I would like to respond to two subjects addressed in last week’s edition. The article regarding an economic study [“City won’t take county for grant(ed),” Sept. 3] left out a crucial word in quoting me. I said that most people don’t see the need for more businesses. If local establishments are already stressed by lack of business, more competition — especially from the chains — would only make matters worse.
Also, in a letter to the editor, Richard Scott states that I, as part of the “council majority,” had twice refused a settlement offered in closed session on the Lunita Pacific condos which “would eliminate the 38-condo project in favor of a one-unit-per-acre project.” I wish to respond to Mr. Scott’s allegation, that at no time while I was on the council was such a settlement submitted to the council. He says that he has firsthand knowledge of these offers because he was the attorney of record for San Paolo U.S. Holding Co., who owned the property at the time.
I was not on the City Council between April 1994-1996. At the time I left office, Preferred Financial owned the property. I understand that subsequently First Los Angeles Bank held title under their subsidiary San Paolo U.S. Holding Co. When I rejoined the council in April 1996, the property had already been sold to the current owners.
The size of the entire parcel is 70-plus acres. If the council had zoned the Lunita Pacific site at one acre, they would have had to zone the rest of it the same — which would have allowed 70 units — not six as Mr. Scott states.