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.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Here is an article that appeared in the Sunday edition of The Daily Breeze.
Threesixty project will remain vacant
By Sandy Mazza, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/06/2008 10:23:49 PM PST
More than a year after construction was halted on a high-end housing development on Hawthorne's west side, a black fence still surrounds the site and a sign informs visitors that the homes aren't for sale.
Threesixty at South Bay opened last year near Aviation and El Segundo boulevards with expectations that the development would attract young professionals and bring a nice chunk of property taxes to a city partially run down by thousands of cheap apartments.
But the houses didn't sell.
"There were essentially no sales when we had our grand opening in October of 2007," states a written proposal from the developer, William Lyon Homes. "The opening of the project last year was simply bad timing and market conditions continue to decline."
Representatives from William Lyon Homes did not return calls for comment.
Last week, the developer withdrew a plan it had submitted to the city's Planning Commission to lease the apartments in the face of opposition from homeowners groups and City Council members.
Dennis Wild, president of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said he and his neighbors take pride in having a community of single-family homes.
"When people ask me where I'm from, I always say Hawthorne - even though a lot of people say Holly Glen," Wild said. "I've always said one of the reasons why it's a nice area is because we don't have any apartments."
Mary Franklin, a longtime resident and member of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said leasing the units could cause the neighborhood to deteriorate dramatically.
"Recently, we have seen people selling homes in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach to live in Hawthorne," Franklin wrote in an e-mail. "Rentals will destroy all the past successes accomplished and will only spread the already high rates of domestic violence and crime."
Threesixty at South Bay's infrastructure and common areas - two pools, a spa, a wine room, a gym and meeting rooms - have been built, but only seven of about 80 residential buildings have been constructed.
William Lyon Homes proposed building nearly 200 of the least expensive one- and two-bedroom units, called The Flats, in the center of the property and leasing them for $2,200 to $3,200 per month. A timeline for building the remaining single-family homes and multiunit buildings was not set.
The Flats housing units were advertised last year as being cheaper than the other model units, while still offering private garages, access to the pools, a gym and other amenities, as well as design features such as balconies, wood floors, granite countertops and walk-in closets.
Before they were taken off the market, The Flats model homes were listed from $500,000 to $700,000. The most expensive single-family home model was listed as nearly $1 million.
Last week, residents complained to the City Council that the leasing proposal was too vague. The developer said leasing would only be a temporary option, but did not give a timeline. Nor did the proposal say how long it would take to build the first phase of the project, or when the entire 625-unit development would be finished.
Del Aire Neighborhood Association President John Koppelman said he could support a plan to lease the homes if restrictions are imposed.
"We don't want it to stay as a ghost town forever," Koppelman said. "We recognize the way the economy and housing market is. They say they want to lease it on a temporary basis, but they don't define what temporary is."
William Lyon Homes representatives told homeowners groups that they will answer their concerns before making another proposal to lease the homes.
City Councilman Gary Parsons said the developer probably has a more difficult time selling the idea of leased units to Hawthorne residents because the city already has so many rentals. Many residents fear having a "Moneta Gardens West," he said.
Moneta Gardens is a low-income neighborhood on the east side of Hawthorne packed with high-density apartment buildings and rife with crime.
"Moneta Gardens has a transient population that doesn't vote, doesn't get involved in improving the community. We have too high a renter population already," said Parsons, who is against the developer's plan. "We'd like to balance that with more homeowners that care about the community getting better."
But Parsons acknowledged that there is a danger the developer will neglect the property and wait for the market to improve if the leasing proposal is not approved. That could mean living with a nearly 40-acre, unfinished, dusty lot for years.
"The developer has to maintain the property in good condition and keep the weeds down and provide security so we don't have vandalism," Parsons said.
El Segundo swapped the land where the development now sits in 2006 in a plan to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base from relocating to Colorado. The base was in danger of being closed because its facilities were deteriorated and seismically unsound. Both cities wanted to keep the base in the South Bay because about 50,000 jobs depend on it. The base was relocated across the street in a state-of-the-art facility, and its former lot was used for two housing developments - Threesixty and Fusion.
Councilman Danny Juarez said he wants the developer to turn the homes into housing for Air Force personnel. But that plan would not be profitable for William Lyon Homes, he said.
"I'm still convinced in my heart that the best way to deal with this is to work with the government, and maybe not put in the granite countertops. Make it a good place to live for the military," Juarez said.
On the northeast side of town near Van Ness Avenue and 120th Street, the Central Park 176-unit housing development also is stalled. Construction has begun, and homes were expected to hit the market around this time for $500,000 to $600,00, but none has been built.
A representative from Lee Homes, the Central Park developer, did not return a call for comment.
It is not clear when the housing and credit markets will return to a level that will satisfy developers, who bought when prices were high, to finish construction or sell, Koppelman said.
"I believe they should have some definition of what constitutes a better market for selling," Koppelman said. "They say they want to lease this until the market gets back. What does the market getting better mean? Is there a magic number?"
sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The article brought a fear the folks like me have if up to 1,196 units of non-age restricted condominiums are constructed at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
If any number of units at the Ponte Vista site become rentals, leases, or have rented out rooms, that would create a potentially extremely bad situation of just about everyone.
If folks are going to spend One Million Dollars or more on a multi-bedroom condominium unit at Ponte Vista and then be in an area where units are rented out and the population becomes more transitory, I don't know if any of those folks who really want a large luxurious condo in northwest San Pedro would pay to live in a project similar to what could be at Ponte Vista.
During the time the U.S. Navy had members and their families living at the site, Dodson Junior High School, as it was known at that time, was the most transitory school in the entire LAUSD system. More students moved into and out of its area over a year's time that at any other school in the District.
Having rental units and leased units available at Ponte Vista would mean that Dodson Middle School would see a much larger increase in students enrolling and then moving away than they have seen since the Navy housing was abandoned.
The number and nature of traffic patterns also changes where there are less stable neighborhoods, in terms of folks moving in and out of the area.
Even if there were as few as 775 condominium units built at the Ponte Vista site that have no age restricted units and no low income units because a density bonus was not applied, it still means too many folks would be moving in or out of the site each year.
One of the insurances that must be provided for whatever is built on the 61.53 acre site is to find ways to discourage having rental units within the project's site.
One way of doing that is to include some senior housing, I believe. First, I do still believe there are some seniors in this area who would like to live in senior housing at Ponte Vista.
I think a senior housing section would also provide better population diversity and stability.
I think the population density of the entire site could be better impacted by having some senior units that would naturally have fewer people living in individual units rather than a project completely devoid of any restricted-age housing.
I watched the Hawthorne site transform for being the L.A. Air Force Station/Base, to starting to have residential structures built on the site. I picked up my work van very close to the site.
Now when folks drive by the area, it looks starkly vacant and there are just several buildings a ways away from El Segundo Blvd that have cropped up on the site.
If there is such a demand for housing in the greater L.A. area as Mayor V. and too many others repeatedly state, then (not withstanding the current market and economic conditions) are more housing units being provided?
Maybe the 'need' simply has vanished?
Actually, there still may be a real need for more low-income housing in the greater L.A. area, but the developer/speculators for the Threesixty and the Ponte Vista at San Pedro projects never indicated they were willing to accept that need and provide housing in their speculative projects that would feel even some of that need.
It was also interesting to note in the article that the Developer of Threesixty was also wanting to build some single-family houses on the mixed-type project.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Now let's think about a related issue.
Just suppose the Developer of Threesixty worked much more closely with the U.S. Air Force to start work back up on building units at that site to provide housing for Air Force personnel and their families so much closer to the Air Force Base than in San Pedro?
Construction workers would be provided with jobs. There would be a lessening of traffic between El Segundo and San Pedro.
The Air Force would be able to get rid of its housing properties along 25th Street and more housing to members of the public would become available, in San Pedro.
Air pollution would be helped because fewer cars and bus trips between San Pedro and El Segundo would be necessary.
Time would be saved by many people.
I'm still looking for a down side regarding this idea.
Threesixty project will remain vacant
By Sandy Mazza, Staff Writer
Posted: 12/06/2008 10:23:49 PM PST
More than a year after construction was halted on a high-end housing development on Hawthorne's west side, a black fence still surrounds the site and a sign informs visitors that the homes aren't for sale.
Threesixty at South Bay opened last year near Aviation and El Segundo boulevards with expectations that the development would attract young professionals and bring a nice chunk of property taxes to a city partially run down by thousands of cheap apartments.
But the houses didn't sell.
"There were essentially no sales when we had our grand opening in October of 2007," states a written proposal from the developer, William Lyon Homes. "The opening of the project last year was simply bad timing and market conditions continue to decline."
Representatives from William Lyon Homes did not return calls for comment.
Last week, the developer withdrew a plan it had submitted to the city's Planning Commission to lease the apartments in the face of opposition from homeowners groups and City Council members.
Dennis Wild, president of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said he and his neighbors take pride in having a community of single-family homes.
"When people ask me where I'm from, I always say Hawthorne - even though a lot of people say Holly Glen," Wild said. "I've always said one of the reasons why it's a nice area is because we don't have any apartments."
Mary Franklin, a longtime resident and member of the Holly Glen Homeowners Association, said leasing the units could cause the neighborhood to deteriorate dramatically.
"Recently, we have seen people selling homes in El Segundo and Manhattan Beach to live in Hawthorne," Franklin wrote in an e-mail. "Rentals will destroy all the past successes accomplished and will only spread the already high rates of domestic violence and crime."
Threesixty at South Bay's infrastructure and common areas - two pools, a spa, a wine room, a gym and meeting rooms - have been built, but only seven of about 80 residential buildings have been constructed.
William Lyon Homes proposed building nearly 200 of the least expensive one- and two-bedroom units, called The Flats, in the center of the property and leasing them for $2,200 to $3,200 per month. A timeline for building the remaining single-family homes and multiunit buildings was not set.
The Flats housing units were advertised last year as being cheaper than the other model units, while still offering private garages, access to the pools, a gym and other amenities, as well as design features such as balconies, wood floors, granite countertops and walk-in closets.
Before they were taken off the market, The Flats model homes were listed from $500,000 to $700,000. The most expensive single-family home model was listed as nearly $1 million.
Last week, residents complained to the City Council that the leasing proposal was too vague. The developer said leasing would only be a temporary option, but did not give a timeline. Nor did the proposal say how long it would take to build the first phase of the project, or when the entire 625-unit development would be finished.
Del Aire Neighborhood Association President John Koppelman said he could support a plan to lease the homes if restrictions are imposed.
"We don't want it to stay as a ghost town forever," Koppelman said. "We recognize the way the economy and housing market is. They say they want to lease it on a temporary basis, but they don't define what temporary is."
William Lyon Homes representatives told homeowners groups that they will answer their concerns before making another proposal to lease the homes.
City Councilman Gary Parsons said the developer probably has a more difficult time selling the idea of leased units to Hawthorne residents because the city already has so many rentals. Many residents fear having a "Moneta Gardens West," he said.
Moneta Gardens is a low-income neighborhood on the east side of Hawthorne packed with high-density apartment buildings and rife with crime.
"Moneta Gardens has a transient population that doesn't vote, doesn't get involved in improving the community. We have too high a renter population already," said Parsons, who is against the developer's plan. "We'd like to balance that with more homeowners that care about the community getting better."
But Parsons acknowledged that there is a danger the developer will neglect the property and wait for the market to improve if the leasing proposal is not approved. That could mean living with a nearly 40-acre, unfinished, dusty lot for years.
"The developer has to maintain the property in good condition and keep the weeds down and provide security so we don't have vandalism," Parsons said.
El Segundo swapped the land where the development now sits in 2006 in a plan to keep the Los Angeles Air Force Base from relocating to Colorado. The base was in danger of being closed because its facilities were deteriorated and seismically unsound. Both cities wanted to keep the base in the South Bay because about 50,000 jobs depend on it. The base was relocated across the street in a state-of-the-art facility, and its former lot was used for two housing developments - Threesixty and Fusion.
Councilman Danny Juarez said he wants the developer to turn the homes into housing for Air Force personnel. But that plan would not be profitable for William Lyon Homes, he said.
"I'm still convinced in my heart that the best way to deal with this is to work with the government, and maybe not put in the granite countertops. Make it a good place to live for the military," Juarez said.
On the northeast side of town near Van Ness Avenue and 120th Street, the Central Park 176-unit housing development also is stalled. Construction has begun, and homes were expected to hit the market around this time for $500,000 to $600,00, but none has been built.
A representative from Lee Homes, the Central Park developer, did not return a call for comment.
It is not clear when the housing and credit markets will return to a level that will satisfy developers, who bought when prices were high, to finish construction or sell, Koppelman said.
"I believe they should have some definition of what constitutes a better market for selling," Koppelman said. "They say they want to lease this until the market gets back. What does the market getting better mean? Is there a magic number?"
sandy.mazza@dailybreeze.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The article brought a fear the folks like me have if up to 1,196 units of non-age restricted condominiums are constructed at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
If any number of units at the Ponte Vista site become rentals, leases, or have rented out rooms, that would create a potentially extremely bad situation of just about everyone.
If folks are going to spend One Million Dollars or more on a multi-bedroom condominium unit at Ponte Vista and then be in an area where units are rented out and the population becomes more transitory, I don't know if any of those folks who really want a large luxurious condo in northwest San Pedro would pay to live in a project similar to what could be at Ponte Vista.
During the time the U.S. Navy had members and their families living at the site, Dodson Junior High School, as it was known at that time, was the most transitory school in the entire LAUSD system. More students moved into and out of its area over a year's time that at any other school in the District.
Having rental units and leased units available at Ponte Vista would mean that Dodson Middle School would see a much larger increase in students enrolling and then moving away than they have seen since the Navy housing was abandoned.
The number and nature of traffic patterns also changes where there are less stable neighborhoods, in terms of folks moving in and out of the area.
Even if there were as few as 775 condominium units built at the Ponte Vista site that have no age restricted units and no low income units because a density bonus was not applied, it still means too many folks would be moving in or out of the site each year.
One of the insurances that must be provided for whatever is built on the 61.53 acre site is to find ways to discourage having rental units within the project's site.
One way of doing that is to include some senior housing, I believe. First, I do still believe there are some seniors in this area who would like to live in senior housing at Ponte Vista.
I think a senior housing section would also provide better population diversity and stability.
I think the population density of the entire site could be better impacted by having some senior units that would naturally have fewer people living in individual units rather than a project completely devoid of any restricted-age housing.
I watched the Hawthorne site transform for being the L.A. Air Force Station/Base, to starting to have residential structures built on the site. I picked up my work van very close to the site.
Now when folks drive by the area, it looks starkly vacant and there are just several buildings a ways away from El Segundo Blvd that have cropped up on the site.
If there is such a demand for housing in the greater L.A. area as Mayor V. and too many others repeatedly state, then (not withstanding the current market and economic conditions) are more housing units being provided?
Maybe the 'need' simply has vanished?
Actually, there still may be a real need for more low-income housing in the greater L.A. area, but the developer/speculators for the Threesixty and the Ponte Vista at San Pedro projects never indicated they were willing to accept that need and provide housing in their speculative projects that would feel even some of that need.
It was also interesting to note in the article that the Developer of Threesixty was also wanting to build some single-family houses on the mixed-type project.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Now let's think about a related issue.
Just suppose the Developer of Threesixty worked much more closely with the U.S. Air Force to start work back up on building units at that site to provide housing for Air Force personnel and their families so much closer to the Air Force Base than in San Pedro?
Construction workers would be provided with jobs. There would be a lessening of traffic between El Segundo and San Pedro.
The Air Force would be able to get rid of its housing properties along 25th Street and more housing to members of the public would become available, in San Pedro.
Air pollution would be helped because fewer cars and bus trips between San Pedro and El Segundo would be necessary.
Time would be saved by many people.
I'm still looking for a down side regarding this idea.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
A Post From Ron Kaye's Blog
Here is a post from Ron Kaye's Blog: http://ronkayela.com/
City Planners Say "No" to Home Depot -- Full environmental study required
By Ron Kaye
Score another victory for community activists: The City Planning Department has rejected Home Depot's request for an exemption from conducting a full environmental assessment about the impact of converting a closed K-Mart store in Sunland-Tujunga into another giant home improvement center.
Here's the ruling issued today homedepoteir.pdf What city planners decided is that an exemption from the environmental study process is not appropriate because quite simply the store conversion is not "negligible'' as Home Depot -- a decision that will require a lengthy study and public debate.
The company has spent millions of dollars and used all its clout and gotten a lot of help from some city officials to ram this down the community's throat.
It has sued the city and the City Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program has lost its credibility trying to run roughshod over opposition.
Yet, all that's happened is that Sunland-Tujunga has become a model of what residents can achieve when they organize.
Hundreds of people have gotten involved, taken action and raised their consciousness about the issues they face throughout the Sunland-Tujunga area. They have won battles to protect the historical nature of some neighborhoods and gotten special protections against mansionization among other victories.
But none is sweeter than than the long fight to make Home Depot comply with the law.
Home Depot got a building permit with no questions being asked three years ago, with no input from the community. A long and often vicious campaign followed as the community mobilized, set up When local residents found a websute and created enough political pressure to force the City Council to call the Planning Department to review the situation.
Home Depot sued and then put it on hold while the city's mediators trying to get around opponents and the planner went about the process of analyzing the company's claims that the store conversion was just a simple remodel with new signs and security lights.
The "No Home Depot" campaign focused on traffic impacts, toxic chemicals near schools, local businesses that would be harmed and many other issues. What they really wanted was a general merchandise store and a community center that would meet their needs.
Home Depot's response was to accuse the community of being racist and opposing day laborers hanging around the store as they do at most of the company's home improvement centsrs.
City Planners Say "No" to Home Depot -- Full environmental study required
By Ron Kaye
Score another victory for community activists: The City Planning Department has rejected Home Depot's request for an exemption from conducting a full environmental assessment about the impact of converting a closed K-Mart store in Sunland-Tujunga into another giant home improvement center.
Here's the ruling issued today homedepoteir.pdf What city planners decided is that an exemption from the environmental study process is not appropriate because quite simply the store conversion is not "negligible'' as Home Depot -- a decision that will require a lengthy study and public debate.
The company has spent millions of dollars and used all its clout and gotten a lot of help from some city officials to ram this down the community's throat.
It has sued the city and the City Attorney's Dispute Resolution Program has lost its credibility trying to run roughshod over opposition.
Yet, all that's happened is that Sunland-Tujunga has become a model of what residents can achieve when they organize.
Hundreds of people have gotten involved, taken action and raised their consciousness about the issues they face throughout the Sunland-Tujunga area. They have won battles to protect the historical nature of some neighborhoods and gotten special protections against mansionization among other victories.
But none is sweeter than than the long fight to make Home Depot comply with the law.
Home Depot got a building permit with no questions being asked three years ago, with no input from the community. A long and often vicious campaign followed as the community mobilized, set up When local residents found a websute and created enough political pressure to force the City Council to call the Planning Department to review the situation.
Home Depot sued and then put it on hold while the city's mediators trying to get around opponents and the planner went about the process of analyzing the company's claims that the store conversion was just a simple remodel with new signs and security lights.
The "No Home Depot" campaign focused on traffic impacts, toxic chemicals near schools, local businesses that would be harmed and many other issues. What they really wanted was a general merchandise store and a community center that would meet their needs.
Home Depot's response was to accuse the community of being racist and opposing day laborers hanging around the store as they do at most of the company's home improvement centsrs.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The Guidelines, The Planning Department, and Ms. Hahn
The Guidelines.
When the Planning Department issued its Report, with recommendations concerning the applicant's plans and guidelines that the Planning Department feels could provide for construction at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it brought forth some things that were very good and some things that were very bad.
This post will not be concerned with the recommendations. You can find those recommendations in other posts and on other sites.
The Guidelines set forth in the Report deal with what the Planning Department seems to feel would be acceptable levels of construction and types of construction on the 61.53 acre site.
The Guidelines suggest that up to 886-condominium units can be built on the site, without a density bonus being applied. With a density bonus, the number of units suggested move to up to 1,196 units could be built.
The Guidelines also include fifteen points suggesting amenities and other things for the site.
Significant questions have been raised about the Guidelines, whether they should have been included in the Report, how they were created, where did the data for those guidelines really come from, and what are the ramifications going to be, now that they have been published?
Already we have seen and heard from individuals who have offered their support for the Guidelines without much vetting of those Guidelines in public forums and with local groups.
Did members of the Planning Department work alongside local government officials and community groups before publishing the Guidelines?
Did the Planning Department offer to more prominent members of OUR community the opportunity to learn about the Guidelines and provide comments to the Planning Department before the Guidelines became public?
Is there a process with members of OUR community can actively challenge the Guidelines and attempt to have those Guidelines rescinded?
Can the Guidelines be found legitimate to the majority of the members of OUR community?
If not, then what?
During the Area Planning Commission hearing, I listened intently to comments made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
I believe I heard he state her support for the Guidelines established by the Planning Department in its Report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Do members of OUR community support Ms. Hahn's advocacy of the Guidelines?
Does that really matter?
Can OUR community work together, using the Guidelines now apparently supported by Ms. Hahn to create a Ponte Vista site that is the best for OUR community?
Can and should members of OUR community work with other to make changes to those guidelines and ask for Councilwoman Hahn's support in that endeavor?
Personally I am not happy at all with the prospect of having 1,196 non-age restricted condos along Western Avenue. That number is still too many for that type of housing on that particular site. (Density bonus included)
The prospect that too many of those units would become rentals, leases, or have rooms rented out, is something I will continue to fight against.
886 units of non-age restricted condos, without the density, bonus would probably create a condo development that would not look very good in the area and would probably be built to lower standards to maximize profits for the builders and developer.
I do not think members of OUR community want to see a type of condo project that looks too similar to Miraleste Canyon Estates. That site was originally all apartments but today it is not very much to look at.
It was also with sadness that I heard the President of the Harbor Area Planning Commission claim no support for keeping the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site with its current zoning.
I was dismayed that this server to the public would not reveal his opinion as to why he doesn't want R1 at the site. I think even though he is a volunteer, his position as a public representative means he should provide to that public, his reasoning for support or opposition. This is more true when it also is the fact that Mr. Ponce's recommendation is the only one of the HAPC members' that the City Planning Commission may hear.
I hold no hope that Ms. Hahn will continue to support keeping the current zoning at the site if an application comes forward that looks like the Guidelines set by the Planning Department.
I have always recognized, even when I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee, that Ms. Hahn could be persuades to support zoning other than R1 if a development came along that she could put her support behind.
Keeping the site with its current zoning will always be an uphill struggle and one that not that many folks in OUR community seem to truly support.
In March, 2007, when the petitions were brought to Ms. Hahn, I finally believed that the current zoning would remain on the site as long as Bob continued with his ridiculous plans.
Those plans are now gone and we can only wait to see if he or someone else comes up with plans that fit in with the Guidelines. If that does happen and Ms. Hahn continues her support for those Guidelines, then I think R1 will become history, too.
So maybe we need to work on getting the Guidelines changed and changing the minds of Ms. Hahn and others.
When the Planning Department issued its Report, with recommendations concerning the applicant's plans and guidelines that the Planning Department feels could provide for construction at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it brought forth some things that were very good and some things that were very bad.
This post will not be concerned with the recommendations. You can find those recommendations in other posts and on other sites.
The Guidelines set forth in the Report deal with what the Planning Department seems to feel would be acceptable levels of construction and types of construction on the 61.53 acre site.
The Guidelines suggest that up to 886-condominium units can be built on the site, without a density bonus being applied. With a density bonus, the number of units suggested move to up to 1,196 units could be built.
The Guidelines also include fifteen points suggesting amenities and other things for the site.
Significant questions have been raised about the Guidelines, whether they should have been included in the Report, how they were created, where did the data for those guidelines really come from, and what are the ramifications going to be, now that they have been published?
Already we have seen and heard from individuals who have offered their support for the Guidelines without much vetting of those Guidelines in public forums and with local groups.
Did members of the Planning Department work alongside local government officials and community groups before publishing the Guidelines?
Did the Planning Department offer to more prominent members of OUR community the opportunity to learn about the Guidelines and provide comments to the Planning Department before the Guidelines became public?
Is there a process with members of OUR community can actively challenge the Guidelines and attempt to have those Guidelines rescinded?
Can the Guidelines be found legitimate to the majority of the members of OUR community?
If not, then what?
During the Area Planning Commission hearing, I listened intently to comments made by Councilwoman Janice Hahn.
I believe I heard he state her support for the Guidelines established by the Planning Department in its Report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Do members of OUR community support Ms. Hahn's advocacy of the Guidelines?
Does that really matter?
Can OUR community work together, using the Guidelines now apparently supported by Ms. Hahn to create a Ponte Vista site that is the best for OUR community?
Can and should members of OUR community work with other to make changes to those guidelines and ask for Councilwoman Hahn's support in that endeavor?
Personally I am not happy at all with the prospect of having 1,196 non-age restricted condos along Western Avenue. That number is still too many for that type of housing on that particular site. (Density bonus included)
The prospect that too many of those units would become rentals, leases, or have rooms rented out, is something I will continue to fight against.
886 units of non-age restricted condos, without the density, bonus would probably create a condo development that would not look very good in the area and would probably be built to lower standards to maximize profits for the builders and developer.
I do not think members of OUR community want to see a type of condo project that looks too similar to Miraleste Canyon Estates. That site was originally all apartments but today it is not very much to look at.
It was also with sadness that I heard the President of the Harbor Area Planning Commission claim no support for keeping the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site with its current zoning.
I was dismayed that this server to the public would not reveal his opinion as to why he doesn't want R1 at the site. I think even though he is a volunteer, his position as a public representative means he should provide to that public, his reasoning for support or opposition. This is more true when it also is the fact that Mr. Ponce's recommendation is the only one of the HAPC members' that the City Planning Commission may hear.
I hold no hope that Ms. Hahn will continue to support keeping the current zoning at the site if an application comes forward that looks like the Guidelines set by the Planning Department.
I have always recognized, even when I was a member of the Community Advisory Committee, that Ms. Hahn could be persuades to support zoning other than R1 if a development came along that she could put her support behind.
Keeping the site with its current zoning will always be an uphill struggle and one that not that many folks in OUR community seem to truly support.
In March, 2007, when the petitions were brought to Ms. Hahn, I finally believed that the current zoning would remain on the site as long as Bob continued with his ridiculous plans.
Those plans are now gone and we can only wait to see if he or someone else comes up with plans that fit in with the Guidelines. If that does happen and Ms. Hahn continues her support for those Guidelines, then I think R1 will become history, too.
So maybe we need to work on getting the Guidelines changed and changing the minds of Ms. Hahn and others.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Continuation of the Ponte Vista Matter Has Been Confirmed!
The applicant for Ponte Vista at San Pedro has requested a 45-day continuance on holding the City Planning Commission meeting concerning the project.
I can now confirm as of 3:44 PM on Monday December 1, 2008, the Los Angeles City Planning Department has agreed to the continuance.
According to a senior spokesperson for the development, the applicant had asked for the continuance in order to study more "options" concerning the project.
The December 2, Harbor Area Planning Commission is still scheduled and it can go on even without a quorum because there will be nothing decided during that meeting and comments from the public will be taken.
The December 2 meeting is important to those who oppose Bob's plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, but I have been given to believe that the Outreach Team is not planning on having a large semi-organized group of supporters attending that meeting.
Stay 'tuned' to this blog for further information to be posted as I learn it.I will try to update this blog as soon as I learn more because as Katy Morgan said so well, "It's my job."
No new date for the City Planning Commission to hear from the applicant has been set.
I can now confirm as of 3:44 PM on Monday December 1, 2008, the Los Angeles City Planning Department has agreed to the continuance.
According to a senior spokesperson for the development, the applicant had asked for the continuance in order to study more "options" concerning the project.
The December 2, Harbor Area Planning Commission is still scheduled and it can go on even without a quorum because there will be nothing decided during that meeting and comments from the public will be taken.
The December 2 meeting is important to those who oppose Bob's plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, but I have been given to believe that the Outreach Team is not planning on having a large semi-organized group of supporters attending that meeting.
Stay 'tuned' to this blog for further information to be posted as I learn it.I will try to update this blog as soon as I learn more because as Katy Morgan said so well, "It's my job."
No new date for the City Planning Commission to hear from the applicant has been set.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
City Place Santa Ana Prices Tumble
Here is an advertisement for City Place Santa Ana, probably the one project of Bob's that has found actual buyers, recently. Perhaps only some buyers, but buyers they are.
At the beginning of the month a marketing firmed used and auction tool to try and sell 114 units at City Place.
I still don't know how many of those units sold, but I have posted information about the minimum bid prices for those units.
It looks like the marketing company is now using some of the auction information to try and sell off more units, without the auction type of sales.
Please click over image to enlarge.
I can't say what profits might be generated if units sell at the listed prices, but look at the prices the units were originally offered at.
Home # 122 has been reduced by $239,990. What might the profit be after a 34% reduction in price?
What would the profit have been if the unit sold for the asking price of $704,990.
At the beginning of the month a marketing firmed used and auction tool to try and sell 114 units at City Place.
I still don't know how many of those units sold, but I have posted information about the minimum bid prices for those units.
It looks like the marketing company is now using some of the auction information to try and sell off more units, without the auction type of sales.
Please click over image to enlarge.I can't say what profits might be generated if units sell at the listed prices, but look at the prices the units were originally offered at.
Home # 122 has been reduced by $239,990. What might the profit be after a 34% reduction in price?
What would the profit have been if the unit sold for the asking price of $704,990.
Monday, November 24, 2008
And More News Keeps Coming In
Mr. Art Pedroza is the publisher of the Orange Juice Blog at: www.orangejuiceblog.com
It continues to appear that Bob Bisno is not have the greatest of the last few months of 2008.
Here is Mr. Pedroza's post from Sunday November 23, 2008....that would be yesterday!
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Developer Robert Bisno trying to sell his house for over $29 million
Developer Robert Bisno, who recently pulled out of an attempt to reshape the City of Baldwin Park’s downtown area via eminent domain, has now put his Beverly Hills home up for sale, according to the Celebrity Big Time Listings blog:
“In a Big Time Listings exclusive, we can report on the listing of the five-bedroom mansion, which was built in 2002 and which sits on a 5.133-acre parcel at 66 Beverly Park. The mansion just came on the market yesterday. Its owner, developer Robert Bisno, has been well-documented for his battles over foreclosure of this estate, as well as pending litigation with the North Beverly Park homeowners association regarding their having installed gates on the property, a dinosaur topiary and a rather colorful, eight-foot abstract sculpture (of what some say is a woman on her back with her legs in the air!) in their motor court. Take a look at this 2006 New York Times article for more on the Bisnos’ conflicts with their neighbors.”
To add insult to injury, Bisno has been having to use human signs to advertise auctions of the overpriced luxury condos he built at the City Place in Santa Ana. His proposed 31 story luxury condo tower was also not approved at the last Santa Ana Planning Commission meeting. They put it off until their next meeting.
Bisno has given thousands of dollars to Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and his crooked Council team. Perhaps he should have spent that money elsewhere? I’m sure he would love to have it back right about now…"
----------------------------------------------------------------
We are all free to speculate why Mr. Bisno is attempting to unload his personal home while he is attempting to have others buy homes at City Place Santa Ana.
It continues to appear that Bob Bisno is not have the greatest of the last few months of 2008.
Here is Mr. Pedroza's post from Sunday November 23, 2008....that would be yesterday!
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Developer Robert Bisno trying to sell his house for over $29 million
Developer Robert Bisno, who recently pulled out of an attempt to reshape the City of Baldwin Park’s downtown area via eminent domain, has now put his Beverly Hills home up for sale, according to the Celebrity Big Time Listings blog:
“In a Big Time Listings exclusive, we can report on the listing of the five-bedroom mansion, which was built in 2002 and which sits on a 5.133-acre parcel at 66 Beverly Park. The mansion just came on the market yesterday. Its owner, developer Robert Bisno, has been well-documented for his battles over foreclosure of this estate, as well as pending litigation with the North Beverly Park homeowners association regarding their having installed gates on the property, a dinosaur topiary and a rather colorful, eight-foot abstract sculpture (of what some say is a woman on her back with her legs in the air!) in their motor court. Take a look at this 2006 New York Times article for more on the Bisnos’ conflicts with their neighbors.”
To add insult to injury, Bisno has been having to use human signs to advertise auctions of the overpriced luxury condos he built at the City Place in Santa Ana. His proposed 31 story luxury condo tower was also not approved at the last Santa Ana Planning Commission meeting. They put it off until their next meeting.
Bisno has given thousands of dollars to Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and his crooked Council team. Perhaps he should have spent that money elsewhere? I’m sure he would love to have it back right about now…"
----------------------------------------------------------------
We are all free to speculate why Mr. Bisno is attempting to unload his personal home while he is attempting to have others buy homes at City Place Santa Ana.
The Party Is Over For Now
I hope everyone who seeks to keep the Ponte Vista site with its current zoning and only have R1, single-family, detached houses on lots of not less than 5,00 square feet knows, that the weekend of premature celebration is OVER and now it is time to face some real realities.
It is time for people who have criticized and condemned members of OUR community who continue to fight for R1, to stop all of that stuff and understand several things.
The report released last Friday did not suggest or recommend that the current zoning necessarily remain at the Ponte Vista site. The guidelines established in the report were not created by anyone belonging to R Neighborhoods Are 1!
We did absolutely nothing wrong in objecting to Bob's plans and we carry no responsibility for what was written in the report.
It is not our fault that the report repudiated just about every element of Bob's plans and we share no blame or guilt for what was published.
In fact, the report also created a need for 'our' side to work even harder to attempt to maintain the current zoning at the site, now that more obstacles have been placed in the way.
Yes, some of us were happy with the news that was more bad for Bob and his supporters than it was for us. But there was some poor news in the report for our side as well.
The report contained information that proves there is no reason to believe that our side was wrong to fight Bob's plans for such a giant development. In truth, the report suggests 'our' side actually helped save OUR community from a project that surely was too large and which was established as such by the city Planning Department.
So for anyone to continue to make foul, improper, and ignorant statements about R Neighborhoods Are 1 or anyone who favors keeping the current zoning at the Ponte Vista site, it is now time for them to back off, silence themselves, and.......GET OVER IT!
Now folks, the report did place many of us in a pickle, unfortunately.
The report's fifteen points that make up the guidelines for what the Planning Department suggests could be built at the site does create problems that need to be overcome.
Starting today and continuing on as long as necessary, it is time to redouble our efforts if we truly want to keep the site in northwest San Pedro with its current zoning.
Our cause continues and I do not believe there is any reason to slow down one bit. I hope everyone visits http://www.rneighborhoodsare1.org/ and looks for the pages where you can help donate to the group's defense fund. We are going to need your help now, even more than before.
As easy or tough as it has been to fight against Bob's plans, we are now going to be up against the Planning Department and possibly some elected officials in the coming weeks and months.
It is unclear whether Councilwoman Hahn will want to look favorably towards the guidelines now established by the Planning Department, at some point. She is up for re-election, but she doesn't appear to have any real opposition.
If saving the current zoning means the group has to go up against the Planning Department, then that may become part of the future of the group.
Now that we all know the guidelines established for the Ponte Vista site by the Planning Department, we need to continue to fight for what the group wants.
We need to remain ready, steadfast to our goals, firm in our convictions for the group, able to provide the best results for OUR community, and be willing to continue the fights that will certainly come.
Even after Bob finally has his day with the Los Angeles City Council, R Neighborhoods Are 1 will still be here and the group will need your continued support with your words, you actions, and your monetary contributions.
I am still here to make buttons. This blog will remain to help fight the good fight. We still need to remain together.
Please continue to visit both of my blogs concerning Ponte Vista long after Bob has had his day and his you-know-what handed to him by the City Council, on a silver platter.
There will be other times to celebrate for a short period of time in the coming months, but long term, we've only just begun.
It is time for people who have criticized and condemned members of OUR community who continue to fight for R1, to stop all of that stuff and understand several things.
The report released last Friday did not suggest or recommend that the current zoning necessarily remain at the Ponte Vista site. The guidelines established in the report were not created by anyone belonging to R Neighborhoods Are 1!
We did absolutely nothing wrong in objecting to Bob's plans and we carry no responsibility for what was written in the report.
It is not our fault that the report repudiated just about every element of Bob's plans and we share no blame or guilt for what was published.
In fact, the report also created a need for 'our' side to work even harder to attempt to maintain the current zoning at the site, now that more obstacles have been placed in the way.
Yes, some of us were happy with the news that was more bad for Bob and his supporters than it was for us. But there was some poor news in the report for our side as well.
The report contained information that proves there is no reason to believe that our side was wrong to fight Bob's plans for such a giant development. In truth, the report suggests 'our' side actually helped save OUR community from a project that surely was too large and which was established as such by the city Planning Department.
So for anyone to continue to make foul, improper, and ignorant statements about R Neighborhoods Are 1 or anyone who favors keeping the current zoning at the Ponte Vista site, it is now time for them to back off, silence themselves, and.......GET OVER IT!
Now folks, the report did place many of us in a pickle, unfortunately.
The report's fifteen points that make up the guidelines for what the Planning Department suggests could be built at the site does create problems that need to be overcome.
Starting today and continuing on as long as necessary, it is time to redouble our efforts if we truly want to keep the site in northwest San Pedro with its current zoning.
Our cause continues and I do not believe there is any reason to slow down one bit. I hope everyone visits http://www.rneighborhoodsare1.org/ and looks for the pages where you can help donate to the group's defense fund. We are going to need your help now, even more than before.
As easy or tough as it has been to fight against Bob's plans, we are now going to be up against the Planning Department and possibly some elected officials in the coming weeks and months.
It is unclear whether Councilwoman Hahn will want to look favorably towards the guidelines now established by the Planning Department, at some point. She is up for re-election, but she doesn't appear to have any real opposition.
If saving the current zoning means the group has to go up against the Planning Department, then that may become part of the future of the group.
Now that we all know the guidelines established for the Ponte Vista site by the Planning Department, we need to continue to fight for what the group wants.
We need to remain ready, steadfast to our goals, firm in our convictions for the group, able to provide the best results for OUR community, and be willing to continue the fights that will certainly come.
Even after Bob finally has his day with the Los Angeles City Council, R Neighborhoods Are 1 will still be here and the group will need your continued support with your words, you actions, and your monetary contributions.
I am still here to make buttons. This blog will remain to help fight the good fight. We still need to remain together.
Please continue to visit both of my blogs concerning Ponte Vista long after Bob has had his day and his you-know-what handed to him by the City Council, on a silver platter.
There will be other times to celebrate for a short period of time in the coming months, but long term, we've only just begun.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Humor In The Middle Of The Weekend
Time out for humor.
What are the magic words a mortician uses when he practices magic as a hobby?
"Abra Cadaver"
What are the magic words a mortician uses when he practices magic as a hobby?
"Abra Cadaver"
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The Morning After
This blog receives far fewer readers than www.pontevista.blogspot.com and that now seems even better for me.
I can use this blog to impart information about R Neighborhoods Are 1, just like I still do on the other blog.
I feel more comfortable venting and offering more outside opinions on this blog, too.
It is with that reasoning that I am creating this post.
Terri appeared much more excited that I appeared all last night after the news broke and the Report was published.
Terri was so pleased, she bought me Ice Cream, something I should not have.
She also had some trouble sleeping because she was thinking about all that we have gone through with everything associated with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I finally got to sleep after I created a page of alternate sayings as to what has and may happen to Bob since the publication of the Report.
One of the cleanest and least offensive creations was: His wall-mounted time reporting device was cleared of accumulated debris. This was offered as an opinion of what the planners wrote about his plans for Ponte Vista.
I saved all the creations and only sent it to one person who I knew would get a chuckle. That fellow also has a wicked sense of humor.
This morning broke with the article in The Daily Breeze which I read online shortly after Ms. Littlejohn posted it.
I am sadly mystified that Mr. Dominguez still seems to be so supportive of Bob's current plans.
What is it going to take for too many of Bob's supporters to realize that Bob's plans can never happen at the site?
How sad it is that some of our most prominent members of OUR community still seem to cling to the impossible?
I have stated time and time again that I do support some senior housing at the site, but for the life of me, I cannot help but wonder why so many people can't see the light of day and understand that following Bob is following a lost cause.
Earlier today I authored a currently 6-page article on my plan for the Ponte Vista site.
There is nothing in my plan that calls for the maintenance of the current zoning at the site and it still includes all three types of housing Bob wanted to build.
I feel my plan fits quite well into the guidelines for a revised plan for Ponte Vista, yet I am going to need some help from both supporters and opponents to get passed the opposition by the Planning Department for senior housing on the site.
Isn't it time for us to come together rather than remaining apart? What more evidence do supporters want or need to illustrate to them that Bob's current plans should be only a memory this morning.
Why continue to fight a hopeless cause? Why not work on something that includes some of what Bob wants and what the Planning Department thinks is workable?
I completely consider Bob's current plans to have passed away yesterday. It may be informal, but it should be considered that all things considered, there is really no chance that his application can be approved. This is my opinion, but I believe it is realistic, reasonable, and even respectful to everyone.
I have given myself the opportunity to change my mind several times concerning the Ponte Vista project.
With the first learning about the project during a dinner with a special couple, I was immediately excited and had positive thoughts concerning what I was learning.
From that time in 2005 or 2005 and until May 29, 2007, I remained open minded to may concepts and compromises.
Late in the evening of May 29, 2007 I finally had to come to grips that Bob's plans back then were for a project that was simply too large and because of his consistent unwillingness to really deal with compromise proposals, I had to state that as long as Bob would not compromise enough, the site had to remain, R1 NO COMPROMISE!
That statement still remains valid, to this day. But I do understand that members of OUR community, including elected officials consider that something will be built at the site.
Therefore, I began to consider ideas that do not fit with either Bob's current plans or strictly R1 zoning.
The number of units in my plan considers the ability to create a great development that would not be too overcrowded and put too many obstructions and obstacles into OUR community.
To find out that my plan actually can fit within the guidelines is something I feel should be thought of as serious and workable by more members of OUR community.
I have had complaints from people who state correctly that I am not an urban planner or an architect. I submit to all of you that my plan is much closer to what real urban planners and architects consider for Ponte Vista than those who follow Bob and his group.
For those of you who continue to back Bob's plans and ridicule me or my plans, perhaps it is time for you to look in the mirror and view who the real persons are that have helped doom Bob's plans.
You should also look to the leader of your groups and Bob's intransigence concerning real compromise.
Perhaps you followed Bob too far over the cliff and now you are beyond the branches that you could have grabbed on to.
There is a place for some of what Bob wanted and it can be built at the Ponte Vista site. It may be built by other developers, but there are some elements that should be provided in OUR community.
If my plans fly in the face of my fellow members of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Committee, well then, "T.S.!" (You could conclude that this is 'tough situation' or you can conclude what I really mean.)
As nobody should be bound to follow Bob lock-step like some seem to continue to do, nobody should be bound to follow everything R Neighborhoods Are 1 suggests.
It is true that the Steering Committee and myself included should follow the will of the more than 11,000 people who signed the R1 petition, and make sure Bob does not receive approval of his application to change the current zoning.
But that is probably already growing colder on a hard slab and only confined to bad memories.
Fight on I must and fight on we must to ensure that Bob's application and everything else he currently requests is voted down, ultimately by the Los Angeles City Council.
It would help if more supporters of Bob's would look into themselves and question why they continue to support an impossibility and not work toward the possible and realistic.
Who knows though, the weekend has just begun.
I can use this blog to impart information about R Neighborhoods Are 1, just like I still do on the other blog.
I feel more comfortable venting and offering more outside opinions on this blog, too.
It is with that reasoning that I am creating this post.
Terri appeared much more excited that I appeared all last night after the news broke and the Report was published.
Terri was so pleased, she bought me Ice Cream, something I should not have.
She also had some trouble sleeping because she was thinking about all that we have gone through with everything associated with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I finally got to sleep after I created a page of alternate sayings as to what has and may happen to Bob since the publication of the Report.
One of the cleanest and least offensive creations was: His wall-mounted time reporting device was cleared of accumulated debris. This was offered as an opinion of what the planners wrote about his plans for Ponte Vista.
I saved all the creations and only sent it to one person who I knew would get a chuckle. That fellow also has a wicked sense of humor.
This morning broke with the article in The Daily Breeze which I read online shortly after Ms. Littlejohn posted it.
I am sadly mystified that Mr. Dominguez still seems to be so supportive of Bob's current plans.
What is it going to take for too many of Bob's supporters to realize that Bob's plans can never happen at the site?
How sad it is that some of our most prominent members of OUR community still seem to cling to the impossible?
I have stated time and time again that I do support some senior housing at the site, but for the life of me, I cannot help but wonder why so many people can't see the light of day and understand that following Bob is following a lost cause.
Earlier today I authored a currently 6-page article on my plan for the Ponte Vista site.
There is nothing in my plan that calls for the maintenance of the current zoning at the site and it still includes all three types of housing Bob wanted to build.
I feel my plan fits quite well into the guidelines for a revised plan for Ponte Vista, yet I am going to need some help from both supporters and opponents to get passed the opposition by the Planning Department for senior housing on the site.
Isn't it time for us to come together rather than remaining apart? What more evidence do supporters want or need to illustrate to them that Bob's current plans should be only a memory this morning.
Why continue to fight a hopeless cause? Why not work on something that includes some of what Bob wants and what the Planning Department thinks is workable?
I completely consider Bob's current plans to have passed away yesterday. It may be informal, but it should be considered that all things considered, there is really no chance that his application can be approved. This is my opinion, but I believe it is realistic, reasonable, and even respectful to everyone.
I have given myself the opportunity to change my mind several times concerning the Ponte Vista project.
With the first learning about the project during a dinner with a special couple, I was immediately excited and had positive thoughts concerning what I was learning.
From that time in 2005 or 2005 and until May 29, 2007, I remained open minded to may concepts and compromises.
Late in the evening of May 29, 2007 I finally had to come to grips that Bob's plans back then were for a project that was simply too large and because of his consistent unwillingness to really deal with compromise proposals, I had to state that as long as Bob would not compromise enough, the site had to remain, R1 NO COMPROMISE!
That statement still remains valid, to this day. But I do understand that members of OUR community, including elected officials consider that something will be built at the site.
Therefore, I began to consider ideas that do not fit with either Bob's current plans or strictly R1 zoning.
The number of units in my plan considers the ability to create a great development that would not be too overcrowded and put too many obstructions and obstacles into OUR community.
To find out that my plan actually can fit within the guidelines is something I feel should be thought of as serious and workable by more members of OUR community.
I have had complaints from people who state correctly that I am not an urban planner or an architect. I submit to all of you that my plan is much closer to what real urban planners and architects consider for Ponte Vista than those who follow Bob and his group.
For those of you who continue to back Bob's plans and ridicule me or my plans, perhaps it is time for you to look in the mirror and view who the real persons are that have helped doom Bob's plans.
You should also look to the leader of your groups and Bob's intransigence concerning real compromise.
Perhaps you followed Bob too far over the cliff and now you are beyond the branches that you could have grabbed on to.
There is a place for some of what Bob wanted and it can be built at the Ponte Vista site. It may be built by other developers, but there are some elements that should be provided in OUR community.
If my plans fly in the face of my fellow members of the R Neighborhoods Are 1 Steering Committee, well then, "T.S.!" (You could conclude that this is 'tough situation' or you can conclude what I really mean.)
As nobody should be bound to follow Bob lock-step like some seem to continue to do, nobody should be bound to follow everything R Neighborhoods Are 1 suggests.
It is true that the Steering Committee and myself included should follow the will of the more than 11,000 people who signed the R1 petition, and make sure Bob does not receive approval of his application to change the current zoning.
But that is probably already growing colder on a hard slab and only confined to bad memories.
Fight on I must and fight on we must to ensure that Bob's application and everything else he currently requests is voted down, ultimately by the Los Angeles City Council.
It would help if more supporters of Bob's would look into themselves and question why they continue to support an impossibility and not work toward the possible and realistic.
Who knows though, the weekend has just begun.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Response From the Ponte Vista Outreach Team
I consider it only fair that I post the response to the Report by the Department of City Planning, by the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Outreach Team.
It was published on their blog a little earlier this evening.
This post will not opine on the following statement:
Ponte Vista Specific Plan Denied — Our Response
We are deeply disappointed to inform you that the City of Los Angeles Planning Department has issued a staff recommendation that denies the proposed Ponte Vista Specific Plan.
The staff report did not recommend a single family home development; however, it also did not recommend a unit count high enough to achieve many of the community benefits planned for Ponte Vista. The staff report recommends a unit count in the range of up to 1,200 units with a state approved density bonus.
The Planning Department has had the proposed Ponte Vista specific plan for over two years and has not commented or provided staff input on the plan.
We find it sad that the department put the community through two years of discussion without mentioning the concerns listed in the recommendation. Ponte Vista paid for a full time city planner to work on the details of specific plan with the development team and the community and that obviously did not happen.
We look forward to bringing our project to the City Planning Commission on Thursday, December 11. We will be in front of appointed leaders who put good land use ahead of politics as we pursue our vision of a truly mixed income neighborhood that will provide the maximum benefit to the community.
Please contact me if you have any questions at (310) 241 – 0699.
I want to personally thank you for your continued support.
Elise Swanson
It was published on their blog a little earlier this evening.
This post will not opine on the following statement:
Ponte Vista Specific Plan Denied — Our Response
We are deeply disappointed to inform you that the City of Los Angeles Planning Department has issued a staff recommendation that denies the proposed Ponte Vista Specific Plan.
The staff report did not recommend a single family home development; however, it also did not recommend a unit count high enough to achieve many of the community benefits planned for Ponte Vista. The staff report recommends a unit count in the range of up to 1,200 units with a state approved density bonus.
The Planning Department has had the proposed Ponte Vista specific plan for over two years and has not commented or provided staff input on the plan.
We find it sad that the department put the community through two years of discussion without mentioning the concerns listed in the recommendation. Ponte Vista paid for a full time city planner to work on the details of specific plan with the development team and the community and that obviously did not happen.
We look forward to bringing our project to the City Planning Commission on Thursday, December 11. We will be in front of appointed leaders who put good land use ahead of politics as we pursue our vision of a truly mixed income neighborhood that will provide the maximum benefit to the community.
Please contact me if you have any questions at (310) 241 – 0699.
I want to personally thank you for your continued support.
Elise Swanson
Recommendations From the Planning Department
With the release of the recommendations by the Planning Department I feel it is important that we all learn some lessons from the real urban planners, architects, staff, and managers of planning as to what they feel could be built at the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
Below are the four pages of the 37 Page report that deals with what planners suggest could be built at Ponte Vista.
I will post more comments below.
Please click over images to enlarge.
Below are the four pages of the 37 Page report that deals with what planners suggest could be built at Ponte Vista.
I will post more comments below.
Please click over images to enlarge.
As I read the pages I can understand that R1 is not necessarily the type of zoning planners suggest should remain on the site.
Because I have had a 'dream' or 'wish' that does not include any R1 zoning remaining on the land, I was pleased that my feelings seemed to be confirmed by city planners.
I am still quite surprised that the number of units recommended by planners is somewhat smaller than my 'dream' of 1,080 total units was. But seeing that my total number of units in my 'wish' falls well within the density bonus concept, is also comforting.
Of course, as always, and forever, as long as Bob is not willing to change his current plans, if he still has any, and until plans are brought for a real compromise, then the site must remain R1, NO COMPROMISE!
Bob has had more than plenty of time to work with others to create a reasonable compromise.
Don't Gloat!
Folks, this is not the time to gloat, boast, or celebrate too loudly.
There is still much to do and it is our responsibility to attempt to bring OUR community back together after Bob ends his bid for his current plans.
In reality, Bob either has to immediately learn from the recommendations created by the Planning Department and create a new application that is more in line with those recommendations, or simply put an end to his current plans and either sits on the land for a few years, or tries to sell off the land that is now probably worth about half of what he paid for it.
I charge that Bob has done some real damage to OUR community and the vast differences between his scheme and what the City Planners suggest could be built, demonstrate that he seemed to be more about clearing more profit than he was about helping out many in OUR community.
There are some very good San Pedrans that probably will have some egg on their faces, but I am still a bit hard-pressed to let many of them off that easily.
I have continually called for community members, with Bob and other, to come up with compromise proposals that are reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful to all members of OUR community. Yet, my phone remained silent and my inbox remained empty from those who both support Bob's plans, whatever they may be, and consider themselves 'community leaders.'
It is long passed time that these 'community leaders' realize that they may have been had by supporting a project that the developer should have known could never be approved.
But as much as I may have some anger with these 'community leaders' we all need to understand that they also may have been misled by Bob and his Outreach Team.
That is still not enough, though. It is the responsibility of all the members of OUR community who have been apart on the issues surrounding Ponte Vista to come back together and actually work for a project that does reflect what the community really wants and needs and also can find approval from the agencies and government citizens pay for.
There is a whole list of good people living in OUR community that need to find closure with their support for Bob and his concepts for Ponte Vista.
One of the most disturbing parts of the Report deals with senior housing. This type of housing was seemingly supported by a great number of people. The sad truth is that the plans supplied by Bob were so completely obliterated by the City Planning Department, it makes many folks feel they may have been misled, including me.
I do and did wish for some senior housing at Ponte Vista. I wanted it to be placed on the most southern end of the site because that is closest to the stores. This was something Bob completely repudiated. It now appears Bob was wrong and I wasn't.
There is a unknown number of seniors who wish for more options in San Pedro. The options provided by Bob have been deemed completely unworkable, and more than a few reasons have been given.
These senior citizens may have provided the backbone for the most vocal and active types of support for Bob's plans.
I feel OUR community must not ignore these good people and work with them for some kind of resolution.
I don't see how any supporters of Bob's plans can defend those plans when those plans are up against what was released by the Planning Department.
It is also thought that there will be some opponents of Bob's plans who will not necessarily be as 'nice' as they should be. I hope they are very few and quite apart from the rest of us.
However, I may write some fairly foul things in the future. I have been particularly attacked in many forms for my views which I still consider much nicer than the views of many others.
I have endured quite a lot of foul-fingered writers who supported Bob's plans. I continue to be somewhat attacked for my views, but I respect the fellow doing the attacking and he has many contributions to OUR community. He and I happen to disagree about many things regarding Ponte Vista but we both considered senior housing to be important, at the site.
There is still much to do and it is our responsibility to attempt to bring OUR community back together after Bob ends his bid for his current plans.
In reality, Bob either has to immediately learn from the recommendations created by the Planning Department and create a new application that is more in line with those recommendations, or simply put an end to his current plans and either sits on the land for a few years, or tries to sell off the land that is now probably worth about half of what he paid for it.
I charge that Bob has done some real damage to OUR community and the vast differences between his scheme and what the City Planners suggest could be built, demonstrate that he seemed to be more about clearing more profit than he was about helping out many in OUR community.
There are some very good San Pedrans that probably will have some egg on their faces, but I am still a bit hard-pressed to let many of them off that easily.
I have continually called for community members, with Bob and other, to come up with compromise proposals that are reasonable, realistic, responsible, and respectful to all members of OUR community. Yet, my phone remained silent and my inbox remained empty from those who both support Bob's plans, whatever they may be, and consider themselves 'community leaders.'
It is long passed time that these 'community leaders' realize that they may have been had by supporting a project that the developer should have known could never be approved.
But as much as I may have some anger with these 'community leaders' we all need to understand that they also may have been misled by Bob and his Outreach Team.
That is still not enough, though. It is the responsibility of all the members of OUR community who have been apart on the issues surrounding Ponte Vista to come back together and actually work for a project that does reflect what the community really wants and needs and also can find approval from the agencies and government citizens pay for.
There is a whole list of good people living in OUR community that need to find closure with their support for Bob and his concepts for Ponte Vista.
One of the most disturbing parts of the Report deals with senior housing. This type of housing was seemingly supported by a great number of people. The sad truth is that the plans supplied by Bob were so completely obliterated by the City Planning Department, it makes many folks feel they may have been misled, including me.
I do and did wish for some senior housing at Ponte Vista. I wanted it to be placed on the most southern end of the site because that is closest to the stores. This was something Bob completely repudiated. It now appears Bob was wrong and I wasn't.
There is a unknown number of seniors who wish for more options in San Pedro. The options provided by Bob have been deemed completely unworkable, and more than a few reasons have been given.
These senior citizens may have provided the backbone for the most vocal and active types of support for Bob's plans.
I feel OUR community must not ignore these good people and work with them for some kind of resolution.
I don't see how any supporters of Bob's plans can defend those plans when those plans are up against what was released by the Planning Department.
It is also thought that there will be some opponents of Bob's plans who will not necessarily be as 'nice' as they should be. I hope they are very few and quite apart from the rest of us.
However, I may write some fairly foul things in the future. I have been particularly attacked in many forms for my views which I still consider much nicer than the views of many others.
I have endured quite a lot of foul-fingered writers who supported Bob's plans. I continue to be somewhat attacked for my views, but I respect the fellow doing the attacking and he has many contributions to OUR community. He and I happen to disagree about many things regarding Ponte Vista but we both considered senior housing to be important, at the site.
Baldwin Park Saved From Bob Bisno!
Team Bisno’s eminent domain plans in Baldwin Park fail
By Art Pedroza, http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/:
“City officials say Bisno Development Co. is pulling out of a contentious, multimillion-dollar plan to revitalize more than 100 acres of downtown Baldwin Park, citing the economic downturn,” according to the Whittier Daily News.
Our readers may recall that this project included abusive use of eminent domain to take over businesses that the Baldwin Park City Council wanted to oust out of their downtown area. That plan totally backfired! “The contentious project spurred the formation of a citizens’ action group in Baldwin Park and is in part the grounds of a recall campaign targeting three City Council members.”
Make no mistake - the failure of this Bisno project is a kick to the face of Bisno and his heartless team and to the lame Baldwin Park City Council. I have a feeling those folks ARE going to be recalled.
I wrote a recent article about how a Bisno representative allegedly destroyed a resident’s video camera at a public meeting, which you may read by clicking here. And this article explains exactly how much opposition Bisno was facing in Baldwin Park.
These are dark times for Team Bisno! They had big plans for Baldwin Park, but that is just the tip of their iceberg of suffering. Their vaunted City Place development in Santa Ana is a joke.
They have had to resort to the use of human signs to publicize their auctions of overpriced condos that are now selling for a lot less than they were asking. I am also hearing rumors that they are leasing some of these units. And the Santa Ana Planning Commission delayed approval of their ridiculous 31 story luxury condo tower, which is supposed to ruin the skyline in north Santa Ana.
Of couse I am most happy to see Team Bisno going down the drain…perhaps they should play less politics and concentrate on their business?
____________________________________________
Our readers may recall that this project included abusive use of eminent domain to take over businesses that the Baldwin Park City Council wanted to oust out of their downtown area. That plan totally backfired! “The contentious project spurred the formation of a citizens’ action group in Baldwin Park and is in part the grounds of a recall campaign targeting three City Council members.”
Make no mistake - the failure of this Bisno project is a kick to the face of Bisno and his heartless team and to the lame Baldwin Park City Council. I have a feeling those folks ARE going to be recalled.
I wrote a recent article about how a Bisno representative allegedly destroyed a resident’s video camera at a public meeting, which you may read by clicking here. And this article explains exactly how much opposition Bisno was facing in Baldwin Park.
These are dark times for Team Bisno! They had big plans for Baldwin Park, but that is just the tip of their iceberg of suffering. Their vaunted City Place development in Santa Ana is a joke.
They have had to resort to the use of human signs to publicize their auctions of overpriced condos that are now selling for a lot less than they were asking. I am also hearing rumors that they are leasing some of these units. And the Santa Ana Planning Commission delayed approval of their ridiculous 31 story luxury condo tower, which is supposed to ruin the skyline in north Santa Ana.
Of couse I am most happy to see Team Bisno going down the drain…perhaps they should play less politics and concentrate on their business?
____________________________________________
Bisno representative accused of assault at neighborhood meeting
By Art Pedroza, www.orangejuice.blogspot.com
By Art Pedroza, www.orangejuice.blogspot.com
A Bisno Development representative is being accused of ripping a video camera out of the hands of a resident in Baldwin Park and damaging the camera, while also scratching the resident, according to the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
Of course the Bisno people are saying this did not happen, but the camera IS broken and there were many witnesses to the alleged assault.
The Bisno rep who attacked the lady in question said that some people at the meeting were “uncomfortable” about the taping of the neighborhood meeting, which was organized to discuss the massive eminent domain abuse that Bisno and the Baldwin Park City Council are trying to conduct in their downtown area.
Recently allies of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, who has received thousands of dollars in contributions from Bisno, refused to let a candidates forum in south Santa Ana be taped for similar stupid reasons. The Council challengers, including myself, boycotted the poorly attended meeting of the South Santa Ana Merchants Association. Several of their board members flipped out but I was not assaulted.
Obviously the Bisno company, by opposing the taping of the meetings they are involved in, don’t understand freedom of speech. Nor do Pulido’s allies here in Santa Ana.
Locally, Bisno’s “City Place” development has tanked and they have had to auction their over-priced condos for about half what they were initially asking for them. The news is all bad for Bisno here in Santa Ana and north of us in Baldwin Park.
____________________________________________
Of course the Bisno people are saying this did not happen, but the camera IS broken and there were many witnesses to the alleged assault.
The Bisno rep who attacked the lady in question said that some people at the meeting were “uncomfortable” about the taping of the neighborhood meeting, which was organized to discuss the massive eminent domain abuse that Bisno and the Baldwin Park City Council are trying to conduct in their downtown area.
Recently allies of Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido, who has received thousands of dollars in contributions from Bisno, refused to let a candidates forum in south Santa Ana be taped for similar stupid reasons. The Council challengers, including myself, boycotted the poorly attended meeting of the South Santa Ana Merchants Association. Several of their board members flipped out but I was not assaulted.
Obviously the Bisno company, by opposing the taping of the meetings they are involved in, don’t understand freedom of speech. Nor do Pulido’s allies here in Santa Ana.
Locally, Bisno’s “City Place” development has tanked and they have had to auction their over-priced condos for about half what they were initially asking for them. The news is all bad for Bisno here in Santa Ana and north of us in Baldwin Park.
____________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
