Renaissance Blob Didn't Always Exist

Blogs

« The Renaissance Blob in Santa Ana's Redevelopment Plan | Main | BUC BUC BUC: Weekend chickenshit »

Posted by Gustavo Arellano in Main, Notes from the Banana Republic

December 28, 2007 9:30 PM

Permalink | Comments (4)

Earlier today, we wrote about the Renaissance Blob, the strange drawing of boundaries in SanTana's Renaissance redevelopment plan that weaved around properties operated by the families of Mayor Miguel Pulido and councilmember Vince Sarmiento. In a comment, Liberal OC blogger/SanTana planning commissioner Sean Mill wrote he was told by city staffers "that the reason that those properties were left out was so that Vince and Miguel would be able to vote on the plan. If they were included they would have to recuse themselves."

Pulido didn't always have such concerns.

On July 20, 2006, SanTana's Planning and Building Agency published a Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Plan. Included in the packet was the following image of the Renaissance Plan boundaries:

Snapshot%202007-12-28%2021-42-25.jpg

These are the same boundaries still promoted on the website of Moule and Polyzoides, the Pasadena firm contracted by SanTana officials to reimagine its vibrant downtown:

Now, compare the above maps with the current boundaries:

What do the varying plans show? Pulido and Sarmiento's properties were originally part of the Renaissance Plan--and now they're not. If what Mill's source told him is true, and SanTana workers rejiggered the boundaries to eliminate any conflict of interest for Pulido and Sarmiento so they can vote on the Plan, then this is politics at its vilest: politicians working the system to meet their needs. What's worse is that the conflict of interest charge is eliminated by a mere technicality considering Festival Hall (which Sarmiento's family runs) is RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET from the Renaissance Plan boundaries, while Pulido's muffler shop ain't that far away. ¿Comprende cronyism? Apparently, SanTana politicians do.

Comments (4)

Dean Whinery B. says:
December 29, 2007 10:21

It's been a long time since I was a reporter covering city councils and planning commissions, but I seem to recall that "right across the street" is still a sphere of influence issue. Drawing a line around a public official's property doesn't cut it. Unless the state code has changed, holding property within a considerable distance of a project such as this still precludes voting based on possible or perceived conflict of interest, although city attorneys have often been adept at finding or creating loopholes.

Anonymous says:
December 29, 2007 11:42

Gus,
The properties owned by Pulido and sarimiento may still be subject to conflict of interest if they are within 500 feet of the boundary. Do you if they are within this limit?

cook says:
December 29, 2007 15:44

http://ag.ca.gov/publications/coi.pdf

Page 142 of 204

18704.2. (a) (1) (go and look it up)

The five hundred foot rule.

http://caag.state.ca.us/conflict_interest/

2 links take you to same spot.

Anonymous says:
December 31, 2007 19:45

A good friend of mine, who is a planner, sent the following suggestions on how he believes that the Renaissance Plan could be improved to not screw over so many of the existing industrial businesses in that area and to help the Logan neighborhood not be perpetually dragged down with industrial right next door to single family residential.

1. Allow Industrial/M-zones east of Garfield Street and Lacy Street ; south of Civic Center Drive and Stafford Street ; west of the 5 Freeway, Eastwood Avenue , and Hathaway Street ; and north of 1st Street ; to retain their underlying M-zoning.

2. Apply the Renaissance Plan’s proposed zoning on the area described in suggestion 2 as an overlay zone in which the property owner has the option to utilize the entitlements that are provided in the Renaissance Plan’s proposed zoning instead of being forced to lose their M-zone entitlements.

3. Allow M-zoned properties in the area described in suggestion 2 to have the option to easily change their underlying M-zoning to the zoning of what is being proposed by the Renaissance Plan.

4. Change the Residential/R-zoned properties in the area described in suggestion 2 to have the Renaissance Plan’s proposed zoning as the underlying zoning. This would actually give more entitlements to the R-zoned property owners than what they have now.

5. Change the proposed zoning from R/I – Residential/Industrial to UN-2 – Urban Neighborhood 2 in the Logan Neighborhood, north of Stafford Street . The UN-2 zoning is being proposed for the properties west and southwest of the Logan The UN-2 would also allow the Logan neighborhood to be recognized as a primarily residential neighborhood again while still allowing entitlements for a variety of non-residential uses that are more accommodating to a better quality of life for the residents of the Logan neighborhood.

What does everybody think of these suggestions?

OC Weekly Insiders

Local food, music and news blasts
Free Stuff

Free Classifieds Los Angeles, CA

Personal of the Day

More Personals >>