Editor's Note: Community activist Lucille Saunders has long been in the forefront of the fight to stop over-development -- projects that add to traffic congestion, strain the water and power supply and harm the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Writer Chelsea Cody of OurLA.org -- the new online community-based newspaper now gearing up launch in coming weeks -- covered the story of the City Council voting to approve the project. The fireworks between dead-duck Councilman Jack Weiss and Councilwoman Janice Hahn captured in this video highlighted the debate.
Maintaining Illusion of Due Diligence, the City Council Green Lights La Brea Gateway Project despite Community Objections
Chelsea Cody
OurLA.org Writer
For 38-year La Brea-Willoughby resident Lucille Saunders, the Los Angeles City Council's unanimous approval of the long-contested 219-unit La Brea Gateway apartment project last week was not a surprise.
Nor was it surprising that Councilman Jack Weiss who represents the area would wish to block Saunders and other area residents from voicing their opinions before the council's decision.
Saunders has encountered a great deal of limited if not discriminatory consideration from elected leaders since her fight against the Gateway project began four years ago.
Saunders, who is the president of the La Brea-Willoughby Coalition of concerned fighting to maintain the quality of their neighborhood, has been slugging it out with developers, city officials and lawyers since 2005.
In June 2008, Saunders' coalition sued the city for violating state law and the city's general plan over its failure to conduct annual audits of infrastructure for a decade.
Appearing before the council Wednesday with about 75 of her fellow La Brea-Willoughby residents, Saunders sought to make a last-ditch appeal to the council to halt the project which had sailed through the planning process.
But without debate or allowing public comment, the council approved the project unanimously. And the issue would be closed right then short of filing a lawsuit if Councilmen Tom LaBonge and Bill Rosendahl hadn't felt squeamish about not even giving the public a chance to be heard.
They were given five minutes and so were supporters.
"We have tried to work with and within the system. But this is not a planning process it is a political process," Saunders said in an interview. "One project overrides a whole community's health and needs in order to serve those of one well connected developer."
Gateway developers, the Martin Group and Bomel Companies, have cited the project's capacity to bring jobs and amenities to the area as a primary reason for allowing the development. However, the developers and their counsel Latham & Watkins land-use attorney, George Mihlsten have been short on details about these jobs and benefits.
The tipping point Saunders said is that the project will dramatically alter the zoning classification of the area, changing an industrial zoned block into a mixed-use residential/commercial area and eventually into a strictly residential block.
This change, residents insist, would dramatically alter the character and scale of the La Brea Willoughby neighborhood.
In an area dominated by narrow streets lined with one and two-story bungalow homes and a shortage of parking, the complex of 219 apartments and about 35,000 square feet of retail space would be a dramatic departure from the neighborhood's current aesthetic.
During the council debate, there was no mention of the community's concerns: Zoning changes, environmental impact, traffic congestion or the loss of industrial jobs. Instead, the council focused on the lack of affordable housing and got the developer to agree to set aside 10 percent of the units for affordable housing -- something that was not achieved during the long process from Neighborhood Council to the Planning Department, Planning Commission and Councilman Ed Reyes pro-development Planning and Land Use Committee.
The debate climaxed with the lame-duck Weiss giving the rest of the council a lecture about how they shouldn't get involved in development issues that have gone through Reyes' committee.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn, the main target of his lecture, shot back with a fiery rebuke to Weiss, noting that the full council achieved what he had not -- an affordable housing commitment.
The vote was unanimous 13-0 -- in no small part because the issue did not come before the council until the last day for action when unanimous approval of at least 12 members was required to avoid a second vote this week which would put it past the deadline.
Saunders indicated the neighborhood coalition would continue to take steps to try to preserve their 'modest' community.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
More presents to come from Jack. 16 story tower at 300 Wetherly goes to PLUM on Tuesday. Max height in this district is 45 feet! Weiss is trying to cram this one in too.
Literally across the street on the other side of La Brea, the West Hollywood side, is the large mall with Target, BevMo, ULTA, a big box retailer and lots of small food shops in a food court. Like it or not, the place is thriving and a magnet for consumers, a huge tax revenue generator for West Hollywood. The L A side across the street is rundown with old stores that cater to a low-rent crowd and include homeless. It's been long-overdue for redevelopment, an eyesore area and a huge money-loser for the city of L A given the potential. Sure there's traffic there now -- from people patronizing West Hollywood's commercial area, so L A gets the negatives without any of the positives. (Like parts of WLA from Santa Monica, where residents also fight all development.)
The fact that a few people like Saunders don't want change doesn't mean they're right and most residents, virtually including all the younger ones, think she and her group are bullies and "old codgers" who need to get a grip on reality. They've made their views amply known over the years, but were too busy to show up at the meeting even lured by a $50.00 food coupon.
As Curbed LA reports and everyone at City Hall could see, many who showed up at the hearing were lured by the $50.00 food coupons for Whole Foods or Ralphs -- which just happen to benefit if the project with a Bristol Farms is denied. They were warm bodies whose only obligation was to stand up when asked "to be counted."
When Saunders' group shows before/after photos of the development, I can only think "bring it already," it's such an improvement over the dumpy neighborhood now, and a far more elegant and neighborhood-appropriate project than what West Hollywood has on the other side of the street. There has been an enormous amount of give-and-take that's gone into it so far. And why should L A be so suicidal as to let West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Burbank, Pasadena etc. have all the nice development and tax revenue?
Hahn came off as a grandstanding fool, literally playing to the applause of the chamber as she often does. Knowing nothing about the process that took place to date, she obviously ticked off not only Weiss but Reyes, Wesson (whose district abuts), Cardenas and anyone with any common sense and respect for colleagues and "the process." They were suckers for Saunders and it's far from the first time Rosendahl has let himself flip-flop in this way out of a desire to be liked by whoever it is he's talking to at the time. The fact that she and Rosendahl -- who's declared an intention to run for Feinstein's seat when it's vacant and is looking for any excuse to meddle to create the impression that he's somehow vital to the affairs not only of L A but also San Diego (read his statement to the Weekly and wonder) -- made fools of themselves only reflects badly on them.
IF they want to start a precedent where every single decision of every committee comes under renegotiation whenever another councilperson wants to score points of the moment by grandstanding, these two will create havoc and waste even more time than they do now. Whatever one thinks of Weiss or development or any other issue, there is an important principle at stake.
Let's see how they react if some other councilperson disses them and overturns their decisions -- Hahn in particular has gotten away with way too little scrutiny in how she handles affairs from gangs to the ports. Personally, I don't care -- let them descent into chaos and show themselves as the fools they are. Maybe things have to become really ridiculous at the council and all of them have to battle it out in more and more transparently self-serving ways until they make themselves so ridiculous that none of them ever consider running for anything ever again. Especially Hahn and "I'm just a guy in his sixties trying to make the world a better place and not running for higher office" TIL NOW when I changed my mind Rosendahl.
1. This should have waited until the new Councilmember replacing Weiss was to be sworn in as a basic courtesy.
2. Jack Weiss' comments are anti-democratic. He illustrates an important implicit thought-If the PLUM committee approves something, the City Council should rubber stamp it.
3. Even those that like development should realize that the developers for this project are being granted a special favor with a large financial value. They wouldn't even have to go through this process if they chose a "by right" project. They are in fact seeking zoning variances that impact the community and the City at large.
This isn't the fault of just Jack Weiss and Ed Reyes. Its the fault of the entire city council.
The problem with PLUM and the City Council is that they are skewed to wealthy developers over the individual citizen or even the entire neighborhood in the case of this project.
I witnessed the PLUM committee accept a motion entirely written by the developer. The PLUM committee members would never accept a motion from those in opposition to a project that was "blessed" by the District Councilmember.
The problem with this process is that it requires a very expensive alternative to make something right-a lawsuit. But the neighborhood wouldn't have to go through that expense and hardship if their leaders would represent them instead of wealthy business interests.
Thank God, Weiss is out! Weiss loves the old backroom deals and doesn't feel the public should be involved! His world is collapsing thanks to the
new found participation by the concerned residents of LA!
PLUM is a clearinghouse for projects on their way for approval at Council. Regardless of community testimony, changes/concessions will be made only if supported by the Councilperson of the District. The community should understand this, so that they don't waste their time at PLUM.
Actually, the community's only chance of getting oral objections on the administrative record is through the public hearing which is typically held in committee. In this case, the PLUM committee. So the community needs to be on top of all hearings. The staff of the planning commission, the PLUM committee, and the clerk's office for the most part are professional and can help you. The bottom line is keep on top of all meetings and hearings and submit your written and oral comments at each and every opportunity. If you and your group can afford it or has connections, get a good attorney.
Ron, thank you. This is the only place currently where issues as they arise can be openly discussed. I learned so much this morning from Charlie on how our government works.
I am glad to know that we are not necessarily
deliberately ignored but rather that in order to solve situations where there are pros and cons, each side must be treated fairly according to the laws about the different issues. It is complicated. But there are ways to get heard.
To have "our day in court" as we say. Thank you.
Also, this particular issue made me think. Our population is growing and some believe we must be prepared for this growth. On the other hand, the present population has rights as well. We live here and would like to enjoy our lives in peace.
We consider the new people interlopers on our space. Personally, I would like to see zero-growth as a goal. We are too crowded.
The sad thing is that when the community does sue, it usually wins. The rubber stamp at City Hall is done as a "favor" to wealthy campaign contributors EVEN THOUGH THE COUNCIL KNOWS THEY ARE VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THE CITY AND STATE.
The necessity of suing is used by City Hall as a barrier to justice. I am waiting for a smart civil rights law firm to put to together a federal civil rights class action law suit against the Los Angeles City Council. The dismissive attitude of Council at the Committee Level and the consent calendar "unanimous" rubber stamp approvals at City Council have become a pattern and practice that systematically deprives the residents of Los Angeles of equal protection of the laws and due process of law.
Anonymous at 10:12AM wrote: "The sad thing is that when the community does sue, it usually wins. The rubber stamp at City Hall is done as a "favor" to wealthy campaign contributors EVEN THOUGH THE COUNCIL KNOWS THEY ARE VIOLATING THE LAWS OF THE CITY AND STATE."
So the City Council does a "favor" to the developer. Then the community sues, with the expenses of the lawsuit being carried by the community (as plaintif) and the City (as defendant). No matter what happens, the developer can't lose!
Shouldn't the City charge the developer for the costs of defending the lawsuit?
If the community wins its lawsuit, should the developer be responsible for all court costs?
The whole council-every last one-is completely pro-growth. Not necessarily because they are corrupt. Witness Garcetti- a thoughtful, decent councilman. Yet, Hollywood is overrun with development and billboards. What started as good development of run down areas, has become a headlong rush to build ugly buildings. Its harder and harder to see the hills of hollywood from the LA basin.
But..what to do about folks who need decent housing? Its a tough situation that is not being handled well.
Why the council allowed Ed Reyes, then DUMBEST councilmember by far, to head the PLUM committee, I'll never know. Maybe because the other council members thought they could manipulate his stupidity. So far it's worked beautifully, sad to say. After all, Ed Reyes doesn't care what's developed on the westside-- not if it doesn't have anything to do w/ the Latino underclass or the L.A. River.