Odds and Ends 64

Another week goes by with no real news to report.

I did see some workers using week whackers down by the ball field on the Ponte Vista site. It seems like it looks a tiny bit cleaner behind the fences and gates.

And no, I didn't see any of the Clean San Pedro vehicles doing the cleanup.
____________________________________________________


Fast Tracking SB1818 is Dead Wrong

Land Use Revolution
By Ken Marsh

Please consider weighing in on the issue of Fast Tracking SB 1818, the state law that trades developer’s bonuses for affordable housing.

It is imperative that we challenge the global-warming-ignorant, pro-development culture that pervades our city government. At stake are both affordable housing and a sustainable urban environment in Los Angeles.

Our best hope is a moratorium on development to allow proper deliberations on a citywide policy to define both long and short-term housing and general planning.

The Backstory
(Excerpted from LA Weekly, April 23, 2008)

Angelenos Sue City Hall over Prodensity “Affordable Housing”
Pretense by D. Heimpel

".... When the legislature passed Senate Bill 1818 in 2005, they hoped it would entice developers to include affordable housing in their projects. In exchange, developers would be allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces, exceed height limits — and pack in more units to reap higher profits.

But Los Angeles critics see the city’s interpretation as a “Trojan Horse” which all but prevents community debate over much bigger projects than are allowed by the zoning, letting developers erect inappropriately dense and tall luxury apartments and condos.

If the developer devotes just 11 percent of the building to “very-low-income units,” the building can blow past zoning rules. Under the new ordinance, such projects are deemed “ministerial” — a technical designation that allows them to ignore California Environmental Quality laws.

In other words, there will be no environmental-impact review of proposed new construction under the new law....

Doug Carstens, representing the coalition of community groups suing City Hall, points to California cities like Albany, Santa Cruz and Palos Verde’s, which have implemented Senate Bill 1818 — but didn’t try to end-run environmental laws as did Los Angeles...

In early April, attorney Noel Weiss made similar claims on behalf of homeowner Sandy Hubbard of Valley Village. Weiss calls the ordinance “one of the grossest examples of political malpractice and ineptitude... The City Council is being led around by the nose by [bureaucrats in the] planning department and the city attorney."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

For urban development in a time of global warming there can be no business as usual. Commercial and residential projects, affordable and otherwise, must conform to a new set of business-as-unusual prerequisites to establish the necessary balance between growth and protecting the environment for the long-term survival of life.

When it comes to the effects of climate change, we are all NIMBY -- "Not in my back yard" is the only sane response to any and all development that adds population density, traffic congestion, environmental pollution and aesthetic degradation to the areas surrounding it.

Private interest can no longer dominate decision-making by governmental bodies entrusted with the stewardship of the infrastructure and development of our cities. In the face of growing threats to the health of the planet, public interest must be subsuming.

Those who would benefit financially by the erection of a project must provide the infrastructure that will mitigate the project's negative impacts or it must not be allowed to proceed. Fast Tracking SB 1818 is dead wrong and the leaders who support it are like Jim Jones administering the poisoned punch to gullible followers.

A moratorium on housing projects, including demolitions of existing "affordable housing," needs to be in place so that a city housing policy that defines both long and short-term planning can be developed, including preservation, protecting and expanding rent stabilization and new programs for the homeless. Home renting and owning need to be treated with equality.

The city must be mobilized for survival: fight Fast Tracking SB 1818, support a moratorium on development and encourage engagement of the neighborhood councils in a citywide effort to establish a plan for a sustainable urban environment -- Make LA Livable. (Ken Marsh is a long-time community activist and a member of the Mar Vista Community Council board.)

_CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 38
_____________________________________________________

Some talk has been growing in OUR community about the Clearwater Program, the Sanitation District's new tunnel project that will impact many somebodies somewhere.

You can look up information about the program at: http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/clearwater/

I sure hope we can all get together in our own homeowner groups, residents associations and create a coalition that makes sure that when the 500-foot deep shaft is drilled, the tunneling machine is carefully dropped in and then the thousands and thousands and thousands of truck trips to remove the dirt, it doesn't get drilled in any neighborhood, anywhere.

Terminal Island is my first choice, but that is only one of over a dozen sites the Department is going to study to find their best place to sink the shaft.

We have plenty of time to bond together and make funny motto's and statements like' "We don't want OUR neighborhoods to get shafted".

One of the other sites appears to be Ken Malloy Park, close to P.C.H. and the Harbor Freeway.

There are three sites residents living along the coast of San Pedro sure don't want to see get 'shafted'. Royal Palms, White Point Nature Preserve, and even part of Angel's Gate is on the list for having the required five acres of land necessary to dig the shaft and have all the machines, offices, and materials on the surface while having a giant deep shaft on the site to lower stuff in and take lots and lots and lots of dirt out.

Since the two older tunnels/pipes run basically, underneath Western Avenue and out into the Pacific at Royal Palms, there is some concern that the Sanitation District will look more favorably on the three sites along the coast and Eastview Park, which is on land they already own.

We'll wait to see what commotion is stirred up at the annual election meeting of the Palisades Residents Association, the folks with the three sites, and how Councilwoman Janice Hahn will approach the subject during the meeting.

The future looks to be quite interesting for OUR community, so take a ringside seat, join a group supporting or opposing whatever you wish, tighten up your seat belts, because it will become even more of a bumpy ride.

I would hope Bob Bisno and his supporters would like to join groups opposing the placement of the shaft at Eastview Park, near the corner of Western and Westmont. Here is one more example where folks like me would be glad to join again with Bob and his supporters to accomplish things for OUR community like we did when LAUSD attempted to come up with plans to build a 2,025-seat high school at Ponte Vista.

Odds and Ends 63

I'm getting more information as to the hold up in finding out what the Planning Department feels Bob should build at Ponte Vista.

The comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were submitted by January 4, 2007 if I remember correctly.

Those comments had to be studied by the Planning Department folks, first.

The aides within the Ponte Vista project then had to respond to the comments submitted to the Planning Department's CEQA office.

It appears that the Bisno side of the issue has not completed submitting all their responses to the comments created for the DEIR.

To me this means that there were more than quite a few comments generated and that the responses to those comments may be tougher to do than first imagined.

I sent in three sets of comments at various times during the comment period. The set of comments from both the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes were long and very detailed.

So let's continue to wait patiently and see what comes out, whenever it comes out.
________________________________________________

For your reading "pleasure" here is an article from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Need to deal with water needs crucial

05-01) 18:48 PDT -- Two parched years - punctuated by the driest spring in at least 150 years - could force districts across California to ration water this summer as policymakers and scientists grow increasingly concerned that the state is on the verge of a long-term drought.


State water officials reported Thursday that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, the source of a huge portion of California's water supply, was only 67 percent of normal, due in part to historically low rainfall in March and April.

With many reservoirs at well-below-average levels from the previous winter and a federal ruling limiting water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the new data added a dimension to a crisis already complicated by crumbling infrastructure, surging population and environmental concerns.

"We're in a dry spell if not a drought," said California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman.
"We're in the second year, and if we're looking at a third year, we're talking about a serious problem."

Chrisman stopped short of saying the state would issue mandatory water rationing, which appears possible only if the governor declares a state of emergency. Rather, the burden will fall on local water agencies. Many, such as San Francisco and Marin County, have asked residents and businesses over the past year to cut water usage voluntarily by 10 to 20 percent.
Others have taken more drastic steps.

In Southern California, the water district serving about 330,000 people in Orange County enacted water rationing last year, due in part to a ruling by U.S. Judge Oliver Wanger reducing water pumped from the delta by about a third to protect an endangered fish.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District announced in April that it was considering water rationing, price increases and other measures in response to critically low reservoirs. The district, which serves 1.3 million customers in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, will vote on the measures this month.

"If you catch a third (dry) year, then you're looking at a supply that's so low you can't manage it well anymore," said Charles Hardy, spokesman for the district. "That's when its starts to hurt businesses and people across the board."

No industry faces bigger changes than agriculture, which uses about 80 percent of California's available water; the remainder goes to urban areas. Some experts say they believe the balance could shift toward urban areas.

Already, some farmers are switching to crops requiring less water and letting fields go fallow. One water agency official recently talked to a Southern California avocado grower who cut his trees back to stumps and won't begin growing again until water supplies recover.

"We have a lot of water, but we also use a lot of water," said Jeffrey Mount, director for watershed sciences at UC Davis. "From an economic perspective, it makes sense moving water from agriculture to urban uses."

In fact, some farmers are already selling their water to urban districts. But there is no easy system for transporting that water, and the infrastructure required would be extremely costly.
Californians have suffered through droughts before.

A deep, two-year drought in the late 1970s drew discussions about dragging glaciers down from Alaska or filling huge plastic bladders at river sources and dragging them by tugboat to users, Hardy said. Consumers endured rationing during a longer drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

After those dry periods, water conservation initiatives kicked into high gear. Low-flow toilets and showerheads became the norm, and homeowners started filling their yards with drought-resistant plants. Today, that might not be enough in a state with a population expected to reach nearly 50 million by 2030.

In addition to possible restrictions on watering lawns and washing cars, water prices could spike - at least for those who use too much.

The district serving 330,000 customers in Orange County has developed a type of water profile based on household size, yard size and average temperature in the area. Using that data, water managers have come up with base water allocations; above that level, water bills jump.

"If you really want to use more water there, you're going to pay for it - and (the district) uses the extra funds to finance conservation investments," said Ellen Hanak, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco. "There's a lot of room for innovating in that area - some places are doing it, but there's hardly any penalty for the extra water."

It is unclear whether this dry period is a full-blown drought. Much like economic recessions, droughts can be diagnosed only in retrospect.

However, it is certain that if the dry conditions that began with the low 2006-2007 snowpack levels continue, they could have a cascading effect. The dryness of 2006-2007 contributed to this year's poor water supply totals, said Elissa Lynn, chief meteorologist with the California Department of Water Resources.

"We're losing a lot of what we did have as snow melted into the ground," Lynn said. "It's either in subsurface, waiting to come down, or it's going into soil moisture because we had a dry fall."
There is also a small chance that dry windy conditions blew snow straight from the mountains into vapor, she said.

Not all Bay Area agencies face the same challenges, because they get water from various sources: San Francisco and the Peninsula from Hetch Hetchy, East Bay Municipal Water District from the Mokelumne River watershed and the Santa Clara Valley Water District from a combination of reservoirs and the delta. Some local water managers say their supplies look good. Marin County, for instance, said its reservoirs are at more than 100 percent of capacity.

Nevertheless, stricter water controls could be a continuing part of California's future. So might large-scale projects that aim to use water in new and better ways.

"We're facing some pretty grim circumstances that call for some bold action - recycling water, desalinating water," said Tim Quinn executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "Above and beyond that, we have to invest in the sustainability of this system that our grandfathers constructed in the middle of the last century. It was developed with the convenience of human beings in mind, not aquatic beings."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

So it seems Bob want San Pedrans to sell their existing homes and move into Ponte Vista.

I don't think Bob is concerned with what happens to those homes that are sold in San Pedro so folks can buy in Ponte Vista. Might he think all the homes will be torn down or that drought resistant humans will be the only ones that move into those homes?

Sales of cactuses might rise in the San Pedro area.
_____________________________________________________

Some people who object to having a new high school built at the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur ask me about the Ponte Vista site and why a new campus to relieve over crowding at San Pedro High School can't be built on Bob's land.

I remind folks that a high school campus was proposed to be built at Ponte Vista to relieve over crowding at both Narbonne High School and San Pedro High School.

That 2,025-seat 'fiasco' was quickly and correctly turned upon by Bisno supporters and folks like me.

In May, 2007 LAUSD decided to build two new campuses; one at Ponte Vista to relieve over crowding at Narbonne and one at the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur to serve students that would have gone to San Pedro High School.

Several months later it became apparent to LAUSD officials that they did not have the bond money to build a new campus at Ponte Vista, or anywhere else, to ease suspected over crowding at Narbonne H.S.

For the record, while in a "mothball" status, the 810-seat campus to ease over crowding at Narbonne is still at the "preferred" site inside Ponte Vista, but there is very, very little chance it would ever be built there.

As a matter of trivia too, high school students who lived in the old Navy housing in the Ponte Vista and Mary Star area, attended Narbonne High School as their home school, and not San Pedro High School.

During that time, even high school students living in the norther parts of the "Eastview" area had their choise of attending S.P.H.S. or Narbonne H.S.
____________________________________________________

Another Survey??? We Need Your Help

According to a reliable source, the folks at Bisno's Outreach are conducting another survey.

I would be greatly appreciated that if you receive a phone call and participate in the survey that you use ridiculous responses and send me an Email with the questions you are asked, so we know which "new" direction Bob and his bunch may be taking.

My Email address is mrichards2@hotmail.com

During a Los Angeles City Council meeting yesterday, I talked to an extremely reliable source concerning the Planning Departments struggles with comments generated for the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the responses to those comments by folks in the Bisno organization.

According to the source, the job of looking at all the comments and the responses to those comments made by members of the Bisno team, are not complete yet. This is the reason that the Planning Department has not been able to publish what it feels Bob can successfully build at the Ponte Vista site.

I think waiting patiently and not worrying about the comments and the responses to the comments will help all of us to better deal with whatever the Planning Department speculates on what could and/or should be built at Ponte Vista.

I still have no information as to whether Bob's personal house was sold at a foreclosure auction that was scheduled for April 29. If a reliable individual in the Outreach Team wishes to provide me with information, I would publish it. There are actually members of the Outreach Team that can be believed, some of the time.

A Victory Over a Weapon of Mass Development!

The following is an announcement and press release that signals a great victory over a developer and his small, but very harmful weapon of mass development.
------------------------------------------------------------------


Good afternoon--

Please find below this message and attached to this e-mail a press release with an update on the zoning designation of the site where McCowan's Market was located.
Best,
-Andrew


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Andrew Ausanka-Crues
April 29, 2008 (213) 473-7015
(213) 500-9334 – mobile

COUNCILWOMAN JANICE HAHN RECEIVES UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
TO MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD
AT SITE OF McCOWAN’S MARKET

LOS ANGELES, CA—The Los Angeles City Council today unanimously approved a request by Councilwoman Janice Hahn to preserve the single family neighborhood located near the former McCowan’s Market in San Pedro. McCowan’s Market was purchased recently by a developer. The developer closed down the long-time market and proposed building multiple units at the site, which is located in a single family neighborhood.

“McCowans Market was a piece of the community fabric of San Pedro and it’s a shame that it is gone,” said Councilwoman Hahn. “I agree with local residents that condos or apartments just does not fit with the character of the community.”

To address the concerns of the neighbors, Councilwoman Hahn called for the preservation of the neighborhood, asking the City of Los Angeles’ Planning Department to implement a “Q” Condition on the property. The condition would keep the owner from building anything except single family homes on each of the parcel where the market and its parking lot once stood. The Planning Department supported the “Q” Condition and on March 18 more than 200 people testified at the Harbor Area Planning Commission (HAPC) to support the recommendation. The HAPC voted 4-0 in favor. Today, the City Council approved the recommendation.

“I received more than 175 letters and 100 phone calls and e-mails supporting the “Q” condition,” said Councilwoman Hahn. “I did not receive one constituent request for greater density in this neighborhood."
_____________________________________________________

It is quite true that stopping 18-23 condominiums from being built in an area of almost all single-family detached homes is nowhere as big as Bob's huge weapon of mass development.

What it might signal though, is a new found strength and determination by members of OUR community that we can use elected officials over greedy developers and members of OUR community can stand up for what they know is the best for OUR community.

Was this vote a possible warning to Bob? I don't really think so. What it does also show is that members of OUR community can work together to accomplish at least one task that may have been considered impossible by too many individuals, just a short time ago.

Bob has enough problems with Santa Ana, Baldwin Park, and especially here in the San Pedro area. Maybe he needs to rethink his goals for the developments he seeks to over develop. Maybe he needs to scale back all of his adventures in mass over development and find ways to work with current residents and lawmakers and not against the will of the people.

R Neighborhoods Are 1 considers the victory gained at the McCowan's redevelopment site as a good stepping stone to work even harder to make sure that the Ponte Vista development, whatever the people can make it, will be successful for all the residents in OUR community, especially the current ones.

Oh. I still have no information about the possible foreclosure sale that may or may not have happened today on Bob's house in Beverly Park.

Rent To Own, and Other Funnies

I've been out of the picture concerning driving along Sepulveda at Arlington for the past several weeks, but I saw something interesting, just today.

The senior condos development, in front of the non-age restricted condo development where a prominent Ponte Vista Outreach Team member lives, has gone "Rent to Own."

It seems now that even seniors can rent one of the "condos", so that means they are more like apartments.

With so many other developments becoming lease-to-own or rent to own, how can Bob claim that all of the units he wants to build at Ponte Vista won't be lease to own or rent to own.

Bob has even found a supporter in Ms. Rachel Viramontes and her mother, who grace the back page of the current Random Lengths News.

It seems Ms. Viramontes states as fact that "Ponte Vista is good for seniors." Well, Ms. Viramontes must be contacted because she knows all about the future. Perhaps she knows who the next President of the United States will be.

Since Ms. Viramontes knows what Ponte Vista will be like, maybe she also knows the outcome of the lawsuit she filed, concerning the storm drain issue.

O.K., I'm being mean. We all know that no human alive today, or any human who has lived on this planet during any time in the prior 1-1/2 billion years, knows what is going to be at Ponte Vista.

But if we all believe that "Ponte Vista is good for seniors" or as another person stated, "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" then I still have my acre of Moon that I haven't unloaded yet, and have I got a deal for you!

It's also good to read the fiction, now back with a full page spread in the Random Lengths News.

Again we get to read how Bob is going to fund the synchronization of traffic signals that will actually be completed before anything is built at Ponte Vista AND it is all being funded by us and not by Bob.

I am fairly pleased that the humor which is usually demonstrated by members of the Outreach Team at Ponte Vista, has not gone away.

April 29 is just two short days from today. If I remember correctly, that is the date Bob's personal house was set to be auctioned off at a sheriff's sale, because of a default on a loan.

I'm not holding my breath to see if the house actually is sold because I am fairly confident that Bob can get around just about any legal issue and come up smelling like the former ping-pong, oops, I mean table tennis champion he was.

Come on folks, where in the world can you find someone who wants to use a City government's right of eminent domain to condemn businesses and residences and then send out the notices only in English to a group of owners who are predominately Spanish speaking and reading?

It's a hoot, too, that this same fellow wants to build a very tall condominium tower in Santa Ana for upper-middle class residents who probably would not shop locally in that area because of the types of businesses there cater to a population that they serve quite well, already.

Now add to this, a person who tells all of us that he knows better what is good for us than we do, all the while not willing to live in the area he is attempting to change.

Come on folks, somebody out there has got a great novel in them just demanding to be written. The hard part is that probably nobody would believe any of it could possibly happen.

So, thank you Bob and the Ponte Vista Outreach Team. You have made my recovery more funny than you know. Please keep up your humor.

Odds and Ends 62

"A watched pot never boils."

Perhaps a certain developer is boiling because he most probably won't get what he wants and things may be moving much slower than he wishes.

Oh well.
________________________________________________

Here is an article concerning Proposition R and term limits, suggested by a great member of the Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1.

Please don't forget about R Neighborhoods Are 1. IF and when the Planning Department lets all of us know what they think Bob could build, we are ready, willing, and able to instantly comment on the Planning Department's beliefs and we're quite able to move forward.

Here is the article:

Prop R Legal Challenge-Community working together

Community Victory

Legal Briefs filed March 27, 2008
2nd Court of Appeal

It has been more than a one and a half years since our effort began and many are unaware or have forgotten that the battle continues on.

The Lobbyist doing business at LA City Hall (approx 200) formed a group titled Los Angeles Lobbyist and Public Affairs Assn. The group hired Sutton & Partners to lobby government officials on the industry’s behalf. The “Sutton” of the firm, is Attorney James Sutton.

In March of 2006 Attorney James Sutton formed “Citizens for Reform”; ID # 1284556 with James Sutton listed as the Treasurer. James Sutton wrote Measure R!

In July of 2006 Sutton changed “Citizens for Reform” to Committee to Reform LA-Yes on Prop R. They kept the same ID number. This was to be a Sponsored Committee and to add creditability he had the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce sign on as Sponsors. The Treasurer was changed to Kaufman & Associates.

On July 14, 2006 City Council President Eric Garcetti sent a letter to the Los Angeles City Clerk Frank Martinez stating the LWV and the LAACC had sent him a request for a “proposed Ballot Initiative”.

On July 14th the City Clerk assigned a City Council File number to the request and gave it an official title. The city file number was 06-1800-S1 and the title was “Ethics Reform/Term Limit Extensions/Ballot Initiative”

This is what was sent to the LA City Council and what was adopted on July 18, 2006. The council voted on this file number item and had it placed on the November 2006 ballot.

In combining the Ethics Reform and extending the city council term limits from two four year terms to three four year terms, they violated the California Constitution.

The single issue rule was established to prevent elected officials and special interests groups from forcing the voters to vote for one issue in order to vote for another.

The argument presented by the City Attorney was that the Ballot title did not contain the word “imitative” and therefore did not have to comply with the single issue rule. The Superior Court Judge who had initially ruled Prop R was unconstitutional changed his ruling in light of the City Attorneys argument.

Our argument in the Court of Appeals is clear. The City does not have the right to violate the State Constitution by manipulation.

The success of this Legal Challenge is a direct result of the community of Los Angeles coming together and standing up against City Hall and the forces which until now operate with impunity.

Those who will celebrate in the final outcome will be Neighborhood Councils, Trade Unions, Media and Press ( LA Daily News, LA Times & LA Weekly, North Valley Reporter), Community Groups such as Valley Vote and Citizen Advocate Organizations such as US Term Limits and Judicial Watch. Thank you to some of our strongest supporters in the Animal Rights Community. You made all the difference in the world!

The Los Angeles Daily News must receive a Special Thank you for your reporting and humbling editorials. Thank You Ron Kaye.

The Community Blogers such as Mayor Sam and LA Observed were instrumental in getting the message out to the public. Michael Higby and Zuma Dogg, many thanks!

The two individuals who will be named as leaders in the effort will be David Hernandez and Ted Hayes, but many more individuals should receive well deserved credit.

Donna Connolly for one is to be recognized for her research which was vital in uncovering the truth about the origins of Prop R. Her writings which outlined many of her findings can be found at our web site.

Sandra Needs for her never ending support and encouragement.

The Web site www.termenedout.com created and maintained by Mr. Eric Ramos provided a central location where information could be found.

Our legal teams, Attorney Candice E. Jackson who agreed to take this on as a labor of love and allowed us to move forward on a promise.

Thank you Attorney Eric Grant and Attorney Anthony T. Caso who have taken up the fight and have provided us with the tools needed to achieve Victory.

Most of all, this is will be a victory for every man and women in Los Angeles who made it possible for us to get here.

From David Hernandez and Ted Hayes, we will see you in the Winners Circle.
___________________________________________________

For your reading 'pleasure', here is an article from LAWeekly about the pro-density law.

Angelenos Sue City Hall Over Prodensity "Affordable Housing" Pretense
By D. HEIMPEL

Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 4:59 pm

THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have inadvertently united a patchwork of neighborhood groups stretching from the Valley to Venice, whose members have joined to stop city leaders from tossing out hard-won neighborhood zoning rules that keep a lid on ­overdevelopment.

The Council and mayor, saying they were complying with a state requirement to encourage more affordable housing, recently put on the books an ordinance that allows much bigger apartment complexes in areas whose residents believed they had won the battle against overconstruction.

“They broke the law, like usual,” says Robert Silverstein, a Pasadena attorney who opposes the so-called “density bonus” that waters down existing zoning.

In February, Villaraigosa signed the contro­versial ordinance to comply with Senate Bill 1818, a California law that gives developers permission to build far bigger apartment complexes and condos than are actually allowed on the land — if the developers include a smattering of “affordable” units.

But critics, including mayoral appointee and Los Angeles City Planning Commission President Jane Usher, openly questioned the legality of the Los Angeles ordinance — and now two lawsuits have been filed to stop it.

James O’Sullivan, president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association and an activist in the coalition, believes the ordinance will push L.A. over the edge into nonlivability: “The best business to own will be a U-Haul franchise.”

When the legislature passed Senate Bill 1818 in 2005, they hoped it would entice developers to include affordable housing in their projects. In exchange, developers would be allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces, exceed height limits — and pack in more units to reap higher profits.

But Los Angeles critics see the city’s interpretation as a “Trojan Horse” which all but prevents community debate over much bigger projects than are allowed by the zoning, letting developers erect ­inappropriately dense and tall luxury apartments and condos.

If the developer devotes just 11 percent of the building to “very-low-income units,” the building can blow past zoning rules — it can even be constructed right out to the sidewalk’s edge.

Buildings can be 35 percent bigger than is now allowed but with far less parking. Under the new ordinance, such projects are deemed “ministerial” — a technical designation that allows them to ignore California Environmental Quality laws.

In other words, there will be no environmental-impact review of proposed new construction under the new law.

In an e-mail obtained by Curbed LA — a blog about Los Angeles real estate — Planning Commission president Usher appeared to advocate that Angelenos sue City Hall. She questioned whether the ordinance “was fatally flawed” and whether it violates California environmental laws.

Usher did not return calls from the Weekly about her decision to publicly denounce an ordinance signed by the mayor, who appointed her to her commission post.

Doug Carstens, representing the coalition of community groups suing City Hall, points to California cities like Albany, Santa Cruz and Palos Verdes, which have implemented Senate Bill 1818 — but didn’t try to end-run environmental laws as did Los Angeles.

In L.A., under the new ordinance, “you could have projects built ‘by right’ and without recourse,” Carstens warns. In other words, there would not be any room for public opposition at the core of the traditional civic process.

In early April, attorney Noel Weiss made similar claims on behalf of homeowner Sandy Hubbard of Valley Village. Weiss calls the ordinance “one of the grossest examples of political malpractice and ineptitude I have witnessed. ... The City Council is being led around by the nose by [bureaucrats in the] planning department and the city attorney.

Councilman Tom LaBonge voted against the ordinance, saying developers could abuse it to demolish rather than build affordable housing. Says LaBonge, “It will ultimately take down Section 8 housing and could erase stabilized housing for some.”

Council president Eric Garcetti, an ardent advocate of much denser housing throughout Los Angeles, voted for it. Garcetti insists now, “We wanted to accomplish three things: provide more affordable housing; not take money out of the city’s pocketbooks; and protect neighborhoods from the wrong type of development.”

But critics say Garcetti and the City Council have achieved the opposite. Garcetti admits the ordinance is flawed. “I was trying to fix something that was broken,” he says. Now, he may support a “moratorium” on demolitions.

Whether he does or not, the downtown pols have managed to bring together disparate neighborhood groups that might never have collaborated on anything, but that are joining forces now — to stop City Hall.
___________________________________________________

Something From Orange Juice Blog

Bob Bisno has a development called City Place in the City of Santa Ana.

It appears Mr. Art Pedroza is about as fond of Bob as I am.

Here is Mr. Pedroza's latest on City Place from the great blog at:
http://www.theorangejuice.com/

Welcome to City Place - I hope you survive the experience!

( Mr. Pedroza began with a photo of five heavly armed SWAT officers)

"I don't think this is what developer Robert Bisno had in mind when he plunked the overpriced City Place condos and townhomes over on Main St., across from Santa Ana's Mainplace Mall.

Just a few minutes ago, as I drove west on Memory Lane towards Main St., I passed an empty SAPD police cruiser with its flashers on. It was parked somewhat askew, on the right shoulder. I slowed down and lo and behold the lone officer was standing in front of his car with his gun drawn and pointed at a guy in a white t-shirt who was lying down on the grass in front of some apartments, by the look of it, located perhaps a block or two east of the City Place. He had his hands on his head, with his fingers interlaced. He looked like he was familiar with the process.

I could not believe it! What a sight to behold. I wonder what the yuppies on the way to their City Place townhomes thought about this as they drove by? Sure enough, three more police cruisers and a motorbike cop sped by me, as they drove east on Memory Lane to the incident, as I continued to Main St.

What the heck was Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido thinking when he asked Bisno to plop the City Place in Santa Ana? Keep in mind that the proposed Bisno 33 story luxury condo tower is supposed to go up right by where I saw the cop and his suspect today. And this neighborhood is supposed to be the GOOD part of Santa Ana!

Welcome to City Place. I hope you folks survive the experience!"