Katy Schmoozes, The Public Loses

REPORT ON CD5 - Two weeks ago, the LA Times reported that while Councilmember Yaroslavsky was on a Paralympics junket in Paris, CD-5 was “popping off.”  On the east side of her district, a neighborhood group sued to stop an affordable housing project.  Closer to mid-city, neighbors were gearing up for a City Planning Commission “showdown” over the redevelopment of CBS Television City at Beverly and Fairfax.  Further west, a restraining order stopped construction of a homeless facility, and angry constituents started a campaign to recall Katy. 

Last week things continued to heat up.  While CM Yaroslavsky mingled at a City Hall reception promoting LA’s 2028 Olympics, just steps away at the CPC hearing, her staff poured fuel on the flames with Katy’s effusive letter of support for the Television City development.  Two years earlier, in her first dialog with Neighbors for Responsible TVC Development, the Councilmember declared that the Beverly Fairfax area needs housing, not jobs and that TVC 2050 needed “a big haircut.”  Somehow, she came to think otherwise. 

The project more than doubles the mass of Television City to something roughly the size of two Staples Centers right in the middle of established residential neighborhoods.  Dubbed a “studio expansion,” it increases production space by five percent and high-density office space by ninety-five percent, creating a massive office park on an iconic studio lot.  Katy’s principal condition of support is to reduce the size by a whopping two percent.  Another – despite her repeated objections to conditions that require ongoing monitoring – is to urge the developer to “prioritize entertainment-related office uses.”  Talk about a tough negotiator! 

Stakeholders have long insisted that the project’s deficiencies are secondary to the deficiencies of the Specific Plan, which essentially rezones the property to easily accommodate an even bigger development of an entirely different nature.  In her letter, Katy noted that she “wants to confirm” that deviations from the site plan require a new discretionary review by the Director of Planning, appealable to the City Planning Commission. 

In fact, that Commission’s TVC hearing left the distinct impressions that this was their very first rodeo.  Dozens of stakeholders (many of them seniors) were made to wait hours on the sidewalk outside City Hall despite adequate seating capacity in the meeting room and repeated requests for a second room to handle the overflow.  Most lost their chance to speak.  Commission members drifted in and out of the meeting room, missing entirely major elements of the testimony on the matter before them.

Eventually the Commissioners pulled together and lobbed a few soft-ball questions to the developer, who blew them off with a shrug.  Sample:  The promised contributions to Katy’s “trust fund” are stretched out over a 20-year construction window.  Could Hackman Capital pick up the pace a little?  Per Hackman’s attorney, “Not possible at this time.”  They swatted away another question by referring the Commissioners to Hackman’s marketing materials.

Notwithstanding this evident show of contempt from the applicant, the Commission unanimously approved a speculative development that had drawn well over 400 comment letters raising substantive issues about a flawed process and sketchy application.  In doing so, they brushed aside an astonishing NINE well-grounded Appeals brought by stakeholders ranging from Caruso and Gilmore Companies to Save Beverly Fairfax and Miracle Mile Residents Association.