There are a number of San Pedrans who support Bob Bisno's weapon of mass development, Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
There are a number of people who don't want to see Papadakis Taverna close down and end one of the best, if not the best, Greek Restaurant in the nation. I don't want to see it closed, either.
There are a number of people who don't want to see SRHS 15 built, basically in their back yards.
Some of these numbers of people happen to be the same persons!
"We don't want to see Papadakis close, but we want to let Bob build 1,950 condominiums, while we completely oppose SRHS 15 from being built in the Palisades". This is an imagined quote that could possibly come from a number of individuals living in San Pedro or other communities.
They want change as long as it effects others. They want tradition as long as it effects them.
I guess I'm missing something somewhere.
I don't wish to see Papadakis Taverna close, I don't wish to have the lives of many San Pedrans and eastern Rancho Palos Verdians change by having to deal with 1,950 condos on Western Avenue, and I don't wish to have a high school placed in an area that cannot support the massive transit and transportation issues even an 810-seat senior high school would cause.
I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't wish to see major changes in OUR community.
But smaller, well managed, well supported changes don't seem to be too bad for OUR community.
When the developers of Target came to town, they worked with the residents of the area and their Neighborhood Council to create plans that would have less of an impact they could have, had the Target folks not worked with the local residents.
As "Highland Park", the 134-dwelling patio-home project goes through it courses of having the tank farm removed and all the contaminated soil removed, all of those responsible, talked with the neighbors and worked with the neighborhood organizations to keep all impact to a minimum.
In Vista del Oro, the great neighbors there, organized because of a weapon of mass development was initially proposed for that neighborhood. Working as a group, they finally got the attention of the developer of that site, and now, the organization is discussing with the developer, what is best for that neighborhood.
Unfortunately, there was no HOA at Mira Costa Terrace when Marshall's was being planned, but that store's developer worked with the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Now we are faced with not one, but two entities desiring to bring huge changes to two separate areas in San Pedro, who don't seem to plan on working with the local neighborhood HOA's or Neighborhood Councils to deal with the monstrous changes these two developments would bring.
Ponte Vista and SRHS 15 are being brought to us by individuals and groups that seem to believe they know what is best for OUR community and we are not supposed to challenge, oppose, or even question, that extensively, those developers and their developments.
Come on people, I have documented three developments where the developers have found it better to work with the residents than against them. Even the developer of the Vue seems to have a soft spot for San Pedrans.
Let's be consistent in our thoughts, feelings, and actions. I am a slow-growther. I do recognize that change is the only constant, but those changes don't necessarily have to come at too great of an expense to OUR community.
With the construction of the Vue, Centre Street Lofts. LaSalle Lofts, Bank Lofts, and other downtown San Pedro projects, we are losing out on the chance to make a change that will benefit the downtown area and isn't really that big, compared to Ponte Vista or SRHS 15.
We all need another supermarket in downtown San Pedro. There, I wrote it, and it is a change from no development at all.
With all the new condo owners or renters coming in, we seem to have only two "large" supermarkets in the downtown area.
A new supermarket is needed and probably required to keep traffic issues in check for as long as possible. It is a change we all can appreciate, I believe.
We also MAY need a new high school, but we certainly don't need one that has such terrible access issues as one built at Angel's Gate would have.
What we don't need is a development on the north side of San Pedro that will be the biggest development ever in the area and will drastically change the nature of northwest San Pedro and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes for generation after generation.
So if you support Ponte Vista, but oppose SRHS 15 at Angel's Gate, please check your hypocrisy at the door, and realize that both project places, where they are proposed for, and with the size the developers wish for, are bad for OUR community.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I attended the Coastal Neighborhood Council Meeting the other day and there was an impressive turnout of residents (like myself) who oppose the SRHS#15 High School being built as Angels Gate.
This was my first time attending a meeting like this so I personally was not prepared to speak, but thankfully, quite a few individuals were prepared with very articulate arguments and even print-outs of their case opposing the school for the Council Members.
Most of the people who came out in opposition of the school lived on Alma and on the 30th street side of the potential school site. The main concerns were traffic and parking issues that would make it unsafe for not only the people living in the neighborhood, but also the potential students. There was also some concerns about an increase of graffiti in the area. I was surprised that no one brought up the noise and light pollution from the sports fields...but I feel that will impact people on the 36th Street side of the school. This is right where I live (on Parker between 36th and 37th)...so the sports fields that will literally be in my back yard are of a particular interest to me. I am, of course also concerned about the traffic and parking.
What really scares me is that if the LAUSD does come to their senses and realize that Alma is a terrible idea for a main entrance, that they will make the entrance on 36th and Parker or one of the neighboring streets. That will literally transform our quiet little neighborhood overnight. I previously lived in Lawndale and they built a school two blocks from my old house. The graffiti, liter, stolen goods (in my case our beach cruiser bicycles,) and broken windows followed as soon as the school opened. If this school opens here, my fear is that it will change everything we love about this neighborhood.
One of the speakers in opposition to the school is a local school teacher of 30 years, and she brought up some very interesting points. The one that I remember most clearly was a fact that something like 40% + of high school kids drop out of school before graduating...and instead of the LAUSD spending money on another school, how about they take that money and invest it into building a curriculum that will make the kids want to actually stay in school and graduate. I found this point quite interesting.
There was a request for the Council to set up a Committee specifically concerning the building of SRSH15.
There was a woman who was a representative of the LAUSD there. She agreed that the parking situation and the Alma entrance are points that need to be addressed. The majority of her speech concerned the fact that the schools are ridiculously overcrowded and we need to help our kids. What she did not elaborate on was WHY it has to be at Angels Gate and not somewhere else.
Thats the update.
-mike czako
Mike, again you come through with another set of fantastic comments, thank.
When the Federal Government deed the land to LAUSD there was a provision that a high school was to be built on that site.
And there is a high school functioning on that site.
I have to go back and check my records, but I remember some piece of information that stated that LAUSD had to build a high school on that site and keep it open for at least seven years.
The period of time required to keep a high school on that site has ended and I strongly feel that the LAUSD could do pretty much whatever they wish to do with the site, including selling it off to a developer for one heck of a profit and then have those funds used to build SRHS 15 somewhere else, along with moving Angel's Gate H.S. to another site.
If Bob Bisno was willing to pay $122 Million Dollars of land in northwest San Pedro that has some of the worst environmental and weather conditions, then what do you think a developer would pay for ocean view property.
I would much rather have families drive to and from their beautiful houses on those 45 or so acres, even using Emily Street where my grandparents, sister, and mother lived, than to see SRHS built at Angel's Gate.
Think about it, just for a reasonable moment or two.
LAUSD is facing a $460 Million Dollar budget shortfall which equates to 22 high schools.
What if LAUSD was able to sell the land it owns at Angel's Gate, spend that income on redeveloping the Cooper/Science Center area for SRHS 15, which is land LAUSD already owns, and builds a beautiful high school with so much better access than Angel's Gate would provide, basically all for no layout of any tax dollars.
Folks, we need to find options to having SRHS 15 built at Angel's Gate because there are so many reasons it shouldn't be built there.
Looking at alterative options should begin the same moment we decide to be in favor of or oppose SRHS 15 at Angel's Gate, because as a matter of law, alternatives must be presented in the CEQA Environmental Impact processes.
As I addressed on this post, perhaps, opening up the gate on 36Th street is a really bad idea, too, as far as a high school goes.
All the streets from Emily east are steep, residential, have cars parking on both sides, and intersect 37Th Street with the majority of intersections having a two-way stop.
Once drivers cross over 37Th, then they will probably, in the majority of cases, attempt to make left hand turns onto Paseo del Mar.
Talk about a traffic safety nightmare!
Noise and light pollution was brought up at the last meeting by the facilities division of LAUSD. There would be noise and light pollution on both ends of the campus with lighting necessary for the parking lots, and noise and light pollution closer to 36Th because of the athletic fields that are State mandated to be used by the community when students are not attending classes.
MW
Since I seldom, if ever, read your blog I did not know about this thinly veiled attack on me. I don't really care what you think about me, but if you purport to inform people you should at least try and get some facts right. I do support Ponte Vista publicly because I believe it is good for the community. You don't and that's fine. And yes, I am sorry to see Papadakis close, although how these two events are related is totally lost on me. But I have never been, nor will ever be, a NIMBY! Actually, I purchased my home thinking that I would have San Pedro High School in my backyard. That was the original purpose the land was given to the school district. And far from being against the proposed project, I was the first one to propose it. The problem is the size. I beleive that they should build a 500 seat school for the two magnets at SPHS. This would relieve the overcrowding without unduly damaging a precious resource. The school should be run as a satilite of SPHS with the sports, dances, etc. still being held at the main campus. The one problem I have with the size of the school is that LAUSD has not shown itselfvery accurate in its projections of student growh. Every year they have to admit that they have fewer students than they expected. I think they still want to relieve overcrowding at Narbonne by bring kids into San Pedro. I think that would be disasterous and many of us have already made suggestions of places closer to Harbor City where they could put a satilite school for them. The bottom line is that I will always look at each and every project as a seperate entity, and will decide my stance on how I believe it will effect San Pedro. I will never be one of those who is against everything and never has a positive to propose.
Thanks Mr. Dominguez, for your comments.
Your thoughts about having smaller academies spread out in different areas of San Pedro is probably one of the alternatives that will be addresses in the EIRs and is a good one, many feel.
When SRHS 14 was threatening all of us in, Councilwoman Janice Hahn had a firm stance that she favored smaller academies, in several locations. I hope her feelings will continue in the SRHS 15 situation.
I think that interested parties should attend the March 13 CEQA meeting with written comments and alternatives like the smaller academy type of campuses.
I support building SRHS 15 in northwest San Pedro, at the current site of Cooper H.S. and the Science Center.
My second supportive suggestion is to build one small academy for the Marine Sciences Magnet, probably at Angel's Gate, and then the law enforcement magnet at the Cooper/Science Center location, because both magnets would benefit greatly having those two locations AND being so close to related departments and other centers.
There are many big problems putting such a large school at Angel's Gate.
The "Wilderness" or Outdoor Experience that would be next door to SRHS 15, could be one of the greatest jewels in LAUSD, but would have to share the overall environment with a high school that will be noisy, have lights that would hinder wildlife, and other issues.
I strongly urge everyone who has opinions on any or every aspect of the proposed high school at Angel's Gate, to put their thoughts in writing and attend the March 13 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) meeting at Dana Middle School auditorium, beginning at 6:00 PM.
MW
Post a Comment