It's Our Last Night In Rancho Palos Verdes

Aloha!

Shalom!

Hello and Good-Bye!

As many of my regular readers know, I used to attend RPV City Council meetings and cite how many years, months and days I had been associated with the home I was brought to, at the age of one-day old, on May 4, 1955.

Tonight, Terri and I spend our last night in the home on Trudie Drive and tomorrow we embark on a whole new adventure in a new home in Murrieta, California.

There was a period of about 22 years when other Wells' lived in the home and there was one Memorial Day weekend where I worked on all the appliances hook ups when my sister and my mom switched houses. Two moves on one day, two moving vans competing for space. That is not something I would do again...I hope.

A new young family will begin their adventure in the almost 63-year old house. There are two little boys who will have the opportunity to search for any 'Matchbox' cars I buried in the upper portion of the back yard, decades ago.

The memories and stories I was part of, living in or associated with the same home and area for so long, could fill volumes. But I won't begin them here.

I will ponder current and future affairs related to 'my home town' in later posts.

What a wonder it was growing up on the east side of The Hill.

Will I miss living in the home? I highly doubt it because I am so familiar with the house, the lot, the people and the area, it would take years and years and years of great changes to have me not 'see' everything around the area.

I will miss many of the people I have met, along the way. I'll deal with that in later posts, too.

I don't necessarily believe in luck or being lucky. I will certainly and happily admit I am the most fortunate fellow on the planet.

Folks like me are not comfortable saying good-bye and it would be hard to think I won't be around many, many times in the future.

There are still folks to talk to, issues that remain important to me and for us, life is just moving about 88 miles away, from here.

So in the end, March 26, 2013 gave me roughly 57 years, 10 months and 22 days here. What a trip it has been.

South Bay Daily Breeze Article, Tomorrow

Ms. Donna Littlejohn wrote an article appearing in the Tuesday January 15 edition of The South Bay Daily Breeze, containing the news item that the developers of The Ponte Vista Project will go forward with the 830-unit Alternative, rather than the 1,135-unit Alternative they originally considered as their preferred project.

This is a surprise to very few people and it might make attempts to keep the current zoning at the site, more difficult.

What was not stated in the article is whether the development team will seek a 'Density Bonus' that could swell the number of units from 830 to as many as up to 1,105.

Further information will be forthcoming on this blog.

Thank you.

My Comments To The New DEIR

Here is my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The Ponte Vista Project.

I will add additional comments under my name:

"January 4, 2013

Erin Strelich, Planning Assistant

Los Angeles Department of City Planning

200 N. Spring Street, Room 750

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Re: NO. ENV-2005-4516-EIR

Dear Erin Strelich:

The following are my comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Ponte Vista Project.

I have known about development plans for the area in which The Ponte Vista Project is planned for since 2005.

I began my www.pontevista.blogspot.com blog in about September 2006 and I served as one of the three representatives appointed from the city of Rancho Palos Verdes, to (former) Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn’s Community Advisory Committee for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project.

I also serve as a committee member of “R Neighborhoods Are 1”, a community-based organized group that provides education and other amenities that allow residents of many communities the opportunities to learn about The Ponte Vista Project. This helps to organize individual and groups towards seeking the best results for all communities, with respect to the development of The Ponte Vista Project.

Between April 2009 and continuing to the present, I have considered many possible options for the development of the site and, I have changed my opinion about what could be successfully built there.

I have gone from a staunch supporter of keeping the current zoning on the site and not allowing for any new zoning there, to someone who believes that the zoning should not be changed, but now I have the opinion that “Alternative C”, which allows for the construction of up to 830 dwelling units at The Ponte Vista Project would be acceptable.

I have written that I believe that the dwelling density per acre on buildable land within the Ponte Vista site should be no greater than what has been constructed at “The Gardens”, a nearby multi-family, multiple dwellings development.

I still have two concerns dealing with my acceptance of “Alternative C” that I strongly feel needs further studies and may require an alternative to “Alternative C”.

“SB 1818” is one way to identify what others may think of for the codes and requirements of implementing a ‘density bonus’ in a development.  I feel it would be absolutely terrible to approve any Alternative that would eventually allow for the construction of more than 850-dwelling units on the Ponte Vista site.

No matter how many dwellings might be approved for at the Ponte Vista site, I must continue to call for at least 15 acres of open space within the boundaries of The Ponte Vista Project. I do not find that “Alternative C” allows for enough open space that is usable for recreation and other activities by residents and members of the public.

Since my original comments to the DEIR created for the former development known as “Ponte Vista at San Pedro”, I continue to have great support for “Alternative B”, which calls for elimination of all structures on the site and/or the construction of up to ‘385’ dwelling units, all on individual lots of not less than 5,000 square feet in size.

However, with the need for more open space on the site, I believe that should this Alternative be approved, it should allow for no more than 291-single family dwelling units.

I have some knowledge of the comments that have been created by the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council and what the “Board of R Neighborhoods Are One” have considered and I hope both of those sets of comments are studied by all, with specific further studies being based on Traffic and Transportation comments, created by the Northwest group.

I am confident that comments created by Mr. Kit Fox and/or others representing the city of Rancho Palos Verdes will offer sound reflection and recommendations for further study by Staff and members of The Los Angeles City Planning Department and Commission.

With any of the Alternatives that would allow for new construction on the site, I oppose the approval of any ‘Specific Plan’ for the site and would recommend that specific lots be established for new construction, depending on the dwelling or other units approved for at The Ponte Vista Project.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Mark R. Wells"

_________________________________________________________________________________

Most of the reasoning for keeping the current zoning at the site were first adopted about 6 years ago.

Nothing in general has really changed, except that there has been more growth and many of the studies conducted during years of recession should now not be used.

However, I do acknowledge that I have changed somewhat. While I told the Project Manager that I will not "support" having up to 850 dwelling units constructed at the site, I do see the possibilities of having up to that number built there.

I still support and will work with those who seek no change in the current zoning at the site and I can actually find even more reasons for that since I began dealing with Ponte Vista, now over 7 years ago.

I am still working to learn more about a possible NEW Alternative for the site, generated by community members working with the Los Angeles City Planning Department and the Ponte Vista Development team. It may just need to come down to these three different groups coming together to create the truly best Alternative for everyone.

Can that work? I really think it can. In San Pedro and in Rancho Palos Verdes where I live, groups have come together to create some very fine outcomes. This is done by working together towards the common goal of creating the best outcome for everyone.

In Rancho Palos Verdes we can visit Terranea, St. John Fisher, and even Trump National Golf Course to view areas where developers, government and community members have worked together to create developments that are better when everyone works together.

We can also see that in San Pedro. Many folks might not believe it but both Target and Harbor Highlands have seen developers work with government and community members to create something better than might have been, had community members not worked as hard and developers and government had not included community members in more positive ways.

Mr. Dennis Callavari, the Project Manager for The Ponte Vista Project will continue to find ways to promote his preferred project which includes "1,135" units. He does acknowledge that his "830" unit Alternative is the one preferred by L.A. City Planning staff and others. I think that is a plus all around.

But I do think and feel with many more community members learning about The Ponte Vista Project and working positively towards the best outcome for everyone, we all just may find out that what may eventually be built there could be the best outcome possible.

Odds And Ends 200

First, thank you so much for reading this blog. There has been several stretches of time where I posted little and I appreciate everyone who visits this blog.

This is the 200th "Odds And Ends". I will continue posting these types of posts as well as other posts on this blog.

Please remember that the end date to submit your comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for The Ponte Vista Project, is January 7, 2013, which is now within 10 days.

I can now let everyone know that what was once called 'The Rudderless Steering Committee' for R Neighborhoods Are 1 is ready to start the new year. There is a lot of information and communication out there that will be brought into better focus for everyone to use to help each and everyone who cares about what is being planned for our community, has all the best and most truthful information possible.

Unlike during "The Bob Years" I have much more confidence in all the information coming from the 'new' development team to provide their best information to everyone, but as with so many things, there are always multiple sides to every story.

One of the issues I neglected to ask the great folks during my meeting with several members of The Ponte Vista Project's development team, was about 'Density Bonus' at Ponte Vista.

I think I remember during some community outreach gatherings, there was some talk about the current development team NOT seeking any density bonuses at Ponte Vista.

I may have remembered incorrectly, so one of the things I want to get clear about quickly, is whether we might see density bonuses being talked about, on all sides.

A Density Bonus allows a developer the right to built more dwelling units than they originally ask for, by providing some incentives in terms of 'affordable housing' in their project.

Typically, a Density Bonus could allow for up to 35% MORE housing units into a project than would otherwise be allowed for should the Density Bonus not come into play.

Let's say a developer is seeking approval for '1,135-units'. If the developer and/or community leaders and governors want to provide greater housing opportunities to more potential residents, a total of up to about 1,532 units could actually be approved for construction.

In a development of '830-units' there COULD be approvals for up to 1,120-units.

I write again that I don't remember well enough to state whether the current development team is or will seek Density Bonuses at Ponte Vista.

A Density Bonus also allows developers to use all the environmental information, studies and findings based on what they bring forth as their preferred project, and then have that information used to allow for up to 35% greater numbers of dwelling units.

I should have all this sorted out by the second week in January.

I have now witnessed TWO collisions involving vehicles happening in the 'slow' or outer lanes along Western Avenue, between Avenida Aprenda and Weymouth Avenue, in less than a week after the new white strips were painted.

A driver attempted to turn left into the south entrance of The Terraces, from the northbound left turn lane on Western Avenue.

The driver of a vehicle in the southbound 'inner' or 'fast' lane on Western, stopped to allow the driver to turn.

Another driver, in the 'outer' or 'slow lane of southbound Western Avenue ALSO stopped to allow the driver to turn into the driveway.

HOWEVER, since the outer or slow lane is so darn wide at that and other intersections, ANOTHER driver, attempting to PASS ON THE RIGHT of the one person already stopped in the outer or slow lane, did not stop or even see the turning driver and PRESTO, exactly what I have been warning about since I first saw the temporary lane lines painted on the roadway, happened.

The second outer or slow lane collision was on the northbound lane of Western Avenue at the entrance of the shops on the east side of Western Avenue and involved two drivers, both in the outer or slow lane, one trying to turn into the entrance and the other not watching that there was already a car in the outer or slow lane. It appeared the car more towards the inner lane tried to turn right and didn't see the car passing on its right, also in the outer or slow lane.

PLEASE BE VERY CAREFUL!!

Both of those collisions happened while our schools were on Christmas Vacation. I am quite sure from having first driven along Western Avenue on May 3, 1971, that there will be some 'hotshot' drivers not wishing to get slowed down during morning or afternoon commutes who will try to pass on the right in the outer/slow lanes.

So with that, I end this 200th "Odds And Ends", except for:

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND HAVE A WONDERFUL 2013!

Today's Meeting Regarding The Ponte Vista Project

Today, I met with three members of the team representing The Ponte Vista Project and I can report that is was positive for me and I appreciated the way the meeting was held and turned out.

I met with Ms. Sarojin Lall, who is part of Strategic Communications for Marathon Communications, Inc.

I met also with Mr. Dennis Cavallari, the 'boss' if you will, of The Ponte Vista Project.

The last name I will add is Mr. Neill E. Brower, Attorney at Law. He is a lawyer representing The Ponte Vista Project.

On the outset I would like to thank the three team members for meeting with me and discussing with me many aspects of The Project.

I found the three to be friendly and ready to listen. Mr. Brower took notes but I don't think I have anything to worry about because everything I stated I would also put on this blog.

If any of you wish to speak directly to representatives of The Ponte Vista Project, especially to seek answers to any questions you might have, please contact Ms. Lall via Email at:
slall@marathon-com.com.

You can also reach a representative at: info@pontevista.com

All that being written so far, I have not changed my current considerations for what I feel could be successfully built at Ponte Vista.

I remain having no real objection to have no more than 850-dwelling units built at Ponte Vista and I do appreciate that one of the Alternatives is for "830-units".

I remain supportive of those who contend that the Alternative which would result in either a cleared site, with no building on it OR up to 429 Single-Family housing units, should be approved.

As explained to me by Mr. Cavallari, if any Alternatives are approved that would allow for new dwellings to be constructed on the site, iStar Financial would probably build the streets and other infrastructure elements and that the construction of new dwelling units would basically be 'farmed out' to builders who would build all or part of the approved units.

Ponte Vista is being proposed to have a "Specific Plan" type of zoning established for its site.

Currently the site only allows for new construction of up to 429-Single Family houses on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet. A Specific Plan Zone identification would allow the Developer to state where they want a type of dwelling unit, on land suitable for dwelling construction. (There is Open Space land that is not suitable for dwellings to be constructed on.

Specific Plan zoning also allows for open spaces to be established on land that could be used for dwelling construction.

A Specific Plan zone seems to allow more freedom by the Developer.

Traffic and traffic mitigation is always the main topic when considering what could be successful at Ponte Vista.

I found the illustrations of the proposed traffic mitigation elements to be refreshing, compared to those in the previous Draft Environmental Impact Report.

One thing I found interesting is that should the Project get approved for up to 429 units and the Developer actually starts with traffic mitigation efforts, fifteen elements would be dealt with.

However, should the Project get approved for 830 or 1,135 units, there would be just one additional traffic mitigation element  constructed. That actually does favor the Single-Family throughout Alternative, I feel.

As for the 1,135-unit Alternative, Mr. Cavallari stated that this is the Alternative he and his team will move forward and he will continue to advocate for that, unless and until he and his team decide not to.

He did mention that "830-units" is an Alternative that is still available to him and his team.

Of course I did my best to make my points that I am strongly against having 1,135-units approved for at Ponte Vista.

It was mentioned that the original time for the comment period for the DEIR was originally 45 days, but it was moved to 60 days, in part, because of the holidays.

I opined that I wanted 90 days for the comment period because some organizations are slower than others to move things along. I referenced my city's government as an example of a body that moves slower than some other groups.

Coming away from my experiences with this new development team and what we all went through during "The Bob Years", I think we have a marketing team that is more soft-sell than before and is working harder to make connections and meet with interested folks, too.

I hope all others interested in having their views heard by development team members, get the opportunity that I received.

Odds and Ends 199

As the year rolls to an end, I want to remind you that your comments regarding the new Draft Environmental Impact Report, (DEIR) are due by January 7, 2013.

The following are comments and an address to send your comments to:

PONTE VISTA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT COMMENTS ARE NEEDED, PLEASE HELP

 

Comments of the  Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Ponte Vista are due to the City by 4:00 pm Jan 7, 2013.  

We hope you will help on this project by commenting on the Draft EIR which is based on 1135 housing units.

It is not necessary for you to provide detailed comments.  It is important for you to say what concerns you have about the project [traffic, density, etc.] or what you would like to see built at the site [housing mix, single family, mixed use, additional open space, etc.] .  You should especially comment on the fact that the Jan 7 deadline is unreasonable, and requiring comments over the holiday season does not allow you sufficient time for review and comment.

The DEIR is available online at http://cityplanning.lacity.org (click on “Environmental” then “Draft EIR” then Ponte Vista) or at the San Pedro Library.  It is as huge document so we suggest you look at the index and read the sections of specific interest to you.

 

They should be addressed to 

Erin Strelich, Planning Assistant
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
200 N. Spring Street, Room 750
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Fax: (213) 978-1343

They may be sent  by email to  erin.strelich@lacity.org 

It is important to include the following in the subject line:  Ponte Vista ENV-2005-4516-EIR

We recommend that you also send a copy to Councilman Joe Buscaino, 638 S. Beacon, San Pedro 90731 or by e-mail to councilmember.buscaino@lacity.org

Please pass this on to others who care about our community

I know the author of the comments and I absolutely concur that the January 7, 2013 deadline is unreasonable because of the holidays and because not enough organizations will have time to confer, construct and vote on comments being sent in on the behalf of members. I believe there should have been at least 90 days for the comment period.

I am still confused and ill at ease with the new striping of the center lanes along Western Avenue between about Avenida Aprenda and areas south of Weymouth.

What my fear is is that more reckless drivers will use the very wide outer lanes to pass on the right, especially during the after 2 PM drive time. One of Rpv's Council members is very concerned too and I have talked to the traffic engineer for the city of R.P.V. about this.

It appears to me that the center lanes along a portion of the State Highway are not wide enough, along a portion of Western Avenue.

I will be meeting with a group of individuals associated with The Ponte Vista Project, later today and I intend on writing a post about that meeting.

What I can tell you is that I am pleased with the 'new' outreach being shown by the folks at The Ponte Vista Project and it is more refreshing to me than what I dealt with between  2005 and 2009.

Terri and I still have a chuckle remembering when it was considered that Terri look for employment at the trailers during "The Bob Years" which began in 2005 and concerned the time and efforts of Mr. Robert H. (Bob) Bisno and his attempt to over develop the Ponte Vista site.

There has been some new delays established with Marymount College officials' attempts to continue to expand their Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site, along Palos Verdes Drive North.

I don't know many of the details but I did read that some things have been moved into an 'uncertain' category.

I have read the Traffic Study for The Ponte Vista Project and viewed the illustrations of the traffic mitigation being considered with The Project. There are still a good number of folks in our community who continue to question the Study. Many folks have a much better understanding of the Study and some of what they are concerned about. They should be considered our mentors because of their knowledge, history and dealings with traffic in our area.

There are members of The Western Avenue Task Force who have much more detailed knowledge than I do, about traffic and many of them are also concerned with the Traffic Study of The Ponte Vista Project.

Is it going to be a rainy and cold winter before Spring springs? It seems to me that we have been getting more rain than we have seen in recent years. I also wonder what it may be like when Spring has sprung.

Odds And Ends 198

So, how is everyone doing on reading the Ponte Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report, (DEIR)?

Are you making notes about what you wish to comment on? I sure hope you are and using the notes to create a fantastic set of comments, to the report.

I'm still trying to figure out what is going on with the new lane striping along Western Avenue between Avenida Aprenda and 19th Street.

by looking at the temporary lane (plastic reflective) markings and the short dashes of yellow and white lines which may be the route for the yellow and white stripes, it sure looks like the center lanes in both directions will be narrower than they were before resurfacing AND narrower than what is required for a State Highway Lane.

If it passes that those little dashes become actual lane markings, the outer lanes will be very, very wide.

If you look at the short white dashes as they get close to the intersection of Western Avenue and Avenida Aprenda, they seem to veer to the right to make better alignment with the permanent lane markings along Western Avenue, north of Avenida Aprenda. It looks pretty much the same on southbound Western Avenue, close to 19th Street.

With the center lanes so narrow and the outer lanes so wide, just imagine all those drivers who will create their own 'third lane' near the curb and I think we will see lots of problems when the curb 'lane' has vehicles moving in it faster than those who are moving closer to the lane lines, along Western.

This might be something that you should check and recheck your vehicle insurance coverage on.

State Highway lanes must be wider than lanes on County or City roadways. This is one of the reasons Western Avenue has not had a full third lane added already.

The Western Avenue Task Force, in its report from 2005 has a suggestion that Western Avenue need to become three-lanes wide by 2030. This would take much study and some changes in laws and regulations for State Highways, with Western Avenue being one in particular.

A meeting concerning the Final Report for The Clearwater Program was scheduled for today. I received my CD of that report the same day I also got my hands on the new DEIR for Ponte Vista.

The Clearwater Program's proposed Alternative 4 is to construct a new Joint Outfall System, a tunnel between the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, (JWPCP) in Carson and an distribution piping system out into San Pedro Bay at Royal Palms.

The proposed route for the new tunnel will enter San Pedro along Gaffey Street, turn west at Capitol, turn south along Western at Capitol/Trudie, go under Averill Park and head out to sea, following must of the Western Avenue route of the two existing tunnels that have been under Western for decades.

At Royal Palms, a deep 'Exit Shaft' will be sunk at the bottom of the cliff and there will be many, many, many double-dirt hauler trips between the dig's site and out of San Pedro.

If you think there are problems right now at 25th and Western or on other streets intersecting Western Avenue, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'!

I expect that the proposed Alternative will be ultimately approved. it is the least cost of the construction Alternatives and is proposed to be half of what it would cost to put the Exit Shaft and Access Shafts on Terminal Island, close to rail access, freeway access and having no residences nearby, except for the prison and the Coast Guard base...oh well.

I have not heard yet of any new meetings by the many concerned with the number of units proposed for Ponte Vista. I'm still a proponent of the Alternative that allows for NO building on the site, complete removal of all existing structures and the POSSIBLE construction of up to 429 single-family detached homes. However, I still have to state that I could probably live with no more than 850 housing units on the site.

I made the original badges that showed a red circle with a red line on a diagonal with the number '2300' behind it. I still have enough button blanks to start working on NO 1135 badges.

Have a great beginning of December!

Wait, Wait, There's More

I hope everyone is studying and mulling over your thoughts regarding the issues revolving around The Ponte Vista Project and your contemplations on what comments you are going to submit on that project's new Draft Environmental Impact Report.

But during your concentration, you may want to add some thoughts to another project that is being worked on, not all that far from the Ponte Vista Site.

Marymount College has an off-campus housing facility on Palos Verdes Drive North, between Western Avenue and 5-Points and here is a notice of a public hearing dealing with what Marymount officials and supporters want to do with the site they have been associated with, for some years now.

Click On Image To Enlarge It.

I have only posted the first page of the notice because I feel it is enough information for those interested and if folks want more information, they are able to find it out for themselves.

When you read what this project entails, please keep in mind what the developers of The Ponte Vista Project want and the four Alternatives dealt with in Ponte Vista's DEIR.

Besides Ponte Vista and Marymount's off-campus housing site, the new small lot houses along Gaffey Street are still being built. The largely uninhabited housing at 5-Points is still nearby and there are going to be a small number of large homes built along Palos Verdes Drive North, near its intersection with Palos Verdes Drive East.

Housing development is moving forward in what can be described as a small area that has not seen much residential development in quite some time.

Add to the housing, the new(er) schools and the new educational, parking and site concerns at Marymount's 'Palos Verdes North' site, we are all looking at more development in the area than has been done in decades.

I hope interested individuals and groups will look at 'the big picture' in terms of residential and other types of development and work to find ways to mitigate traffic concerns we all have and work to finding the best results for EVERYONE.

I will create a post soon that will lean towards pushing for Alternative B for The Ponte Vista Project and if this notice helps you and others to consider more carefully how much development at Ponte Vista is best for everyone, I think that is a good thing.