There are things you can do, RIGHT NOW to help in the fight to keep condominiums away from the site of the former McCowan's Market.
You can call Councilwoman Janice Hahn's offices. You can Email the Councilwoman. You can send a handwritten note, long letter, or just a card to the Councilwoman stating your true feelings about whether you believe a developer can come into a neighborhood of single-family homes and build whatever he wants.
Here, I'm going to make it easier for you to Call, Email, And write to Ms. Hahn.
Councilwoman, 15th District
Janice Hahn
200 North Spring Street,Room 435
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Office Phone: 213-473-7015
District Offices:
San Pedro Field Office
638 S. Beacon Street
Suite 552San Pedro, CA 90731
310-732-4515
Fax: 310-732-4500
So what is taking you so long to go and grab the phone?
According to one of Ms. Hahn's senior aides, over 200 phone calls, Emails, Faxes, and letters have been received in a very short period of time.
There are no rules as to how many times you can call, and there is no rule that says you can't do all the different types of communicating to the Councilwoman's office.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn has made it perfectly to the development's owner that she does NOT like the idea of condominiums or apartments built in a neighborhood of almost all single-family residents.
We need to help Ms. Hahn demonstrate to other officials and departments within the City of Los Angeles that we will not tolerate the construction of any dwellings at or near the corner of 20Th Street and Walker Avenue, in San Pedro.
If you want to view a show where an interviewer will talk to leaders in the fight against having multi-family dwellings built on the site, you have four chances to do so.
To of the neighborhood's leaders, Charley and Nick have already taped a segment of
"Pete's Place" for airing at 6:30 PM each Saturday evening in February, on the CATV channel of Cox Communication. The channel may be channel 3, but please don't quote me on that.
The tiny spark that became the fiery flame of opposition seems to grow every day.
On Tuesday February 5, 2008, the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council's Land Use and Planning will meet beginning at 6:30 PM at the Bath House at Cabrillo Beach. Everyone is welcome to attend and help the committee, by their comments, develop a draft resolution that can be debated and voted on by the Board of Directors of the Neighborhood Council.
According to the Secretary of Coastal, he counted 117 people at their last Board meeting which was the first time any group was able to assemble in numbers, to oppose "Condoization" of the single-family home neighborhood. That number far surpassed attendance at any other meeting of that Neighborhood Council.
San Pedrans should take pride that when a developer comes to town to attempt to change the way residents of OUR community live, not only will the developer find opposition very quickly, but the number of the members of OUR community who are willing to speak out grows every day.
The battles are not over yet, In fact, the fight is only beginning. But it is a fight worth fighting and a battle that we cannot afford to loose.
R Neighborhoods Are 1 stands firmly behind the neighbors who are banding together to fight against having condos or apartments built where the former McCowan's Market stands, if only for a few more days.
We have learned today that there have been no permits pulled, according to a source in Councilwoman Hahn's office to do any construction work on the site of the former market.
Individuals and a growing group of neighborhood leaders and facilitators will be watching like hawks, for any application for permits to be filed and how the process is moving.
The owner/developer has been put on notice, quickly and harshly, that OUR community will fight each and every battle we need to, in order to keep "condoization" or "apartmentization" away from that spot in San Pedro.
As OUR community has put on notice, both this developer and Bob Bisno, any other developer who seek to change the quality of life the current residents now enjoy, will not be tolerated.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Rudderless Steering Committee Meeting
The Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 met for the first time this year, Wednesday evening.
Ponte Vista and the fight to keep condos or apartments from being built at the corner of 20TH and Walker were the two main subjects covered at the meeting.
The group welcomed two leaders in the fight over the McCowan's Market site and also welcomed two members of the Land Use and Planning Committee from the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council. The McCowan's Market site is within Coastal's area.
Things we learned about Ponte Vista:
Not much.
The developer apparently, has not provided information requested by the staff of the L.A. Planning Department to review so they can make an adequate determination of what they feel could be built at the Ponte Vista site.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn has scheduled a meeting with Ms. Gail Goldberg, the Director of Planning for the City of L.A., next week.
Ms. Goldberg offered comments at Monday's Traffic and Transportation Day held by the members of the L.A. City Council and the Mayor's office. her remarks can be found in a very long post at: www.pontevista.blogspot.com.
In reading Ms. Goldberg comments, I got the impression that she feels that building a densly populate development at some distance from the larger traffic and transportation hubs is not in the best interest of the residents of the greater L.A. area.
High density sprawl seems to be a newer term floating around city planners. Its almost like the ancient creosote plant. When the plant is young, growth is highest at the center of the plant. as the plant ages, rings develop at ever increasing lengths from the center. The way the age of the plant is estimated is by how far the ring is from what is believed to be the center of the plant.
L.A. has recently abandoned plans to build residential dwellings downtown in and area filled with warehouses and businesses. Planners suggested that it was more important to keep jobs closer to downtown and allow folks to use available mass transit (if there really is) to get to the jobs.
That opinion differs with Ms. Goldberg's comments about having residential units close to work locations, shopping and entertainment locations, and all easily accessable via walking short distances or using whatever available mass transit is in the area.
With Bob's statements about offering new transportation options for residents of Ponte Vista, that may help. But if those offers don't actually materialize, then the residents are stuck in a possibly very large development with few other options than to get into their vehicles and drive to major shopping malls and entertainment venues.
As I read Ms. Goldberg's comments, it seemed very clear to me that putting Bob's Senior Housing Section on the north side of the site instead of the south side, it looks like it violates what Ms. Goldberg is trying to convince developers to try. The closer the Senior Housing is to the shopping area, including restaurants, on Western Avenue, the more likely seniors will drive to those places instead of walking a short distance.
If and when I hear something that is more than a rumor, you will be able to read it here.
The McCowan's fight is going to be tough and hopefully long. Folks are trying to find ways to slow down or stop construction of condominiums or apartments at 20Th and Walker.
You may, very shortly, be asked to sign a petition and/or mail a letter to Ms. Hahn and Ms. Goldberg stating your opposition to having multi-family units built in a neighborhood where families live in single-family homes.
The matter of the redevelopment of the former market's site will also be a topic the many believe Ms. Hahn will talk to Ms. Goldberg about.
According to a staff member at the Councilwoman's office, over 200 phone calls, Emails, and letters, have been received by that office.
If you want to do something immediately, please call the Councilwoman's office and state your opposition.
So far, nobody that we know of supports having multi-family dwellings built at the site. At the meeting there were quite a few folks with recognizable names who haven't found any family members, friends, or co-workers who are on the side of the developer concerning multi-family units.
Next week will be crucial in the fight. Leaders are seeking as many calls, Emails, letters, signatures on the new petition opposing multi-family housing at that site, and they need it sooner than as soon as possible.
If you drive near the location, you will see how fast the developer is going to try and get something in the ground before anyone can stop him or slow him down.
There has been a statement that if the developer is slowed or stopped from building condominiums, the developer will build apartments which require fewer off-street parking spaces than condos required.
There has also been a statement that the developer could begin building apartments almost immediately.
But there are strong opponents who are going over Web site to learn what can be done to, at least, slow the developer down.
Learning as much as you can, or sharing your knowledge to help stop multi-family units from being built would be greatly appreciated.
Probably by next week, lawn signs will be in the works. I will proudly place one in my yard and I hope the initial batch of lawn signs will sell out in hours. It might even be a good idea to use my Email address you can find at the top of this blog to reserve you lawn sign.
It looks like an attorney will be needed in this fight. If there are attorneys who would like to defend the character of that neighborhood by doing some pro bono work, you don't know how much that would be appreciated.
But if it takes hiring a lawyer to help fight the battles than when the group has a bank account, then donations will be greatly appreciated.
This blog will keep folks informed about both Ponte Vista and the fight over the McCowan's site.
Ponte Vista and the fight to keep condos or apartments from being built at the corner of 20TH and Walker were the two main subjects covered at the meeting.
The group welcomed two leaders in the fight over the McCowan's Market site and also welcomed two members of the Land Use and Planning Committee from the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council. The McCowan's Market site is within Coastal's area.
Things we learned about Ponte Vista:
Not much.
The developer apparently, has not provided information requested by the staff of the L.A. Planning Department to review so they can make an adequate determination of what they feel could be built at the Ponte Vista site.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn has scheduled a meeting with Ms. Gail Goldberg, the Director of Planning for the City of L.A., next week.
Ms. Goldberg offered comments at Monday's Traffic and Transportation Day held by the members of the L.A. City Council and the Mayor's office. her remarks can be found in a very long post at: www.pontevista.blogspot.com.
In reading Ms. Goldberg comments, I got the impression that she feels that building a densly populate development at some distance from the larger traffic and transportation hubs is not in the best interest of the residents of the greater L.A. area.
High density sprawl seems to be a newer term floating around city planners. Its almost like the ancient creosote plant. When the plant is young, growth is highest at the center of the plant. as the plant ages, rings develop at ever increasing lengths from the center. The way the age of the plant is estimated is by how far the ring is from what is believed to be the center of the plant.
L.A. has recently abandoned plans to build residential dwellings downtown in and area filled with warehouses and businesses. Planners suggested that it was more important to keep jobs closer to downtown and allow folks to use available mass transit (if there really is) to get to the jobs.
That opinion differs with Ms. Goldberg's comments about having residential units close to work locations, shopping and entertainment locations, and all easily accessable via walking short distances or using whatever available mass transit is in the area.
With Bob's statements about offering new transportation options for residents of Ponte Vista, that may help. But if those offers don't actually materialize, then the residents are stuck in a possibly very large development with few other options than to get into their vehicles and drive to major shopping malls and entertainment venues.
As I read Ms. Goldberg's comments, it seemed very clear to me that putting Bob's Senior Housing Section on the north side of the site instead of the south side, it looks like it violates what Ms. Goldberg is trying to convince developers to try. The closer the Senior Housing is to the shopping area, including restaurants, on Western Avenue, the more likely seniors will drive to those places instead of walking a short distance.
If and when I hear something that is more than a rumor, you will be able to read it here.
The McCowan's fight is going to be tough and hopefully long. Folks are trying to find ways to slow down or stop construction of condominiums or apartments at 20Th and Walker.
You may, very shortly, be asked to sign a petition and/or mail a letter to Ms. Hahn and Ms. Goldberg stating your opposition to having multi-family units built in a neighborhood where families live in single-family homes.
The matter of the redevelopment of the former market's site will also be a topic the many believe Ms. Hahn will talk to Ms. Goldberg about.
According to a staff member at the Councilwoman's office, over 200 phone calls, Emails, and letters, have been received by that office.
If you want to do something immediately, please call the Councilwoman's office and state your opposition.
So far, nobody that we know of supports having multi-family dwellings built at the site. At the meeting there were quite a few folks with recognizable names who haven't found any family members, friends, or co-workers who are on the side of the developer concerning multi-family units.
Next week will be crucial in the fight. Leaders are seeking as many calls, Emails, letters, signatures on the new petition opposing multi-family housing at that site, and they need it sooner than as soon as possible.
If you drive near the location, you will see how fast the developer is going to try and get something in the ground before anyone can stop him or slow him down.
There has been a statement that if the developer is slowed or stopped from building condominiums, the developer will build apartments which require fewer off-street parking spaces than condos required.
There has also been a statement that the developer could begin building apartments almost immediately.
But there are strong opponents who are going over Web site to learn what can be done to, at least, slow the developer down.
Learning as much as you can, or sharing your knowledge to help stop multi-family units from being built would be greatly appreciated.
Probably by next week, lawn signs will be in the works. I will proudly place one in my yard and I hope the initial batch of lawn signs will sell out in hours. It might even be a good idea to use my Email address you can find at the top of this blog to reserve you lawn sign.
It looks like an attorney will be needed in this fight. If there are attorneys who would like to defend the character of that neighborhood by doing some pro bono work, you don't know how much that would be appreciated.
But if it takes hiring a lawyer to help fight the battles than when the group has a bank account, then donations will be greatly appreciated.
This blog will keep folks informed about both Ponte Vista and the fight over the McCowan's site.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Coastal Neighborhood Council Meeting
The Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council held a meeting of its Board of Directors on Monday January 28.
I was not in attendance but a very talented person, who has a good talent for reporting, sent me information about the meeting that I will pass through via this post.
The agenda for the meeting did not include the issue of the proposed development on the site of the former McCowan's Market.
However, since this was the first opportunity for residents objecting to the idea of having condominiums built on the site, to meet with their representatives on the Board of Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council (Coastal), the first part of the meeting was devoted to those issues.
According to the reporter, a standing room only crowd of approximately 110 people cam out to oppose plans to have condominiums built.
Twenty members of the audience spoke on a variety of topics concerning the overall issues and not many of them repeated comments made by others.
One person spoke that he was a vendor to McCowan's while being owned by Mike Rosenthal. He stated that he supplied fish to the market and was told he would be paid only "pennies on the dollar of what he was owed".
Several speakers spoke about the problems neighbors of the former market had in that, many individuals used to walk to and from the store and having lived in the area for so long, were not prepared to need to find transportation to and from the larger markets outside of the neighborhood.
One speaker supported having the "Q Condition" put on the zoning variances of the parcels that are currently zoned C1.
A few speakers talked about being concerned that traffic on Walker will be dramatically changed. Instead of folks being able to walk to and from their neighborhood store, now everyone will have to find transportation to and from other stores. Since Walker Avenue has a signal at its intersection with 25Th street, traffic on Walker may be completely altered.
A representative from Councilwoman Janice Hahn's office came to speak. Although he wanted to speak early on, the President of Coastal told the gentleman that he was there to listen to comments from the public and after those comments were completed, he could address meeting attendees.
The representative told the group that Councilwoman Janice Hahn must initiate the process of getting the "Q Condition" applied. He also said that that process could take several months of study, perhaps 2-3 months.
The representative did inform the group what could be built on property zoned C1 as the parcels are. He also took "pointed" questions from some of the audience.
The intrepid reporter wrote about concerns that instead of condominiums, apartments could be built without the same amount of variances that condominiums would require.
It appears to me that at this first chance to have residents voice their opinions at a scheduled public meeting was a great step in learning about the proposed development and getting folks involved in working towards finding the best result for that neighborhood and OUR community.
I didn't get any word that a park was even remotely considered by speakers at the meeting, or realistically considered by the Board or the audience.
It seems Mike Rosenthal threw that line out and it only took a little-bitty fish to throw the line back at him. Turns out, there was not even a hint of bait on the line.
It also turns out that this is not the first time that someone attempted to build condos on the site of McCowan's. John McCowan considered taking down the market and building condominiums. My reporter wrote that Mr. McCowan's idea was defeated by the actions of the residents of that neighborhood.
I was not in attendance but a very talented person, who has a good talent for reporting, sent me information about the meeting that I will pass through via this post.
The agenda for the meeting did not include the issue of the proposed development on the site of the former McCowan's Market.
However, since this was the first opportunity for residents objecting to the idea of having condominiums built on the site, to meet with their representatives on the Board of Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council (Coastal), the first part of the meeting was devoted to those issues.
According to the reporter, a standing room only crowd of approximately 110 people cam out to oppose plans to have condominiums built.
Twenty members of the audience spoke on a variety of topics concerning the overall issues and not many of them repeated comments made by others.
One person spoke that he was a vendor to McCowan's while being owned by Mike Rosenthal. He stated that he supplied fish to the market and was told he would be paid only "pennies on the dollar of what he was owed".
Several speakers spoke about the problems neighbors of the former market had in that, many individuals used to walk to and from the store and having lived in the area for so long, were not prepared to need to find transportation to and from the larger markets outside of the neighborhood.
One speaker supported having the "Q Condition" put on the zoning variances of the parcels that are currently zoned C1.
A few speakers talked about being concerned that traffic on Walker will be dramatically changed. Instead of folks being able to walk to and from their neighborhood store, now everyone will have to find transportation to and from other stores. Since Walker Avenue has a signal at its intersection with 25Th street, traffic on Walker may be completely altered.
A representative from Councilwoman Janice Hahn's office came to speak. Although he wanted to speak early on, the President of Coastal told the gentleman that he was there to listen to comments from the public and after those comments were completed, he could address meeting attendees.
The representative told the group that Councilwoman Janice Hahn must initiate the process of getting the "Q Condition" applied. He also said that that process could take several months of study, perhaps 2-3 months.
The representative did inform the group what could be built on property zoned C1 as the parcels are. He also took "pointed" questions from some of the audience.
The intrepid reporter wrote about concerns that instead of condominiums, apartments could be built without the same amount of variances that condominiums would require.
It appears to me that at this first chance to have residents voice their opinions at a scheduled public meeting was a great step in learning about the proposed development and getting folks involved in working towards finding the best result for that neighborhood and OUR community.
I didn't get any word that a park was even remotely considered by speakers at the meeting, or realistically considered by the Board or the audience.
It seems Mike Rosenthal threw that line out and it only took a little-bitty fish to throw the line back at him. Turns out, there was not even a hint of bait on the line.
It also turns out that this is not the first time that someone attempted to build condos on the site of McCowan's. John McCowan considered taking down the market and building condominiums. My reporter wrote that Mr. McCowan's idea was defeated by the actions of the residents of that neighborhood.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Interesting Input From a Contributor
An individual who is an instrumental leader if the fight to keep condominiums off of the former site of McCowan's Market, has created some writing that is important to know and possibly shows us the demeanor of the current owner and one of his partners.
I am taking the liberty and responsibility to change some of the information for legal purposes.
I am not going to change the facts that the contributor believes are true. The contributor has done their homework and has information many of us do not currently have access to.
__________________________________________________
It appears, according to evidence uncovered by the contributor that they believe that the majority of vendors supplying the market, were stiffed by Mr. Rosenthal, when he closed down.
The contributor has the opinion that his dishonest business practices are something the public should be made aware of.
The contributor received three calls from purveyors that were told they would only be paid 50 cents on the dollar. Many of them had done business with John McCowan for years and never had any problems. They assumed Mr. Rosenthal would be honest and pay for the products he ordered. Instead they were cheated out of payment. One vendor went to small claims court, but was told that since he didn't have a personal guarantee there was nothing he could do. The public needs to be aware of this scam, by the same man that is trying to build condos, in our single family neighborhood, according to the contributor.
The contributor feels Rosenthal is blowing smoke proposing the City of L.A. buy the property to build a park. This is not an adequate area for the type of park we need in San Pedro. A park at this site would only bring vandals and graffiti gangs. We don't need that in our neighborhood either. This man is a con artist trying to fool San Pedro once again. We aren't buying it!!
************************************************************
A personal pause comment from me. I have no idea whether other neighbors feel the same about having a park in that location. As I have addressed before, we are blessed more so than just about everyone else in the greater L.A. area by having so many parks, park lands, nature preserves, beaches, and other recreational venues nearby.
IF, and I mean IF a park is even remotely really considered by Mr. Rosenthal at the site, I think everyone should let the neighbors living in that area decide whether they would like a park or not. If they don't want a park, then that is their decision.
***********************************************************
Now back to the contributor's post.
The contributor learned that Rosenthal states he is the owner of the property, but not the developer - that doesn't make any sense at all. This guy must think we are all idiots!!
Also, Mike Popa, Rosenthal's partner, and the builder, said the prospective condos would be priced for first time buyers - how do you do that when you build million dollar houses next door? It just doesn't make sense.
The contributor wants to see a large showing of folks concerned about the issue at tonight's Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council meeting.
_________________________________________________
The contributor also unwittingly brought up an issue that could be of concern to future residents of Ponte Vista. If first-time home buyers lived next to large town houses at Ponte Vista, might there not be some issues placing upper middle-income folks right next to millionaires?
What would keep a "first-time" home buyer hitting hard times and leasing out their unit and moving back in with mom and pop, or renting a much less expensive apartment. Use the rental income from the condo to pay for the apartment and anything else.
I am taking the liberty and responsibility to change some of the information for legal purposes.
I am not going to change the facts that the contributor believes are true. The contributor has done their homework and has information many of us do not currently have access to.
__________________________________________________
It appears, according to evidence uncovered by the contributor that they believe that the majority of vendors supplying the market, were stiffed by Mr. Rosenthal, when he closed down.
The contributor has the opinion that his dishonest business practices are something the public should be made aware of.
The contributor received three calls from purveyors that were told they would only be paid 50 cents on the dollar. Many of them had done business with John McCowan for years and never had any problems. They assumed Mr. Rosenthal would be honest and pay for the products he ordered. Instead they were cheated out of payment. One vendor went to small claims court, but was told that since he didn't have a personal guarantee there was nothing he could do. The public needs to be aware of this scam, by the same man that is trying to build condos, in our single family neighborhood, according to the contributor.
The contributor feels Rosenthal is blowing smoke proposing the City of L.A. buy the property to build a park. This is not an adequate area for the type of park we need in San Pedro. A park at this site would only bring vandals and graffiti gangs. We don't need that in our neighborhood either. This man is a con artist trying to fool San Pedro once again. We aren't buying it!!
************************************************************
A personal pause comment from me. I have no idea whether other neighbors feel the same about having a park in that location. As I have addressed before, we are blessed more so than just about everyone else in the greater L.A. area by having so many parks, park lands, nature preserves, beaches, and other recreational venues nearby.
IF, and I mean IF a park is even remotely really considered by Mr. Rosenthal at the site, I think everyone should let the neighbors living in that area decide whether they would like a park or not. If they don't want a park, then that is their decision.
***********************************************************
Now back to the contributor's post.
The contributor learned that Rosenthal states he is the owner of the property, but not the developer - that doesn't make any sense at all. This guy must think we are all idiots!!
Also, Mike Popa, Rosenthal's partner, and the builder, said the prospective condos would be priced for first time buyers - how do you do that when you build million dollar houses next door? It just doesn't make sense.
The contributor wants to see a large showing of folks concerned about the issue at tonight's Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council meeting.
_________________________________________________
The contributor also unwittingly brought up an issue that could be of concern to future residents of Ponte Vista. If first-time home buyers lived next to large town houses at Ponte Vista, might there not be some issues placing upper middle-income folks right next to millionaires?
What would keep a "first-time" home buyer hitting hard times and leasing out their unit and moving back in with mom and pop, or renting a much less expensive apartment. Use the rental income from the condo to pay for the apartment and anything else.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
A Take on Sunday's Article in the Daily Breeze
I am going to give my take on Sunday January 27, 2008 article in The Daily Breeze concerning the redevelopment of the former site of McCowan's Market.
But first, I would apprecate other individuals providing their take on not only Sunday's article, but also the two most recent articles concerning the issue. Whether using a comment to an existing post, or by creating a new post sent to me via the Email address on the top of this blog, sharing opinions about the matters can provide all of us with more information and opinions to consider.
In the span of eight days, three articles conserning the issue of what may be built on the site of the former McCowan's Market have been found in The Daily Breeze. Ms Donna Littlejohn and Ms. Rachel Jones have provided three separate articles in the span of just over a week.
To me I think, the editors of the newspaper feel the issues are important to inform readers about and it may also show that interest in the issues is very high among the residents of OUR community.
I also feel that when two of the three articles bring up the idea of a park being provided on the site, instead of another market, single-family houses, or what could be more probably, a condominium project of between 14 and 19 units, it says something about the apparent discord with the porperties current owner by the local neighbors and OUR community.
There is serious doubt that there is a large number of supporters to having condominiums built on the three parcels of land the former market still stands of.
The idea of a park on the site may appear to have come out of left field as a way to demonstrate that the sites' current owner, Mr. Mike Rosenthal was probably overwhelmed by the resistance to having condominiums built.
Even if the proposed condominiums were priced for first-time homebuyers, resistance among neighbors who live near the sites and an ever-growing number of other neighbors in other neighborhoods is extremely high.
The last sentence of the latest article was a quote along the lines that having a park built on the three parcels in not very likely or probable.
As an opinion, I think OUR community should take pride first, with the good folks who live closest to the sites. They banded together about as quickly as they could and they took the right steps to bring their issues into view for the rest of OUR community.
Second, neighbors living in neighborhoods some distance away from the sites came forward with their support to oppose having condominiums built.
I have first hand knowledge that there have been community members who live miles away from the sites, who contacted me with their frustration about the possibility of having condos built and their willingness to help in any way they can.
I think we also should give a big shout out to Councilwoman Janice Hahn who has already publicily opposed having condominiums built on the parcels.
The study and possible implementation of a "Q Condition" on the three parcels, and the folks who have worked on that, should also be recognized.
A "Q Condition" is a zoning classification that places "restrictions on property as a result of a zone change, to ensure compatibility with surrounding property." Basically the classification would result in the developer only being allowed to build single-family homes so that the buildings would reflect the compatibility with the other single-family homes that make up the vast bulk of the type of residences found in the neighborhood.
I can even commend Mr. Rosenthal for doing the correct thing and providing three new single-family houses on the three lots he also bought, and kept their current zoning of R1 (or R1P).
Mr. Rosenthal could have opted to attempt zoning changes of the three R1 lots to allow for multi-family units. Perhaps he saw what is happening with the resistance to Ponte Vista and thought twice before he really considered zoning changes for the three-R1 lots.
The issue of having the City of Los Angeles or any other entity buying the three parcels so a park could be built, is something that will continue to be just a dream. San Pedro has lots of parkland as compared to the rest of the cities in the 15Th Council District. Residents also have an L.A. County park, a nature preserve, coastal parks, Angel's Gate, and parks in nearby communities to use. As communities go, I think we would have to find a rich benefactor to buy more property for what would be a great neighborhood park.
I think fighting against condos being built is a must. Having a positive attitude about the adoption of Q Conditions on the properties zoned as commercial should be a strong attitude.
Affording the opportunity to the current owner or developer to build a total of six-single-family houses on the three-R1 lots and the three C1 parcels, may be the best result of all efforts.
A strong message could be sent by opponents of both the massive condo development called Ponte Vista and opponents of having condos built on the former market's site, that OUR community is willing to join with other communities in the greater L.A. area to put curbs on the reckless notions that the area should tolerate massive residential growth, whether we need it or not.
But first, I would apprecate other individuals providing their take on not only Sunday's article, but also the two most recent articles concerning the issue. Whether using a comment to an existing post, or by creating a new post sent to me via the Email address on the top of this blog, sharing opinions about the matters can provide all of us with more information and opinions to consider.
In the span of eight days, three articles conserning the issue of what may be built on the site of the former McCowan's Market have been found in The Daily Breeze. Ms Donna Littlejohn and Ms. Rachel Jones have provided three separate articles in the span of just over a week.
To me I think, the editors of the newspaper feel the issues are important to inform readers about and it may also show that interest in the issues is very high among the residents of OUR community.
I also feel that when two of the three articles bring up the idea of a park being provided on the site, instead of another market, single-family houses, or what could be more probably, a condominium project of between 14 and 19 units, it says something about the apparent discord with the porperties current owner by the local neighbors and OUR community.
There is serious doubt that there is a large number of supporters to having condominiums built on the three parcels of land the former market still stands of.
The idea of a park on the site may appear to have come out of left field as a way to demonstrate that the sites' current owner, Mr. Mike Rosenthal was probably overwhelmed by the resistance to having condominiums built.
Even if the proposed condominiums were priced for first-time homebuyers, resistance among neighbors who live near the sites and an ever-growing number of other neighbors in other neighborhoods is extremely high.
The last sentence of the latest article was a quote along the lines that having a park built on the three parcels in not very likely or probable.
As an opinion, I think OUR community should take pride first, with the good folks who live closest to the sites. They banded together about as quickly as they could and they took the right steps to bring their issues into view for the rest of OUR community.
Second, neighbors living in neighborhoods some distance away from the sites came forward with their support to oppose having condominiums built.
I have first hand knowledge that there have been community members who live miles away from the sites, who contacted me with their frustration about the possibility of having condos built and their willingness to help in any way they can.
I think we also should give a big shout out to Councilwoman Janice Hahn who has already publicily opposed having condominiums built on the parcels.
The study and possible implementation of a "Q Condition" on the three parcels, and the folks who have worked on that, should also be recognized.
A "Q Condition" is a zoning classification that places "restrictions on property as a result of a zone change, to ensure compatibility with surrounding property." Basically the classification would result in the developer only being allowed to build single-family homes so that the buildings would reflect the compatibility with the other single-family homes that make up the vast bulk of the type of residences found in the neighborhood.
I can even commend Mr. Rosenthal for doing the correct thing and providing three new single-family houses on the three lots he also bought, and kept their current zoning of R1 (or R1P).
Mr. Rosenthal could have opted to attempt zoning changes of the three R1 lots to allow for multi-family units. Perhaps he saw what is happening with the resistance to Ponte Vista and thought twice before he really considered zoning changes for the three-R1 lots.
The issue of having the City of Los Angeles or any other entity buying the three parcels so a park could be built, is something that will continue to be just a dream. San Pedro has lots of parkland as compared to the rest of the cities in the 15Th Council District. Residents also have an L.A. County park, a nature preserve, coastal parks, Angel's Gate, and parks in nearby communities to use. As communities go, I think we would have to find a rich benefactor to buy more property for what would be a great neighborhood park.
I think fighting against condos being built is a must. Having a positive attitude about the adoption of Q Conditions on the properties zoned as commercial should be a strong attitude.
Affording the opportunity to the current owner or developer to build a total of six-single-family houses on the three-R1 lots and the three C1 parcels, may be the best result of all efforts.
A strong message could be sent by opponents of both the massive condo development called Ponte Vista and opponents of having condos built on the former market's site, that OUR community is willing to join with other communities in the greater L.A. area to put curbs on the reckless notions that the area should tolerate massive residential growth, whether we need it or not.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Today's More San Pedro Article About the McCowan's Site
First off, if you want to create a comment on the article by visiting www.dailybreeze.com, it is going to take some digging to get to the article and spot for commenting.
I had to use the search area to type in "More San Pedro" because I couldn't find it on the home page of the site. Perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough on the newly redesigned site.
I had to go to the second page of the link to find Ms. Littlejohn's article.
Of course I giggled when I read the article in the actual More San Pedro and then again when I reread it on the newspaper's Web site.
A friend of mine who Emailed me this morning uses things like "@#$%^&*" to describe her feeling on what she read coming from Mr. Rosenthal.
Some people feel Mr. Rosenthal will create a limited liability corporation which he and possibly a partner will own, and move title to the properties over to the LLC.
We have also learned that Mr. Rosenthal has applied for a demolition permit for the building that stands on three lots on the corner of 20TH Street and Walker Avenue.
Would a property owner be quick in demolishing a building just to put a park in its place? You will need to answer that question using your own thoughts.
Whether a park is truthfully being considered by Mr. Rosenthal is not something I know.
But I will consider that anyone and everyone who considers having condominiums built on the approximately 17,000 square feet of property under the market a very bad idea, should probably want to get involved in some form or another.
A good showing of concerned members of OUR community at Monday evening's Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council would be a great thing to have happen, I feel.
Perhaps Ms. Littlejohn or Ms. Jones from the Daily Breeze and/or a reporter from Random Lengths News might come to the meeting and ask for your comments about the issue.
I don't think it would hurt showing support to and for the neighborhood that will be impacted should condominiums get approval to be built.
The meeting begins at 6:30 PM at the Cabrillo Community Center, which is near Berth 28, behind the hotel that is located at the Cabrillo Marina.
A good friend of mine gave me a picture of a pig, with little wings, perched on a telephone line between two poles. ( We both work for a "telephone" company). I imagine that if that pig could fly up to that line, a park could get built at the site.
The park should be called McCowan's Park in my opinion, because of the honor the McCowan family bestowed on OUR community by having three supermarkets in San Pedro and being so wonderful to several generations of OUR community.
If you do happen to come upon a pig sitting on wires between poles, don't stand underneath one. It seems that just before the pig takes flight, it takes a number 2, to lighten its load.
Perhaps flying pigs and some comments from Mr. Rosenthal have some number 2 in common.
I had to use the search area to type in "More San Pedro" because I couldn't find it on the home page of the site. Perhaps I wasn't looking hard enough on the newly redesigned site.
I had to go to the second page of the link to find Ms. Littlejohn's article.
Of course I giggled when I read the article in the actual More San Pedro and then again when I reread it on the newspaper's Web site.
A friend of mine who Emailed me this morning uses things like "@#$%^&*" to describe her feeling on what she read coming from Mr. Rosenthal.
Some people feel Mr. Rosenthal will create a limited liability corporation which he and possibly a partner will own, and move title to the properties over to the LLC.
We have also learned that Mr. Rosenthal has applied for a demolition permit for the building that stands on three lots on the corner of 20TH Street and Walker Avenue.
Would a property owner be quick in demolishing a building just to put a park in its place? You will need to answer that question using your own thoughts.
Whether a park is truthfully being considered by Mr. Rosenthal is not something I know.
But I will consider that anyone and everyone who considers having condominiums built on the approximately 17,000 square feet of property under the market a very bad idea, should probably want to get involved in some form or another.
A good showing of concerned members of OUR community at Monday evening's Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council would be a great thing to have happen, I feel.
Perhaps Ms. Littlejohn or Ms. Jones from the Daily Breeze and/or a reporter from Random Lengths News might come to the meeting and ask for your comments about the issue.
I don't think it would hurt showing support to and for the neighborhood that will be impacted should condominiums get approval to be built.
The meeting begins at 6:30 PM at the Cabrillo Community Center, which is near Berth 28, behind the hotel that is located at the Cabrillo Marina.
A good friend of mine gave me a picture of a pig, with little wings, perched on a telephone line between two poles. ( We both work for a "telephone" company). I imagine that if that pig could fly up to that line, a park could get built at the site.
The park should be called McCowan's Park in my opinion, because of the honor the McCowan family bestowed on OUR community by having three supermarkets in San Pedro and being so wonderful to several generations of OUR community.
If you do happen to come upon a pig sitting on wires between poles, don't stand underneath one. It seems that just before the pig takes flight, it takes a number 2, to lighten its load.
Perhaps flying pigs and some comments from Mr. Rosenthal have some number 2 in common.
Friday, January 25, 2008
So What is a "Q" Condition?
The title of this post is the question I was seeking an answer to.
I started at the L.A. City Department of Planning's Web site at: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/.
From there, it was a matter of searching around and this is what I found.
A "Q" condition is a classification wherein a property or properties have "restrictions on property as a result of a zone change, to ensure compatibility with surrounding property."
The three lots that make up the footprint of the old McCowan's Market are zoned for commercial use, but it can be translated for residential sake to be equivalent to R3.
I guess we should hope for the placement of the Q condition because that would ensure that whatever is built on the three lots that make up the footprint of the building are kept compatible with the surrounding property.
As I was looking around the Planning Web site, I was able to read about lots of Q condition rulings that allowed for or disallowed for many different things. There are Q conditions for the height of structures, the set backs, from the property lines, and other issues that appeared to be covered under an umbrella that is the "Q" or "Qualified Condition".
It seems that a developer can't always use equivalent zoning types to build whatever he or she wishes. Whatever is built should be compatible with the surrounding property.
Since the surrounding properties, including the three properties Mr. Rosenthal is building single-family houses on, are single-family dwellings on R1 size lots, a Q condition would mandate that only similar type dwellings be built on the lots left behind after the market is demolished.
There, I hope it helps. I now have a little better idea of what a Q condition is.
Now if I can just get to those darn buttons by Monday evening.
I started at the L.A. City Department of Planning's Web site at: http://cityplanning.lacity.org/.
From there, it was a matter of searching around and this is what I found.
A "Q" condition is a classification wherein a property or properties have "restrictions on property as a result of a zone change, to ensure compatibility with surrounding property."
The three lots that make up the footprint of the old McCowan's Market are zoned for commercial use, but it can be translated for residential sake to be equivalent to R3.
I guess we should hope for the placement of the Q condition because that would ensure that whatever is built on the three lots that make up the footprint of the building are kept compatible with the surrounding property.
As I was looking around the Planning Web site, I was able to read about lots of Q condition rulings that allowed for or disallowed for many different things. There are Q conditions for the height of structures, the set backs, from the property lines, and other issues that appeared to be covered under an umbrella that is the "Q" or "Qualified Condition".
It seems that a developer can't always use equivalent zoning types to build whatever he or she wishes. Whatever is built should be compatible with the surrounding property.
Since the surrounding properties, including the three properties Mr. Rosenthal is building single-family houses on, are single-family dwellings on R1 size lots, a Q condition would mandate that only similar type dwellings be built on the lots left behind after the market is demolished.
There, I hope it helps. I now have a little better idea of what a Q condition is.
Now if I can just get to those darn buttons by Monday evening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
