Re “Beverly Hills lays out language for Cheval Blanc measures,” March 17 issue

The Cheval Hotel promoters claim it will generate $778 million in new revenue in its first 30 years. However, what we do not hear is that:

1. The $778 million is speculation.
2. No “cannibalism” market studies were conducted. These studies determine how much business/income the Cheval Blanc would take away from the other 20 hotels in the city. As far as city revenue is concerned, any loss of city income from the other hotels in effect would [reduce] the estimated $778 million “new” income from Cheval Blanc. Without the “cannibalism” studies, there is no way to know what the detriment of the Cheval Blanc hotel on the other hotels would be and consequently its impact on the overall income to the city. The existing hotels have not expressed support for Cheval Blanc because they know its operation would be at their financial expense. In reality, to the extent that the other hotels are affected, no new revenue would be generated.
3. The development agreement permits Cheval Blanc to cease operations after six months for any reason. This means that the hotel could be misleadingly approved based upon made up income claims and then sold to a lesser hotel chain with complete impunity. This would further underscore any campaign promises as unreliable.
4. Our city’s financial health is robust and our revenues are growing. Our police and fire [departments] are already receiving the highest compensation in California through the city’s existing resources. We have no need for false inducements for the benefit of over-developers.

What we can be sure of is that Beverly Hills would have a massive hotel project with all of its detriments spanning the block from Beverly to Rodeo Drive. To name a few… a height of up to nine stories, which is three times larger than the maximum permitted by the municipal code, and over twice the maximum density allowed by code. Additionally, there would be inadequate parking, not meeting code, and a problematic permanent ingress to the hotel which would result in unnecessary traffic being diverted to Little Santa Monica and Beverly Drive, exacerbating the existing traffic congestion.

Seems to me that these “little secrets” have a strong bearing on the credibility of the hotel and its arguments.

Christine Skirmuntt Ford

Jerry Dobkin

Beverly Hills