PARK LABREA NEWS REPORT--As the Miracle Mile Residential Association (MMRA) approached the finish line in a years-long effort to establish stricter protections from the invasion of McMansions, a different group of residents mobilized to try to hit the brakes.

Box-shaped homes like the one on the left dwarf existing structures in the Miracle Mile. Residents in the neighborhood agree that McMansion development needs to stop, but they don’t agree on the right tool to get it done.

The Los Angeles Planning Commission on Dec. 8 will consider the proposed historic preservation overlay zone (HPOZ) that will protect the Miracle Mile from developers who want to replace existing residences that were built between 1921-1953 with larger, box-shaped homes. “Mansionization” – the influx of the larger homes – started years ago, and the MMRA said it will destroy the character of their neighborhood if it continues. In September, the Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC) concluded that the Miracle Mile neighborhood maintains its cultural significance to the city of Los Angeles. But other property owners have joined together to oppose the restrictions that come with an HPOZ.

“I first heard about the ‘No on HPOZ’ people literally five minutes before it was going to be decided on,” said Councilman David Ryu, 4th District, at an MMRA meeting earlier this month where dozens of residents waved red “No on HPOZ” signs.

“Even though you came in the last minute, I wanted to make sure [you were] heard.”

Opponents to the HPOZ argued that the preservation plan – which includes guidelines and review procedures for 1,350 properties – is too strict, and will stall the neighborhood’s growth and ability to attract new families. At the meeting, attendees waving red signs said they were worried that the proposed HPOZ will require residents to get approval from the HPOZ board or the city’s planning department to change any exterior component of their homes, and that it can be costly and time-consuming to obtain the permits.

The “No on HPOZ” group said they are in favor of stopping “McMansions,” but suggested the Miracle Mile instead rely on the city’s baseline mansionization ordinance (BMO), which they hope will be adopted in January. Jay Schoenfeldt, one of the leaders of “No on HPOZ” group, said they are against the preservation plan in its current form and asked Ryu to consider other options “aside from taking away property owner rights that can prevent mansionization.”

Ryu explained that the HPOZ measure was not created or intended to be “used as a tool to prevent mansionization,” and it has become an unintended cure for the phenomenon. But the process for the BMO is often delayed, and preservationists worry it could be too “watered down” to prevent mansionization by the time it is adopted. Further, the existing interim control ordinance that protects the Miracle Mile now expires in March.

Jim O’Sullivan, president of the MMRA, said the conflict arose from misinformation and misconceptions about the proposed HPOZ. Ryu blamed misconceptions on the language in the proposed preservation plan, and said the city’s planning department “really created a mess.”

“I have to admit, the planning department really screwed up with the report,” Ryu said. “They should have done a much better job because a lot of the things they told us, they didn’t really turn out that way. So we’re fixing it.”

Ryu’s office met with MMRA leaders and the “No on HPOZ” group after the annual meeting to clarify language that the MMRA agreed was “somewhat obtuse.” The MMRA explained that the intent of the HPOZ was to devise a plan that was unrestrictive and flexible.

“Both sides agreed that the language in the preservation plan, as written, was too ambiguous and could be interpreted to be more restrictive than desired,” the MMRA reported in its newsletter. “This resulted in a collegial and successful discussion of how to simplify and revise language in the plan to accurately reflect the will of the community.”

In addition, the groups clarified specific details. For example, the preservation plan will not regulate paint color. The exteriors of all properties in their present condition will be “grandfathered” once the HPOZ is adopted, and there will be no regulations on any property’s interior, or any planned additions that cannot be seen from the street. There also will not be landscaping regulations “as long as at least 60 percent of the front yard is planted with some sort of greenery.” Second story additions will also be allowed with certain setbacks.

On Wednesday, O’Sullivan said they were waiting for final clarification from the planning department. He said he is hopeful but cautious after the meetings with Ryu’s staff and the “No on HPOZ” group. The MMRA’s newsletter last week declared that the group does not expect any further obstacles in adopting the revised HPOZ Preservation Plan.

But Schoenfeldt said “that’s not exactly accurate.” On Wednesday, he said they did clarify a lot of the issues during their meeting, but that other issues were disregarded, such as boundaries of the HPOZ that fall outside of the MMRA’s jurisdiction. He said that’s a major concern because those homeowners might not have been informed or consulted. At the MMRA meeting, residents from Council District 10 asked that their homes be taken out of the Miracle Mile HPOZ. Schoenfeldt described the preservation plan as “overwhelmingly restrictive” with 255 design guidelines, of which they said 40 percent need further review.

“We felt this really needed a second meeting,” Schoenfeld said, adding that agreements made to revise the HPOZ language were not approved by planning staff, and the scale of the rewrite will be “daunting.”

The Miracle Mile HPOZ covers approximately 1,347 properties bordered by Wilshire Boulevard to the north, San Vicente Boulevard to the south, La Brea Avenue to the east and Fairfax Avenue to the west. The CHC found that most properties reflect styles associated with the designated period of architecture.

The Planning Commission will consider the HPOZ on Dec. 8 at Los Angeles City Hall, 200 N. Spring Street, in Room 340. The meeting time has not yet been determined.

(Gregory Cornfield is managing editor at the La Brea News where this report was first posted.)

-cw

VOX POP--Developer Michael Hakim shelled out more than $1.2 million in campaign contributions, lobbyist fees and payments to City Hall trust funds until finally his controversial Koreatown skyscraper was approved by the LA City Council and Mayor Eric Garcetti. It didn’t matter that nearby residents and even LA’s City Planning Commission opposed the mega-project.

As a life-long Beverly Hills resident, Hakim detested overdevelopment in his posh, leafy city — in 2009, as a Beverly Hills City Council candidate, he made it one of his top campaign issues. Then he wanted to build a 27-story luxury housing skyscraper in a low-slung, working-class section of Koreatown on South Catalina Street.

Hakim apparently forgot his campaign platform from 2009, when he ran unsuccessfully for Beverly Hills City Council. “For years,” he wrote in an election guide, “people of our city have endured traffic gridlock and parking nightmares. This must change!” He strongly urged for better public transit and “controlling overdevelopment.” 

In Los Angeles, Hakim’s Koreatown skyscraper went against all zoning protections, and residents realized it would destroy the character of the community — and possibly force them out of their neighborhood due to gentrification.

Since nobody is allowed to build skyscrapers on South Catalina Street just south of Eighth Street, a few doors away from a school, the City Planning Commission rejected Hakim’s plan. The LA Times quoted planning commissioner Maria Cadildo as calling it “wildly inappropriate.”

But Hakim paid $41,400 for a lobbyist to woo LA Planning Department officials so he could demolish what exists there now: three apartments providing housing to 14 families. He also needed special spot-zoning favors from the City Council: a “General Plan amendment” and “height district” change.

If the developer got those things, with the swipe of a pen from City Hall, his land would skyrocket in value and he would become millions of dollars richer.

Hakim spread other money around. He gave a $1,000 campaign contribution to L.A. Mayor James Hahn in 2005; $2,200 to LA City Council Member Herb Wesson between 2006 and 2014; and $700 to  Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who was running for and won the Council District 8 race in 2014. That’s $3,900, according L.A. City Ethics Commission filings.

But the really huge money poured in recently, aimed at Mayor Eric Garcetti and Herb Wesson. 

In April 2015, Hakim agreed to contribute $1 million to the city’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund and place $250,000 into Herb Wesson’s Council District 10 “Community Benefits Trust Fund.” Sounds like a lot, right? Not really. It’s only enough to build two or three affordable housing units, which each cost $450,000 and up. And don’t forget, Hakim will destroy 14 inexpensive housing units.

Garrcetti liked the looks of that $1 million. He overrode his own Planning Commission and pushed through approval of Hakim’s “General Plan amendment” and zoning changes. Garrett is eager to bring a skyscraper to a congested residential neighborhood that is among the most dense in the Western United States.

Garcetti, the L.A. Times noted, “rejected a decision by a panel of his own appointees.” 

Neighborhoods activists are still fighting against the Koreatown skyscraper.

The wildly inappropriate mega-project is just one glaring example of why we need the Neighborhood Integrity Initiative, which has been placed on the March 2017 ballot.

LA’s rigged, unfair and broken development approval process is controlled by developers, who then get special favors from City Hall politicians — and ordinary people suffer the consequences of gridlock traffic, ruined neighborhoods and the displacement of longtime residents.

We must return power back to the communities.

(Patrick Range McDonald writes for 2PreserveLA.  Check it out. See if you don’t agree it will help end buying favors at City Hall.)

-cw

THIS IS WHAT I KNOW--The feverish pace of development in LA has reared its head in the rash of high-density apartment buildings that will be sprouting west of the 405, along Santa Monica Boulevard and Ohio Avenue in West LA, with multiple sites cleared from Barry to Westgate. The city planning department appears to be tapping into Assembly Bill 744 in the hush-hush granting of building permits in the neighborhood. Signed by Governor Brown in October 2015, AB 744, which goes into effect in January, allows developers seeking a density bonus to reduce the minimum parking requirements by half when building affordable housing near qualifying transit. 

Anyone who has attempted to find a parking spot on the Westside knows parking is at a premium, even with permit-only parking for residents. Now, multiply the number of residents (and probably cars.) Nevertheless, residents and property owners near the development sites are only notified when they live or own property within a hundred-foot radius. Yes, one-hundred feet. 

Robert W. Logue of West LA says, “Sometimes, no notice is required so there are no hearings and nobody in the neighborhood even knows this feverish building activity is going on.” Logue suspects the push to approve projects seems to be “done in coordination with elements pushing for new transit lines” and may be “afforded special treatment because of the hopeful development of nearby rapid transit.” The absence of half the number of parking spaces in the new buildings might encourage residents to forgo owning a car in favor of public transportation but that’s a pretty strong “might.” 

“At a hearing I attended in connection with a building proposed for construction at 12444 Venice Blvd (Rendering above), part of the objective of the density combined with few parking spots would force an outcry in support of immediate implementation of rail transit,” says Logue. “At this hearing I was only afforded 120 seconds to state my views about the project.  There were no audio or video recordings made at the meeting nor any reports about it that will be made available to the public.” Logue adds that for most of these projects, the financing sources seem “cloaked in mystery.” 

Pushing through a large scale addition of high-density apartment projects without adequate public transit to increase the need (and acceptance) of public transit on LA’s Westside is a chicken/egg proposition or perhaps, there will be substantial growth in Uber and Lyft. 

(Beth Cone Kramer is a Los Angeles writer and a columnist for CityWatch.)

-cw

GUEST WORDS-(Editor’s Note: This column was posted in CityWatch 10 years ago … in 2006. We post this Flashback to remind you how little LA politics have changed. It is yet another ‘book cooking’ column about the misuse of your money. Question to you: what will it take and how long will you hide before you’re upset enough to do something?) 

Hard as it may be to believe, it was just six months ago that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa celebrated his managerial triumph by getting the long troubled L.A. Housing Authority (HACLA) back in the good graces of the federal government.
The mayor boasted that HACLA "has reached an important milestone in its efforts to reform ... and successfully met federally mandated reforms covering the City's Section 8 voucher program, putting the department back in good- standing and ending federal oversight of the program." 

"For the first time in years, this agency is solvent, functional and in a strong position to deliver much-needed help to low-income families in LA." 

Oops, maybe Antonio spoke a little too soon.

A new report from federal housing authorities -- that has gotten no visibility in the press -- says he spoke way too soon ... to the tune of a $27 million problem, nearly $28 million actually.

"The Authority's accounting records showed that it improperly advanced and expended more than $27 million in restricted funds to cover its operating losses for its other programs," reported Regional Inspector General Joan Hobbs in the Housing and Urban Development Report dated Aug. 21.

"The authority contended there was no misappropriation of funds, but rather the way the accounting system presented its financial transactions; however, we were unable to validate its contention."

The focus of the audit was to see if the city was still screwing recipients of Section 8 vouchers that let them live in decent units at a price they could afford but it expanded when suspicions arose that the highly-paid HACLA head Rudy Montiel  (more than $300,000) was juggling the money without regard to federal  rules or regulations.

No surprise there, the city of L.A. doesn't believe in obeying the law.

It's not entirely clear from the audit what exactly Montiel was hiding or why he was moving the money from account to account other than to conceal losses in specific areas, but HACLA's history suggests it has a lot to do with mismanagement of Section 8 housing vouchers.

From what I can see I'm willing to bet Montiel -- who's gotten a lot of favorable media treatment -- was cooking the books to make it look like the Section 8 funding problem was fixed when he, like just about everybody else at City Hall, was doing the mayor's bidding.

And in the housing area that means carrying out the mayor's insane policy of densifying the city to "address the affordable housing crisis in Los Angeles" -- a crisis manufactured by the philosophical commitment to providing new housing to any poor person who wants to live here.

Well, at least some of the people who want to live here. Because the long-standing accusation is HACLA is that it's selective about who it helps and who it doesn't.

Even as HACLA was being brought under control by federal authorities for its abuses, a coalition of public interest law firms and civil rights groups last year filed a class-action lawsuit charging it broke the law when it effectively raised the rent for more than 20,000 poor residents.

So much for the myth Antonio and his pals really are helping the poor.

HACLA disputed the finding that it lacked "prudent oversight" of its federal funds, violated any rules or misappropriated any money. The agency blamed "accounting problems," but it's telling that after getting its protestations of innocence in the record, the agency obeyed HUD's directives and reimbursed the money -- $27,801,379 of it.

Now ask yourself, what would you do if you were one of those 15 City Council members, especially those who claim they care so deeply about the poor?

Wouldn't you be mad as hell? Wouldn't you be calling Montiel on the carpet and holding public hearings and making sure this was the last time HACLA cheated the poor?

Of course, you would. But you can't because the City Hall game is fixed and the public doesn't stand a chance.

It's not like the council has shown much interest in all the troubles HACLA has had over many years.

Have they looked into why the agency is spending $7 million a year or so on outside lawyers, something that has caused so much concern when it involves bumbling City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo?

Was anybody worried when Montiel last year fired his own whistleblowing chief investigator, Abel Ruiz, after he alleged that people inside the agency interfered with his efforts to get to the bottom of an $800,000 bid-rigging scheme.

The firing followed disclosure in the Times that a housing authority manager, Victor Taracena, had awarded construction and design contracts to family members and to three firms with ties to present and former City Council members in the 14th District, the seat now held by Jose Huizar.

You don't need to ask whatever came of all that -- I told you the game is fixed.

(Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Daily News and the activist behind the Save LA Project. Read more Ron Kaye at www.ronkayela.com ) 

CityWatch

Vol 6 Issue 74

Pub: Sept 12, 2008

DEEGAN ON LA-If a tourist-filled “chop-top” open-air tour bus were to be crunched like an accordion if hit from behind or if it recklessly crashed into something ahead, it could become a death trap. The “crunch” could be caused by the vehicle’s structural integrity being compromised once the roof has been cut off. 

In our “post-truth” world, where the appeal to emotion outweigh the facts, the scramble for inside info about celebrities seems to outweigh reality as tourists rush to board these often unregulated, open-air vans to fulfill their dreams of rubbing shoulders with fame. 

It’s a wonder these possibly unsafe vehicles are allowed to operate. 

There are lots of chop-top buses cruising through the Hollywood hills, filled with tourists who may not realize the risk they are taking when they respond to celebrity tour barkers promising “behind the scenes” insight into Hollywood royalty supposedly living on their routes. 

A scary public safety point about chop-tops was made toward the end of a two-hour “Tour Bus Town Hall” that was held in Hollywood a few nights ago with a panel of fifteen officials, moderated by Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council President Anastasia Mann. Present were community members, state and local political figures, and law enforcement officials who gathered to air many issues concerning the tour buses that use the Hollywood Hills by-ways to entertain tourists with fantasies about stars who often don’t even live there. This group searched for solutions to problems caused by the proliferation of chop-top tour buses -- multiple traffic violations, illegal parking, misinformation about celebrity homes, sneaking onto side streets, endangering the lives of tourists, and the many buses and driver/guides who operate unsafe vehicles that may not even be registered or insured. 

Councilmember David Ryu (CD4), representing the Hollywood Hills, kicked off the forum, saying, “We are working with our state representatives to identify solutions.” Some of those state officials were represented on the panel, including the California Highway Patrol, the Consumer Protection and Enforcement Division of the California Public Utilities Commission, and the office of State Assembly Member Adrin Nazarian (46^th District.) Local representation included CD4 David Ryu and his deputies, Catherine Landers and Nicholas Greif, officers from the LAPD (including the Hollywood Commanding Officer,) the presidents of various neighborhood councils and homeowner associations, and tour operators. 

Several dozen members of the hillside community spoke forcefully about the intrusion of these buses into their neighborhoods. Numerous practical ideas were presented, although it was stressed that the state Public Utilities Commission has the final word on licensing tour buses; local government and police need to work through the PUC and state legislature to effect change.

Regulating public safety has to take priority over many of the other complaints voiced by the community. The possible lack of structural integrity of these passenger vans with their tops chopped off in order to give an open-air experience and a better view to the riders, poses potential dangers that must be the first priority for authorities. 

Some relevant solutions were offered, including one successfully used by a homeowners association that was able to get the Department of Transportation to use “weight” for controlling access to their neighborhood streets. Sheila Irani, President of Lake Hollywood Estates Homeowners Association (adjacent to the Hollywood Sign) explained, “The HOA adopted weight control signs and worked with LADOT to post them at all street entrances leading to the Vista. After that, we worked with CD4 and LAPD to create a task force that ticketed overweight vehicles in July 2014 and since then the tour vans coming to our area were reduced from 40 a day to one or two.” 

Another suggestion that received positive response from the CHP officers was to post “designated routes” for the tour buses to keep them off side streets. “Our office is looking into these suggestions (designated routes and weight limits),” responded Ryu. 

Tourism has a bottom line: $2.5 billion in state and local taxes were driven by tourism employment in 2015, according to Ernest Wooden Jr, President of the Los Angeles Tourism and Convention Board, the official tourism marketing organization for the City of Los Angeles. Wooden adds, “LA Tourism's focus is on ensuring that visitors to our city have a memorable and authentic Los Angeles experience.” 

Given the problems associated with top-chop tour buses, it’s time to add “safe” to the list of what LA is promising our tourists because, in the end, death has no replacement value price tag.

(Tim Deegan is a long-time resident and community leader in the Miracle Mile, who has served as board chair at the Mid City West Community Council and on the board of the Miracle Mile Civic Coalition. Tim can be reached at [email protected].) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.

GELFAND’S WORLD--What would massive resistance look like? (Massive resistance ended the Vietnam war—photo above.) 

In regard to the expected reactionary onslaught, Erik Loomis writes the following in the blog Lawyers, Guns & Money: 

"All we really have in the end is massive resistance. That is where we are heading–acquiescence or resistance. You and I will all need to make our choices about whether we will stand up against oppression in ways that a lot of our ancestors did not stand up to Jim Crow, to Chinese Exclusion, to the Japanese internment camps, etc." 

This is his conclusion after considering what Donald Trump has already done since the election. He summarizes the bad news: 

"I don’t actually have confidence that we will have a functional democracy by 2020. It’s entirely possible that historians, assuming they exist in a century, will see 2016 as the end of a period of American history where rights generally expanded. That’s because Trump, Giuliani, Sessions, Gingrich, Flynn, etc., etc., and most importantly huge chunks of the Republican base, simply do not respect the fundamental tenets of democracy and they are seeking to roll back two generations of social progress. Despite what I might have believed a mere few weeks ago, they are in fact reasonably likely to succeed. 

Some of the proposed rollbacks include the end of Medicare as we know it, the reversal of the Roe v. Wade principle, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Voter suppression will be part of the recipe. Those are just a few of the likely outrages on the domestic side. On the international side, we have almost no idea what will happen. 

The outrages will most likely be presented in legal form -- as bills before congress and as judicial appointments. What then, constitutes massive resistance? 

There are two potential paths. The first, requiring only a small number of people, is that a few Republican senators may quietly decide that they don't want Trump's power to be left unchecked. Their best approach is to leave the senatorial rules in effect, particularly the one that requires 60 senators to break a filibuster. It's the rule the Republicans used so effectively in thwarting Obama when the Democrats held a senatorial majority. It would only take three Republican votes in the senate to maintain the current rules. 

If that should happen, then it's up to the Democrats in the senate to resist and obstruct at every possible point. They should go hard on the more objectionable cabinet appointments. Even the appointments that eventually go through should be subjected to aggressive and prolonged questioning at the committee level. 

Democratic opposition is particularly important in terms of a Supreme Court nominee. If the Democrats can delay a Trump appointment permanently, that would be righteous payback and it would be protective of our system. 

It would be up to the rest of us millions and millions of people to back up the Democratic senators. We would march in the streets when necessary, and flood our senators and congressmen with mail and telephone calls. 

But if the Republicans stick together and go for a change in the senate's rules, then the deluge is upon us. It will be up to the American people to figure out what we mean by massive resistance. What would it consist of, and how can we make it effective? 

The first order of business is to decide that we are serious. To borrow a phrase from an old movie, it's called commitment. It will take tens of millions of people, acting in concert, to make the point properly. 

Here's a for instance. The first time that Paul Ryan or one of his lackeys proposes to phase out Medicare, we need to act aggressively. That means visiting the office of every congressman, writing letters (in our own handwriting), and marching in the streets. It also means raising funds in advance, so Democrats can send out mailings to the people who will be most affected. 

Imagine a television ad which shows somebody on Medicare saying, "It was great to finally get free of the health insurance companies. Now the politicians want to put me back in their clutches." 

Given the views of the congressional Republicans, we are going to have a lot to dislike. It's long since time that the saner among us form their own version of the Tea Party, but one that upholds traditional liberal values.

It's about time that the more powerful unions got on board. The dockworkers can close down shipping. They've done it before in limited jurisdictions, but suppose they were willing to carry out actions on both coasts and on the Gulf. The same argument goes for railroad workers and airline pilots. It's what should have happened (but didn't) when Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. 

One other idea, albeit a long shot. We badly need a national union of white collar workers, part time workers, and temps. It's been attempted on a limited level by graduate students and college athletes, but it never got very far due to governmental interference and a general lack of will on the part of the workers. There are at least 80 million Americans who fear and resent the Trump victory, and it's time that they unified to represent the interests of the worker bees. (Curiously, the idea that Democrats should have spoken out for blue collar workers in order to win the Michigan and Wisconsin votes has been out there since the day after the election.) It shouldn't take long before the working class realizes that Trump isn't really their guy. We should take the old country tune "Take this job and shove it" and make it into a political movement that isn't on the side of the Republican Party. 

I might add that the title of the Loomis column is a takeoff on the famous quote from H.L. Mencken, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." It's a bit cynical for my taste, but the result of the Trump election is consistent with Mencken's point of view. Loomis continues: 

"And I am disappointed in myself for not seeing this more clearly before the election. Democrats and liberals were holding on strictly to the presidency as a buffer between us and the apocalypse. Between gerrymandering, voter suppression, and a bloody ineffective DNC strategy to operate on the state level, Republicans had already grabbed most of the levers of government. And while Trump is uniquely bad in some ways, in many others, he really isn’t that much worse than your bog-standard mainstream Republican governing class such as Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Paul LePage, Rick Snyder, or, of course, Mike Pence." 

We should make use of the judicial system where possible, in particular fighting for voting rights and against gerrymanders. It won't solve everything, but it is part of the overall approach. 

We also need to create a new language of opposition. The fact that Donald Trump is treacherous, lazy, and greedy is becoming increasingly obvious, but we need to build the arguments against him using the right words and phrases. Based on Trump's most recent statement that he actually won the popular vote if you subtract out millions of illegal votes, I think that the term crybaby would be a start. 

(Bob Gelfand writes on science, culture, and politics for CityWatch. He can be reached at [email protected]) 

-cw