ELECTION07:
A rush to stop

Jim Lomako is easily one of the most controversial and outspoken candidates ever to run for a seat on the Pasadena City Council.

After serving for years as a vocal member of the city's Community Development Committee and Design Commission, the 59-year-old Lomako has launched his campaign for council on a platform of slow growth and intelligent development, and is one of the few candidates running for office this year who often attends City Council meetings.

Even early in his campaign, it became clear that Lomako would be generating his fair share of excitement — first when a fictitious letter-writer to that other Pasadena newspaper described him as a dishonest bully, then when current District 2 Councilman Paul Little very publicly accused Lomako campaigners of falsely claiming his endorsement.

Although he says he'd rather talk about bringing rampant development under control, Lomako is now explaining several past brushes with the law, including three arrests since 1989 on various misdemeanor charges — all but one of which, however, were eventually dismissed, including those stemming from a free-speech incident that led to a $50,000 settlement in his favor.

Most recently, Lomako was charged in 2001 with assault, assault with a deadly weapon and vandalism in a case that, according to Los Angeles Superior Court records, city prosecutors pursued but were unable to proceed with in court.

Lomako says those charges occurred when, on the recommendation of a friend, he rented a room to a hard-luck character who seemed to be in need but then abused his kindness and began smoking marijuana in the home.

“He turned out to be the roommate from hell. I ordered him out of the house and he called the police and told them that I had attacked him. It wasn't true,” said Lomako, who a few months later won a $370 judgment against the man in small claims court.

In 1998, according to court records, Lomako was charged with trespassing. That charge, he said, came while he was collecting signatures for a ballot initiative and registering voters during a flea market at Pasadena City College. While walking on campus, he said, a PCC police officer confronted Lomako and tried to force him to leave. Lomako said he refused, was handled roughly and then arrested. Not only was that charge later dismissed, Lomako said he filed a claim against the college, which it settled out of court for $50,000.

In 1989, Lomako was charged with battery, which was later dismissed, and disturbing the peace, to which he pled guilty — a decision he regrets.

“What happened was I got in a disagreement with somebody. He called the police in and I was arrested, cited and released, and when I went to court I wanted to plead not guilty because I hadn't physically attacked this person. But I was concerned that the only witnesses were his buddies and the district attorney told me ‘plead guilty to disturbing the peace and you're out of here,' and I did that. To this day I regret not getting legal advice. It's things like that which reinforce my commitment to people standing up for their constitutional rights,” said Lomako, who later served as president of the ACLU Pasadena-Foothills chapter.

“I have always stood up for my own rights and for the rights of others. I am ready to fight for the residents of Pasadena to get growth under control and to protect the character of our city,” said Lomako.  

“We have already seen that leaders who value docile affability over defending our city are no match for the developers and others who are exploiting Pasadena at our expense,” he said.

What issues do you think need to be addressed that haven't been handled well by the sitting councilman, and does it matter that he didn't endorse you or your opponent?

The main issue that needs to be addressed in Pasadena, and it's not just [Councilman] Paul Little but the entire City Council hasn't adequately handled the issue of growth. The General Plan growth limits went in place in 1994, and yet the Central District Specific Plan, which the General Plan called for to be the document that would describe the type of growth and the areas where growth would occur in the Central District, was not enacted until the very end of 2004. They waited 10 years. And the zoning that's necessary to enforce the specific plan, that wasn't enacted until 2005.

With the city's downtown area nearing build-out under General Plan limitations, council members will soon be asked whether to rule out residential growth in the Central District. Is that a good idea?

It's what we need to do. That's what our ordinance calls for. Several weeks ago I appeared in front of the City Council and called for a moratorium on the issuance of building permits, a moratorium on residential units in the Central District, and I made the same request to the Planning Commission. There are 3,200 of the 5,095 units that have already been built, and then there's another 1,600 in the pipeline. We need a moratorium even before those 1,600 get building permits because we need to look at where they're going to be built and if we should reduce the size of any of these and impose stricter design standards. If we don't look at this, we're going to have a rush to build that's going to leave us with poorly designed residential units, and the Central District is going to be a legacy of inadequate planning.

How much development would you tolerate in your district?

I'd not only tolerate but welcome the development that is called for in the specific plan area that my district abuts, which is the North Lake Specific Plan. What I'm advocating for the North Lake [Avenue] area is in the redevelopment parcel, the Food-4-Less shopping center, that a parking structure be built. There's going to be affordable housing developed on the block when the Washington Theater is restored, and parking is already pretty tight in that area, so I'd like to see a parking structure built on Lake and Washington [Boulevard] for commercial development along Lake.

Conversion of the Raymond Theatre into condominiums was approved 5 – 3 by the council in 2004, showing how much even one vote on the council can mean. How would you have voted on the Raymond?

I would have voted against the conversion. When it came before the Design Commission, I argued we could not even look at the design issues because the project had been significantly altered [from what council members first approved in 2002]. City staff told the Design Commission the project had not been significantly altered, but the commission relied on its own judgment and turned it down. Long after we made that decision, which was overturned by the City Council, the Design Commission was vindicated by the California Court of Appeal.

Who have been your biggest supporters?

My biggest supporters have been the people who live in the district who have told me we need to get growth under control. That is really the core of my support.

Do you have any specific agenda for your first year in office?

I want to get growth under control in Pasadena. I want to get a review of the 2005 zoning code in the Central District to be sure it's consistent with growth limits. … If we wait until [the scheduled General Plan review in] 2009, we're liable to have reached the growth limits with projects that are ugly and inappropriate.

If you could offer a word of criticism about your opponent, what would it be?

Margaret McAustin is not who she presents herself to be. She is a person who has a background of working for developers and working in real estate. Her friends are developers. She comes from the development community.   The other criticism is that Margaret will not be an independent voice on the City Council. … Margaret McAustin has been hand-picked by the status quo to be their representative on the Pasadena City Council, and I think she's going to go along with the status quo.