Hollywood Unbound

The Public Square: December 3–5, 2012

2012-12-02T23:25:00.000-08:00

A brief look at items of interest to Hollywood residents that are on upcoming agendas at City Council, City Council Committees, Neighborhood Councils, various City Boards and Commissions, and County Board of Supervisors. LA City Agendas can be found here and LA County Board agendas can be found here.

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, December 3:

No meetings of note.

Tuesday, December 4:

Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Council Committee (8:30 AM)
- Item 4 (Council File 11-1150-S5)
  - LA for Kids Steering Committee report (.pdf) relative to scope and budgetary modifications for the East Hollywood Public Garden and Achievement Center Project.
  - The East Hollywood Public Garden and Achievement Center Project is a proposed community garden that will be developed on the rear portion of a 0.56 acre City owned, and currently undeveloped, park property located at 1171-1175 Madison Avenue in East Hollywood. The rest of that park site will be developed with a small neighborhood park.
- Item 19 (Council File 12-1178-S1)
  - Motion (.pdf) relative to a proposed Ordinance to amend Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 17.12 E to remove reference to the outdated Public Recreation Plan and allow for the Board of Recreation and Parks Commissioners to create policies, procedures, and standards for new parks and open space.
County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 4 (Council File 12-0967)
  - Continued consideration of a Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and related California Environmental Quality Act findings, relative to an appeal (.pdf) from a determination of the City Planning Commission to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection with a project proposing the construction of a 49-unit mixed-use residential/commercial project at 5241-5247 West Santa Monica Boulevard.
  - The Committee report recommends that the appeal be denied and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and associated findings, be adopted and approved.
- Items 19 & 20 (Council Files 12-0395-S5 and 12-0395-S6)
  - Motions relative to Los Angeles Fire Department Response Times.
  - Viewpoints: Expect lots of fireworks and grandstanding. What gets me is how the City Council members are now all of a sudden concerned with LAFD’s response times when they were the very same people who voted for cutting tens of millions in funding from LAFD’s budget. Come on now, what did they expect would happen?

Wednesday, December 5:

Housing, Community, and Economic Development Council Committee (8:30 AM)
- Item 7 (Council File 12-0049)
  - Los Angeles Housing Department report (.pdf), and CAO and CLA to report, relative to the transfer of the housing assets and functions of the former CRA/LA to the City.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 31 (Council File 13-1100-S5)
  - Continued consideration of a motion relative to a proposed ballot measure to change the City Charter in order to permit the CLA (which works for, and reports to, the City Council) to employ its own attorneys.
  - Request that the City Attorney draft the appropriate ordinance and resolution so the proposed measure could be on the ballot for the May 2013 election.

Its Curtains for Cirque du Soleil’s “Iris” Show

2012-12-02T22:15:00.000-08:00

The weekend the LA Times reported that Cirque du Soleil’s “Iris” show at the Dolby Theater at Hollywood and Highland will be closing down on January 19, 2013. From the article (emphasis mine):

Cirque du Soleil announced Friday that the demand for tickets to "Iris" had not "met expectations," but it declined to provide box office figures.
"Iris" opened in September 2011 at an estimated cost of nearly $100 million in production expenses and theater renovation, helped along by a $30-million loan from the city's Community Development Department to a partnership set up by the CIM Group, which owns the theater and the rest of the Hollywood & Highland Center.
[snip]
Renee-Claude Menard of Cirque said by phone from Montreal that the company spent $50 million to $55 million to produce the show. She said the cost of renovating the theater, reported to be $40 million, was paid by the CIM Group. "We put a huge effort into marketing and overseas marketing, but nothing would tilt the needle," Menard said. "The L.A. market is not ready for a permanent show."

As you may recall, back in 2009 the LA City Council approved a $30M loan from the City, using funds borrowed through the HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program, to an wholly owned subsidiary of CIM Group, for capital improvements to the Dolby Theater to support the production of the new Cirque du Soleil show. In exchange for that loan, CIM committed that Cirque du Soleil would (1) stay in Hollywood for 10 years, (2) perform a minimum of 368 shows per year, and (3) create or retain at least 858 new full time jobs, of which, 51% were to be filled by low to moderate income persons. As collateral against a CIM default on the loan, the City was to secure either a 2nd Deed of Trust in the Hollywood and Highland Center or assignment of rents from the Dolby Theater / Hollywood and Highland Center.

Below, via the LA Times, is what CIM had to say about the status of that $30M loan:

The company that owns Hollywood's Dolby Theatre said Saturday it will comply with the obligations of the $30-million loan provided by Los Angeles city officials to lure Cirque du Soleil to the Hollywood & Highland shopping center.
One day after Cirque du Soleil announced it will close its lavish production "Iris" due to disappointing ticket sales, CIM Group spokeswoman Karen Diehl issued a statement saying payments would be made as scheduled on the city loan, which was approved by the City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. CIM Group owns both the mall and the theater.
"The loan is current, and CIM will repay the entire obligation of the loan in full," the company's statement said. Neither CIM Group nor city officials could describe the payment terms or say when the loan is scheduled to be paid off.

I’d note that if CIM ultimately does default on the loan the City would be obligated to use its current and future Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program allocations to cover the loan amount as security for the loan. That means the City would have less funding for critically needed social programs, services, and economic development projects in its low income / high poverty communities.

If you’re interested, below are several posts I wrote concerning this deal back in 2009 wherein I raised a lot of questions about the economics of this deal and whether or not this was a valid and appropriate use of the City's current borrowing capacity under the Section 108 Program:

Can’t wait to see how this story unfolds over the coming days and weeks. More importantly, I can’t wait to see CIM pay back the $30M loan so the City is not stuck holding the bag for this flop.

The Public Square: November 19–21, 2012

2012-11-18T22:40:00.000-08:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, November 19:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 7 (Council File 11-0086-S4)
  - CAO Report (.pdf) and Department of City Planning report (.pdf) relative to proposed staffing and funding associated with the potential transition of land-use authority that was previously managed by the former CRA/LA to the Department of City Planning. The Department of City Planning is proposing to establish a new 11 person unit to oversee these activates.
  - Per the CAO Report (emphasis mine): “It is in the best interest of the City to move forward with the transfer of the CRA/LA land-use authority to ensure that City economic development goals can be achieved. The City is preparing a new model for economic development that may include the creation of a new department and nonprofit entity. For economic development to be successful, it is important for the City to control land-use responsibilities for the entire City”.
East Hollywood Neighborhood Council Governing Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf).
  - Meeting will be held at Armenian Youth Center (1559 North Kenmore Avenue).
Hollywood United Neighborhood Council Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda.
  - Meeting will be held at Seventh-day Adventist Church of Hollywood (1711 North Van Ness Avenue).

Tuesday, November 20:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 5 (Council File 13-1100-S6)
  - Ordinance relative to a proposed ballot measure to add a half cent transactions and use (sales) tax in the City, which would be placed on the March 5, 2013 ballot.
  - Per a CAO/CLA joint report (.pdf) the proposed tax would raise up to $215 million in additional revenue for the City’s General Fund.
  - Viewpoints: If residents want the City to provide them with services they will need to pay for them. Simple as that. A sales tax is not necessarily the optimal option, but at this point it is the only reasonable option being put out there.
- Item 8 (Council File 12-1604)
  - Consideration of items related to the Target Shopping Center project proposed for the corner of Sunset and Western (5520 Sunset Boulevard) in East Hollywood:
    - Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee Report.
    - Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and associated findings.
    - Various discretionary approval requests, including several exceptions from the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan, a Site Plan Review, and a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol, and associated findings.
    - Various appeals.
  - The Target Shopping Center project proposes to construct a 163,862 square foot Target store along with 30,887 square feet of other smaller retail, food, and associated uses in a 3-level building. The first floor of the building would have retail (along both Sunset and Western) while the Target store itself would be located on the structure's third level. A total of 458 automobile parking spaces would be provided in two parking levels, on ground floor and one above ground
Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee (2:30 PM)
- Item 1 (Council File 11-1735)
  - Department of City Planning Report (.pdf) relative to potential planning tools (such as a Fence Height District or Variances) that could be used to address the desires of some East Hollywood residents to have higher fences than normally permitted.
Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Board (7:30 PM)
- Agenda.
  - Meeting will be held at the Los Feliz Community Police Center (1965 North Hillhurst Avenue) in the second floor meeting room.
- Item 6 (Appointment)
  - Appointment to vacant District B Representative seat.

Wednesday, November 21:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 29 (Council File 12-0011-S29)
  - Motion to transfer $3,125 from the CD 4 portion of the Street Furniture Revenue Fund to pay for tree trimming at the Hollywood Civic Center.
  - Viewpoints: In my eyes this is a legitimate use of Street Furniture Revenue Funds, however this work is the type of work that really should be funded out of the City’s General Fund – not out of dedicated special funds.

The Public Square: October 29–31, 2012

2012-10-28T21:29:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, October 29:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 2 (Council File 12-0600-S166)
  - CAO's First Financial Status Report (.pdf) for Fiscal Year 2012-2013. Per the report, the City is, just four months into the fiscal year, already projecting a budget shortfall of $16.6 million. The shortfall is due to “expenditure shortfalls and unbudgeted expenses” primarily at LAFD, LAPD, City Attorney, and the General Services Department.
  - CAO has also prepared an addendum (.pdf) to the First Financial Status Report that lists 209 “temporary” positions (of which 186 are filled) that the Mayor has the authority to eliminate after December 31, 2012. The First Financial Status Report states that (emphasis mine) “In light of the City's current budget status and projected deficits identified in the Four Year Budget Outlook, there are no ongoing funds available to keep the 186 filled positions through the end of the fiscal year. Delaying this action makes solving the 2013-14 budget gap even more difficult as the Outlook already assumes elimination of these positions after December 31, 2012”.
  - CAO is also recommending, supposedly as a cost-saving measure, the elimination of 50 positions in the City Attorney’s Office (specifically in the Criminal/Special Litigation branch) in response to on-going challenges of the legality of mandatory employee furloughs for certain positions in the City Attorney’s Office.
  - Viewpoints: As noted in a recent LA Times story, the bulk of these 208 positions are civilian administrative employees in the LAPD. While I don’t doubt the need for these types of positions, every City Department, including LAPD and LAFD, must learn to live within its adopted budget, especially during these next few lean years. If Department General Managers, including the Police and Fire Chiefs, can’t manage their Departments given annual budget constraints and staffing allocations then they should step aside (or be removed) and replaced with someone who is up to the task.

Tuesday, October 30:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 9 (Council File 13-1100-S2)
  - Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Council Committee Report relative to a proposed ballot measure to raise $39 dollars per parcel for city parks and park programs.
  - Per the report, and pending City Attorney’s drafting of the appropriate resolution, the proposed measure could be on the ballot for the March 5, 2013 election.
- Item 12 (Council File 13-1100-S4)
  - Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Council Committee Report relative to a proposed ballot measure to increase the documentary transfer tax through the implementation of a new tiered tax structure.
  - Per a CAO/CLA joint report (.pdf) the proposed tiered tax structure would be a “progressive tax structure based on sales price (rates ranging from $2.25 to $9.00 per $1,000 of the sale price)” that would “generate between $76.1 million and $82.4 million in additional revenues, while reducing property sales by 283 transactions per year”, which is only a 1% reduction in annual property sales. The City’s current documentary transfer tax rate is $4.50 per $1,000 of the sale price.
  - Per the report, and pending City Attorney’s drafting of the appropriate ordinance and resolution, the proposed measure could be on the ballot for the March 5, 2013 election.
- Item 20 (Council File 12-0011-S27)
  - Continued consideration of a motion to transfer $250,000 from the CD 4 portion of the Street Furniture Revenue Fund to the CD 4 office salaries account to pay for CD 4 Council Office staff salaries.
  - The motion states that “there is a great need for additional Council staff to focus on transit related projects, sidewalk projects, curb / sidewalk improvements, beautification projects needed to improve conditions for public transit patrons, and all expenses relating or incidental thereto in Council District 4”.
  - Viewpoints: As I’ve previously noted, Street Furniture Revenue Funds must be used for the specific purposes identified in Los Angeles Administrative Code Section 5.121.7, which includes improvements to public streets, public transit systems, and the beautification of public right-of-ways. These purposes do not explicitly include the funding of general staff salaries nor funding for "general services" to the community. Also, as I noted the last time CD 4 raided the Street Furniture Revenue Fund to pay for staff salaries, if these funds are transferred into the CD 4's general salary account then they absolutely cannot be used "for any aspect of efforts" as the Motion states as these funds will be only be available to pay for Council staff salaries.
- Item 21 (Council File 13-1100-S5)
  - Motion (.pdf) relative to a proposed ballot measure to change the City Charter in order to permit the CLA (which works for, and reports to, the City Council) to employ its own attorneys.
  - The motion states that (emphasis mine) “Our budgetary limitations have stretched the abilities of the City Attorney to provide legal services in a variety of areas while still maintaining a focus on public safety. In the case of the City Attorney's role as advisor to the City Council, this has resulted in the delay of many key ordinances which the Council is waiting to adopt as well as in other legal services necessary for the Council to proceed with its duties and responsibilities”.
  - Per the motion, and pending City Attorney’s drafting of the appropriate ordinance and resolution, the proposed measure could be on the ballot for the March 5, 2013 election.
  - Viewpoints: If its just an issue of staffing, then the City Council could easily fix the situation by providing the the City Attorney with more funding. Of course, this issue isn’t so much about funding and staffing issues at the City Attorney’s Office as it is about the Council attempting to chip away at the authority and independence of the City Attorney’s Office.

Wednesday, October 31:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.

The Public Square: October 15–17, 2012

2012-10-14T20:55:00.001-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, October 15:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 5 (Council File 12-0600-S164)
  - City Controller report (.pdf) relative to the Preliminary Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2011-12, which provides detailed information regarding fiscal year-end closing results for the City’s Reserve Fund along with the status of the City’ General Fund and the City’s bonded indebtedness.
  - Viewpoints: I generally wouldn’t highlight this type of report, but I think its important to note it only because during this Mayoral election season we’re going to hear a lot a talk about how the City is about to go bankrupt. It isn’t. Not yet at least. The City does face some long term challenges (revenues, services, pensions, job growth, etc.) but its finances, and financial management, are relatively stable.
East Hollywood Neighborhood Council Community Forum & Board Meeting (6:30 PM)
- Agenda not yet available on the web. Check here for the Agenda.
  - Meeting will be held at L.A. City College (855 North Vermont Avenue) in the Faculty & Staff Center.
Hollywood United Neighborhood Council Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf).
  - Meeting will be held at Seventh-day Adventist Church of Hollywood (1711 North Van Ness Avenue).
- Item 7 (Board Nominations)
  - Nominations for four vacant Board seats.

Tuesday, October 16:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.
Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee (2:30 PM)
- Item 1 (Council File 12-1484)
  - Communication from the Mayor (.pdf) relative to the appointment of Marsha Brown to the Central Los Angeles Area Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 2017.
Personnel and Animal Welfare Council Committee (3:00 PM)
- Item 3 (Council File 12-0307-S3)
  - City Attorney Report and Ordinance (.pdf) to amend the Los Angeles Municipal Code’s section on Equine License Fees, in order to create a multi-year licensing option with a discounted fee schedule for multi-year registrations.
  - The Equine License Fee is $14. If this proposed ordinance is approved, horse owners would receive a discount of 10% for one year, 20% for two years, 30% for three years, 40% for four years, and 50% for five years.
  - Viewpoints: The fee per horse is only $14, but apparently the City is willing to give horse owners a 10% discount simply for registering their horse for one year. Yes, you read that right: A discount just for registering their horse, which they are already legally required to do, for one year. Does the City think that the extra $1.40 discount will get people to rush and register their horses? Really? It is this type of small silly stuff that is a clear sign that the City’s elected officials have their priorities all screwed up. What a waste of City staff time and resources.
Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Board (7:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at the Los Feliz Community Police Center (1965 North Hillhurst Avenue) in the second floor meeting room.
- Item 5B (Rules And Elections)
  - Continued discussion of the proposed change of the official name of the Neighborhood Council from “Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council” to “Los Feliz Neighborhood Council”.

Wednesday, October 17:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.

The Public Square: September 24–26, 2012

2012-09-23T22:42:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, September 24:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 6 (Council File 12-1436)
  - Motion instructing the CLA to work with various Department to implement a searchable database of names of individuals owed a refund for parking violation citations refunds, but who have not collected it, so those individuals can collect the refund owed to them by the City.
  - Viewpoints: Good idea, but the thinking here is too small. Why not expand this idea to create a master database of all refunds owed to all individuals regardless of what type of fine they originally received. This is a good, smart move, and should just be limited it to refunds of parking citations.
Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council Board Meeting (6:15 PM)
- Agenda
  - Meeting will be held at the Hollywood City Hall (6501 Fountain Avenue) in the Large Conference Room.
- Item 7.B.V.A (Planning Committee Report/Presentation)
  - Motion from the Planning Committee recommending that the Board not support a request for a zone change for a proposed 76-unit residential development project at 1411 Highland Avenue (CPC-2012-2405-VZC-ZAA-SPR), “as this location on a major commercial corridor requires a commercial component in order to meet the findings for good planning practice”.
  - Backstory: In 2006 the City approved the development of a mixed-use residential commercial, with 56 residential units and approximately 6,800 sqft of commercial space, at this site (Council File 05-2628). The owner of the site is now proposing a change in those approved entitlements and a revision of the project in order to develop a 76-unit residential-only project.

Tuesday, September 25:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 6 (Council File 10-1942)
  - Public Hearing of Protests relative to the proposed vacation of a public alley located just west of Vine Street and between Santa Monica Boulevard and Eleanor Avenue.
  - Backstory: The City Council approved this alley vacation on August 15th. They did so even though The Bureau of Engineering recommended (.pdf) that the vacation be denied because the proposed vacation is not in conformance with elements of the City’s General Plan (i.e. the Hollywood Community Plan and the General Plan Transportation Element) and “the purpose of the vacation request is to provide a private gated driveway for the petitioner's property”.
- Item 12 (Council File 11-0305).
  - Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee report relative to the reappointment of Mr. George Hovaguimian to the City Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 2017.
- Items 16 & 23 (Council File 12-1504)
  - Energy and Environment Council Committee report, and Ordinance, relative to the approval of the LADWP’s Incremental Electric Rate Ordinance, which would amend existing LADWP power rates and raise those rates for the next two fiscal years.
- Item 17 (Council File 12-0967)
  - Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, and related California Environmental Quality Act findings, relative to an appeal (.pdf) from a determination of the City Planning Commission to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection with a project proposing the construction of a 49-unit mixed-use residential/commercial project at 5241-5247 West Santa Monica Boulevard.
  - The Committee report recommends that the appeal be denied and the Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted and approved.

Wednesday, September 26:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- The City Council is on recess on Wednesday September 26th for the Yom Kippur Holiday.

The Public Square: September 17–19, 2012

2012-09-16T22:50:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, September 17:

East Hollywood Neighborhood Council Community Forum & Board Meeting (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at L.A. City College (855 North Vermont Avenue) in the Faculty & Staff Center.

Tuesday, September 18:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.
Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee (2:30 PM)
- Item 1 (Council File 11-0305)
  - Communication from the Mayor (.pdf) relative to the reappointment of Mr. George Hovaguimian to the City Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 2017.
Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Board (8:00 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at the Los Feliz Community Police Center (1965 North Hillhurst Avenue) in the second floor meeting room.
- Item 9A (Green & Neighborhood Improvement Committees)
  - Motion to approve a board resolution stating that the Neighborhood Council supports increasing green space and the addition of a recreation center in Los Feliz.
- Item 10B (Rules And Elections)
  - Motion to consider changing the official name of the Neighborhood Council from “Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council” to “Los Feliz Neighborhood Council”.

Wednesday, September 19:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.
Energy and Environment Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 1 (Council File 12-1504)
  - LADWP Board of Water and Power Commissioners report and Resolution (.pdf), and joint CAO, CLA, and DWP Office of Public Accountability (Ratepayer Advocate) communication relative to LADWP’s Incremental Electric Rate Ordinance.
  - Per the report, “Approximately 76 percent of all residential customers will see an annual average rate increase less than or equal to the system average of 5.5 percent over the next two fiscal years” and residential customers “who consume four times the monthly system average (roughly 2,000 kWh) will see an increase of 8.1 percent…”.
Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council Board Meeting (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at the Women's Club of Hollywood (1749 North La Brea Avenue).

LA City Elections 2013: Mayoral Candidate Eric Garcetti Gives First Major “Policy” Speech on his Vision for Los Angeles

2012-09-15T11:45:00.000-07:00

This past Thursday Councilmember Eric Garcetti gave what LA Observed called “his first major speech as a candidate for mayor” at Los Angeles City College in East Hollywood.

The LA Times’s take (emphasis mine):

In one of the first major policy speeches in a mayoral campaign that so far has been dominated by fundraising pitches, Los Angeles City Councilman Eric Garcetti laid out a plan to create jobs and reform a City Hall system he called "broken."
[snip]
Speaking to a crowd of about 200 at Los Angeles City College on Thursday, Garcetti pledged to bring computer programming classes to schools and to create an office that would partner with universities to encourage entrepreneurial graduates to stay in the city.

And here’s the report from the LA Weekly (emphasis mine):

Garcetti spoke in broad themes, and offered relatively little in the way of concrete proposals. He did, however, signal that he will distance himself from Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, saying that he will force all of the mayor's department heads to reapply for their jobs.

[snip]

Garcetti vowed to evaluate City Hall staffers based on a concrete metric: "the number of jobs you create." He did not, however, give a jobs figure by which his own performance could be judged.
He also did not say how he would address the city's persistent deficits, saying only that the debate about cuts and tax increases is "wrong."

So Garcetti has a vision. His vision is nice and all - full of the requisite platitudes and promises – but essentially no different than what has been said by the other candidates for Mayor. So where is Garcetti’s actual plan? You know: The set of policies and initiatives that he would fund and implement as Mayor in order to create jobs, reform City Hall, and do all those other things he says he wants to do. Yes it is early in the race, but it is never too early for candidates to lay out where they stand, where they want to go, and how they intend to get there. Having a vision is great, but having a plan is better.

The Primary Nominating Election for Mayor will be held on Tuesday, March 5, 2013.

Postscript: Don’t bother checking Garcetti’s campaign website for any insight on what he plans to do as the website does not have “policy”, “platform”, or “issues” pages, so there is nothing there to give you any real indication on how he plans to address the challenges facing Los Angeles.

The Public Square: September 10–12, 2012

2012-09-09T21:32:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, September 10:

Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at Assistance League of Southern California (1370 North Saint Andrews Place).
Hollywood United Neighborhood Council Board / Town Hall Meeting (7:00 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - This is a special meeting of the Board. Note: There are two meeting on this agenda.
  - Meeting will be held at Seventh-day Adventist Church of Hollywood (1711 North Van Ness Avenue).
- Item 5 (Special Board Meeting / Town Hall)
  - Recommendation that the Board call for a federal grand jury to investigate the funding and operations of the Los Angeles Fire Department.

Tuesday, September 11:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- Note: The County Board of Supervisors Meeting for September 11, 2012 is cancelled. The next regular meeting of the County Board of Supervisors will be held September 18, 2012 at 9:30AM.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.
Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee (2:30 PM)
- Item 8 (Council File 12-0967)
  - Mitigated Negative Declaration and related California Environmental Quality Act
    findings, and an appeal (.pdf) from a determination of the City Planning Commission to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration in connection a project proposing the construction of a 49-unit mixed-use residential/commercial project at 5241-5247 West Santa Monica Boulevard.
  - Note: Per this letter (.pdf) from the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council, that Neighborhood Council has “voted several times in opposition to this development, and has expressed its support for requiring that the applicant prepare an environmental impact report”.
Mid City West Community Council Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at the National Council of Jewish Women Building (543 North Fairfax Avenue) in the Auditorium.

Wednesday, September 12:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 17 (Council File 12-1156)
  - Communication from the Public Works Committee relative to a request that the City Attorney prepare and present an ordinance deleting Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 42.00(c)(3), which currently provides an sight-seeing tour operations with an exemption from the City’s prohibition on street-soliciting of goods or services.
  - Per the Motion (.pdf), “Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 42.00(c)(3) prohibits street-soliciting of goods or services, however, sight-seeing tour operations, regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission, are expressly exempted.”
  - Viewpoints: This is a good move. The City really needs to clamp down on the sight-seeing tour hustlers that blight Hollywood Boulevard. Nothing against those trying to make a living, but something needs to be done to bring some order to our sidewalks.
Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council Board (7:00 PM)
- Agenda
  - Meeting will be held at the Ebell of Los Angeles (4400 Wilshire Boulevard) in the Wilshire Ebell Theater.
- Item 5A (Community Concerns / Public Comments)
  - Motion of support requested for the Griffith Park Youth Ball Field project.

Due to Impacts on Local Church, Changes are Coming to the Parking Restrictions on Gardner Avenue (Near Runyon Canyon Park)

2012-09-03T20:32:00.000-07:00

Visitors to Runyon Canyon Park (and residents of nearby streets) should be on notice that yet another change is coming to the parking restrictions on the streets south of Runyon Canyon Park – specifically to the stretch of Gardner Avenue between Franklin Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard. The parking restrictions on Gardner Avenue, between Hollywood Boulevard and Franklin Avenue will soon change from No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Monday thru Friday to No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Sunday thru Friday.

Interested in why? Here is the story:

"Temporary" Preferential Parking District (PPD) No. 112 is located to the south and west of Runyon Canyon Park’s Vista Street entrance on the segments of Franklin Avenue and Gardner Street located north of Hollywood Boulevard and west of Vista Street. A few months ago the parking restrictions for PPD No. 112 were changed and made more strict so as to prohibit non-residents from parking on these streets on the weekends. As of the date of this post, the posted parking restrictions for PPD No. 112 are No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Monday thru Friday.

The clear point of the new, tougher, parking restrictions described above was to prevent Runyon Canyon Park visitors from parking on those residential streets on the weekends. While the new parking restrictions have accomplished that goal (though they’ve – surprise, surprise - had no noticeable impact on the number of visitors to the park) the restrictions have also had the unintended side effect of significantly hindering the ability of parishioners of St. Thomas the Apostle Hollywood to worship at their church.

Below is an excerpt from a letter from St. Thomas the Apostle Hollywood to LADOT for LADOT’s report (.pdf) on the renewal of PPD No. 112 (emphasis mine):

By prohibiting all weekend street parking around St. Thomas, TPPD No. 112 is causing serious injury to our parish. Attendance at services has plummeted. If TPPD No. 112 is renewed, St. Thomas' very existence is threatened.

For almost 100 years now, St. Thomas has been an important and active part of the Hollywood neighborhood, the greater Los Angeles community, the Episcopal Church in the United States, and the Anglican Communion. It faced the Great Depression of the 1930's, the decline in church attendance in the 1960's and 1970's, and the scourge of AIDS in the 1980's and 1990's. St. Thomas confronted all of these calamities and survived as a stronger, more diverse, and more compassionate place to worship.

Now, St. Thomas faces anew challenge - the parking restrictions of TPPD No, 112. These restrictions endanger St. Thomas' survival. It would be a great tragedy if, after weathering all the challenges of the last 100 years, St.Thomas had to close its doors due to a parking ordinance.

LADOT presented their report on the renewal of PPD No. 112 to the Transportation Council Committee on August 8, 2012. The LADOT report noted the issues raised by St. Thomas the Apostle Hollywood but shrugged them aside and recommended that PPD No. 112 be reauthorized with the same No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Monday thru Friday restrictions. The Transportation Council Committee (of which Councilmember LaBonge is a member), in response to public comments from by St. Thomas the Apostle Hollywood and others, and approved a motion amending LADOT’s recommendations. That motion authorized new parking restrictions - for exclusive use on Gardner Street - of No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Sunday thru Friday. The purported goal of the new, less strict, parking restrictions on Gardner Street being to enable worshipers at St. Thomas the Apostle Hollywood to park on Gardner Street on Sunday’s in order to attend Sunday Mass. The City Council approved the Transportation Committee report, with the new Gardner Street restrictions, on August 24, 2012.

My Take:

Obviously it is unclear what the impact of the new, less strict, parking restrictions on Gardner Street will be on attendance at St. Thomas the Apostle Hollywood (and on visitors to Runyon Canyon Park). Only time will tell. Personally, I hope the new restrictions will enable worshipers of St. Thomas the Apostle Hollywood to continue to be able to attend services at their church and enable the church to continue to serve the local community.

I think this most recent issue with PPD No. 112 really highlights out how ineffective the various parking restrictions and Preferential Parking Districts around Runyon Canyon Park have been. I hope that the various ongoing issues with PPD No. 112 will push Councilmember LaBonge and the residents living south of Runyon Canyon Park to work together to come up with a way for all City residents to be able to enjoy use of these public streets so they can live, work, play - and worship - in their community.

My view, to repeat myself from previous posts, is that it is long past time for the City to comprehensively look at Runyon Canyon Park’s parking issues. The City needs to try to address the root of the area's parking issues instead of just pushing the parking problem from street to street with no care or thought given to those that might be impacted by such shortsighted measures and actions.

City Looking to New Taxes and Revenues to Help Solve Long Term Budget Issues

2012-08-26T23:09:00.000-07:00

Last Tuesday the Los Angeles City Council held it’s annual “Revenue Day”, wherein the Council discusses potential revenue options that the City Council might consider in order to address the City's Budget situation. As a part of its “Revenue Day” discussion (Council File 11-1357-S1) the City Council received reports on various revenue options from both the CAO (.pdf) and the CLA (.pdf), as well as a power point presentation (.pdf) on the same from the CAO.

Generally speaking, the reports from the CAO and CLA both push strongly for new revenues to help solve the City’s structural deficit. The City’s four year budget outlook, as shown in the chart below, is better than in past years, but is still grim. Of note, for those keeping score, is that 70% of City’s discretionary funds go to public safety (LAPD and LAFD).

From the CLA report (emphasis mine):

“We believe strongly that the City must pursue voter approval of additional ongoing general tax revenues on the March 2013 Municipal Election. The City has made great strides in addressing our structural deficits over the last several years. General Fund civilian staff is now 5,000 fewer than just a few years ago and at lower levels than it was 20 years ago. Additionally, with creative ideas and strong cooperation from our employees and their representatives, the City has been able to reduce pension and retiree healthcare obligations as well as healthcare costs for active employees. However, our service levels are reaching a point where simply continuing to cut costs will result in unacceptable service levels and significantly impact the quality of life in the City.”

From the CAO Report (emphasis mine):

“Despite the City's efforts to reduce expenditures and increase revenue, a structural imbalance of expenditures and revenues remains. Permanent solutions are required to maintain City services for those who live in, do business in, or visit our City. While the City has exhausted many of its most workable options, several opportunities for reducing the deficit were addressed in this Office's report on the Four-Year Budget Outlook and Update to the Three-Year Plan to Fiscal Sustainability. The most significant solutions available to the City will require additional support of City residents.”

At the end of “Revenue Day” the Council Council voted to move forward with further analysis on increases on the (1) documentary transfer tax and (2) the parking occupancy tax. Ultimately, if these tax increases are to move forward, both measures would need to be placed on the ballot (either in March 2013 or in May 2013) and approved by voters.

Of note, the CAO pointed out that even if the tax increases on the documentary transfer tax and parking occupancy taxes are approved by voters, the City would still face a significant budget deficit next fiscal year (Fiscal Year 2013-2014) and would need to look for additional solutions to close the anticipated budget gap.

The next couple of months should be interesting. The City only has until October 31st to decide if it is going to put these two proposed tax increases on the March 2013 ballot, so there is not much time for the Council to dawdle.

The Public Square: August 27–29, 2012

2012-08-26T22:20:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, August 27:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 6 (Council File 10-0225
  - Office of Finance report (.pdf) relative to an update to the Accounts Receivable Citywide Improvement Initiatives, including the status of implementing Commission on Revenue Efficiency’s Blueprint for Reform of City Collections recommendations.
  - From the report summary, “[A]ll of the major revenue options of the Macias Study and immediate financial recommendations of CORE have been implemented. Fire ambulance billings have been outsourced. Parking citations are being bid with secondary collections options. Centralized Accounts Receivable Reporting is implemented. The Inspector General position is filled.”

Tuesday, August 28:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 3 (Council File 11-0776)
  - Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee report relative to the reappointment of Mr. Kevin Norton to the Central Area Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 2017.
  - See this Communication from the Mayor (.pdf) for more information on Mr. Norton
- Item 6 (Council File 12-0600-S158)
  - Budget and Finance Council Committee report relative to a City Attorney report and Ordinance (.pdf) amending the Los Angeles Administrative Code to eliminate (1) authorization for the use of monies in the Special Parking Revenue Fund for the Central Library Validation Program and (2) to eliminate all Special Parking Revenue Fund loan repayment requirements on surplus funds transferred to the General Fund
  - Note: The Special Parking Revenue Fund is funded with money collected from the City’s parking meters and revenue from public off-street parking facilities. The funds are supposed to be used to pay for meters, the acquisition and operation of off-street parking lots and garages, and for painting street curbs.
  - Viewpoints: I think this is a bad idea, primarily because it essentially serves to formalize the Council recent efforts to turn the Special Parking Revenue Fund into simply another source of funding to supplement the City’s General Fund. Given all the parking related needs in this City - and all the deferred maintenance and necessary upgrades at City-owned parking garages and lots - I find it hard to believe that the Special Parking Revenue Fund ever would (or should) have a surplus.

Wednesday, August 29:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.

Hollywood Freeway Cap Park: Aileen Getty Foundation Donates $1.2 Million to Help Fund the Preparation of the Project’s EIR

2012-08-24T16:48:00.000-07:00

Good news for fans of the proposed Hollywood Freeway Central Park project.

Earlier this week the Friends of the Hollywood Freeway Central Park announced that the project, which proposes to develop a 44 acre street level public park on a deck over the US-101 Freeway, announced that it had received a $1.2 million donation from the Aileen Getty Foundation to help pay for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project. With this donation, and the $825,000 in City funding already secured by Friends of the Hollywood Freeway Central Park (Council File 12-0600-S120), the EIR/EIS work is now “fully funded”.

While this is certainly a great step forward for this project, the project still has a long way to go. Recall that back in 2008 a feasibility study (.pdf) conducted for the project determined that the Hollywood Freeway Central Park could be built for an estimated $950 million.

While I’m not the biggest fan of this particular scheme (as I can’t fathom where they’ll find the $950 million needed to actually build the park) I do think a hearty congratulations are in order to the Friends of the Hollywood Freeway Central Park for securing this private donation for this project. Gotta admire their moxie.

For more media coverage see: Hollywood Patch, LA Streetsblog, and Laist.

US-101 Hollywood Freeway

The Public Square: August 20–23, 2012

2012-08-19T23:31:00.001-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, August 20:

East Hollywood Neighborhood Council Community Forum & Board Meeting (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at L.A. City College (855 North Vermont Avenue) in the Faculty & Staff Center.
- Item III.5 (East Hollywood Neighborhood Council Candidate Forum)
  - Opportunity for candidates running for seats in the upcoming East Hollywood Neighborhood Council to introduce themselves to the community.
Hollywood United Neighborhood Council Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda
  - Meeting will be held at Seventh-day Adventist Church of Hollywood (1711 North Van Ness Avenue).

Tuesday, August 21:

Arts, Parks, Health and Aging Council Committee (8:30 AM)
- Item 13 (Council File 11-1604)
  - Planning Department to report relative to a motion instructing the Planning Department to (1) assist with the implementation of parklet demonstration projects currently under consideration and (2) create a Citywide parklet pilot program similar to San Francisco's "Pavement to Parks" program.
  - Note: This item will also be before the Transportation Council Committee on Wednesday, August 22nd.
County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 2 (Council File 11-1332)
  - Continued consideration of a Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee Report and City Attorney Report and Ordinance (.pdf) relative to amending various sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to create a Modified Parking Requirement District, which would allow for the use of one or more of seven specified parking requirement modification tools.
  - Local Media reaction on the proposed ordinance: LA Times, Curbed LA, LA Daily News, and LA Streetsblog.
Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee (2:30 PM)
- Item 2 (Council File 11-0776)
  - Communication from the Mayor (.pdf) relative to the reappointment of Mr. Kevin Norton to the Central Area Planning Commission for the term ending June 30, 2017.
Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Board (7:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at the Los Feliz Community Police Center (1965 North Hillhurst Avenue) in the second floor meeting room.

Wednesday, August 22:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 24 (Council File 11-1339)
  - Continued consideration of a Transportation Committee report relative to the renewal of "Temporary" Preferential Parking Districts (PPD) No. 72 and No. 112 for another 12 months and a change in the parking restrictions for along Gardner Street (PPD No. 112) in order to permit non-resident parking on Sunday.
  - PPD No. 112 is located on the residential streets south and east of Runyon Canyon Park's Vista Street entrance (i.e. Franklin, Sierra Bonita, and Gardner) and north of Hollywood Boulevard. The current restrictions of PPD No. 112 are No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Monday to Friday. Due to the fact that the current parking restrictions are negatively impacting a nearby church, LADOT is now recommending that the restrictions on Gardner Street be changed to No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Sunday to Friday.
  - Viewpoints: The parking restrictions for PPD No. 112 were changed just a few months ago with restrictions that prohibited non-resident parking on weekends. I note again that I thought the changes would do little to solve the parking problems in this area and would in fact make things worse. I think the same of these new changes as well.
Transportation Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 6 (Council File 11-1604)
  - Planning Department to report relative to a motion instructing the Planning Department to (1) assist with the implementation of parklet demonstration projects currently under consideration and (2) create a Citywide parklet pilot program similar to San Francisco's "Pavement to Parks" program.
Public Works Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 7 (Council File 12-1156)
  - Motion (.pdf) requesting that the City Attorney prepare and present an ordinance deleting Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 42.00(c)(3), which currently provides an sight-seeing tour operations with an exemption from the City’s prohibition on street-soliciting of goods or services.
  - Per the Motion, “Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 42.00(c)(3) prohibits street-soliciting of goods or services, however, sight-seeing tour operations, regulated by
    the California Public Utilities Commission, are expressly exempted.”
  - Viewpoints: Yes. Do it. Do it now.
- Item 8 (Council Files 05-1853 and 05-1853-S1)
  - Bureau of Street Services report (.pdf) and City Attorney report (.pdf) relative to a proposed point of sale plan for fixing damaged sidewalks and a proposed ordinance amending the Los Angeles Municipal Code to eliminate the City's responsibility for repairing damage done to curbs, driveways and sidewalks by street tree roots.
  - Per the report, The Bureau of Street Services is recommending that consultants be brought on board to undertake a comprehensive survey and assessment of the condition of all of the City’s sidewalks in order to create a “Comprehensive Parkway Database” that would be used to determine what level of repair is needed. The estimate that the costs to do so could be “well over $10 million” and take up to 36 months to complete.
  - Viewpoints: A database is a good idea, is clearly needed, and frankly should have been done 5 years ago when this topic first came up. That said, good luck finding the $10 million or more needed to pull this off. Seems like more stalling to me. If the City Council really wants to dump this responsibility back on property owners, they should just do so and get it over with. If not, the City Council should get serious about the problem, and start carving out funds in the City budget for sidewalk repairs. Whichever way they go, I just wish they’d hurry up and make a decision already.
Bel-Air Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council Board Meeting (7:00 PM)
- Agenda not yet available on the web. Check here for the Agenda
  - Meeting is scheduled to be held at the Community Magnet School (located at 11301 Bellagio Road).

Under Review: East Hollywood Target Headed to Central Area Planning Commission [Updated]

2012-08-13T01:17:00.001-07:00

The East Hollywood Target Project is back. And, uh, it looks almost exactly the same (and is requesting the exact same entitlements) as it did when it first reared its head back in 2009. The main change this time around is that City Planning and Target have prepared a full blown Environmental Impact Report, instead of the Mitigated Negative Declaration that the parties previously prepared. The questions remains though, will an EIR be enough to scare off Target’s litigious neighbors and finally get this project moving?

Item 4 (APCC-2008-2703-SPE-CUB-SPP-SPR) at Tuesday's Central Area Planning Commission Meeting is the consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Target Shopping Center project proposed for the corner of Sunset and Western (5520 Sunset Boulevard) in East Hollywood; as well as a number of discretionary approval requests, including several exceptions from the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan, a Site Plan Review, and a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol.

The Target Shopping Center project proposes to construct a 163,862 square foot Target store along with 30,887 square feet of other smaller retail, food, and associated uses in a 3-level (and up to 84 feet high) building. The first floor of the building would have retail (along both Sunset and Western) while the Target store itself would be located on the structure's third level. A total of 458 automobile parking spaces would be provided in two parking levels, on ground floor and one above ground.

Per the City Planning Department Staff Report (.pdf), the Target Shopping Center project is requesting:

Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report
Relief from the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan requirement to provide free delivery of purchases made at the site by residents living in the Specific Plan Area.
Relief to allow a maximum building height of 84 feet above grade in lieu of the maximum permitted building height of 35 feet.
Relief to permit Target to provide 458 parking spaces in lieu of the maximum 390 parking spaces allowed by the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan.
Relief from various portions of the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan's Development Standards and Design Guidelines, including (1) an allowance for the entrance canopy and balconies, which are to be located within 15 feet of the property line along Sunset Avenue, to exceed the maximum permitted height of 30 feet; (2) relief from the requirement that the second floors along Sunset Boulevard and Western Avenue be setback a minimum of ten feet from the first floor frontage; (3) relief to permit transparent building elements such as windows and doors to occupy approximately 24% of the ground floor façade along St. Andrews Place in lieu of the minimum 50% building transparency otherwise required; (4) an exemption from the requirement that all roof lines in excess of 40 feet must be broken up through the use of gables, dormers, cut-outs or other means; and, (5) relief from the allowable hours of operation in order to allow store deliveries between the hours of 5AM and 12AM Monday through Sunday.
Approval of a Conditional Use to permit the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption.
Approval of a Project Permit Compliance with the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan.
Approval of a Site Plan Review for a project that results in an increase of 50,000 gross square feet or more of nonresidential floor area and a net increase of over 1,000 average daily trips.

City Planning Department Staff is recommending the project be approved, with one minor change: That Target only be permitted to build to a maximum building height of 74 feet instead of the maximum building height of 84 feet that Target requested.

As this project is essentially the same project as was presented before, my criticisms of the project (and of City Planning) remain the same as I wrote in this post back in June 2010. Short version, for those who don’t like clicking links, is that the project (1) should not exceed 35 feet in height unless it is a mixed use residential and commercial building, (2) should be required to make it parking subterranean instead of above ground, and (3) should be only be permitted a maximum of 390 parking spaces so as to encourage as many customers as possible to bike, walk, or take transit to the store.

After this project was withdrawn in August 2010, I wrote that I hoped that Target would go back to the drawing board and design a building that better fit the goals, objectives, and vision of the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan. Target didn’t, so here we are stuck with the same ill-designed and ill-though-out project. This could have been a nice project if City Planning had stood firm for its own Specific Plan, and made Target hew to its terms. This is looking like a huge missed opportunity, as an thoughtful, innovative, and pedestrian friendly, building on this corner could be catalytic for East Hollywood and help drive the neighborhood to the next level.

Update: The Central Area Planning Commission approved (.pdf) the East Hollywood Target project, with the changes recommended by City Planning Department staff in the City Planning Department Staff Report (.pdf).

The Public Square: August 13–15, 2012

2012-08-12T22:30:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, August 13:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 3 (Council File 12-0600-S158).
  - City Attorney report and Ordinance (.pdf) relative to amending the Los Angeles Administrative Code to eliminate (1) authorization for the use of monies in the Special Parking Revenue Fund for the Central Library Validation Program
    and (2) to eliminate all Special Parking Revenue Fund loan repayment requirements on surplus funds transferred to the General Fund.
  - Note: The Special Parking Revenue Fund is funded with money collected from the City’s parking meters and revenue from public off-street parking facilities. The funds are supposed to be used to pay for meters, the acquisition and operation of off-street parking lots and garages, and for painting street curbs.
  - Viewpoints: For years the City Council has raided the Special Parking Revenue Fund to supplement the City’s General Fund. Once this ordinance is passed the City Council will be able to continue to bleed the fund dry, just now they will no longer need to pretend that they intend to repay it. Yes, the ordinance reads that the Council can raid only the “surplus” funds from the Special Parking Revenue Fund, but it is the City Council that determines when the fund has a surplus (and determines when and by how much parking rates go up). I expect that the City will soon see higher parking rates, decreased maintenance at its lots and garages, and the record “surpluses” in the Special Parking Revenue Fund.
Hollywood Studio District Neighborhood Council Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at Assistance League of Southern California (1370 North Saint Andrews Place).

Tuesday, August 14:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 3 (Council File 11-1332)
  - Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee Report and City Attorney Report and Ordinance (.pdf) relative to amending various sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to create a Modified Parking Requirement District, which would allow for the use of one or more of seven specified parking requirement modification tools.
  - Per the ordinance, the proposed Modified Parking Requirement Districts shall use one or more of the following “strategies”: (1) change of use parking standards, (2)off-site parking within 1500 feet, (3) parking reduction approval, (4) decreased parking requirements, (5) increased parking requirements, (6) commercial parking credits, and (7) maximum parking requirements.
- Item 9 (Council File 11-1339)
  - Transportation Committee report relative to the renewal of "Temporary" Preferential Parking Districts (PPD) No. 72 and No. 112 for another 12 months and a change in the parking restrictions for along Gardner Street (PPD No. 112) in order to permit non-resident parking on Sunday.
  - PPD No. 112 is located on the residential streets south and east of Runyon Canyon Park's Vista Street entrance (i.e. Franklin, Sierra Bonita, and Gardner) and north of Hollywood Boulevard. The current restrictions of PPD No. 112 are No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Monday to Friday. Due to the fact that the current parking restrictions are negatively impacting a nearby church, LADOT is now recommending that the restrictions on Gardner Street be changed to No Parking Anytime Except; 2 Hour Parking 8AM-7PM Sunday to Friday.
  - Viewpoints: The parking restrictions for PPD No. 112 were changed just a few months ago with restrictions that prohibited non-resident parking on weekends. I note again that I thought the changes would do little to solve the parking problems in this area and would in fact make things worse. I think the same of these new changes as well.
Central Area Planning Commission (4:30 PM)
- Item 4 (APCC-2008-2703-SPE-CUB-SPP-SPR)
  - Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Target Shopping Center project proposed for the corner of Sunset and Western (5520 Sunset Boulevard) in East Hollywood; as well as a number of discretionary approval requests, including several exceptions from the Vermont/Western TOD Specific Plan, a Site Plan Review, and a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol.
  - Staff Report (.pdf)
  - The Target Shopping Center project proposes to construct a 163,862 square foot Target store along with 30,887 square feet of other smaller retail, food, and associated uses in a 3-level (and up to 84 feet high) building. The first floor of the building would have retail (along both Sunset and Western) while the Target store itself would be located on the structure's third level. A total of 458 automobile parking spaces would be provided in two parking levels, on ground floor and one above ground.
  - City Planning Department Staff is recommending the project be approved, with one minor change: That Target only be permitted to build to a maximum height of 74 feet instead of 84 feet as Target requested.
Mid City West Community Council Board (7:00 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at the National Council of Jewish Women Building (543 North Fairfax Avenue) in the Auditorium.

Wednesday, August 15:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 11 (Council File 10-1942)
  - Public Works Committee report relative to the proposed vacation of a public alley located just west of Vine Street and between Santa Monica Boulevard and Eleanor Avenue.
  - The Bureau of Engineering report (.pdf) report recommended that the vacation be denied because the proposed vacation is not in conformance with elements of the City’s General Plan (i.e. the Hollywood Community Plan and the General Plan Transportation Element) and noted that “the purpose of the vacation request is to provide a private gated driveway for the petitioner's property”. However, the Public Works Committee rejected The Bureau of Engineering’s recommendation, and is instead recommending that the alley vacation be approved.
- Item 20 (Council File 12-0011-S20)
  - Motion recommending the transfer $62,571 from the Council District 4 portion of the Street Furniture Revenue Fund to the Bureau of Street Services for the “repair a concrete alley west of Larchmont Boulevard, north of First Street”.
  - Viewpoints: I wonder how much money is in Council District 4 portion of the Street Furniture Revenue Fund, and how and why this project was identified as a priority for the use of those funds. It would be nice to know what criteria Council District 4 uses, as there are lots and lots of alleys and streets in need of repair in that Council District.
Energy and Environment Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 2 (Presentation)
  - LADWP report on the status of its water conservation and water supply programs and its associated Water Rate Increase Proposal.

The Public Square: July 30–August 1, 2012

2012-07-29T21:52:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, July 30:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 5 (Council File 12-0604).
  - City Clerk report (.pdf) relative to the feasibility and cost of adding Armenian as a language available on election ballot materials starting with the 2013 or 2015 elections.
  - Per the report, the City Clerk’s Election Division staff “concluded that providing Armenian language services may benefit this population”. The report notes that adding Armenian language services will result in “costs that will vary depending on the level of service or services added and whether approval is given in time for the City Clerk-Election Division to implement them by August 15”.

Tuesday, July 31:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- Item 8 (Ordinance)
  - Continued consideration of a motion to adopt an ordinance (.pdf) calling for a special election to be held on November 6, 2012, for the purpose of voting upon an amendment to the Los Angeles County Charter that would increase the term limits for the Board of Supervisors from three consecutive 4-year terms to five consecutive 4-year terms.
  - Viewpoints: Per Hollywood Patch, at last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting the Board “agreed to delay the motion for a week so people would have a chance to discuss it before it was voted on”.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 23 (Council File 12-0205)
  - Motion relative to renaming (naming?) the intersection at Carlos Avenue and Gower Street to “Ian Campbell Square”.
Planning and Land Use Management Council Committee (2:30 PM)
- Item 5 (Council File 11-1332)
  - City Attorney Report and Ordinance (.pdf) relative to amending various sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code to create a Modified Parking Requirement District, which would allow for the use of one or more of seven specified parking requirement modification tools.
  - Per the ordinance, the proposed Modified Parking Requirement Districts shall use one or more of the following “strategies”: (1) change of use parking standards, (2)off-site parking within 1500 feet, (3) parking reduction approval, (4) decreased parking requirements, (5) increased parking requirements, (6) commercial parking credits, and (7) maximum parking requirements.

Wednesday, August 1:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 5 (Council File 12-0604)
  - Budget and Finance Council Committee report relative to the feasibility and cost of adding Armenian as a language available on election ballot materials.
Energy and Environment Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 1 (Presentation)
  - LADWP report on the status of its water conservation and water supply programs and its associated Water Rate Increase Proposal.

The Public Square: July 23–25, 2012

2012-07-22T23:13:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, July 23:

Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council Board Meeting (6:15 PM)
- Agenda not yet available on the web.
  - Meeting will be held at the Hollywood City Hall (6501 Fountain Avenue) in the Community Room

Tuesday, July 24:

Information Technology and General Services Council Committee (9:00 AM)
- Item 3 (Council File 12-0682)
  - Motion (.pdf) instructing the CAO, the General Services Department, and the Community Development Department to report to Council within 15 days on the required actions and/or authoritiesto transfer ownership of the City-owned facility at 1345 El Centro Avenue to Childhelp, Inc.
  - Per the Motion, the City and Childhelp entered into a lease agreement for a City-owned facility located at 1345 El Centro Avenue in 1986. Under the terms of that lease the City Council was to, after a period of twenty years, “consider conveying its interest in the property to the Lessee if the Lessee has satisfactorily complied with the terms and conditions" of said lease.
County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- Item 16-C (Ordinance)
  - Recommendation to adopt an ordinance (.pdf) calling for a special election to be held on November 6, 2012, for the purpose of voting upon an amendment to the Los Angeles County Charter that would increase the term limits for the Board of Supervisors from three consecutive 4-year terms to five consecutive 4-year terms.
  - Viewpoints: Note that Supervisors Gloria Molina and Zev Yaroslavksy will, under current law, be termed out in 2014. It appears (though I’m not certain) that the provisions of this proposed charter amendment would enable both to run for two additional terms.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.

Wednesday, July 25:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 27 (Council File 12-0197)
  - Transportation Council Committee report relative to LADOT’s proposed administrative procedures (.pdf) to effectuate its new authority to not enforce certain categories of parking laws in the Los Angeles Municipal Code when requested in writing by a Councilmember or the Mayor.
Transportation Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 6 (Council File 12-0641)
  - City Controller’s Comprehensive Management Review of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (.pdf) report, and a follow up report (.pdf) on the same.
Public Works Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 4 (Council File 10-1942
  - Bureau of Engineering report (.pdf) relative to the proposed vacation of a public alley located just west of Vine Street and between Santa Monica Boulevard and Eleanor Avenue. Per the report, “the purpose of the vacation request is to provide a private gated driveway for the petitioner's property”.
  - The report recommends that the vacation be denied because the proposed vacation is not in conformance with elements of the City’s General Plan (i.e. the Hollywood Community Plan and the General Plan Transportation Element).

Lawsuits Filed Challenging City’s Approval of Hollywood Community Plan [Updated]

2012-07-19T23:30:00.000-07:00

As predicted by just about everyone, ~~a lawsuit has~~ a number of lawsuits have been filed by opponents of the recently adopted Hollywood Community Plan Update challenging the City’s approval of the plan. Via email we’ve learned that, as of today, at least three lawsuits have been filed against the plan:

Fix The City, Inc. filed on July 13, 2012 (Case No. BS138580)
SaveHollywood.Org, et al filed on July 18, 2012 (Case No. BS138370)
La Mirada Neighborhood Association filed on July 18, 2012 (Case No. BS138369)

Here’s a report from the Daily News on the lawsuit filed by La Mirada Neighborhood Association:

On Wednesday, the La Mirada Neighborhood Association of Hollywood filed a lawsuit in L.A. Superior Court over passage of the Hollywood Community Plan, a blueprint that guides planning and development in Hollywood.
The suit alleges that plan, which would allow for taller buildings in some areas of Hollywood, violates the California Environmental Quality Act, the landmark state law governing development.
Among other things, the lawsuit claims the city failed to consider the effects of traffic, air quality, and land use in approving the Hollywood Community Plan.

Should be fun.

This post has been updated throughout.

The Public Square: July 16–18, 2012

2012-07-15T22:31:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, July 16:

The Los Angeles City Council is on "Summer Recess" from Friday July 6th through Friday July 20th.
Board of Neighborhood Commissioners (1:00 PM)
- Item 9 (Discussion)
  - Discussion regarding possible changes to the current posting policy (.pdf) for Neighborhood Councils.
- Item 12 (Public Hearing)
  - Public Hearing regarding the establishment of a set of standards to guide Neighborhood Council operations and provide a uniform measure of competence for Neighborhood Council officers, board members and volunteers.
  - Draft City of Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils Rules and Standards (.pdf)
East Hollywood Neighborhood Council Community Forum & Board Meeting (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at L.A. City College (855 North Vermont Avenue) in the Faculty & Staff Center.
- Item IV.9A (Action Items)
  - Discussion and possible approval of up to $5,000 to fund the 4th Annual East Hollywood ArtCycle, which is to be held in September 2012 at the site of the new community garden on Madison Avenue (1175 North Madison Avenue).
Hollywood United Neighborhood Council Board (6:30 PM)
- Agenda
  - Meeting will be held at Seventh-day Adventist Church of Hollywood (1711 North Van Ness Avenue).
- Item 7E (Public Safety & Transportation Committee)
  - Update on Assembly Bill 2231, which, per the Sacramento Bee, proposes to prohibit cities, such as Los Angeles, “that currently pay for sidewalk repair [from shifting]that burden onto homeowners without a majority vote of the public”. Possible motion.
- Item 7F (Public Safety & Transportation Committee)
  - Update on fire near Hollywood Sign. Possible assistance with signage costs.
  - Note: For info on this incident, see this post from Hollywood Patch.

Tuesday, July 17:

The Los Angeles City Council is on "Summer Recess" from Friday July 6th through Friday July 20th
County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
Greater Griffith Park Neighborhood Council Board (7:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf).
  - Meeting will be held at the Los Feliz Community Police Center (1965 North Hillhurst Avenue) in the second floor meeting room.

Wednesday, July 18:

The Los Angeles City Council is on "Summer Recess" from Friday July 6th through Friday July 20th
Hollywood Hills West Neighborhood Council Board Meeting (6:30 PM)
- Agenda (.pdf)
  - Meeting will be held at the Women's Club of Hollywood (1749 North La Brea Avenue).

Independence Day Roundup: July 4th, 2012

2012-07-04T11:36:00.001-07:00

Happy 4th of July! Below is a quick round-up of stories from 'round the web about events, activates, and firework shows happening in the LA area today.

Headed to the Beach? Marina del Ray Patch has a list of events and celebrations happening along the coast, from Long Beach to the Westside.
Just looking for firework shows? Laist has a guide to firework shows happening throughout Los Angeles.
Willing to travel a little farther out to see fireworks? KPCC has compiled a list (and map) of 50 Places in across Southern California to see Independence Day Firework shows.
Don’t feel like paying to see fireworks? Curbed LA has identified 12 alternative (aka free) spots to hole up and watch some of the above listed firework displays.
Thinking of doing something stupid? LA Weekly has a list of announced LAPD DUI checkpoints for the holiday “weekend”, for those of you who like to know these things.

Also, a reminder that Hollywood’s popular Runyon Canyon Park (and the adjacent Garden Wattles Park) will close early today (at 5PM) due to the City’s concern of potential fire danger in the hillsides from illegal ad hoc firework displays.

Grove Developer Rick Caruso Interested in Redeveloping the Los Feliz Post Office Site

2012-06-30T11:55:00.000-07:00

The Los Feliz Ledger reports that Caruso Affiliated, the local real estate development firm headed by Rick Caruso, is interested in redeveloping the USPS Post Office Facility on Vermont avenue in Los Feliz Village:

Cornelius made his presentation, which would have Caruso Affiliated, a private enterprise, working in conjunction with the United States Postal Service (USPS) at the Los Feliz Improvement District’s governing board meeting in June.

Cornelius, who was just appointed for an interim term on the Greater Griffith Neighborhood Council, said the current post office on Vermont Avenue would remain but reduced in size by nearly 1/3rd. The site would maintain carrier operations, mail sorting, P.O. boxes and a retail counter for stamps and packages.
The completed project will be approximately 50,000 square feet, including a relocated post office with retail and restaurants selected and managed by Caruso Affiliated.

The Los Feliz Ledger’s article points out that the proposed project is still in the conceptual phase and that Caruso Affiliated has not yet secured the site (so any commenters caterwauling about the project at The Eastsider LA and Curbed LA’s posts should just relax for the moment). Additionally, it should be noted that, the USPS has not formally announced any plans to close or consolidate the Los Feliz Post Office Facility - nor announced any RFP process or other procedure to dispose of the property if it was to be declared surplus – so this proposed project (or any proposed project at this site) is clearly a few years off.

Putting aside what I think about this proposed development, and about Caruso Affiliated’s other developments, I think this is a welcome proposal as it will hopefully spurn the community to have a conversation about what, if anything, to do about the Los Feliz Post Office Facility. Hopefully this process will be a constructive process, but I’m not holding my breath. My opinion: While the site is well utilized as a post office, its current use is non-optimal for Los Feliz Village as the site is much better suited for retail, restaurant, and residential uses.

USPS Facility in Los Feliz (1825 North Vermont)

LADOT to Install Signalized Crosswalk at Sunset and Vista, But is it Enough to Make Sunset Safe for Pedestrians?

2012-06-24T23:29:00.000-07:00

Last week LA Streetsblog reported that a new signalized crosswalk is soon to be installed on Sunset Boulevard at Vista street. From the post:

Back in March, a video by Adam Choit showed pedestrians struggling to cross Sunset Boulevard at Vista Street went locally viral. Not content for this video to just serve as a rallying call for better streets in a larger sense, Deborah Murphy forwarded the video to executives at LADOT with a request that the intersection be re-examined. Murphy is chair of the city’s Pedestrian Advisory Committee and founder of Los Angeles Walks.
Earlier this week, LADOT announced that they’ve seen the light, or at least the video. The intersection has been added to a list of intersections due to receive crosswalks and should be painted “in the next fiscal year.”

I’m all for crosswalks, so whenever I see the City installing a new crosswalk (especially a signalized one) they generally get a thumbs up from me.

But not this time.

I think that LADOT is taking the easy way out by installing a crosswalk on this stretch of Sunset Boulevard. Let’s be frank: LADOT’s response is simply a kneejerk reaction designed to deflect any negative attention they've received from Adam’s video. LADOT is looking to their short term goals (quickly putting this episode behind them) and not to the local community’s long term needs (how to make this stretch of Sunset safer).

LADOT should use this opportunity to take a comprehensive look at Sunset Boulevard to see what changes can be made in order to make the entire street – and not just one intersection – safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. There are a number of things (some easy, some hard) that the City could do to modify the configuration of Sunset Boulevard (e.g. planted medians, curb bulb outs, wider sidewalks, street trees, better signage, travel/turn lane removals, etc.) in order to slow overall traffic speeds and make the street safer and more accessible for everyone. Come on LADOT, show us what you got. This is an good opportunity for the City to take its time, identify the real problems with Sunset Boulevard, and push for solutions that can solve multiple problems at once.

The Public Square: June 25–27, 2012

2012-06-24T21:24:00.000-07:00

As always, the meeting times, locations, and agendas are subject to change, so be sure to check and confirm.

Monday, June 25:

Budget and Finance Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 3 (Council File 12-0600-S154)
  - Joint CAO and CLA Report (.pdf) relative to updated policy options for citywide economic development functions in response to the recent elimination of the CRA/LA. The report recommends that $2 million be ~~transferred from~~ loaned from the City’s Reserve Fund “to initially fund the establishment of a new economic development structure”.
  - Per the report, “One model that the CAO and CLA have begun to examine is that of a not-for-profit economic corporation working alongside an Economic Development Department with a mission of encouraging economic growth through private investment”.
  - Note: This report is a follow up to a previous Joint CAO and CLA Report (.pdf) dated April 17, 2012 on the same subject. See also Council File 08-3050.
- Item 12 (Council File 12-0600-S120)
  - Motion relative to providing $825,000 in City funding for the Hollywood Central Park. Per the motion funding would be provided for the Hollywood Central Park from the following sources:
  - Viewpoints: My long-standing feelings on the Hollywood Freeway Central Park project remain the same. Right idea, wrong project. Hollywood clearly needs more neighborhood and community park land and open space but there are better, smaller, quicker, and more cost effective ways to accomplish that goal. Additionally, taking $275,000 from the Department of Recreation and Parks and $200,000 from the City’s Capital Improvement Expenditure Program for this project is the absolutely wrong thing to do. Why take more funds from Recreation and Parks’ limited budget for programs and services? Why take funds from the City’s Capital Improvement program? Has the City Council seen the state of our City’s infrastructure! Ridiculous.
Central Hollywood Neighborhood Council Board Meeting (6:15 PM)
- Agenda not yet available on the web.
  - Meeting will be held at the Hollywood City Hall (6501 Fountain Avenue) in the Community Room

Tuesday, June 26:

County Board of Supervisors (9:30 AM)
- No items of note.
City Council (10:00 AM)
- No items of note.
Audits and Governmental Efficiency Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 2 (Council File 12-0641)
  - City Controller’s Comprehensive Management Review of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (.pdf) report, and a follow up report (.pdf) on the same.

Wednesday, June 27:

City Council (10:00 AM)
- Item 5 (Council File 12-0307-S3)
  - Report from the Personnel and Animal Welfare Committee recommending that the Department of Animal Services be instructed to improve its horse licensing online process and make its web site more user friendly. Request that the City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance to amend Los Angeles Municipal Code’s section on Equine License Fees, in order to create a multi-year licensing option with a discounted fee schedule for multi-year registrations.
  - Viewpoints: If the proposed ordinance is approved, equestrians would receive a discount for simply registering their horses (10% for one year, 20% for two years, 30% for three years, 40% for four years, and 50% for five years), even if they do so only for one year. Of course, horse owners are already legally required to register their animals but now the City is willing to give them a discount for just following the law! Wish the DMV operated like this. Only in LA people. Only in LA.
Transportation Council Committee (2:00 PM)
- Item 4 (Council File 12-0197)
  - LADOT report (.pdf) on its administrative procedures to effectuate its new authority to not enforce certain categories of parking laws in the Los Angeles Municipal Code when requested in writing by a Councilmember or the Mayor.
  - Per the report, only the following types of parking restrictions may be waived pursuant to this new process:
    - Expired parking meters
    - Time limit restrictions (e.g. "2 Hour Parking")
    - Time of day restrictions (e.g. "No Parking 10 am -12 pm")
    - Preferential parking district
    - Overnight parking district
    - Oversize parking district
    - Passenger or school bus loading zones (white curb)
    - Street Cleaning
  - Viewpoints: Interestingly enough, the LADOT report does not indicate what types of events are eligible for wavier of parking restrictions, nor does it indicate how long LADOT is willing (or able) to waive the enforcement of parking restrictions. I wonder if LADOT could – if requested - indefinitely waive the enforcement of certain parking restrictions? Also, the LADOT report does not indicate if, or how, LADOT will notify the general public when they are not enforcing parking restrictions. How will people know that parking restrictions have/will be waived?
Bel-Air Beverly Crest Neighborhood Council Board Meeting (7:00 PM)
- Agenda not yet available on the web. Check here for the Agenda.
  - Meeting is scheduled to be held at the Community Magnet School (located at 11301 Bellagio Road).

Hollywood Community Plan Update Approved By City Council

2012-06-19T23:37:00.000-07:00

The long struggle over the Hollywood Community Plan has seemingly come to an end.

Today the City Council unanimously approved the Hollywood Community Plan Update, putting to an end the Department of City Planning’s decade long effort to update the land use plan that governs development in this area of the City.

Local media reacts below:

The LA Times goes with the standard mainstream media “both sides have a point” story:

Revised zoning guidelines for Sunset Boulevard and surrounding streets will make it easier for developers to build bigger and taller buildings, especially around subway stations and along bus routes. Supporters say the plan is a visionary change that will allow Hollywood to complete a 20-year-transformation from a seedy haven for drug dealing and prostitution into a more vibrant, cosmopolitan center of residential towers, jobs, entertainment and public transportation.
But critics, especially those in the Hollywood Hills, say the new growth will spoil their million-dollar views and further snarl notoriously bad traffic. After the Council voted 13 to 0 Tuesday to approve the proposal, opponents said they would sue the city for failing to conduct an adequate environmental review.

Curbed LA covers how things went down at City Council:

PLUM Chair Ed Reyes said the main objective of the plan was "to understand the notion of compatibility--what fits," and called the controversy that has surrounded the plan a good sign: "We know we've done our job if people walk away upset because they didn't get everything they wanted. It's about compromise." Councilmember Garcetti described the neighborhood as defenseless without the Community Plan update because many parts of Hollywood currently lack pedestrian plans or height restrictions. But he also clearly disagreed with plan opponents who claim that population growth projections used by the plan are inaccurate or obsolete: "Plan so if growth occurs, we aren't caught flat-footed like we have been for 20 years," adding, "Planning for growth does not mean growth will occur."

Hollywood Patch features some of the arguments made of the opponents of the plan:

Critics of the plan, who vowed to sue, argued it will accelerate growth and worsen traffic in the already congested residential neighborhoods adjacent to Hollywood and Sunset boulevards and the Hollywood (101) Freeway.
Several dozen opponents testified that the plan relied on a population increase projected by 2030, when the plan area's population has gone down in recent years.
Opponents also argued the plan allows for taller buildings blocking the Hollywood sign and the historic Capital Records building.

LA Weekly reports on the potential lawsuit that may be filed by opponents of the plan update:

The basis for the "Save Hollywood" lawsuit will be that the city used outdated/incorrect population counts to justify the need for more density in Tinseltown.
But it could be months, if not years, before the suit gets anywhere -- and lord knows City Council members are willing to spend infinite legal fees on their dream to turn Sunset Strip into its Vegas counterpart.

Comments from me to follow. Need to digest the news and get my thoughts together first.