Here is an article that appeared on City Watch at: http://citywatchla.com/
LA’s Grassroots Voices: Ratcheting Up the Volume
CityWatch YearEnder-‘08
By Ken Draper
Grassroots empowerment in LA took another turn this year. The City’s myriad activists … neighborhood councils, homeowner groups, independents … are beginning to figure out how to ratchet up the noise level to get City Hall’s attention. City Council’s passage Wednesday of a three-month moratorium on off-site electronic billboards and supergraphics is an example. The package was less than the neighborhoods wanted but more than the Council wanted to give. And the result was the direct result of the empowerment work of Dennis Hathaway … President of one of those grassroots groups called Ban Billboard Blight … who organized and energized the angry voices from all over the city. The fury could be heard through the walls at the Council’s deceptive closed door meeting the day before the vote was taken.
This week the people of unincorporated East Los Angeles celebrated the completion of a petition drive for cityhood.
Just a few days earlier, the opposition coalition … Sunland-Tujunga Neighborhood Council, No2HomeDepot group and independents … got the good news from City Planning that Home Depot will not be able to short-circuit the CEQA process putting a major kink in the HD planned invasion of Sunland. A considerable ‘David’ victory in the more than two year battle with the home building materials ‘giant’.
In June Lucile Saunders and her LaBrea Coalition sued the folks at City Hall. They want the City to obey the law and provide an updated Annual Report with contemporary infrastructure, transportation and population growth information so that the millions of building permits issued annually by LA can be done so with contemporary numbers and analysis. Wouldn’t it be helpful if NCs could provide development advice based on the latest stats?
Jim O’Sullivan and his coalition of HOA’s, NC folks, and Chambers of Commerce filed a similar suit last month.
This spring, O’Sullivan and a Westside citizen’s coalition took the Mayor to court over his Olympic West/Pico East Traffic Plan. The City, they said, hadn’t done any impact studies. They have no idea what kind of damage the Plan will have on Westside businesses and neighborhoods. The Court agreed. Ordered the Mayor to get himself an Environmental Impact Report before he starts redirecting traffic. Cost to the City: $500,000 or more.
Last June a neighborhood council DWP oversight group forced the City Council into extended deliberations on proposed rate increases and got the Council to agree to a citizen’s oversight committee. It has yet to be appointed, but you get the idea.
Soledad Garcia and her DWP oversight gang have now formed the DWP Committee. A watchdog group made up of representatives from NCs and activist groups citywide. They got snubbed by the DWP Board and now they’re mad. One of their chief goals for ’09: an independent Ratepayer Advocate. In the meantime, they will serve as the ratepayer’s voice.
Ron Kaye, former Daily News editor turned activist, kicked off his own revolution on Bastille Day at City Hall. Formed his own Saving LA Project. A kind of coalition of causes and activist groups who share their frustration with City Hall arrogance and aim to make a difference.
SLAP has a list of candidates for the March ballot they want in office. Neighborhood councils have yet to discover ways to influence elections. The kind of influence that has real clout. If SLAP scores one or to victories in March, they will instantly become a force to be reckoned with.
There’s more. I haven’t covered all of the stories and organizational efforts in this column. But I think that if you want to put a defining tag on 2008 it would note that the angry and frustrated grassroots voices across the city are beginning to learn the lessons of collaboration, organization, base expansion, having financial and legal expertise on their side. The art of petitioning and navigating the courts. And ratcheting up the noise level until City Hall gets it.
Former LA Councilman Joel Wachs introduced the neighborhood council concept in his 1992 campaign for mayor. He called it Family of Neighborhoods in 1992 and a lot changed about the first vision as it compromised political route through the system and the Charter Reform Commissions.
But the reason Wachs called for neighborhood councils was because he believed that the public had become cynical about and disengaged from its government because none of the City’s electeds ever listened to them. That part of the neighborhood council concept has not changed.
The folks you have put in office don’t trust you enough to be honest and transparent with you. Few will listen to you. And the few that do don’t understand the difference between listening and hearing.
Otherwise, they would stop violating the Charter by making important decisions without giving NCs time to weigh in and advise them as the Charter mandates.
And that arrogance is what has chased LA’s grassroots community to the courts. To petitions. To ratcheting up the volume on their neighborhood voices.2009 looks like more of the same. Only louder.
(Ken Draper is the editor of CityWatch. He can be reached at
editor@CityWatchLA.com
---------------------------------------------------------------
Even though R Neighborhoods Are 1 was not mentioned in the article, I feel that organization fits in well with the issues posed by Mr. Draper.
R Neighborhoods Are 1, along with another local group is part of the La Brea Coalition lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles.
Ms. Soledad Garcia is a member of the Governing Board of our own Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council.
Besides the Home Depot fiascos, R Neighborhoods Are 1 has been very concerned with the Los Lomas project that recently found failure in the appeals area and not that massive project has been relegated to the history files.
R Neighborhoods Are 1 has followed the redevelopment project proposed for the downtown area of the city of Baldwin Park and the group communicated with C.A.R.A., the grass roots orgqanization built to fight against that redevelopment project in Baldwin Park.
A very familiar name was involved in the project before it was abandoned.
That same familiar name continues to surface in dealings with the city of Santa Ana and the City Place project and a plan to build a high rise condominium tower in that city.
Some time ago I opined that R Neighborhoods Are 1 was one of the founding groups within the city of L.A. to begin an overall overhaul of the way planning is done and how developements are dealt with throughout the city.
I feel reassured that the group, along with so many others that have been formed and keep everyone informed, has helped to create a climate where government officials and bureaucrats are required to take a better look at projects that will impact all of us and PERHAPS, L.A. City Hall is finally getting some message through the thick walls built by lobbyists.
2009 will bring more issues to light, more challenges for R Neighborhoods Are 1, more input from OUR community, and more requirements to be more informed now that the developer of Ponte Vista at San Pedro has changed, the Planning Department has established guidelines, and Councilwoman Hahn seems to be supportive of those guidelines.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Captain Has Left the Bridge While the Ship Sinks
"Ponte Vista". In Italian and Portuguese it means 'bridge view', which also means the bridge of a ship. It also can mean 'crane view', scaffolding view, and its main translation as a view of a bridge over something.
Now it seems we can witness the bridge of the ship carrying Bob and all of his supporters sinking quickly into the blue Pacific. However, as the ship continued to sink, Bob was hauled off the bridge, leaving only supporters stranded.
If we can imagine Bob and his supporters trying to hold on to scaffolding that is falling faster than the economy, that is also appropriate, it seems.
If we view Bob and his supporters dangling from a crane that is lowering them to the bottom of the shaft of credibility, that too, is also something we can view in our mind's eye.
It took the real threat that Credit Suisse would lose it precious funds over what is truly best for OUR community to haul Bob out of here. But whatever it took, I am glad it finally happened.
It is also becoming apparent that Bob was not willing to listen to his financial backers during the last few weeks and months. The dramatic step of completely removing Bob from the development team seems to be telling all that Credit Suisse was no longer interested in listening to what Bob was continuing to attempt to do.
Perhaps Bob had told Credit Suisse that he was still wanting to go to the Planning Commission with the application and other documents already proven to be items that would never find approval?
Perhaps Bob's ego continued to get the best of him while folks with more vision and intelligence were trying to get Bob off his 'high horse' and really consider compromising using more reasonable counts for units at the project.
We have all seen evidence that Bob was not that willing to listen to genuine efforts to get him to come to the table to create something responsible at Ponte Vista.
We have all continued to witness some blind support for Bob's continuing plans, without true regard for OUR community.
Now that Bob is gone, he has left behind a number of individuals and groups that supported him and whatever plans he wanted. I wonder if they will continue to defend their positions like at least one supporter seemingly continues to do?
Defending a team member who got himself thrown off the team is pretty tough, I bet.
Defending plans by that team member that have been judged as being bad by others AND other members of the same team, must be worse.
I guess during that first meeting between Bob and Councilwoman Janice Hahn when she told Bob that 2,300-units was too many units that she could support, should have been a sign to at least some of his supporters that they were following something they should have thought more about.
I feel there will continue to be some of Bob's supporters whose egos will not allow them to have contrition over their support for plans that were so bad, the team had to be taken over by more reasonable folks.
Yes, I still want some senior housing at the Ponte Vista site. It is one of the best ways to place population stability on that land and keep folks from being so transient. It also can benefit some seniors in OUR community that really want that type of housing there and can afford to move there. It would also be nice if some of the senior units were for lower income residents, but I bet others who want senior housing at Ponte Vista do not wish to have lower income residents living near them.
We have known for some time that Bob would eventually leave. Either he was going to take his entitlements and leave the area without actually building anything, or he would find another way to get away from San Pedro.
I have to admit, that I didn't see his departure at the hands of his development team as the way he would leave. I guess it shows more naivety about developers and their financial backers on my part.
For those folks in OUR community that backed Bob no matter what, they also must be a little less intelligent about matters like these, too.
So, let's review.
Bob pulled out of his 125 acre redevelopment of the downtown area of Baldwin Park.
Bob placed 114 condos at his City Place project in Santa Ana up for a marketing auction and they all did not sell out.
Bob's marketing firm dealing with City Place has dramatically reduced the prices on the units still sitting unsold at that site.
Bob's development team for the 31 or 32-story condominium tower adjacent to his current City Place project has requested yet another delay in having the Planning Commission of the city of Santa Ana deal with the project.
Bob's house still may be for sale inside Beverly Park North.
And to think about all those members of OUR community who were willing to follow Bob along his paths, no matter what.
Sometimes, it makes one feel a little happy they followed the correct direction concerning a project.
_____________________________________________
If you think or feel that all is now fine and everything is just peachy, WRONGO BUCKO!
In fact, now that we do not know where this will all be going, WE now have to take the reins and attempt to control what could be built on the site.
We need to create comments, write letters to the editors, call government leaders and officials, and continue to belong to groups that have great interests in what could be built on the site.
The guidelines set forth by the Planning Department for what they feel should be built on the site are still of more than great concern to many of us.
Ms. Hahn's apparent support for those guidelines is troubling to many of us and we need to impart to Ms. Hahn that she should not support any guidelines without proper and critical consideration.
We need to use our own minds to create project proposals that can go out to the widest readership that can help insure that whatever is built on the site, is truly the best for OUR community.
We cannot just let 1,200 be a number that receives credible consideration by anyone. It is too arbitrary and is could be a total number of units that is very wrong for northwest San Pedro and the rest of OUR community.
Do we support or do we not support having low-income housing at Ponte Vista. As someone from left of center, I have to suggest that some of that type of housing may be necessary to create a neighborhood that reflects all of us and not just some of us.
What types and numbers of types of dwelling units do we think can be built successfully on the site.
Is R1 more of a wish than a reality?
What mitigation must be provided, no matter what is built on the site?
It should and must be up to members of OUR community who dictate what can be built on the site.
We have witnessed what a developer can do with plans and the failures that have occurred have meant that more years will go by before the site is redeveloped.
Now that Measure Q has become law and L.A.U.S.D. MAY reconsider SRHS 14, how might that impact the site and OUR community?
Nothing is over and nothing will be easy as we move forward. For many of us, the work will continue and probably grow even more as we move along.
WE must control OUR community and that takes work, discipline, interest, and above all, the love we have for OUR community and our willingness to protect it.
Now it seems we can witness the bridge of the ship carrying Bob and all of his supporters sinking quickly into the blue Pacific. However, as the ship continued to sink, Bob was hauled off the bridge, leaving only supporters stranded.
If we can imagine Bob and his supporters trying to hold on to scaffolding that is falling faster than the economy, that is also appropriate, it seems.
If we view Bob and his supporters dangling from a crane that is lowering them to the bottom of the shaft of credibility, that too, is also something we can view in our mind's eye.
It took the real threat that Credit Suisse would lose it precious funds over what is truly best for OUR community to haul Bob out of here. But whatever it took, I am glad it finally happened.
It is also becoming apparent that Bob was not willing to listen to his financial backers during the last few weeks and months. The dramatic step of completely removing Bob from the development team seems to be telling all that Credit Suisse was no longer interested in listening to what Bob was continuing to attempt to do.
Perhaps Bob had told Credit Suisse that he was still wanting to go to the Planning Commission with the application and other documents already proven to be items that would never find approval?
Perhaps Bob's ego continued to get the best of him while folks with more vision and intelligence were trying to get Bob off his 'high horse' and really consider compromising using more reasonable counts for units at the project.
We have all seen evidence that Bob was not that willing to listen to genuine efforts to get him to come to the table to create something responsible at Ponte Vista.
We have all continued to witness some blind support for Bob's continuing plans, without true regard for OUR community.
Now that Bob is gone, he has left behind a number of individuals and groups that supported him and whatever plans he wanted. I wonder if they will continue to defend their positions like at least one supporter seemingly continues to do?
Defending a team member who got himself thrown off the team is pretty tough, I bet.
Defending plans by that team member that have been judged as being bad by others AND other members of the same team, must be worse.
I guess during that first meeting between Bob and Councilwoman Janice Hahn when she told Bob that 2,300-units was too many units that she could support, should have been a sign to at least some of his supporters that they were following something they should have thought more about.
I feel there will continue to be some of Bob's supporters whose egos will not allow them to have contrition over their support for plans that were so bad, the team had to be taken over by more reasonable folks.
Yes, I still want some senior housing at the Ponte Vista site. It is one of the best ways to place population stability on that land and keep folks from being so transient. It also can benefit some seniors in OUR community that really want that type of housing there and can afford to move there. It would also be nice if some of the senior units were for lower income residents, but I bet others who want senior housing at Ponte Vista do not wish to have lower income residents living near them.
We have known for some time that Bob would eventually leave. Either he was going to take his entitlements and leave the area without actually building anything, or he would find another way to get away from San Pedro.
I have to admit, that I didn't see his departure at the hands of his development team as the way he would leave. I guess it shows more naivety about developers and their financial backers on my part.
For those folks in OUR community that backed Bob no matter what, they also must be a little less intelligent about matters like these, too.
So, let's review.
Bob pulled out of his 125 acre redevelopment of the downtown area of Baldwin Park.
Bob placed 114 condos at his City Place project in Santa Ana up for a marketing auction and they all did not sell out.
Bob's marketing firm dealing with City Place has dramatically reduced the prices on the units still sitting unsold at that site.
Bob's development team for the 31 or 32-story condominium tower adjacent to his current City Place project has requested yet another delay in having the Planning Commission of the city of Santa Ana deal with the project.
Bob's house still may be for sale inside Beverly Park North.
And to think about all those members of OUR community who were willing to follow Bob along his paths, no matter what.
Sometimes, it makes one feel a little happy they followed the correct direction concerning a project.
_____________________________________________
If you think or feel that all is now fine and everything is just peachy, WRONGO BUCKO!
In fact, now that we do not know where this will all be going, WE now have to take the reins and attempt to control what could be built on the site.
We need to create comments, write letters to the editors, call government leaders and officials, and continue to belong to groups that have great interests in what could be built on the site.
The guidelines set forth by the Planning Department for what they feel should be built on the site are still of more than great concern to many of us.
Ms. Hahn's apparent support for those guidelines is troubling to many of us and we need to impart to Ms. Hahn that she should not support any guidelines without proper and critical consideration.
We need to use our own minds to create project proposals that can go out to the widest readership that can help insure that whatever is built on the site, is truly the best for OUR community.
We cannot just let 1,200 be a number that receives credible consideration by anyone. It is too arbitrary and is could be a total number of units that is very wrong for northwest San Pedro and the rest of OUR community.
Do we support or do we not support having low-income housing at Ponte Vista. As someone from left of center, I have to suggest that some of that type of housing may be necessary to create a neighborhood that reflects all of us and not just some of us.
What types and numbers of types of dwelling units do we think can be built successfully on the site.
Is R1 more of a wish than a reality?
What mitigation must be provided, no matter what is built on the site?
It should and must be up to members of OUR community who dictate what can be built on the site.
We have witnessed what a developer can do with plans and the failures that have occurred have meant that more years will go by before the site is redeveloped.
Now that Measure Q has become law and L.A.U.S.D. MAY reconsider SRHS 14, how might that impact the site and OUR community?
Nothing is over and nothing will be easy as we move forward. For many of us, the work will continue and probably grow even more as we move along.
WE must control OUR community and that takes work, discipline, interest, and above all, the love we have for OUR community and our willingness to protect it.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Here is an article that appeared in the Sunday edition of The Daily Breeze.
Threesixty project will remain vacant
By Sandy Mazza, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/06/2008 10:23:49 PM PST
More than a year after construction was halted on a high-end housing development on Hawthorne's west side, a black fence still surrounds the site and a sign informs visitors that the homes aren't for sale.
Threesixty at South Bay opened last year near Aviation and El Segundo boulevards with expectations that the development would attract young professionals and bring a nice chunk of property taxes to a city partially run down by thousands of cheap apartments.
But the houses didn't sell.
"There were essentially no sales when we had our grand opening in October of 2007," states a written proposal from the developer, William Lyon Homes. "The opening of the project last year was simply bad timing and market conditions continue to decline."
Representatives from William Lyon Homes did not return calls for comment.
Last week, the developer withdrew a plan it had submitted to the city's Planning Commission to lease the apartments in the face of opposition from homeowners groups and City Council members.
Dennis Wild, president of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said he and his neighbors take pride in having a community of single-family homes.
"When people ask me where I'm from, I always say Hawthorne - even though a lot of people say Holly Glen," Wild said. "I've always said one of the reasons why it's a nice area is because we don't have any apartments."
Mary Franklin, a longtime resident and member of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said leasing the units could cause the neighborhood to deteriorate dramatically.
"Recently, we have seen people selling homes in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach to live in Hawthorne," Franklin wrote in an e-mail. "Rentals will destroy all the past successes accomplished and will only spread the already high rates of domestic violence and crime."
Threesixty at South Bay's infrastructure and common areas - two pools, a spa, a wine room, a gym and meeting rooms - have been built, but only seven of about 80 residential buildings have been constructed.
William Lyon Homes proposed building nearly 200 of the least expensive one- and two-bedroom units, called The Flats, in the center of the property and leasing them for $2,200 to $3,200 per month. A timeline for building the remaining single-family homes and multiunit buildings was not set.
The Flats housing units were advertised last year as being cheaper than the other model units, while still offering private garages, access to the pools, a gym and other amenities, as well as design features such as balconies, wood floors, granite countertops and walk-in closets.
Before they were taken off the market, The Flats model homes were listed from $500,000 to $700,000. The most expensive single-family home model was listed as nearly $1 million.
Last week, residents complained to the City Council that the leasing proposal was too vague. The developer said leasing would only be a temporary option, but did not give a timeline. Nor did the proposal say how long it would take to build the first phase of the project, or when the entire 625-unit development would be finished.
Del Aire Neighborhood Association President John Koppelman said he could support a plan to lease the homes if restrictions are imposed.
"We don't want it to stay as a ghost town forever," Koppelman said. "We recognize the way the economy and housing market is. They say they want to lease it on a temporary basis, but they don't define what temporary is."
William Lyon Homes representatives told homeowners groups that they will answer their concerns before making another proposal to lease the homes.
City Councilman Gary Parsons said the developer probably has a more difficult time selling the idea of leased units to Hawthorne residents because the city already has so many rentals. Many residents fear having a "Moneta Gardens West," he said.
Moneta Gardens is a low-income neighborhood on the east side of Hawthorne packed with high-density apartment buildings and rife with crime.
"Moneta Gardens has a transient population that doesn't vote, doesn't get involved in improving the community. We have too high a renter population already," said Parsons, who is against the developer's plan. "We'd like to balance that with more homeowners that care about the community getting better."
But Parsons acknowledged that there is a danger the developer will neglect the property and wait for the market to improve if the leasing proposal is not approved. That could mean living with a nearly 40-acre, unfinished, dusty lot for years.
"The developer has to maintain the property in good condition and keep the weeds down and provide security so we don't have vandalism," Parsons said.
El Segundo swapped the land where the development now sits in 2006 in a plan to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base from relocating to Colorado. The base was in danger of being closed because its facilities were deteriorated and seismically unsound. Both cities wanted to keep the base in the South Bay because about 50,000 jobs depend on it. The base was relocated across the street in a state-of-the-art facility, and its former lot was used for two housing developments - Threesixty and Fusion.
Councilman Danny Juarez said he wants the developer to turn the homes into housing for Air Force personnel. But that plan would not be profitable for William Lyon Homes, he said.
"I'm still convinced in my heart that the best way to deal with this is to work with the government, and maybe not put in the granite countertops. Make it a good place to live for the military," Juarez said.
On the northeast side of town near Van Ness Avenue and 120th Street, the Central Park 176-unit housing development also is stalled. Construction has begun, and homes were expected to hit the market around this time for $500,000 to $600,00, but none has been built.
A representative from Lee Homes, the Central Park developer, did not return a call for comment.
It is not clear when the housing and credit markets will return to a level that will satisfy developers, who bought when prices were high, to finish construction or sell, Koppelman said.
"I believe they should have some definition of what constitutes a better market for selling," Koppelman said. "They say they want to lease this until the market gets back. What does the market getting better mean? Is there a magic number?"
sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The article brought a fear the folks like me have if up to 1,196 units of non-age restricted condominiums are constructed at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
If any number of units at the Ponte Vista site become rentals, leases, or have rented out rooms, that would create a potentially extremely bad situation of just about everyone.
If folks are going to spend One Million Dollars or more on a multi-bedroom condominium unit at Ponte Vista and then be in an area where units are rented out and the population becomes more transitory, I don't know if any of those folks who really want a large luxurious condo in northwest San Pedro would pay to live in a project similar to what could be at Ponte Vista.
During the time the U.S. Navy had members and their families living at the site, Dodson Junior High School, as it was known at that time, was the most transitory school in the entire LAUSD system. More students moved into and out of its area over a year's time that at any other school in the District.
Having rental units and leased units available at Ponte Vista would mean that Dodson Middle School would see a much larger increase in students enrolling and then moving away than they have seen since the Navy housing was abandoned.
The number and nature of traffic patterns also changes where there are less stable neighborhoods, in terms of folks moving in and out of the area.
Even if there were as few as 775 condominium units built at the Ponte Vista site that have no age restricted units and no low income units because a density bonus was not applied, it still means too many folks would be moving in or out of the site each year.
One of the insurances that must be provided for whatever is built on the 61.53 acre site is to find ways to discourage having rental units within the project's site.
One way of doing that is to include some senior housing, I believe. First, I do still believe there are some seniors in this area who would like to live in senior housing at Ponte Vista.
I think a senior housing section would also provide better population diversity and stability.
I think the population density of the entire site could be better impacted by having some senior units that would naturally have fewer people living in individual units rather than a project completely devoid of any restricted-age housing.
I watched the Hawthorne site transform for being the L.A. Air Force Station/Base, to starting to have residential structures built on the site. I picked up my work van very close to the site.
Now when folks drive by the area, it looks starkly vacant and there are just several buildings a ways away from El Segundo Blvd that have cropped up on the site.
If there is such a demand for housing in the greater L.A. area as Mayor V. and too many others repeatedly state, then (not withstanding the current market and economic conditions) are more housing units being provided?
Maybe the 'need' simply has vanished?
Actually, there still may be a real need for more low-income housing in the greater L.A. area, but the developer/speculators for the Threesixty and the Ponte Vista at San Pedro projects never indicated they were willing to accept that need and provide housing in their speculative projects that would feel even some of that need.
It was also interesting to note in the article that the Developer of Threesixty was also wanting to build some single-family houses on the mixed-type project.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Now let's think about a related issue.
Just suppose the Developer of Threesixty worked much more closely with the U.S. Air Force to start work back up on building units at that site to provide housing for Air Force personnel and their families so much closer to the Air Force Base than in San Pedro?
Construction workers would be provided with jobs. There would be a lessening of traffic between El Segundo and San Pedro.
The Air Force would be able to get rid of its housing properties along 25th Street and more housing to members of the public would become available, in San Pedro.
Air pollution would be helped because fewer cars and bus trips between San Pedro and El Segundo would be necessary.
Time would be saved by many people.
I'm still looking for a down side regarding this idea.
Threesixty project will remain vacant
By Sandy Mazza, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/06/2008 10:23:49 PM PST
More than a year after construction was halted on a high-end housing development on Hawthorne's west side, a black fence still surrounds the site and a sign informs visitors that the homes aren't for sale.
Threesixty at South Bay opened last year near Aviation and El Segundo boulevards with expectations that the development would attract young professionals and bring a nice chunk of property taxes to a city partially run down by thousands of cheap apartments.
But the houses didn't sell.
"There were essentially no sales when we had our grand opening in October of 2007," states a written proposal from the developer, William Lyon Homes. "The opening of the project last year was simply bad timing and market conditions continue to decline."
Representatives from William Lyon Homes did not return calls for comment.
Last week, the developer withdrew a plan it had submitted to the city's Planning Commission to lease the apartments in the face of opposition from homeowners groups and City Council members.
Dennis Wild, president of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said he and his neighbors take pride in having a community of single-family homes.
"When people ask me where I'm from, I always say Hawthorne - even though a lot of people say Holly Glen," Wild said. "I've always said one of the reasons why it's a nice area is because we don't have any apartments."
Mary Franklin, a longtime resident and member of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said leasing the units could cause the neighborhood to deteriorate dramatically.
"Recently, we have seen people selling homes in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach to live in Hawthorne," Franklin wrote in an e-mail. "Rentals will destroy all the past successes accomplished and will only spread the already high rates of domestic violence and crime."
Threesixty at South Bay's infrastructure and common areas - two pools, a spa, a wine room, a gym and meeting rooms - have been built, but only seven of about 80 residential buildings have been constructed.
William Lyon Homes proposed building nearly 200 of the least expensive one- and two-bedroom units, called The Flats, in the center of the property and leasing them for $2,200 to $3,200 per month. A timeline for building the remaining single-family homes and multiunit buildings was not set.
The Flats housing units were advertised last year as being cheaper than the other model units, while still offering private garages, access to the pools, a gym and other amenities, as well as design features such as balconies, wood floors, granite countertops and walk-in closets.
Before they were taken off the market, The Flats model homes were listed from $500,000 to $700,000. The most expensive single-family home model was listed as nearly $1 million.
Last week, residents complained to the City Council that the leasing proposal was too vague. The developer said leasing would only be a temporary option, but did not give a timeline. Nor did the proposal say how long it would take to build the first phase of the project, or when the entire 625-unit development would be finished.
Del Aire Neighborhood Association President John Koppelman said he could support a plan to lease the homes if restrictions are imposed.
"We don't want it to stay as a ghost town forever," Koppelman said. "We recognize the way the economy and housing market is. They say they want to lease it on a temporary basis, but they don't define what temporary is."
William Lyon Homes representatives told homeowners groups that they will answer their concerns before making another proposal to lease the homes.
City Councilman Gary Parsons said the developer probably has a more difficult time selling the idea of leased units to Hawthorne residents because the city already has so many rentals. Many residents fear having a "Moneta Gardens West," he said.
Moneta Gardens is a low-income neighborhood on the east side of Hawthorne packed with high-density apartment buildings and rife with crime.
"Moneta Gardens has a transient population that doesn't vote, doesn't get involved in improving the community. We have too high a renter population already," said Parsons, who is against the developer's plan. "We'd like to balance that with more homeowners that care about the community getting better."
But Parsons acknowledged that there is a danger the developer will neglect the property and wait for the market to improve if the leasing proposal is not approved. That could mean living with a nearly 40-acre, unfinished, dusty lot for years.
"The developer has to maintain the property in good condition and keep the weeds down and provide security so we don't have vandalism," Parsons said.
El Segundo swapped the land where the development now sits in 2006 in a plan to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base from relocating to Colorado. The base was in danger of being closed because its facilities were deteriorated and seismically unsound. Both cities wanted to keep the base in the South Bay because about 50,000 jobs depend on it. The base was relocated across the street in a state-of-the-art facility, and its former lot was used for two housing developments - Threesixty and Fusion.
Councilman Danny Juarez said he wants the developer to turn the homes into housing for Air Force personnel. But that plan would not be profitable for William Lyon Homes, he said.
"I'm still convinced in my heart that the best way to deal with this is to work with the government, and maybe not put in the granite countertops. Make it a good place to live for the military," Juarez said.
On the northeast side of town near Van Ness Avenue and 120th Street, the Central Park 176-unit housing development also is stalled. Construction has begun, and homes were expected to hit the market around this time for $500,000 to $600,00, but none has been built.
A representative from Lee Homes, the Central Park developer, did not return a call for comment.
It is not clear when the housing and credit markets will return to a level that will satisfy developers, who bought when prices were high, to finish construction or sell, Koppelman said.
"I believe they should have some definition of what constitutes a better market for selling," Koppelman said. "They say they want to lease this until the market gets back. What does the market getting better mean? Is there a magic number?"
sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The article brought a fear the folks like me have if up to 1,196 units of non-age restricted condominiums are constructed at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
If any number of units at the Ponte Vista site become rentals, leases, or have rented out rooms, that would create a potentially extremely bad situation of just about everyone.
If folks are going to spend One Million Dollars or more on a multi-bedroom condominium unit at Ponte Vista and then be in an area where units are rented out and the population becomes more transitory, I don't know if any of those folks who really want a large luxurious condo in northwest San Pedro would pay to live in a project similar to what could be at Ponte Vista.
During the time the U.S. Navy had members and their families living at the site, Dodson Junior High School, as it was known at that time, was the most transitory school in the entire LAUSD system. More students moved into and out of its area over a year's time that at any other school in the District.
Having rental units and leased units available at Ponte Vista would mean that Dodson Middle School would see a much larger increase in students enrolling and then moving away than they have seen since the Navy housing was abandoned.
The number and nature of traffic patterns also changes where there are less stable neighborhoods, in terms of folks moving in and out of the area.
Even if there were as few as 775 condominium units built at the Ponte Vista site that have no age restricted units and no low income units because a density bonus was not applied, it still means too many folks would be moving in or out of the site each year.
One of the insurances that must be provided for whatever is built on the 61.53 acre site is to find ways to discourage having rental units within the project's site.
One way of doing that is to include some senior housing, I believe. First, I do still believe there are some seniors in this area who would like to live in senior housing at Ponte Vista.
I think a senior housing section would also provide better population diversity and stability.
I think the population density of the entire site could be better impacted by having some senior units that would naturally have fewer people living in individual units rather than a project completely devoid of any restricted-age housing.
I watched the Hawthorne site transform for being the L.A. Air Force Station/Base, to starting to have residential structures built on the site. I picked up my work van very close to the site.
Now when folks drive by the area, it looks starkly vacant and there are just several buildings a ways away from El Segundo Blvd that have cropped up on the site.
If there is such a demand for housing in the greater L.A. area as Mayor V. and too many others repeatedly state, then (not withstanding the current market and economic conditions) are more housing units being provided?
Maybe the 'need' simply has vanished?
Actually, there still may be a real need for more low-income housing in the greater L.A. area, but the developer/speculators for the Threesixty and the Ponte Vista at San Pedro projects never indicated they were willing to accept that need and provide housing in their speculative projects that would feel even some of that need.
It was also interesting to note in the article that the Developer of Threesixty was also wanting to build some single-family houses on the mixed-type project.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Now let's think about a related issue.
Just suppose the Developer of Threesixty worked much more closely with the U.S. Air Force to start work back up on building units at that site to provide housing for Air Force personnel and their families so much closer to the Air Force Base than in San Pedro?
Construction workers would be provided with jobs. There would be a lessening of traffic between El Segundo and San Pedro.
The Air Force would be able to get rid of its housing properties along 25th Street and more housing to members of the public would become available, in San Pedro.
Air pollution would be helped because fewer cars and bus trips between San Pedro and El Segundo would be necessary.
Time would be saved by many people.
I'm still looking for a down side regarding this idea.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
A Post From Ron Kaye's Blog
Here is a post from Ron Kaye's Blog: http://ronkayela.com/
City Planners Say "No" to Home Depot -- Full environmental study required
By Ron Kaye
Score another victory for community activists: The City Planning Department has rejected Home Depot's request for an exemption from conducting a full environmental assessment about the impact of converting a closed K-Mart store in Sunland-Tujunga into another giant home improvement center.
Here's the ruling issued today homedepoteir.pdf What city planners decided is that an exemption from the environmental study process is not appropriate because quite simply the store conversion is not "negligible'' as Home Depot -- a decision that will require a lengthy study and public debate.
The company has spent millions of dollars and used all its clout and gotten a lot of help from some city officials to ram this down the community's throat.
It has sued the city and the City Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program has lost its credibility trying to run roughshod over opposition.
Yet, all that's happened is that Sunland-Tujunga has become a model of what residents can achieve when they organize.
Hundreds of people have gotten involved, taken action and raised their consciousness about the issues they face throughout the Sunland-Tujunga area. They have won battles to protect the historical nature of some neighborhoods and gotten special protections against mansionization among other victories.
But none is sweeter than than the long fight to make Home Depot comply with the law.
Home Depot got a building permit with no questions being asked three years ago, with no input from the community. A long and often vicious campaign followed as the community mobilized, set up When local residents found a websute and created enough political pressure to force the City Council to call the Planning Department to review the situation.
Home Depot sued and then put it on hold while the city's mediators trying to get around opponents and the planner went about the process of analyzing the company's claims that the store conversion was just a simple remodel with new signs and security lights.
The "No Home Depot" campaign focused on traffic impacts, toxic chemicals near schools, local businesses that would be harmed and many other issues. What they really wanted was a general merchandise store and a community center that would meet their needs.
Home Depot's response was to accuse the community of being racist and opposing day laborers hanging around the store as they do at most of the company's home improvement centsrs.
City Planners Say "No" to Home Depot -- Full environmental study required
By Ron Kaye
Score another victory for community activists: The City Planning Department has rejected Home Depot's request for an exemption from conducting a full environmental assessment about the impact of converting a closed K-Mart store in Sunland-Tujunga into another giant home improvement center.
Here's the ruling issued today homedepoteir.pdf What city planners decided is that an exemption from the environmental study process is not appropriate because quite simply the store conversion is not "negligible'' as Home Depot -- a decision that will require a lengthy study and public debate.
The company has spent millions of dollars and used all its clout and gotten a lot of help from some city officials to ram this down the community's throat.
It has sued the city and the City Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program has lost its credibility trying to run roughshod over opposition.
Yet, all that's happened is that Sunland-Tujunga has become a model of what residents can achieve when they organize.
Hundreds of people have gotten involved, taken action and raised their consciousness about the issues they face throughout the Sunland-Tujunga area. They have won battles to protect the historical nature of some neighborhoods and gotten special protections against mansionization among other victories.
But none is sweeter than than the long fight to make Home Depot comply with the law.
Home Depot got a building permit with no questions being asked three years ago, with no input from the community. A long and often vicious campaign followed as the community mobilized, set up When local residents found a websute and created enough political pressure to force the City Council to call the Planning Department to review the situation.
Home Depot sued and then put it on hold while the city's mediators trying to get around opponents and the planner went about the process of analyzing the company's claims that the store conversion was just a simple remodel with new signs and security lights.
The "No Home Depot" campaign focused on traffic impacts, toxic chemicals near schools, local businesses that would be harmed and many other issues. What they really wanted was a general merchandise store and a community center that would meet their needs.
Home Depot's response was to accuse the community of being racist and opposing day laborers hanging around the store as they do at most of the company's home improvement centsrs.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Guidelines, The Planning Department, and Ms. Hahn
The Guidelines.
When the Planning Department issued its Report, with recommendations concerning the applicant's plans and guidelines that the Planning Department feels could provide for construction at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it brought forth some things that were very good and some things that were very bad.
This post will not be concerned with the recommendations. You can find those recommendations in other posts and on other sites.
The Guidelines set forth in the Report deal with what the Planning Department seems to feel would be acceptable levels of construction and types of construction on the 61.53 acre site.
The Guidelines suggest that up to 886-condominium units can be built on the site, without a density bonus being applied. With a density bonus, the number of units suggested move to up to 1,196 units could be built.
The Guidelines also include fifteen points suggesting amenities and other things for the site.
Significant questions have been raised about the Guidelines, whether they should have been included in the Report, how they were created, where did the data for those guidelines really come from, and what are the ramifications going to be, now that they have been published?
Already we have seen and heard from individuals who have offered their support for the Guidelines without much vetting of those Guidelines in public forums and with local groups.
Did members of the Planning Department work alongside local government officials and community groups before publishing the Guidelines?
Did the Planning Department offer to more prominent members of OUR community the opportunity to learn about the Guidelines and provide comments to the Planning Department before the Guidelines became public?
Is there a process with members of OUR community can actively challenge the Guidelines and attempt to have those Guidelines rescinded?
Can the Guidelines be found legitimate to the majority of the members of OUR community?
If not, then what?
During the Area Planning Commission hearing, I listened intently to comments made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
I believe I heard he state her support for the Guidelines established by the Planning Department in its Report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Do members of OUR community support Ms. Hahn's advocacy of the Guidelines?
Does that really matter?
Can OUR community work together, using the Guidelines now apparently supported by Ms. Hahn to create a Ponte Vista site that is the best for OUR community?
Can and should members of OUR community work with other to make changes to those guidelines and ask for Councilwoman Hahn's support in that endeavor?
Personally I am not happy at all with the prospect of having 1,196 non-age restricted condos along Western Avenue. That number is still too many for that type of housing on that particular site. (Density bonus included)
The prospect that too many of those units would become rentals, leases, or have rooms rented out, is something I will continue to fight against.
886 units of non-age restricted condos, without the density, bonus would probably create a condo development that would not look very good in the area and would probably be built to lower standards to maximize profits for the builders and developer.
I do not think members of OUR community want to see a type of condo project that looks too similar to Miraleste Canyon Estates. That site was originally all apartments but today it is not very much to look at.
It was also with sadness that I heard the President of the Harbor Area Planning Commission claim no support for keeping the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site with its current zoning.
I was dismayed that this server to the public would not reveal his opinion as to why he doesn't want R1 at the site. I think even though he is a volunteer, his position as a public representative means he should provide to that public, his reasoning for support or opposition. This is more true when it also is the fact that Mr. Ponce's recommendation is the only one of the HAPC members' that the City Planning Commission may hear.
I hold no hope that Ms. Hahn will continue to support keeping the current zoning at the site if an application comes forward that looks like the Guidelines set by the Planning Department.
I have always recognized, even when I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee, that Ms. Hahn could be persuades to support zoning other than R1 if a development came along that she could put her support behind.
Keeping the site with its current zoning will always be an uphill struggle and one that not that many folks in OUR community seem to truly support.
In March, 2007, when the petitions were brought to Ms. Hahn, I finally believed that the current zoning would remain on the site as long as Bob continued with his ridiculous plans.
Those plans are now gone and we can only wait to see if he or someone else comes up with plans that fit in with the Guidelines. If that does happen and Ms. Hahn continues her support for those Guidelines, then I think R1 will become history, too.
So maybe we need to work on getting the Guidelines changed and changing the minds of Ms. Hahn and others.
When the Planning Department issued its Report, with recommendations concerning the applicant's plans and guidelines that the Planning Department feels could provide for construction at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it brought forth some things that were very good and some things that were very bad.
This post will not be concerned with the recommendations. You can find those recommendations in other posts and on other sites.
The Guidelines set forth in the Report deal with what the Planning Department seems to feel would be acceptable levels of construction and types of construction on the 61.53 acre site.
The Guidelines suggest that up to 886-condominium units can be built on the site, without a density bonus being applied. With a density bonus, the number of units suggested move to up to 1,196 units could be built.
The Guidelines also include fifteen points suggesting amenities and other things for the site.
Significant questions have been raised about the Guidelines, whether they should have been included in the Report, how they were created, where did the data for those guidelines really come from, and what are the ramifications going to be, now that they have been published?
Already we have seen and heard from individuals who have offered their support for the Guidelines without much vetting of those Guidelines in public forums and with local groups.
Did members of the Planning Department work alongside local government officials and community groups before publishing the Guidelines?
Did the Planning Department offer to more prominent members of OUR community the opportunity to learn about the Guidelines and provide comments to the Planning Department before the Guidelines became public?
Is there a process with members of OUR community can actively challenge the Guidelines and attempt to have those Guidelines rescinded?
Can the Guidelines be found legitimate to the majority of the members of OUR community?
If not, then what?
During the Area Planning Commission hearing, I listened intently to comments made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
I believe I heard he state her support for the Guidelines established by the Planning Department in its Report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Do members of OUR community support Ms. Hahn's advocacy of the Guidelines?
Does that really matter?
Can OUR community work together, using the Guidelines now apparently supported by Ms. Hahn to create a Ponte Vista site that is the best for OUR community?
Can and should members of OUR community work with other to make changes to those guidelines and ask for Councilwoman Hahn's support in that endeavor?
Personally I am not happy at all with the prospect of having 1,196 non-age restricted condos along Western Avenue. That number is still too many for that type of housing on that particular site. (Density bonus included)
The prospect that too many of those units would become rentals, leases, or have rooms rented out, is something I will continue to fight against.
886 units of non-age restricted condos, without the density, bonus would probably create a condo development that would not look very good in the area and would probably be built to lower standards to maximize profits for the builders and developer.
I do not think members of OUR community want to see a type of condo project that looks too similar to Miraleste Canyon Estates. That site was originally all apartments but today it is not very much to look at.
It was also with sadness that I heard the President of the Harbor Area Planning Commission claim no support for keeping the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site with its current zoning.
I was dismayed that this server to the public would not reveal his opinion as to why he doesn't want R1 at the site. I think even though he is a volunteer, his position as a public representative means he should provide to that public, his reasoning for support or opposition. This is more true when it also is the fact that Mr. Ponce's recommendation is the only one of the HAPC members' that the City Planning Commission may hear.
I hold no hope that Ms. Hahn will continue to support keeping the current zoning at the site if an application comes forward that looks like the Guidelines set by the Planning Department.
I have always recognized, even when I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee, that Ms. Hahn could be persuades to support zoning other than R1 if a development came along that she could put her support behind.
Keeping the site with its current zoning will always be an uphill struggle and one that not that many folks in OUR community seem to truly support.
In March, 2007, when the petitions were brought to Ms. Hahn, I finally believed that the current zoning would remain on the site as long as Bob continued with his ridiculous plans.
Those plans are now gone and we can only wait to see if he or someone else comes up with plans that fit in with the Guidelines. If that does happen and Ms. Hahn continues her support for those Guidelines, then I think R1 will become history, too.
So maybe we need to work on getting the Guidelines changed and changing the minds of Ms. Hahn and others.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Continuation of the Ponte Vista Matter Has Been Confirmed!
The applicant for Ponte Vista at San Pedro has requested a 45-day continuance on holding the City Planning Commission meeting concerning the project.
I can now confirm as of 3:44 PM on Monday December 1, 2008, the Los Angeles City Planning Department has agreed to the continuance.
According to a senior spokesperson for the development, the applicant had asked for the continuance in order to study more "options" concerning the project.
The December 2, Harbor Area Planning Commission is still scheduled and it can go on even without a quorum because there will be nothing decided during that meeting and comments from the public will be taken.
The December 2 meeting is important to those who oppose Bob's plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, but I have been given to believe that the Outreach Team is not planning on having a large semi-organized group of supporters attending that meeting.
Stay 'tuned' to this blog for further information to be posted as I learn it.I will try to update this blog as soon as I learn more because as Katy Morgan said so well, "It's my job."
No new date for the City Planning Commission to hear from the applicant has been set.
I can now confirm as of 3:44 PM on Monday December 1, 2008, the Los Angeles City Planning Department has agreed to the continuance.
According to a senior spokesperson for the development, the applicant had asked for the continuance in order to study more "options" concerning the project.
The December 2, Harbor Area Planning Commission is still scheduled and it can go on even without a quorum because there will be nothing decided during that meeting and comments from the public will be taken.
The December 2 meeting is important to those who oppose Bob's plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, but I have been given to believe that the Outreach Team is not planning on having a large semi-organized group of supporters attending that meeting.
Stay 'tuned' to this blog for further information to be posted as I learn it.I will try to update this blog as soon as I learn more because as Katy Morgan said so well, "It's my job."
No new date for the City Planning Commission to hear from the applicant has been set.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
