March 27, 2015 Starbucks Opens!
|
|
|
|
|
South Hollywood gets a drive-through Starbucks
Work has progressed quickly at the corner of Willoughby and Highland Avenue, belonging to a quaint neighborhood which calls itself South Hollywood. Welcomed by the neighbors, this brand-new drive-through will be opening on Friday March 27, 2015 at 4:30AM. Regular hours will be 4:30AM to midnight.
The design of the building, a historic landmark that was totally dilapidated, was kept in line with the city’s requirements for the treatment of historic properties.
“We can’t wait to have a Starbucks in our neighborhood!” was the general consent of the people living in the area. “We are hoping that a trendy drive-through establishment, in this busy intersection, won’t hold up the already dense traffic.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/south-hollywood-gets-a-drive-through-starbucks?cid=db_articles
2-25-15 Sources for Seniors by Sallie Higgins
The big city can be a scary place when you’re getting on in
years—but it doesn’t have to be. While the youth culture prevails in any urban
area, so do community resources and Los Angeles offers more than most to enhance
your golden years in every way. For
qualifying seniors there’s; free healthcare, free taxi service, free bus
passes, free meals delivered, free meals at Senior Centers, free caregivers,
free concerts, free weekly housecleaning, free scenic excursions and much more!
And now it’s easier that ever to get signed up. We are fortunate to have a wonderful Senior Center on the corner of Willoughby and Highland. Anyone who is disabled or over the age of 65, who is eligible to receive MediCare or MediCal are entitled to many free services. For one, they serve breakfast and lunch, 5 days a week. The friendly staff is informative and professionally qualified and will help you find out about all our Los Angeles community has to offer. They can even help you enroll in MediCal or MediCare health insurance. To get started stop by Monday through Friday during business hours or call (323) 466-4122.
If you’re not a Senior, but perhaps have a friend, neighbor or relative who is, please kindly pass along this information.
Photo caption: Mike McCadden proudly displays his Access card—this enables him to go anywhere in the city by bus or cab for freeJ
And now it’s easier that ever to get signed up. We are fortunate to have a wonderful Senior Center on the corner of Willoughby and Highland. Anyone who is disabled or over the age of 65, who is eligible to receive MediCare or MediCal are entitled to many free services. For one, they serve breakfast and lunch, 5 days a week. The friendly staff is informative and professionally qualified and will help you find out about all our Los Angeles community has to offer. They can even help you enroll in MediCal or MediCare health insurance. To get started stop by Monday through Friday during business hours or call (323) 466-4122.
If you’re not a Senior, but perhaps have a friend, neighbor or relative who is, please kindly pass along this information.
Photo caption: Mike McCadden proudly displays his Access card—this enables him to go anywhere in the city by bus or cab for freeJ
February 2015 Elections for our next Councilperson
02-07-2015 As we mentioned in another email, the election of a Councilperson who will work with our neighborhood is very important. There are so many candidates that it is very hard to decide who will be the best. There is another Free candidate debate sponsored by our Neighborhood Council this Sunday at 11am at the John Burroughs Middle School at 600 South McCadden. This election will affect our neighborhood. Please attend if you can!
02-04-2015 Good morning! Don recently went to a debate between the prospective candidates who are vying to represent us in council district 4 when Tom LaBonge leaves office later this year. What he has learned over the last year with the neighborhood association is that we absolutely need a councilperson who will work with us to help us achieve our goals. Without this, it is very hard to get the things we want done.
Many of these candidates are willing to meet with us prior to the el...ection and I think it would be good to offer the 4 most likely that opportunity.
If you are able to read the article (link attached) and attend our meeting this Monday 2/9, it would be helpful to have you participate in the selection process of 4 individuals that we will try to schedule a meeting with in about 3 weeks. Thanks!
Click on Photo or go to: http://graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-candidates-city-council-district-4/
Many of these candidates are willing to meet with us prior to the el...ection and I think it would be good to offer the 4 most likely that opportunity.
If you are able to read the article (link attached) and attend our meeting this Monday 2/9, it would be helpful to have you participate in the selection process of 4 individuals that we will try to schedule a meeting with in about 3 weeks. Thanks!
Click on Photo or go to: http://graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-candidates-city-council-district-4/
7-30-14 HOLLYWOOD DENSIFICATION MUST BE STOPPED
by Frank Dugan
The $664 million, 1.2 million square foot Millennium Project that will clog the already busy intersection at Hollywood and Vine and, according to the California Department of Transportation, back up traffic on the 101 Freeway. (Picture Hollywood Bowl traffic every working day of the week.)
8150 Sunset, a 330,000 square foot, mixed use, under parked, two tower project financed by a NYC hedge fund that will create a massive traffic jam at the already clogged intersection where Crescent Heights turns into Laurel
Canyon on Sunset Boulevard. These are but two of more than 70 developments in Hollywood which includes
8,800 dwelling units, 5 million square feet of retail and commercial space, and 800,000 square feet devoted to hospitals and schools. Massive densification will overwhelm the area’s aging infrastructure (streets, water, power, sewer, gas) and the City’s ability to provide police and fire protection. It will also turn Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards into unsightly
canyons, destroying the existing character and culture of these thoroughfares and the surrounding residential areas.
Worst of all, the resulting traffic on these poorly maintained boulevards and narrow side streets that are already jammed with parked cars will turn Hollywood into Gridlock City. Rather than proceeding with the rampant commercialization of Hollywood, our SOHO Councilman Tom LaBonge, and Hollywood Councilman Mitch O’Farell and the rest of the City Council must demand that the Planning and Transportation Departments and the developers’ Environmental Impact Reports address the cumulative impact of all of these developments… on traffic, public safety, and the infrastructure in the Hollywood area.
And the degrading impact on our life style, let’s not forget. (edited from citywatchla.com, July 29. 2014. And Simply Put, Hollywood’s Battle Is Our Battle, Jack Humphreville)
For more info contact: Jack Humphreville, who writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, The Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Humphreville is the publisher of the Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Hear Jack every Tuesday morning at 6:20 on McIntyre in the Morning, KABC Radio 790.)
The $664 million, 1.2 million square foot Millennium Project that will clog the already busy intersection at Hollywood and Vine and, according to the California Department of Transportation, back up traffic on the 101 Freeway. (Picture Hollywood Bowl traffic every working day of the week.)
8150 Sunset, a 330,000 square foot, mixed use, under parked, two tower project financed by a NYC hedge fund that will create a massive traffic jam at the already clogged intersection where Crescent Heights turns into Laurel
Canyon on Sunset Boulevard. These are but two of more than 70 developments in Hollywood which includes
8,800 dwelling units, 5 million square feet of retail and commercial space, and 800,000 square feet devoted to hospitals and schools. Massive densification will overwhelm the area’s aging infrastructure (streets, water, power, sewer, gas) and the City’s ability to provide police and fire protection. It will also turn Hollywood and Sunset Boulevards into unsightly
canyons, destroying the existing character and culture of these thoroughfares and the surrounding residential areas.
Worst of all, the resulting traffic on these poorly maintained boulevards and narrow side streets that are already jammed with parked cars will turn Hollywood into Gridlock City. Rather than proceeding with the rampant commercialization of Hollywood, our SOHO Councilman Tom LaBonge, and Hollywood Councilman Mitch O’Farell and the rest of the City Council must demand that the Planning and Transportation Departments and the developers’ Environmental Impact Reports address the cumulative impact of all of these developments… on traffic, public safety, and the infrastructure in the Hollywood area.
And the degrading impact on our life style, let’s not forget. (edited from citywatchla.com, July 29. 2014. And Simply Put, Hollywood’s Battle Is Our Battle, Jack Humphreville)
For more info contact: Jack Humphreville, who writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, The Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Humphreville is the publisher of the Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Hear Jack every Tuesday morning at 6:20 on McIntyre in the Morning, KABC Radio 790.)
New Starbucks being built at Highland and Willoughby
These before photos show a transition in history, since the building is an historic landmark that deteriorated during time and will now be re-purposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Construction has begun - November 2014
11-24-2014 South Hollywood Fire at Just Tires
http://www.examiner.com/article/south-hollywood-fire-at-just-tires?cid=db_articles
Photos: Kari Adamsen and Don Hunt
|
|
|
7-21-14 THE HOMELESS PERSON’S BILL OF RIGHTS AND FAIRNESS ACT
Stated Purpose:
Known in Sacramento as AB 5, the proposed Homeless Person’s Bill Of Rights
And Fairness Act would provide that no person’s rights, privileges or access to
public services may be denied or abridged because he/she is homeless.
Provisions:
The legislation, introduced in 2012 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (San
Francisco), states that every homeless person would be provided (15) specified civil
rights to include but not limited to: the right to move freely, to rest, to eat, to accept/share
food and water, to pray, to meditate, to practice religion, and to solicit for donations in
public spaces without being subject to civil or criminal sanctions, harassment or arrest.
AB 5 also mandates the homeless are entitled to legal counsel in specified proceedings.
The proposed bill would require that municipalities provide Health and Hygiene
Centers (toilets and showers) for use by the homeless in designated areas.
Homeless people’s rights to personal property and belongings would be protected by
the bill.
The bill stipulates, as well, that local law enforcement agencies would be required to
compile statistics on arrests and citations involving the homeless and report such annual
data to the district attorney.
Pro:
Proponents of AB 5 claim such legislation will eliminate the criminalization
of homelessness, arguing that, in most jurisdictions, the homeless may be
cited or arrested for sitting on the sidewalk, loitering, forming encampments or
falling asleep on a bench. Such cases, proponents argue, have resulted in time
consuming court proceedings that require the presence of the arresting officer and
have, in some instances, resulted in the incarceration of homeless individuals.
Those who favor the bill further state that the proposed law’s guidelines will be
cost beneficial. Court costs required to prosecute the homeless run into the millions.
Because homeless populations across the state are so hard to count, incarceration of
homeless persons has been estimated to cost $310 million to $1.6 billion per year.
As for the mandated Health and Hygiene Centers, proponents admit there will be
a cost to the public for such facilities. However, they argue, that innovative solutions are
already being proposed such as the San Francisco company that turned a decommissioned
bus into mobile showers. Hygiene centers and public restrooms will go a long way,
proponents claim, to alleviate the public’s fear of unhealthy practices (homeless persons
relieving themselves in public) should AB 5 pass and the homeless, by law, now feel
enabled.
Con:
Opponents of AB 5 point out that the bill usurps local efforts of municipalities throughout
the state to either alleviate homelessness or mitigate the homeless persons’ impact on
their respective communities. Laws prohibiting encampments, individuals sprawling
across or blocking the sidewalks and otherwise monopolizing public spaces would be
wiped off the books on the local level.
Opponents argue that, under the proposed bill, municipalities would be required to
allocate large sums to various programs and facilities such as the Hygiene and Health
Centers. The California Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates that $216 million
would be required to set up such shower and toilet facilities. An additional $81 million
annually would be necessary to maintain them. However, cities cannot require the
counties to spend the money needed to accommodate these provisions of the law. If such
state mandated benchmarks such as Health and Hygiene Centers are not met, opponents
stress, the homeless will be permitted, by law, to inhabit public parks, even those parks
that have restricted hours of operation.
As to the requirement that local law enforcement agencies compile statistics re
homeless citations and arrests, opponents point out that The California Assembly
Appropriations Committee estimates $8.2 million will be needed to establish facilities
to process all of the law enforcement reports submitted to the state. $4.1million annually
would be needed to maintain such a records to a reporting facility.
Opponents fear that, because the homeless would be entitled to legal counsel, lawyers
will capitalize on the bill’s provision and sue local agencies, keeping millions of
tax dollars for themselves.
Passage:
AB 5 cleared the State Judiciary Committee in April, 2013. It may be put before the
California State Assembly as early as September, 2014, for a vote
Known in Sacramento as AB 5, the proposed Homeless Person’s Bill Of Rights
And Fairness Act would provide that no person’s rights, privileges or access to
public services may be denied or abridged because he/she is homeless.
Provisions:
The legislation, introduced in 2012 by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (San
Francisco), states that every homeless person would be provided (15) specified civil
rights to include but not limited to: the right to move freely, to rest, to eat, to accept/share
food and water, to pray, to meditate, to practice religion, and to solicit for donations in
public spaces without being subject to civil or criminal sanctions, harassment or arrest.
AB 5 also mandates the homeless are entitled to legal counsel in specified proceedings.
The proposed bill would require that municipalities provide Health and Hygiene
Centers (toilets and showers) for use by the homeless in designated areas.
Homeless people’s rights to personal property and belongings would be protected by
the bill.
The bill stipulates, as well, that local law enforcement agencies would be required to
compile statistics on arrests and citations involving the homeless and report such annual
data to the district attorney.
Pro:
Proponents of AB 5 claim such legislation will eliminate the criminalization
of homelessness, arguing that, in most jurisdictions, the homeless may be
cited or arrested for sitting on the sidewalk, loitering, forming encampments or
falling asleep on a bench. Such cases, proponents argue, have resulted in time
consuming court proceedings that require the presence of the arresting officer and
have, in some instances, resulted in the incarceration of homeless individuals.
Those who favor the bill further state that the proposed law’s guidelines will be
cost beneficial. Court costs required to prosecute the homeless run into the millions.
Because homeless populations across the state are so hard to count, incarceration of
homeless persons has been estimated to cost $310 million to $1.6 billion per year.
As for the mandated Health and Hygiene Centers, proponents admit there will be
a cost to the public for such facilities. However, they argue, that innovative solutions are
already being proposed such as the San Francisco company that turned a decommissioned
bus into mobile showers. Hygiene centers and public restrooms will go a long way,
proponents claim, to alleviate the public’s fear of unhealthy practices (homeless persons
relieving themselves in public) should AB 5 pass and the homeless, by law, now feel
enabled.
Con:
Opponents of AB 5 point out that the bill usurps local efforts of municipalities throughout
the state to either alleviate homelessness or mitigate the homeless persons’ impact on
their respective communities. Laws prohibiting encampments, individuals sprawling
across or blocking the sidewalks and otherwise monopolizing public spaces would be
wiped off the books on the local level.
Opponents argue that, under the proposed bill, municipalities would be required to
allocate large sums to various programs and facilities such as the Hygiene and Health
Centers. The California Assembly Appropriations Committee estimates that $216 million
would be required to set up such shower and toilet facilities. An additional $81 million
annually would be necessary to maintain them. However, cities cannot require the
counties to spend the money needed to accommodate these provisions of the law. If such
state mandated benchmarks such as Health and Hygiene Centers are not met, opponents
stress, the homeless will be permitted, by law, to inhabit public parks, even those parks
that have restricted hours of operation.
As to the requirement that local law enforcement agencies compile statistics re
homeless citations and arrests, opponents point out that The California Assembly
Appropriations Committee estimates $8.2 million will be needed to establish facilities
to process all of the law enforcement reports submitted to the state. $4.1million annually
would be needed to maintain such a records to a reporting facility.
Opponents fear that, because the homeless would be entitled to legal counsel, lawyers
will capitalize on the bill’s provision and sue local agencies, keeping millions of
tax dollars for themselves.
Passage:
AB 5 cleared the State Judiciary Committee in April, 2013. It may be put before the
California State Assembly as early as September, 2014, for a vote
5 Projects That Are Transforming La Brea Avenue in West Hollywood, Article from the WeHoVille E-Magazine
Interesting article, showing the planned large developments in our immediate neighborhood, please read:
http://www.wehoville.com/2012/12/11/5-projects-that-are-transforming-la-brea-avenue-in-west-hollywood/
http://www.wehoville.com/2012/12/11/5-projects-that-are-transforming-la-brea-avenue-in-west-hollywood/
3-20-14 Cutting Down Our Parkway Trees: Turning loss into growth by Lucretia Miller
On February 25, 2014, one of the older parkway trees on Cherokee Avenue was cut down by a developer. The new house they are building has the garage on the right side instead of the left where the existing curb cut is. When I saw it was gone, I have to admit, I cried. I used to watch birds singing in that tree and I enjoyed its beauty and shade.
My first thought was "there has to be a law protecting these trees". No one can just cut down a parkway tree, right? However, we don’t technically own the parkway, the city does. These trees belong to our streets. They belong to all of us.
The tree was gone, but I still wanted answers. What I discovered is the fact that a home owner can remove parkway trees. They only need to apply for a permit from the Bureau of Street Services. They have to give a reason. The examples they give are, “damage to sidewalk/curb/driveway that cannot be repaired without tree removal, installation of driveway that cannot be relocated, and development public improvements conditions requiring street tree removal.” Once the permit is approved they can cut the tree down. Then the home owner is required to donate two 15 gallon trees to the city. In the past, they used to have to donate two, 24” box trees but according to the representative I spoke with, they decreased the size because of “these tough economic times and the hardship of the expense on homeowners.” She also said they no longer have the man power to handle the large trees.
Then I discovered one last hope for the trees I thought were ours. The city of Los Angeles has ordinances protecting some trees. The first was put into affect in 1982 protecting the native Oak species. Then in 2006, they added the Western or California Sycamore, the California Bay and the California Black Walnut tree. These trees are not only protected on the parkways but also on private property. Ultimately, these trees can be removed but the process is much more difficult. And if removed illegally the city can withhold issuance of building permits for up to 10 years!
I was hoping that the Cherokee tree was a California Sycamore tree. I had always called it a Sycamore. But I learned it was a London Plane tree which is a hybrid of a Sycamore and an Oriental Plane tree. The London Plane tree is very tolerant of atmospheric pollution and root compaction which is why there are so many of them in our parkways. I walked the 8 blocks of SOHO and only saw 3 trees that may be California Sycamores. The city doesn’t have records of these 3 trees and doesn’t have the resources to come identify them. I’ve contacted a local landscaping company to see if they can help. I think it would be nice to know.
From this experience I have learned a lot about trees. The biggest thing I have learned is how important urban trees are, especially as we start to see our area grow more congested with people, buildings and cars. One urban tree “does the environmental work of 15 forest trees.” These new McMansions are quadrupling the amount of fossil fuels burned to produce the electricity to heat, cool, and light the homes. And they are over building on their lots and not planting enough new trees to offset their footprint. I still have to wonder how they justified the loss of a mature parkway tree because they built the garage on the right side instead of the left side. Couldn’t they have just done the design to take into account the existing curb cut?
On March 18th, I discovered that permits had been requested to take down a parkway tree at 733 and 727 N. Las Palmas Avenue. The reason appears to be the same as on Cherokee Avenue. They built the garages on the opposite sides of the curb cuts. This just doesn’t seem right. Many other mature trees have already been taken down on these properties and now we are losing our street trees. The permits haven’t been approved yet, I’m hoping there is still a chance to save them. In addition, I am trying to see about getting more trees planted in our parkways. They will start small and take decades to become the trees that we lost but it’s a step in the right direction.
My first thought was "there has to be a law protecting these trees". No one can just cut down a parkway tree, right? However, we don’t technically own the parkway, the city does. These trees belong to our streets. They belong to all of us.
The tree was gone, but I still wanted answers. What I discovered is the fact that a home owner can remove parkway trees. They only need to apply for a permit from the Bureau of Street Services. They have to give a reason. The examples they give are, “damage to sidewalk/curb/driveway that cannot be repaired without tree removal, installation of driveway that cannot be relocated, and development public improvements conditions requiring street tree removal.” Once the permit is approved they can cut the tree down. Then the home owner is required to donate two 15 gallon trees to the city. In the past, they used to have to donate two, 24” box trees but according to the representative I spoke with, they decreased the size because of “these tough economic times and the hardship of the expense on homeowners.” She also said they no longer have the man power to handle the large trees.
Then I discovered one last hope for the trees I thought were ours. The city of Los Angeles has ordinances protecting some trees. The first was put into affect in 1982 protecting the native Oak species. Then in 2006, they added the Western or California Sycamore, the California Bay and the California Black Walnut tree. These trees are not only protected on the parkways but also on private property. Ultimately, these trees can be removed but the process is much more difficult. And if removed illegally the city can withhold issuance of building permits for up to 10 years!
I was hoping that the Cherokee tree was a California Sycamore tree. I had always called it a Sycamore. But I learned it was a London Plane tree which is a hybrid of a Sycamore and an Oriental Plane tree. The London Plane tree is very tolerant of atmospheric pollution and root compaction which is why there are so many of them in our parkways. I walked the 8 blocks of SOHO and only saw 3 trees that may be California Sycamores. The city doesn’t have records of these 3 trees and doesn’t have the resources to come identify them. I’ve contacted a local landscaping company to see if they can help. I think it would be nice to know.
From this experience I have learned a lot about trees. The biggest thing I have learned is how important urban trees are, especially as we start to see our area grow more congested with people, buildings and cars. One urban tree “does the environmental work of 15 forest trees.” These new McMansions are quadrupling the amount of fossil fuels burned to produce the electricity to heat, cool, and light the homes. And they are over building on their lots and not planting enough new trees to offset their footprint. I still have to wonder how they justified the loss of a mature parkway tree because they built the garage on the right side instead of the left side. Couldn’t they have just done the design to take into account the existing curb cut?
On March 18th, I discovered that permits had been requested to take down a parkway tree at 733 and 727 N. Las Palmas Avenue. The reason appears to be the same as on Cherokee Avenue. They built the garages on the opposite sides of the curb cuts. This just doesn’t seem right. Many other mature trees have already been taken down on these properties and now we are losing our street trees. The permits haven’t been approved yet, I’m hoping there is still a chance to save them. In addition, I am trying to see about getting more trees planted in our parkways. They will start small and take decades to become the trees that we lost but it’s a step in the right direction.
1-23-14 We are truly official
Los Angeles Examiner 1/23/2014
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-neighborhood-organizes-itself-to-experience-a-better-quality-of-life?cid=db_articles
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-neighborhood-organizes-itself-to-experience-a-better-quality-of-life?cid=db_articles
1-21-14 We are official!
Tuesday night, January 21, 2014, Councilman Tom LaBonge
showed his support by speaking to the neighbors at the South Hollywood NHA
meeting, at Bancroft Junior High school on Las Palmas Ave.
Three months ago, neighbors of this Hollywood area came together and founded the South Hollywood Neighborhood Association, led by community activist Don Hunt, an outspoken property owner of the area. The neighborhood rallied and mobilized volunteers to address issues like the overcrowding through overdevelopment, housing, increasing crimes on the area’s streets, and keeping the integrity of the homes mostly built in the early 1920’s.
South Hollywood includes the area between N. McCadden Ave. and June Street west to east, and Melrose Ave. to Willoughby south to north, an eight block zone falling under Councilman’s Tom LaBonge’s district. In this general meeting Mr. LaBonge was warmly welcomed and answered the many questions and concerns patiently. The association will continue to work on improving the quality of life of the area and hopes to make a positive and lasting impact.
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-neighborhood-organizes-itself-to-experience-a-better-quality-of-life?cid=db_articles
Three months ago, neighbors of this Hollywood area came together and founded the South Hollywood Neighborhood Association, led by community activist Don Hunt, an outspoken property owner of the area. The neighborhood rallied and mobilized volunteers to address issues like the overcrowding through overdevelopment, housing, increasing crimes on the area’s streets, and keeping the integrity of the homes mostly built in the early 1920’s.
South Hollywood includes the area between N. McCadden Ave. and June Street west to east, and Melrose Ave. to Willoughby south to north, an eight block zone falling under Councilman’s Tom LaBonge’s district. In this general meeting Mr. LaBonge was warmly welcomed and answered the many questions and concerns patiently. The association will continue to work on improving the quality of life of the area and hopes to make a positive and lasting impact.
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-neighborhood-organizes-itself-to-experience-a-better-quality-of-life?cid=db_articles