West Hollywood, California (Thursday, July 16, 2009) - The controversial Laurel Place 28-unit senior housing development planned for the last remaining large undeveloped residential plot, the nearly 100-year old mansion called Tara with its landscaped mature-growth green space took a step forward at Monday's City Council meeting.

Laurel Place/ Tara. Photo by WeHo News.

Or did it? The city no longer has funding; it lost the $4.2 HUD grant the senior housing depended on after the loss at the Supreme Court. The city says it will reapply for that same money and look for funding from other sources.

On a judge's orders, the city council Monday night approved a resolution rescinding the conditional agreements for Laurel Place senior housing project, declaring the 2006 EIR needs no supplement or amendment and "assign[ed] the interests of Laurel Place LLC to [a new holding entity,] 1343 Laurel LLC," as mandated by the CA Court of Appeals at the behest of the CA Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court forced West Hollywood to return to the drawing board as a result of a suit brought by Save Tara, a neighborhood preservationist group, who claimed that only senior housing got due consideration for the site because of that HUD grant, and that the public never had a meaningful input into the disposition of a community treasure.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

The High Court had agreed with Save Tara's contention that alternative uses for the site, gifted to the city by its lifelong owner, Elsie Weisman, age 97, had never been seriously contemplated and sent the suit down one level to have the matter set straight.

The court of Appeals asked the Superior Court to, in part demand the city consider and decide whether the EIR certified in October 2006 should be supplemented or amended.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

Photo by WeHo News.

The city attorney, Mike Jenkins, contends that the Superior Court meant them to review the EIR, and so hired a consultant to review the 2006 EIR to discover if any substantial changes took place that deserved reconsideration of the project.

Save Tara activists Allegra Allison and her attorneys called Mr. Jenkins' the narrowest possible reading of the ruling and threatened to make motions before the court objecting to the council's vote, demanding a full supplemental EIR.

The city council had already approved legal expenditures in closed session in anticipation of the vote. The High Court awarded Save Tara $800,000 in legal fees as a result of the city's loss in the lawsuit; the city is suing to have that fee reduced.

If the city fails in that appeal to lower the fees, it must also pay for Save Tara's legal fees for that appeal.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

The council meeting played out with less venom then past debates over Tara/Laurel Place, with only one senior making attack on the Save Tara; most in attendance took great pains to be as respectful to the other side in the debate as possible.

Several people remarked on the huge costs now associated with the project, including legal fees, architect's bills, administrative costs, increased building costs and, most importantly, a lack of $4.2 million in HD grants in which the whole project was based to begin with.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

People already use the portion of the yard in front of the chain link fence asd park space. Photo by WeHo News.

A previously vigorous supporter of senior housing on the site, Ric Rickles, member of the Senior Advisory Board, expressed his doubts about the project.

"I don't know how practical the whole proposition is now that we lost the HUD grant," he said. "Now, all that matter[s] is that the council and the court come to an agreement as to whether it is still a practical project for housing."

Ms. Allison also pointed out that, since the Laurel Place development stalled, the city has bought or begun building a total of 90 units (48 at 1234 Hayworth and 42 at Sierra Bonita Ave. and Santa Monica Boulevard), all of which should be inhabited before groundbreaking for Laurel Place.

The entire affair got hashed over, from the "he said, she said" about Ms. Weisman's intentions for the property, to whether proper consideration for the property's use as a community or arts center surrounded by parkland had been made.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

People spoke on the dire need for more senior housing and the dire need for more public green space.

Some people complained of the proposed project's faults (stemming from trying to be too many things at once and none of them well - park space, senior housing and historic preservation) and other folks defended the plan as the best use of the space possible, given the city's values.

Postcard featuring Tara from the 1920s. Photo by WeHo News.

One speaker sent tremors through the meeting space with his observations and regrets. Former-four term Planning Commissioner and chair John D'Amico called his presiding over the Laurel Place debate, "my proudest moment and my most painful as a planning commissioner."

He said proudest because he felt he afforded ample opportunity to both sides to speak their piece during the hearings, saying "it was, perhaps, instrumental in [both side's] long struggle to bring this to the Supreme Court..."

Mr. D'Amico then said, "It was my most difficult because...I held my nose and voted yes and I regret that vote because... I received much pressure from the staff and much pressure from the developer and their representatives, as well as phone calls from the community - an equal amount."

Noted in his three-term tenure as a leader in honing West Hollywood's reputation as demanding when it comes to architecture and urban design by creating and heading the commission's Design Review subcommittee, he addressed his next comments to the plans for the senior housing project that will surround the 1918 mansion patterned on pre-bellum southern plantation architecture.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

"The architecture of that [proposed] building is terrible; Allyne Winderman (Rent Stabilization Director and spearhead for the project) is making a science project out of a housing project."

He then threw his support to the opposition seeking to do a supplemental EIR to consider alternative uses that would not include senior housing.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

Council member John Duran. Photo by WeHo News.

Mayor Abbe Land's and Mayor Pro Tem John Heilman's comments reflected their long-held positions, that the city accomplishes three objectives as defined by the city's values, increases senior housing and green space and preserves a historic structure.

Mr. Heilman warned that the bad economy will result in "more and more people who have lost their jobs, more and more people who have lost their retirement savings, so if anything, the need for this kind of thing has increased."

He touted the saving of the essential historic nature of the house itself while building housing around it and also applauded the addition of 7,000 square feet of public green space in the housing project's front yard.

Council member John Duran expressed second thoughts about his 2006 vote to support senior housing on the project rather than investigate alternative uses, citing John D'Amico's comments as reason for his reconsidering his position.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

Speaking carefully, he said he thought the project was a good compromise between park space, senior housing and historic preservation.

He did, however, feel that he lacked sufficient information about alternative uses for the site to determine how an arts center plus expanded park could weigh against the proposed use as Senior Housing and park space.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

John Heilman, WeHo's Mayor Pro Tem. Photo by Stewart James. WeHo News.

He also thought that, in the interests of bringing the community together over a divisive matter and "rather than re-engaging in a new set of litigation that maybe we open it up...and hear from all sides. I would be willing to do that."

New council member Lindsey Horvath voted for the resolution, proving the swing vote. To her "the true question of morality here," was the amount of money being spent on the project," with redesigns, legal expenses and delays. "We're constantly spending money."

She feared that examining alternatives would not address what she detected as a major thread of community feeling, that no development whatsoever, of park or housing or community centers was welcome on the site.

"If we can't do anything because of the true, 1oo percent belief is that no development ought to be done on this property, then we have that option explored in the EIR... and I don't think that meets the community's objective."

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

WeHo's City attorney Mike Jenkins said the next step upon the yeah vote was reporting to the Superior Court and responding to the objections Save Tara promised to raise, likely leading to an appeal to the Court of Appeals by whichever side loses, delaying the project for many months, if not years.

Council member Jeffrey Prang pointed out that proceeding with the project as planned rather than explore alternative options that could provide community-wide benefits, given the changed circumstances, would once again give an already overlooked facet of the Vision 2020 Plan short shrift.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

Council member Jeffrey Prang. Photo by WeHo News.

He noted the city's successes in building affordable housing and in historic preservation, but admitted that the city had not done so well creating green space or parks for the residents of the most densely city west of the Mississippi River.

"We've done a good job building housing and preserving our historic buildings," he said. "We've got 20,000 people per square mile; we don't have that many opportunities to provide substantial open space which is useable open space, which can host activities... for people who have dogs, with children or people who just want useable park space."

Mr. Prang also claimed that the loss of HUD funding impacted the site's use, for now the project could be seen with clarity rather than through the prism of a $4.2 million grant.

He told WeHo News the city used that funding to anchor the EIR, comparing any alternative use unfavorably to senior housing because the HUD grant had to be applied to that land. "It's really hard to turn down $4 million," he said.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

He felt that if the community had the chance to choose between 28 units of senior housing and a pocket park or adding useable park space to the city and re-adapting the mansion into a cultural or community center, "I'm convinced they would chose more parks."

He called for a citywide initiative to be placed on the next municipal election ballot offering the voters a choice between an arts/cultural center with enhanced park space and the planned Laurel Place Project.

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE

Community activist Ed Buck is investigating placing a ballot measure on the local election to take the issue to the voters. WeHo News.

Activist Ed Buck reported that he had begun investigating that strategy, saying, "[West Hollywood Neighborhood Association (WEHONA)] is scratching around for a way to bring it to the voter," adding that "it seems like a high bar to get it on the ballot."

He said that such a vote could take the steam out of the heated discussion over the property's disposal, saying, "It's been too divisive; because it's too touchy for the council, maybe we voters can do them a favor by taking it out of their hands and deciding among ourselves."

He said little, acknowledging having just begun the investigative process. "We're exploring the initiative possibility, so it would be speculative on my part, but I think it's clear the preservation of Tara is paramount.

"It would be refreshing if we could put the question of should we preserve it or develop it, I think the people would choose to preserve it."

| Advertisement | CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION | Advertisement | CLICK HERE