I want to first thank everyone who showed up for our third meeting. In addition to Mr. Bisno and members of his staff, we had members of the planning department, a representative from L.A. Mayor V's office, and Mr. Rod Hamilton, head of the SRHS #14 project. We also had what seemed to be an overflow number of interested citizens attending.
I now have, in my formally Cherry Coke stained hands, a copy of the "Ponte Vista General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Application" that was submitted to the L.A. City Planning Department. The application was filed on September 14, 2006 by Mr. Bisno and the Bisno Development Corporation.
This document is available to the general public by visiting the planning department and requesting a copy. I also asked Mr. Bisno if he would be able to publish the documents online. Mr. Bisno agreed with me that the information should be provided to everyone who requests it. Mr. Bisno asked one of his staff members to look into putting the application online. If and when the document becomes available online, I will place the URL for it on this blog.
During the meeting, our committee discussed more organizational and scheduling items.
The Ponte Vista Development lawyer gave us the application binder and a presentation on the processes the applicant uses with the planning department.
We had a presentation from the planning department giving us an overview of their responsibilities and processes. Many questions were asked of the attendees from the planning department, and I understood most of the answers.
My question to the planning department representative was: Can a single property have multiple zonings within its boundaries? The answer was, yes?
Another questions dealt with the dwelling density of low-level zoning and medium level zoning.
As I understood the answer, R-1, or low-level density is 9 dwelling units per acre. R-3, or medium-level density is up to 55 dwellings per acre.
Using the current landscape and R-1 low-level density, there would be approximately 430 single-family homes able to be built.
During the meeting, we were informed that the Traffic Study, initiated by Mr. Bisno, will be forthcoming as soon as the City of L.A. releases it. Mr. Bisno and the rest of us had hoped to see that document tonight, but it apparently needs one official document finished before it is released. I will ask Mr. Bisno to have the Traffic Study placed online as well as available to the general public.
Our "800 ton Gorilla" made another appearance at the meeting tonight as well. I asked the L.A. City Planner if she had been in contact with anyone from L.A.U.S.D. and whether the City Planning Department had "official" knowledge that there is a 2,025 seat high school proposed for part of Ponte Vista. I brought that point up while I knew Mr. Hamilton was sitting behind me. It appeared to me and other members of the committee that L.A. City Planning hasn't yet, and may not be, too particularly interested in dealing with Mr. Hamilton and the L.A.U.S.D. I commented that I felt it was important for the City Planning Department to, at least, understand that whatever the applicant files, may be dramatically altered in the future by a 15.03 acre campus right smack dab where Mr. Bisno envisions the Senior Housing to be located.
We discussed scheduling and public forums. One form of schedules had us meeting up to four times in October! It also indicated that we would have activities up to three times a month for the next six months. When all the jaws were recovered from the floor, we settled on one meeting a month, for the next two months. They are scheduled for October 12, and November 9.
We talked about when our first public forum would be held. It seemed to many of us that we all would need to digest the application, Traffic Study, and environmental Impact Report before we have folks share their thoughts. I feel that the general public needs to be informed about the facts, studies, and some details so they can have the best opportunity to comment to our group.
These public forums will be in addition to public hearings which are very official in nature and have impact on the planning department. The more folks who speak up about the project, the more the planning department tends to listen.
The October 12 meeting is one I hope everyone interested in the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project will attend. Mr. Bisno and his staff will give everyone his take on the project. I feel strongly that Mr. Bisno has the right to tell us why he thinks 2,300 homes is the appropriate number for Ponte Vista. I hope there is full disclosure about the concepts, thinking and planning processes that he and his staff went through to create the application he submitted.
I don't want to see protestors at this meeting, even though I do believe in free speech and open government. I feel that Mr. Bisno has the right and the opportunity to explain his positions. If protests to his concept are needed, there are plenty of other forums to conduct them in the future. But I would like October 12 to be Mr. Bisno's night where we all listen carefully to him and his staff. We should all bring pen and paper to write down concerns. As with every meeting, there will be public comment at the end of the meeting. We will use speaker cards to have a more orderly public comment session, so if you want a chance to speak, please show up before 6:00p.m. to fill out a card. We should begin promptly at six like we did this evening.
13 comments:
"Traffic Study, initiated by Mr. Bisno.."
I hope this study is reviewed very closely. IF Bisno hired and paid for this, then its credibility is very much in question. Will there be any truly independent traffic studies?
[Remember Lincoln Place!]
While no fan of developing the charm out of San Pedro, I have to disagree with the previous comment.
Evidently people came away from tonight's meeting STILL not understanding what the process is.
Bisno pays for the study, but does not conduct it. Nor do any of his employees. He has to pay for the study no matter what the outcome.
As an added layer of protection, that study is then submitted to the Planning Department. THEY look at it and decide whether it is adequate. If they want adjustments or more information, they request it from the firm who conducted the study and Bisno gets to pay for it. After the Planning Department is satisfied, and only then, is the draft initial report issued for further public comment.
The Planning Department then takes in the further public comments and if they find anything to be significant, they make adjustments and require further mitigation by the developer.
All these knee-jerk reactions and accusations get us nowhere. If we continue to act like 4-year olds who just learned the word "no", we will lose any credibility we have toward giving our input into this process.
Everyone knows Bisno is in this for the money. We should be worried about making certain the City does its job.
one question i haven't heard in all these meetings is:
should the MTA be included into these discussions?
where is the LONG TERM planning for San Pedro?
There are several major developments in the pipeline. Should Mr. Bisno be forced to pitch into a Parking Structure in downtown? What about a light-rail line in downtown? He's inviting 2,300 families into the area. Shouldn't he also mitigate congestion and traffic through REAL MEASURES, not phony ones like street light synchronization?
Well, no one I hear is just saying "no." This is false, naive argument. Rather, residents know development will occur, but disagree strongly with the number of units proposed. You don't need an engineering degree from MIT to understand how negatively this would impact the infrastructure and diminish the quality of life in the area. And for the analysis to be truly independent, it should NOT be paid for and rushed through by a developer. At best, this doesn't pass the smell test. C'mon, you know the track record of this city.
Exactly my point, "...the track record of the City...". During the meeting last night, the Planning Dept. person, Betsy ???, specifically said they would take the original plan as submitted by Bisno, take into account recommendations by the Advisory Group, and then "...apply our own expertise, experience and how we feel it fits into the General Plan and surrounding Community Plans. We will then adjust the Specific Plan with our ideas and submit it to the Planning Commission. It then goes to the City Council, who refers it to their Planning Sub-committee. Then It comes back to the full City Council for approval..."
My point is Bisno is as subject to the whims of City governemnt as we are at this juncture. As an example, look at the draft EIR which was submitted in April. Bisno was promised a 6-week turnaround and he is STILL fighting to get it released so the Advisory Group has something to work with.
One interesting point which I don't think everyone caught. Bisno said that while HE was not allowed to distribute the entire draft EIR and draft Specific Plan, any one of us individually could go down to City Hall and get a copy. Why doesn't someone do that? One of the Advisory Group members is Arlene Zimmer who runs Priority One Printing. Perhaps she could be persuaded to run copies for the rest of the Advisory Group?
Anyway back to the main point, IT IS THE CITY we need to be watching. We already know Bisno's motives. But who knows which way the political winds are blowing in the City government?
The saying "no" was just an analogy. I'm not saying that we are doing that. What I am trying to emphasize is something Chuck Hart said in last week's meeting "...stay focused and don't get bogged down on things we cannot change...".
I think this is a very impoortant precept which will be difficult to maintain since we all have our own special hot-button issues. But it is something which is essential for us. We need to stay focused on achievable, reasonable and valid suggestions. As an example, the previous post about light-rail isn't all that inappropriate. If it could be conceivably be extended up Western to help mitigate traffic, then Bisno should be asked to support it in some way. Maybe not pay for it, but at least incorporate the ability to accomodate it in his improvements to Western.
If we keep getting side-tracked, the Planning Department will just dismiss us as "unprofessional", "unknowledgable", too tightly focused, and unable to see the big picture. They will just do as they please without any input from us. Then we will REALLY be screwed.
As a member of the public, presumably one of the people you want to woo over to your side of the Ponte Vista debate, I just have one question:
Would you please, please, please explain once and for all why I should support R-1 zoning for this property? R-1 zoning is what has made this whole suburban sprawl, car oriented, big box, parking lot nightmare culture of ours not only possible, but inevitable. Why should I support your variety of sprawl versus Bisno's?
And then you actually want to build a new road between Western & Gaffey! Great, more of SP's and RPV's outlying land paved over. More car trips, more pollution, more greenhouse gases...more sprawl development in the future, too.
Bisno is an asshat, I'm with you on that one. But I can't help thinking that forcing him to build one kind of sprawl instead of another accomplishes nothing, and could even be worse in the long run. So, here's your chance. Convince me.
my question is why the hell is jack baric on the committee if he isn't even going to stay for the meetings? the only one he's been to where he stuck around was the 2nd one.
Howdy Anonymous,
When I first started making buttons concerning Ponte Vista, I made a few that read:
If you like Playa Vista, you're going to love Ponte Vista.
MTA,any L.A.U.S.D. vehicles, and whatever fleet Mr. Bisno uses for and in Ponte Vista should be required to be alternative fueled or electric vehicles, including busses.
You were there when I brought up the point to Betsy ??? from City Planning that there is a proposed 2,025 seat high school inside Ponte Vista. You saw and heard her reaction. You also witnessed how dumbfounded we all were that she seemed to want to ignore that fact. I hope Mr. Hamilton of L.A.U.S.D. and Betsy at least call each other to pass at least some information between the City and L.A.U.S.D.
It also appeared to me that City Planning has a "my way or the highway" mindset in dealing with applicants and the public.
Harborhead, at this point, and until I can be convinced otherwise, I feel nine dwellings per acre is better than as many as fifty-five dwellings per acre along one of the very few escape routes and main transportation routes for San Pedro residents. But I don't want to try to convince anybody to have my opinion. You are encouraged to have your own say and help everyone through the processes. I'm not good at wooing and I am too old and fat to start trying to woo anyone about anything.
Another blog posted the tens of thousands of dollars paid by Bisno Corp. to the lobbying firm of the former SP CM, this developer has hired a former staffer of the current CM, made campaign contributions to other CM's and politicians (available for review on the LA City Ethics website), donated $$ to local community groups, the mayor has expressed a desire for denser housing etc. etc. And now I read that the developer will not have to follow any critique by this advisory group. I'm already feeling the wind on the back of my neck.
And wage-earning San Pedrans who support R-1 to protect their diminishing quality of life are (according to a multi-millionaire developer) "elitists." This is crap.
A respectful working relationship with city officials and (hopefully in my opinion) a report by this advisory group that recommends R-1 obviously couldn't hurt. And I sincerely applaud who are taking the time away from their families to do so. But my cynicism remains.
BTW, whatever happened to the "Western Avenue task force"? Did it accomplish anything meaningful, and is this group working with it?
Good comments again, Anonymous.
Jerry Gains of the Western Avenue task force is on the Hahn Community Advisory Committee. He has informed the group that he will use documentation already collected by the Western Avenue Task Force after the Ponte Vista Traffic Study comes forth to analyse the similarities and differences between what the W.A.T.F. findings were and what is claimed in the P.V.T.S. Mr. Gaines claimed during last Thursday's meeting that he and another member of the CAC have more collected information on the facts about Western Avenue, than the P.V. Traffic Study would have.
I'll ask Jerry what became of the W.A. Task Force and whether any findings were published.
M.W.
Thank you MW.
"But I don't want to try to convince anybody to have my opinion. You are encouraged to have your own say and help everyone through the processes. I'm not good at wooing and I am too old and fat to start trying to woo anyone about anything."
OK, you don't have to convince me to have your opinion, I just was under the impression that you were interested in explaining why R-1 is such a wonderful thing. Since you seem to run this blog in order to advocate, I thought you might want to, you know, ADVOCATE your point of view instead of just assuming that R-1 is self evidently good.
Like I said before, R-1 is what causes sprawl and leapfrogging (and unsustainable energy/water use levels and transportation patterns). And not only are you pushing for it, you're pushing for it PLUS a brand spanking new road that will make even more sprawl and big box development inevitable (and that will fill up with cars almost as soon as it's built). How is this any better than Bisno's proposal?
I guess the best way for me to expalin why, at this time, I favor R-1 over other types of zoning is because is seems to have worked well in suburbia and I am not yet ready to live in an urban area with much higher population density. So far, the L.A. area isn't very successful at establishing or maintaining well structured high density housing. I just ready the court arguments for the Playa Vista project and look at it site from up the hill by Marymount College in Westchester and I wonder how many more "Playa Vistas" can are area handle.
Remembering we are almost an island here in our area, transportation routes to and from already existing homes are becoming more congested even without the planned 1,400 more homes going into this area BESIDES the 2,300 homes Mr. Bisno is planning. It's not that I like not having enough alternative transportation, but how can I convince all of us on the hill and in San Pedro to use other forms of mass transit? Sadly the reality is that quality, clean, affordable mass transit in an area like ours which is more out of the way than most other suburban areas in the L.A. area, is not in the mind of the real decision makers. Harbor Gateway is a thin strip of land in the City of L.A. that connects downtown to the port area. I tend to think that L.A. City Government only looks south as far as the strip begins and then forgets about us in San Pedro...except for the revenue our port brings. In addition, the City Fathers of R.P.V. know the citizens on the east side of the hill don't vote in their elections. We are also the area where the majority of residents of R.P.V. would like to see affordable housing go. The wealthier, more influential citizens of R.P.V. can't see Western Avenue, so out of sight, out of mind.
I know of some land, not too far from San Pedro where many condos can be built. There are wonderful views of the ocean, and plenty of healthy walking and swimming nearby. It is just 26 miles across the sea.
If our area was like Torrance, Gardena, Wilmington, and even South L.A., we could probably handle large developments better. There are so many routes in those areas for transportation systems. There is more flat elevations to build multi-story homes. There are more freeways, and more easier options for light rail. Please remember, I had to get down to the old ferry building to catch the light rail when I was little. I don't think I would feel comfortable getting into a subway that goes under a refinery, Lake Machado, or the Navy Fuel Depot.
We haven't learned how to do away with our cars, here in Southern California. I worked for many years within the gates of Park LaBrea. For decades, it was, and still maybe is, the largest residential complex west of the Mississippi River. If you want to see what a large development is like, near several close by shopping centers, try having a seat along 3rd. Street, between Fairfax and Hauser from 3:00p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Watch the carnage.
This example is what I don't want to duplicate in our area.
Yes, the new road would allow more cars in and out of our area. My contention is that we won't give up our cars, so we might as well swallow the bitter pills that will, at least, help mitigate the future gridlock on Western Avenue.
Harborhead, I would also invite you to become a post contributor to this blog. You make many good points and because we have different opinions on subjects, your input would help everyone to become more educated and aware of the issues. I'm still looking for great debate in postings, instead of comments. You and Anonymous are great contributers to the comments. You should be read in postings.
Thanks. MW
Post a Comment