WestchesterParents

“(Westchester Village Network) We are a new non-profit organization founded by volunteer Westchester, California residents, with the mission of helping Westchester senior citizens stay in their own homes as they grow older. “

By pure coincidence, there is a front page article in the January 3rd issue of the Los Angeles Times on a subject that once haunted California’s homeowners and threatened the viability of senior citizens to even live in their own homes.

Had it not been for an event in 1978 to protect homeowners from losing their homes as described in the article, there might not be a market today to provide services for seniors staying in their homes such as what the village network proposes.

The Los Angeles Times article, Montana’s big sky views become big tax horrors describes a situation being played out there where seniors are being forced out of their homes by the state. Homes that owners do not want to leave but are forced to do so because they cannot afford to pay skyrocketing property taxes that are linked to the current market value of surrounding homes.

Because property taxes in Montana are linked to current market value like ours were before Prop 13, people who had purchased their homes when they were younger adults are finding themselves unable to pay property taxes that are up to a thousand times higher than what they paid when they first bought their homes.

Prior to 1978, many of California’s seniors were literally being thrown out of their homes by tax assessors. Had it not been for the voter revolt and subsequent voter initiative Prop 13 that won with 65% of the vote, there probably would not be any market for organizations such as the Westchester Village Network to exist today. Aging adults would have been taxed right out of their homes leaving almost no market for home services.

Proposition 13 capped property taxes at 1% of the property value and limited annual increases to 2% per year. It allowed re-assessment only when the property changed ownership thus protecting homeowners in their later years as their incomes peaked or became fixed as they retired.

Tags: GENERAL // Add Comment »

Christmas has again spirited up on me, and again we will celebrate Christmas Eve with Spanish and Mexican food, reminding us of, and in homage to, our rich local heritage. Although I am German/Irish/French, I lived for awhile on another old Spanish possession; the archipelago of Puerto Rico, and you have not lived until you have spent a holiday season with parranda/asaltars. In 1493, Columbus named the island San Juan Bautista, in honor of Saint John the Baptist (second cousin of Jesus), but it was later renamed; “Rich Port”. In Westchester and Playa Del Rey, it is very hard to escape that heritage; with many streets, towns and attractions named or derived from old Spanish history.

La Tierja; “the scissors”, intersects La Cienega at out eastern border. The Spanish phrase la ciénaga translates into English as “the swamp” and the area named “Las Ciénegas” was a continual marshland due to the course of the Los Angeles River (Ballona Creek), through that area prior to a massive southerly shift in 1825 to roughly its present course. The difference in spelling between the Spanish word ciénaga and the name of the thoroughfare originated with the name of the rancho.

Sepulveda Boulevard, which stretches some 42.8 miles from Rinaldi Street at the north end of the San Fernando Valley to the city limits of Hermosa,(beautiful), Beach, where it “jumps” 1.3 miles east and continues on to Long Beach. It generally runs north-south, passing underneath two of the runways of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). It is the longest street in the city and county of Los Angeles. Sepulveda Boulevard is named for the Sepulveda family of San Pedro, California. The termination of Sepulveda is on a part of the Sepulveda family ranch, Rancho Palos Verdes, which consisted of 31,619 acres of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. The original grantee of the King of Spain was Jose Dolores Sepulveda. When he was killed in an Indian uprising just above Santa Barbara in 1824, the rancho went to his oldest son, Juan Capistrano Sepulveda. [Read more →]

Tags: GENERAL // Add Comment »

Yikes!

It appears that LMU is seeking permits for selling and dispensing beer and wine on campus. Hopefully the school will be more vigilant in monitoring underage drinking ON CAMPUS than the unofficial ‘off campus’ houses!

12/18/2009 ENV-2009-4064-CE 1 S LMU DR 90045
11 Westchester – Playa del Rey
SALE & DISPENSING OF BEER & WINE, FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION, FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT IN THE UNIVERSITY HALL BUILDING.
CE-CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
BRIAN L CHIN
(626)440-8838

12/18/2009 ZA-2009-4063-ZV 1 S LMU DR 90045
11 Westchester – Playa del Rey
SALE & DISPENSING OF BEER & WINE, FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION, FOR AN
EXISTING RESTAURANT IN THE UNIVERSITY HALL BUILDING.
ZV-ZONE VARIANCE BRIAN L CHIN
(626)440-8838

Tags: GENERAL, Quality of Life // Add Comment »

Neighborhood Watch reports that the LAPD Holiday Sleigh is coming to town!  On December 16 and 17, Santa and his helpers (our LAPD Senior Lead Officers) will be visiting Westchester and Playa del Rey. 

Please come out to any of the stops and bring your little ones to visit with Santa. Stops will be 30-60 minutes

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

5:00 PM- Croydon btwn 83rd St and 85th St (Mid-block)
6:00 PM- 6716 W. 87th St (west of Emerson Ave)
7:00 PM- West 85th Pl, west of McConnell Ave
8:00 PM- Dunbarton Ave at Altamor Drive

Thursday, December 17, 2009

4:00 PM- Playa Del Lagoon (Pacific Ave at Convoy Ave)
5:00 PM- 83rd St. at Kenyon Ave
6:00 PM- 8332 Stewart Ave
7:00 PM- 81st St. at Emerson
8:00 PM- West 85th St. West of Rayford Drive
8:30 PM- West 81st St. at 83rd St.

Stop Times can vary 15 to 30 minutes.
Sleigh will not be out if it is raining.

Tags: GENERAL // Add Comment »

The City Planning Department of Los Angeles is currently mulling over the idea of allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (i.e. ADU’s, aka granny flats) to be built in single family residential neighborhoods zoned as R-1’s. ADU’s are living spaces usually built behind the home that homeowners are allowed to rent out.

Accessory Dwelling Units are win-win for states legislators because it helps them meet their housing goals for 30 million more residents statewide and 15 million here in Southern California and thus solve the budget problem. The idea is that if you double the population, you then double the state income tax roll, sales taxes, liquor and tobacco taxes and motor vehicle fees, etc., and that means more money in the state’s general fund.

However ADU’s are a lose-lose idea for local governments and residents. Local governments are funded primarily by property taxes and to a lesser extent sales taxes and increasingly utility fees. Because cities and counties cannot double the number of properties (we are for the most part ‘built out’), local governments are having to service an ever-growing population on fewer per capita tax dollars as long as we continue to follow these insane housing policies coming out of the state capitol.

Even worse are how ADU’s would completely change the nature of our neighborhoods by allowing your neighbors to rent out that freshly built unit behind their house to overlook your backyard and they would not have to provide parking so the “tenant” would end up parking on the street. Now imagine watching the value of your home plummet.

The path towards insolvency
The City of Los Angeles is going broke because is its growth has relied almost entirely on multi-unit housing which has been growing  2-3 times faster than single family residential.  Property taxes on multi-unit housing yields 50% to 90% less per residential unit than property taxes on a single family homes. So as we grow there is less to spend per person.

Local governments see their only way out of this mess by creating and raising new taxes and fees on services, utilities, communications, etc., as well as borrowing through bonds but those tools only make things worse. It’s hard to find any reason why they choose to follow the state in lock step on housing.

Accessory Dwelling Units are designed around the same goal that’s behind ‘smart growth’, ‘mixed-use’, ‘high density’,  ‘affordable housing’,  ‘inclusionary zoning’, and  ‘density bonuses’ and that is to generate housing for the states growth goals. R-1’s are seen as single greatest impediment to meeting the states vision to provide housing for 30 million people and that is what AB 1866 was meant to get around.

The bottom line is that while growth helps California pay its bills, it’s also strangling local governments and schools, raising the cost of living for our residents and lowering the quality of life we expect in a modern urban environment.

Tags: GENERAL, MANAGING GROWTH, Quality of Life // Add Comment »

There is a rumor floating around that LADWP General Manager David Nahai is planning to resign soon.  If so, Mayor Villaraigosa might want to consider appointing me to the job. 

I’ll put sustainability and honesty back into the role of the General Manager of the LADWP which Nahai so sorely lacked. 

However, the Mayor may not like the honesty that I would deliver because it would begin with an honest Urban Water Management Plan that would cut the legs off of his plans for growth. 

The UWMP is supposed to be a reliable report that shows how the department will meet customer demand over the next 20 years.  Similarly, if cannot meet that 20 year assessment then it is supposed to report that as well.  Planners and developers rely on the UWMP because the state says that you can’t build unless you can cite an assessment that says you have sufficient water supplies for that period. Unfortunately, the UWMP’s published over the past 15 years have been based mostly on accounting tricks and have never met any of the long term forecasts.

My UWMP would honestly report that that we do not have sufficient supplies for further growth.  Not even with conservation or clever technologies. 

I would also offer an honest assessment of the payroll for the utility’s employees. They are overpaid and the city’s contributions to their pensions are unsustainable.

As a bonus to residents… I also don’t use anywhere near 70 to 100 HCF of water that Nahai uses.

Tags: GENERAL // 1 Comment »

This week I was quoted in a July 2nd Argonaut newspaper article on the water supply impact on coastal development.

Along with my remarks were also remarks from Melinda Barrett, the water conservation manager for the Los Angeles County WaterWorks and Joseph Reichenberger, a director and professor of civil engineering at Loyola Marymount University. Both attempted to sooth our concerns about how water and development is impacting our quality of life.

Regarding Barrett’s comments:
Barrett is -not- correct when she said that “if the county goes to a higher level than the current Phase II of the county water conservation ordinance, the district would not be able to issue what are called “will serve” letters for new projects.”

Having reviewed the county’s Phased Water Conservation Plan myself, I found that there is no language in it at all that allows the county to deny “will serve” letters. In fact, every phase from Phase III to Phase IX of the county’s plan states that “Water service (”Will Serve”) letters will be issued.”

It does say that “that permanent metered service to any newly created lot will be prohibited”  though I am concerned with that language and whether it applies to “existing lots” that were newly re-zoned to allow tens, hundreds or even thousands of new multi-unit housing.

The county does offer some additional teeth in their rules as opposed to the City of L.A.’s Emergency Water Conservation ordinance because it does deny meters for construction water starting at Phase III. It also states that meters for construction water shall be removed at Phase VII. But again, does this apply to projects such as those going up in Marina del Rey?

Regarding Reichenberger’s comments:
Sheila Kuehl’s SB610 does require a water assessment but it has a HUGE LOOPHOLE in it by not insisting on a timely assessment that is focused on each projects as they come along.

SB610 is not an effective tool in L.A. because it allows developers to cite a water agency’s Urban Water Management Plan that is usually published once every five years.

I originally thought like Reichenberger did when I suggested to the council office that SB610 requires that the Hughes Center include water in its EIR. However when I asked the Hughes Center planners that they needed a water assessment as noted by SB610, they said that the LADWP 2005 UWMP was their assessment and that the UWMP stated that it has sufficient water supplies to meet growth through 2020!

After re-reading SB610 I had to conclude that they were right. SB610 calls for an ‘assessment’ and the UWMP is an assessment. It is essentially a blanket approval for all development in Los Angeles throughout the life of the document. This renders SB610 as toothless.

So here we are, four years later, in the middle of Phase III of Los Angeles’s Emergency Water Conservation Ordinance and anyone can come along and cite a four year old, fatally flawed UWMP that says we have sufficient water supplies through 2020!

Unfortunately.., water agencies will not objectively assess and report that they do not have the water resources necessary to meet population targets. They will not tell planners and local leaders that their plans are not sustainable. Water managers are “yes” men.

Water agencies are given a target in the form of a Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) and are expected to make the report work by painting up some ridiculously rosy scenarios that they will be able to meet the demand for those population assessments. These scenarios include large increases in water deliveries by SWP, LA Aqueduct, ground water, conservation and water recycling. Outside of conservation, none of the others have come close to meeting those goals as we continue to build new housing (mostly vertical) which is why we are in trouble today.

Let’s take L.A.’s 2005 UWMP. It suggested that we would have enough water to meet RHNA’s housing targets through 2020 with these wildly outrageous projections:
 

(ref; 2005 LADWP UWMP)

The reality is we have only been able to supply a yearly average  of 658,184 AF since 2000.  Only once since 1970 have we been able to manage more than 700,000 AF and that was in 1987.  UWMP projections cannot be trusted because they are proven to be historically inaccurate.

So while we are routinely being conned by past and present urban water managment plans that there is enough water to meet RHNA goals, they clearly have been wrong!  There is not enough water to meet today’s urban needs. 

West Basin which supplies Marina del Rey had a similarly rosy UWMP. Relying on the MWD 2005 Regional UWMP which claimed that they have sufficient supplies through the 2030, West Basin projected in their own 2005 UWMP that they will have ’surpluses’ through 2025!

Tags: GENERAL // Add Comment »

Some of you know that I’ve been a member of our local neighborhood council for a number of years. I originally ran for the District 10 seat when the elections were first held back in 2000 and later ran for a second term winning that as well.  At the end of this term I’ve decided that nine years on the neighborhood council is enough and others from District 10 should go on to participate and contribute.

Neighborhood councils were created as a way for residents to have influence in the development and events of their communities because L.A.’s downtown-centric government was failing to address the needs of L.A.’s suburbs. 

As a resident and a parent of a couple of toddlers, I wanted to participate in that discussion. I wanted better schools, a better Westchester business district, more parks and more soccer fields.  

Our neighborhood council’s collective weight helped spotlight and stall LAWA’s plans to expand the airport by moving the northernmost runway 340′  further into the community. It provided a forum for residents to speak with Pacific Division captains on a spate of burglaries that occurred in Kentwood and Playa del Rey a few years back.  The NC was also instrumental getting most of our local public schools (including Westchester High School) out of the LAUSD’s local district and into the iDivision. It challenged the LADWP General Manager when he came out sell an electricity rate increase but instead ran into a buzz-saw when asked how they can declare hundreds of millions of dollars as “surplus” and give it to the city while holding out their hand to voters for a rate increase citing insufficient funds to upgrade the underground electrical infrastructure.

Even with its successes (and there have been many), the unfortunate reality is that the real power is still held by elected officials in higher office and neighborhood councils are for the most part.. advisory. 

Yes, neighborhood councils can make things -very- awkward for members of the city council, the mayor, city departments and city unions when their goals aren’t in alignment with ours. Because of the system of neighborhood councils growing power, city interests are finding it more difficult to steamroll through taxes, bonds and pet projects. Neighborhood councils are putting a lot of eyes on city activities. 

Eight years of being on the neighborhood council has given me an insight into big city and state politics that I could not get have received had I not been a part of it. But it also made me acutely aware that our communities fate is intrinsically tied to policies coming out of City government and more significantly, the California legislature. 

We can complain all we want about dropouts but it won’t change locally.  The change has to occur at the top. High school kids are not getting diplomas because they are less smart than students two, three, and four decades ago but because of the new education curriculum decided at the state level to raise the bar to getting a diploma. At the same time the State it eliminated vocational education as a path to receive one.  It was a one size fits all solution that fits only a few. 

Emphasizing that that point,  Jose Huizar then a LAUSD board member (and later an L.A.  City Councilman) said  ”Yes, there will be dropouts. But I’m looking at the glass half full” when he introduced an even higher bar that made Algebra II the new requirement to receive a diploma beginning in 2016.   

That glass half full so far is a million high school students who between 1997 and 2007 dropped out of LAUSD schools.

—– ##### —–

I enjoyed my time on the neighborhood council immensely. I’ve learned a lot about city county and state government but I also realized that changes in education, housing, water resources can only be done legislatively in our capitol and I’m frankly tired of the people we keep sending there because those legislators are not improving our children’s education, they are ruining it. They are not bettering the quality of life for Californians, they are degrading it. They are not improving the wealth of the lower and middle class, they are bankrupting it.

Because of this I have decided to run for the 51st Assembly Seat that was recently vacated. The election will be held September 1st.

While my odds may not be all that good running against an entrenched Democratic machine; unlike theirs, my message crosses ideological boundaries. I offer solutions, not recycled campaign slogans. Solutions for better schools, for diplomas, for a sustainable planning policy and a scalable tax system that will pay for essential government services. 

I hope that you will support me.

Tags: GENERAL // Add Comment »

Over the past few months H. David  Nahai and his LADWP cohorts have made a concerted effort to misinform the public by referring to Tier I allocations in “percentages” and mixing into the public dialog that residents receive an ”average of 28 HCF” .  A recent flyer stating  stated:  “As an example, a typical two-month billing cycle for a single-family residential customer who is allocated 28 hundred cubic feet (HCF) of water pays $81.76, or 2.92 cents per cubic foot.”

Unfortunately for CD-11 (Councilmans Rosendahl’s) residents, not one resident in his district who lives on a 7500 sq ft lots (about 95% of its residents) or less really gets 28 HCF of water as advertised. With the new across the board restrictions, we’ll now have far less that most L.A. residents when the lowest Tier I is reduced to 22 HCF.

Rosendahl’s entire 11th council district happens to be in what is called a “low temp” region. Most single family households in our district have been getting far less than what LADWP advertises with only 24 HFC during winter months. With the new restrictions now in place,  our Tier I allocation is a 22% reduction over what the LADWP has been advertising.

Tags: GENERAL, MANAGING GROWTH, TRAFFIC, WATER // Add Comment »

Neighbors turning on neighbors.

City officials seem to be getting their way in casting blame on residents for using too much water.

Here is a recent dialog has been going on at in our local community listservers Wpdrncnews and Onalist where residents observed a librarian hosing down a sidewalk after our new water restrictions have taken place.

Just went by the Mar Vista Library and they were HOSING down their sidewalk – guess they didn’t get the memo about our drought,
restrictions etc.!

Shame on them!

and…

Did you stop to ask them? A lot of folks still don’t get the word, and the “public relations efforts” of plain folks like us who are a concerned part of the community can pay off, too. Often a polite (non-shaming) one-on-one conversation can change attitudes.

and…

Hello All,

I talked with the head librarian at the Mar Vista Library. She was washing sticky soda off the sidewalk because there were complaints about the mess being tracked inside the library. She jokingly said she knew no good deed would go unpunished. Everyone is still welcomed to come by anytime and check out a book.

She has made sure her staff knows about the water restriction. Please keep up the effort to help neighbors understand how to meet these new requirements. More information is available at http://www.ladwp.com

Best regards,
Jim (CD11 staff member)

I hope my neighbors don’t try to “shame” me into conserving water more than I already do.  They will get an informed earful on how misinformed they really are.

Here is the bottom line…

I have no problem with the librarians efforts to clean up a mess using a hose. It’s unfortunate that we are now at a point where our quality of life has been so compromised by city’s incessant drive to build, build, and build that we have to defend cleaning up a sidewalk or take a shower for more than the prescribed 5 minutes.

This has been all too predictable. How many more proposals will we continue to see where four residential parcels will be turned into forty housing units or half block of parcels are turned into a 2000 units before we realize that it is having a negative impact on our quality of life?

The Mayor and the entire city council are to blame for this unfortunate situation. I’m not going to blame mother nature or Federal judges on this. State and local politicians (and even our neighborhood council) have to be singled out for creating this water shortage because none of them are stepping forward to question the city’s planning policies. None of them are asking just how sustainable is the regions housing policy?

Tags: Local, MANAGING GROWTH, POLITICS, Quality of Life, STATE, WATER // Add Comment »