Mayor Vetoes Mall Expansion Backed by Potential Rival

Siding with one group of homeowners over another, Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley vetoed a scaled-down expansion of the Westside Pavilion shopping center Thursday in a sidewalk ceremony interrupted by catcalls and screeching brakes.

The brakes came from Westwood Boulevard where the throng of homeowner activists and reporters convened by Bradley aides spilled into noontime traffic. The catcalls came from neighbors who called the veto a cheap political stunt devised to embarrass the area’s city councilman, Zev Yaroslavsky, the mayor’s expected rival in next April’s election.

Unexpected Snag

In any case, the veto creates a sudden, unexpected snag just as it seemed the end was near in a 2-year-old controversy over expanding the shopping center, a source of traffic and irritation for some Rancho Park and Westwood residents.

Homeowner groups in the area are divided, some opposing any expansion, others welcoming the compromise voted 12 to 0 by the City Council this week because it requires a much-smaller project than the developer wanted and provides 1,000 new parking spaces.

Bradley, like Yaroslavsky, has supported the shopping center expansion, and the mayor’s staff made no objections to the compromise before the City Council vote on Tuesday.

Slow-Growth Law

But after appeals Tuesday and Wednesday from homeowner activists who oppose the expansion, Bradley said in his veto message that the council ordinance could invite the developer to violate Proposition U, the city’s sweeping slow-growth law.

A legal opinion by the city attorney’s office concludes that the expansion would violate Proposition U if a traffic bridge to be built over Westwood Boulevard includes retail shops. There would be no legal problem if no retail shops are placed on the bridge, which would tie the existing mall to the planned expansion--105,000 square feet of new shops westward along Pico Boulevard.

Bradley, who rarely vetoes council actions, Thursday embraced the argument put forth by some homeowner groups that the council’s approval does not firmly forbid retail shops on the bridge.

“I believe the council’s action leaves the record in this matter muddled,” Bradley said in his veto message.

Bradley said he would allow the expansion to go forward if the council formally reconsiders the action in January and votes to include a specific ban on any retail shops on the bridge. “Then I will sign it,” he said Thursday to cheers from some homeowners.

Bradley’s request for specific language barring shops on the bridge was a clear slap at Yaroslavsky, the lead craftsman of the council’s approval this week. Yaroslavsky had argued during the debate that no specific ban was needed.

The councilman said Thursday that the developer, Westfield Inc., is clearly forbidden by Proposition U to place shops on the bridge. The city is already barred from issuing a building permit or any other clearance for the expansion if shops are included on the bridge, he said.

Reopening the debate to add specific legal language, as Bradley recommended, is no more necessary than writing in a specific prohibition against disposing of toxic waste or burying nuclear waste on the bridge, Yaroslavsky said.

Yaroslavsky, co-author of Proposition U, noted that Bradley did not support the slow-growth measure, and he agreed with homeowners who said Bradley’s veto was politically motivated.

“This mayor is not a born-again environmentalist,” Yaroslavsky said. “I think the mayor is hypocritical, disingenuous and insincere. . . . He never once raised a concern about this until 11 o’clock this morning.”

Left unclear Thursday was whether the council has the legal power to do what Bradley suggested--reopen the vote on the expansion in January, add specific language forbidding retail shops, and quickly vote approval of an amended ordinance.

If the veto is upheld, Yaroslavsky said Thursday, city legislative rules could require that Westfield file a new application for approval and go through the lengthy city process of public hearings and environmental impact reports all over again.

Bradley aides sounded confident Thursday morning that the council could simply reconsider its vote and add the new condition. But later in the day, Bradley deputy Jane Blumenfeld acknowledged that Deputy City Atty. Anthony Alperin had advised the mayor’s office that the legislative procedure was unclear and that Westfield might indeed be forced to refile and start anew through the city regulatory process.

Although the mayoral campaign will not formally begin until mid-January, Bradley and his advisers saw this as a chance to hit Yaroslavsky on his own home turf. Homeowners who oppose any expansion were tipped to the mayor’s decision and came armed with friendly signs. Instead of the usual driver and a single aide to accompany the mayor, half a dozen Bradley aides worked the crowd.

‘Couldn’t Be More Delighted’

“Mayor Bradley, we couldn’t be more delighted today,” said Sandy Brown, leader of one faction of homeowners.

As Bradley and Brown spoke, they were booed by another faction of residents who view the expansion plan, with its 1,000 new parking spaces, as the best compromise.

Bradley did not allow anyone from that group to speak and made a hurried exit to catcalls from the group, many of whom accused the mayor of using the shopping center expansion as a political ambush of Yaroslavsky.

“This is how he communicates with the City Council, on a street corner?” said Sara Berman, leader of a homeowner group next to the shopping center.

Yaroslavsky, meanwhile, said Thursday he has not decided whether to seek a council override of the veto, which would take 12 votes, a difficult proposition with several of the 15 council members loyal to Bradley.