Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Irvine expects growth spurt

Developers and city officials plan for housing to accommodate an ever-increasing population.

By SONYA SMITH; THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

IRVINE- The county’s fourth-largest city will add at least 70,000 people by 2025, according to the latest city population estimates.

The city’s growth is spurred by 6,781 acres that have yet to be developed into villages such as Portola Springs, Orchard Hills and Stonegate. Additionally, the city has two redevelopment areas – the old El Toro base and the industrial area near John Wayne Airport – where thousands of residences are being built.

And the population estimate – made by city planners using birth, death, development and other figures – could rise.

More residences are proposed by developers and are awaiting city approval: 6,640 are proposed in the industrial area near John Wayne Airport; the Irvine Co. is proposing up to 5,227 directly west of the future Great Park; and finally, the Lennar Corp. is proposing some 9,500 (up from 3,625) on the company’s land surrounding the Great Park – a deal to be considered by the City Council in early 2008.

Most of the coming population growth stems from land rezoned from industrial or commercial development to residential. Developers cite three main reasons for that land-use change:

•Irvine has far more jobs than houses (about 3.59 jobs for every house) compared to the county average (about 1.56 jobs for every house).

•The strong market demand for housing has motivated developers in areas such as the industrial region near John Wayne Airport to redevelop offices and businesses into apartments and condos. Rising land values also mean Irvine homes are going vertical – 14 towers are built or proposed in the industrial area near John Wayne Airport.

•The El Toro base closed in 1999, and its future was set in 2002 when voters approved Measure W – dictating that the land would be used for a park, among other things, rather than an international airport. Since 2002 the Irvine Co., with city approval, has rezoned thousands of acres near the base to residential development.

GROWING PAINS

The city’s last and largest development decisions are now being made by the City Council. And council members have two different visions for Irvine in the year 2025.

Councilman Larry Agran once was touted as a “slow-growth” advocate – or as he now says, a promoter of “controlled or carefully managed growth.” In 1985, he was quoted in an Orange County Register special section on development as saying he was not pleased with demographers projecting the city’s population at 230,000 by 2020. He told the Register then that he wanted to cap the population at 180,000.

Today Agran sees the city’s future differently. He said two things have changed his vision: more market demand for housing and the closure of El Toro and defeat of efforts to build an airport there.

“I try to stay focused on what I call the timely, orderly build-out of the city in accordance with our Irvine general plan,” he said.

The city can manage to add at least 70,000 people – in part by focusing on mass transit, he said. Creating a system of pedestrian and bicycle trails, bus routes, light rail and heavy rail, Agran said, will help residents depend less on vehicles.

Councilwoman Christina Shea disagrees.

Shea supports mass transit, but said it should add to, not substitute for, regular traffic planning. The city is adding too many residences without properly planning for quality of life areas such as traffic and city services, she said.

“I believe our development is leading the city on a downhill spiral,” she said.

Council members agree that as the city’s developable acres decrease, so do their options.

In the last year the council has created programs for affordable housing and energy-saving home construction guidelines. Those programs, council members said, depend on developer participation to succeed.

Posted by M at 19:40:28 | Permalink | No Comments »

Air board seeks later deadline to cut soot

The agency says the state can’t meet 2015 target and needs five more years. Critics say it is giving up too easily.
By Janet Wilson, Times Staff Writer
March 20, 2007

Declaring that California cannot meet federal soot reduction standards by a 2015 deadline, the state air board has asked for a five-year extension that critics say will cut short lives and aggravate asthma and other health problems.


“California’s problem is unique in the nation,” with greater Los Angeles facing “the biggest challenge” in meeting the deadline with annual average measurements for soot exceeding national limits by 50%, Katherine Witherspoon, executive director of the state Air Resources Board, wrote in a March 12 letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In her letter, Witherspoon blamed the timing of the EPA’s new diesel engine standards, which were announced in draft form on March 3 after years of delay. She said the phase-in period for the rules between 2010 and 2017 “comes too late” to meet the 2015 soot-reduction deadline.

Diesel soot, also known as fine particulate matter, lodges deep in the lungs when inhaled, and has been linked to heart and respiratory disease, cancer, asthma and other illnesses. It spews from trucks, ships, trains, construction equipment and anything else that uses a combustion engine.

Witherspoon could not be reached for comment. But air board spokeswoman Gennet Paauwe said the state was simply trying to “give another option” to the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which oversees greater Los Angeles, because it was so far away from attainment.

She said Witherspoon and San Joaquin Valley air officials thought that they would meet the deadline, but that the AQMD would require at least an additional three years.

“We really don’t feel that South Coast at this point with that 50% hanging out there can meet that deadline,” Paauwe said, “so that additional five years will give them a chance.”

Thanks but no thanks, said AQMD Executive Director Barry Wallerstein, adding that he had not been consulted before the letter was sent and did not agree.

“This is not being done on our behalf…. This letter completely undercuts the public process,” Wallerstein said. “This means higher pollution emissions from cars, trucks, ships, locomotives, [construction] engines and other mobile sources for an additional five-year period or more. It takes the pressure off the U.S. EPA and state Air Resources Board to do their fair share of pollution cleanup in Southern California.”

Although air quality in Southern California has improved dramatically in the last three decades, the region still experiences 5,400 premature deaths a year because of air pollution, the state estimates.

Others said Witherspoon was “jumping the gun” because the deadline for air districts to submit cleanup plans is April 2008.

“It’s shortsighted and defeatist…. They’re throwing in the towel too soon,” said state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Air Quality in the Central Valley. He said he would order state air officials to appear before the committee to discuss the extension request.

Tim Carmichael, president of the Coalition for Clean Air, said, “Any delay will negatively impact the health of millions of Californians … from difficulty breathing to premature death.”

If the state does not meet the deadlines or an extension is not granted, federal transportation funds could be at risk. Last year, California received about $4 billion in such funds.

In an e-mail, EPA spokesman John Millett said the agency “will review and consider the request.”

He added that “federal funding has only rarely been in jeopardy — only one or two instances in the history of the program. Funding is linked to state planning, not the air quality status of an individual jurisdiction.”

He also defended the diesel engine proposals, saying that when fully implemented they would cut particulate emissions by 90%.

Carmichael and others said they feared that Witherspoon and the governor’s office were bowing to pressure from the powerful construction, trucking and rail industries.

But Adam Mendelsohn, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s communications director, said the state air board’s action was taken “without consultation of Cal EPA or the governor’s office…. We believe staff acted prematurely and are reviewing options in terms of additional steps to rectify the situation.”

State air board staff are finalizing separate rules that would limit diesel soot emissions from construction equipment. Industry officials have protested loudly and are calling for a delay, saying that air officials lack accurate information about heavy-duty equipment.

Witherspoon has drawn the wrath of Southern California air officials and environmentalists in the past by signing voluntary agreements with railroads to reduce pollution without holding public hearings or seeking input from affected districts first.

Posted by M at 14:20:11 | Permalink | No Comments »

Mayor vetoes sale of downtown air rights

By Duke Helfand, Times Staff Writer
March 20, 2007

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Monday vetoed a plan to sell 9 million square feet of unused “air rights” over the Los Angeles Convention Center downtown — a gambit to boost the area’s nascent residential boom.

In a veto message to the City Council, Villaraigosa said he wholeheartedly supports the air rights initiative. But, he said, the proposed law behind it violates the City Charter by failing to give him an opportunity to review or reject projects spawned by the plan.

Developers could buy vertical space over the Convention Center and use it to expand residential projects elsewhere downtown beyond what zoning codes allow — an idea that critics say will exacerbate traffic and strain other services.

The veto, Villaraigosa’s second in his 21 months in office, was seen by some as a bid to flex his political muscle with the council and to distance himself from what has proved to be a controversial policy. But a mayoral spokesman said Villaraigosa wanted to ensure that the projects are sound.

“The mayor supports the policy objectives strongly but … he wants to make sure these decisions have appropriate checks and balances that are consistent with the spirit of the City Charter,” Matt Szabo said.

Villaraigosa’s veto was a surprise to a key council member and the city attorney’s office, which stood by its position that the law complies with the City Charter.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, who represents much of downtown, said she learned about the mayor’s veto when his chief of staff, Robin Kramer, delivered the news Monday.

Perry said she had not decided whether to attempt to override the veto, a step requiring the vote of 10 of the 15 council members, or to tweak the proposed law to give the mayor what he wants.

She defended the vetoed measure, saying that it provided Villaraigosa with a say because the proposals must go before the Community Redevelopment Agency or the Planning Commission — whose boards are appointed by the mayor.

“Those are the people who are there at his behest and representing his viewpoint,” Perry said. “This is no different than any other process.”

Perry said Villaraigosa has had ample time to voice his concerns about the air-rights plan. She noted that an informal working group, which includes the Community Redevelopment Agency’s downtown administrator, has been discussing it for several months.

A spokesman for City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo also argued that the mayor’s objections did not have merit.

“The city attorney’s office has approved the form and legality of this ordinance, and we stand by this legal opinion,” Nick Velasquez said. “The ordinance complies with the City Charter.”

Last fall, the mayor vetoed a $2.7-million settlement for a firefighter who alleged that colleagues fed him a spaghetti dinner laced with dog food as a racist prank.

That veto and Monday’s decision have allowed Villaraigosa to gain political advantage, some at City Hall believe, giving him the benefit of rejecting unpopular decisions while leaving it to the council to draft solutions.

But Villaraigosa’s aides insisted that Monday’s veto was driven by a desire to ensure a role for the mayor in important decisions that will affect downtown for generations. One aide said the mayor also wanted to avoid the precedent of the council making unilateral decisions.


duke.helfand@latimes.com
Posted by M at 14:18:30 | Permalink | No Comments »

Disney and allies seek to take land-use fight to ballot

Resort and tourism officials are battling a housing plan for the area.
By Dave McKibben, Times Staff Writer
March 20, 2007

 

Keeping up a full-court press, Disney and tourism officials announced plans Monday to seek a citywide vote to block developers from building homes in Anaheim’s resort district.

The election plan is the latest in a series of aggressive steps the entertainment giant has taken to prevent a 1,500-unit condo-apartment complex, and others like it, from taking shape near Disneyland and California Adventure.

Disney, which last month sued the city to block the project, has been unbending in its position that the area be reserved for tourist-related uses such as hotels, time-share units and, ultimately, a third Disney amusement park.

At a hastily called press conference Monday, Disneyland President Ed Grier said the ballot initiative represented “a permanent solution to protect the resort.” The initiative would require Anaheim voters to approve or reject any land-use changes within the 2.2-square-mile resort district.

“This ballot issue ensures the resort will remain a world-class destination, and it puts the residents in charge of the future,” he said.

But Disney’s announcement was immediately complicated by the state’s ruling Monday that an Anaheim councilwoman — who abstained from weighing in on the housing proposal last month — can vote on the matter. The determination is critical, since the plan failed when the council split 2 to 2 on the project. Lucille Kring’s would have been the deciding vote.

The ruling clears the way for Kring to vote — as soon as this evening — to bring the housing plan back for a second hearing. Two council members, Lorri Galloway and Bob Hernandez, have already indicated they would vote to rehear the project. And after getting word of the ruling, Kring indicated she would too.

It was unclear whether the referendum would trump any council decision to rehear, or even approve, the housing plan.

Kring had abstained after Disney attorneys suggested that a wine bar she planned to open nearby could affect her ability to vote objectively. But the Fair Political Practices Commission said Kring had only signed a “nonbinding letter of intent” that did not obligate her to lease space in the GardenWalk development and should be permitted to vote. If Kring signs a lease, the commission said, the issue would have to be reexamined.

“I’m very frustrated by what Disney has put me, my husband and the city through,” Kring said.

As the debate over the resort district has grown, so has the divide between city leaders and Disney. Some said they were caught off guard by Disney’s plan to push a ballot referendum.

“I don’t feel Disney is the enemy, so when they do something this aggressive, I am surprised,” Galloway said. “I am always surprised when a company decides to file a lawsuit against the city and circumvent the council’s authority on land-use issues.”

Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who has proposed a compromise solution that would allow some housing in the resort district, said he was generally supportive of the ballot initiative.

“The community feels the protection of the resort as an economic engine to the city is vital,” he said. “I know there’s been a growing interest in trying to figure out how that can be done.

“I would favor some ultimate initiative that would protect the resort area,” the mayor said. “We cannot create a land rush where residential developers come in and buy hotel properties and change the makeup of the resort.”

For the most part, Disney and Anaheim have enjoyed a cozy relationship since Disneyland was built more than 50 years ago. But the housing proposal — which would include some low-cost units — has thrown the city’s largest employer and Anaheim officials into a rare public feud. Grier acknowledged Disney’s actions were out of character.

“I think this just shows how very important this issue is to us,” he said. “And to our residents as well.”

The group driving the ballot initiative is calling itself SOAR — Saving Our Anaheim Resort — and is a coalition of more than three dozen business and community leaders, including the Anaheim Chamber of Commerce and the Anaheim/Orange County Convention and Visitors Bureau. Several members spoke Monday, most touting the tourist district’s benefit to the city’s general fund. A chart showed that the resort area made up less than 5% of the city’s land but generated nearly 50% of the city’s general fund.

The group, which began forming a few months ago, is funded by Disney. By filing its initiative request Monday at City Hall, the coalition is hoping to get the issue on the February ballot.

The group will need to gather about 20,000 signatures of registered voters in six months to qualify for the February presidential primary. Coalition officials said the ballot initiative, if passed, would be retroactive to Monday and would affect the disputed 1,500-unit housing proposal.

City Atty. Jack L. White was skeptical, however.

“I don’t know how we are supposed to make land-use decisions based upon a petition that hasn’t even qualified for the ballot,” he said. “And to have that apply to something we may be doing tomorrow, I think that’s extremely unusual.”

Posted by M at 14:17:53 | Permalink | No Comments »

2 years after losing homes, families still on shaky ground

The owners of nine red-tagged properties are suing the city of Pomona and a developer over landslide damage.
By James Ricci, Times Staff Writer; March 20, 2007

In a sense, the heavy rains of winter 2004-05 are still falling for Abid Karim and Keith Razza. The blue skies over Pomona this winter mock the ordeal they’ve endured for more than two years.

The fickleness of the climate is evident in the precipitation statistics: During the winter two years ago, an unprecedented 42.61 inches of rain descended on Pomona, causing the ground beneath Karim’s and Razza’s homes, as well as those of seven of their neighbors on Meadow View Drive, to shift and fall away. Their houses were either destroyed or rendered unlivable.


The rainy season was the second heaviest in Southern California history and triggered landslides that wrecked dozens of homes in the Hollywood Hills, Anaheim, Yorba Linda, Anaheim Hills, Pomona, San Clemente, Laguna Beach and, most tragically, La Conchita, where a giant mudslide killed 10 people.

This winter, fewer than 2.5 inches of rain have fallen in Pomona.

Benign weather has prevailed, in fact, since almost immediately after a rainy Presidents Day in 2005, when Karim and Razza first noticed odd geological phenomena on their properties. Ever since, a sense of dislocation and the specter of financial ruin have afflicted the homeowners, whose wealth, like that of many Southern Californians, existed principally in the value of their houses. Standard homeowner insurance policies do not cover damage from landslides.

“If I end up with financial liability for this,” said Razza, 49, an electrical equipment salesman, “it would basically ruin me, and I would think it would do the same to the other families.”

The homeowners initially filed claims against the city of Pomona, contending that a landslide on the city-owned slope behind their houses caused their property to sink, in some cases undermining homes so drastically that they were declared public nuisances and quickly demolished. The city rejected the claims.

The homeowners’ hopes now rest with a pending lawsuit against the city and the developer of their subdivision in the Phillips Ranch area.

The failed slope behind the houses on Meadow View is owned in part by the city and in part by Pacesetter Business Properties, which grew from the firm that originally developed the homes.

Irvine attorney Michael Hearn, who represents the nine homeowners who brought the lawsuit, said the slope was the site of an old, inactive landslide that the developer should have repaired. Hearn said the 2005 slide was very similar to the previous landslide.

In legal documents, the city denied being liable for the damage.

“The issue is, did our land really slide?” said Anaheim lawyer Robert Gokoo, who is representing the city in the case. “It came down on our land, but the head scarp of the landslide is located on the homeowners’ property. It’s very well defined. That’s where the landslide started.”

The slope was part of the attraction of the hillside neighborhood. It was a greenbelt with a bracing view of the San Gabriel Mountains.

After a winter of voluminous rain, the city’s part of the slope, the homeowners contend, slid down and away, causing the earth above it to begin to sink.

“It was raining that day. I came back early from work, looked at the backyard and saw a lump running through it like a straight line,” recalled Karim, 41, a project manager for a dental specialties company and an immigrant from Pakistan. “It didn’t make sense to me. The next morning when I got up, the bump was more profound. I just went to work. I didn’t know what to do.”

Razza, whose house is two doors up from Karim’s, was alerted to something amiss the next night. The neighbor whose home was between Razza’s and Karim’s came knocking and reported that “he had a 3-inch crack going through his house and that Abid’s backyard had dropped 3 feet,” Razza said.

Upon inspection, Razza discovered that the crack from his neighbor’s house ran up to his own property and along the entire back of his house’s foundation. “I didn’t know what was causing it,” he said. “I didn’t know what the hell was going on.”

What ensued for Razza and Karim the next day had a tinge of the surreal. They arrived home from work to find their street blocked by emergency vehicles. They were told by city officials that their houses would be red-tagged and that they must quickly remove whatever belongings they could and leave the premises.

They didn’t know where to start. Karim instructed his wife to put in a plastic garbage bag the 10 most important things in each room. “Then I realized I had no place to put all the bags,” Karim said.

Razza painted in white block letters on his brown garage door, along with his phone number: PLEASE HELP!

The message, he said, was intended for “just about anybody, pretty much” and was indicative of the confusion and helplessness that gripped all the affected homeowners.

Neighbors, including many they didn’t know, came to their aid, helping them remove belongings, opening their own garages for storage, bringing them food and clothing. One neighbor persuaded the manager of the local Wal-Mart to fill two shopping carts with such items as underwear, socks and toothbrushes that the displaced families might need. The local Albertsons gave gift coupons for food. The nearby Shiloh Inn provided weeks of free temporary shelter.

In the flurry of vacating the houses, the homeowners saw the paraphernalia of their private lives scattered and laid bare to public view on the ground outside.

Backyard chasms

The earth beneath their houses, meanwhile, continued to fall away. It dropped as much as 12 feet in Karim’s backyard, as much as 20 feet directly below Razza’s dwelling.

Soon, Karim and his next-door neighbor were informed by city officials that their houses were in danger of falling. The city demolished the homes within weeks.

Karim watched from across the street as the four-bedroom house at 34 Meadow View, which he owned with his three brothers and which functioned as a focal point for his large extended family, was pulled down, one room at a time.

“That was the most traumatic part,” he said. “I saw my main bedroom wide open. Then I could see my main bathroom. I could see my kids’ room getting pulled down, my mother’s room.”

Today, Karim’s property, behind a locked chain-link fence that runs the length of the affected properties, is a weedy lot, at the back of which is a deep trench covered with a plastic tarpaulin.

Razza’s house, at 38 Meadow View, is a wreck. Overgrown shrubs crowd the front of the house, a broken wooden candy-cane decoration from Christmas 2004 lies on a brown lawn. On the driveway is a pile of trash that includes a child’s sandal, a stuffed donkey and a four-slot toaster.

In the back, the foundation slab, partly covered with gray carpeting, droops from the house like a tongue from an open mouth, hanging over the void left by the departed soil.

Both men felt the emotional impact of losing their homes. Karim and his wife, Tehseen Desnavi, a native of Dubai, United Arab Emirates, found themselves uncharacteristically irritable, short with their two sons, ages 7 and 5, short with each other.

“We were very edgy as a family,” he said. “Small things would get to us very quickly, and we didn’t know why. So we talked about it and decided we should take some time and be proactive with the kids and not let things get us down.

“My kids still ask, though, ‘When can I go back to my room? Where are my toys?’ “

Karim’s late father bought the house at 34 Meadow View in 1990. Karim and his three brothers lived there while attending Cal Poly Pomona. The four brothers and their sister all got married in the house, and all lived there briefly after being wed.

His older brother Zahid bought the house next door at 32 Meadow View. (It, too, is red-tagged, though essentially undamaged; Zahid is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit.)

“We’ve always loved that house,” he said. “Thirty-four Meadow View was the place for everybody to come. It was a unique family situation, and we purposely had it that way because we wanted it to be a close family place.”

Razza bought his four-bedroom house for $171,000 in 1988. He said similar houses in the neighborhood have been selling recently for $500,000 to $650,000.

The loss of the house occurred at a difficult time. His mother had died the month before, and he had just changed jobs after working for the same employer for 30 years. He was going through a divorce, and his estranged wife and grown son and daughter were living elsewhere.

“Put them all together, and you’ve got an incredible recipe,” he said. “It’s a major trauma to go through this. Losing your house, you can’t put that into words. This is your sanctuary where you go at the end of the day to get away from the rat race.”

Karim and his family rent a two-bedroom house in Chino Hills for $2,000 a month while they await resolution of the lawsuit. “I live in half as much house now, and I pay twice as much,” he said.

Razza rents a two-bedroom apartment in Rancho Cucamonga.

Both men are displeased with what they see as the city’s early and continuing unsympathetic response to their plight. A trial is set for Aug. 14. Lawyers for all parties met Feb. 21 to begin exploring an out-of-court settlement.

Their case against the city, Karim said, has been “all paperwork, investigations, dates pending.” When he rented the house he currently lives in, he was wary of signing a year’s lease. “That had to be too long,” he said. “There had to be a resolution within a few months, right? Well, we’re starting our third year. For me, the chapter is still open. The book is not closed.”

Razza has become convinced that the city is dragging its feet in the hope of wearing down the homeowners’ patience and inducing them to accept insufficient compensation.

“And I’m not going to do it,” he said. “It’s not going to be a matter of, ‘Here’s a check, now go away.’ “

Posted by M at 14:15:02 | Permalink | No Comments »