Quote:
Originally Posted by DowntownGymRat
I figured I should have some juicy news if I'm gonna post, but only thing I got is that they've put up green fencing along Ceaser Chavez in preparation for Orsini phase 3. Not crazy about more Orsini but it beats whats there now for sure.
|
A new forumer who can give everyone a first hand description of what's going on in the hood is always needed & welcomed here. However, I think that fence was put up some time ago & I first learned about it on Ralossi's web page.
The specifics of the legal issues involving that site were described in this story. The CRA commission's chairman & the director of the chinatown BID share your POV about something new being better than what's there right now:
CRA/LA Vetoes Development In Chinatown
By KEELEY WEBSTER
CREJ Staff Writer
As development projects transform Los Angeles, city agencies are grappling with the issue of whether community benefits should be expected if not required of developers granted special exemptions on projects. The third phase of a mixed-use residential project that G.H. Palmer Associates is developing on the edge of Chinatown landed in the cross hairs of this issue. On Aug. 3, the board of commissioners for the Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles rejected with a 3-3 vote G.H. Palmer's plans to build Orsini III, a 210-unit mixed-use apartment community over 13,000 square feet of retail.
"This highlights a philosophical issue that we still have on this board that we haven't resolved," said William H. Jackson III, who chairs the CRA commission. "When we have a project where they are asking for discretionary approval, but no dollars, what should we be asking for?"
Since the 63,571-square-foot lot that G.H. Palmer was planning to build its eight-story residential building on is zoned commercial, the project needed discretionary approval from the CRA commissioners. The board also needed to rule that the project met the environmental qualifications under the California Environmental Quality Act. Orsini I and Orsini II are located on adjacent corners to Orsini III, at the intersection of Figueroa Street and Sunset Boulevard. The city's planning department already had approved the project on both matters, but the CRA commission's approval was needed because the project is located in a CRA redevelopment area.
"Legally speaking, they were misguided," said Benjamin Reznik, a partner with Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Marmaro LLP, the firm that represents G.H. Palmer.
Since developers can build residential in a commercial zone by-right, Reznik questioned whether the CRA can even reject the project on that basis. However the CRA contended that it has discretionary approval over the project because it's located in an area zoned for commercial and not residential, and the agency doesn't feel like the project would add enough to the community to justify an exception to the zoning.
Madeline Janis, vice chair of the board, emphasized that the CRA commissioners are not "requiring" the developer to create any public benefits. "I looked at the case law, which is why we didn't propose any conditions," Janis said. "In any negotiations with the developer, I want to make it clear that anything the developer does is entirely voluntary and not compelled by this board."
Several commissioners noted, however, that G.H. Palmer didn't voluntarily adhere to any of the requirements usually placed on developments in the CRA's redevelopment areas. Those include such items as making 15 percent of the units affordable and paying the construction workers prevailing wages. "We provided him with a list of items he could have done. I don't see anything here but a series of 'no's,'" Commissioner John Perez said of the list of suggested developer concessions in that redevelopment area.
"This developer has shown no interest or willingness to assert himself in any way on the overall redevelopment purposes," Janis said. "I think we have seen other developers who don't have to make an effort doing something."
Reznik said this is an attempt by the commissioners to leverage conditions out of his client that they can't require. "None of those things are relevant, because they don't have the legal authority to require them," Reznik said. "This not a subsidized project."
The commissioners also expressed concern over the fact that the ground-floor retail in Orsini I, which was completed in 2004 and fully occupied, and Orsini II, which is nearing completion, is completely vacant.
Ellia Thompson, a land-use attorney also with Jeffer Magels, said that the national tenant retailers weren't interested in talking to them until residents had moved into the project. "When we started Orsini I, there wasn't much there," Thompson said. "The people in the neighborhood wanted a Starbucks and a gourmet market, but those retailers weren't interested in the space."
Now that Orsini I is occupied and Orsini II is nearly complete, the broker at CB Richard Ellis has been able to schedule meetings with national tenant retailers, Thompson said. Janis found it suspicious, however, that brokers didn't begin scheduling meetings with national tenant retailers until just two weeks before the hearing. She also said that meetings were not the same as signed contracts. Thompson countered by saying that it doesn't benefit the developer for the commercial space to be vacant.
In addition to concern over tenant demand, commissioners opposed to the project also don't think the design of the market-rate apartment community is well integrated into the community. They questioned whether the affluent people in the Orsini projects would frequent Chinatown businesses and whether the ground-floor retail is contributing enough to make up for the commercial space it replaces. "I think we would be better served by a commercial project that really enhances pedestrian activity and adds to the Chinatown environment," Janis said, "rather than another Italian Renaissance, fortress-like building."
Perez said he doesn't want projects that contribute to the patchwork of gentrified areas in the city juxtaposed against lower-income communities and he sees this project as doing just that. "This has been referred to as Italian Renaissance, but, quite frankly, when I look at the gentrification in proximity to the pockets of poverty, it looks more like a feudal system versus renaissance," Perez said.
G.H. Palmer had justified not including affordable housing in his plans because the area has 2,000 units of affordable housing. But Perez compared that to putting one foot in freezing water and another in boiling water. "You could call that balanced, but are your feet the right temperature?" Perez asked. "When balance is not achieved by integrating affordable housing but by having it separate, that's not the balance we are looking for."
G.H. Palmer's history of battling the city over affordable-housing requirements also could have hurt the developer in the negotiation process. "I've known this developer a really long time and see how this developer operates," Janis said. "It basically means that you can't count on anything that isn't in writing. This developer is incredibly litigious and tries to get out of everything the city tries to get him to do."
Reznik said that the ruling was more about personal feelings the commissioners have about his client than the zoning laws. "It was clear from some of the statements made that the commissioners were prejudiced against my client because of previous dealings with him," Reznik said.
George Yu, executive director of the Chinatown Business Improvement District, and several local business owners testified in favor of the project.
"This lot had been vacant for 20 years. The BID spent considerable time and effort to help secure and maintain the site to keep the negative nuisances out of our community," Yu said. "We might have to wait another 20 years to have another investment opportunity."
Board Chair Jackson, who voted in favor of the project, also saw the project as more beneficial than having a vacant lot on the site.
"I would rather have something than nothing," Jackson said.
"When we have areas that haven't been developed or are undeveloped, everyone, including the CRA, had the opportunity to take a risk on this site, but they didn't. They are willing to do this."
Even though the CRA can't require the developer to add public benefits to a project that it hasn't contributed money to, Commissioner Bruce Ackerman suggested the developer consider adding community benefits by "seeing what makes sense to your bottom line and coming back."
For now, the developer is considering his options, one of which would be to enforce the settlement agreement he reached with the city after he took them to federal court, Reznik said. G.H. Palmer demolished a building on the site of what is now Orsini II that the city wanted the developer to investigate its historical potential. The city then refused to issue a building permit, and G.H. Palmer took it to federal court. Under the settlement, the city agreed that the developer would be allowed to develop Orsini II and Orsini III, Reznik said. "It's clear that the CRA refusing to approve Orsini III is a breach of the settlement agreement," Reznik said. "I've a good mind to go back to federal court."
Prev
Linear Mode
