ALPERN AT LARGE - For those familiar with the raging split within the Westside between those who fought for the Expo Line and those who opposed it, an interesting (if not amazing) alliance has developed between those two forces to oppose the laws and rules--or lack thereof--that were broken by the Casden developers and enabled by the Mayor and by City Planning.
An alliance that is appalled by a City Planning Department that is willing to ignore or even shred environmental and public transparency considerations, if not the downright laws meant to enforce them--and create a legal debacle similar to the digital billboard dilemma.
Right now, Planning appears hell-bent (perhaps by orders from the Mayor) to allow transit-adjacent--but certainly NOT transit-oriented--overdevelopment to be allowed in a manner that will restrict public access to the future Expo Line and allow variances and zoning changes without the public benefit that is supposed to occur in return for said variances and changes.
It's bad enough that City Planning--and potentially the City Council--is willing to ignore the pleas of the Sierra Club and the Westside (who are being summarily dismissed as "NIMBY's", even the progressives who voted for the Expo Line), but it's another thing altogether when City Planning might have knowingly or unknowingly enabled a developer to break the law because of "overriding considerations":
1) In particular, the legality of the Floor to Air Ratio (allowing a higher project based on the ground surface area) is in question, because it appears that the publicly-owned Expo Line right of way was included in the calculation of the size of the Casden/Sepulveda project, which is NOT being built over the Expo Line.
2) The many unmitigated traffic/road access issues surrounding this project has ramifications with respect to the current West L.A. Community Plan, because fire/emergency services access will be severely impaired throughout the region.
3) City Planning met privately with the Casden developers on 12/27/2012, over the holidays and with minimal community notification, to make a deal to create more senior affordable housing and approve the project, and sent out an e-mail approving the Project and not approving the Environmentally Preferred Alternative because of "overriding considerations" the Friday before President's Day Weekend...and just before the 2/28/2013 CPC hearing.
4) At the CPC hearing, the mike was repeatedly turned off and private conversations were occurring between the CPC, Planning and the developers in addressing the legal and engineering and environmental problems with the project. Obviously, this is not appropriate for a public hearing.
5) City Planning Chair Michael LoGrande was left to design and help pencil out a project that the public has not seen and which will require substantial changes because the CPC required residential development to be built 500 feet away from the freeway...yet the project (whatever it is!) was approved and will soon be before the City Council PLUM Committee.
6) There is no confirmed preclusion of residential development over 500 feet from the freeway, and the City faces considerable legal liability from future health-related lawsuits related to children and seniors living so close to freeway fumes and particulate matter--again, no one knows what the project will be and yet it was approved because of unspecified "overriding considerations".
7) There is no Planning recommendations to restore Industrial Zoning land (necessary for job creation and a healthy economy) that is taken away because of the zoning changes to this project, and there is questionable and insufficient open space requirements for the residential development being built at the Casden Sepulveda project--again, a violation of City Planning and Zoning Law and the City Charter.
8) Most importantly, when the deputy City Attorney recommended continuing this project because of legal concerns and risks to the City, CPC President Roschen roared at her that her timing was poor, and she was cowed into silence.
9) Finally, the lack of transit amenities and community benefit that is required for the approved variances and zoning changes are not assured and are, at best, minimal--so while CPC President Roschen was primarily concerned about the landscaping of the project at the 2/28/2013 CPC hearing, the legal and proprietary considerations for a major project that is being granted so much because it is next to a future Expo Line station was and is being ignored.
Yes, Mr. Casden has big-name figures like former governor Gray Davis working for him, and yes he donated $50,000 to help pass a failed Measure A (which clearly raises the concern of a conflict of interest, or even a quid-pro-quo, by a Mayor who promoted Measure A and who has supported this project with little detail but much arm-twisting), but the law is the law.
And with years of community input and efforts to create a West Los Angeles Community Plan update ignored and shelved, the current rush by LA City Planning to create an Expo Corridor Plan after years of ignoring the Expo Line also suggests an impropriety on the part of City Planning with respect to spot-zoning and inappropriate promotion of developer--and not community--needs.
On the horizon is the Martin Cadillac development next to the future Bundy/Olympic Expo Line station--will they, too, be allowed to rezone industrial land, enjoy all sorts of variances, be allowed to calculate public right of way ground surface area to encourage a higher, more dense and environmentally-impacting project so long as its developers bludgeon their way through the Planning/CPC progress and "do the right things" to get mayoral and Planning support under ...
... "overriding considerations?"
Efforts to contact the City Attorney's office have been met with little response--and clearly, the lawsuits will be coming from a Westside--even those who FOUGHT for the Expo Line--that is appalled by the process occurring here for drawing up and approving megaprojects with little to no community benefit (and which might place those living there at risk by breathing freeway fumes on a daily basis).
Certainly, if City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and his team are willing to ignore the legal liability incurred by the City of Los Angeles by the precedent set by the Casden developers, then the only hope we have right now is that this becomes an election issue in Trutanich's re-election bid against Mike Feuer.
So, what do you say, Representative and City Attorney-hopeful Feuer? You helped write and pass transportation sales tax-raising Measure R because you were honest and transparent in how it was written up, and the voters responded throughout L.A. County with a 2/3-plus voting support.
With efforts to fund transportation- and mobility- and infrastructure-related revenue-raising measures threatened by horrendous and environmentally-harmful City land use policy that blatantly ignores the Law (almost certainly the wording, and definitely the intent of the Law), this becomes more than a mayoral race issue...it becomes an issue for the City Attorney who must advise the City when it is performing a self-destructive, lawsuit-inviting violation of City Policy.
Or do we want another legal debacle a la the digital billboard lawsuit that has backfired horribly on both the billboard companies that sneaked it through the City Council, and the Downtown that enabled this debacle to happen in the first place?
This isn't just crybaby "NIMBY's" who aren't getting their way--it's a question of whether the City of Los Angeles will be a city of laws and proper policy.
This is now a question for both City Attorney hopefuls to answer and confront.
(Ken Alpern is a Westside Village Zone Director and Boardmember of the Mar Vista Community Council (MVCC), previously co-chaired its Planning and Outreach Committees, and currently is Co-Chair of its MVCC Transportation/Infrastructure Committee. He is co-chair of the CD11 Transportation Advisory Committee and chairs the nonprofit Transit Coalition, and can be reached at [email protected] He also co-chairs the grassroots Friends of the Green Line at www.fogl.us. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mr. Alpern.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 11 Issue 33
Pub: Apr 23, 2013
