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a process with members of OUR community can actively challenge the Guidelines and attempt to have those Guidelines rescinded?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.