It is time for this blog to change.
I will still present facts that I can back up with documented substantiations and will continue to encourage all views and comments from supporters of Mr. Bisno's plans.
Everyone is welcome to contribute posts whether they support Mr. Bisno or not. Good debate is essential to open and honest discussions on very important matters.
Since last fall, I have contemplated how this blog should look beginning in 2007. As many readers have figured out, I do not support Mr. Bisno's plans to build 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista. Indeed, currently I strongly support maintaining the current "R1" zoning established on the site by the L.A. City Council about two decades ago.
My support for keeping the current zoning is based on Mr. Bisno's application and what I have found to be an extremely questionable Draft Environmental Impact Report generated in support of Mr. Bisno's application. I still urge denial of Mr. Bisno's current application and my distrust of the results of the DEIR.
But I also am quite aware that single-family homes, with a density of up to nine homes per acre, are not currently being developed on large sites within the City of Los Angeles. It is with this knowledge that I need to consider that some number of homes will be built at Ponte Vista, but Mr. Bisno, or anyone else, must come up with a reasonable proposal for building a number of homes that are limited and respect the current population of the area.
This blog will now evolve into a blog to oppose and protest Mr. Bisno's current plans. I will address what I consider to be a realistic number of homes that I could live with, in that area, on a future post.
I will continue to call for the construction of a new road between Western Avenue and Gaffey Street, and encourage extending that roadway to new ramps for the Harbor Freeway.
As for SRHS #14, I think it remains ridiculous for folks within the L.A. City Planning Department to continue to ignore the existence of the L.A.U.S.D. proposal for a 2,025 seat senior high school inside the Ponte Vista site. My opinions about the school are not as strong, so far, as my opinions about Mr. Bisno's plans, but I have found the L.A.U.S.D. to be at least as arrogant as Mr. Bisno's plans are.
I would like to see L.A.U.S.D. come up with their own DEIR for their school so I could compare it with the Ponte Vista DEIR as far as traffic and pollution go. With the L.A.U.S.D. DEIR, that would have to contain some studies about residences inside Ponte Vista, if they don't chicken out by claiming no homes are currently occupied on the site. I would imagine L.A.U.S.D. would have to, at least, recognize and analyse numbers of homes and students in any future Ponte Vista residential development.
7 comments:
This sounds great Mark. As we have discussed, it seems that it could be fair to speculate that the city may already be in support of some sort of zoning change to allow more homes than R1 in order to meet housing needs. In my opinion, Janice Hahn owes the advisory committee a clear explaination of her stance. The members of the committee should demand it. There is a very real possibility that she could be simply using the committee to insulate herself from the negative political effects of her support of a zone change. It seems the committee may be headed down the path of compromise and all Janice has to do is say "I followed the recommedations of the advisory committee", and she is free of the negative criticism. Sorry to ramble, but don't you think the advisory committee could be more effective if they just knew whether Janice supports a zoning change first? Once you know that critical fact, the committe members would know whether the fight to maintain R1 is worth it or compromise with Bisno is inevitable. Please don't let Janice Hahn use the committee as a scapegoat. Don't be fooled by her motherly look and her embracing of San Pedro's culture. She is a shrewd politician. It would be great if the entire advisory committee threatened to quit if she does not clearly state her position on R1. She needs to come clean. You know that I am opposed to anything but R1, however, if I knew that Hahn was not interested in keeping the property R1, I would be spending the time and energy to seek a compromise....that would then make sense to do.
aNOnymous
aNOnymous
We strangely find ourselves on the same side of this issue. How can anyone plan something which in which they do not know the goal/destination? I have to agree with you. I think Janice is using the Advisory Committee to insulate herself from any fallout which will come no matter what the committee comes up with. But what else do you expect from a politician?
I think Ponte Vista will be built. However, I also believe that the committee has the power to come up with realistic, reasonable and achievable suggestions which Janice would be hard-pressed to ignore. If she ignores them, she risks the wrath of the stakeholders in all 3 districts. I don't think she would be willing to take that gamble.
I think we should concentrate on amenities, and general features which will increase the quality-of-life for ALL residents of San Pedro. In addition, I think the committee should bring up (and not be cajoled out of the demanding) that 2,300 units is just too many. Also there should be a higher percentage of senior housing.
I believe it is going to happen. But let's communicate our input as strongly as possible so no one can say "Well you never said that earlier." Once nails start getting hammered, it will be a done deal. Let's make certain our preferences are clearly known now so they won't be a way to weasel out of it later.
What do you think?
Yes Tom, I agree. I just think Janice Hahn needs to be squeezed by the committee to know where she stands. Once the R1 thing is settled (which I think Hahn can settle), then we can move in the "let's get the best we can" direction. It seems our paths are converging...
aNOnymous
Um........
I don't think the members of Ms. Hahn's committee are in the position to demand to know what her current stand is, other than what we already know.
We all know, or should know, that Ms. Hahn has publicily and repeatedly stated that she does not favor 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista.
We also know, or should know, that Mr. Bisno is still firmly standing by his position to build 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista.
It may be frustrating to many folks to find that Ms. Hahn has not given a position on how many homes would be appropriate for her to accept at Ponte Vista. I think, aside from myself-an RPV resident, that Ms. Hahn has selected some very substantial committee members from San Pedro. I trust Jerry Gains and Al DiRocco and others who served on the Western Avenue Task Force, to be much more knowledgeable than I am concerning Traffic.
Everyone who claims that Ms. Hahn is a politician is stating the obvious. The committee is one tool that she is using to assist her in finding out what the community wants and what is best for everyone in San Pedro, R.P.V., and other areas.
Here are some other things I know, because of my service on the committee and my interest in everything Ponte Vista:
There have been no "backroom" deals between the developer and any elected official, including Ms. Hahn.
Mr Bisno is continuing his quest for building 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista, no matter what the public thinks.
It appears fairly certain that the majority of CAC members do not support Mr. Bisno's current vision of building 2,300 homes at Ponte Vista.
Ms. Hahn, as of this writing has not divulged, to even her staff members, whether she has an opinion as to the number of homes she would be comfortable with at Ponte Vista.
In direct meetings between Ms. Hahn and Mr. Bisno, his position has never waivered and Ms. Hahn continues to disagree with Mr. Bisno's plans.
What I also know is that there are no large housing developments being proposed with R1 zoning in the City of Los Angeles, at this time.
So compromise will have to come sooner or later concerning Ponte Vista. Mr. Bisno needs to start building something and his current unwillingness to compromise at this time because it may be too early for him.
Many people feel that the results of the City Planning Department's review of the DEIR and the comments made during this comment period, both in writing and in meetings, could result in Mr. Bisno realizing that 2,300 homes is just too many for Ponte Vista.
I would hope that Mr. Bisno will change his application prior to the findings being published by the L.A. City Planning Commission.
For opponents of Mr. Bisno's plans, delaying everything will help their cause. Mr. Bisno's financial backers have set a timetable for when construction of buildings should begin. If that timetable appears to be in jeopardy, they may force Mr. Bisno to alter his plans.
It is wonderful to read that Tom and aNOnymous have issues they can agree upon that are in the best interest of the community.
If folks think Ms. Hahn needs to be "squeezed" for a more clearer stance about Ponte Vista, it would be better coming from the general public than committee members. It really isn't our place to "squeeze" the person we are supposed to be advising.
MW
The way I see it Mark, the CAC is the only group of people that have any sort of influence over Janice Hahn. The CAC is quite possibly her scapegoat for what Ponte Vista becomes. She needs the CAC.
You guys don't owe her jack! Why can't the CAC demand to know where she stands? You and the rest of the members are donating valuable time to HER effort. Her clear stance will help the CAC focus on what needs to be done. If she makes it absolutely clear, for instance, that she supports some type of zoning change but not 2300 homes, then the CAC's charter is set....find a compromise. Then you can stop making the R1 buttons, and I can place all my trust in the good folks, like yourself, who sit on the CAC to get the best deal. If she says she would most certainly lean toward upholding R1 if the CAC and the community make it clear that R1 is the answer, then keep the R1 buttons coming and let's fight the fight for R1.
Or let me ask you this. You say that Jance Hahn is using the CAC to assist her in finding out what the community wants. Do you think the CAC will come back and tell her that the majority of the community want the zoning to remain R1? Do you ever see that as the ultimate answer from the CAC?
aNOnymous
Thanks for the great comments, aNOnymous.
Were you at tonight's meeting?
You have a good point about the committee asking Ms. Hahn exactly what she is thinking right now. We will be having a meeting after the January 18 meeting where I will bring your concern to the entire committee and see how they feel about it. If the majority of committee members thinks it is a good idea, then we will ask Ms. Hahn.
Now to your very thoughtful questions.
I am going to answer them as openly and honestly as I can, using my gut feelings and experience being around the other committee members. You may not like what I am going to write, but it is my opinion, for better or worse.
I truly feel the fourteen committee members are actively working for the best possible outcome for the current residents of our communities. There is disagreement between committee members as to the R1 issue and how many homes should be built in Ponte Vista.
As of the closed session this evening, committee members, as a whole, were not willing to divulge their own personal opinions regarding the number of homes at Ponte Vista.
I have been the most public about my opinions concerning Ponte Vista, so in the same vain of this openess, here is what I feel, at this time.
The committee will come up with identifiable recommendations for Ms. Hahn, city planners, and the community. I think that the chances of a final recommendation of maintaining the current zoning at Ponte Vista, are slim to very slim. We seem to be a reasonable bunch of dedicated and realistic people and our recommendations will probably reflect that.
While my opinion is that this particular application and this particular DEIR doesn't stand the tests necessary to change the current zoning, It may not have enough support of the majority of committee members to be a final recommendation.
As I see it in my imagination, there is a majority of members who support R1 like I do, but we all need to realize that there just aren't any large R1 developments being built in the City of L.A. To steadfastly demand maintaining R1 as a final recommendation, would not be realistic and MAY jepordize our credibility, knowing this fact.
I can see where the committee calls for drastic changes to Mr. Bisno's plans and will call for R1 if those changes aren't met with respectful consideration and probable implementation.
Does the public really understand what R1 really means and how it is not being built in the city? I am afraid we have not been educated and educating enough for me to think that reasonable folks won't understand the problems with maintaining R1 in a general sense. I also feel R1 is the emotional response by many members of the public who are annoyed with a big time developer waltzing into town thinking he knows what is best for our community.
I have a great deal of confidence that the committee will come up with solid recommendations on all the sections of Mr. Bisno's plan.
If you or anyone else reading this comment attended the January 11 meeting, I think you saw our committee spreading it's wings and making motions to get more information than what is offered by Mr. Bisno and the DEIR. I felt that Mr. Bisno and members of his staff were either downright defensive or somewhat angered by comments and motions approved by the committee.
Personally, I have felt up to this meeting that Mr. Bisno and his staff have controlled the agenda and path of the committee. Tonight's meeting clearly demonstrated to me and others that our committee will no longer be dictated to or swayed by Mr. Bisno and his agenda. He had all the opportunities to present his side of the issues at the previous meetings and especially the meeting in November when he got the entire meeting to present his plan.
It is our turn to learn from people in the community, experts in various fields, and folks not on Mr. Bisno's payroll what his project might mean to our community and how we might have an impact to change his plans for the best interest of our community.
Like many folks, I too had reservations about the impact this committee might actually have and whether it was in my best interest to remain on the committee. I was even thinking of calling it quits after next Thursday's Open Forum. Tonight changed all that, for the better. Our committee flexed its muscles and churned up the waters a bit. Hold on to your hats folks, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
MW
Mark -
I didn't make it to the meeting. I honestly don't know what my purpose would be other than listening to a bunch of bantering back and forth. If you believe R1 is slim to none, then I buy that. I just find it funny that the committee has not developed it's own stance or direction. How does the committee stay focused? Bisno and his people are all on the same page, yet you aren't even sure where all your members stand on the direction of Ponte Vista? That just doesn't seem very effective. Do you guys even meet without Bisno or his people around?
And yes, you are right that I hate the fact that some a-hole came into town with big money, insulted the residents, offers the idiots freebees to support him and thinks he can just get a zoning change and piss all over us. Yep, that irritates the hell out of me.
Do you think there would have been a call for a CAC if he just built R1 homes? The biggest singular issue here is R1. It seems that the CAC has skipped that issue and has moved on to the compromise/best deal phase. If that's the case then I'm good with that. You guys have the batton. I trust you will do the best possible.
aNOnymous
P.S. - I'll be at the public forum
Post a Comment