George Laase
A Taste of Hot Oil Treatment
At last week's Sepulveda Redevelopment meeting at El Marino Language School, the city was on the receiving end of a big Gotcha.
It seems that city staff failed to mention that there was another pipeline going through the proposed project's back alley:
A large, 16-inch, high pressure, 160-degree, hot oil pipeline, which is being used by the Exxon-Mobil Corp. to transport its crude oil from its San Joaquin production fields, near Bakersfield, all the way down to its main Torrance refinery.
Housing Shortage?
I have received city email from the Redevelopment Agency announcing that several single family-type parcels are being redeveloped into multiple-condo sites.
The size of these lots is about 1/6th (.17) of an acre. With the city's maximum density set at 65 units per acre (upa), these parcels theoretically could have 10 or 11 condos built on them or twice as many as the 5 units being proposed (65 upa x .17 acres = 11 units).
Trippin Out: Averaging the Daily Increase Along Sepulveda
After much searching, I found and crossed-referenced some of the figures on the mixed-use project on South Sepulveda Boulevard with the Institute of Traffic Engineers' estimates described by our Redevelopment Agency in some of its minutes.
The estimated average trip rate per condominium unit is expected to be 5.86.
For retail, the estimated average trip rate is expected to be 44.32 daily trips per 1,000 square feet of retail space.
Achieving the Ultimate Win in Losing
The Redevelopment Agency members know that the Planning Commission's last three rejections of building proposals have been over building density concerns.
At its last meeting, Planning Commissioners even talked about the possibility of establishing a building moratorium.
Two Huge Changes
They also discussed potentially lowering the maximum density level (65 units per acre)) and the establishment of a minimum density level, called a Matter of Right, for developers.
Putting the School Board Under an X-Ray Machine
It should be pointed out that some members of the School Board in trying to soften the public's concern over declining enrollment in the School District said the decline had been foreseen by the Board.
Foreseen?
And yet didn't they vote unanimously against the Ladera Heights transfer?
Insightful?
Later, the School Board members reminded everyone at the public meeting why they had voted unanimously against the transfer.
Their reasoning: They did not have enough information available at the time.
Yet when the Los Angeles County report came out with specific information, and the School Board was asked to revisit the matter, the Board refused to do so.
A Message from the City: The Shorter the Better
There is a fundamental conflict of interest being fought within our community between the commercial property owners and the city's seemingly ever-increasing need for tax revenues.
FACT: The only time a property's tax assessment and its market value are exactly the same is right after the sale of the property. After that, the market value usually increases at a faster rate than the County's assessment.
FACT: For business owners, long-term ownership of commercial properties brings stable rents and assured locations. These are practical and fundamental strategies for business owners to pursue for continued business success.
School Board Members and Personal Use of Stipends
Members of the School Board would like for the public to think that, as one Board member put it, "We don’t make much as Board members."
The statement made it sound as if members were under-paid wage earners. But, in fact, School Board members don’t earn a dime for volunteering their service. Should they? The School District provides them with stipends, travel budgets and health-and- welfare coverage.
Even though the state and federal governments view stipends for the School Board as being taxable, collecting over $100K in taxes from them statewide, stipends should not be thought of as a wage in the regular sense. The concept is called a stipend for a reason. It is given to members to help defray the costs of doing School Board business.
Paying the Piper of Public Opinion
In its rush to quell the behind-the-scenes, knee-jerk reaction of the less than diversified thinking citizenry living in Culver City, the School Board, the governing body of the School District, expressed its early, formal opposition to the proposed Ladera Heights transfer long before all the facts were publicly released in the L.A. County Education report. It appears this shortsighted stand may well cost our School District millions of dollars in future spending.
District in Decline
The School District is now saddled with the state designation of being a "district in decline" due to its inability to attract and keep its students. The official figure, given in a staff report, was that there were 239 fewer students in the 4th month of the school year than there were in the District last year. When asked what impact the loss of that many students could have on future budgets, the answer was about $1,400,000 annually.
An Auto Dealer, City Hall, Prime Freeway Frontage and Me
Fortunately for some members on the Redevelopment Agency, they are legally bound not to publicly discuss or disclose what the Agency's projects entail. By just being a citizen, I'm not under any such restrictions. What you are about to read is not speculation or wishful thinking on my part, but the facts, as I know them.
Historical Background
Way back in 1994, the Redevelopment Agency negotiated with the G.M. Corp. to set up a dealership at Sepulveda Boulevard and Slauson Avenue. To close the deal, the Agency gave G.M. a $1,163,547 discount on the purchase price. But only with the understanding that if the property was ever refinanced or sold, the $1,163,547 would have to be paid back to the Agency. Late in 2005, the Hooman Automotive Group showed interest in the industrial tract where my family's tool and cutter-grinding business has been for over 50 years. The Group's president, Hooman Michael Nissani, came out and made offers on several parcels, including our two adjoining lots. His offer of $100 per square foot seemed halfhearted and quite low. I refused it, and we made a counter-offer. He did not reply to it. I later heard from neighbors that some of his offers had been accepted and had even made escrow, but were allowed, later, to fall through.
Historical Background
Way back in 1994, the Redevelopment Agency negotiated with the G.M. Corp. to set up a dealership at Sepulveda Boulevard and Slauson Avenue. To close the deal, the Agency gave G.M. a $1,163,547 discount on the purchase price. But only with the understanding that if the property was ever refinanced or sold, the $1,163,547 would have to be paid back to the Agency. Late in 2005, the Hooman Automotive Group showed interest in the industrial tract where my family's tool and cutter-grinding business has been for over 50 years. The Group's president, Hooman Michael Nissani, came out and made offers on several parcels, including our two adjoining lots. His offer of $100 per square foot seemed halfhearted and quite low. I refused it, and we made a counter-offer. He did not reply to it. I later heard from neighbors that some of his offers had been accepted and had even made escrow, but were allowed, later, to fall through.
