Ballot arguments on the Cheval Blanc project have been submitted to the Beverly Hills City Clerk’s office. Ballots will be mailed next month. (rendering courtesy of Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills)

Ahead of the May 23 special election on the fate of the luxury mixed-use Cheval Blanc development, the Beverly Hills City Clerk’s office has compiled ballot arguments, impartial analyses and drafts of the two ordinances approving the project and subsequent development agreement.

The documents can be viewed at beverlyhills.org/elections, though residents can also visit the City Clerk’s office – 455 N. Rexford Drive, room 290 – to view the ballot arguments during a public examination period that ends on March 17.

Rebuttals to the arguments are due on March 17, and a public examination period for the rebuttals will run from March 18-27, City Clerk Huma Ahmed said. Ballots will be mailed to residents beginning April 24, according to an election calendar released by the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk. Residents can view the calendar and other election materials at lavote.gov/home/voting-elections/current-elections/upcoming-elections.

Ahmed said her office began uploading election documents to its website during the pandemic, and it has continued doing so to make it easier for residents to stay updated.

“It’s all about transparency and having members of the public understand the [different] perspectives to make their own judgments,” Ahmed said. “It’s just about being transparent and open.”

If it goes forward, the luxury mixed-use development would transform North Rodeo and North Beverly drives near South Santa Monica Boulevard. While it has been praised by most of the City Council and many residents for potentially securing hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and reaffirming Beverly Hills as a world-class destination, it has also sparked controversy.

Councilman John Mirisch voted against the project and blasted the development agreement for favoring LVMH, the luxury goods giant behind the development, over the residents of Beverly Hills.

Some residents have complained that the project would negatively alter the character of the Golden Triangle, and that it was pushed through the approval process by lobbyists who sought to subvert the city’s zoning laws.

After the project was approved in November, residents and Unite Here Local 11, a union representing service industry workers in Southern California, gathered enough petition signatures to either trigger a referendum on the project or force the City Council to repeal the two ordinances approving the project.

The City Council voted to hold a referendum election during the Feb. 21 City Council meeting. The election will be managed by county officials and is expected to cost the city approximately $870,000, which will be reimbursed by the special interest group Friends of Cheval Blanc.

“This is going to be something that is going to be put to our residents to decide. They are the ones who live here. They are the ones that will feel the impact of this project the most,” Councilwoman Sharona Nazarian said.

During the election, Beverly Hills residents will have the opportunity to vote yes or no on Measure B and Measure C.

Measure B asks voters whether they want to approve the zoning ordinance allowing the development to go forward, while Measure C asks whether voters want to approve the city’s development agreement with LVMH, according to the analyses prepared by City Attorney Laurence Wiener.

The arguments in favor of the measures ask, “Should we affirm the unanimous vote of the Beverly Hills Planning Commission and the overwhelming approval of the City Council for a new world-class hotel on Rodeo Drive? The hotel will generate hundreds of millions of dollars to support public safety, Beverly Hills schools and other critical city services for decades to come.”

The arguments also state that the project underwent a rigorous environmental review process and numerous public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council, with more than 30 community and public meetings held over two-and-a-half years.

Sean Welch, treasurer of Friends of Cheval Blanc Beverly Hills filed the arguments in favor of the measures. The arguments were signed by Mayor Lili Bosse, President of the Beverly Hills Firefighters’ Association Victor Gutiérrez, Beverly Hills Police Officers’ Association President Alexander Duncan, Beverly Hills Education Foundation board member Rose Kaiserman and Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce board member David Mirharooni.

In the argument against Measure B, opponents argued that the proposed rezoning would allow LVMH to construct a building far taller than what current zoning laws allow. Demolition of the current buildings would result in noise and dust in the Golden Triangle, while the new development would increase traffic, block views and strain city services.

“This is yet another project where a developer hired ex-mayors and insider lobbyists to seek special exemptions and privileges which ultimately render our General Plan largely meaningless,” the opposition argument reads. “If we do not defeat this measure, bad precedent will be set and the flood gates will be opened with no way to close them, negatively impacting our quality of life here, now and forever.”

According to the argument against Measure C, the development agreement gives favorable terms to LVMH, owned by billionaire Bernard Arnault, while shortchanging Beverly Hills residents.

“The developer and its lobbyists won’t tell you about all the money the city is unnecessarily leaving on the table by not insisting upon a fair development agreement, in line with the unprecedented benefits they are receiving. Nor will they tell you that the project doesn’t generate a penny that is earmarked for much needed affordable and senior housing within our city,” the argument reads.

The arguments against the measures were filed by resident Darian Bojeaux and signed by Bojeaux, Councilman John Mirisch, former Mayor Charles Aronberg, former Planning Commissioner Rose Norton and director of Residents against Overdevelopment Deborah Blum.