LA City Council to revisit controversial Bulgari hotel application today

A controversial luxury hotel that a developer wants to build on the hillsides of Benedict Canyon, nestled among the Santa Monica Mountains, is set to come before the Los Angeles City Council again on Wednesday, Aug. 16, three months after the councilmember representing that area tried to kill the project.

The proposed Bulgari Resort & Estates Los Angeles would feature a 58-room hotel, the Bulgari’s signature restaurant, an exclusive eight-seat sushi bar, a state-of-the-art gym, a 10,000-square-foot spa and a private cinema. The venue is expected to host special events such as weddings and corporate functions.

In addition, eight single-family homes, ranging from 12,000 to 48,000 square feet, would be built on the property, which spans nearly 33 acres along West Oak Pass Road, West Wanda Park Drive and North Hutton Drive in an area susceptible to wildfires.

Supporters maintain the resort would respect the environment and wildlife, create jobs for construction and hotel workers, and improve fire safety in the area.

But opponents worry about the impacts to an environmentally sensitive area, and to nearby residents, due to potential noise and traffic — and alleged ethical conflicts involving a former L.A. City Hall staffer during the early stage of the application process.

The land is zoned for “very low” or “minimum” residential use, not commercial use. The developer is seeking an amendment to the Los Angeles General Plan to allow “high-medium residential” development on the property, according to a motion opposing the development made by Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, whose Westside district includes Benedict Canyon.

Yaroslavsky’s motion in March states, “The proposed six-star hotel will strain infrastructure in a community otherwise planned and developed for low-density, single-family development. … Due to the remote hillside location and other reasons … the project will not enhance the built environment in the surrounding neighborhood or perform a function or provide a service that is essential or beneficial to the community, city, or region.”

In a rare deadlock, the City Council voted 7-to-7 on a request that the city’s planning director consider halting the developer’s pursuit of a general plan amendment.

Developer Gary Safady told elected officials in May that his goal was to show that such projects can fit in “seamlessly” with the environment, and that he’d been working with stakeholders to ensure “an exceptional eco-friendly development.”

“The (environmental impact report), when published, will reflect our ethos – the environment, the wildlife, fire prevention, traffic mitigation, open space, sustainability are first. That is why it’s important the process continues,” Safady said at the time.

In an email Tuesday, Safady expressed hope that the council this week will allow the process to move forward.

“Since the last City Council consideration of this motion, the project team has been working diligently with the City’s Planning Department to release the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for public review,” he wrote. “With this DEIR process nearly complete, we feel confident that the majority of the council will choose to evaluate the project on its merits as required by law and vote to deny the (Yaroslavsky) motion, and allow the administrative process to proceed.”

Safady said his team is working with the Los Angeles Planning Department to release the project’s draft environmental impact report within 90 days.

Public weighs in

Members of the community are divided about the project’s benefits.

A group called Save Our Canyons says a commercial hotel should not be allowed in an area considered a high-fire severity zone.

The roads in the area are narrow, steep and windy. Adding guests, hotel workers, vendors and delivery drivers to the area would not only increase traffic, but make it more challenging to evacuate in the event of a fire or other emergency, the Save Our Canyons members say.

They also argue that hundreds of mature and protected trees, including oaks and other native trees, would be destroyed during construction.

“This is just a wildly inappropriate project that is totally out of step with the surrounding community,” said Mark Levin, board president of Save Our Canyons, in an interview. “The precedent that it would set for the entire Santa Monica Mountains is disastrous.” Levin has lived adjacent to the proposed project site for two decades.

Even if the City Council rejects Yaroslavsky’s motion this week, thus allowing the developer to continue with his application, the ultimate decision to allow an amendment to the city’s general plan would still require final approval by the City Council and Mayor Karen Bass.

But opponents of the project say the city should quash the developer’s application now.

“We’re trying to spare the city and the community from spending any more time on a project that, on the face of it, is very inappropriate,” Levin said.

Other groups that oppose the project include the Sierra Club, Tree People, Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Center for Biological Diversity, and Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife, Yaroslavsky said in a recent email to her constituents.

Meanwhile, a group called Enhance Our Canyon has launched a campaign to support the project. The group is spearheaded by some Benedict Canyon residents. It has received “nominal donations” from Safady or his company, the developer acknowledged.

According to the Enhance Our Canyon coalition and supporters, who spoke during the May city council meeting, the project will result in net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and be LEED gold-certified, respect local wildlife and habitat, create jobs and increase property values in the area.

Safady also said Tuesday that “all significant and protected trees” that are removed will be replaced, resulting in a net gain of trees in the area. The number and type of trees replaced will be consistent with the city’s protected tree ordinance, he said.

At the same time, four former members of the Los Angeles Fire Department who have worked with Safady on the proposed project recently wrote to the City Council, saying they believe the project would improve fire safety in the area.

The project, they said, would include building wider, upgraded access roads to accommodate all fire vehicles and apparatuses; installing new fire hydrants and water mains; and removing brush and non-native, fire-prone trees and replacing them with native, drought-resistant vegetation, among other safeguards.

“These fire safety measures will improve safety for our firefighters, allowing first responders to access points currently not accessible and improving the ability to respond in the area in case of an emergency,” the letter states. It was signed by retired firefighters John Miller, Jimmy Hill, Darrel Arbuthnott and Craig Fry, who previously served as deputy or battalion chiefs or as a bureau commander.

Beyond fire issues, some stakeholders worry what the project could mean for future hillside projects.

The Westside Regional Alliance of Councils, a coalition of all 14 neighborhood and community councils in L.A.’s Westside, said in a letter to members of the City Council that the alliance has not taken a position on Yaroslavsky’s motion or the Bulgari project. But it noted that the proposed project would require changes to the Benedict Canyon Specific Plan from “very low” or “minimal” residential density to “high-medium” residential density.

“The use of specific plans in this manner creates significant negative impacts for all residential communities, the environment and natural resources,” the alliance stated in its letter. “We urge our City Councilmembers to reject land use applications for individual development projects that represent a misuse of the Specific plan process.”

Meanwhile, members of various labor unions representing construction and hospitality workers spoke in favor of the project during the May council meeting, and a representative for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor said the hotel would provide thousands of union jobs.

The proposed development has also reportedly gotten the attention of Hollywood celebrities, who have lined up on both sides of this divisive project.

Council deliberations

Beyond the merits of the project, ethical questions have been raised about how the application was handled by the office of the previous Council District 5 officeholder, outgoing Councilmember Paul Koretz, before Yaroslavsky replaced him.

A lobbyist for the developer is married to Koretz’s former planning deputy, who was working in Koretz’s office when the application for the project was filed, according to Yaroslavsky.

“The optics of this alone are terrible and the conflict was real … At the very best, the optics of how the general plan amendment process began are rotten. And we as a city council have an obligation to right the ship and to stand up to the backroom influence-peddling that has corrupted our land-use processes for decades. It erodes public trust in our institutions and we have to root it out,” Yaroslavsky said during the May council meeting.

Safady, in his email Tuesday, said he had “limited interaction” with Koretz or his planning deputy about the general plan amendment, and that it was the city planning director who initiated the amendment process — “independent of any councilmember.“

The council ended up deadlocked in a 7-7 vote during the May meeting over Yaroslavsky’s request that the city’s planning director consider ending the general plan amendment process.

Since then, the Los Angeles City Council has added a 15th councilmember with the election of Imelda Padilla in June. It’s unclear how she will vote on Wednesday when the item returns to the full City Council.

It’s also possible that councilmembers who voted in May could change their votes.

A potential wildcard could be Councilmember Traci Park, who voted against Yaroslavsky’s motion in May — despite expressing concerns over potential environmental impacts.

At the time, Park, who represents Council District 11 on the Westside, said that like Yaroslavsky, she represents a district with high fire severity zones and sensitive habitat. She expressed concern over increasing density in environmentally sensitive areas, and potential wildfires. But Park noted that the project’s environmental impact report had not been completed.

“I am very concerned about the environmental impacts. I am very concerned about wildfire safety. And I will expect that every single one of those issues be addressed and that we have a robust debate about what those actually are — when the process has been completed,” Park said before voting against Yaroslavsky’s motion in May.

On Tuesday, Park’s spokesperson said in an email that her office was still reviewing information “to come to a decision” when asked how the councilmember plans to vote this week.