Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
~~mS' flju;;wfLv0
TESTIMONY: THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD WAS MISINFORMED BY PLANNING
STAFF.
MY NAME IS WI A}J)//,::::t( E[;j_) .::C79 C'/{5/111 I . .
~ ·fM4~ t-IYl>t:: (?IH2k' Of;t;tJ/1); z;-L/ c:v)-;,L · Pr1-f?CII!E:es;-~tfl r::o.e_ b- M_ IJo <-iJG Je J.:!J.£- /I) / ,
MY TESTIOMY CONCERNS TRE FACT THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD VOTED
TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THEY WERE MISINFORMED BY
PLANNING STAFF.
STAFF TOLD THE BOARD THAT THE FRESH & EASY PROJECT CONFORMED TO THE
CRENHSAW SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH IT DID NOT.
IT WOULD BE AN UNDER STATMENTTO SAY THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS GETTING
VERY TIRED OF HAVING ITS EFFORTS FOR A BEllER QUALITY OF LIFE UNDERMINED
BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.
WHAT FRESH & EASY HAS PROPOSED IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MINI-SHOPPING
CENTER, A STRIP MALL, WHICH IS PROHIBITED IN SECTION 6(A)(2b) OF THE
SPECIFIC PLAN.
WE WORKED HARD TO GET THIS PLAN ESTABLISHED, AND WE CAN NOT BELIEVE
THAT FRESH & EASY COULD NOT DEVELOP A PROJECT THATCOULD CONFORM TO
THE SPECIFIC PLAN IF IT WANTED TO. WHILE WE VERY MUCH SUPPORT A FRESH & EASY
IN THIS COMMUNITY, WE WANT THE MARKET TO @M&'I<ill<l TO OUR SPECIFIC PLAN. Lo"'M(J1
WE ARE ASKING THIS COMMITTEE TO DENY THE EXCEP~ONS AND THJ?/-1~ -/o PROJECT PROml" APPROVED BY THE AREA PLANNING eCJIVIMfSSION-. ---··---
(>t ~ fv1ff Submitted in_j_?:p1 f'li\_Committee
Councli FHe No . . .LL::J S!J {__, __ _ item 1\Jo. ___ £_ ___________ _
/~·-&i2~U-'J-/trl~
November 16, 2010
The Honorable Council Member Ed Reyes Chair, Plarming, Land Use & Management Los Angeles City Hall 200 N. Spring Street
Submitted inJ..lc~~ Committee
Council File No __ jo -fS:.3 7
Los Angeles, CA 90012 Item No .. _ _£_ __ ~tyzvl;>_h::'J--h:i ty _
APCS-2010-1158-SPE-SPP, ZA-2009-3309-CUB-CU; DIR-2009-3595-DRB-SPP; Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ENV -2009-31 02-MND
FILE NOs.:
Dear Council Member Reyes:
A review of the file reveals the following regarding APCS-2010-1158-SPE-SPP; ZA-2009-339-CUBCU, DIR-2009-3595-DRB-SPP and Proposed Negative Declaration ENV-2009-3102-MND, henceforth collectively referenced as "Proposed Actions":
• The action proposed violates public notice requirements " The file does not support the proposed findings of the South LA Area Planning Commission • The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is inadequately assesses foreseeable project
impacts and requires recirculation • The conditional use permit and variances crumot be approved rmder the terms sought
Inadequate Review/Public Notice & Project Changes CEQA requires responsible agencies and parties potentially affected by a proposed action or project to be adequately informed. This requirement is particularly important in an area that is majority-minority, and/or has a high concentration of low-income residents. The Proposed Actions do not comply with this requirement. At the Design Review Board meeting held in December 2009, the Plruming Department staff Sergio Ibarra responded to questions regarding the lack of compliance of the proposed design with the Crenshaw Specific Plan ("CSP") pedestrian oriented design standards, by stating they were not necessary because there were no CSP violations. Accordingly, the Design Review Board has never been permitted an opportunity to comment on the proposed exemptions.
Additionally, the community has been insufficiently notified of the proposed changes in project, which were first made public at the Zoning Administrator's Hearing on February 18, 2010 ("ZA Hearing"). The applicant/operator is perfectly entitled to make chru1ges, and should be encouraged to make changes that address community concems. However, responsible agencies and the general public, pruiicularly residents and sensitive receptors that are directly adjacent to the project are equally entitled the right of adequate time to review these changes and comment. Such has not occurred. li1 fact, even prior to the ZA Hearing, the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (PMND) makes no mention of compliance with community notice, nor do the requests for variance.
Most troubling is Fresh & Easy's failure to meet with commrmity groups and concerned stakeholders to resolve mru1y residents' outstanding issues and concerns, despite being directly encouraged to do so by the Zoning Administrator.
Failure to Comply with the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan, & Aesthetics The proposed project is a violation of the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan and has not received variance approval from, runong other bodies, the Crenshaw Corridor Specific Plan Design Review
Page 1 of 5
Page 2 of5
Board.
As stated clearly on page 2 in the Office of Zoning Administration Staff Investigator Report ("ZA Staff Report"), dated February 10, 2010 (see attached), tbe project violates:
" Design Standard Ia, because it proposes to have a northerly fa<;ade, facing the parking lot, with less than 50% glazing.
• Design Standard 2b of the Pedestrian Oriented Areas, because it lacks a pedestrian entrance at the front of the building.
" Design Standard 2h of the Pedestrian Oriented Areas, because it does not provide parking in the rear of a lot via a "flag: parking lay out."
The project's proposed layout leaves a significant dead spot and street-facing parking lot along an area that is otherwise pedestrian oriented.
Also, clearly stated on page 2 in the ZA Staff Report are violations of the Mini Shopping Center/Commercial Comer Ordinance by proposing 24-hour operation, 7 days a week, and delivery hours later than 11 p.m. and earlier than 7 a.m.
Furthermore, CEQA prohibits actions predicated on future approvals and the resulting anticipated mitigation, as such may substantially change the nature of the project without allowing adequate public review and comment. On this basis alone the PMND is flawed.
Given these grave deficiencies, as stated in the ZA Staff Report, the PMND is inaccurate in its assumption that the aesthetic and land use impacts are less than significant.
The Applicant has not Shown Any Evidence that the Project is not Viable Without the Requested Exception & The Hardships are Self-Imposed There is zero evidence .that there is evidence in the record supporting a finding of financial hardship, as extensively discussed in Stolman v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 114 Cal.App.4'h, 916. Fresh & Easy is a portion of the multi-billion dollar corporation Tesco. The Applicant has provided no financial information to prove that the project will suffer an "unnecessary hardship" if the exceptions are not granted. Nor is there anything unity to the subject site in relation to surrounding properties that would create special circumstances restricting its development in parity with other parcels.
The Applicant targeted the land knowing a CSP was present and its provisions, therefore any hardship is entirely self-imposed. Granting ANY exception to the CSP is therefore completely unwarranted.
"In the absence of an affirmative showing that a particular parcel in a certain zone differed substantively and in relevant aspects from other parcels from other parcels therein, a variance granted with respect to that parcel amounted to the kind of 'special privilege' explicitly prohibited by Government Code §65906, establishing criteria for granting variances." Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 CaL 3d 506, 509.
Section 11.5.7.F.l(a) of the LA Municipal Code ("LAMC") specifies the rigid standard when apply exceptions: "An exception from a specific plan shall not be used to grant a special privilege, not to grant relief from self-imposed hardships." The Applicant seeks the exceptions entirely to receive special privileges. The Findings granting the exceptions have no meritt nor meet the strict requirements for exception as defined in Section 1 U.7.F.2 ofLAMC and California Goverrunent Code §65906.
Page 3 of 5
Failure to Meet the Exception Circumstances Standard The "exceptional circumstances" finding required for an exception to the CSP involves distinguishing the property from other properties in the same zone and vicinity. Per California case law, special circumstances are typically limited to unusual physical characteristics of the property, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings that restrict it's development. However, the characteristics of the intended use of a property can also be consider an exception circumstance, but only if the use is distinct from users of surrounding parcels. The findings make no mention of what the design constraints actually are and whether or not they are self-imposed. Additionally, a site of comparable size on the Fresh & Easy site in Adams & Central is of almost identical configuration, illustrating that the site can be configured in a mmmer consistent with the CSP.
Case and Statutory Law Doe Not permit the Exception for the Preservation and Enjoyment of a Substantial Property Right
The record does not support m1y finding that the exceptions are necessary to bring the property owner into parity with other properties in the same zone or vicinity. Furthermore, California Government Code §65906 specifies that an exception cannot grant a special privilege.
Additionally, a particular characteristic of a property is not by itself sufficient to support an exception to the CSP. The Application must instead show that such characteristics differ significantly from other similarly situated properties in the same zone and vicinity. Comments regarding superiority of project design, amenities, benefits to the community, and the superior aspects perceived of the proposed development to ones constructed in conformity with zoning regulations are irrelevant when considering the grant of an exception. (See Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisor of Contra Costa (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d at 1147),
:!:"'urthermore, the Applicant has provided no examples of other strictly commercial developments within the CSP are in the same zone and vicinity that exceed the requirements per the required findings of LAMC §11.5.7.F.2.
Public Welfare Finding Lacks any Proper Analysis The detennination as to the use of the property - a grocery store - outweighs the provisions of the CSP is unfounded. Within a mile radius of the site are other grocery stores including the Ralphs on Slauson & Crenshaw and the weekly Crenshaw Farmers Market at Stocker & Crenshaw. Additionally, Simply Wholesome at Overland and Slauson is in close proximity, Albertsons is located at Crenshaw/39th Street and there is a weekly Haramabee Farmers Market at Slauson & Crenshaw. The Determination Letter provides no analyst of the actual grocery store options and none of the approved exceptions are individually addressed.
The Granting of the Exceptions is not Consistent with the Principles, Intent and Goals of the CSP nor any element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan. Any finding that an auto-oriented use that is more in line with a strip mall is consistent with a pedestrian oriented district is simply unsupported to the point of laughable. Additionally, Crenshaw Blvd is a corridor featuring many pedestrian amenities, such a side medians, wide sidewalks, lots of shade trees, etc. that seek to provide a pedestrian oriented environment. Additionally, the proposed site is within a Yz mile walking distance of a potential station of the future Leimert Park Village station of the Crenshaw Light Rail Line. Future properties should seek to be both pedestrian oriented and/or mixed use per General Plan and CSP. None are present in the current design.
Page 4 of5
Liquor Sales for Off-Site Consumption As the ZA Staff Report notes, the area already exceeds the State of Califomia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control licensing criteria allocated to this census tract, and several licenses are already granted within 1 OOOcfoot radius, with even more are within the 1-mile radius.
The ZA Staff Report also acknowledges that this is an area with over 107 recorded arrests of public nuisance crimes, which per the report "do not reflect the total number of arrest in the subject reporting district over the accountable year." The project is on the direct path of several sensitive sites including day cares and centers ofleaming, and places of worship.
The proposed sale of beer in quantities smaller than 12 packs and failure to seek the purchase of an existing liquor license in close proximity to the project, both violate the attempt at establishing a community standard for liquor sales articulated in a letter from current Council Member Bemard Parks.
Finally, several business have successfully operated without selling liquor, including Walgreens at 3724 Crenshaw Blvd, Wal-Mart at 3650 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd, and 7-11 at 4501 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
Stated simply no argument for public necessity for the sale of alcohol has been provided and no credible one could be made, the proposed sale violates state laws and local standards, and the level of nuisance activity already prevalent in close proximity to the project means that granting the approval would be akin to lighting a match in a room full of dynamite.
Segmentation CEQA prohibits the segmentation of projects whose expansion is reasonably foreseeable. The project is located on the southwest comer of Crenshaw/52nd Street, and is part of a much larger entitlement that indurJes the n:::ihwest comer of Crenshaw/52'.d Street. Complimentary structures are proposed on the ll'Jn<,west c:omer, yet the PMND makes no mention of the second phase of the project and thus does not allows opportunity for the full scope of the project to be reviewed.
Hazardous Materials Despite that the site is the location of a fonner automotive dealership with maintenance facilities no soil sample or other study has been done and no mitigation has been proposed. This is clearly a gross violation of due process and potentially has already placed a significant health risk in the community given that the site was demolished without such a study.
Traffic & Parking Stated simply the traffic study does not pass the smell test. It does not assess nor propose mitigation to mitigate cut through traffic in the directly adjacent residential community and fails to evaluate the impact of the project on intersections that are within close proximity and can be conceivably be impacted. Several impacted intersections were completely omitted from consideration, including but not limited to: 52"d!Victoria, 5211d/Brynhurst, 5211d/Chelsey and 52"diWest Blvd.
Despite the low level of traffic on sznd Street at the Crenshaw intersection, and the predictable increase in traffic from the project, the PMND states there will be no significant change. This conclusion is clearly in error.
The PMND does not evaluate and therefore does not propose mitigation for residents on 52nd Street and
\
Page 5 of5
Victoria who will see reduced parking access on their residential streets, some homes which are multiunit dwellings, because of Fresh & Easy customers.
The traffic impacts of the project must be accurately evaluated and mitigation measures must be proposed and provided for public comment.
Noise The proposed project directly abuts residential properties. These require mitigations not assessed, including disabled back-up alarms coupled with the use of flagmen. The PMND also does not make clear whether the height of the wall is of sufficient length to mitigate the anticipated noise impacts, which continue during the morning/evening's most sensitive times. 24-hour operation or early morning or late night delivery hours would have a substantial impact on these communities. And use of a 6-foot high wall would reduce the height of the wall and increase the noise impact to a level of significance.
Historic Preservation & Demolition Mitigation CEQA and federal laws require the evaluation of the impact of a project on cultural and historic resources. The project replaces a Crenshaw Ford Motors historic structure, which was demolished without the opportunity for review by the public, responsible agencies, and accordingly did not require mitigation measure, for foreseeable problems. The result has been not only a loss of a historic structure, which had a substantial impact on air quality in the form of dust particles being emitted into the air without mitigation, violating SCAQMD District Rule 403, but also an increase in area blight, by failing
· to completely demolish the structure and remove the newly created graffiti in a timely mrumer.
Cumulative Impacts The above clearly indicate the individual project impacts are significant and cumulatively significant.
Conclusion For the foregoiD<> r~ason we ~espectfully ask that Actions 1 (adoption of the PMND), 2 (adopiion of some ofExemptiGtlS), 4 (approval of the Project Permit Compliance) and 5 (adoption of the Findings) of the South Los Angeles Area Plruming Commision be rejected, and Action 3 (rejecting the frontage setback) be upheld.
I respectfully request this letter and the attachments be entered into the record in their totality for each of the Proposed Action files under your consideration.
President, Hyde Park Orgru1ization Partnership for Empowennent
I
·~ OJ 0 c r ' ' m ' ' - < )> ;o 0
!~
t
'
-.) ~ ~~ ~ ~
([0] C2-1) GENERAL COMMERCIAL
....
,o.:!
?~~~b ~0\-\ i 2 f\5\.( fc 1\-i)
~ \ ~ l \ ta\ \ D f (. V ft1 A-f~~ I I I I II II I
I \ I I I I \ I I II II I ~L --viiL.tJ~ 1''1Y~ -1f\ I \ I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I
I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II II I I I I I I I I I I II II I ~ I I I I I
D I I I I II II I
.0. ..,.
I I I I I
/0 I I I I 111 1 I I I I I I I I I
0 I I I 121111 I I I I I I I I 'rn'll' I I~ ~ D I I I I" I I I I OD
, I I I 1z 111 1 I ~
,,
0 '
I . I I I U)! I I 1\ h
I I I I :Lilli I
(j) I I I IJ>I I I I I I I ~~~~ II I
rtl I I I I I I I I Ill' I
0 I I I 10) I I r I I I 'o'll' I I I I I J I I I I I ILl\ I' I
(j) I I I 1'1 I I I I I I J>l \ ~ I
- I I I 1<1 I ---j I I I I )>I \f\ I
..,. ¢
rtl I I I I I I I
.. -~
I I I !All "I ¢ ¢
I I I 101 I I I I I I !\1
D I I I I I I I I I I I I 'II'
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'II'
J> I I I I I I I
··-~
I I I I I 'II' z I I I I I I I I I I I I 'II' I I I I I I I I I I I I 'II'
-
I I I I I I I fiT ~r-I I I I I 'II'
~ .
I I I I I I I I I I I I !VI
~ y- p
I I I I I I I ~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
EB I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I
WI 5'2NDSTRJ;f:T
.T~~ 1\)\eo)te
f~ v fl7
••• •Ill
i~:'j~. A f~r<J.3~_t - At-12: (2 fl} A-llY<
-:it-z_~
Coalition opposes granting exceptions to Fresh and Easy I Our Weekly- Black News I Afr ... Page 1 of3
our weekly Hello Visitor :sign In :Register
Feat~;~res Local Community Arts & Entertainment Business Education
Antelope Valley News Black News Across Black America Our Voice
Coalition opposes granting exceptions to Fresh and Easy Novo3,2010
Neighborhood Market
Juliana D. Norwood I OW Staff Writer
Anger brews over new groceiY's non~compliance
The Hyde Park Organizational Partnership for Empowerment (HOPE) along with several groups within the Crenshaw community recently filed a
petition with the Los Angeles City Counci~ to appeal an approVal by the South Central Area Planning Council, granting Fresh & Easy Markets several exceptions to the Crenshaw Specific Plan for a proposed store on the southwest corner of 52nd Street and Crenshaw Boulevard.
The issue appears to be dividing the Crenshaw community and puts the coalition at odd with Councilman Bernard Parks and the city's Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).
MySpace
Stumble
Digg
More Destinations
"We fought long and hard to get this Specific Plan in place, not to have companies like Fresh & Easy show up and not have to comply with our plan," said Winni Jackson, president of HOPE.
"Don't get me wrong, we are not against Fresh & Easy, we just want them to comply with the plan."
The Specific Plan, adopted by the city in 2004, is a set of land-use regulations designed to create standards for new development projects along the Crenshaw Corridor. One of the goals of the plan is to encourage pedestrian oriented development.
"We have hopes and aspirations for a better looking community, a more livable place to raise our families," said Asata Umoja, a resident activist.
The Coalition contends that Fresh & Easy is proposing to build a typical auto-related, strip-mall development which is contrary to the intent of the Specific Plan for a Pedestrian Oriented Commercial Area. "We specifically wrote in the plan that projects done in this area would be walkable and pedestrian friendly. Fresh & Easy knows this, CRA knows this, and Councilman Parks knows this, but they all chose to ignore the plan," said York Knowlton of the Windsor Hills Village Extended Block Club.
The exceptions that were requested and approved are as follows: a. To permit two wall signs along the fa~de facing Crenshaw Boulevard and one pedestrian sign (three total) along the fa<;ade facing 52nd Street in lieu of the maximum of one wall sign and one Pedestrian Sign (two total) which is otherwise permitted for each business establishment located on a street corner.
b. To permit a sign along the east elevation of the proposed project (Crenshaw Corridor frontage) to have 184.6 square feet of sign area, and to also permit a sign along the north elevation (52nd Street frontage) to have 124.7 square feet of sign area, both of which exceed the maximum 75 feet of sign area othen'llise
Jobs ; Cars :Real Estate
~2 ( \! [ la/to
})t..Vfl? : Classifieds
Health & Food Spiritual Living
Obituaries
Robe1t J Carson jr 1948-2010
Nathan George Scott 1915-2010
Search
More>>>
Support/Volunteer Opportunities
The following ntunbers e<~n be contacted for drug and alcohol assistance.
Alcoholics Anonymous (323) 936-4343
Cocaine Anonymous (310) 216-4444
Narcotics Anonymous (323) 933-5395
LA Treatment Facilities
AVTreatment Facilities
http://www.ourweekly .com/los-angeles/coalition-opposes-granting-exceptions-fresh-and-... 11/10/2010
Coalition opposes granting exceptions to Fresh and Easy I Our Weekly- Black News I Afr. .. Page 2 of 3
permitted.
c. To permit the northern facing ground floor fa vade (facing 52nd Street) to have 20 percent transparent building elements in lieu of the otherwise required 50 percent.
d. To permit a surface parking lot for the proposed Fresh & Easy Market to be located at the side of the structure instead of the rear of the building as is otherwise required.
The only exception rejected was permission to have a 19-foot setback along the first floor street frontage (Crenshaw Boulevard) instead of the required zero-foot setback, or permitted s-foot setback for projects that include pedestrian amenities.
"Councilman Parks' office didn't give the Design Review Board the right information (about the Specific Plan) originally, and therefore (the exceptions) should be null and void. They gave the board misinformation from the beginning," said Jackson." At a meeting discussing the project, a Park's office staff member was heard telling Fresh & Easy staff, 'don't worry, they will gripe and complain about it, but you wm get it approved, it's a done deal."
The next step in the controversy is a public hearing, in the next few weeks, conducted by the City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which will then accept or deny the exception and send the project to the full city council for final vote.
The Coalition is interested in hearing from other neighbors. If you have any questions, contact HOPE at
(323) 291-2684.
Add new commenr ! Tags: Comnnmitlr Rt@welonnwntAggnCl/ f'mmd/man Bernqrd Pork5 .Q&1, Cmnsl!aw BQu/mmrd ~ Qwmm.ni1u, Oxmslww mrr!Qm;, Fresh qnd F&~Y Grqcyr Fresh and /?qsu GrocemStqrg Fre~l! and F.:O<~J MorJrer !f!lag, !iJ.I£!&..£m:k Orqqni?.Otimwl Partner;l!in for Eml?Qwqrment South \-entra/Ar·(!g PlmmjtW Cmmcil Wjndwr Ifill< Viljrafi Fxtenrled BI()Ck (;lui> WbmUgckson York KnpwUqn ~
Related Articles
• Los Angeles proposes smoking ban for all public and common areas where people congregate-
LOS ANGELES, Calif.-The ~Angeles City Council will consider banning smoking in "all public areas and common areas where people congregate."
Find us on Facebook
•
OurWeeldy
like
482 people like OUrWeekly
&\ Councilman Bernard Parks, who proposed the ordinance, said 'We need to implement legislation to regulate cigarette smoking by limiting 'it to sPeCific places where there is no expectation of involuntary contact with people-whereVer people congregate or there is an expectation of people being present, (then) smoking should be prohibited."
Auror~ Knrm Denlse Oorl!i Quontay Jennifer
• The invention of religion •
Religion and politics are like the bread and butter of social thought. The two share some vecy similar characteristics and have even been the foundation of wars. But since this is the religion and spirituality section, let us focus only on religion.
So what is this entity, this organism, this institution that has evoked so much division, yet unwavering devotion among people across the world?
Religion, simply put, is a set of values and beliefs a group of people agrees upon and practice.
• Advocates call for bank regulation-
Federal financial regulators recently held the final meeting about the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in downtown Los Angeles. It culminated the first public opportunity to assess refonns left out of the recent financial reform legislation passed by Congress.
• Project Wil! improve district-
Councilmember Herb Wesson recently announced that the Los Angeles City Council has approved the $93 million development of District Square, a new three-levelsoo,ooo square foot retail center that will fel>ture a Target, Marshall's, Ralphs, Ross Dress for Less and other retail outlets, including full-service restaurants. The development is one of the many new projects on the drawing board to revitalire the Crenshaw area of District 10.
Contact US Advertise with Us About Us Submit News
·, ·Facebook oodol e~ugln
Sign Up for Updates
Dishibution Map I Editorial Calendar 1 Request Media Kit I Terms of Service 1 Privacy Policy
http://www.ourweekly.com/los-angeles/coalition-opposes-granting-exceptions-fresh-and-... 11110/2010
Coalition opposes granting exceptions to Fresh and Easy I Our Weekly- Black News I Afr ...
permitted.
c. To pennit the north em facing ground floor fat;ade (facing 52nd Street) to have 20 percent transparent building elements in lieu of the otherwise required 50 percent.
d. To permit a surface parking lot for the proposed Fresh & Easy Market to be located at the side of the structure instead of the rear of the building as is otherwise required.
The only exception rejected was permission to have a 19"foot setback along the first floor street frontage (Crenshaw Boulevard) instead oft he required zero-foot setback, or permitted s-foot setback for projects that include pedestrian amenities.
"Councilman Parks' office didn't give the Design Review Board the right information (about the Specific Plan) originally, and therefore (the exceptions) should be null and void. They gave the board misinformation from the beginning," said Jackson. "At a meeting discussing the project, a Park's office staff member was heard telling Fresh & Easy staff, 'don't wony, they will gripe and complain about it, but you will get it approved, it's a done deal."
The next step in the controversy is a public hearing, in the n~xt few weeks, conducted by the City
Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which will then accept or deny the exception and send the project to the full city council for final vote.
The Coalition is interested in hearing from other neighbors. If you have any questions, contact HOPE at (323) 291·2684.
Arid newcgmmqnr j Tags: Ommmnihl Retfu!J?0mnent AOI!ncu Qnmcilmnn !1qrnard Park~ .QEd.. Crenshqw Bou/!':.!!f.l.Ut, 0-en~/ww ~ Cren~lwu•corridor Fresh gnd /W<!! Grqmr FTes/r qnd ltqw Grwru Sfore Fte<l! qnd Mw Mgrker ~ ~ Qraaniwlirmal Pqrmerslljn fur Emt?mvmugnt Snuth Omtrgl ArM Plqnnjng CmmcU Wfndsgr Ttills Vjlhme Hxt<mdetfB!QckChib Wjrmi Jgck.<ign \'nrk Knrrwlwn ~
Related Articles
• los Angeles proposes smoking ban for all public and common areas where people congregate~
LOS ANGELFS, Calif.-The Los Angeles City Council will consider banning smoking in "all public areas and common areas where people congregate."
Find us on Facebook
OurWeekly
Like
482 people Uke
& Terrie
~f'&1'9
Page 2 of3
Councilman Bernard Parks, who proposed the ordinance, said "We need to implement legislation to regulate cigarette smoking by limiting it to specific places where th8re' is no expectation of involuntary contact with people-wherever people congregate or there is an e~ctation of people being present, (then) smoking should be prohibited."
Quantily Jennlf~r
• The invention of religion -
Religion and politics are like the bread and butter of social thought The two share some very similar characteristics and have even been the foundation of wars. But since this is the religion and spirituality section, let us focus only on religion.
So what is this entity, this organism, this institution that has evoked so much division, yet unwavering devotion among people across the world?
Religion, simply put, is a set of values and beliefs a group of people agrees upon and practice.
• Advocates cal! for bank regulation -
Federal financial regulators recently held the final meeting about the Community Reinvestment Act {CRA) in downtown Los Angeles. It culminated the first public opportunity to assess reforms left out of the recent financial reform legislation passed by Congress.
• Project will improve district-
Councilmember Herb Wesson recently announced that the Los Angeles City Council has approved the $93 million development of District Square, a new three-levelsoo,ooo square foot retail center that will feature a Target, Marshall's, Ralphs, Ross Dress for Less and other retail outlets, including full-service restaurants. The development is one of the many new projects on the drawing board to revitalize the Crenshaw area of District 10.
Contact US Advertise with Us About Us Submit News Sign Up for Updates
Distribution Map I Editorial Calendar Request Media Klt I Terms of Service I Privacy Policy
http://www.ourweekly.com/los-angeles/coalition-opposes-granting-exceptions-fresh-and-... ll/10/2010
Crenshaw Residents Team Up Against Strip-Mally Fresh & Easy : Grocery Stores Curb ... Page 1 of3
"'
~ ~-
Zoltan Pali-Designed Modern House in Bird Streets
Amid Criticism, City Will Give 1601 Vine Deal Another Look
Hollywood Hills House Design~d By Hitchcock's
CURBED LA 15 new posts
EATER lA 10 new posts
l RACKED LA 1
6 new posts . \ ..
CURBED NY 34 new posts
MARKETPlACE 4 new listings
GROCERYfiTORF.S
Crenshaw Residents Team Up Against Strip-Mally Fresh & Easy Friday, November 5, 2010, by Neal Broverrnan
Rendering of store
Meh, say Crenshaw residents to designs for the Fresh & Easy grocery store
proposed for 52nd and Crenshaw, reports The Wave. Pre-packaged British food is
fine, it's the planned Crenshaw-facing parking lot that has people shaking their
heads. Area groups including the Hyde Park Organizational Partnership for
Empowerment (HOPE) want something akin to the Central and Adams store and say
the CRAwbacked Crenshaw store is a strip-mall, and strip-malls are banned on the
boulevard as part of the Crenshaw Specific Plan, a set of planning and design
guidelines. Encompassing Crenshaw from the 10 to Inglewood, residents and
politicians helped pass the plan in 2004 and in doing so, banned additional
"automotive businesses, drive-through establishments, gun and pawn shops, swap
meets, public storage, motels, bars not attached to dining and dancing businesses,
recycling and buy-back centers and strip malls," according to the paper.
Obviously, the Crenshaw plan was aimed at making the boulevard more pedestrian
friendly--it's going to have a partially-underground train line running through it by
2018--and a parking-fronted grocery story doesn't quite fit that vision-- ~we have
hopes and aspirations for a better looking community," Crenshaw activist Asata
Umoja told The Wave. Crenshaw residents say no new store would be built like this
in other parts of the city--some grocery stores on the Westside and Valley are
building new facilities where parking is hidden from the street. Apparently, the city
knows the Crenshaw Fresh n' Easy is a strip-mal! too--they voted to allow five
variances from the Crenshaw plan to be disregarded in September, including the
strip-man provision. Members of HOPE appealed that decision and will speak their
peace to the city's Planning and Land Management Committee on November 16th.
· Not So Easy to Agree on Chain's Plans for Crenshaw [fhe Wave]
· Goodmon: Go Deep on Crenshaw Line {Curbed LA}
... South LA
- Development
-~ Grocery Stores
... Hyde Park
.,.. Planning
Comment now
Like i
) Search Curbed LA
email here
rmfl Curbed .. LA oo ~ Face!x.>Ok
· :' Uke i
Altadena Antelope Valley, Palmdale, Lancaster Arcadia Arlington H0Jghts Al'-'.'a\er Village 13a!dwin Hills Bel-Air B<:veny Area Buver!y Crost Beverly Hills Post Office Beverly Hills/ BeverlyGrove Beverly P&MI Br1:mlwood BurtmnKIG!(Jr)d~le
Cn!abasm; Cat111ay Circle Catalina Island Century City Chevi()! Hills Chirmtown Culver City/Mar Visl<>llvlarina del
"'' Downtown E<Jgle Rock East LA! Boyl0 H0ights El Segundo El Sereno Exposition Pl'lrk Fairf<lx Glassell Park GltmdaiH Hancock Park Highland Park
http://la.curbed.com/archives/201 0/11/crenshaw _residents_team _up_ against_ stripmally _f... 11110/2010
Los Angeles Wave I Bottom Line: Not so easy to agree on chain's plans for market on Cr... Page 1 of 3
~r Los Angeles Wave Print this article Jl }t~}to ft. U/tt
Bottom Line: Not so easy to agree on chain's plans for market on Crenshaw Ori,qinally p1·inted at http:/ jwww.wavenewspapers.comjopinionjBottom~Line-Not-so-easy-to-ag1·eeon-chains-plans-for--m_arket-on-CreJ2Shaw-1o66s9663.html
By BEITY PLEASANT, Contributing Editor November 3, 2010
While eager to see a popular supermarket chain established in their midst, Crenshaw
area residents are offended by the way the proposed structure may look and are poised
to do battle with the Los Angeles City Council about it.
The Hyde Park Organizational Partnership for Empowerment (HOPE), along with
several other Crenshaw area groups, are fighting to have a proposed Fresh and Easy
market meet the standards established by the Crenshaw Specific Plan, which governs
how Crenshaw Boulevard - the main thoroughfare of Los Angeles' only predominately
African-American community- will look.
After years of studies, negotiations, and planning by HOPE, community residents and
city officials, Los Angeles adopted the Crenshaw Specific Plan in 2004, to the
considerable ballyhooing and back-patting of politicians and community leaders. The
adoption was such a momentous event in the Black community that I wrote a front
page Wave story back then heralding the milestone and crediting Councilman Bernard
Parks with having done a great job in getting the city of Los Angeles to finally afford
Crenshaw Boulevard the same respect it does to the commercial districts in other parts
ofthe city -such as Hollywood, Westwood, the Valley, etc.
The purpose of the Crenshaw- or any community's specific plan - is to eliminate the
unsightly mishmash of businesses, buildings, facilities and "anything goes" enterprises
that spring up along the thoroughfare. The plan's goal is to make the commercial
district look good; make it amenable and attractive to shoppers; make it a place people
want to go to; make it a source of community pride.
The Crenshaw Specific Plan, which extends along Crenshaw Boulevard from the Santa
Monica Freeway down to the city of Inglewood, spells out in explicit and no-uncertain-
http://www. wavenewspapers. com/internal ?st=print&id= 1 0665 9663&path=/ opinion 11116/2010
Los Angeles Wave I Bottom Line: Not so easy to agree on chain's plans for market on Cr... Page 2 of3
terms exactly the kinds of commercial activities will be allowed in it, the kinds of
structures those activities will be housed in, and the kinds of signage those structnres
will display. TI1e specific plans designate how big a thing will be, tlle parking and
walking areas that will be established and the color schemes and landscaping that
would be acceptable in the area.
The Crenshaw Specific Plan, for example, forbids anymore automotive businesses,
drive-through establishments, gun and pawn shops, swap meets, public storage,
motels, bars not attached to dining and dancing businesses, recycling and buy-back
centers and strip malls.
And therein lies the problem: The community says the Fresh and Easy market
proposed for the corner of 52nd Street and Crenshaw Boulevard is a strip mall.
Residents say it violates the clearly defined dimensions governing the distance
between a business and tlle street. As proposed, It has an unsightly parking lot in front
of the building - sometlling you don't see in other neighborhoods with specific plans.
The residents want the standards of the Crenshaw Specific Plan met and they want the
parking lot moved to either tlle back or side of the building and the building, itself, to
sit immediately upon the street.
"The Fresh and Easy on Central and Adams is exactly like we want ours to be,"
declared Winnie Jackson, president of HOPE. "Our plan specifically forbids strip malls
and that is what Fresh and Easy is proposing to give us. They plan to build on the lot
next to an adjacent structure and the rest of the lot is for parking. We don't want
parking on the corner. We want the building on the corner, not cars. Otherwise, it's a
strip mall.
"We fought long and hard to get this specific plan in place, not to have companies like
Fresh and Easy show up and not have to comply with our plan. Don't get me wrong,"
Jackson continued. "We are not against Fresh and Easy. We just want them to comply
with the plan."
Asata U moja, a Crenshaw activist, explained that one of tbe goals of the specific plan
was to enconrage pedestrian-oriented development. "But now Fresh and Easy is
proposing to build a typical auto-related strip mall, which is contrary to our plans to
encourage a pedestrian-oriented area around the Slauson Avenue portion of the
boulevard," Umoja said. "We have hopes and aspirations for a better looking
community."
The issue puts tlle Crenshaw community at odds with its councilman, Parks, who
championed the adoption of the plan in 2"004 but who is now reported to favor letting
http://www.wavenewspapers.com/intemal?st=print&id=106659663&path=/opinion 11116/2010
Los Angeles Wave I Bottom Line: Not so easy to agree on chain's plans for market on Cr... Page 3 of3
Fresh and Easy do what it wants. Linda Ricks, chairman of the Crenshaw-Slauson
Community Advisory Committee, said: "What I object to is that our community is
treated like the wild, wild west and we are not supposed to have any standards. While
our councilman says our specific plan is 'outdated,' I've never heard anyone say that
about the specific plan in Westwood, which by the way, has four specific plans."
York Knowlton of the Windsor Hills Village Extended Block Club, said: "We
specifically wrote in the plan that projects in this area would be 'walkable' and
pedestrian-friendly. Fresh and Easy knows this. The CRA (Community Redevelopment
Agency) knows this and Councilman Parks knows this, but they all choose to ignore
the plan."
Councilman Parks did not return a call for comments on this issue, but Brendan
Wonnacott, a communications official with Fresh and Easy, said his company "is
working and will continue to work with city officials and neighbors to make everyone
happy with what's going on." He added: "Every site has its own story and we intend to
work with the community as we go through this process."
In September, the City Planning Department's South Los Angeles Area Planning
Commission granted Fresh and Easy's request to disregard five elements ofthe
Crenshaw Specific Plan, including the strip mall prohibition. HOPE and the
community coalition has appealed that decision to the City Council and the matter will
be heard by the Planning and Land Management Committee on Nov. 16 at 2:30p.m.
in the Board of Public Works Hearing Room in City Hall.
http://www. wavenewspapers.com/internal ?st=print&id= 1 06659663&path=/opinion 11116/2010
~ "";:::>
~ Q --~
--::::::.. --'IV)
~
Struggling for a voice within a powerful agency Crenshaw-area community has long encountered resistance from L.A. Planning Department
BY BETIY PLEASANT CONTRIBUTING EDlTOR
LOS ANGELES -Specific plans developed by the Plailning Department that regulate the quali· ty of life in Los Angeles neighborhoods abound all over the Westside and the West Valley, where the whiter and more moneyed interests of the city reside, but only two exist between Wilshire Boulevard
and the Pacific Ocean. home of the blnck. the brown and the poor.
Those two specific plans are the North University Park SP and the Staples Center Area SP. General
\ Fourth in a series I wisdom has it that these specific plnil.s were created not for the benefit of ordinary Angelenos, but for the people with money. to whom the Planning Department is accused of catering. The North University Park SP, located off Jefferson Boulevard between Figueroa and Vennont, was adopt~ ed quickly pursuant to the wishes of USC.
The double Staples Cente~ Area SP was created virtually overnight for fairly obvious .reasons made even more evident by the grand
announcement by pllliticiuns earli~ er this month of a tl:~shy new Times Squnre West development coming soon to that specific plan.
But n coalition of Crenshaw-area homeowners and stakeholders has
·been · ti8t\tin-~ the Planning Department for 14 years to get a Crenshaw Specitic Plan adopted, and has been battling for the last four years to amend the- proposed ph:m to make it more relevant to the times that have changed in more than a decade.
The coalition - comprised of the Hyde Park Organizational Partnership for Empowerment (HOPE), Hyde Park Crenshaw Merchants Assn.. Crenshaw Chamber of Commerce, Alameda Corridor Jobs Coalition, West Angeles Church corporation and at least 20 homeowner groups. block
clubs and assorted neighborhood councii.s - has been pleading with the Planning Department to create the Crenshaw SP since the City Council first directed it to do so in 1990 and when the council was forc;:"ed t6 revisit the issue in 1997.
The groups wrote letters to Planning Director Con Howe expressing their displeasure over his department's neglect of the Crenshaw area and its refusal to proceed with the specific plan or to even consider amending it pursuant to the community's wishes. The groups say Howe returned no call and answered no letter. Their calls and letters were also by ignored Deputy Director Robert Sutton and Division Manager David Gay, and they said the staff-level city plan~ ners were unable or unwilling to comment on the department's posi·
tion on when the Crenshaw Specific Plan would be available for review. -
This went on for years. The groups even wrote to Mayor James Hahn's African-American deputies, but got nowhere until Nov. 29, 2001. when the coalition sent a three-page, no-holds-barred letter directly to .Mayor Hahn telling him: "Our coalition is offended that the Planning Department's management will not give the Crenshaw District the same respect and atten· tion that it gives to the Westside, Palisades, Granada Hills and Mulholland Drive communities." This let_ter was signed by represen· tatives of 20,000 households, each of which contained at least one reg~ istered voter.
The Crenshaw community final~ ly saw Howe on July 16, 2002, at a
See PlANNING on page A3
~ § - 11g:th-#§@i#@%11lB'i!f~~~JF~d@ .. !!JiiJW:i'liiMM!W&¥£i .i#?Jlfui!if@@9'±5i&kfiti*% Elll!Sml +
1.-J'\. WI'WI:' ""1 !-z<z{ o~
.;' . ~ '
lnglew~~~~rhorne:?'a..dena/L;.wndale W~::e • Sou1.~'~"n Wave/Southwest !~p~~/Angeb Mesa & Trib11n~ • Cen~l_New:i/Sou.thtidejoum.o.l/C~':'P.I~Can-on/Wilinin~on Wa,:e __ _ _ __::W~A~VE"-'-N'E\\'$P..I.PERS -----''=''ocr~~~~y, July 29, 2004 A3
Struggling to be heard by one of L.A.'s most powerful agencies PLANNING from page Al silently by as this man insulted
us. It amazes me that Howe felt meeting Hahn forced him to comfortable enough to say that attend to deal with the residents' to us in front of them. You see
· demands for a specific plan. "We what kind of people we are dealhad to work with the mayor's ing with? We were dumbfoundoffice to actually set up the meet- ed. The only thing left for us to ing,'' explained Helen Coleman, do after he said that was to jump president of HOPE ''We sat up and slap him across the down at the meetin&- and mouth. explained to Con Howe how "Most of our community has important the specific plan was no idea of what the Planning to us and told him he had to Department should be doing. If make that happen. I pointed out. they did, we'd all be mad as hell that after all these years we still and Con Howe would be gone didn't have our specific pian, yet instead of coming Over here the Staples Center got theirs in a making racist comments to our year. Then Howe said, 'But they faces. Even our City Council have money.' Can you believe members don't know what that? He actually said iL So, in Planning's supposed to do. The essence, he said if. you don't Planning Department should be have money, you don't get the working with the community services." and advocating good plans, but
'The coalition is proposing a wheneverweaskforthesethings mixed-use pedestrian district and try to do these things we get within the specific plan it hopes pushed to the .curb. Con Howe to have someday. Coleman said, needs to go. In _fact, he shpuld "After explaining to Howe why have been gone three mayors we need the pedestrian district ago." and the social amenities it would Rick Conroy, the Crenshaw· provide, I made the mistake of Chamber of Commerce's vice saying that after 8 p.m. there is president of operations and nothing to do in the comml;lnity. finance, has been pushing for the Howe said, 'You have yoUr bar- adoption of. the CrenshaW SP so becue places.' that it can provide the cohesive
'That was enough for me," revitalization and development Coleman continued. ·"Our of the entire CrenShaw Corridor, mouths were just hanging. He from the Santa Monica Freeway sai~ both those things - the to Florence Ayenue. "The crack about the money and the Crenshaw_Renaissance," Conroy. barb~ue - in the presence of calls it. In the absence of a spetwo members of the mayor's cific plan, however, Conroy has staff, John Sheppard ind Deputy been waging losing battles on aMayor Brian Williams, w~o sat project-here-and-a-project-there
basis with developers and com- all these efforts to get this done and a half_years, during which making sure that people like mercia! property owners who, the way we believed it should be time he worked with the commu- Dwayne are not in place to eduhaving no restrictions on them, done. You have a Planning nity, helping.residents acquire a cate us to what is avaifable to do wb,atever they want along Department that just sits on irs a- better unPerstanding of the plan- enhance our status:' Crenshaw Boulevard. - and says, •You :fiX it while we ning process and helping them Coleman said Wyatt, who was
Conroy and the Crenshaw take care of Brentwood and ptJt. together development strate- transferred to the Planning Corridor Coalition pressed hard Sherman Oaks.' gies. He organized two urban Department's Neighborhood to get the comer of Crenshaw "I've reached out to Con planning coruses for them and Council Unit last year, "is workand Coliseum to look like the Howe and invited him to come to ·he, along with Conroy, spear- ing for some straight-out vindic- . 'Ihi.rd Street Promenade in Santa Crenshaw .many times, but I've headed last month's successful tive white boys who are definiteMonica, complete with , a neverheardfromhim.I'veinvit- Crenshaw Summit 2004, held at ly out to get him," The HOPE Starbucks, a Denny's and a ·ed all those· guys to come here West Angeles Church of God in president, who has been working Walgreen's, in a family-oriented, and see what's going on in our Christ. . with Wyatt for 10 years, said the pedestrian-friendly project on community. Planner Dick Wyatt, who holds a master's planner ••is being isolated, the now-demolished Holiday Pla.tkin, division chief David degree in planning from UCLA, harassed and retaliated against'' Bowl property. As usual, the Gay, They won't ~me here. The is, and they vigorously protested · by his bosses for his advocacy cqmmunity will get whatever only one who does is Dwayne his Iemoval from the Crenshaw for the black commun,ity. "They plea~(es the developer, in iliis Wyatt, and I don•t make a move area, w¥ch they say was in retal- hate him for what he's doing to ca'se, another strip mall, thus per- without him. Dwayne is the only iation bY his Planning Depart- help us and they'd do anything to petuating the "anything is better person in city government who ment bosses .. for educating and get rid of him, but we, the black than nothing'' development syn- gives a j:lamn about ibis.com.i:nu- raising the expectations of community, have his back." drome that characterizes minori- nity, and if his Planning Crenshaw residents. When Wyatt was transferred ty neighborhoods and against Department bosseS hlui their.. ··:'l'h~Y•. ~mile(! Dwayne out of away from Crenshaw, HOPE and which Conroy and his colleagues way, they'd fire him because he here aft!'r we launched a 'serious the complete 20,000 household fight so hard. cares and works with us. There's fight for our· spedfic plan coalition that forced the Howe
"We had a politician who was no excuse for what Dwayne is be'cause he ·was .teaching .uS too ~pmmunity meeting, wrote to the not responsive to this communi- going through with his office. much/'. declared · Benetta · plariiung director and the mayor ty and we got nothing fro~ the "We're talking about really· Johnson _ of the Alameda requesting that Wyatt continue Planning Department oD. · $is revitalizing Crenshaw, similar to CorridQr Jobs Coalition. '"They his assignment in Crenshaw. The project, SQ_ from an economic what they have now on Wilshire want to keep us barefoot, preg- coalltio11: never received a development standpOiJ;lt, as and at Venice Beach. There's a nant and ignorant, and without response. But Wyatt continues to usual, w.e had to fight our-way to real vibrancy in thOse places and someone like Dwayne; who is work with Crenshaw residents, pull th? resources into our com- it cim be here, too. Crenshaw can working in our best interests, but on his own time - nights, mun.ity, :mther than have them be rock. It should rock and it would we'd stay in that condition. right days off and weekends. there for ·US," Conroy lamented. rock if the Planning Department where the Planning Department Understandably, Wyatt was "It would have been nice to get would do its job. supposedly we wants us. My greatest concern is: loathe to speak ill of his worksome direction, or assistance or have planners, but I'Ve never What we are going to leave our place treatment or his supervirecommendatiOns from the . met them. I've never ialked to children? What tools do we .tum sors, and would only say: "I'll Planning Department about this them. I only knoW Dwayne," · over to our children so they can never get promoted, but I'm project. Why aren't they apply- · Conroy said. take their rightful place in mov- : ~esigned to that." ing their expertise here, where Wyatt is an assopiat!? city plan- ing forward? If we have nothing; -Next week: Boyle H~ights we need them? Where are our nerwho has been in the Planning then we cannot move forward, and Skid Row battle the tax dollars working? It was the. Department for 17 years. He was and the Planning Department is . Planning Department community trying to coordinate the Crenshaw planner for three
HYDE PARK ORGANIZATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EMPOWERMENT
CHRONOLOGY OF ACTION ON THE CRENSHAW SPECIFIC PLAN
1996
Crenshaw Specific Plan developed and presented by the City Planning Department
1998
Hyde Park leaders met with Councilwoman Ruth Galanter to seek support for the adoption of the plan; she took no action to work with community members to upgrade the Plan or to have the Plan adopted; she opposed inclusion ofa Design Review Board
Mayor Riordan opposed Specific Plans; believed them to be an impedance developer's progress and a drain on Planning Dept. resources)
Councilwoman Galanter's office did not intervene or assist; she did not convene any meetings with community leaders regarding the Plan
Plan languished unattended
2001
CAC did not meet for nearly a year and took no action on the Plan
HOPE renewed action on the Specific Plan and initiated a review and developed changes in the Plan to provide more stringent development standards; changes concerned restricted uses, incorporation of 'smart growth' principles, restricting iron fences and barriers, aesthetically pleasing security equipment, appropriate landscape features, inclusion of a Design Review Board and the establishment of a BID
HOPE conducted a Community Planning Retreat and more thoroughly discussed appropriate amendments to the Plan, transportation mobility, development of green space and adequate goods and services; community members requested that Dwayne Wyatt join the discussion (he used his own time to do so)
Planning Department resisted making recommended changes to amend the Plan -without meeting with or talking to community leaders;
2002
HOPE conducted on-going fact fmding activities: learned that former employees, some City officials and nmnerous community and business related groups have critical concerns about the operation of the Planning Dept.; determined from field trips, discussions with urban planners and developers and study of nationwide development trends that the recommended changes were not unusual or mmecessary
Hyde Park leaders wrote a letter to Mayor Halm urging him to meet and discuss appropriate changes in the plan as well as actions to adopt the Plan
CAC met and recommended immediate adoption of the plan; Planning Dept. staff was present with renderings and docmnents [CAC did not meet again until HOPE urged Councihnan Ridley-Thomas to re-activate it and appoint an interim body pending election of the next councilperson]
Planning Dept. severely limits the nmnber of hours Dwayne Wyatt (Crenshaw Planner) can apply to work the area; community leaders met to discuss this action based on the belief that Wyatt's time was being limited because the Planning Dept. General Mgr. thought the community was being "stirred up" by Wyatt. Therefore, limiting his time would lessen community pressure on the Dept.
Mid-year 2002
HOPE pressed the Mayor's office to support community recommendations regarding the plan and to have Dwayne Wyatt remain the Planner for the area with adequate hours to complete and implement redevelopment plans
Hyde Park leaders met with Brian Williams, Mayor's Planning Deputy, who promised to advocate to end the neglect in the area and to get Planning Dept. to move forward
HOPE sent follow-up letter to Williams and Mayor re-capping the meeting and stating expectations, including a timeline
Neither Williams, the Mayor nor the Planning Department responded within the established timeline
Con Howe, Planning Dept. General Manager, wrote a letter to HOPE to invite the community to an upcoming workshop; the letter did not address community concerns regarding the Plan
HOPE continued to pressure both the Mayor and Planning Dept. for action
The Planning Dept. held a brief "workshop" at the Baldwin Hills-Crenshaw Mall Community Room to display area maps and the plan. There was not much interaction or
information offered by the Planning Dept. [community knowledge, needs and strength was disregarded]
HOPE pressed the Mayor's office for a meeting with Con Howe, Planning Dept. General Manager, to discuss the amendments to the Plan
A delegation had an unsatisfactory meeting Con Howe and three members of his staff. Delegation members were appalled; staff was condescending, uninterested and at some points were openly showing racism and classism. In response to a concern about the lack of social and recreational facilities, Howe stated, "you have barbecue". Howe attempted to focus the meeting on 'softer' issues that the community is already addressing, such as neighborhood clean-ups, block parties, etc. In response to a inquiry about how the group that pressed for adoption of a Specific Plan in the Staple's Center area received expedited services, he replied that they paid, implying that services are rendered by Planning Dept, based on a system that favors those who can "pay". Delegation insisted that the Specific Plan be adopted with the amendments from the community and made clear its intention to continue to struggle for the amendments.
HOPE formed LACAPP, a city wide coalition of groups that are engaged in protracted struggle with the Planning Dept. [ conceruing lack of appropriate planning, enforcement issues, poor standards for specific areas, lack of cooperation with community groups and blatant neglect of area not supported by affluent developers, businesses or residents]
LACAPP held a rally and press conference at the Community Coalition to illuminate the problems with Planning Dept. and to more fully involve concerned stakeholders in action strategies; to call for a change in Planning Dept. leadership and a change in the fundamental marmer in which the Dept. conducts it's business, ie, its dysfunctional approach to urban planning
The Specific Plan, with the amendments recommended by the community, was brought to the Area Planning Commission (APC) for their recommendation to the Planning and Land Use Commission (PLUM). APC recommended adoption with the community generated amendments
Ignoring the community, the CAC, Neighborhood Council and APC, The Plarming Dept. made its intention to recommend adoption minus the amendments known
Mayor's office Planning Deputy, John Sheppard recommended that the community allow the Plan to go to the City Council and to hash out the issues there because the Mayor's office wanted to expedite action on the Plan
Community groups refused to accept that action, insisted that the Plan be sent to the PLUM prior to the City Council action [there would almost no chance of hashing out the amendments in an official meeting of the council, effectively removing avenues of recourse for the community]
HOPE mobilized coalition groups, including the Crenshaw Chamber of Commerce, the CAC's for 8th and lOth Districts and the neighborhood councils and from Councilman Ridley-Thomas' office to maintain pressure on the Mayor and the Planning Dept.
HOPE delegation met with Councilman Holden's staff to provide information about how the Plan would impact the lOth district development along the Crenshaw Corridor and to ensure their support of the amendments; Holden staff agreed to work with the community to seek the most appropriate resolution. Holden's staff requested that the PLUM Commission table the matter. The PLUM complied with that request and tabled action until the issues could be worked out and the community's amendments could be reconsidered
2003
HOPE wrote to the Mayor requesting a meeting to stipulate that Dwayne Wyatt remain in place as the Crenshaw Planner and to ensure adequate time to complete and implement the area's development plans. The letter documents the intensity of the trust centered working relationship between Wyatt and the community, the quality of time beyond working hours Wyatt has put into building the relationship while working on the planning and the need for continuity at this critical juncture.
HOPE organized the area leadership to prepare a cross section of key stakeholders for testimony before the PLUM committee; Holden's staff and a representative from former Councilman Ridley-Thomas's office worked with the leaders to prepare for the hearing
PLUM heard testimony and recommendations for adoption with the amendments from Mike Hernandez (Holden's office); voted to recommend that the City Council vote to adopt the Plan with the amendments [Note: Hernandez further asked that the records of the Commission be corrected to clarify that a broad based coalition of groups along with HOPE advocated for appropriate process and a strong plan. This was in response to the Planning Dept. staff member who attempted to diffuse the length and strength of the community efforts as well as the numbers of stakeholders involved. Her motive was to weaken the testimony and to make it appear that only a few 'troublemakers' had a problem with the plan, as she had stated on prior occasions.]
February 2003 - City Council unanimously votes to adopt the Plan with the amendments
~J {} ;, & 1~(/;TI
Bub-H\
A-1 T t-\c
2'2'-:::CS~ "5+-Tt .-rt4P¥\ \Dk> ~~1 -'?P-J2 NT Ib~ [bP.'i.
b )_{ltV) L-:LT~N -1{ ~·
~Sn/l~(ra ...•. ·· PCvfrJ
_g~HI NrT{fe:
. 2.'((:::£3 -rw ~ Srr~ tk Ar (JtJ k5 ~Jnr f{L~SWT ~~ rt> 2k~Jt.:C($) tJ
-4"2
TESTIMONY: PARKING BEHIND THE STORE
MYNAMEIS ~ ~INS
I AM ~t-tu~-r '\6t,oac-Cwe
HONORABLE BOARD MEMBERS, I WANT TO RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE PARKING
EXCEPTION (SECTION 14C OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND 11.J OF THE DESIGN
GUIDELINES) GRANTED TO THE FRESH & EASY DEVELOPMENT. IN MANY WAYS THIS
EXCEPTION STRIKES TO THE HART OF THIS COMMUNITY'S EFFORTS TO DEVELOP A
PREDESTRIAN FRIENDLY DISTRICT BETWEEN 52ND STREET AND SLAUSON.
WE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED THIS AREA AS A PREDESTRIAN ORIENTED AREA IN
THE SPECIFIC PLAN. TO ALLOW FRESH & EASY TO PLACE PARKING IN THE FRONT
ALONG CRENSHAW BOULEVARD WOULD BE TANEMOUNT TO ALLOWING A STRIP
MALL
WE OPOSE THIS STRIP-MALL DEVELOPMENT. WE THINK FRESH & EASY COULD HAVE
DONE BETTER. THEY DID BETTER ON ADAMS AND CENTURY. THEY HAVE DONE
BETTER IN OTHER COMMUNITIES.
WE ARE ASKING THAT THIS PROJECT CONFORM TO THE INTENT OUR SPECIFIC
PLAN. THAT THE BUILDING BE PLACED ON THE CORN ERE OF 52ND AND CRENSHAW
WITH PARKING IN THE REAR AND OR SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
AS SUCH, WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU DENY THE EXCEPTION TO SECTION 14C OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN AND 11.J. OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
TESTIMONY: GENERAL COMMENT
MY NAME IS L i [I)J?ff ']( l (1_/d ' !AM a~fl;~ (}j!£}t)_5j--/iJ-47/J/!_fH!Jo;J
'
THIS COMMUNITY BROUGHT THE ISSUE OF THE CRENSHAW SPECIFIC BEFORE
THIS COMMffiEE BACK IN 2004. DURING THAT TIME WE WERE FIGHTING THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO GET THE SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTED. YOU MY RECALL,
COUNCILMAN REYAS, MANAGEMENT IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DID NOT WANT
TO ADOPT, NOR UPDATE, THE SPECIFIC PLAN, WHICH HAD BEEN SillNG ARROUND
FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS. WITH YOUR HELP AND THE HELP OF THIS COMMffiEE
THE CRENSHAW COMMUNITY WAS ABLE TO PREVAIL AND GET WHAT COMMUNillES
IN THE WEST SIDE TAKE FOR GRANTED, A VIABLE SPECIFIC PLAN.
NOW WE FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT,
AND THE COMMUITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WOULD HAVE THE VERY PLAN WE
WORKED SO HARD TO GET ESTABLISHESD, WITH ITS MODEST GUIDELINES,
UNDERMINED.
SO, COUNCILMAN REYAS, WE ARE BACK ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT AGAIN. WE
ARE SIMPLY ASKING THAT THIS MULill-MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION, FRESH &
EASY, COMPLY WITH THE MODEST PROVISONS OF OUR SPECIFIC PLAN.
WE ASK THAT THIS BODY DENY THE EXCEPTIONS GRANTED TO FRESH AND
EASY BY AREA PLANNING COMMISSION.
HONORABLE COUNCILL MEMBERS, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE EXCEPTION ALLOWING FRESH AND
EASY TWO WALL SIGNS. ONE FACING CRENSHAW, THE OTHER 52N° STREET.
THE PLAN WOULD ALLOW TWO WALL SIGNS IF THE BUILDING IS PLACED ON THE STREET
CORNER OF 52 No AND CRENSHAW 1\-THE IDEA. WAS TO ENCOURAGE~ PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED . I -¥f·l \or~~ 1+ 1-wo we~.\h s,~o.:\cM ((eosho.\.11? VtJ~L- &llr
DEVELOPMENT. ''"0 0 ·
DNL :y.:~..:~e. &~~e.. <4>m()t{'5S'r'o"' d S "'S {v:lo -wa\L':Y (J.JI.0~ V~-tL ~~ S Onv wh:o\1 )S i\-:
WE ARE ALSO OPPOSED TO THE EXCEPTION THAT WOULD PERMIT A WALL SIGN
ALONG CRENSHAW BOULEVARD TO BE 184 SQUARE FEET. THE AREA OF THIS SIGNAGE ABOVE ANY-
THING RESONABLE. THE WALL SIGN OF THE FRESH & EASY MARKET IN HOLLYWOOD IS 87
SQUARE FEET. THE WALL SIGN OF THE MARKET IN EAGLE ROCK IS 125 SQUARE FEET.
THE SIZE OF PROPOSED SIGNAGE INAPPROPIATE AND OUT OF SCALE TO THIS COMMUNITY. THE
AREA OF THE SINAGE SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN WHAT THE 75 SQUARE FEET THE PLAN
REQUIRES, BUT CERTAINLY NO MORE THAN 100 SQUARE FEET.
Abo, Ne ;;unorl-~ e \o.M\1~ ~MmtSS~i>IIS -f}itd(llj a 16<tpff'ov'Mj MD FINALLY, WE OPPES II"! I" I"XECPTION Tlltrr ALLOWS A 19 FEET SET BACK, AS W~LL AS TO NOT
HAVING TO PROVIDE THE 20 PERCENT BUILDING TRANSPARENCY. WE ARE TYING HARD TO
ELM I NATE THE PRISION LIKE ENVIRONMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY.
:S:: '1\. CP il.C\uS1Il "~~ VV\,\~ (1\ 4\.._ Ce'V'lfVlli5 a-Jon ~ ttrt. S'...,~'-\·a.vt-:h~ 0-l'td. 04-Cu5 ~"5.f\ll;>~Hfi\-L C> ~~r~ ("l?Liu ~ /'()/j~ 71~11ap. .t te-6'r().dl~l) ·~ ~541'\ ,
Jttb>o>~M- i5 <t~rJ(~
