Sparks Fly in Hollywood at Hearing on Redevelopment

In a spectacle befitting Hollywood’s theatrical reputation, opponents of a plan to redevelop tattered Hollywood Boulevard turned a hearing on the proposal Tuesday night into a dramatic display of their displeasure.

With television cameras rolling and hot lights shining on them, several critics of the redevelopment plan wrested control of the meeting from its chairwoman by chanting slogans, screaming at their adversaries and making emotional appeals before the cameras. Chairwoman Elaine Koenig was able to regain order only by temporarily adjourning the meeting.

“Everybody shut up!” Koenig shouted, trying to be heard over the pandemonium. “The meeting is adjourned for the moment. Ten-minute break.”

Theatrics Abandoned

After the break, critics of the plan abandoned the theatrics, concentrating instead on detailing specific complaints about the proposal. Many Hollywood residents fear the plan would pave the way for massive demolition of historic structures, the construction of large, traffic-generating projects and the dislocation of people who live in the area.

One opponent of the redevelopment plan confided during the intermission that the drama before the break was not entirely spontaneous. Opposition to the plan has become such an emotional issue, the opponent said, that several critics decided to make an impression on redevelopment officials and the news media by making things “hot” at the meeting.

Others, however, denied the display was orchestrated. And Koenig--who said after the four-hour hearing that she will bring a security guard to keep order in the future--said she believed the emotionally charged exchange reflected deeply rooted concerns about the plan and its sponsors, the Community Redevelopment Agency.

“The thing I want to get across is not that people are acting extremely wild, but the reason why they are acting that way,” Koenig said. “There is an incredible level of frustration. People are ready to pop.”

The hearing was called by a subcommittee of the Hollywood Redevelopment Project Area Committee, a local advisory panel that makes recommendations to the CRA about redevelopment in Hollywood. The subcommittee met to discuss a preliminary draft released this month by the CRA of its plan to revitalize Hollywood Boulevard between Gower Street and La Brea Avenue.

The draft, which CRA officials characterized as “rough” and “very preliminary,” charts a revitalization course that, if implemented, would convert the one-mile stretch and its surrounding neighborhoods into a mix of entertainment, tourist, commercial and residential uses.

The plan envisions three high-rise residential towers--perhaps 20 stories tall--behind Hollywood High School, as well as other residential developments that together would add 2,300 housing units to the area. The plan would allow the development of 9.5 million square feet of commercial space--about 3 million more than now exists but about half of what is allowed under the Hollywood Redevelopment Plan, a broader document that addresses redevelopment throughout the community.

The boulevard plan, written by IBI Group, consultants hired by the CRA, breaks the boulevard and its surrounding neighborhoods into three sections. The western end, centering on Mann’s Chinese Theatre, is designated as an “international tourist” district. The eastern end, centering on the Brown Derby and several theaters, is designated as the “arts and entertainment” district. The area between those two districts is set aside for “neighborhood” development--such as grocery stores, cleaners and other community-oriented businesses.

CRA Hollywood Project Manager H. Cooke Sunoo said the plan is meant to act as a guideline--not a prescription--for future development in the area, known officially as the Hollywood Boulevard District.

“I think there is a major misunderstanding that this plan calls for the demolition of buildings,” Sunoo said in an interview. “What it does is establish criteria under which new buildings would be built. . . . It doesn’t advocate the demolition of anything.”

But many who spoke at the hearing criticized the plan for not doing enough to save dozens of historic buildings within the district and of giving carte blanche to developers who would build modern high-rises in their place. Critics of the plan also complained that it does not take into account the large volume of traffic that the envisioned development would generate.

“They plan to destroy whole city blocks on Hollywood Boulevard,” subcommittee member John Walsh said. “We are headed for gridlock here.”

Looks Like a ‘Garbage Pail’

Zahrina Machadah, a 35-year resident of Hollywood who lives outside the boulevard district, complained that the boulevard looks like a “garbage pail” but said she does not trust the CRA to revitalize it to the community’s liking. She accused the CRA staff and the hired consultants of ignoring community concerns.

“We live here,” Machadah said. “The only time we have input is when we come in here and sweat our hair and our eyelashes off trying to find out what the devil you are talking about. . . . I don’t like what you are doing to my town.”

It was when Fran Offenhauser, an architect and former member of the Project Area Committee, began to speak about the plan that the meeting degenerated into a shouting match. Offenhauser, who later offered several specific criticisms about the plan, started her comments by saying the plan contains “some good things.” She complimented IBI’s analysis of problems along the boulevard and lauded the plan’s projected reduction in the amount of commercial development allowed under the more general redevelopment plan. But her comments were cut short by Walsh.

“You don’t live there lady,” Walsh interrupted. “I live a block and a half away. . . . You may like it, but there are hundreds of us who live right here.”

Walsh’s interruption set off a flurry of chants and cries from the audience, and eventually resulted in Koenig’s decision to temporarily halt the meeting. After the 10-minute break, Offenhauser continued, but Walsh and others remained outside the YMCA meeting room until she finished.

Tempers Cooled

The intermission worked to cool tempers, and the second half of the meeting was not marked by the outbursts and theatrics of the first half. The television cameras and lights were also gone. Several speakers made specific recommendations about how to improve the plan. Among them:

Create provisions to protect historic buildings from demolition. In particular, several speakers said owners of historic buildings should be allowed to sell development rights for their property to developers of non-historic sites.

Integrate the Hollywood Boulevard District Plan and a separate traffic study commissioned by the CRA that is expected to be finished in the fall. “You definitely have not taken into consideration the traffic ramifications that can occur from the densities you are proposing,” Gail Portrey of the Franklin-Hollywood Boulevard West Homeowners Assn. said.

Spread new tourist projects along the entire boulevard, not just in the designated tourist area. Bob Portrey, owner of Legends of Hollywood restaurant, said the attractions are needed to help businesses not located near the Chinese Theatre.

Build public restrooms along the boulevard.

Devise parking options for businesses that cannot provide parking for their customers. Offenhauser suggested that businesses be permitted to contribute to a parking fund, which would be used to build parking structures, in lieu of providing actual spaces.

Put “some teeth” into the plan by transforming it into a city ordinance. Several speakers said they feared the CRA would follow the plan only when doing so suited it, and they charged that the CRA has broken many promises in the past. Near the end of the meeting, the subcommittee voted unanimously to recommend to the CRA that the final plan be written in ordinance form.

Sunoo, of the CRA, and representatives from IBI, the consultants, acknowledged that the preliminary draft needs to be improved and expanded. When a final version of the plan is crafted, it will again go to the subcommittee for review. Eventually, it will be submitted to the CRA’s board, as well as to the city’s Planning Commission and City Council.