This post is written for several of my blogs because I have taken an extended absence from writing on any of my blogs for quite some time.
So much has happened in our extended communities since I stopped writing on the blogs and I want to get back to pondering, questioning, commenting, arguing, and dealing with many issues common to the communities I live in and events and conditions in and around the communities most of my readers live in.
Nothing is more common in all of the communities we all deal with than John and Muriel Olguin. Right now, nothing is more important for all of us in those communities.
Most of us know that a great gentleman, very long into life and even longer in adventures would pass from us, far too soon.
We all knew the day would come that we would make us sad and drive our memories into overdrive.
We all knew none of us can and could measure up to the personhood we all now honor with the passing of John Olguin.
Muriel was and always will be the 'winner' of my writings about our community members who were closer to being "more like John Olguin" than the rest of us. She is in our hearts as she and the rest of us remember John.
Starting 2011 with the new adventure of working on ways to honor John's memory and try to be more like him in the acts of kindness and teachings he showed us, is a task we need to do. It is the first task of what is going to be one heck of a year for all of us.
As we move forward, please include in your visions and dreams the smiles your remember beaming from John's face as he taught you something you didn't know or how he was so happy when you understood how he regaled in your learning.
Let's work towards a public memorial that includes contributions of whatever you can provide to those in need and a clear demonstration that we all 'got' the fascination, wonder, and joy John offered, all supported by Muriel, a true inspiration, artist, and gift to all of us as she was to John.
One way to honor John and all those who volunteered for us is to volunteer to work on issues and projects that interest you in ways that promote those things that benefit 'community'
Not only are your acts, deeds, thoughts, comments, and wishes important, your means of demonstrating those things are also important on many issues you might want to concern yourself with.
Here is just a partial list of things that I am pondering about and I hope your list is at least as long as mine:
John's public memorial, the U.S.S. Iowa, Charter City status and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes, Ponte Vista, SRHS #15, downtown San Pedro, protecting our environment, Western Avenue, community goals, park lands, politics, arts in communities, good citizenship, the local economy, working for those less fortunate, San Ramon Canyon, Marymount's Expansion Project, educating everyone, recession recovery, working for peace, celebrating, family, neighbors and friends, contentious issues, common goals, fun, faith, play, and experiencing a full and productive life. Grandchildren, perhaps someday.
I hope to get back to writing on a much more regular basis on several of these blogs.
I know Ponte Vista is important and should see posts and comments from others throughout the year.
I live on the eastern side of Rancho Palos Verdes. San Pedro in heart, Rancho Palos Verdes in thought. I feel strongly that residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to be better informed and more able to deal with and comment on their government and city.
There are "Issues to Ponder" regarding San Pedro. It may have a continuing set of problems in its downtown area but it has a growing vibrant aspect in its arts and entertainment and there will be new things popping up in the future throughout the community.
I know that "R Neighborhoods Are 1" and there is more to be considered in our community, for our community, and with our community.
As I am still a caveman, my 'dairy' needs to be updated with stories and learning this caveman has encountered over the last couple of years.
Whether I can manage to work harder to be more like John is something that I don't yet know, but I really need to try.
I hope readers will learn or argue or agree or disagree or ponder or rant or rave or just read. But with all blogs, it is truly more for the writer to write than the reader to read. If that was not the case, there would be no blogs and just look how many there are now compared to when I first wrote, in September, 2006.
Thank you and please return from time to time.
Mark Wells
aka M Richards
mrichards2@hotmail.com
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Some Particulars Concerning Several Individuals Regarding a Project Other Than Ponte Vista.
Chase Knolls is an Apartment Complex that was approved to have major renovations done along with additional buildings constructed.
The complex, located in Sherman Oaks is registered with the City of Los Angeles as an historical site.
Below is documentation from the Los Angeles City Council dealing with the approval of the renovation and building plans.
I will place in bold some names you may be familar with and the documents supports the finding that one particular Council Member supported a very different project led by one particular developer.
It appears that one particular Council Member seems to have little problem allowing a development project to be renovated and even enlarged.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 3, 2006
John Ferraro Council Chamber, Room 340, City Hall - 10:15 am
- - - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - - -
10:1 5 A.M . O R A S SOO N THEREAFTER
AS COUNCIL RECESSES ITS REGULAR MEETING
ROLL C ALL
- Members present : Greuel, Hahn, LaBonge, Padilla , Reyes , Rosendahl, Smith,
Weis s, Wesso n a nd Zine(1 0);
Absent : Cardenas, Huizar, Parks , Perry and President Garcetti (5).
ROLL CALL NUMBER (#) - INDICATES THE ORDER IN WHICH THE ITEMS WERE ACTED
UP ON DURI NG THE COUNCIL MEETING
I TEM NO . (1) - ADOPTED, ASAMENDED - SEE FOLLOWING
Roll Call #1 - Motion (Greuel - Reyes) to Adopt as Amended , Ayes (10);
Absent : Cardenas, Huizar, Parks, Perry and President Garcetti (5)
06-0077
CD2 PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
relative to Parcel Map and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) appeals filed by Susan Jagiello
on behalf of the Chase Knolls Residents and Neighbors Association for property at 13401 West Riverside Drive.
Recommendations for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Greuel - Weiss):
1. ADOPT the FINDINGS of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee as the
Findings of the Council.
2. RESOLVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase
Knolls Residents and Neighbors As soc iation, from the decision of the City Planning
Commission certifying the EIR (EN V 2003-1228- EIR) and THEREBY SET ASIDE the
certification of the EIR.
FRIDAY 02-03-06
PAGE 2
3. RESOLVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase
Knolls Residents and Neighbors Association, from the decision of the Deputy Advisory
Agency, thereby DISAPPROVING the Parcel Map (Case No. AA-2004-50 9-PMLA) to
permit a maximum two-parcel sub division for the construction of a 141 new apartment
unit development subject to conditions of approval, for property at 13401 West
Riverside Drive.
Applicant: Eric Hoffman, Bisno Development Co. LLC AA-2004-509-PMLA
TIME LIMIT FILE - FEBRUARY 3, 2006
(LAST DAY FOR COUNCIL ACTION - FEBRUARY 3, 2006)
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the Planning Department. Neither the City
Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis
of this report.
[On January 13, 2 006 , the City Council adopted Motion (Greuel -Weiss) asserting
jurisdiction over the December 15, 2005, action of the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to City Charter Section 245.]
ADOPTED
AMENDING MOTION (GREUEL - REYES)
Recommendations for Council action:
1. DENY THEAPPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase Knolls Residents
and Neighbors Association from the decision of the City Planning Commission
certifying the EIR ( ENV 200 3-1228-E IR) and there by CERTIFY the Final EIR by
adopting the Deputy Advisory Agency's September 20, 2005 California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) findings and mitigation measures as the Council 's own CEQA
findings and mitigation measures , subject to the project changes set forth in
Paragraphs a and b.
2. DENY THE APPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase Knolls Residents
and Neighbors Association, from the decision of the Deputy Advisory Agency, and
thereby APPROVE Vesting Parcel Map (Case No. AA-2004-509-PMLA) to permit a
maximum two-p arcel subdivision for the construction of an up to 141 new apartment
unit development subject to conditions of approval, for property at 13401 West
Riverside Drive, by adopting the Deputy Advisory Agency's September 20, 2005
fin dings and conditions of approval as the Council 's own findings and conditions
subject to the following conditions and modifications:
A. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall prepare and execute
a Covenant and Agreement in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Department,
binding the subdivider and all successors to the following:
FRIDAY 02-03-06 PAGE 3
1) The applicant shall submit a revised parcel map showing the revised building
footprints, and revised elevations. The revised parcel map and elevations
shall be reviewed by the Council Office prior to approval by the Deputy
Advisory Agency.
The parcel map shall reflect the following modifications to the project : Building 1 shall be
modified to eliminate the western projection of the building and to limit its western element to two-stories substantially as shown on Exhibit A here to; with the remainder of the building being three storie . Building 4 shall be modified to limit its western element to two-stories
substantially as shown on Exhibit A hereto; with the remainder of the building
being thre e stories.
Buildin g 6 shall be modified to limit its eastern element to two -stories substantially as shown on Exhibit A; with the remainder of the building being three stories. All other new apartment buildings shall be limited to thre e stories. The applicant shall adjust the footprint of buildings
No .4 and No.6 to accommodate new courtyard/patio areas or similar articulation as shown on Exhibit A; provided that it is acknowledged that factors may render such courtyard/patio areas infeasible as determined by the Deputy Advisory Agency.
2 ) Prior to issuance of building permits for the new apartments, the applicant
shall submit for approval by the Deputy Advisory Agency a comprehensive
landscaping and irrigation plan for the property prepared by a licensed
landscaped architect. The plan shall address the areas around the six new
apartments, as well as the rejuvenation, enhancement, and maintenance of
the existing mature trees and landscaped areas that will be retained as part
of the project. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the Council
Office, and shall be submitted to the Cultural Heritage Commission for its
review and recommendation prior to final approval by the Deputy Advisory
Agency.
3) Prior to the clearance of any parcel map conditions, the applicant must show
proof that all fees have been paid to the Department of City Planning,
Expedited Processing Section.
4) Modify the Deputy Advisory Agency's letter of approval to include all of the
revised conditions of approval contained in the determination of the City
Planning Commission excluding the revisions to the heights of Building
Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 6.
5) Condition No. 14e of the Deputy Advisory Agency's approval is revised in its
entirety to read as follows: "Specify the lot area for each parcel on the map."
6) The applicant shall withdraw the applications for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 65363 and ENV-2006-465-EAF.
3. FIND that the project, as modified hereby, is CONSISTENT with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and CONSISTENT with the Historic
Property Contract pertaining to the Chase Knolls Apartments between the Council
and the property owner.
FRIDAY 02-03-06 PAGE 4
4. DIRECT the Department o f Cit y Planning to modify as necessary the findings of fact
for the Vesting Parce l Map approval (AA-2004-509-P MLA ), and any associated CEQA
findings relating to the certification of ENV-2003-1228-EIR).
ADOPTED
A MENDING MOTION (GREUEL - REYES)
Recomm endation for Council action:
REFLECT that the statement on Page 39 of the applicant’s Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is not appropriately a part of the EIR analysis under California Environmental
Quality Act; has no legal significance; and that the discretion and jurisdiction of the
Cultural Heritage is governed by the City Codes.
Councilmember Reyes moved, seconded by Councilmember LaBonge , that th e Special
Council meeting adjourn.
Ayes, Greuel, Hahn, LaBonge, Padilla, Reyes, Rosendahl, Smith, Weiss, Wesson and
Zine (10);
Absent : Cardenas, Huizar, Parks, Perry and President Garcetti (5 ).
Whereupon the Special Council meeting did adjourn.
ATTEST: Frank T. Martinez, CITY CLERK
By Council Clerk
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this particular case, the members of the City Council went against the recommendations of the Planning and Land Use Committee.
Let's hope the City Council has learned some better lessons by now.
The complex, located in Sherman Oaks is registered with the City of Los Angeles as an historical site.
Below is documentation from the Los Angeles City Council dealing with the approval of the renovation and building plans.
I will place in bold some names you may be familar with and the documents supports the finding that one particular Council Member supported a very different project led by one particular developer.
It appears that one particular Council Member seems to have little problem allowing a development project to be renovated and even enlarged.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Friday, February 3, 2006
John Ferraro Council Chamber, Room 340, City Hall - 10:15 am
- - - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING - - -
10:1 5 A.M . O R A S SOO N THEREAFTER
AS COUNCIL RECESSES ITS REGULAR MEETING
ROLL C ALL
- Members present : Greuel, Hahn, LaBonge, Padilla , Reyes , Rosendahl, Smith,
Weis s, Wesso n a nd Zine(1 0);
Absent : Cardenas, Huizar, Parks , Perry and President Garcetti (5).
ROLL CALL NUMBER (#) - INDICATES THE ORDER IN WHICH THE ITEMS WERE ACTED
UP ON DURI NG THE COUNCIL MEETING
I TEM NO . (1) - ADOPTED, ASAMENDED - SEE FOLLOWING
Roll Call #1 - Motion (Greuel - Reyes) to Adopt as Amended , Ayes (10);
Absent : Cardenas, Huizar, Parks, Perry and President Garcetti (5)
06-0077
CD2 PLANNING AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORT
relative to Parcel Map and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) appeals filed by Susan Jagiello
on behalf of the Chase Knolls Residents and Neighbors Association for property at 13401 West Riverside Drive.
Recommendations for Council action, pursuant to Motion (Greuel - Weiss):
1. ADOPT the FINDINGS of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee as the
Findings of the Council.
2. RESOLVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase
Knolls Residents and Neighbors As soc iation, from the decision of the City Planning
Commission certifying the EIR (EN V 2003-1228- EIR) and THEREBY SET ASIDE the
certification of the EIR.
FRIDAY 02-03-06
PAGE 2
3. RESOLVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase
Knolls Residents and Neighbors Association, from the decision of the Deputy Advisory
Agency, thereby DISAPPROVING the Parcel Map (Case No. AA-2004-50 9-PMLA) to
permit a maximum two-parcel sub division for the construction of a 141 new apartment
unit development subject to conditions of approval, for property at 13401 West
Riverside Drive.
Applicant: Eric Hoffman, Bisno Development Co. LLC AA-2004-509-PMLA
TIME LIMIT FILE - FEBRUARY 3, 2006
(LAST DAY FOR COUNCIL ACTION - FEBRUARY 3, 2006)
Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the Planning Department. Neither the City
Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis
of this report.
[On January 13, 2 006 , the City Council adopted Motion (Greuel -Weiss) asserting
jurisdiction over the December 15, 2005, action of the City Planning Commission,
pursuant to City Charter Section 245.]
ADOPTED
AMENDING MOTION (GREUEL - REYES)
Recommendations for Council action:
1. DENY THEAPPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase Knolls Residents
and Neighbors Association from the decision of the City Planning Commission
certifying the EIR ( ENV 200 3-1228-E IR) and there by CERTIFY the Final EIR by
adopting the Deputy Advisory Agency's September 20, 2005 California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) findings and mitigation measures as the Council 's own CEQA
findings and mitigation measures , subject to the project changes set forth in
Paragraphs a and b.
2. DENY THE APPEAL filed by Susan Jagiello on behalf of the Chase Knolls Residents
and Neighbors Association, from the decision of the Deputy Advisory Agency, and
thereby APPROVE Vesting Parcel Map (Case No. AA-2004-509-PMLA) to permit a
maximum two-p arcel subdivision for the construction of an up to 141 new apartment
unit development subject to conditions of approval, for property at 13401 West
Riverside Drive, by adopting the Deputy Advisory Agency's September 20, 2005
fin dings and conditions of approval as the Council 's own findings and conditions
subject to the following conditions and modifications:
A. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall prepare and execute
a Covenant and Agreement in a manner satisfactory to the Planning Department,
binding the subdivider and all successors to the following:
FRIDAY 02-03-06 PAGE 3
1) The applicant shall submit a revised parcel map showing the revised building
footprints, and revised elevations. The revised parcel map and elevations
shall be reviewed by the Council Office prior to approval by the Deputy
Advisory Agency.
The parcel map shall reflect the following modifications to the project : Building 1 shall be
modified to eliminate the western projection of the building and to limit its western element to two-stories substantially as shown on Exhibit A here to; with the remainder of the building being three storie . Building 4 shall be modified to limit its western element to two-stories
substantially as shown on Exhibit A hereto; with the remainder of the building
being thre e stories.
Buildin g 6 shall be modified to limit its eastern element to two -stories substantially as shown on Exhibit A; with the remainder of the building being three stories. All other new apartment buildings shall be limited to thre e stories. The applicant shall adjust the footprint of buildings
No .4 and No.6 to accommodate new courtyard/patio areas or similar articulation as shown on Exhibit A; provided that it is acknowledged that factors may render such courtyard/patio areas infeasible as determined by the Deputy Advisory Agency.
2 ) Prior to issuance of building permits for the new apartments, the applicant
shall submit for approval by the Deputy Advisory Agency a comprehensive
landscaping and irrigation plan for the property prepared by a licensed
landscaped architect. The plan shall address the areas around the six new
apartments, as well as the rejuvenation, enhancement, and maintenance of
the existing mature trees and landscaped areas that will be retained as part
of the project. The plan shall be developed in consultation with the Council
Office, and shall be submitted to the Cultural Heritage Commission for its
review and recommendation prior to final approval by the Deputy Advisory
Agency.
3) Prior to the clearance of any parcel map conditions, the applicant must show
proof that all fees have been paid to the Department of City Planning,
Expedited Processing Section.
4) Modify the Deputy Advisory Agency's letter of approval to include all of the
revised conditions of approval contained in the determination of the City
Planning Commission excluding the revisions to the heights of Building
Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 6.
5) Condition No. 14e of the Deputy Advisory Agency's approval is revised in its
entirety to read as follows: "Specify the lot area for each parcel on the map."
6) The applicant shall withdraw the applications for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 65363 and ENV-2006-465-EAF.
3. FIND that the project, as modified hereby, is CONSISTENT with the Secretary of
Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and CONSISTENT with the Historic
Property Contract pertaining to the Chase Knolls Apartments between the Council
and the property owner.
FRIDAY 02-03-06 PAGE 4
4. DIRECT the Department o f Cit y Planning to modify as necessary the findings of fact
for the Vesting Parce l Map approval (AA-2004-509-P MLA ), and any associated CEQA
findings relating to the certification of ENV-2003-1228-EIR).
ADOPTED
A MENDING MOTION (GREUEL - REYES)
Recomm endation for Council action:
REFLECT that the statement on Page 39 of the applicant’s Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) is not appropriately a part of the EIR analysis under California Environmental
Quality Act; has no legal significance; and that the discretion and jurisdiction of the
Cultural Heritage is governed by the City Codes.
Councilmember Reyes moved, seconded by Councilmember LaBonge , that th e Special
Council meeting adjourn.
Ayes, Greuel, Hahn, LaBonge, Padilla, Reyes, Rosendahl, Smith, Weiss, Wesson and
Zine (10);
Absent : Cardenas, Huizar, Parks, Perry and President Garcetti (5 ).
Whereupon the Special Council meeting did adjourn.
ATTEST: Frank T. Martinez, CITY CLERK
By Council Clerk
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this particular case, the members of the City Council went against the recommendations of the Planning and Land Use Committee.
Let's hope the City Council has learned some better lessons by now.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Go Away!
There is nothing new to report concerning activities by R Neighborhoods Are 1 and Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
When something new is announced, please be sure to come back to this blog or visit www.pontevista.blogspot.com for more information.
That blog provides a great deal of information without necessarily dealing with activities by the largest group of members of OUR community who oppose over development in northwest San Pedro.
There is nothing new to report concerning activities by R Neighborhoods Are 1 and Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
When something new is announced, please be sure to come back to this blog or visit www.pontevista.blogspot.com for more information.
That blog provides a great deal of information without necessarily dealing with activities by the largest group of members of OUR community who oppose over development in northwest San Pedro.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Bob's Empire Continues to Shrink
January 13, 2009
Written by Frederick Ankenman
Santa Ana Land to Be Part of Mixed-Use Development
LPC Acquires 6 Acres from Bisno Development
Lincoln Property Co. purchased the six-acre parcel at the corner of North Main Street and East Memory Lane in Santa Ana, CA, from Bisno Development for an undisclosed amount.
The land will be a portion of City Place, a proposed 18-acre mixed-use project.
The project will have a total of 242 live-work town homes and 60,000 square feet of retail space. The buyer and the seller received in-house representation.
Please refer to CoStar COMPS #1619482 for additional information.
Written by Frederick Ankenman
Santa Ana Land to Be Part of Mixed-Use Development
LPC Acquires 6 Acres from Bisno Development
Lincoln Property Co. purchased the six-acre parcel at the corner of North Main Street and East Memory Lane in Santa Ana, CA, from Bisno Development for an undisclosed amount.
The land will be a portion of City Place, a proposed 18-acre mixed-use project.
The project will have a total of 242 live-work town homes and 60,000 square feet of retail space. The buyer and the seller received in-house representation.
Please refer to CoStar COMPS #1619482 for additional information.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Another Victory Against Over Development!
This is just in from the following blog:
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/
EXTRA! HOME DEPOT PULLS OUT OF SUNLAND-TUJUNGA! THE PEOPLE WIN!
Read the post from Joe B. and stay tuned throughout the day as he may have more updates.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Home Depot Pulls Out Of S-T!
Breaking News! We just spoke with a high ranking Home Depot official (at 10:45 pm) and he is confirming that HD is backing out of their proposed store in Sunland-Tujunga!
We are still shaking from the news, updates when we settle down and stop celebrating!Score a big victory for local control and our community!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it's just the current economic conditions.
But perhaps it is really community members who have gathered together against over development with the greater Los Angeles area to work towards getting some control over their own communities.
Whatever the reasons are, fighting over development in the greater L.A. area has now found another reason I contend that R Neighborhoods Are 1 was working at the very beginning of a real movement towards residents taking over their neighborhoods to fight against developers, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and elected officials who think they know better than we do what we will accept.
Fighting against over development goes from the north end of the San Fernando Valley to the port community. It can be found on the west side of Los Angeles and in places like Baldwin Park and Santa Ana.
Yes, I do believe we are now members of a real and growing movement that R Neighborhoods Are 1 was a fundamental group that helped to create the movement we are now watching unfold.
We must continue to work with other groups, doing whatever is necessary to continue to build the movement that is now found in so many places and dealing with so many over developments.
More hurdles will still come before us. The largest of these hurdles is right in our own front yard with Ponte Vista and the fact that it may be developed by a HUGE Real Estate Development company OR it may simply become ignored for an uncertain period of time.
R Neighborhoods Are 1 has been here since before the beginning of a movement that clearly is moving forward for the members of so many communities.
I feel we can count the group as being one of the forerunners and best equipped to handle the issues we are confronted with and we have been willing to provide leadership, guidance, and demonstrations to other groups who have as their goal, the control of over development.
The latest news from Mayor Sam is good news and should be considered one more step along the way.
http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/
EXTRA! HOME DEPOT PULLS OUT OF SUNLAND-TUJUNGA! THE PEOPLE WIN!
Read the post from Joe B. and stay tuned throughout the day as he may have more updates.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Home Depot Pulls Out Of S-T!
Breaking News! We just spoke with a high ranking Home Depot official (at 10:45 pm) and he is confirming that HD is backing out of their proposed store in Sunland-Tujunga!
We are still shaking from the news, updates when we settle down and stop celebrating!Score a big victory for local control and our community!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe it's just the current economic conditions.
But perhaps it is really community members who have gathered together against over development with the greater Los Angeles area to work towards getting some control over their own communities.
Whatever the reasons are, fighting over development in the greater L.A. area has now found another reason I contend that R Neighborhoods Are 1 was working at the very beginning of a real movement towards residents taking over their neighborhoods to fight against developers, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and elected officials who think they know better than we do what we will accept.
Fighting against over development goes from the north end of the San Fernando Valley to the port community. It can be found on the west side of Los Angeles and in places like Baldwin Park and Santa Ana.
Yes, I do believe we are now members of a real and growing movement that R Neighborhoods Are 1 was a fundamental group that helped to create the movement we are now watching unfold.
We must continue to work with other groups, doing whatever is necessary to continue to build the movement that is now found in so many places and dealing with so many over developments.
More hurdles will still come before us. The largest of these hurdles is right in our own front yard with Ponte Vista and the fact that it may be developed by a HUGE Real Estate Development company OR it may simply become ignored for an uncertain period of time.
R Neighborhoods Are 1 has been here since before the beginning of a movement that clearly is moving forward for the members of so many communities.
I feel we can count the group as being one of the forerunners and best equipped to handle the issues we are confronted with and we have been willing to provide leadership, guidance, and demonstrations to other groups who have as their goal, the control of over development.
The latest news from Mayor Sam is good news and should be considered one more step along the way.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Coming Together To Fight Over Development
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
