 1021-10211/2 Abbot Kinney, 1023-10231/2 Abbot Kinney, 1025 Abbot Kinney, 1027-10291/2 Abbot Kinney, 1031 Abbot Kinney, 1033 Abbot Kinney and 1047-1051 Abbot Kinney. (*see attachment A)

• A Deed of Trust the Dan Abrams recorded with the Bank of Manhattan lists 8 separate addresses. (*see attachment B)

• A title search for the 8 lots shows 8 separate addresses with 8 separate property tax bills. (*see attachment C)

• The LA County Assessor’s map lists 8 separate lots. When we visited the Assessor’s office, they could find no record of the lots being tied, consolidated or joined together. (*see attachment D)

3)THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED CREATES DANGEROUS DEVELOPMENT PRECEDENTS FOR ALL OF VENICE.

The developers are claiming their project is mixed-use in order consolidate more than two lots under section 9.A.e(4) of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan. They claim the project qualifies as mixed-use because the hotel component of the project is residential. In fact, it isn’t. We know this because:

• The Los Angeles Zoning and Planning Codes treat hotels as commercial developments. Hotels are not considered multi-family residential developments like apartments and condos. How do we know this? Because the city prohibits hotels in Multi-Family Residential Zones but allows them in commercial zones. (*see attachment E)

• Hotels do not qualify as “dwellings” under the Los Angeles Municipal Code. It defines a “dwelling” under Article 2, 12.03 Definitions, as “any residential building, other than an Apartment House, Hotel or Apartment Hotel”  (Amended by Ord. No. 107,884)

• The Venice Coastal Land Use Plan clearly defines mixed-use developments as a mixture of housing and retail

Under Policy section 1.B.1: “Mixed-use development provides an on-site mix of housing, retail, jobs and recreational opportunities consistent with the character of the Venice commercial areas”.

• So-called“ boutique” hotel rooms billed at hundreds of dollars a night are not housing by any stretch of the imagination.

These will not be long-term rentals. The hotel guests are not tenants, they are tourists. No one will raise a family in this hotel, or put down roots in Venice or do any of the normal things actual residents do in a community when they live in actual - not imagined for the sake of exploiting loopholes - housing.

• Two small apartments tacked on to the project does not qualify it as mixed-use either. The developers have included two very small apartments in the complex - they even go so far to call their project an “Apartment Hotel” in their presentations to LUPC. But the two apartments combined are only 1,047 sq ft..... less than 1.5% of the project’s overall square footage. Again, this is a gross and transparent distortion of the zoning codes and the Venice Specific Plan. If allowed to stand, it will create a dangerous precedent for Venice. Need to qualify for multiple lot consolidations you aren’t otherwise entitled to? No problem. Just slap a couple of tiny efficiency apartments onto you project and you’re good to go.

• Even if one accepts the developer’s definition of the project as mixed-use, that does not entitle them to unlimited lot consolidation.

Again, quoting 9.A.e(4) of the VCZSP:Lot consolidation of more than two lots shall be permitted for mixed-use and multi-family residential Venice Coastal Development Projects, provided the project conforms to the existing scale and characteristic of the surrounding community.

LUPC ignores the second half this statement. At 69,477 sq ft and 8 lots, the Abbot Kinney Hotel complex as proposed is profoundly out of scale with the surrounding community and other existing mixed-use and multi-family developments on Abbot Kinney Blvd. and Electric Ave.The failure of LUPC to address these issues - the attempt to redefine a commercial hotel as residential, accepting at face value token apartments meant to circumvent zoning laws, and an unwillingness put a reasonable limit on lot consolidations in order to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood - puts the future efficacy of the Venice Specific Plan at serious risk and will create dangerous development precedents for all of Venice.

4)THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED CREATES SIGNIFICANT UNRESOLVED PARKING ISSUES.

The developers say they will provide 163 parking spaces. LUPC’s motion stipulates the developers shall allow all hotel guests to park for free during the duration of their stay, all hotel, retail, spa, and office employees to park free during their employment shift hours and all restaurant and spa patron to receive free 90 minute parking validation.

Yet this is not mathematically possible.

We know this thanks to the developer’s Alcohol Conditional Use Permit application we obtained from the Planning Department (*see attachment F). Between it, and other documentation submitted to LUPC, we now have hard numbers about the project’s occupancy capacity and staffing and, as a result, a much more complete picture of how intensely the site will be used.

•55 employees on site at any given time (160 employees total)•240 total restaurant/bar/lounge seating•85 hotel rooms (plus 2 “token” apartments)•separate spa, coffee bar and 2,500 sq ft of retail space•921 total occupancy load of the space as determined by the Fire Department

So let’s do the math. That’s 163 parking spaces for 55 on-site employees, 240 restaurant/bar guests, 85 hotel rooms, 2 token apartments and an unspecified number of spa and retail patrons.The numbers don’t add up. At capacity, there simply won’t be enough parking to accommodate everyone as LUPC stipulates. The reality is our community will be indirectly subsidizing the hotel complex as inadequate parking forces guests, shoppers and employees to hunt for free street parking in our neighborhoods. Worse, since we live in the Coastal Zone, we have to get permission from the California Coastal Commission in order to get residents-only permit parking to mitigate the hotel's overflow, permission the Coastal Commission has so far refused to grant every time we’ve asked.   

5) THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED CREATES SIGNIFICANT UNRESOLVED TRAFFIC ISSUES.

The developers have attempted to downplay the impact their project will have on traffic, claiming the hotel complex will cause “less than a 1% increase in peak traffic surrounding the project”. This is a clear distortion of the information contained in the traffic report that was prepared on the developer’s behalf and entered into the public record.

In gross numbers, the report states the site currently generates 154 car trips a day and that the hotel complex will generate 840 car trips a day, for a net increase of 686 new car trips. (*see attachment G)

That’s a 545% increase in traffic. Traffic that will hit our neighborhoods 24 hours a day.

The problem isn’t just what happens during two peak hours, it’s also what happens the other 22 hours a day. Remember, the hotel will be operating 24 hours a day, so increased traffic will hit our streets not just during peak hours, but in the middle of the night, on busy weekends and during school hours as young children cross the street going to and from Westminster Elementary School.

Traffic report doesn’t mention Electric Ave.

The developers downplay that the traffic report doesn’t mention Electric Ave. even though all of the project’s traffic will be entering and exiting from that street.

Traffic report doesn’t mention impact automated parking will have on traffic flow.

This is not a minor consideration. According to independent parking consultants who specialize in automated parking, traffic flow can be significantly impeded depending on the system used.

In a 2013 article that appeared in the American Public Works Association Reporter, Donald R. Monahan, Vice President of Walker Parking Consultants of Denver, Colorado writes:

Automated garages typically offer service rates that are significantly behind those of conventional garages. For a conventional parking garage, the service rate typically ranges from 300 to 400 vehicles per hour. For automated parking, that rate is significantly lower: between 20 and 33 vehicles per hour. Therefore, in order to match a conventional facility’s efficiency, an automated garage must feature 10 times more entry and exit lanes. 

According to the hotel plans, the project only has 2 automated parking elevators, not 10. The developers have stated repeatedly they plan to hold regular events at the hotel complex. What will happen to traffic on Electric Ave. and the surrounding neighborhoods as the hotel’s automatic parking system struggles to keep up? Remember, at capacity, the complex as proposed can accommodate up to 921 people. What will happen to all those cars?

6)THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON PUBLIC SAFETY FOR THE NEARBY RESIDENCES AND WESTMINSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

There are two major unresolved public safety issues with the hotel complex that we believe will have a detrimental affect on nearby residences and the Westminster Elementary School: greatly expanded alcohol sales and the lack of any off-street delivery/trash pickup area.

ALCOHOL SALES:The issue of alcohol sales was never addressed by LUCP in their staff report or final motion to the board, but it should have been. Developers have applied to sell alcohol 9a-2am, 7 days a week.

In their Alcohol Conditional Use Permit application (*see attachment F), the developers state they intend to sell alcohol from the hours of 9am-2am, 7 days a week, and to make a full line of alcohol beverages - including hard liquor - available 24 hours a day via the hotel room liquor cabinets (mini bars). In fact, alcohol sales are so important to the developers they state in the application the entire project would be “infeasible” without it.This is an exponential increase in alcohol sales on site. Currently, there are three restaurants with ABC licenses on the same property - Joe’s, Primitivo and Willie Jane. Joe’s and Willie Jane are closed on Monday. On other weekdays, Willie Jane does not open for business until 4pm, Joe’s and Primitivo are open for lunch from noon-2:30 then closed until dinner at 5:30. None of the restaurants are open past midnight.

The developers may not be legally entitled to a liquor license for the hotel complex. Why? Because, as we discovered from the CUP application, there are already too many licenses allocated for the area. The developers state in the CUP application, “According to the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control licensing criteria, three on-site and three off-site licenses are allocated within the 600-ft radius of the site.” A search of the Alcoholic Beverage Control website reveals there are already five on-site liquor licenses within a 600-ft radius of the hotel complex (*see attachment H). It’s an issue the developers are clearly aware of since they state in the application the approval of Conditional Use “may appear to contribute to a concentration of alcohol licenses in the area.”The developers’ solution? Instead of applying for a new license, they are trying to do an end run around the community by asking to expand an existing license he owns for Willie Jane (under the name West Indies Trading Co).

NO OFF-STREET DELIVERY/TRASH PICKUP AREA The developers will not provide an off-street delivery/trash pickup area, instead creating a 3-foot curb cut along Broadway between Abbot Kinney and Electric to service delivery vehicles and trash trucks. Located literally feet from a school crosswalk at the corner of Abbot Kinney and Broadway, we believe this will create an unnecessarily dangerous situation for all pedestrians, but especially for children trying to get to and from Westminster Elementary School.

This photo taken February 7th shows delivery vehicles and trash trucks completely blocking Broadway exactly where the developer is proposing vendors service the future hotel. A three-foot wide curb cut will not keep trash and delivery trucks out of the flow of traffic, especially if they illegally double-park, which happens on a routine basis at this location. So how dangerous is it to mix trucks and kids walking to school? Just last week, in Hollywood a mother was killed and her child gravely injured when they were hit by a truck as they crossed Bronson Ave on their way to school. Bronson Ave is a small, two lane side street not unlike Broadway.Evidently, LUPC agrees with us, because they’ve stipulated a number of conditions and times limiting deliveries and trash pickups. Unfortunately, these stipulations are both unworkable and unenforceable. First of all, they do not take into account after school programs at Westminster. Secondly, they presume City agencies have the resources to babysit dozens of vendors who’ll be servicing the hotel complex on a constant basis. This is a fantasy. The city is projecting structural debt between $153 - $242 million for 2014. There are no resources for enforcement. There certainly is no enforcement now - trucks routinely double-park on Broadway and in the middle of Abbot Kinney Blvd. The idea that we will suddenly have effective enforcement in the future because LUPC stipulates it in a motion is not realistic.If the developers truly cared about the safety of pedestrians and children walking to school, at a minimum they should create a curb cut the width of the trash trucks servicing their site.

CONCLUSIONSWe urge you to reject the recommendation of the Land Use and Planning Committee regarding the Abbot Kinney Hotel Complex for the following reasons:

1. LUPC’s findings are based on incomplete and/or misleading information.2. The project as proposed violates the Venice Specific Plan - it is not

compatible in mass, scale, or character with the existing neighborhood.3. The project as proposed creates dangerous development precedents for all

of Venice.4. The project as proposed creates significant unresolved parking issues.5. The project as proposed creates significant unresolved traffic issues.6. The project as proposed will have a detrimental affect on public safety for the

nearby residences and Westminster Elementary School.

We ask the Board send a motion to the City of LA rejecting the Abbot Kinney Hotel Complex as proposed with the following stipulations:

1. The project as proposed violates the Venice Specific Plan in that it is not compatible in mass, scale, or character with the existing neighborhood.

2. The project as proposed is not a mixed-use development so does not qualify for multiple lot consolidation under 9.A.e(4) of the Venice Coastal Zone Specific Plan.

3. The project as proposed does not provide adequate parking for the site’s use.4. The traffic study for the project is deficient in that it does not address the

impact to Electric Ave and other neighboring side streets, nor does it take into account the impact of automated parking on traffic flow at peak hours.

5. A Conditional Use Permit for the sale of alcohol should be denied as there is already an undue concentration of alcohol licenses within a 600’ radius of the project.

6. A Conditional Use Permit for operation of a hotel within 500 feet a school and residential area should be denied since the project as proposed will have a detrimental affect on public safety for the nearby residences and Westminster Elementary School.

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT H