WestchesterParents

While I try to stay as neutral as possible on WestchesterParents there are times when I have to call people out when they offer a policy plan that flies in the face in reality.  Particularly in the case of education which I often write about and especially when it comes from a candidate for governor who is proposing what he will do  over the next four years. This is one of those times. 

Candidate for California governor, Jerry Brown came out today with a campaign press release aimed at education that is frankly dishonest and contains proposals that are written as if he were closeted away in a monastery for the last twenty years. You can find his plan here:

www.jerrybrown.org/sites/default/files/Education%20Plan.pdf

In his plan he makes a number of claims that I’ll list below. Each one of them I follow up with data that disproves the claim.

Claim 1 – “Despite the fact that many students (at Oakland Military, a school Jerry Brown claims to have started in Oakland as Mayor) come from low income families (80% of the students qualify for free or reduced lunches), this year 25% of our graduates were accepted to the University of California system. In prior years, graduates have been admitted to such prestigious schools as West Point and Yale.”

It wasn’t until the 2004/05 that year the Oakland Military Charter began reporting enrollment data to the California Department of Education (CDE) and only two full years of enrollment data is available to report.

Brown claims that 25% of grads were accepted into the UC system but the raw numbers paint an entirely different picture that is easily hidden behind ‘percentages.’

The first full graduating class that matriculated through grades 9-12 at Oakland Military was the class of 2008 just two years ago. This class reported to the CDE a 43.68 percent drop in enrollment from 87 freshman that began 2004 to 49 seniors that reported back in 2007.

The Class of 2009 saw a larger drop with 81 freshman enrolled in 2005 and saw only 42 students report in their senior year which represented a 48.15% loss of enrollment.

While data from two graduating classes alone are hardly enough to hang your accolades on, a 48% drop in enrollment of which 25% (10 students) went on to a UC or UCS school is terrible.  And did they really go on to a UC/CSU school or did the outgoing students simply state that they were going there prior to graduating? 

Claim 2 – “I also started the Oakland School for the Arts, which is devoted to intensive pre-professional training in the arts within a college-preparatory curriculum. The school, going into its 9th year, is audition based and also serves 600 students from 6th through 12th grade.”

Oakland Arts began reporting enrollment to the CDE back in 2002 and its first class to matriculate from 9th to 12th was the class of 2006. This class began with 102 freshman and ended up with only 61 seniors, a 40 percent loss. The most recent class of 2009 began with 88 freshman students and saw only 45 students reporting for the senior year for a 49 percent loss. Just as disconcerting is the drop in freshman students reporting in 2006, 2007 and 2008 where the number of incoming students fell to 58, 26 and 77 students.  Oakland Arts current enrollment is just 408 students and its highest level was in 2005 with 421 which is a third less than the 600 students that candidate Brown claims.

Claim 3 – “Both schools charge no tuition and are among the top-performing schools in Oakland.”

This claim is simply filler. Charters by state law cannot charge tuition. They are public schools receiving public funding to operate. As for top-performing, see claims 1 & 2 and judge for yourself how well they perform.

Claim 4 – “From my experience in starting and running these schools, I have gained first-hand experience in how difficult it is to enable all students to be ready for college and careers. Student outcomes are a complex interaction of student characteristics, teacher competence, instructional materials, and parental support. Any reforms and state educational policies must take into account this complexity and refrain from oversimplifying the problems and solutions.”

Brown has neither first hand experience nor any solution to enable “all students to be ready for college and careers.” His managing the schools above aptly point that out. 

With a 48% loss in class enrollment, Brown hasn’t had any more success in managing the  ”complex interaction of student characteristics, teacher competence, instructional materials, and parental support” that he claims to have. 

Jerry Brown then went on to state what he will do but his proposals are nothing new. They follow the same path that California has followed since the 1990′s and will simply make things worse.

Brown begins by saying he will “Establish(ed) Minimum Requirements for High School Graduates.” However the State of California already has minimum requirements in place. In fact in 1999 California had raised the bar and instituted a more rigorous college preparation curriculum “for all students.”

This however has had the unintended consequence of exponentially raising the drop out rate and placing diplomas out of reach for many students throughout the state.

Brown proposes raising the graduation requirement even further than it is today!

Considering that it is the math portion of the state curriculum and CAHSE that has proven to be so difficult to pass, his proposal to add another year of math will most assuredly raise the dropout rate to well over 40 percent.

Certainly these students (Ferris Buellers Day Off) would not be very impressed with Jerry Brown’s proposals.

Brown goes on to say that he will “Significantly increased investment in K-12 and Higher Education” but education today has already consumed 40 percent of the California budget.

Most of Browns other proposals are related to funding as if to explain that California’s problems with its education system have to do with underfunding. Funding is not the problem. Throwing more money at schools is not the answer. The problem is how to make education relevant to California’s students. The answer is to offer a variety of paths towards a diploma.

Note to our readers: To date I have not yet seen candidate Meg Whitman’s education plan if she has submitted one. When she does submit one I’ll comment on it as well.

Posted on July 28th, 2010 by David Coffin
Tags: GENERAL, LOCAL, OUR SCHOOLS, POLITICS, QUALITY OF LIFE, RAISING CHILDREN, STATE
No Comments »

A spirited defense of Assemblyman Steve Bradford’s (D) Limousine Legislation by Jenny M. appeared in our comments section in Part 1 but it was her initial comment on the state of education (the main point of the article) that was worth a column in itself. Part 2….

(Jenny M.) Unfortunately you cannot legislate students to stay in school. If there was a viable piece of legislation that would make all students graduate high school there is a good chance that would have flown through the legislature by now.

Jenny M is wrong on both counts. It was the legislature and the state board of education that forced students out of school by changing the curriculum. California students once had multiple paths towards a diploma but in 1997-98 that was eliminated reducing it to one single path. The argument then was that elementary and secondary schools should be preparing all students for college and so the curriculum was changed. Vocational paths to a diploma were eliminated and replaced it with two years of college preparatory math. In essence, they legislated a quarter of a million students out of a diploma.

From the California Dropout Research Project:

… students need a wide variety of skills to be successful in college and in the workplace. These skills include both traditional academic skills, but also applied, vocational skills, as well as so-called “soft skills,” such as punctuality, perseverance, and the social skills needed to work in groups. In fact, one recent study found that improvements in a range of non-academic skills were more valuable than improvements in math achievement for increasing chances for enrolling in and completing postsecondary programs, and for increasing earnings eight years after high school.

If California wants to truly prepare its students for life beyond high school, it should examine a full range of academic and non-academic skills and incorporate them in the state’s high school graduation requirements and accountability system so that schools and students are encouraged and recognized for acquiring them.

Finally, the state should consider more options for students to meet the graduation requirements. An increasing number of states have pursued the idea of multiple pathways for students to meet high school graduation requirements, such as through career and technical education (CTE) courses.

There could be a viable piece of legislation that would dramatically turn the dropout rate around and that would be a bill to eliminate the college preparatory math requirement (Algebra 1) and again offer vocational paths to a diploma. Students planning to go on to state universities would still need college preparatory math but those who choose a vocational career or a longer path to a college degree could still earn a diploma.

With multiple paths in front of them more students would be finishing high school, more students would be passing CAHSE and more high school grads would be going on to postsecondary programs such community colleges and state universities. More students would be applying for jobs with a diploma in hand. With multiple paths we could reduce spending on expensive intervention programs that are clearly failing and redirect that money to more meaningful academic offerings.

Today’s legislators are lock-step into group think and Bradford has so far fits neatly into that box. They are unable to seek solutions that put the California’s student’s interests first. Education unfortunately has steered perpendicularly to its stated purpose and goals and instead it has become a jobs program for state employees.

By the end of Steve Bradford’s first year in office, another 80,000 students in California will have dropped out. Students pushed out because the only other path available to them was dropping out.

Posted on July 22nd, 2010 by David Coffin
Tags: LOCAL, OUR SCHOOLS, POLITICS, QUALITY OF LIFE, RAISING CHILDREN, STATE
No Comments »

30  to 60 percent of the high school students in Bradford’s assembly district are dropping out and one of his first pieces of legislation is AB 2572 to regulate limousines going in and out of the airport????  Where are his priorities?

Your vote has value. What do you value most?

Posted on July 21st, 2010 by westchester dad
Tags: LAX - AIRPORT, LOCAL, OUR SCHOOLS, POLITICS, QUALITY OF LIFE, STATE, WESTCHESTER HS
1 Comment »

“Voters will be asked to approve a new $11.4 billion water bond that promises to increase develop more reliable water supplies and increase local water supplies. (Los Angeles Times 6/20/2010)”

Time for a Sanity check…

Going back to 1996 there have been 6 voter approved bond measures amounting to $16.6 BILLION that promised to resolve future water shortages. None of them followed through on the campaign promises they made to voters.

So today we find ourselves in one of the most serious shortages since 1987 and perhaps since William Mullolland when he opened the gates of the Los Angeles Aqueduct in 1913. 

The six water bonds to-date have not resulted in reliable supplies as promised but instead have contributed to the states fiscal crisis and overdrawn water so severely that courts had to intercede and impose restrictions to stop permanent environmental losses.

All of this suggests that the bonds don’t work and do nothing to address the root cause of the water shortage. 

Water bonds have instead become an endless cycle of appeals promising reliability to voters for decades to come that are followed by spending billions on projects to improve water conveyance and storage only to find later that we are further behind and again needing another bond for a new infusion cash.

Like the other bonds before it, Prop 18 to will have zero chance of resolving the state’s water reliability problems. The capital projects these bonds pay for such as new underground storage, surface storage, or improved conveyance and water conservation programs stand no chance of providing reliable water supplies to urban centers and farms as long as there are no mechanisms to throttle back on housing production when water supplies are chronically short.

Only changes in the states housing and water policies can live up to the promises we see carted out every election time. The answer is perhaps a new element to CEQA and changing state law so that Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) cannot be cited by city planning agencies and developers as evidence of available water.

Here is a list of those state water measures that were approved and the recycled claims and promises they made to us to gain voter approval:

1996 – Voters approved Proposition 204, the “Safe Clean Reliable Water Supply Act,” a $995 million bond that promised to “increase water supplies.” “…drinking water is something most of us take for granted,” proponents wrote in the ballot pamphlet that year. “But the truth is, unless we act now, California’s residents, businesses and farms face a future of chronic water shortages and potentially unsafe supplies.”

2000 – Voters approved Proposition 12, the “Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000” borrowed $2.1 billion based on proponent’s assurances that “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”

2000 – Voters passed Proposition 13, the “Safe Drinking Water, Clean Water, Watershed Protection and Flood Protection Bond Act,” for an additional $1.97 billion of bonds after proponents warned them (in language almost identical to the arguments for Prop. 204) that “We can’t take our drinking water for granted. Water officials predict major shortages and say existing programs won’t fix the problem.”

2002 – Voters approved Proposition 40, the “California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002” that borrowed $2.6 billion. Proponents promised (in words exactly the same as the empty promise they made in Proposition 12): “This measure is vital because it protects the lands that give us clean water.”

2003 – Voters authorized $3.44 billion of water bonds by passing Proposition 50, “The Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002.” Supporters promised: “California’s population is expected to nearly double in the next forty years. Proposition 50 funds state and local water system improvements needed to keep up with population growth by providing new water supplies and supporting water conservation programs.”

2006 – Voters approved Proposition 84 to authorize a $5.4 billion bond. The “Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act Of 2006. Supporters promised: “Prop. 84 will increase the reliability of California’s water supply.”

Proposition 18, the so-called “Safe, Clean and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010″ once again recycles old promises that previous water bonds failed to meet including “develop(ing) more reliable water supplies”, “Clean up drinking water sources”, “Protect & restore the environment”, “Increase local water supplies”, and “Enhance conservation“.

Prop 18 promises only two things… 1) It promises to more than double the past obligations that the previous 6 bonds saddled Californians with and 2) It promises that another bond will be on the ballot in two to four years after this one fails to meet it promises.

Posted on June 28th, 2010 by David Coffin
Tags: GENERAL, WATER
No Comments »

“This schools tax is a bargain” writes LA Times columnist Steve Lopez on Measure E. “For just $8.33 per household a month, voters could save hundreds of L.A. Unified teachers’ jobs and help preserve arts education in elementary schools”

This familiar refrain has been used over and over again on previous LAUSD ballot measures:

In 1997 we were told “for just $5.00 a month…” when Prop BB was placed on the ballot.
In 2002 we had Measure K and again they said “for just $5.00 a month…!”
In 2004, when Measure R popped up on the ballot, again they said “for just $5.00 a month…”
Then in 2006, Measure Y showed up on the ballot and like the others before, it to was characterized as  “for just $5.00 a month…”

All of these measures were approved by voters.

Before anyone thinks hey… what’s $20 a month?  The fine print in each of these bonds was that it was $5.00 for each $100,000 of assessed value. Minor detail right?

Of course Measure E is a “parcel tax”. Just a flat $100 dollars a year or $8.33 like Mr. Lopez says but let’s take a look at what we are already adding it to on your property tax bill.

Currently property owners are paying .00151809 for UNIFIED SCHOOLS on their property tax bills so if their property is valued at $600,000 today, that homeowner is on the hook for $910 this year! If your home is assessed for more or less so will the tax be.

To give you some historical context on that piece of property, in 2008 the tax on that value was $748. In 2007 it was $740 and in 2006 it was $640. In 2002 is was $221 and before the LAUSD began squeezing us for 5 bucks at every chance they can, a $600,000 home’s bond indebtedness was a mere $20 in 1996.

So with this parcel tax the cost is really $910 + $100 for that homeowner and that’s far higher than the $8.33 that Mr. Lopez suggests we should approve. 

$1,010 may be pocket change for a prominent ink stained scribe like Mr. Lopez but to most other homeowners this is serious money that is layered on top of the 1% property tax itself. 40% which goes to schools already. Then there is also the monthly mortgage to pay, the rising LADWP water and power bills, trash bills, mouths to feed, kids clothes to buy, etc.

And to add insult to the homeowners injury, that resident living in the 500 unit apartment complex down the street will pay just 20 cents for this parcel tax!!!

Vote NO on Measure E

Posted on May 23rd, 2010 by westchester dad
Tags: GENERAL, MANAGING GROWTH, QUALITY OF LIFE
3 Comments »

Not enough money for schools.
Not enough money for police, or librarians or park staff.
Not enough money for street and sidewalk repairs.
L.A.’s residents are seeing important services being cut back.
The city is hundreds of millions of dollars behind, soon to be billions and the city employees are facing layoffs and dozens of furlough days in their futures.

This month the neighborhood council I sat on voted to advise the council office and the Zoning administrator that they would like another 135 apartment units at Playa Manchester. These units sit next to the 535 units at Playa del Oro they approved back in 2000 here in Westchester. Last year they approved over 2000 units for Phase II of Playa Vista along with another 500+ units at the Hughes Center. 

There is a connection here that’s apparently it’s too far under the radar for most decision makers (including neighborhood council members) to recognize and that is the fact that these high density multi-story apartment units are growing in numbers at a rate of 2 to 3 times that of single-family units and they pay only $600 to $1300 per unit in annual property taxes compared to SFU’s that are billed ten times that amount. Is it any wonder to the mayor, the city council and this neighborhood council why the city is broke??  The discounted property income to the city that high density, vertically built mixed  housing generate simply isn’t enough to cover of public services needed for the number of residents they add to the city. 

For example, it costs taxpayers over $9000 annually just to pay for a single student’s public education in the LAUSD. At $900 per commercial housing unit it takes 10 units to pay for a single child.  On the otherhand it only takes 2 single family homes to pay for the same student.

Pile on top of that the hundreds of millions of dollars that are needed for police, fire, libraries, parks, pot hole repairs, street surfacing, refuse pickup, payrolls for council members and their staff, planning department staff, building and safety, Department of Transportation staff, neighborhood council budgets… and need I say ‘pensions’ (i.e. the hidden payroll) of retiring government employees?  By now it should be clear, for every unit built in a multi-unit project the city falls farther and farther behind.

The folks that are getting rich are the operators and developers of these increasingly large, increasingly dense and ever taller housing complexes that are invading cities everywhere in the Southern California region but mostly here in Los Angeles.

Even when the economy turns itself around there should be no doubt that our city will continue to fall farther in arrears since property tax receipts are no longer driven by the properties, but instead slowed by housing units which are growing at record rates.

Posted on April 13th, 2010 by westchester dad
Tags: GENERAL, MANAGING GROWTH, QUALITY OF LIFE
2 Comments »

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

Posted on December 23rd, 2009 by westchester dad
Tags: GENERAL, QUALITY OF LIFE
1 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.

Posted on November 29th, 2009 by westchester dad
Tags: GENERAL, MANAGING GROWTH, QUALITY OF LIFE
2 Comments »

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!

Posted on July 4th, 2009 by westchester dad
Tags: GENERAL, MANAGING GROWTH, QUALITY OF LIFE, WATER
No Comments »

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.

Posted on June 3rd, 2009 by westchester dad
Tags: GENERAL, MANAGING GROWTH, TRAFFIC, WATER
No Comments »