Dear neighbors:

A recent Planning Department decision has given a tremendous boost to the Hollywoodland Specific Plan. The proposed construction of a 6378 square foot (initially 7107 sq ft) structure at 3314 & 3320 Lugano Place has been denied by the City Planning Dept.

        “The size of the proposed project is not in scale with the existing buildings directly
         abutting the project” or with 70 homes within 500 feet of the proposed site...
         Approval and construction of the project is not compatible with the existing
         community.” (Page 3, City Planner Determination)

The appeal period has expired and as of May 22 the determination is final. The full determination letter can be downloaded off the internet: A link is provided from the Beachwood Canyon Neighborhood Association website www.beachwoodcanyon.org.

The decision goes beyond denying this particular project: crucially, it provides a clear and unequivocal defense of the letter, spirit, intent and purposes of the Hollywoodland Specific Plan (HSP) to govern appropriate size and scale, preventing further mansionization of Hollywoodland.  This was one of its key purposes, arising out of the oversized building during the real estate boom of the 1980’s. The decision underscores the clear intent of the HSP to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood’s remaining original character, assuring that the design threshold for new construction is that it enhance, rather than diminish that character.

The project’s overly-massive size was premised upon the tying of 2 lots. This argument was implicitly rejected.  The precedent, and its grounding in the clear language of the intent and purposes of the Specific Plan--supported by hard measurement  data--gives powerful assurance that the property values and quality of life values of Hollywoodland can be protected in the future from the ravages of developers looking for a fast, big buck at the expense of those of us who live in and treasure Hollywoodland.

We did not realize when we became actively involved how breakdowns in the design review process have been going on for years with either no public awareness, or a public sense of betrayal and frustration, seemingly without recourse.

Much that has been built recently clearly does not meet the standard envisioned by the Hollywoodland Specific Plan or its authors.  Most of us are fed up with, but have felt powerless in the face of the ugly, huge retaining walls; houses seemingly airlifted from cookie cutter flatland suburbs; and projects that occupy more of their lot than should ever have been permitted under the HSP. 

Many of us felt that the community had no real protection;  that the HSP was becoming a dead and ignored document.  Applicants increasingly, and largely successfully, have come before the DRB and/or the city with the clear intent to skirt their way around the true intent of the HSP, by satisfying requirements which do not, in and of themselves, fulfill that intent. If they did, there would be no need for a  Design Review Board (DRB).

The community success that was achieved by taking a strong stand for the HSP, insisting that the Lugano project be either reduced in size or denied, heralds a change, and an opportunity: more accountability within the approval process, more community involvement, more community resolve and scrutiny, more courage and communication from the DRB, and continued support from the City Planning Department in defense of the Hollywoodland Specific Plan.  However, as always with democracy, this victory for our neighborhood could be lost if we lapse into passivity.

We appreciate the outpouring of neighborhood support from throughout Hollywoodland at the public hearings. If you would like to help us take the next steps in improving community involvement in the process with the DRB and the city, please read on.

Thank you

Don Krim and David Russell
6182 Mulholland Hwy
donkrim@yahoo.com
 

 

 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

The decision and outcome of the Lugano Pl. project (denial) was due to 3 primary factors:

1.     The enormous public outpouring opposed to the project, armed with the language of the HSP
and hard measurement data, and the bright light of public scrutiny at the public hearings.
2.    The unwillingness of the applicants to accede to the wishes of the DRB and the
    community and put forward a meaningful reduction in size.
3.     A change in the political climate at the City Planning Department under its new
    Director, and the corresponding sensitivity to the community shown by the new
    Planning Assistant for Hollywoodland.

As we have said, the community success that was achieved by taking a strong stand for the HSP, insisting that the Lugano project be either reduced in size or denied, heralds a change, and an opportunity: more accountability within the approval process, more community involvement, more community resolve and scrutiny, more courage and communication from the DRB, and continued support from the City Planning Department in defense of the Hollywoodland Specific Plan.  However, as always with democracy, this victory for our neighborhood could be lost if we lapse into passivity.

The following are some obvious steps we feel would improve matters immensely. Some are administrative, and some will require some community organizing and assistance to implement.

1. The HSP needs to be widely available to, and understood by residents, potential residents, project architects, and realtors.  Like the Bill of Rights, the HSP is dead and useless unless we understand, discuss, and defend it. 

We strongly urge all homeowners to download the following documents which, effective with delivery of this letter,  are all available from links provided by the Beachwood Canyon Neighborhood Association website at  www.beachwoodcanyon.org.

  •  Hollywoodland Specific Plan
  • A copy of the Hollywoodland Design Guidelines Worksheet: the “Point system”.  This worksheet is perhaps the leading culprit for what has been built in recent  years, and needs to be better understood, reviewed, updated, or discarded.   The HSP is the only Specific Plan in the City which uses a point system, and, according to one DRB former member, achieving the point threshold became the ticket to approval--a perversion of its intent, which was to serve as a minimum threshold required below which no project could be approved. While we do not see amending the HSP as either practicable or advisable, a clearer understanding that the point system is a guide and not a pass/fail will go a long way towards curing the defect. The threshold for projects must be consistency and compliance with the purposes, intent and requirements of the HSP.
  •  Section 16.5 of the municipal code, which governs the Rules and Procedures of Design Review Boards. In some cases this supersedes the HSP. 
  • Realtors must disclose the existence and content of the HSP as a covenant of the neighborhood which has the force of law. This is not the common practice. It is typical of the basic problem faced by the HSP: it is a vital asset to the preservation of lifestyles and property values in Hollywoodland in the long term, but it is perceived as an obstacle to be avoided or hidden by those pursuing short term profits. If used and enforced properly, the HSP will enhance and protect property values.

2. The process of examining and approving construction projects by the DRB and the Planning Department needs some simple reforms to make it transparent and readily accessible to the interested public.

  • Public hearings need to be genuinely public.

Effective with this letter, the Beachwood Canyon Neighborhood Association will provide a direct  link to the Los Angeles Planning Dept. web site for easy access to DRB hearing notices. All  members of the community must be informed and inform themselves of the agendas, not just  notified, adjacent property owners. Bad projects have slipped through because almost no one was  aware that they were being approved with no reasoned opposition. In addition, members of the  BCNA will receive email notification of upcoming hearings. We hope that the Hollywoodland  Homeowner’s Association will follow suit. Hearings are held regularly if there are items on the agenda,  on the 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month.

If the public is truly to avail itself of its hearing,  a suitable venue where the public can actually see  and hear are essential to participation and due process. Meetings after work hours would obviously  encourage attendance and participation.  As of this writing,  there has been a positive trend  towards holding the hearings at the Village Coffee Shop at 6pm. We applaud the development.  Check notices carefully. 

These hearings are fundamentally about the public’s right to know and provide input, the  constitutional right to petition, so that the community voice informs the process with its view of  what is or is not compatible with the neighborhood. The hearings are not a spectator sport,  although they can be dramatic and interesting, but rather fulfill a civic function in which the  public has a vital stake,  because of the tremendous power decisions have over the future of  Hollywoodland and property values.   The oft-stated stance of the DRB is that the Public is  “welcome”, or “invited” to the hearings to listen  in and ask questions if they like, while the DRB and applicants discuss project plans, or for that  matter dispense design advice.  While this may be appropriate for informal design consultations, it is  a distortion of the process of a public hearing, where public presence is essential.  While the DRB is  an advisory board to the Planning Department, it is also the first legislative body to hear a case, and  the entire review process is a quasi-judicial function (California Court of Appeals rulings). The DRB’s  advice is to be given to Planning as to the sense of the community and compliance with the HSP.   As such, it is imperative that the community be attentive, even when projects are not apparently  controversial. We all need to be ready to attend as often as is needed to insure that DRB  decison-making is grounded in the HSP and has the support and confidence of the community.  

  • In the absence of minutes, we call upon neighborhood videographers to take turns documenting all proceedings. The video could then be uploaded onto the internet for wider viewing and critically,  provide an archival and historical record. 

3. The DRB needs a secretariat. Currently this function is minimally provided by  an underfunded Planning Department and is not working. 

  • For the DRB to fulfill its legal obligations to hold an open public hearing, written correspondence must be received and reviewed by all DRB members prior to the public hearing. 

Since this has been a subject of controversy and confusion, we suggest the following:

  • The Notice of Agenda include a date by which written input can be received and digested by DRB members before hearings
  • The DRB provide a direct email address to which all correspondence is directed and then forwarded to all members. If Planning continues this function, it must distribute the public comment to the DRB prior to the hearing for review.

       If  Planning and the DRB create a new secretary, all commentary  must be sent to the Planning Dept. to be entered into        the official file, and  a copy then forwarded to each DRB member to comply with the Brown Act.

  • Absent a video, the DRB needs proper minutes of its meetings, and a comprehensive, ongoing record of its precedents, processes and procedures. Members of the community with experience could take turns keeping minutes and minutes can be approved at the following meeting.

  • On the public information side, efficiency and effectiveness would be enhanced dramatically if plans and applications were made available to the public in digital form online. A copy provided by planning to BCNA  and/or HHA is all that would be needed.

4. All projects approved by the DRB, and subsequently, the city should be subject  to periodic design compliance inspections, both during and at the completion of construction. Projects should receive a certificate of occupancy from Building and Safety only after satisfying all DRB (as well as other code) requirements. 

  • As it is currently unrealistic to expect Building and Safety to conduct such inspections, the logical body is the DRB itself, directly or through a subcommittee of community volunteers, individual members dividing current construction projects amongst themselves for oversight. This would introduce accountability into the system where it has been dangerously absent.  Builders often break their agreements with the DRB during construction, with little or no consequence.  This has led to some of the most egregious violations of the HSP.

  • Construction which falls into bankruptcy  prior to completion of design elements or mitigation of structural requirements, such as retaining walls, should be disclosed as such to prospective buyers. Failure of those buyers  to complete the mitigation factors or negotiate new ones meeting DRB approval should be a required disclosure upon sale: a disclosure that the home is not in compliance with the “neighborhood covenants”: the HSP.

5. The neighborhood as a whole would benefit from a communications forum: a blog or web site where all information can be posted and is updated continuously, is one method.

  • One option, at least in the interim, would be the Beachwood Canyon Neighborhood Association site (www.beachwoodcanyon.org), which is already set up for this function: the Forum. Please drop in!
  • A Planning Dept. workshop for the community, introducing Jason Chan and others at Planning to the entire community, reintroducing the DRB members and the process, and hearing broad community concerns and dealing with questions would be useful at this time.

To fully reform this process will require the cooperation of the community,  its homeowners associations HHA and BCNA, the Councilman’s office, the Planning Dept. and the DRB. In particular, we will need community members to come forward willing to serve on the DRB--now and in the future (it now operates without its full complement, and with some very long serving members), and web and video expertise would be very helpful to facilitate a transition to more modern technical means. 

For most of us, our home is the single largest part of our investment  portfolio. Protecting that investment over the long term by volunteering is time very well spent.  Preserving neighborhood character and the uniqueness of Hollywoodland for the future does not come for free. We must all  participate. We honor all those who have served and are serving now for their generosity and commitment.  But new blood is always needed.

Inquiries, for the time being, can be directed to us at donkrim@yahoo.com, or the Beachwood Cyn Neighborhood Association at beachwoodvoice@sbcglobal.net.



Thank you.