Las Lomas
Edited by Sara Epstein
Las Lomas. There’s something about the mention of the name that gets everybody’s shorts in a knot. Even for many who know very little about the project.
Las Lomas is a development project that...
according to Councilman Greig Smith’s White Paper on the subject, seeks to construct between 5,800 and 9,670 residences and 2,000,000 square feet of commercial, recreational and community development services on a seriously sloped terrain on over 50% of the property.
It is not located in the City of Los Angeles. It lies at the confluence of five busy freeways … including I-5 and I-405, I-210, I-118 and California 14. It abuts LA’s northern boundary.
On Monday, the City’s Budget and Finance Committee will hold a special meeting at the St. Nicholas Orthodox Greek Church in Northridge at 6 p.m. The Committee will consider whether LA should enter into a Supplemental Fee Agreement with Las Lomas.
CityWatch offers some information that can get all of us up to speed on Las Lomas and help prepare those of you who plan to attend the Budget meeting on Monday.
_ Read Councilman Smith’s White Paper at www.CD12.org .
_ Read the Kim Thompson Q & A below. It was first publish on the LANCissues chat line. Dan Wiseman provided the questions.
(Thompson is a long-time neighborhood activist and has been working on the Las Lomas Project from its inception.)
The Las Lomas Project raises issues that are as big as construction projects can raise:
1. Can it become part of the City of Los Angeles, removing it from Santa Clarita and getting "better" (funded) infrastructure and public services?
A. It doesn't belong to Santa Clarita. It is unincorporated County property. It can become a part of the City of L.A. through LAFCO and the Sphere of Influence. That is best stopped now - not later.
2. Do we want to lose this much "open space?" What are we using it for now? What could we be using it for?
A. Of course we don't want to lose this much open space. It is currently zoned for 200-250 units. Let Palmer put 200-250 units. He shouldn't have purchased the property hoping to get the zoning changed. The 200 acres of open space that he currently touts is not accessible to the public now and would not be then. It's not like he plans to build parks on that open space. It's just less of the mountain he wants to remove.
Currently, there are a few homes, a trailer park, a huge mountain, a traffic nightmare on the 5 N next to the proposed development and a paintball place on the property. That's it.
3. What are the impacts on the current local residents; traffic, population density, need for schools - shopping - policing - fire safety - etc. - etc. - etc.?????
A. The traffic problems cannot be mitigated and IF THEY COULD, Palmer expects the City of Los Angeles to pay for it. He only wants to pay for a very small portion. But it isn't possible anyway. There is only one way in and out of that property and LADOT, MTA, and Caltrans are all against this project. You, as tax-paying citizens should be against paying for them.
His lobbyists (that would be 11 lobbyists and 3 attorneys) will tell you that they are building schools, but they haven't checked with the State Superintendent's office on that. Why - they even promise charter schools! They didn't check with LAUSD on that. In fact, there is a rumor that should be verified that this developer promised another district a school and then he bounced the check after he got his approval for the project. Since I am relentless when I get on a subject, I'll check that rumor out for you Dan.
Shopping? Directly across the street is Stevenson's Ranch. It's got a Walmart, Bed & Bath, Linens & Things, Toys R Us, many restaurants, Sports Chalet, Old Navy, many furniture stores. There is no need for added shopping there.
What can they do about police? We can't get enough police here no matter how hard we try. Even the NC bonus isn't bringing in new police.
They say they'll build a fire station. Okay, that's good.
These are not single family homes with yards. You tell me who wants to live in tenement housing with 20-30 townhomes PER ACRE! Nice place for the kids to grow up. No wonder they don't mention police in their presentation.
They said they were building a wastewater treatment plant but they didn't even know whose job it was to permit such a facility when I asked, so their promise didn't ring true with me.
And how about the water situation? Aren't we supposed to be conserving? How about the article in the Times today about the water districts saying NO to these huge developments.
Then there is that "Rim of the Corridor" that Congress has been working on for so long. This proposal would nip that in the bud and cut off the wildlife corridor even if Palmer does say he'll build them a corridor.
4. Will it be a source of increased income for the city? Which city? Los Angeles? Santa Clarita? .... or a drain of city funds, resources and services???
A. Well, if you consider Palmer's 2.3 million square foot of commercial development to be income-generating. I don't see how a book store, a Starbucks and a department store can generate enough income to make this project worthy. There is no major manufacturing company coming in with new jobs, so there will be a few hundred minimum wage jobs there.
Which city will get this relatively little bit of revenue? That will depend on what happens at LAFCO.
Since we don't have enough cops, don't have enough water, have a serious traffic problem and Palmer wants to cram 5500 townhomes and the 2.3 million square feet of development, I tend to think it would drain our City's funds. If it were to get annexed into Santa Clarita, the project wouldn't happen. Their City Council has already taken a strong stance against the proposed project because of the negative impacts.
The only extremely short-term monetary gain is from the unions who have signed on to build the 2.3 million square foot of commercial development.
5. Can we get enough people with enough varieties of needs and opinions interested in discussing this (in public) to fully represent all points of view and (hopefully) find the most satisfactory solutions?
A. There is a team of people who oppose the project and will speak at your neighborhood council and your questions are in a direct response to the Stop Las Lomas lobbyist, Mark Edwards. This team of people is made up of the entire City of Santa Clarita, Councilman Greig Smith, Congressman Sherman, Congressman McKeon, Assemblyman Smyth, the Sierra Club, the neighborhood councils who will be most affected such as Porter Ranch, Granada Hills, Sylmar and Sunland-Tujunga, residents of both cities, Santa Clarita and Los Angeles. You can go to the website stoplaslomas.com.
That seems like a pretty diverse variety of people who are all opposing, don't you think? Let's look at who is FOR the proposed project. Hm, let's see, there is Dan Palmer who hired Hillary Norton Orozco, the lobbyists he hired, the attorneys he hired, the labor unions he made a billion dollar deal with and VICA.
So it would appear to me that nobody wants the project except for a very short list of people who hope to make money off of it.
But you be the judge. I hope that all neighborhood councils have both the Stop Las Lomas team and the Palmer Investment team and see for yourselves. _
|
