I seem to have hit a nerve with last month’s column, “Death by Gridlock,†as the flood of incoming letters, presented here, will attest. They practically fill this month’s entire paper.
Last month we all watched an entrenched minority, the Tea Party, get its way, despite the fact that polls indicate a majority of Americans prefer a “balanced†approach.
The whole Mulholland Bridge debate felt the same way to me, only on a local level. Even though the officials in charge had embraced a plan that would save money and reduce traffic congestion, a small group, willing to file a lawsuit, got its way.
I have no doubt the more expensive plan was favored by most in the immediate area. Given the choice between a “Cadillac†plan and a “Chevy†plan, most of us would naturally prefer a Cadillac.
But given the state 
of governmental finances today, maybe it’s time for all of us to accept that maybe now we have to be more open to “Chevy†alternatives. Just because we’re Westsiders doesn’t mean we should always get what we want.
If the Chevy bridge had been built, I think everyone would have adjusted to it three days after it opened and that would be that. The Cadillac bridge that was finally adopted will be terrific, I’m sure, but it will cost taxpayers an extra $3 million to $10 million, according to estimates.
So there are tradeoffs to consider — quality of bridge vs. cost vs. impact on traffic vs. expediency of getting the 405 construction done. That’s what our elected officials are paid to do — assess the tradeoffs and make the tough calls. In this case, the elected official closest to the scene was Zev Yaroslavsky, our County
Supervisor and a member of the Metro board.
He and fellow Metro officials favored the “Chevy†alternative plan until confronted by the possibility of a lawsuit from the Brentwood Residents Coalition and Canyon Back Alliance, headed up by Brentwood residents Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman.
But nobody voted for Wendy-Sue and Tom to represent Brentwood in this matter; we actually did vote for Zev Yaroslavsky. He supported the “Chevy†plan even though many of his constituents in the immediate area didn’t, so he must have seen some bigger picture here (saving taxpayers money, reducing construction-related inconvenience, etc.). I respect his courage for taking the position he did; it’s not easy to go up against your own constituents.
Wendy-Sue and Tom (and their supporters) weren’t satisfied and threatened to sue. I think when everything has to go to court to get resolved, or when partisanship makes compromise impossible, we descend into gridlock. I think our entire country has to figure out how to resolve issues like these.
Many of you agreed with me — but many did not. As will be clear when you start reading all the letters, Wendy-Sue and Tom definitely have their supporters. They clearly think: a) I did a hatchet job on Wendy-Sue and Tom; b) that I didn’t do a good job of reporting or gathering the facts when putting together my editorial; c) that I’m “dismissive†of legal processes; d) that I think majority rule should be able to stomp on minority rights; and e) my article seemed very out of character.
I would like to address these in order.
That this was a hatchet job. I started reaching out to Wendy-Sue 8 days before we went to press last month, telling her that many in Brentwood were upset about how the bridge issue got resolved, the issue of added cost and the question of who really speaks for Brentwood. I was getting lots of calls about this.
I gave Wendy-Sue every opportunity, multiple times, to provide a statement in her own words, completely unfiltered by me, explaining her side of things. She sent me lots of articles and letters showing support among homeowner groups in the Mulholland area for the Cadillac plan, but she never really dealt with the issues of cost, who represents Brentwood, and whether threatening lawsuits is really the way to resolve issues like this.
It’s unfortunate that she didn’t submit something by the time we went to press, but if anyone thinks I didn’t give her every chance to weigh in here, that’s simply not true. Wendy-Sue knows this.
That I didn’t have my facts right. Many letters say this, but it’s not clear to me from reading them and (re-reading them) what facts I got wrong or missed here. If anyone can point out an error, I’ll happily run a correction. I don’t think it’s my grasp of facts that bothers BRC supporters; it’s my opinions they don’t like. And that’s fine, I respect that.
That I’m dismissive of legal processes. I’m married to an attorney; that would be hard to pull off in my household. True, I am troubled that people think threatening lawsuits is the way to resolve local issues if you don’t get your way. Surely people of good will can work these things out.
And Metro claims that it was doing nothing legally wrong in wanting to forgo a new EIR on the alternative bridge, so unless this actually went to court and resulted in a ruling, we really don’t know who was more legally correct here, BRC or Metro. Clearly both can’t be right. That I believe majority rule should trump minority rights. This debate goes back to the founding of our republic. I’m not sure our country has ever settled on exactly the right balance.
Of course minorities should be able to press their cases, but that doesn’t mean that they should always win. Sometimes a majority actually gets it right.
That my article was out of character – both personally and as a newspaper. I think the Brentwood News is known for being fair, giving equal time to all sides. This case was unusual in that one side wouldn’t address many of the questions presented, despite repeated attempts on my part; on the other side of the fence, many said they wouldn’t talk for fear of ending up on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
I’m sorry, something just didn’t feel right about this situation and so I decided to pick up the rock, shine a light and see what came crawling out from underneath. Isn’t this, really, what newspapers are supposed to do?
As painful as this might seem in the short-term, at least now everybody’s talking. Maybe this will lead to some improvement in how we communicate in the future. I sure hope so.
Wendy-Sue and Tom are obviously rare talents, willing to work extraordinarily hard for causes in which they believe. There are all kinds of wonderful people here in Brentwood. As Rodney King would say, can’t we all get along?
I think a good starting place would be to underscore that the BCC is where community issues should be discussed and hashed out. Maybe, had Wendy-Sue and Tom pursued the “Cadillac†option before the BCC, they would have found support, and I’d be fine with that. They made an excellent case, without a doubt.
If a minority group decides it’s not happy with the outcome produced within the BCC (or a decision made by an elected official), I suppose that group can go sue or do whatever they’ve got to do; but then one has to ask why we even have a BCC or elected officials if their opinions count for so little and everything will end up in court anyway.
Some have observed that this whole letter-writing exercise seems very “high school,†with all sides telling their friends to be sure and submit a letter. One e-mail even came in from Paris! I invited the responses, so I can’t complain; more communication is better than less, in my view.
If you never saw the original piece, “Death by Gridlock,†you can find it at: http://www.brentwoodnews.wpengine.com/n5560/death-by-gridlock.html
Letters are presented in the order received as of Friday, Aug. 12. Go to BrentwoodNewsOnline.com to find this online.
Mr. Hall, You invited views — respectfully, here is one you may not like.
Nothing is perfect. The BCC’s position may not have represented residents of Brentwood generally or Wendy and Tom’s position, supported by the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy, might have — there is no way to know without a vote, which isn’t practical.
The Bel Air resident who reportedly lobbied for changes to the Mulholland Bridge and, it seems, may have been successful to some extent, may be more out of step with what was good for the general public since, if what I read is correct, she effectively stopped what could have been one weekend of 405 closure instead of two.
I think including that person’s positions with Wendy’s and Tom’s in the same paragraph is unfortunate –that seems to give the impression they were in league with each other, but I don’t think that is the case. Also, characterizing Tom’s letter to the Planning Department as reading “like a legal brief worthy of submission to the U.S. Supreme Court†comes off as a negative, whereas I would think it is something for which Tom should be complimented.
If citizen input and influence is a good thing, which I’m sure the BCC thinks it is, then it seems to me that there is no good way to limit influence to one group, such as the BCC, and deny it to others such as Wendy, Tom, the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy, etc. Giving a politician an emergency veto assumes you get a better result by doing that where there is gridlock, however one determines when there is actually a gridlock, and gives a tool to politicians I’d rather they not have.
The real issue here may be the EIR requirements, which can be enforced by citizen activists, giving them a tool that can be mighty powerful in some cases on which most folks would agree and, hand in hand, be abused in others. Would you change the law on that?
It seems to me, from the little contact I’ve had with the BCC and Wendy, that both do an outstanding job for the community. Maybe Wendy was wrong this time, maybe the BCC was, or maybe both were. That goes with the territory of citizen involvement, nothing is perfect, and I wish your article had mentioned Wendy’s and the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy’s (I don’t know Tom) enormous contributions to our community over many years.
Steve Meiers (25+ year
resident of Brentwood)
Jeff, I fundamentally agree with your editorial, save some issues.
First, it is true that we have gridlock in our political bodies. However, they are elected bodies and their Members represent voters and their views and political philosophies.
Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman are not my representatives in any political body, and if they belong to one they need to cause that body to act. Instead they undertook to hold up the citizens of LA, and the Metro and Caltrans functionaries that we are trying to do the best job possible, under difficult circumstances. The functionaries in trying to avoid the delays that Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman were offering, folded. If the functionaries had held their ground they would have prevailed because the citizens of LA and specifically the surrounding communities would have looked at the issue rationally. As it is, two activists, acting on their own beliefs, imputed them to the rest of us, with bad consequences in terms of cost and inconvenience for all of us.
There is a message here that there is a thin line between activism and irresponsible activism. Quiet, irresponsible activism is the worse one, and it leads to classical corruption.
Jose Reines – Brentwood.
Jeff, your analysis on the 405/bridge was right on the money. We live in an era where some people’s sense of their importance is way out of line. While many of our elected leaders, on both sides of the aisle, can’t seem to get their act together to solve our nation’s challenges, others think that they have the right to make decisions that they are not entitled to. Much of this streams from the Internet and the social media availability.
Tom and Wendy-Sue are in this category. In the later case, her mom couldn’t figure out what to name her, Wendy or Sue, so she got them both! They should both use their energy and time to worry about the important issues of the day, not the bridge over the 405. Not a big deal and we taxpayers could have saved a lot of money and time.
Bob Waldorf
Brentwood resident since 1967
Bravo! I want to congratulate you on the excellent article you have written entitled Death by Gridlock. Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman care deeply about Brentwood but their fanatical dedication to constantly block and interfere in new businesses and projects in and around Brentwood is misguided at best and detrimental to the entire Brentwood community. The Brentwood Residents Coalition does not represent Brentwood residents.
It’s thanks to them we don’t have Fig & Olive Restaurant, which would have been a wonderful addition to the Brentwood community. There are approximately 30 other residents in my condominium building who are equally disappointed. Instead we have an empty building at that location. I’d like to see an article on the number of lawsuits the two of them have filed or threatened to file against restaurants and other businesses in Brentwood. It’s time Brentwood was given a reality check – your article and Carmageddon are perfect examples. Thank you for highlighting this.
Roz Gamble
Dear Jeff Hall —
I am a Brentwood resident. Thanks so much for your wonderful article on Carmaggedon. I had heard before of the crazy politics behind the decision to handle the bridge in the current fashion, but your exposition of it was wonderful – and also shocking that Wendy Sue Rosen and her husband Tom could have held sway in the face of common sense. I do not support the tactics that they used, nor do I support their values. I think a broader article on Wendy Sue and Tom would be in order since they have single handedly shaped many other important decisions in the community, decisions that have not been in the broader interest of the community.
Sincerely, Sara Melzer, LA, CA 90049
Dear Jeff,
I have not attended CAC meetings and have stayed only minimally up-to-date with all the Mulholland Bridge drama, but your editorial captured my attention. From the little I do know about what transpired, your piece seems to be short on facts and long on fanning the flames of community discord. As for your statement that BCC should be speaking for Brentwood, to my knowledge, the issue of the Mulholland Bridge never came before the BCC — and I have attended all but one meeting since January, as an alternate rep for BHA.
Under those circumstances, the BCC was certainly not empowered to take a position.
I look forward to Brentwood News returning to the more even-handed reporting to which I’ve become accustomed.
Sincerely, Elin Schwartz
I was really quite shocked to see such a mean-spirited and short-sighted hatchet job on Wendy-Sue Rosen and her husband Tom Freeman in the latest edition of the Brentwood News. Considering this couple’s dedication to making sure projects are done right, safely, according to code, and with due consideration for the surrounding residents, businesses, commuters and the natural environment, I think you owe them an apology for trying to portray them as people who get pleasure out of being “spoilers†or bullies. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A couple of weeks ago when the 405 closure was imminent, I spoke with a prolific Westside architect and developer I know. We’d both read about the defunct, alternative Mulholland Bridge configuration. This highly-qualified designer of commercial properties got a very contemplative look on his face and said “You know, I looked at the plans…surely they could have come up with something better than that “T†intersection.†He seemed stunned that the project designers would have put forward such an inappropriate bridge concept for consideration. Perhaps if you talked to some professionals like him you would realize that Wendy and Tom have done the community a favor and not a disservice.
In the end, this couple’s diligence and leadership will give all concerned a more scenic, functional, safe and effective Mulholland Bridge, one that will serve the community-at-large “forever†. If the poorly-configured alternative plan were actually implemented, this paper would be the first to criticize the intolerable sight lines, the odd angles, the bottlenecks and the other permanent, negative consequences of the half-baked, expedient bridge replacement.
Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman were by no means the only ones to speak out in opposition to the scrapped alternative bridge design. Perhaps their voices were taken so seriously because of their reputation for scrutinizing projects with accuracy, discernment and foresight.
In all my years as a reader of your newspaper, I’ve never seen you target individuals the way you did in this case, and I do sincerely feel that Wendy and Tom deserve an apology. Some of us Westsiders deeply appreciate their efforts on our behalf, and it concerns me that your editorial will give the wrong impression to people who don’t know anything about this couple’s dedicated activism.
Marilyn Noyes, Westside Resident
When a huge bureaucratic institution like Metro or a newspaper like the LA Times blames one person or organization for stopping a project like the Alternate Mulholland Bridge, one has to wonder what is really going on: over-simplification of the facts, scapegoating, bad reporting or all three.
Jeff Hall’s Brentwood Beat article, “Death By Gridlock,†managed to exhibit all three, so let’s start at the beginning. Just about a year ago, Metro proposed what they called a “Parallel†Bridge, embraced by all members of the I-405 Community Advisory Committee, including the Brentwood Residents Coalition. But when the designs and details of the Bridge were finally revealed, this Bridge in fact, was not parallel at all. And once the hundreds of pages of records were reviewed through a public records request (one has to wonder why Metro did not provide these documents to its own Community Advisory Committee), it became clear that the Alternate Mulholland Bridge was more impactful both short-term and long-term than the original Mulholland Bridge, which was certified following a several year environmental process with public hearings and public input.
The “Alternate†Bridge would sever the historic, continuous, scenic-designated Mulholland Drive, span the entire freeway with mounds of new concrete at a lower elevation, ending in a T-intersection forcing pedestrians and cyclists to cross six lanes of traffic, add traffic lights and tight turns onto the freeway on- and off-ramps (changing traffic patterns), add two lanes to Skirball Center Drive requiring 30,000 cubic yards of grading and 1400 linear feet of retaining walls (and that would only be for one side of the new bridge), and the old bridge would still need to be demolished. Metro failed to provide any data on these impacts.
Metro was required to participate in a City process because the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Design Review Board has jurisdiction over the Mulholland Bridge. The Board held a noticed public hearing in February 2011. Members of the two closest communities (Bel Air Skycrest and Casiano), along with representatives from the Hillside Federation, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, Canyon Back Alliance, Brentwood Residents Coalition, cyclists, recreational trail users, Mountaingate, Bel Air Crest and others testified in opposition to the project.
More members of the community opposed the project at the hearing than supported it. And at the end of the four hour public hearing, the Board asked Metro to come back with a revised design that maintained the continuous historic alignment, answered ours and others concerns, and present a full application as any other applicant appearing before the Board would be required to do. Instead of proceeding through this required process, Metro withdrew its project and returned to its original and previously-certified plan. That might be because the Alternate Bridge as proposed violated the Mulholland Specific Plan and the City’s Municipal Code. And the more details revealed to community members, the more opposition there was to the project.
In the end, Carmageddon was an amazing experience for the community. Angelenos heeded the warnings and stayed off the roads. There were less than half the number of accidents as the weekend prior, more public transit ridership than ever, CHP credited the empty freeways with the lack of injuries and fatalities during a high speed chase, and police rolled out a pilot program to respond to emergencies on motorcycles. Families hung out, neighbors got to know each other, a cyclist raced a plane. Now politicians and community members are trying to figure out how to recreate Carmageddon weekly, monthly, yearly or some version of motorist-free LA. If we are to blame for Carmageddon, we are wearing that title like a badge of honor.
Wendy-Sue Rosen
Brentwood Residents Coalition
Jeff — a week or so ago, I rushed off an e-mail to you in response to your editorial in the most recent edition of the Brentwood News. I was heading out of town and didn’t give my e-mail to you the attention it deserved. So this is “Part II†:
The impression I got from reading your piece, was that you had been spoon fed a lot of misinformation with the thinly disguised intention of character assassination against Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman. Yes, I understand that Tom and Wendy have a reputation for being in the thick of controversy — but that , in itself, is not a bad thing. We need people in the community who are willing to go against the tide and advocate for a rapidly disappearing quality of life. I am 100% positive that Brentwood would be in far worse shape if it were not for their diligent efforts on behalf of the community. Yes, they sometimes drive developers and City bureaucrats crazy by their insistence on compliance with code, adherence to the San Vicente Scenic Corridor Specific Plan, (and other neighboring Specific Plans) — but in my experience, every project in which they have intervened has come out to be a better project in the end.
According to the LA Times, Tom and Wendy were only two voices out of a multitude of organizations — environmental, homeowners, Design Review Board, etc. — who were opposed to the alternative bridge design. Your confrontational and one-sided piece was disappointing and disturbing, to say the least. Brentwood is going to be presented with many challenges in the coming months. I question your participation in an apparent effort to divide the community and discredit and sideline two such highly dedicated, and knowledgeable assets as Tom and Wendy.
Sincerely, Elin Schwartz
We support this request and implore all city officials to provide some sort of traffic relief for the Mulholland Bridge. Using the excuse that our “tony†community did not want a parallel bridge constructed but instead preferred the current construction plan, and then not having a master plan for traffic for these neighborhoods who are dependent on the Mulholland Bridge is an insult to use and our public voice.
The city is responsible to provide safe and proper traffic control during the entire construction process. RESTRICTING CALNEVA TO LOCAL ACCESS ONLY AND REQUIRING ALL THE CORRIDOR SCHOOLS TO HAVE A BUSING ELIMINATE SOLO CAR DROP OFF AND PICK UP, is the best plan for all concerned.
We fully support Mrs. Taheripour’s letter below as does our community Bel Air Skycrest and other local communities on the West Corridor.
Thank you for your time and PROMPT attention to this most serious issues.
Dr. Stuart and Mrs. Barbara Bloom
Interim President Bel Air Skycrest Property Owners Association.
Dear Councilman Rosendahl and the wonderful staff of CD11
Your constituents on Mulholland Drive desperately need your help!
Come Aug 29th when all 7 institutions on the Muholland corridor open their doors, we will be locked in our homes.
Metro does not have a plan (as of their last meeting held last Thursday, July 28). How will Metro and the city prepare and implement an effective traffic plan for the area with only 29 days to go?
The only reason “Carmageddon†worked was because there was a massive public outreach and everything was coordinated months in advance.
4,000 plus students and staff will be added to the already congested area. How can the residents and children (ages 2.5 to 18) be assured safety and access if there are no plans in place yet?
We need your help, support and your voice. Please help us.
Thank you, Linda Taheripour
Bel Air Skycrest Resident
Jeff Hall, Editor
I have lived in Brentwood for 64 years and am a founding member of the Brentwood Residents Coalition (BRC).
In your article “Death by Gridlock,†you argue that the BRC should have let the Brentwood Community Council (BCC) handle the Mulholland Bridge proposal. That is nonsense.
I have served on the I-405 Community Advisory Committee, “CAC†, since its inception in 2009, as a representative for the Brentwood Homeowners Association, of which I am a member and a Vice President. The BCC also appointed representatives to the I-405 CAC, but the BCC reps did not participate in any discussions, hearings or decision-making related to the Bridge. They did not take any position on the “Alternate Bridge Proposal†.
Last year, members of the Bel Air Skycrest Community [BASC], the closest residential neighborhood to the west of the Mulholland Bridge, asked the BRC and others for help in assessing the merits of the ill-conceived Mulholland Bridge Alternate proposal.
The BRC offered its skill and expertise in planning, land use, zoning and environmental codes and regulations.
METRO was not intending to comply with these codes and regulations, which I consider disingenuous!
BRC and BASC were joined by a rapidly growing coalition of organizations and individuals opposing the Alternate Bridge – a group that included, among others, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a world-renowned State Agency, the Hillside Federation, representing more than 33 hillside organizations, and pioneering citizens who led the successful effort to create the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Specific Plan.
While some may applaud what appears to be the recent transformation of the BCC into the “Brentwood Chamber of Commerce,†the Brentwood Residents Coalition seeks to give members of the community a voice in the process by advocating enforcement of laws designed to protect the environment and quality of life for residents. Your suggestion that the BCC alone should speak for all Brentwood residents is not, as you seem to believe, democratic. It lacks a basic respect for the First Amendment.
Sincerely, Donald Keller, resident of Brentwood for 64 years.
Jeff Hall’s recent column “Death by Gridlock†(Brentwood News, July 15 2011 – August 14 2011) unfairly targets two long-time Brentwood community advocates, Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman, holding them principally responsible for what Mr. Hall perceives to be an anti-majoritarian outcome with regard to the now partially demolished Mulholland Bridge over the I-405 freeway. Mr. Hall’s full-page musings are likely to leave the uninformed reader with two false impressions: that a clear majority supported the Metro/Caltrans revised plan, and that but for Wendy and Tom’s advocacy against the project it would have gone forward, saving millions of dollars and causing only one “Carmageddon†I-405 closure rather than two.
First, the majority view remains unknown, because no formal vote or informal poll of community members was ever made. In fact, if one were to formulate an opinion based on the public comment provided during community hearings, the appearance is that the majority favored following the original plan, not the revision. But there is a problem with this way of thinking: we do not ignore state and local land use and environmental laws because they might cause some inconvenience or additional cost, or because an editorialist believes the majority would go a different way. It is not for the majority of ours or any other community to determine when state environmental law must be followed.
Moreover, when the subject of debate is the reconstruction of a bridge over a major California freeway, how do we go about determining the particular community of interest of which a majority would suffice to override the law? There is a vast array of stakeholders here. To suggest that the Brentwood view is necessarily the “correct†one is a bit of a stretch.
Second, Mr. Hall asks, essentially, even if Wendy and Tom are “technically†correct how much difference could the revised plan have made, and is it worth the added costs in time and money? Those are interesting questions, but not ones on which we need to speculate, because the required environmental review process would have told us, as well as disclosed still unknown potential adverse consequences. It would have been terrific to compare the possibilities that were actually studied with the revised bridge plan, but it didn’t exist yet. That timing is unfortunate, but it is no justification to change the way we do business. Without appropriate review, we cannot know if the revision is truly superior or whether that is just wishful thinking. And if our community leaders simply guessed and were wrong, wouldn’t we find that extremely upsetting, especially while, as Mr. Hall notes, we are “at a time of economic woe†?
We should not be surprised that Metro and Caltrans confidently claim that they would have won any lawsuit on these issues. But their self-serving statements in no way substitute for an independent review. Further, to frame the issue as a matter of compromise, as Mr. Hall does, is also unhelpful. Compromise what? Whether we follow or ignore longstanding procedural safeguards? Neither Wendy and Tom, nor any of the actors here, have the authority to make such a compromise.
Finally, beyond the complex and unanswered question whether the revision would have been better or worse, or the simpler question whether a simple majority of stakeholders ought to be sufficient to flout state environmental protections, I am very disturbed that Wendy and Tom have been singled out for criticism for doing what they believe is right, when their views were shared by organizations representing tens of thousands of stakeholders. Wendy and Tom are both friends, so of course it hurts me to see them attacked personally, but they have also been great friends to our community for many years, and they deserve much, much better.
Community members may not always see eye to eye on every issue. That is to be expected, even embraced. The clear implications of Mr. Hall’s article, however, are that those who represent a perceived minority view should just be quiet and go away, or that they are and against the public interest. These implications are not only wrong, but also grossly unfair to Wendy and Tom and the entire Brentwood community.
Jeff Hall and Brentwood News owe Wendy and Tom an apology.
Sincerely, John Given
Brentwood
Dear Mr. Hall,
Editorials need to be based on fact in order to have any credibility. The “Brentwood Beat†column in the July 15th Brentwood News is instead filled with factoids large and small, some of which I would like to correct. I live in Bel Air Skycrest, off Mulholland, one mile west of the 405. Ours is the community closest to and most impacted by the Mulholland Bridge construction project. We are also greatly impacted by the Skirball Bridge construction and the I-405 Widening Project itself. We deal with them every day. I am our community’s representative to the Hillside Federation and an attendee at the Metro-sponsored monthly CAC meetings. As such, I at first shared the enthusiasm over the “parallel†bridge plan. Metro’s attitude in the CAC meetings is usually patronizing at best, but this was a situation where they finally seemed to have listened. Then I attended a public Planning Department meeting in November where the plans for the parallel bridge were discussed. Metro was not at this meeting, but enough concerns were raised that I reported on them to the Hillside Federation, as well as the Brentwood Residents Coalition (BRC).
Transparency is absolutely crucial in projects like these. Without it there can be no trust, and without trust there can be no consensus. Throughout December and January, Metro was not forthcoming with any specifics about the new bridge plans. Finally, with just 10 days left till their reluctant appearance before the Mulholland Design Review Board, we obtained the plans through a public records act request. We studied them and found out why Metro was so unwilling to share. The bridge option being proposed was not parallel. A totally redesigned and repositioned Mulholland Drive would now intersect with Skirball Center Drive in a “T†formation. In addition, it required the widening of Skirball Center Drive from three lanes to seven! The impacts of these changes on traffic patterns and recreational users (cyclists, hikers, etc.), as well as wildlife, were not even being considered.
I am big on process. So is the Hillside Federation. So is the Conservancy. So is the BRC. So is the Mulholland Design Review Board. It’s the best way to balance quality of life with development. What we demanded from Metro was an evaluation of both the short-term and long-term impacts of the new bridge. Metro, which is not really open to input though they make a show of trying to be, refused. They chose to go back to the original plan instead of going through the required process.
The notion that our community would embrace a plan just to be contrary is ridiculous. Yes, there will be short-term inconveniences, but these are things that we are willing to put up with because of the long-term benefits.
I’m new to local politics, but if you believe a “parallel†bridge would have saved the taxpayers $4-10 million dollars, you are even more naïve than I am. That money is earmarked for the project and it will be spent.
Certainly, our concerns are open to debate, but not two days before the bridge is coming down.
It is disappointing when a righteous newspaper like the Brentwood News gets it so wrong. Mr. Hall, instead of using your column as a bully pulpit to unite like-minded advocates, you have chosen to divide the community. Local politics attracts all kinds of people. No one is paid. Anyone can join. To target and blame effective advocates like Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman, who research and understand the issues before they act, something you apparently don’t do, should be beneath you. High school papers don’t sink so low.
Metro is the issue here. You’ve drunk the Kool-Aid, and instead of holding the politicos responsible, you’ve found it sexier to skewer the messengers.
Sincerely, Mark Stratton
Bel Air Skycrest
Dear Jeff: I was most disappointed to read your recent piece in connection with the Mulholland bridge. Quite frankly, I found it hard to believe that the piece was written by you. I have always respected you as a journalist. Sadly, this recent piece departed from what I have grown to expect.
Despite the fact that a number of individuals and organizations were
strongly opposed to the alternative Mulholland bridge plan, it appears to me that you chose to single out Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman for a personal attack. Personal attacks should never be a part of any article. I believe it was John Wooden who stated something to the effect that one does not have to be disagreeable because he or she disagrees.
Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman are not the only ones active in trying to keep Brentwood a thriving community for both business and
residents. Without such people who are willing to take the time and
effort, as well as often putting their money where their mouth is,
the few would overrun the many. We cannot allow this to happen.
Sometimes we must “fight City Hall.†Each and every resident and
business in the Brentwood community has an interest in seeing that
things are done properly and in compliance with all applicable laws.
You mention the threat of lawsuits. Based upon my experience I cannot say that our leaders are particularly receptive to the voices of their constituents. From time to time the threat of a lawsuit is the
only thing that keeps the powers that be from running amok.
Sometimes the little guy has to pick up his or her slingshot.
We all have to follow the law. If we don’t like the law, we change
it. None of us has the right to ignore the law because it doesn’t suit our convenience, whether we are the majority or the minority.
I moved from Brentwood about one and one half years ago, but after spending 47 years on the west side I continue to take an interest in the community. I was a member of the Brentwood Community Council for over four years. I left the BCC a year before I moved as I saw the
handwriting on the wall that the organization was headed in a direction I found unsettling. Nothing I have seen since leads me to believe that things have changed. I have a serious doubt that the BCC, at this point in time, truly represents all the people of Brentwood.
We need people like Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman, as well as the other persons and organizations who came out against this project.
They keep everyone honest. It is only through the presentation of all
positions that we can reach a result which is best for everyone. We
cannot afford to stifle dissent.
I hope that this article is merely a glitch and that the next one will be like others in the past. Your opinions have great value and offer us food for thought, but please keep “personal†out of them.
Best Regards, Ken Marks
As past President of Bel Air Skycrest, the closest community west of the Mulholland Bridge, I am deeply disturbed by last month’s “Death by Gridlock†column, in which Jeff Hall laments the litigiousness of our society and attacks a particular group of community activists for what? Asking for some accountability on a billion dollar government project?
It is not by accident that Mulholland Drive is a designated Scenic Parkway, protected by the Mulholland Specific Plan. This plan, which was designed to safeguard Mulholland Drive and its environs, was 20 years in the making. Metro’s alternate bridge design violated the Specific Plan, and I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would think it acceptable to simply throw the Specific Plan and what it represents under the train (or, in this case, under the 405 freeway), precedents be damned! The same goes for Mr. Hall’s dismissive attitude toward Environmental Impact Reports and public process in general, as though they are some kind of pesky bureaucratic obstacle course, best avoided, instead of important protections put in place for our benefit and well-being. (And, by the way, referring to massive quantities of grading and monumental retaining walls as “landscaping issues†is a masterpiece of understatement.)
So Mr. Hall is trivializing the very valid issues raised by a number of groups, including Bel Air Skycrest, with regards to the bridge. And at the same time he is attacking the Brentwood Residents Coalition, which has been an amazing advocate for my community on numerous occasions. He criticizes Tom Freeman because his letter “reads like a legal brief.†Tom Freeman is an extremely intelligent, ethical and committed person. He also happens to be a lawyer. Naturally, his knowledge of the law informs his work as a community activist. We live in a world of big business and big government making big backroom deals. It is a world in which community activists have a hard time getting our voices heard. A world in which protections are being whittled away on a daily basis. We all use the tools available to us. So why is Mr. Hall siding with Goliath and belittling those of us who want to protect our mountains and our communities in the mountains for years and generations to come?
As for Wendy-Sue Rosen being “too busy attending meetings†to write an article – it’s true. I think it would be safe to say that the system, while supposedly inviting public participation, actually makes it pretty damned impossible for your average concerned community member to stay informed on all the issues that affect us in this city, let alone show up at meetings. More than anyone I know, Wendy-Sue has her finger on the pulse of Los Angeles, she does her homework, and she’s there to ask the tough questions no one else is going to ask. It’s pretty much a full-time job, and she takes it on because she cares, because she has strong community values, and because she wants to see reason and balance (too often lost in those backroom deals) prevail. She is deeply engaged by the process, and lucky for us she is!
Given that Metro refused to go through proper process with the alternate bridge, I believe we ended up with the right plan. And remember, rebuilding the bridge by halves is Metro’s plan as well – one which they promised they would be able to mitigate. Bel Air Skycrest and many other Mulholland-adjacent communities have moved on and are working, with our council offices’ aid, to find ways to make the continuing construction period safe and livable for all of us. We ask everyone to do the same.
Lois Becker, Bel Air Skycrest
We agree with Jeff that the world, in particular our world in Brentwood, would be a better place if ostensibly well meaning, active members of Brentwood would show willingness to compromise, especially on land use issues. Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman appear to be trying to implement a destructive precedent by threatening to sue if a project doesn’t meet their wishes.
Wendy and Tom are intelligent people, but they try to push their own agendas instead of working for goals that benefit our community. Good leaders use common sense, listen, and compromise. Good leaders also work with others without shouting the “F†word at developers, their representatives and their own committee members. Good leaders’ conduct is not confrontational, disruptive or rude.
Tom, Wendy and Don Keller have formed their own group because they are unable or unwilling to work with the established groups. Their negativity toward businesses and refusal to compromise has been detrimental to businesses trying to make their home in Brentwood, as well as, to the Brentwood community. There was the withdrawal of the project for a fine restaurant on an almost unbuildable lot. There were a number of other restaurants which dropped their projects as well. For our community to thrive, we need activists to allow for and encourage business, as well as, residential needs.
It seems to us that they wait until the final plans are in place, then speak to the press negatively – always negatively – about the project du jour. They threaten lawsuits, or actually sue. Each of these is a major play for attention from the media to further their agenda.
Speaking out and caring about your community is admirable, but representing yourselves as the majority voice of Brentwood is inaccurate and unfair to the Brentwood Community Council and the Homeowners groups that work in concert with the community and the City.
Jackie Raymond
Brentwood Community Council
Brentwood Green, President
South Brentwood Residents
Association, President Emeritus
Andy Raymond
South Brentwood Residents
Association, Advisory Board
In Jeff Hall’s Brentwood News editorial “Death by Gridlock†(July-Aug 15,2011), setting aside the discussion of gridlock and fun times on the 405 freeway, a question is raised as to the voice of Brentwood. As an involved member of the community, I believe that there are a significant number of diverse groups and individuals throughout Brentwood’s 106 years who do extraordinary work for Brentwood such as:
13 Homeowner Associations (which spend thousands of hours annually on residential issues), Brentwood Beautiful, Tom Safron, Friends of the Library, Brentwood Residents Coalition, Barbara Goldenberg, Sullivan Canyon Preservation Association, Veterans Park Conservancy, Friends of Brentwood, Inc., Canyon Back Alliance, Brentwood Green, Brentwood News, Brentwood.90049, Brentwood Village Chamber of Commerce, SOS Coral Tree (aka Brentwood Coral Tree Endowment Fund), Residential Neighbors of Brentwood School, Rotary Club of Brentwood, Brentwood Historical Society and Brentwood Community Council established in 1998 as a part of the LA Neighborhood Council Program (former Chairs include Flora Krisiloff, Wendy-Sue Rosen, and Raymond Klein). Each of these entities has a different perspective, personality and manner of communicating their mission and objectives. But, they are all a part of the fabric of Brentwood.
You get the picture. Brentwood is a small segment of a huge metropolis. It is important that we do thrive on the talents and resources in the community. A distinguishing factor is the methodology used by groups and individuals to respect community, build consensus, and maintain good will. The journey is as important as the destination, especially in community concerns.
Nancy Freedman,
37 Year Brentwood Resident
The article “Death by Gridlock†is irresponsible scapegoating on your part.
“The search for scapegoats is essentially an abnegation of responsibility: it indicates an inability to assess honestly and intelligently the true nature of the problems which lie at the root of social and economic difficulties and a lack of resolve in grappling with them.†Aung San Suu Kyi (Freedom from Fear and Other Writings)
Brett A. Dolezal, Ph.D.
David Geffen School of Medicine
University of California, Los Angeles
Once upon a time, a long, long time ago, Brentwood was a more congenial place. There was a City Councilwoman who worked with the community to create a Community Council and establish a Specific Plan for the business district. There was an impassioned resident who donated her time and money to help create a more Beautiful Brentwood. People freely exchanged ideas and points of view. There was no them and us. There was give and take.
But today we have a divided Brentwood. A group of three, who call themselves the Brentwood Residents Coalition consider themselves the only legitimate voice of Brentwood regarding land use and related issues. They patrol our community with an iron fist. To the uninformed, they appear to be the official representatives of the community. They are convinced that their way is the only way. They are unwilling to consider compromise. Because they threaten (and have sued), they can virtually exert veto power over projects when their target is unwilling or unable to spend the money and/or time that is required to respond to a lawsuit.
Is this the vision we had for our community?
Brentwood has many residents who devote countless hours volunteering to try to make their community a better place. The Brentwood Community Council has worked tirelessly for our community for many years. There has rarely been unanimous agreement on any subject, but all was discussed openly.
How I wish that civility and good will could again be the guiding force behind activists and differences could be openly discussed and resolved.
I don’t know how to diffuse the enmity that pervades Brentwood, but hopefully the Brentwood News has created a forum for dialogue within Brentwood about our mutual goals and how we can begin to start working together again…like we did before.
Marylin Krell
Elliot Abelson
Dear Jeff,
Thanks for your excellent article “Death by Gridlock†. I appreciate your exposing the political craziness behind the “Carmeggddon.†However, I definitely don’t think we should be giving “emergency powers†to lawmakers. While they might use it for good, they could just as easily use it for not so good purposes. So that’s a really touchy issue. It’s just so strange that the MTA and Cal Trans backed down – but then I didn’t read Tom Freeman’s brief.
Sincerely, Sara Melzer
(Brentwood resident)
Dear Jeff,
I read your article on carmageddon with a little taste of bile in my throat. How could you say these things about two people who have dedicated themselves to protecting the wildlife in the Santa Monica mountains and keeping track of arcane city council meetings and the goings on of things I don’t have time personally to follow.
I thank god for people like Wendy-Sue and Tom who are vigilant and knowledgeable enough to care and to do something productive on behalf of all of us. Anyone who wants to follow these meetings, attend them and speak publicly has always had the right to do so. Wendy-Sue and Tom do no more than any citizen can do. They are not presuming any more power than what they rightfully have as citizens in this democratic process.
It’s not difficult for me at all to imagine that building a bridge 200 feet south of the current bridge could have a significant ecological impact. In a landscape that is fragile and an ecosystem that is reliant on so many different factors any change could be devastating. We just don’t know. That’s the point of an EIR. And it’s not just two people who thought there could be a problem, you clearly state that the Santa Monica Conservancy and the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations were also concerned.
It’s the powers that be that decided not to do an EIR, because they knew that the coalition who brought up the question had legitimate concerns. Just because you can’t imagine the impact doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.
I believe you owe Wendy-Sue and Tom an apology. We should all be grateful for the people who give of themselves to be our early warning system.
Sincerely, Vanessa Poster
“405†commuter
The BCC extends far to the north along Mulholland Drive – including the communities of Bel Air Skycrest and Bel Air Knolls. As members of the BCC, we desperately need the support and help of our community leaders and politicians. The school year begins in late August, and our communities, and that of Encino Hills along Calneva and Hayvenhurst, will be held hostage to not only the Mulholland Bridge construction (now added to the ongoing I-405 project) but the annual school drop off and pick up traffic of 7 private institutions with thousands of students and staff, along the west corridor. Time is running out.
While it provided wonderful grist for global twitter feed, the main reason “Carmageddon†was a non-event was intensive public outreach and coordination months in advance. How can the residents, many with school-aged children, be assured safety and reasonable access if no plans are yet in place?
The city and Metro are responsible for providing safe and proper traffic control during the entire construction process. We have recommended ideas such as limited, locals-only access to Calneva and Mulholland WEST to eliminate cut-through commuter traffic, plus a requirement that all corridor schools collaborate on a traffic management plan, with mandatory busing and carpooling. Brentwood and Archer Schools could serve as models.
We are looking for communities, city officials, and institutions to come together and create a workable and effective plan for all concerned. The reconstruction of the Mulholland Bridge in two phases and the scheduling of all these I-405 projects simultaneously was Metro’s own plan, and Metro needs to mitigate the resulting traffic. Using the excuse that our “tony†community did not want an alternate bridge without proper environmental review but instead preferred the current construction plan as a rationalization for not providing traffic relief is an insult to hard working taxpayers and diminishes our public voice.
Submitted by: Mrs. Barbara Bloom
President, Bel Air Skycrest
Property Owners Association
JOURNALISM #101 – WHO, WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, AND WHY. How could so much space in your article “Death by Gridlock” have so little truth or facts?
WHO? Caltrans/Metro I-405 Project.
WHAT? The Mulholland Bridge and the “parallel bridge.” The draft and final EIR had all the information for the Mulholland Bridge project, but no mention of a parallel one. But you and apparently the Brentwood Community Council obviously never read it.
WHERE and WHEN? The idea of a parallel bridge to the existing Mulholland Bridge was an idea floated by folks from Encino and Sherman Oaks – behind closed doors with local politicians and Caltrans/Metro just months before the Mulholland Design Review Board meeting in February 2011.
WHY? Because they believed that it would be easier to navigate on a new bridge than deal with the approved, existing plan.
As to the cost savings, or not, anyone at Caltrans/Metro or LADOT can quote a number of dollars, but without supporting documents . . . it is worthless! You should know by now, Jeff, that a billion dollars is on the table for this project and it’s all up for grabs under the “design and build” framework. And no environmental impact report for an (inaccurately named) “parallel bridge”? Who is kidding whom . . . IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW.
Jeff, the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy and the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, along with a dozen folks, stood shoulder to shoulder and worked to protect and preserve the Mulholland Corridor for almost 50 years. They have been stellar guardians for future generations. Should their successful efforts be tossed out? I think not. And where were you Jeff, on May 13, 1992, when the L.A. City Council passed the Specific Plan Ordinance #167.913 to protect Mulholland? I was there.
Wendy-Sue Rosen and Tom Freeman have gone where angels fear to tread. It wasn’t their “opinion” about a required environmental impact report. Again, IT’S THE LAW. Tom and Wendy have worked diligently and fearlessly to protect the Brentwood Community.
And really Jeff, how Pollyannaish can you be. You want money allocated to this billion dollar “design and build” project to go for potholes, schoolbooks and to balance the budget. These monies have been specifically appropriated and designated by the federal, state and city agencies for the I-405 project. If you want to address how other funds should be allocated, then go downtown to a Prop K, Budget and Finance, or Audit committee meeting.
Speaking of money spent by Metro and Caltrans, did you know that the cost of relocating the two Skirball ramps about one mile south of Skirball Center Drive is approximately $100 million according to Caltrans/Metro? This is not only a waste of money, opposed by all of the area residents, but the unintended consequence is that it will force a million Skirball Center guests, students of the University of Judaism, and the 7 schools on Mulholland to go south, then do a loop – right turn and go north . . . insane!
You ask, shouldn’t the Brentwood Community Council decide these issues? Well, where have they been the last two years with 40+ meetings on this project?
As a property owner in Brentwood for almost 45 years, your idea of giving the Mayor, Governor and President “emergency powers” would be my greatest nightmare.
Questions should be raised about many aspects of the I-405 project, but you have managed to ask all the WRONG questions in your article. I expected better than that from you Jeff.
Patricia Bell Hearst
Brentwood Resident
Jeff, What do I think? First, a little
background. A specific plan to preserve the views from and the integrity of Mulholland Drive has been a priority of the City of Los Angeles for at least forty years. As a member of the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Citizens Advisory Committee and then the first chairman of the Mulholland Scenic Parkway Design Review Board, I believe my knowledge of and interest in the maintenance of Mulholland as a jewel unlike any other in this country is evident.
Many battles were waged and mostly won with developers who would have lopped off hilltops to build homes and with educational and religious institutions that saw the regal qualities of having a school or temple/church to attract their followers to such an elevated place as Mulholland Drive. As a result of the demands of these very schools and religious institutions bringing so much pressure on city officials the establishment of an “educational corridor†was included in the final and finally approved ordinance which resulted in the ultimate watered down Design Review Board.
To the point. Pure and simple. Mulholland Drive is not to be tampered with any more. It’s not to be a bargaining chip any longer. Those of us who have given years to maintain it are not going to back down.
Jerry Daniel
Vice-Chairman
Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy
Vice-Chairman
Mountains Recreation and
Conservation Authority
Chairman Emeritus
Federation of Hillside
and Canyon Associations
Jeff Hall’s commentary, “Death by Gridlock,†purports to be based on facts. But a close reading reveals that he has stacked the deck by reducing the position taken by those of us opposing the alternate Mulholland Bridge to a caricature. We did not oppose the alternate bridge because, as Mr. Hall states, it would impact traffic patterns “slightly†– the impact, unless mitigated, would have been substantial and forever. Nor did we oppose the alternate bridge because “wild animals that cross the bridge might be confused as they adjust to a new bridge.†The alternate plan called for impenetrable 10-15 foot concrete retaining walls that would have permanently isolated mammal populations in the eastern Santa Monica Mountains, causing their long-term elimination from Franklin Canyon, Runyon Canyon, and Griffith Park. Mr. Hall’s focus on the alleged “cost savings†of the alternate bridge is equally misguided. Metro has never provided any data to support its assertion that the alternate would save millions. Further, this money has already been appropriated for the billion-dollar I-405 project and would be spent on this project regardless of which bridge is constructed. In fact, the project is funded in large part by federal “stimulus†funds that are designed to create jobs through large public works projects, not to “help balance the budget†or “buy schoolbooks†as Mr. Hall imagines. Finally, Mr. Hall pontificates that “Wendy-Sue and Tom†should not have the right to participate in the public process even if “100% correct†because he speculates that “the majority of Brentwoodians,†whether informed on the issues or not, may have a different view and, therefore, some authority, such as the Mayor, Governor or President, should have the power to break the “crazy deadlock†regardless of the applicable laws and regulations. The actual process, however, was open to everyone. We along with dozens of other groups and individuals participated in the public hearing process, where the vast majority of citizens who testified opposed the alternate bridge and the municipal decision-maker unanimously rejected Metro’s proposal. That, Mr. Hall, is how democracy works in an open society.
Tom Freeman,
Canyon Back Alliance
Dear Jeff Hall:
Your “Death by Gridlock†piece raised the following questions:
If someone believes something is detrimental to the community as a whole, don’t they have an obligation to speak up, especially if the majority is ignorant of all the facts? How can the majority rule intelligently without a complete accounting and investigation of possible outcomes?
Is not majority rule associated with following the law, and is not a complete environmental impact report a legal requirement? On what do you base your statement that the new bridge would have impacted traffic patterns just “slightly†or that animals “might be†confused by a bridge with an entirely different configuration, increased number of lanes, and thus the potential for increased traffic (not to mention concrete retaining walls blocking their migratory path)? This attitude shows a deep naivety about both animal behavior and the potential consequences of changes to their territory. Isn’t the need for in-depth studies and expert analysis one of the main reasons environmental impact reports are so necessary?
If the real impacts are ignored, then won’t it cost much more in the long run to mitigate the consequences of poor land use planning, over-development, and environmental degradation? Is more short-term, narrow-focused planning really what this community needs? Isn’t that the kind of thinking that led to the current economic crisis? If agencies don’t follow the law, and instead make decisions that are potentially detrimental to the long-term health of a community, then might not suing be the only recourse left?
From their main list of concerns, the opposition to the new bridge sounds to me like a collection of individuals sincerely and appropriately concerned with ensuring that choices affecting future quality of life in the area are made with proper deliberation and according to the rule of law. To assume they’re simply selfish troublemakers doesn’t do justice to either the grueling amount of time and effort it requires to undertake this watchdog role nor to the very real and serious issues affecting the environment of the Santa Monica Mountains and the communities that surround it.
Sincerely, Elaine Thielstrom
August 11, 2011
SEE PART 2.
