Compromise on Hollywood Redevelopment Panel Urged

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge, impatient with feuding over efforts to redevelop Hollywood, told Los Angeles city officials and a contingent of Hollywood residents Friday that they should form a compromise citizens’ advisory committee to oversee the renewal.

“I can’t order you to do it, but I urge you to,” said Judge Kurt Lewin. “Because I will tell you right now, neither side has a slam dunk at this time in this court.”

The judge’s proposed solution during a court hearing on the makeup of the citizens’ committee caught both sides by surprise. The city was looking to affirm the City Council’s right to appoint a new committee, while residents hoped to force the city to recognize a 3-year-old, mostly elected panel that the council voted to disband in May.

Stanton J. Price, an attorney for the residents, told the judge that he was eager to talk compromise, but several residents were less enthusiastic in interviews after the hearing.

“We have always been open to talking,” said Robert Nudelman, chairman of the officially defunct Project Area Committee. “But I am not thrilled with the idea.”

Hollywood-area Councilman Michael Woo persuaded the council to do away with the panel after two years of increasingly hostile relations between him and the group. He said the panel, dominated by critics of Woo and his plans for Hollywood, had become “an official forum for wacky behavior,” a reference to the group’s reputation as rowdy.

Attorneys for the city and the Community Redevelopment Agency said their next move will be dictated by the councilman. Woo did not attend the hearing, but he said in a telephone interview that he sees “no basis for that kind of compromise.”

“Today’s court hearing has no impact on my intention to announce by next week the new citizen participation process for the Hollywood redevelopment program,” Woo said. “It is hard for me to see how to work out a compromise with a committee that essentially doesn’t have any legal basis for existence in my view.”

The judge acknowledged during the hearing that he may ultimately be forced to decide whose committee will survive, but he reminded the two sides that a compromise would avoid a lengthy and expensive court battle. As a start, the judge proposed a committee with an equal number of appointed and elected members. If the two sides are unable to reach an agreement, he ordered them back Oct. 2.

“If you undertake the resolution of the matter with a focus on who did what to whom in history and past perceived insults . . . nothing will ever be resolved,” Lewin said. “There may be some room for compromise. That can only be achieved if the parties sit down together without focusing on what has gone on before. Maybe we can turn a new page here.”

The city and a core of Hollywood residents have been at odds for several years over the 1.7-square-mile Hollywood project. Residents fear that the $922-million face-lift of the once-thriving movie capital will lead to unwanted construction and widespread evictions.

A residents’ group and the redevelopment agency have been locked in a separate court battle for several years over allegations that the redevelopment plan was illegally written to favor big business interests over those of small businesses and homeowners. A Superior Court judge in January ruled in favor of the agency, but an appeal last month has kept frozen more than $2 million in property tax funds earmarked for the area.

Relations between the city and its critics in Hollywood worsened in May when the City Council voted to do away with the Project Area Committee and replace it with a committee appointed by Woo.

But most Project Area Committee members refused to yield and have continued to meet unofficially. They claim that the council’s decision was aimed at squelching voices of opposition after redevelopment critics, including several involved in the lawsuit over the drafting of the redevelopment plan, gained a majority on the committee for the first time in elections last December.

Twenty-one of the committee’s 25 members were elected by residents, businesses and community groups in Hollywood. Woo appointed the remaining four. The appointed members and several elected members resigned from the group after the City Council dissolved it in May.

The Project Area Committee was established to review various aspects of the renewal effort, including proposed traffic and urban design plans as well as some individual construction projects. It has made recommendations to the redevelopment agency but has no official decision-making powers. Woo has said his new appointed panel would assume many of the same responsibilities.

Last month, defiant Project Area Committee members challenged in court the council’s May vote, arguing that the redevelopment plan requires the city to consult with the committee throughout the implementation of the plan, which could cover its entire 30-year life span. The committee asked Lewin to force the city to recognize it and to start paying some disputed bills. Lewin postponed last month’s hearing until Friday to let the city and the CRA respond.

City and CRA attorneys contend that under state law, the agency is required to consult with the Project Area Committee for three years after adoption of the redevelopment plan. After the three-year period--which ended in May--the City Council can either extend the life of the committee or let it expire, they argue.

At the Friday hearing, Lewin said “either side could prevail” in the case but he expressed bewilderment at the city’s preference for appointed, over elected, committee members.

“It is hard to explain to Americans that . . . individuals directly elected by their neighbors ought not to participate in their government,” he said.