Hollywood Building Permit Called a Forgery

On land in Hollywood that has been designated by city planners as future public park space, the city recently gave permission to construct a 54-unit apartment complex by issuing a building permit that city officials now say may have been forged.

Top officials in three city agencies learned of the possible forgery six to eight weeks ago but initiated no outside investigation. After an inquiry by The Times, law enforcement officials were alerted for the first time last week, and the permit was revoked on Tuesday.

The proposed construction site lies within a large chunk of Hollywood scheduled for redevelopment by the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency. The property consists of four adjacent lots occupied by single-family homes whose tenants have been ordered to move to make way for the new apartment house. For years, half the property has been designated to one day become an extension of a small city park.

A problem with the permit to build the apartment complex surfaced in October, when senior city planner Richard Gervais said he discovered his signature had been forged. Gervais, whose approval was essential to the project, said he he immediately informed his boss of the “obvious forgery.”

Questioned about the permit last week by The Times, Gervais said, “That’s not my signature. It’s not even a good forgery.”

Additionally, Gervais and his staff are on record as opposing the construction project. Several months before the building permit bearing his name was issued, they had blocked the project at 1302-1322 North Cherokee Avenue on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the city’s general plan, which set aside the property for open space.

Normally, a rejection at that stage of the approval-seeking process would end it. Only a successful appeal to the Planning Commission, following a public hearing, could resurrect the proposal.

Since Gervais reported the alleged forgery to his department head, the issue has been bounced among three city agencies: the Department of Building and Safety, where the permit was issued; the Planning Department, where the permit was supposed to have been approved, and the Community Redevelopment Agency, which has jurisdiction over land use in the Hollywood redevelopment area.

Top officials in those agencies discussed who among them was responsible for looking into the problem, but until The Times’ inquiry, none called for an investigation by law enforcement authorities.

In an interview, John Tuite, administrator of the redevelopment agency, recalled being briefed on the questionable permit and thinking, “I don’t want to get into this one because it’s getting confused.” He said that, technically, he had no jurisdiction over the building permit because it had been issued on Aug. 4, one day before the agency assumed jurisdiction over the Cherokee Avenue property. He said he therefore “remanded” the problem to the Planning Department.

‘Crossed My Mind’

At the Planning Department, director Kenneth Topping said in an interview last week, “It has crossed my mind” to contact the district attorney, “but I’m not at that step yet.”

He said he asked his staff for information weeks ago but that, as of Dec. 4, he had heard nothing. Meanwhile, he said that the Department of Building and Safety--which issued the permit containing the questioned signature--has also been looking into the matter. He recalled that he talked to that department’s general manager, Frank Kroeger, “early on” and has been waiting to hear from him.

Kroeger said he did not remember whether he had talked to Topping. He said it is the Planning Department’s responsibility to make the first move in launching any investigation, because the disputed signature belongs to a planning official.

Kroeger said his staff learned about the problem from “a representative of the CRA who didn’t even file a charge but who just indicated to someone in our department there might be an irregularity in the signature.”

The Building and Safety Department official who learned of the alleged forgery, Warren O’Brien, said he did not initiate an inquiry because the information came informally “through the grapevine.”

Research Requested

The redevelopment agency official who relayed the information about Gervais’ signature to the Building and Safety Department was Milt Renzler.

Renzler said he had been asked by his superiors at the agency to research the building permit that had been issued on land supposedly set aside for a park.

Noticing what “appeared to be a discrepancy” in Gervais’ signature on the building permit, Renzler said he went directly to Gervais.

Gervais recalled: “Milt Renzler brought this building permit to me . . . about early October. He brought that permit to me and says, ‘Is that your signature?’ I said, ‘No,’ and he said, ‘Oh, boy.’ ”

Gervais said he received no further inquiries about his signature until he was interviewed by The Times last week. He said he was surprised to learn that the permit had not been invalidated.

On Tuesday, Topping took action, informing Mayor Tom Bradley’s office that he had advised the city attorney’s office of the matter and had asked the Department of Building and Safety to revoke the building and demolition permits pending a “complete, independent investigation.” The permits were revoked this week.

Handwriting Analyzed

Topping said that whether the inquiry will be conducted by the Police Department, the city attorney or the district attorney “has yet to be determined.” In the meantime, he said a handwriting expert from an unnamed law enforcement agency is analyzing the signatures of his employees.

Joseph Su, who owns the property on Cherokee Avenue along with relatives in Taiwan, could not be reached for comment on the revocation of his permits. Last week, however, he emphatically denied any wrongdoing in connection with the building permit on which his signature appears.

Su is represented by former City Councilman Arthur K. Snyder, an attorney with clients who do business at City Hall. Snyder said he was hired by Su after questions arose in October regarding Su’s building permit.

Snyder said last week that when he began looking into the status of the permit, “nobody seemed to know how we got signed off. Neither the architect nor certainly not Mr. Su, who never even saw the permit until after it was already issued.”

Su’s architect, Oded Miodovsky, said that one of his employees obtained the permit for Su. Afterwards, Miodovsky said that he became aware of a problem with the permit, which Snyder was hired to resolve. “I don’t know what happened,” he said. “I think this has all been squared away.”

Permit Called Valid

Snyder said last week that the Planning Department had looked into the matter and concluded that the permit was valid, although about the same time Topping told The Times that the permit was still under review.

Snyder said he went to City Hall several weeks ago to talk to Planning Department officials.

“Actually, in talking to them I used . . . the term forgery. And they said, ‘Well, we’re not at all certain it’s a forgery. It may have been another staff member other than Gervais signing Gervais’ name.’ That does happen.”

(Gervais said he had not authorized anyone on his staff to sign the disputed permit for him.)

Snyder said that planning officials who examined Gervais’ signature concluded: “Who knows who signed it? Maybe it’s somebody in planning signed it, maybe they didn’t.”

“At any rate . . . basically . . . they made a decision nunc pro tunc . . . that it should have been approved at that time. So that their determination is that therefore that the permit stands.”

Snyder said he learned this in a phone call from a planning official whose name he said he could not recall.

Written Rulings

Such a determination, allowing construction of the apartment house, would have reversed the Planning Department’s written rulings on May 8 and Oct. 28 that blocked construction on grounds it was inconsistent with the city general plan.

Topping said he had no knowledge of this determination. He said that if it were made, it flagrantly violated department policy, which requires permission for building be given only by a vote of the Planning Commission after a public hearing.

“I would really be annoyed if I found out this (policy) was not being followed,” said Planning Commissioner Daniel P. Garcia.

Times Staff Writer David Holley contributed to this article.