When it comes to new development, everybody — from those who live near the proposed projects to the neighborhood associations — want it their way Take the Lantana project between Olympic and Exposition boulevards on the eastern edge of the city. Three existing buildings already house world renowned entertainment, production and post-production companies who lease office and studio space there.
Two additional buildings are pending. In December 2002, the city council sent them back to the drawing board, mainly due to the traffic they would generate. Fears persisted that sizable expansion could add hundreds of extra car trips, noise and pollution to an area already overwhelmed by traffic.
The city prevails upon developers to mitigate traffic impacts which can include instituting carpool plans, upgrading streets and intersections (including traffic signals), encouraging the use of shuttles and mass transit, to name a few. The goal is to offset the negative impacts a project will generate.
Developers are also often asked to do something unrelated to the project as additional compensation to the neighborhood. Neighbors’ suggestions, as well as requests from the usual special interest groups who always have their hands out and politicians themselves seeking extra funds for pet projects, are all considered.
In the case of Lantana, in addition to traffic mitigation, the development agreement could call for upgrades to nearby Stewart Park, funding a child care center for low-income neighbors living near the project and installing or repairing sidewalks on adjacent residential streets, according to planning officials.
The process of coercing developers to subsidize city services and programs unrelated to their development borders on extortion to begin with — and that’s without neighborhood associations and their cronies horning in. City Hall also strongly suggests developers outreach to “official” neighborhood associations in the area where their project is located.
City Hall currently recognizes seven official neighborhood associations. They represent almost every section of town from Sunset Park to north of Montana. They’re required to have bylaws, be incorporated as 501(C) nonprofits, have public meetings and democratically elected officers. While they’re supposed to reflect neighborhood interests, most of them are run by small cliques of individuals more interested in furthering personal agendas.
City policy opens the door for association leaders to request favors from developers in return for support. Failure to meet demands could mean association opposition. This doesn’t necessarily spell doom for a project, but neighbor support boosts the chances for City Hall approval.
Lantana is located on the eastern edge of Pico Neighborhood Association territory. So a contingent from the PNA Board of Directors has reportedly sought funding for the Pico Youth and Family Center, along with other requests such as a mural.
But there might be a problem. PNA co-chair Ana Hara is employed as the PYFC’s leadership coordinator and PNA director Maria Loya is an active volunteer for the PYFC, which is located near Pico and Lincoln boulevards. The PYFC is funded by a $360,000 annual city grant and its director is school board member Oscar de la Torre.
While one can argue that PYFC’s youth services provide community benefit, PNA requests on behalf of the PYFC do nothing for neighbors living across the street or around the corner from Lantana. And with the tight relationship between PNA leaders and the PYFC, their request seems to be exceptionally self-serving and raises serious conflict of interest issues. Besides, aren’t there more appropriate uses for developer largesse?
Last fall, when a large group led by Hara, Loya and members of Mothers for Justice, and backed by de la Torre, executed a takeover of the PNA by block-voting themselves onto the governing board, many observers alleged that sooner or later PNA resources would be redirected to benefit de la Torre, his agenda and a small, activist faction more focused on personal issues than on benefiting the Pico area at large. It looks as if that time has come sooner, not later.
The development approval process and the roll of neighborhood associations both need review. City Hall does a disservice to all concerned when they allow neighborhood leaders to act and think “me,” rather than “we.” (Bill Bauer is a longtime Santa Monica resident and a freelance writer.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 19, 2004. Read the original PDF.