.
Feedback

Update: L.A. OKs Sale of Elephant Hill Land at Huge Loss

The property would be overseen by the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority.

The Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday afternoon authorized the sale of five acres of hilltop property in El Sereno, a move council members said they hope will provide Northeast L.A. residents greater access to natural habitat. The entire parcel of roughly 20 acres was purchased for more than $9 million; the five acres are to be sold for $636,500.

The city purchased the 20-acre swath of Highland Park adjacent hilltop land known as Elephant Hill from Monterey Hills Investors, LLC in 2009 for $9.1 million*, the result of lawsuit over the City Council's attempts to block the private developer from building on the land.

*Updated:

A motion passed by the Los Angeles City Council in Nov. of 2009 authorized the city to settle with Monterey Hills Investors LLC. Through the settlement agreement, the city consented to reimbursing the developers $464,068 in damages and the purchase the 20-acre property for appx. $8.5 million.

The motion passed by the City Council on Tuesday authorizes the General Services Dept. to enter negotiations with the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) for the sale of one-quarter of the property.

According an August meeting of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory (SMMC) Committee, the MRCA was granted $636,500 to pay for the purchase and improvement of Elephant Hill.

According to an SMMC staff report, the city has appraised the Elephant Hill property at $495,000. The additional funds would go toward building trails and addressing drainage issues on nearby Pullman Street.

*Updated:

Elva Yanez--a community activist--said that assessed value of the property as open space shouldn't be compared its value as potential housing development--complete with entitlements. 

"Comparing the price paid in the settlement compared to amount paid to MRCA is like comparing apples and oranges," Yanez said. "What we're achieving here is priceless."

Among the community members to question the wisdom of the deal, which sees the city flipping a quarter of the property for far less than it's 2009 purchase price, was LA32/El Sereno Neighborhood Council member Scott Johnson.

"Financial responsibility must be paramount on this issue," Johnson said.

He also criticized local Councilman José Huizar for his office's lack of outreach to the community on the impending sale.

"There's been no outreach to the Neighborhood Council on this issue, where the MRCA authority was going to come in and be the oversight agency overseeing that parcel of land," he said.

The majority of community members applauded Tuesday's vote, saying it would provide an urban oasis in "park-poor" Northeast Los Angeles.

Sarah Feldman, Vice President of Programs for the California State Parks Foundation and a Highland Park resident, urged council members to pass the motion prior to the vote. 

"As a neighbor to El Sereno I know how desperately needed these improvements are to parked-starved neighborhoods, as so many of our neighborhoods in LA are," Feldman said.

Jeff Chapman, Director of the Audubon Society at Debs Park in Montecito Heights, told the council he looked forward to partnering with MRCA to create educational programs on Elephant Hill.

"In Northeast communities where parks are few and open areas are even fewer, Elephant Hill benefits both community members and wildlife," Chapman said. "This area serves as a vital biological reserve for plants and animals only found in Southern California."

Huizar, said the end of the Elephant Hill saga would "certainly add to the ability of people to go hike, enjoy nature and preserve area's open space."

ezio giraldo November 17, 2011 at 01:10 am
build hiking trails!
Shawn Richardson November 17, 2011 at 02:07 am
By what standard is NELA "park poor"? I have 2 large parks within walking distance. There are 3 more within bicycle distance which are very large. One of which is the largest metropolitan park in the country (griffin), and Debs and Elysian aren't tiny. That's not even including the small ones by the river.
On another note, I have a feeling if you asked most people in these neighborhoods to describe a park, they wouldn't describe anything resembling the holdings of SMMC. Their holdings aren't parks. Their holdings are vacant lots with rutty dirt trails that they call "habitat". They aren't places to take the family for a picnic. They are dry chaparral hillsides that seem best used for walking dogs and housing coyotes. I suppose in that way NELA is park poor. We just have uncomfortable hillside habitat instead of actual parks.
David Fonseca (Editor) November 17, 2011 at 05:47 am
Shawn, that "park poor" comment rang rather hollow to me. Just in Highland Park we have Sycamore Grove and San Pascual.
Sara November 17, 2011 at 09:51 am
The fact is, overall our city remains one of the most park-poor metropolises in the country. Take a look at the Trust for Public Land's annual survey of parks at http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe_CityParkFacts_2010.pdf. You can see that L.A. is 10th on the list (out of 15 high-density population cities). L.A. is even lower in terms of total spending on parks per resident, ranking 57th out of 83 cities. Furthermore, access to the parks we do have in L.A., and distribution of where they are, is also strikingly inequitable. Take a look at The City Project's data here: http://www.mapsportal.org/thecityproject/socalmap/LosAngelesCounty.html# and http://www.mapsportal.org/thecityproject/socalmap/LosAngelesCounty.html#. These reports clearly show the inequities between different communities. District 45, which includes El Sereno, has 2.17 net acres/1,000 residents, among the lowest in the city. Although it is indisputably true that some great parks exist in both El Sereno and Highland Park, the point is that there should be more. Elephant Hill will help take a step forward toward rectifying the inequities clearly shown by the data cited above.
In addition, for the record, as I stated at the hearing, although I am very proud to have worked for the California State Parks Foundation for over a decade, on this occasion I was representing myself as a resident of Highland Park. One who loves parks and wants to see more of them, particularly in Northeast L.A. We deserve no less.
Peter Bedard November 17, 2011 at 12:09 pm
When it comes to city planning LA is desperatly low on open/park space when compared to other cities. And regarding @Shawn's comment about "rutty dirty trails" that's exactly my idea of a park. The notion of parks being manicured, landscaped places is a throw back to Victorian England, along with large manicured lawns. I look forward to the restoration of this habitat which I know the Conservancy will make a priority and to one day walking along these "rutty" trails along side a coyote, possum, skunk, and whatever creatures have survived our city sprawl.
Shawn Richardson November 17, 2011 at 01:12 pm
The TPL report always seems a bit disingenuous to me because it doesn't talk about the composition of the city itself. It lumps cities like NY and SF in with LA even though those are highly dense and incredibly yard poor cities whereas LA is a suburban metropolis. A simple aerial view explains the difference quite dramatically. LA is a tapestry of green and grey while at least the top six on that list (of which I have first hand experience) are nearly solid with the grey of concrete. The only green space being parks. That is simply not true in LA, a fact which is not accounted for in GIS studies as suburban yards with trees dont factor into the calculus. I can also tell by looking at the City Project maps that the green space calculations are incomplete. If you look at Monterey park, the only green spaces that are registered in the GIS report are official parks. However, that doesn't represent the total of green space as the communities utilize utility right of ways to create an interconnected green space system. This calls into question the accuracy of the GIS report although it does appear that El Sereno could use a park on Elephant Hill. I will also voice another complaint I have of GIS reports and that is they only give you a location for a park. They don't tell you how to design a park. This means that if you take some vacant land and throw up a sign that says "park" then the GIS program is happy regardless of whether is actually serves the community well.
Shawn Richardson November 17, 2011 at 01:22 pm
@ Peter, I wasn't advocating the creation of a park based on the English picturesque movement. I was speaking directly to function instead of to aesthetics. The main focus of SMMC with regards to function is habitat. In other words, they elevate the needs of wildlife over the needs of the people that make up the community. This is why I have a problem with designating these types of spaces "parks" for the purposes of GIS. SMMC spends their money fighting futile battles against successful plants that are labeled "invasive exotic species" instead of infrastructure improvements that would actually serve the community. When people in a community are told that there is going to be a park, images of playgrounds, shade covered picnic tables, and yes even some cooling lawn generally pop into their minds. In short, they envision a space designed for them not for coyotes and skunks.
Jinjer Hundley November 17, 2011 at 01:27 pm
Hiking trails!!! Hiking trails!!!! Hiking trails!!!!!
Peter Bedard November 17, 2011 at 01:48 pm
@Shawn, thanks for the reply. You spelled it out perfectly. Previous generations looked at parks as places that were manipulated to include playgrounds and baseball fields. Those are playgrounds. Parks are generally open natural spaces where people can be among nature. Places like Yellowstone Park, Yosemite Park. Infrastructure invades park land and turns open space into urban space. The needs of wildlife are OUR needs without an eco-system that is healthy we as a species dies for as long as we continue to think of the "needs of wildlife" as being less then the needs of people and not equal to us then we continue down this path into destruction. You may need envision, "playgrounds, picnic tables, and cooling lawns" but I envision dusty trails, observing birds and other animals nesting in their natural habitat, and sprawling open space gardened by nature and not a blow-and-go lawn mower driving gardener. Dare I sound like a spiritual hippy but we are one, one people, one planet, one eco-system. A park that supports ALL of us (nature and coyotes and skunks included) would be grand!
Peter Bedard November 17, 2011 at 01:55 pm
Oh...and btw...those suburban backyards mentioned below aren't exactly accessible to some guy living in an apartment down the street. Yes, LA has a lot of front and backyards but it doesn't have a lot of public green space. And, you forget there are other large cities with a lot more public land outside of the grey concrete NY such as Chicago, San Diego, Boston, etc. BTW...San Francisco has a lot of open public park space for a city that is only 7 miles x 7 miles. AND, did you know that many areas of LA have a greater population density then NY?!?!
Elva Yanez November 17, 2011 at 02:48 pm
Unfortunately, this story got some facts wrong. It states that “the city purchased the 20-acre swath … for $9.1 million…” In fact, the City entered into a legal settlement involving: 1) a refund to the developer for permit fees and entitlements, 2) his relinquishment of the right to build, 3) his dismissal of the lawsuit, and, 4) the transfer of ownership of 20 acres. Read the Superior Court documents and you will see that the $9 million settlement pales in comparison to the $20 million plus that the developer was demanding had the lawsuit gone to trial.
Regarding opposition, one Council member indicated that his office had only received one call opposing the sale but received numerous calls in support. There were 18 speakers who testified in favor of the sale at the 2 hearings. All state & county electeds representing El Sereno testified in support. In the end, only one speaker opposed the sale at the full Council hearing. Given the history of this 20 year struggle and the lack of park space in El Sereno, how can one realistically put a price tag on the value of this land? How can the sale of Elephant Hill land for an open space park be judged a huge loss? The value of Elephant Hill to those who live in the area & those who will now be able to visit and enjoy the natural habitat is priceless. That is a trade off open space advocates and the community of El Sereno will take many times over in order to protect open space land for generations to come.
Hugo Garcia November 17, 2011 at 03:25 pm
Just a few comments regarding Scott Johnson’s assertion of lack of community outreach on the issue of Elephant Hill:
Councilmember Huizar has always been transparent and forthright about his involvement and support related to the community’s aspirations for Elephant Hill open/park space. Regarding lack of community outreach, the El Sereno Organizing Committee spent several days on foot, canvassing the community with flyers, particularly around the perimeter abutting Elephant Hill. We made every effort to speak with community members to alert them about the Motion before the committee and City Council. We invited them to both meetings. Perhaps Mr. Scott Johnson was unaware of this community outreach because he doesn’t live in the community of El Sereno and has failed to show up to the LA-32 Neighborhood Council General Board meetings like he’s supposed to. In any case, El Sereno Organizing Committee doesn’t take it lightly that individuals like Mr. Johnson sit around taking pot-shots and spreading untruths and misinformation about folks who are diligently working and organizing in the community on issues of environmental and social justice. Hugo Garcia El Sereno Organizing Committee
David Fonseca (Editor) November 17, 2011 at 04:15 pm
Hi Elva, Thanks for your comment. I feel like perhaps we are saying something similar, only in different ways. The article states that the purchase of the property was made as the result of a lawsuit." I should make the story clearer by stating the the sale was made as the result of a settlement of a lawsuit.
I do not doubt that value of this park to El Sereno residents who had fought for many years to protect it from developers. For those who have participated in this fight in the hopes of providing a natural space for the community to enjoy, this is no doubt a victory worth celebrating. That the LLC had the leverage to demand $20M for the property and eventually got $9M, despite it's assessed value being far lower, seems to constitute a huge financial loss for the taxpayer, though. I would be glad to continue a conversation by e-mail, though, if you think there is anything else in the story that needs to be reconsidered.
David Fonseca (Editor) November 17, 2011 at 04:17 pm
Thanks for that data, Sara. I know that--probably because of my particular location in HLP--I don't necessarily feel parked starved, but the information you provide makes a compelling case.
David Fonseca (Editor) November 17, 2011 at 05:06 pm
Hey all,
I've uploaded a trio of documents that should be helpful. One is the 2009 motion that authorizes the settlement with Monterey Hills Investors LLC. Two is Councilman Huizar's motion on this motion recent action. Three is the SMRC's staff report regarding their grant of Prop 84 funds to the MRCA
Elva Yanez November 17, 2011 at 10:56 pm
For background on the history of this generation long struggle to stop the poorly planned development on Elephant Hill and efforts to protect this priceless open space go to:http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/10/local/me-outthere10
Shawn Richardson November 17, 2011 at 11:43 pm
@Peter, actually, there is generally understood to be a difference in purpose between a national park and an urban park. National parks were created as a way to differentiate between the recreational and preservative purpose of the national park and the recreational and natural resource exploitative purpose of the national forest. The national parks are then further programatically divided into developed and wilderness areas. The developed areas being quite highly developed for the recreational benefits of people whereas the human presence in wilderness areas is highly controled and limited for the benefits of wildlife. An urban park is generally understood to be for the recreation of the people in the urban area. That recreation can either be active or passive. Active recreation programing usually manifests as playgrounds and ball fields whereas passive recreation usually manifests as meadows and forested areas. Now it sounds as though you are falling prey to the false dichotomy you are trying to avoid. Passive recreation areas can be created that benefit both wildlife and people. People are just another species of animal after all. Picnic areas surrounded by rambles provide areas for both wildlife and people. Properly sited lawn areas provide the humidity to support the succession of canopy tree species which cannot gain foothold in the highly disturbed environment that is Los Angeles.
Shawn Richardson November 17, 2011 at 11:49 pm
@Peter, Now with regards to a landscape gardened by nature, that seems somewhat disingenuous considering that efforts to regenerate landscapes require a huge input of resources to combat "invasive species". Truly gardening by nature would let the invasive plants be since the harm they pose has been shown by Mascaro and Lugo to be small and possibly beneficial to the succession of the landscape. Instead you set up the false dicotomy of an untended landscape versus blow and go which while simple and easy to understand completely ignores the myriad of possibilities between the two methods of land management. It is in this grey area that I believe urban parks should tread so as to both create a space for wildlife and people. We have oportunities to create novel ecosystems in the highly disturbed environments of urban areas that, since they have been so altered and any baseline for regeneration is completely arbitrary and meaningless, would be reckless in areas that have not been so disturbed such as the wilderness areas of national parks.
Patrizzi Intergalactica November 18, 2011 at 06:11 pm
You should delete this story. It's seems so dimb now.
David Fonseca (Editor) November 18, 2011 at 06:13 pm
Patrizzi, please explain?
Patrizzi Intergalactica November 18, 2011 at 06:21 pm
Sorry, the login process for the Patches are so frustrating. After losing several long comments on your post. I give up!
Shawn Richardson November 19, 2011 at 12:05 am
Quick tip: when posting a long comment, select and copy before going through a login process.
Terry November 19, 2011 at 04:19 pm
And the city wonders why it is broke?
Joe Walker January 10, 2013 at 06:44 pm
I was able to take my family and dog on quite a strenuous hike to the top of Elephant Hill last week and couldn't be happier that this area is being saved!

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Highland Park-Mount Washington Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Marge Piane June 17, 2013 at 06:37 pm
Yes. And, I suppose you could call me a "newbie", I've only lived here since '87.
nonoise June 18, 2013 at 08:40 am
Dee-Aych, I want peace and quiet too. Tell Divine Saviour Catholic church to shut off their noisyRead More amplified sound system!! Hope everyone else that enjoys forcing Divine Saviour into my home all day long every day and doesn't like fireworks gets a taste of their own medicine, noise!!
AR Meza June 18, 2013 at 01:25 pm
Nonoise, it seems that after all these years of raising the Bell issue you've gotten no support.Read More Why? Did you launch a campaign against it? What did the city tell you?
nonoise June 16, 2013 at 07:16 am
And, a letter sent to the city councilmember would help. And, now CD1 has a new city councilmemberRead More Cedillo starting on July 1, 2013. And, we have a new city attorney starting July 1, 2013. So, make sure to send your letter to the new government authorities. Hopefully they will do more than the old "do nothings".
elmo June 16, 2013 at 12:33 pm
With a new mayor, council person, and city attorney, will the gang suppression/injunction stayRead More intact? Crime went down because the powers that were had grown up around, and knew the horror of gang oppression. So they did something about it. Will the new people continue the policy? Suddenly the neighborhoods felt safer. The rebirth of Highland Park, Glassell Park and even Eagle Rock wouldn't have happened without the gang suppression policies.
JosephR June 18, 2013 at 11:10 am
Often (but not always) this is a voluntary restriction that local markets agree to, in order to beRead More granted liquor licenses. The Eastside is WAY over-subscribed with ABC licenses ... at nearly every "pharmacy" (CVS, Rite-Aid, Walgreens), convenience store (7-11 and AM/PM), plus all the local mom-and-pop markets and event chain stores. You can even buy booze here in the 99-cent stores, at one-off fast-food markets, etc. The start-selling late, end stop-selling early setup is an attempt to curtail some of the transient and homeless overrrun of these retail outlets. Often, you'll see the homeless raid the local recycling blue barrels on the days when pickup is scheduled, get enough credit to buy a morning's worth of booze, and then (by noon) they've passed out in the park. You may also notice that at many local markets -- the "single-serve" options of one (large) can of beer, etc., have been removed from the menu at these stores in order to try to curtail that. It's not a "cure" ... more of a band-aid, but until society addresses the larger problem of homelessness, addiction, and ease-of-access to life-wasting substances, this may be the best we can do . . .
AR Meza June 18, 2013 at 01:20 pm
Sorry to hear that they were Latino...it seems to always be the case around here. Makes me sad.
Jeanne June 4, 2013 at 03:17 am
Just attempted sign-up/payment with Visa on-line; wouldn't go through. Any suggestions? I'm ready toRead More get going, so very ready. Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Linda Filipiak June 4, 2013 at 05:16 am
Sorry you are having issues with this. I just looked at the link and it appears to be working, asRead More others have been able to pay. If you have a paypal account I would suggest trying that instead of Visa. Let me know if that does't work and we will find another option.
Marino Pascal June 4, 2013 at 10:17 am
On Facebook people have personal profiles and family and photos that they may not want to expose toRead More their neighbors. Also what is "Mount Washington"? Mount Washington is a residential community with an elementary school, a semi-open(semi-closed?) museum and nothing else. No restaurants, no stores, no middle school, no high school. It doesn't exist all by itself. It's part of Northeast LA. I think whether we like it or not, all of us in Northeast LA are dependent on each other.
Mark Nishinaka June 2, 2013 at 06:31 am
David was really good, but I think we need to give Ajay a chance to find his groove. Have to giveRead More him credit for not melding Eagle Rock news with Highland Park. I could see that being a problem.
Nimby pimp June 2, 2013 at 11:44 am
I agree. Give the new guy a chance to learn the ropes. It is astounding to hear so much whining fromRead More people about a service they get for free.
A Proud Garvanza Teacher June 6, 2013 at 08:34 pm
Based on personal experience, David was always responsive to emails and genuinely seemed to want toRead More support a variety of organizations, schools, and topics in his selection of stories. I find myself checking out the news on the Patch must less regularly now.
Anne Colburn May 29, 2013 at 10:21 am
I agree, change is good but this new site is way way too busy plus the coloring is too light.Read More Sorry, I no longer read it on a daily basis.
KingSlav May 30, 2013 at 12:55 pm
Comments on the site have dropped precipitously since the new format was rolled out. This follows aRead More drop in the number of daily stories. Does anyone read Patch anymore?
Gma May 30, 2013 at 01:00 pm
Not really I haven't in months maybe even a year! Not very interesting. My daughter hates it too.Read More Keep on losing readers.
KingSlav May 30, 2013 at 12:15 pm
It's not surprising to read this. There are unleashed, untagged, unlicensed chihuahuas runningRead More around my street in Garvanza almost every day. I'm frequently having to call the Department of Animal Services. Irresponsible dog owners are a real nuisance to our community.
Erik May 24, 2013 at 07:31 pm
Just noticed myself the other day. This is across all Patch sites. Very disappointed in thisRead More oversight.
KingSlav June 3, 2013 at 08:14 pm
This new website format really does need an RSS feed. The site is all over the place. Please add aRead More feed ASAP.
nonoise May 19, 2013 at 11:17 am
False? Wrong!! I have the letter as proof. Did "no way, Jose" write the letter? IfRead More patch wants to see it, let me know. It is the truth.
nonoise May 20, 2013 at 08:01 am
I want peace and quiet in my home. "No way, Jose" believes I should not have peace andRead More quiet in my home. That is a dicatator.