When crafting a paragraph – with a 75-word limit – that could shape a community’s skyline and set new precedents in city planning, semantics matter.

The rendering shows how the proposed development for the Beverly Hilton Garden and Open Space Initiative.
(rendering courtesy of the Garvey Group)

Beverly Hills City Attorney Larry Wiener learned that Tuesday when the city council and stakeholders spent much of the evening debating the specific language, down to each word, that he proposed to put on the November ballot for the Beverly Hills Garden and Open Space Initiative, and many other specifics about how it will be presented to voters.

In 2008, the city approved Beverly Hilton owner Beny Alagem’s initial plan to build an 8-story building at Wilshire Boulevard and Merv Griffin Way and an 18-story building at Santa Monica Boulevard and Merv Griffin Way for 110 residential units. The initiative, now set for the November ballot, proposes combining the two into a 26-story building along Santa Monica, and designating 1.7 acres for a garden along Wilshire instead. At approximately 345 feet, the project will be 160 taller than any other building in Beverly Hills.

The project will not require the city’s standard environmental reviews if it is approved by the voters. But the city’s report on potential impacts stated that the 26-story building would not add to the total floor area planned for with the first two buildings. The new initiative would add 10 staff rooms, but maintain 110 residential units, and there would be no loss of parking spaces. The new initiative also would add another outdoor event space, bringing the total to four. All mitigations that applied to the approved 2008 project will also apply if the initiative passes.

The project will be the first development plan to avoid city hall’s approval by going straight to the voters.

The Beverly Hills City Council on Tuesday approved plans to add rebuttals and impartial analysis on the ballot, and for the council to submit arguments.

The council also approved language for the question that will present the initiative to voters – which community members and stakeholders said was misleading, mischaracterizing, biased, confusing, false, and “clearly designed to create prejudice against the proposal.”

The revised question to be proposed to voters reads as follows:

Hilton condominium tower initiative – shall an ordinance be adopted allowing a 26 story (345 feet) residential building instead of two residential buildings of 8 stories (101 feet) and 18 stories (218 feet); increasing open space from approximately 1.25 acres to 1.7 acres for use as a private garden that is generally open to the public subject to reasonable restrictions determined by the property owner; prohibiting any discretionary architectural review; and reducing graywater use requirement.

The 2008 plan included 3.28 acres of open space, but did not identify any of it to be open to the general public. There will be 3.89 acres of open space if the initiative passes, and the developers will designate 1.7 acres as a private garden that will generally be accessible to the public – though specifics are not included in the initiative in terms of how often it will be open.

Vice Mayor Nancy Krasne, who was absent, explained in a letter to the council that she thought language should be “untainted” by choice wording that could “carry extra weight” and sway voters one way or the other.

“I have never directed anyone how to vote, and I won’t start now,” she said.

Proponents of the measure suggested deleting the phrase “be adopted” and “private” from the question, and adding “to be adopted?” at the end, among other suggestions on how the project should be presented to voters.

Many residents and stakeholders who spoke during public comment focused on the word “tower.”

Councilwoman Kathy Reims however said “tower” was used repeatedly by the developers to describe the Hilton building, referring to it as the “Wilshire tower,” and she pointed out that the structure will be three times as tall as that building.

“I don’t understand how it would be pejorative in one sense and not in the other,” she said. “I think in a way it is clearer than the original. I don’t have a problem with it.”

Mayor John Mirisch cited definitions of words like skyscraper and tower, and agreed that “tower” is harmless and appropriate, but said he was OK with both proposed questions.

Councilwoman Lili Bosse disagreed.

“How do you determine what ‘reasonable” is?” she asked, to explain how ambiguity can lead to confusion. She also said that including the phrases “prohibiting any discretionary architectural review” and “reducing graywater,” makes it feel “like we’re trying to sway an argument one way or another.”

She proposed 75 words to use instead, and said she supported a previous question over the one presented Tuesday. However, the council chose the updated version. Wiener said he believes both proposals are impartial.

City staff also submitted a report to identify potential impacts the initiative will have on the city. It was prepared by the city within 18 working days and is a “limited report” compared to typical environmental impact reviews required for city approval for buildings of this size, staff said. The city retained three consultants to prepare independent analyses of potential impacts as well.

The consultants looked at planning use, aesthetics, shade, open space, emergency services, water and sewer, power, transportation, construction, financial impacts to the city and more.

The Beverly Hills Fire Department and Police Department said they have sufficient staff and resources to serve the proposed project.