The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) has the six lots (six acres) of land at corner of Laurel Canyon and Mulholland Drive under option.   A $100,000 option payment must be made by May 28rd.  Some of the $100,000 has been raised but there is a good ways to go.   Time is extremely tight. 

The six acres would be permanent public open space that can be connected to Laurel Canyon Community Park via the Mulholland Drive right-of-way and adjacent MRCA parkland.  The $100,000 buys six more months to raise additional money, and in a default situation, the $100,000 buys a narrow, but important conservation easement for wildlife movement.

The MRCA paid the first $200,000 option payment but is tapped out to pay more.  Property owners are needed to provide contribute to the purchase of a critical wildlife connection across Laurel Canyon Boulevard between the Fryman Canyon area and Griffith Park.

If the $100,000 is not raised, all contributed funding will be returned in full by June 30th (unless the deadline is extended by the seller). All contributions are tax deductible and a receipt will be mailed out within two working days. Park naming opportunities are available to the largest donor if the six-acre transaction is completed.  Soon the MRCA website (www.mrca.ca.gov) will have a link with more in depth information, maps, and aerial photographs.

Address questions to Paul Edelman, MRCA Chief of Natural Resources and Planning, at 310-589-3200 X128 or email edelman@smmc.ca.gov. 

Pledged funds can be received through May 28th. Checks should be made to payable to MRCA with a note for Laurel Canyon & Mulholland. 

Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority or MRCA
Att: Paul Edelman  310 589-3200 ext 128
5810 Ramirez Canyon Road
Malibu, California 90265

As part of the 45-day public review period that began on March 12, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) of Los Angeles held the final of seven outreach meetings on April 23 at the Marvin Braude Constituent Center in Van Nuys seeking community input on the details of its Draft 2008 Long Range Transportation Plan.

“Planning for the future is more critical than ever,” said MTA Executive Officer Brad McAllester – who was also present at the hearing – in a video presentation outlining the MTA’s vision for mobility over the next 25 years. Projects take time, the population is growing, and aggressive goals are needed for improving air quality, he said. L.A. also has the busiest container port in the country and truck miles covered on congested freeways are projected to grow by 33 percent by 2030.

The MTA is responsible not just for bus and rail, but road improvements, freeway service patrols, call boxes and other services.

McAllester mapped the MTA’s accomplishments since 1980, when there was just one carpool lane on the I-10 as opposed to today’s 465 miles of carpool lanes. Other achievements include 18 new Metro Rapid lines, the Orange Line, and the Exposition Light Rail line currently in progress.

“We will spend more than $152 billion over the next 25 years to keep L.A. County moving,” he said, but that won’t be enough to meet all mobility goals. Sacramento must return the gasoline sales tax transit system funding twice ratified by voters (in 2002 and 2006), and other sources of funding will also be needed, he said.

Twenty residents took their two-minute opportunity at the microphone after the video. 

Two from the business community – Aaron Green, legislative affairs manager for the Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA), and Mark Levinson, president of the Encino Chamber of Commerce – were entirely supportive of expansion.

“Anyone who thinks there won’t be growth in L.A. is kidding themselves,” Levinson said. Green said VICA is a full supporter of the plans. It has been a “long and tough road to bring improvements” to such areas as the 101/134 Freeways, the 405 corridor through freeway widening or light rail, and extension of Orange and Red Lines above or below ground. He acknowledged that raising the sales tax for funding would be difficult.

Most of the speakers opposed expansion efforts that involve widening freeways to add carpool lanes.

Gerald Silver, president of Homeowners of Encino, said the MTA should expect to receive opposition from residents similar to what CalTrans experienced in their efforts to widen the 405. The MTA has not considered the finite carrying capacity of the region, he said.

Joan Luchs, president of the Federation of Hillside and Canyon Associations, said, “This isn’t a plan; it’s trying to put out a fire.”

People stay in their cars because they give up trying to find parking at Metro stations after 45 minutes, she said. “Stop any further growth or you’re not going to solve the problem,” Luchs asserted.

Wayne Williams of the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association (SOHA) echoed Luchs’ comments. “Educate people on what growth will mean,” he encouraged. “Not just gas, but the cost of water.” Food and education resources will also diminish as the population increases, he said.

Growth is not inevitable, said Williams. “For me, put more bikeways in.”

Local resident Gregory Wright said he gave up his car several years ago, but the MTA must incorporate practical things like patches on poles that would provide shade areas for people waiting for the bus. Wright also suggested that businesses “rethink the work week” by offering flex-time, thereby staggering commute traffic times.

“You can make the freeways 20 lanes wide,” said one resident, who recently visited Phoenix, Arizona, with its congested six-lane freeways. “It won’t help.” Overbuilding is the problem, the resident said.

Bill Manning of the Sunland Tujunga Neighborhood Council agreed. People bring three or four cars per family, not just one. “Stop encouraging people to come here,” he said. “We have no place to put them.”

Public comments were recorded and will be brought to the attention of the MTA board, which will vote on the plan in June.

1. Because it overrides all local zoning, SB 1818 breaks the promises made by our general plan. The general plan and its subsidiary components, unlike SB 1818, are the product of substantial professional planning, constituent, and environmental review. Instead of coherent, consensus-based planning, SB 1818 offers us planning via the mechanisms of developer whimsy and desire.

2. Because its bonuses are not limited to employment and transit centers, SB 1818 does not advance the smart growth patterns and practices that will enable Los Angeles to remain a world class city. SB 1818 allows growth to occur at traffic worsening locations. Los Angeles, by contrast, needs to rein in growth at traffic-inducing locations.

3. The manner in which the City of Los Angeles is proceeding eliminates environmental review for all SB 1818 projects that seek only the density bonus and not other, additional development incentives. The City Council has adopted language that defines such projects as "ministerial." Per state CEQA guidelines, "ministerial" projects are exempt from its oversight. I believe this powerful wordsmithing has occurred below the radar.

4. I give credence to the often expressed sentiment that the City of Los Angeles lacks sufficient housing for low and middle income residents. From my perch as President of the CPC, I can observe that more than 90% of our new housing stock will be sold at market rate prices. Market rate prices are beyond the reach of the poor and middle class, as must be obvious to anyone who tries to purchase housing. Unfortunately, SB 1818 is the WRONG solution to our problem. Los Angeles needs a citywide solution that relies on smart growth land use policies and a menu of contribution options that apply to all developers. The current decline in the housing market impedes our progress to sensible solutions, as are already in place in other cities throughout the country. (These comments were provided in response to Brady Westwater's articles on repealing SB1818, the so-called Density Bonus Bill. See his stories in March 4 and 7 CityWatch issues.)