Wisdom on Ma Maison: Better Late Than Never : City Can Step In and Require Parking, Getting a Handle on Back-Door Development

Almost finished, the Ma Maison Hotel on Los Angeles’ Beverly Boulevard--across the street from the Beverly Center--is a parking disaster.

Even worse, it is a glaring example of the city’s refusal to process development projects in a logical and legal sequence so that residential communities are not unfairly burdened.

Specifically, the city of Los Angeles has permitted projects like Ma Maison to apply for conditional-use permits once the buildings are near completion--a time when it is difficult and expensive to make changes in the design of a project. This means that new, more traffic-intensive uses are allowed after the city has given the green light for construction. The rules are being changed in the middle of the game by developers seeking late approvals. A similar tactic was used by Century City when its restaurant court was near completion. But this “back-door development” is not unique to Ma Maison or Century City--it is a problem for communities throughout Los Angeles.

Ma Maison’s developer argues that it is too late to ask him to provide the necessary parking spaces. The parking shortfall for Ma Maison, as estimated by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, ranges from 257 spaces to more than 500. The residential community, already forced into permit parking districts by the presence of Beverly Center (another project involving the same developer), believes that this is a self-induced hardship that could have been avoided and that it is not too late to remedy the problem.

The magnitude of community concern over this project was shown clearly by the 260 people who attended an emergency town meeting on April 25. When a show of hands was requested, only two persons in the entire hall supported the hotel project.

Yet until Ma Maison’s recent request for a conditional-use permit for the sale of alcohol, there was no opportunity for the community to voice its concerns. Clearly the developer and the city knew that this was not going to be the first dry hotel in Los Angeles. The proper course of action would have been to initiate application for the conditional-use permit during the review of building plans. But a conditional-use permit would have triggered an environmental study, and this is why the request was not made until the building was almost completed. The environmental study would have spotted the parking shortfall.

At every possible opportunity to plan for adequate parking for the Ma Maison Hotel, the city refused to exercise its authority. As far back as 1985, city officials, including Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, repeatedly denied that Los Angeles had any control over the hotel project. Nonsense.

For starters, it was obvious that the hotel would eventually seek permission to sell alcoholic beverages, and thereby open the project to city review. The project escaped the limitations of Proposition U, the voter-passed initiative to control commercial growth, in the nick of time, thanks to decisions made by city officials. Special ordinances were passed by the City Council for Ma Maison’s street improvements and dedications for the hotel, and a street vacation (closure) was almost approved by the council’s Public Works Committee. It was stopped only after the residential community requested an environmental-impact report. So the record proves that the city had control over this project and failed to protect the community.

As a result of the state Supreme Court’s 1987 ruling in the Friends of Westwood case, there is no more building “by right” in California. Citizens now have the opportunity to review major projects like the Ma Maison Hotel. While this historic decision came late in the history of Ma Maison Hotel, the conditional-use permit for the sale of alcohol is the community’s last chance to ensure adequate parking by subjecting the project to an environmental-impact report. The state Supreme Court has ordered environmental studies for completed projects in San Francisco and Costa Mesa, so there are precedents for such late reviews.

The residential community supports a long-term permanent solution. Within two to three years a parking structure for 257 cars would be built (at the developer’s expense) within 750 feet of the hotel. If not, the conditional-use permit would expire. By contrast, Councilman Yaroslavsky authored an inadequate, temporary Band-Aid: 117 additional parking spaces within 1,000 feet of the hotel, and a 40% reduction in banquet-room occupancy. Even with the reduction in occupancy, the shortfall would remain substantial, and the 117 spaces are temporary--leased, not owned or covenanted to the hotel. Leases can be terminated. Where would guests park then?

On Wednesday the City Council will hear the final appeal. The council and the mayor will have the opportunity to support permanent, adequate parking. It is time to protect the residential communities of Los Angeles. In the Ma Maison case it is late--but better late than never.