Bob Bisno will change his current proposal for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development. That proposal was studied, considered, discussed, debated, while all the time, Janice Hahn, the Councilmember of the 15th District of the City of Los Angeles, which Ponte Vista is a part of, has stated her belief that Bob’s original call for 2,300 condominium was too large.
Mr. Bisno and Ms. Hahn used the volunteer efforts of the Community Advisory Committee for their own benefit; I realized that when I accepted a position as a member of that group. I knew the Committee would provide Ms. Hahn with a means to cover her thoughts and actions by political means and as she is a politician first and foremost, I/we knew what we were getting in to.
Bob Bisno, as required by the processes of creating a “specific plan” for his project, needed a larger amount of public input than developers using other types of plans to get their projects through the system. Bob’s use of the Community Advisory Committee to further his goals was clearly evident as he and his development company did their best to control the actions, activities, and the issues the Committee was dealing with. Bob’s and others efforts to bring back Victor Griego, in my opinion, to hasten the processes along and get the Committee to finalize their work as quickly as possible, further made my opinion that the Committee was still being controlled by Bob and others to further their ends and not for the benefit of OUR community.
As it appears with this writing, the Community Advisory Committee members may be forced to end their terms just about the time Mr. Bisno’s new proposal sees the light of day and therefore, there will be much less scrutiny, oversight, public input, and questioning of his new plans. Mr. Bisno apparently has satisfied his requirements for public input with his current plans and I have heard nothing regarding continuing public input by the Community Advisory Committee extending its term to look at Bob’s new plans.
On his blog, Tom Field has written his proposal that he shared earlier, on this blog. Mr. Field also alluded to the facts that there are apparently 1,400 condominium units either proposed for, or currently under construction, or even newly built, in downtown San Pedro. Mr. Field also acknowledged that many condominium developments have units that become rentals or are leased out by their owners.
The proposal that Mr. Field currently has on his blog, along with other numbers he has produced, have actually made more concrete my new proposal. I don’t think Mr. Field would consider his views as something I am going to use as reasons for my new position, but his knowledge of the area, along with information he has produced, helped me finally decide on some more reasoning for my new proposal.
The ongoing debate about the Traffic and Transportation study’s use of ITE trip generation, as found in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, went only so far in setting my new proposal to “pen and ink”.
Because many condominium units, whether in a high-rise development or not, become rentals or are leased out, using any ITE trip generation tables for condominium and/or town house developments will seriously undercut the real projected traffic count for a project as large as Ponte Vista.
For many months, I really, truly, and genuinely wished for a separate Senior Housing section at Ponte Vista, just like Bob wanted. Even though there are many critics for this type of housing, I do believe every single person, and there were many of them, who came before the Community Advisory Committee with their wish to move into that type of new home.
Bob Bisno even had a Senior Board of Advisors to help him with this type of housing at Ponte Vista.
Unfortunately, the growing weight of what I have learned up to this point has now caused me to abandon my wish for a separate Senior Housing section at Ponte Vista.
My new proposal is one that I have held in the past, but is now one that I have concretely cemented into by thoughts, reasoning, and realization.
The 61.53 acre site in Northwest San Pedro, known to many as Ponte Vista at San Pedro, must remain with its current zoning of R1-1XL and O1-1XL. The maximum number of single-family, detached houses must be 429-units, or if the developer wishes for and is granted a “density bonus” as described by governmental agencies, he may build up to 536 units.
Why must the site known as Ponte Vista at San Pedro remain with its current zoning?
I believe Mr. Bisno used his current plans, with the appropriate requirements being met, to try and achieve the goals he set out for in the beginning, though he probably was well prepared to actually have a second, fewer total count proposal, from the beginning. I feel that since Ms Hahn stated at the first meeting of the Community Advisory Committee, that she opposed 2,300 units from the very beginning, Mr. Bisno has had more than enough time to alter a plan that seemed “dead on arrival.”
Mr. Bisno continued to state, as fact, everything that was going to be included at Ponte Vista, with its 2,300-unit proposal. Now it appears many of those “facts” weren’t true at all. Trust is something I have some real difficulty dealing with, from Mr. Bisno.
In a survey and advertisement paid for by Mr. Bisno’s development company, the words “single-family housing” was used in an attempt, I believe, to sway the population reading or listening to the material, towards favoring the project. Mr. Bisno had stated to Mr. Chuck Hart, a member of the Community Advisory Committee that there “will be no single-family housing at Ponte Vista. Does that satisfy you Chuck?”
Mr. Bisno told all of us attending that meeting that there will be no single-family housing at Ponte Vista, but he included it in the survey and in paid advertisements for his project. This obvious disrespect of the intelligence of OUR community further creates the atmosphere that Bob Bisno has continuing trust issues. Bob Bisno was directly questioned about the use of the words and He and the survey taker admitted it was an error to use that term. When I asked Bob Bisno directly if his use of those words were a deliberate error, he replied, “That’s a good question, Mark.” Bob then changed the subject.
In recent posts, I have been very serious in my comments about condominiums becoming rentals or leased out. I have also stated that I will not compromise on the idea of allowing any attached housing, shared-walled units, duplexes, row houses, multi story connected residences, or any other type of non-age restricted housing at Ponte Vista that has at least two units sharing any single wall.
Shared-walled units are more likely to bring rentals and leases than single-family, detached housing; (SFRs) might bring to OUR community.
A project the size of the Ponte Vista site and having shared-walled units will lower the property values of everyone in the area, including those who live directly across the street, in Rancho Palos Verdes.
Condominium owners along Fitness Drive and along Western Avenue, along with the many condominium owners in The Gardens and elsewhere will also see the value of their homes diminish as more supply becomes available.
In San Pedro and surrounding local areas, there are many, many condominium units in medium to large-sized developments. Currently there are zero SFR’s on R1 sized lots between OUR community and, probably, Westchester, California.
Ponte Vista is just about the last large area to build new housing. Opportunities should be afforded those who wish to purchase a new home on an R1 lot, no matter what price they may have to pay.
Traffic will increase along Western. If you read the Daily Breeze on Monday May 28, you might have seen the piece about traffic delays along Western Avenue, between P.V. Drive North and Summerland. “Intelligent Signaling” is what the paper calls the ATSACC system already under construction on the Caltrans section of Western Avenue. OUR community will get the system whether Bob Bisno attempts to build even one new house.
4,106 more daily trips along portions of Western Avenue is what the Ponte Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report predicts for a development of 429 single-family, detached houses on R1 lots.
Keeping the current zoning at the Ponte Vista site almost certainly means that no public road from Western Avenue will be built to the new Mary Star of the Sea High School campus. That school had planned to allow faculty, staff, visitors, and deliveries to continue using Taper Avenue, after any public road to Western was constructed, and was going to require students and parents to travel along a portion of Western Avenue to reach the school. Unfortunately for the school and the neighborhood near Westmont and Taper Avenues, they will probably have to deal with a situation they may not have fully considered when the school and all accesses were considered. It is true, that had Bob not purchased the site from the Navy, S. John Montgomery was to be the public access from Western Avenue.
Keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning will cost many people time, energy and money for lawyers and court fees, but I believe it is in the best interest of OUR community to not have a public road from Western to Mary Star, considering the potential costs to all of us.
Supporters of the Mary Star campus may have the opportunity to buy several adjoining R1 lots near the school’s parking lot. They may use these lots to get the City Council to change the zoning on those few lots to accommodate a public access from the roadways constructed throughout the Ponte Vista site, and create a connecting road to the campus.
This post, I believe has been considerate to all. I know there will be attacks from folks who want more development at Ponte Vista than I do. I hope to remain as civil on future posts as I feel I have been on this and many, many prior posts.
But and However, this new proposal by me comes with a cost to me. I feel I have the experience, knowledge, credibility, visitor count, and local input from some members of OUR community, so I can rely on what I know and how I feel, to best express my opinion and knowledge.
The cost I am ready to bare may kill this blog. I am going to continue to criticize Bob Bisno’s proposal, whatever it is, unless it conforms to my proposal. I will also continue to use facts and figures to back up my proposal and will now become a more vocal supporter of any person who favors keeping the site with its current zoning.
I will continue to be as “nice” as I can and keep the “4Rs” always in mind; responsible, reasonable, realistic, and respectful. I will also be more forceful in my posts and more unforgiving of those who continue to attack me and my personal views.
Bob Bisno had more than enough time to reconsider his proposal. All of his supporters had plenty of time to plead with him to alter his plans. The Community Advisory Committee now looks to be calling for a compromise proposal as they were directed to do by Bob, Victor, the Planning Department, and others. They did FANTASTIC jobs learning about Bob’s current plans and how flawed they are.
Janice Hahn has recently stated that she sees no reason, at this time, to call for anything other than R1. I don’t think Bob could propose anything that Ms. Hahn should consider because, as she said, Bob had ten months to come up with a different proposal but he didn’t do it.
As this post is placed on this blog, I have already, and for the first time, signed the R1 petition.
30 comments:
A very interesting point discussed at the last CAC meeting on May 22, which has been conveniently ignored in all reports that I have read. It is my opinion this is a very large lapse because the point is an extremely important one. So I will raise it here.
The thing which none of the opposition seems to want to discuss is WHY Bisno Development wants to build the type of project they have proposed and how they got to the numbers of units. The question was posed in a rhetorical way and answered by a member of the CAC and confirmed by Bob Bisno.
Simply stated, "Why would any developer construct housing they could not sell? If they had not done their research and were not extremely confident there was a demand for their project, why would they build something which would sit there unsold?" The answer is equally as simple - they would not.
I am just an amateur at this planning thing. And so is everyone else who has a blog. Unless you work for the City Planning Department, or are a professional architect or urban planner, our ideas are all guesswork. I can suggest things, but I cannot say for certain whether those ideas fit into the very complicated framework of building codes, civil engineering, urban planning, etc. Anything more than general suggestions is a waste of time and bordering on the ridiculous. For example, taking the number of students projected to be living at complex in which we do not yet even know the number of bedrooms is bad enough. But taking that calculation out to 7 decimal places is just plain nonsensical and a waste of time.
The Urban Land Institute published a study of San Pedro and said we needed a minimum of 3,000 new housing units. That was a few years ago and our population growth has accelerated since then. It would not be unreasonable to assume a higher number would be needed. Housing equals jobs for San Pedro.
It is time for people to step back and take a deep breath. There are a great many people getting very shrill over this. Mr. Mark Wells has been gracious in posting many of my comments over the last months, but he probably won't be as nice to me after this post. That is because I have to say it is becoming apparent to me that there is no "negotiating" with him. NO matter what I support, how I massage my ideas, or what ideas of his I support, he is a rachet. He takes what I have conceded and that is the new starting point. He demands even more and more, until there are no aspects of the project left until he gets his way 100%. There are some very basic changes in the way we have to live and I will expand on that a little later.
But for now, I wish Mr. Wells and the R-1 group would stop castigating the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council for having an opinion which differs from theirs. No one threatened to swamp the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council with a pro-development slate of candidates when they passed their resolution in favor of R-1. No one wrote scathing comments about the Wilmington Neighborhood Council when they passed a resolution to support the findings and recommendations of the CAC. So why is Central being singled out? Especially when the allegations so prominently displayed in Mr. Wells' blog are not true. At least not according to the Brown Act. If you take the time to read it (the Brown Act, that is), there are no requirements for a website, a newsletter, or email notifications of meetings or events. If you are going to start using these criteria to criticize a Neighborhood Council, well then the Harbor City Neighborhood Council should be the next target. Or perhaps the Wilmington Neighborhood Council.
In fact, I challenge Mr. Wells to go through a list of the 87 Los Angeles Neighborhood Councils and see which ones comply with the criteria he says are worth making the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council the target of all this vitriolic rhetoric and threatened administrative actions. Are all the councils who do not measure up to his random standards to be de-certified by DONE? What about it Mr. Wells? Up to the challenge, or afraid to be shown up?
Tom, as I wrote previously, I will now repeat how "2300" came to be.
You don't have to believe me, but this is how I heard it from Bob Bisno, himself. Do you trust Bob Bisno enough to believe he told me the truth, Tom?
A group from the CAC with members of Mr. Bisno's staff, Bob Bisno, members of the Planning Department, Mr. Bisno's architech, and Victor Griego, went on a "field trip" to Playa Vista to look at that development. We were driven on a small bus, the type that runs around LAX to and from hotels in the area.
I sat next to Bob Bisno and I got the courage up to ask him directly how he came up with "2,300" as being the number of units he wanted at Ponte Vista.
Bob Bisno told me that, after talking with his advisors, especially David Shinder, his traffic engineer, he was told by Mr. Shinder that "2300" was the maximum number of units that could be built at Ponte Vista, and have all the mitigation be successful, according to Mr. Shinder and Bob Bisno.
Tom Field seems to contine the tact of attacking me, but I don't mind all that much, coming from him. He has his blog where he repeats his attacks on me, and like all the other "anonymous" commenters, continues to hide his real identity from all of us.
Some could suspect that his blog is written inside the Ponte Vista site office, but I don't necessarily believe that.
I wrote a very long comment on his latest attacks on me, on his blog. If he refuses to print it, I have saved it and will publish it on this blog.
Please don't attack Mr. Field's blog by being too mean or critical. It seems he and his blog are not able to take the heat this blog regularly takes and he has the ability, as I do, to censor or omit item he feels are not what he thinks should be printed. It is his right and I can't blame him for not wanting to read stuff similar to the attacks on me and my position I get on BOTH blogs.
We'll see.
When Tom wrote on his comment that housing equals jobs, he forgot to mention that more folks have to travel outside of San Pedro to have jobs than are available in San Pedro, and that fact will not likely change.
Piers 400 and 300 don't seem to be on the San Pedro side of Terminal Island and the berths 97-103 project will bring more jobs and pollution and traffic, and earlier deaths to San Pedro, and there is nothing Tom or I can do about that.
Where would we put all the new jobs Tom hopes are created in San Pedro that would allow for another condominium project to be built. Isn't all the available land going for condominium construction?
If metropolitan areas have outgrown R1 housing, shouldn't there be a stand that states, there will be more R1 housing that people will buy, given the decreasing opportunities people have for that type of home.
Why isn't what is good enough for Bob Bisno, as far as the type of home he lives in, not good enough for any of the rest of the folks seeking to find a brand new SFR on an R1 lot?
If Ponte Vista becomes the last large development of R1 homes in the City of Los Angeles, so be it. Those houses will sell and the people will come.
Whether San Pedro needs housing or not, shouldn't determine by itself, the type of housing constructed at Ponte Vista. That vision is too narrow for OUR community, I believe.
My long and strong attempts at finding some compromise finally failed when, no matter what I tried to negotiate with Tom Field, failed to get him to move off of his 1700-unit proposal. it seems to me and Tom that it is all my fault and I can live with that. But at least I moved, changed total numbers, and offered very different visions for Ponte Vista.
In the time Tom made his first proposal and repeated most of it on his blog, 1700 was and still is his total. My proposals and ideas moved around and until early this morning even included his number for Senior Housing units.
As Tom and Bob resisted real negotiations for much, much too long of time, I finally could not remain as I had been. They both had more than plenty of chances to assist me and others towards finding a compromise, but I could no longer hope that either of them would come up with a number and/or types of housing I could further my negotiations with.
I must be a bad negotiator, so I guess I should not try to be one.
But I tried.
And so it is with me now:
R1, NO COMPROMISE!
MW
What is new about this proposal of yours? It seems the same to me.
Also, where is your basis for this comment:
"Because many condominium units, whether in a high-rise development or not, become rentals or are leased out, using any ITE trip generation tables for condominium and/or town house developments will seriously undercut the real projected traffic count for a project as large as Ponte Vista."
and this one:
"Shared-walled units are more likely to bring rentals and leases than single-family, detached housing; (SFRs) might bring to OUR community."
and this one:
"A project the size of the Ponte Vista site and having shared-walled units will lower the property values of everyone in the area, including those who live directly across the street, in Rancho Palos Verdes."
These are strong statements that strengthen your position, but only if they are supported by fact. If I missed it from an earlier post I may not have read, I apologize.
mr. wells, its great to see your total conversion. seriously, i think that whatever the outcome is you are no less deserving of praise than gabriel for all the time you have given trying to enlighten the community, regardless of which side of the issue people fall on. How can any reasonable person belive that "tom field" is anything but a fiction. his letter to the paper says he has a problem believing someone with an agenda and no credientals. shouldn't I?.I couldn't have said it better myself "tom". Why else are you really so for this project and yet want to stay annoymous?
he keeps saying he wants discussion as long as it fits into his perception of civility. Really? he just called R1 er's "rabid". did he not say that r1 was a lunatice fringe group, which if they had their way, women and blacks would still not be able to vote? I hate to break it to you tom, but, there are blacks and women involved in R1. go figure. That their hiding who is really running this show? what's good for the goose is good for the gander. At the R1 meeting i saw, on one was hiding under any tables. "tom" seems fairly intelligent. surely he must be aware that the national association of realtors last week anounced that home prices are at their lowest since 2003.that they are down for the 9th straight month. it's a buyers market. he speaks of nothing on the market except overpriced delapitated shacks. spare me. the market is flooded with plenty of deals right now and isn't going to change for the better {from a seller's point of view} for a long time. Not everybody can live in the same place at the same time. some areas are considered better than others, which is why they cost more. as for r1 zoning being dead, i don't think so. just look at the advertisment in the sunday times and you'll find plenty."tom" is right.this is a desert. we are running out of water. all the more reason not to pack people in like this. 2300 units will use a hell of a lot more water than 429 homes.what has bob proposed regarding the "greening " of the deveolpment? Solar power and water heating on the roofs? desert drought resistant plants, or grass, shrubs and a hugh water consuming reflection pool, like the one depicted on the mural board in front of the property? what about all of the added exaust emissions from up to 7000 people leaving their 5500 car parking lot? the majority of which will be commuting because reports show that the area does not have jobs which pay enough to live in this area "behind the gates" at ponte vista.in the last 20 years the shopping centers along western have filled in their parking lots with businesses. tell me in and out burger drive thru doesn't present problems in that parking lot. anyway, the point is that parking in these shopping centers has shrunk considerably, but useage is up because of population growth.If bob doesn't think that his project is going to burden the infastructure then why is the 10,000 sq. feet of retail going to be only for the residents? And i'm the elitest? "tom" keeps saying what winers on the other side of western are because the would like to keep at least some of their view. how greedy. Wait a minute, isn't bob going to steal those views with his eyesore six story buildings and then resell them for a premium for every unit which will have a harbor and/ or bridge view? No? Right. the view has been one of his big selling points. sounds duplictious to me.Bob says that he cannot make any money building at anytrhing less that the pathetic density he wants. say what? what about the project on gaffey? {another project which was not considered for traffic increases when the deir was done}If there is a "tom" I challenge him to show up at peck park next week and prove that you and what you say you stand for are real. nobody will bite you. Until you really show yourself, in one way or another, you will be considered a fiction. I will be the first to walkj up and shake your hand for your belief in your convictions. whether i agree with them or not. There are other ways to comfirn that you exist without exposing yourself for whatrever youi real reasons are. Just go walk into Janice hahn's office and prove your real. then those who don't believe exist can ask her. she doesn't have to give us your address. But you will do neither of these because i firmly believe you do not exist.
Thank you Kara, for your comment. I'm glad it finally was posted.
I used general knowledge, items from Tom Field's blog, Emails sent to me by persons who tell me stories of the situations of members of their families, observations based on what I have learned about various developments in the area, personal experiences dealing with having some friends living at "Scottsdale Estates" in Carson, no apparent factual debate by anyone when I state that in larger condominium developments, a percentage of units are rented out, or are leased out, and other items of illustrations to document my assertition.
If you would like numbers, so would I. I have been told that in one project, "40%" of the units are rented out or leased out. In another project I read that "25%" of the condominium units became rentals or have been leased out.
I do not have independent varification of the percentages, so I will not use those numbers on posts of this blog, and I do acknowledge that those numbers were provided to my in writing, but are the views of persons, that I cannot independently varify.
Common knowledge also comes into play. Although Tom Field doesn't suggest any percentage, and I trust him on this particular issue, he does state that he even bought a condo, lived in it and then rented it out. Mr. Field also acknowledged that some condos do become rentals or are leased out.
Nobody to date has offered any real evidence to counter my opinions on this particular subject. If there are condominium developments that may have the fewest number of rentals or are leased out, I suspect they are located in the Century City area of the City of Los Angeles, and I included that opinion, on my blog.
Perhaps my 26+ years dealing with residents of condominium developments, while working at my job is no qualification for my opinion, but after seeing what I have seen in the very many developments in the Los Angeles area, I suspect my opinion is a theory that can possibly be proven out.
You also asked how my new proposal is different than the one I recently gave up. Great question!
My earlier proposal called for 700 Senior Housing units, just like Tom Field proposes and set in an area like Bob Bisno wants to build. That section, by and of itself would have required a zoning change for the Ponte Vista site.
Included in that proposal was a call for single-family, detached residences, SFR's if you like.
My proposal originally called for the remainder of the buildable land to include only SFR's on R1 sized lots BUT, I became more ameanible to having SFR's on smaller lots, typical of The Cape and The Enclave.
I did also suggest a 960-unit Senior Housing section with up to 186 SFR's on R1 lots, but that didn't seem to spark much interest, either.
Tom Field and I were the "compromisers" for our sides of the issue. Tom's proposal for 1700 units is something he got flak (flack) for from other supporters of a larger Ponte Vista, and I got talked to, repeatedly by supporters of keeping the current zoning as it is, at Ponte Vista.
Neither Tom, nor those supporters were the final persons that made me change my position. After reviewing all that has gone on, plus Donna Littlejohn's recent article, plus having the feeling that Bob waited too long and caused more strife and stress to all of OUR community than was necessary, in my opinion, plus not reading from Tom that he would even consider my position about SFR's at Ponte Vista, all added up to my decision to write the post that announced the change in my proposal.
Personally, I hated to do it and I was always "the oddball" in the R1 group for keeping my fight going for my proposal and having to deal with being attacked not only by Bisno supporters, but R1 proponents, too.
I could have continued to keep that proposal going, and fought harder for folks to listen and learn more about it. I included it in many other posts, still silence and empty pages appeared.
As a member of the CAC, I listened and heard the wants of many seniors who wanted the section I, Bob, and Tom wanted. But other voices rang out, more information was learned, and more opinions reasoned with.
Bob had ten months to offer what he should have offered, but he didn't and that was a big point in my finally changing my proposal.
We are all still waiting for his new proposal. If it comes out to be a good sized Senior Housing section, with the non-age restricted units built as SFR's, then as I wrote early this morning, I will praise that proposal and fight to have it approved of. But as I suspect he will not call for enough SFR's on any sized lots, then my new proposal should be used at Ponte Vista.
Thank you again for your comments and questions?
MW
P.S. IF Bob proposes what I wish he proposes, I will be recinding my new proposal and joining with him in his quest. Please do not hole your breath on SFR's of any real number at Ponte Vista from Bob's new proposal.
Anon 2:36 -
Very well put. "Tom" is in La La Land. Less is better. Better for San Pedro and better for the environment. I also really resonate with how you exposed the zero logic behind "Tom's" claim of economic growth and more jobs in San Pedro.
1) The first thing I thought of when I heard of the Ponte Vista plans was 'slums' Yes, slums. Ponte Vista will be the next generation's slums. Scottsdale (great reference Mark) is the first complex that came to my mind. I knew people who lived there too. For those who don't know about Scottsdale, go to the dailybreeze website and search "Scottsdale"
2) Obviously the traffic on Western is going to get much much worse. No amount of hocus pocus will fool anyone on that issue. But what about all the other quality of life issues? What I liked about San Pedro is its home town feel. A slower, NOT crowded feel. Folks, we are slowly losing our town. We are going to be just like Torrance or Hermosa Beach. Rushed, stressed out people packing the streets, parks, beaches, stores, and restaurants.
3) I think the SP Central council is doing what's best for the merchants, not the people of San Pedro.
4) I am very disappointed in our local newspaper, Random Lengths, for not being more active on Ponte Vista, the biggest issue facing SP.
5) Thank you Mark. Even though I don't agree with you (R0 No compromise!), it is obvious that you are sincere. You are providing a tremendous service with your blog. I don't believe Tom Field is sincere. I have heard you speak at the CAC meetings Mark and know you are for real.
kris,
There are no facts to back up the claims and statements. Merely conjecture conjured from thin air. Guesses made from estimates of approximations.
You did not miss anything in a previous post. The facts were not there.
I get lynched on almost a daily basis becasue what I write is unpopular with the R-1 gang. They want me to engage in their same game. If you have noticed I have withheld from putting numbers on some aspects of the project until we hear from the developer what he is proposing in more detail. Once we have the detail is the time to start running a calculator. Not now.
Come on over to http://pontevistatruth.blogspot.com/ for a place to read about known facts, discussed in a rational manner.
Tom Field
anonymous 2:36pm
What is this? Did you have a contest to see if you could regurgitate as much meaningless trivia with taking a breath, or pausing to check your spelling or punctuation?
I still do not understand the obsession with my having to prove who I am. If I wrote under "anonymous" you would not be calling on me to go into Janice Hahn's office to prove who I am.
You just cannot comprehend the concept that I am not the issue. The issue is the housing project and how we can offer our input to help minimizes any effects it may have on us.
To Kris and Tom, and everyone else,
Tom is has censored my comments on his blog and now puts his blog's address on my blog because that is probably the best way he can continue to get visitors.
As I have stated before and continue to state, I will not moderate (censor) this blog unless comments are entered that I feel must be removed.
It is sad that Mr. Field needs to use my blog, which he continues to attack, along with my new position to further his blog along.
For "Tom Field" to claim he is not the issue, is only PARTIALLY correct.
Mr. Field is also correct in his statements about having facts to back up the numbers of possible rentals or leases at condominium projects.
I did quite a bit of explaining when I wrote a response to Kara's comments.
Trying to find out what real percentage of rentals or leases at large condominium projects is going to be tough, but I will try to find some numbers.
It is apparent to me that Tom does not believe what I report as true with the conversations I had with Bob Bisno, directly concerning the numbers of bedrooms Bob himself thought might be for his current proposal, or about why the number of 2300 units was chosen.
That is very unfortunate. I have directly informed, via this blog, how both conversations happened and the results of those conversations. I am not the one hiding anything, in this regard.
If Tom Field sees fit to make comment on this blog, I will not stop him. Unfortunately because he has continued to censor me on his blog, I see no reason to make further comments on his blog. I will of course, take any opportunity I feel I need to if I find any of his posts or comments offensive, demeaning, and/or attacking me, or my position. It is something he has done in the past and he is still doing it. Shame on you, Tom!
If you choose to be uncivil, please choose to be gone!
MW
If "tom" does exist or not, he should answer the questions put to him in the comments of this blog.I see no reasoned debate in his response. why are we still waiting for real numbers from bob? it's safe to assume that he wants to pack as many people as he can on that property. 2 1/2 years is long enough. like he doesn't have plan a, b, and c all worked out a long time ago with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.
Tom
In response to your statement:
"You just cannot comprehend the concept that I am not the issue. The issue is the housing project and how we can offer our input to help minimizes any effects it may have on us."
How right you are about what the real issue is. I do comprehend however, that you sir, are not the issue and your solution does not minimize the effects of this housing project on our community.
R-1, however, does.
People, people. If what you want is a checkerboard of fenced off private property with people totally dependent on their cars, then, by all means, support R-1 zoning and over 500 houses. If instead, you want a road to Mary Star, some parks, some light retail, some recreational space and a DASH stop, you need a Specific Plan. R-1 will not get you the things that make for a livable community. Why does everyone assume that the Central resolution supports maximum density/ It does nothing of the kind. A Specific Plan is more restrictive than R-1.R-1 will still allow exceptions and density bonuses
Kara McLeod
anonymous 3:46am - I will be happy to answer coherent question writing in a clear manner. But please post them on my blog. I do not want to use the forum of Mr. Wells' blog for these discussion and that is why I started my own. Mr. Wells' has graciously left the link up, so it should be easy to find. I will continue to keep my link to this blog up because I want people to have access to as many viewpoints as they can.
Tom Field
just4fin
R-1 does not minimize the effect of building on the community. This is a misconception. If you read the next comment after yours Kara McLeod states some of the probelms very clearly.
Kara McLeod
Thank you for doing some homework, getting past a lot of common misconceptions and clearly stating exactly what it is that a Specific Plan accomplishes.
Tom Field
Kara, how many units do you support in your specific plan?
tom,
My graciousness ended with your continued attacks on me. I sense a rage about you in your continued attacks and I no longer wish to have the rage you seem to have appear on this blog.
Your continued use of censoring my on your blog further heightens my stance. You wish for one-way communication and that was evident when you chose not to reply to my Sunday personal Email to you with the subject line,"How can we work together?"
Your continued ignoring of my earlier proposal, except for belittling it, also demonstrates to me, you are unwilling to even consider anything other than your proposal, which you stated on your blog, is the same one that appeared months ago, on my blog.
Which one of us in unwilling to negotiate or consider more compromise? I have published several alternative ideas, concepts and differing compromise sets of numbers while you, once you finally published your unchanging proposal, never even offered anything else to negotiate with.
The proposal you currently have is unchanged and that is like Bob's current proposal. I know it is not the same in numbers or all types of housing, but even after months and months of my attempting to have both of us find some kind of compromise between us, you weren't willing to budge one inch.
So, Mr. Field, all the evidence is clearly illustrated on my blog and part of your blog. I wished for compromise with you and you stuck hard for your proposal. It is still way to large, in my book, and has too high a total number of units and still contains shared-walled units that must not be at Ponte Vista in the non-age restricted portion.
Tom, I am sure you, above all, know what it costs me to keep all the secrets I promise all those who wish me to keep those secrets intact. I am asking you personally to either stop attacking me on my blog, or make no more comments on this blog.
I am going to pay a very high price for what I know, while you are a beneficiary of my kindness.
MW, That is Mark Wells, Tom!
anonymous,
Central's resolution does not specify a number of units. It does say that we want to see a mix of housing types, we want public access to the area (no gates) a dedicated shuttle that serves the downtown and local shopping areas and both passive and active recreational space. This is what we'd like the Planning department to require for this parcel. It's not up to us as a neighborhood council to write the plan, but our resolution is designed to tell the planning department what we think is needed in the area.The key to a Specific Plan is that once it is created, there are no variances, no exceptions and no density bonuses.
Kara
Thanks for your response Kara. So if a Specific Plan was presented with all the features you describe, how many units would you personally want at Ponte Vista?
Personally, and I want to be really clear here that I am not representing the position of Central as a whole because we on the board have never discussed what we feel would be the optimum number of units, but personally, I'd like to see less than 500. I don't believe in age segregated housing and I don't have any objection to rental units per se, so I would not discount the idea of common wall duplexes or fourplexes mixed in with SFR. The number I want is pretty low and probably not practical, but I don't think the given infrastructure can absorb more than 1000 units comfortably. However, what I want personally is not the issue. What is the issue is what is best for San Pedro, new and old residents, merchants, visitors and shoppers. I think what is crucial to the development of Ponte Vista is not numbers of units, but integration into the existing infrastructure and creating linkages and access to other parts of town. I do not think that the best thing for anyone, including future residents of Ponte Vista, is for it to become a gated private enclave of isolated homes.
Kara McLeod
Thanks again for responding Kara.
You bring up a good point, what is practical. Bisno might give to a specific plan which contains the features you describe if he his faced with a choice between that and R1. So the question becomes how many mixed units would make Bob more money than R1?
Also I think what's best for the residents of San Pedro is often not whats best for merchants, visitors, and shoppers. Residents should be considered first and foremost.
anonymous,
All those groups do need to be taken into consideration, but residents are the most affected on many levels. I'd like to remind everyone though, that many of our local merchants are also residents, so let's not ignore their needs. After all, healthy local businesses make for a good local economy that creates jobs and reduces the trips people need to take out of town.
Kara McLeod
We should all support our local merchants. Even the taco trucks! But I don't think many of the buyers of Ponte Vista will be supporting local merchants much... unless we count Target and Home Depot as local...
Thank you so very much Kara and Anonymous 1:59 PM and 3:42 PM.
This is exactly the open discussion we all should be having on the biggest issue that has come to this community in a very long time.
Kara's thoughts on what she would like to see is a great example of someone who does not agree with my proposal, but has in her thoughts, her idea of what is best for OUR community.
Anonymous 1:59 and 3:42 also provided great discussion with Kara and I didn't do a thing! This is what I like to see on this blog. Folks taking the initiative to have discussions without attacking anyone and without me getting too involved.
You all have brightened my week which has been the toughest since this blog was started.
I would like to invite all of you to create you own particular post, if you choose to, to be included on this blog.
MW
"4,106 more daily trips along portions of Western Avenue is what the Ponte Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report predicts for a development of 429 single-family, detached houses on R1 lots."
This is a correct figure? Just this one paragraph brings home the disaster that Ponte Vista could cause.
Everyone driving a car will add a certain amount of air and noise pollution to the area. It just ain't like it used to be.
Kara -
You and everyone here can talk specific plan all you want, but in my opinion, it's a waste of time. Under the specific plan it will be what BOB BISNO wants, not you or anyone else will affect that. This is the reason why a no compromise R1 stance is the most effective stance to take when we are talking about supporting something that will have the least impact on the residents in San Pedro. I would contend that we currently have enough population to support the local business owners....we need to minimize population growth. Don't worry about the local economy, it will grow without Ponte Vista.
anonymous,
Well, you are right in that here in LA, what the developer wants, the developer gets. In my experience dealing with developers in this town, zoning does not stop them. It's too easy to get exceptions and changes and bonuses. City staff says "we can't scare away the developers" like we could if we tried. Even when we have the zoning card on our side, as with the development downtown at 8th and Centre, the developer gets it set aside and we lose. Should the zoning be in the developers favor, lose even bigger. I have been convinced by hard fought battles that zoning alone simply is not a strong or precise enough tool. Yes, Bisno will get some of what he wants, but it's his property and his financial risk, so yeah, he's going to get a reward. I'd just like this to be a win-win, or at least a win-not total loss. Keep in mind though that Bisno does not write the Specific Plan, the Planning Department does and that's where we have leverage with the Councilwoman and the CAC
Kara
Anonymous 7:34 is right. I think most people would overwhelmingly approve of Kara's ideal plan, but as she mentioned, it isn't realistic.
Central should have gone on the record with a number of units in their resolution. (Something like Kara's - under 500) I would trade off some number of units for the features she mentioned. But not 2300, or 1700 or even 1000. So the only hope we have is R1.
On another note, Mark, I am glad I could help brighten your week. Your blog is not dying, Tom's got a big boost yesterday from a link on la.curbed.com. You should comment on as many relevant blogs and newspapers as you can. When you do, leave your URL. You will increase your traffic.
Wow Kara, you posted at the same time I did. I didn't get to read your comment before I posted. Thank you for your responses.
Howdy again Kara and the recent anonymous es,
You are all becoming wiser by the comment and I am so proud and happy you have found this blog
I would agree with Kara's thought that the developer gets what the developer wants. That seems not to be a matter of fact in the City of L.A. and elsewhere. But does this mean it always will be this way? Can't a concerned group of community members apply enough pressure on elected officials and bureaucrats to make one more stand for what they want and not what the developer wants?
Jack Weiss is having a recall movement to deal with for his dealings with developers in west L.A. Unfortunately for the folks trying to recall Jack, they will have to live with what he approved of for generations.
We may be different in OUR community. We have an L.A. City Councilmember who stated that she has not seen any reason, or been convinced, at this time, to consider anything other than the current zoning of R1 for Ponte Vista. That statement, made when she made it, surprised me and a whole lot of other folks.
So it appears, at this time, we have a Council member who is not like Jack Weiss at all. Now the members of OUR community need to very effectively encourage Ms. Hahn to meet the needs and wants of over 8,000 people, at this time, who have signed the R1 petition, I feel.
We do not all have to agree on the small variences of numbers being thought of by well meaning folks, but we need to be a strong force that states to this developer, that he is not going to control the future of OUR community, we get to do that.
There is one question that has been swirling around in my head that I look forward to asking the members of the CAC. I would like them to consider one question, first for their own selves, then for their families, then their neighbors, and then for OUR community;
Are you willing to put the future of OUR community into the hands of Robert H. Bisno?
It is a simple question, I feel and one that should have been asked some time ago.
Please continue your discussions and debates in the superb manner that you have conducted yourselves with.
If you would like to trade Email addresses with each other in a private manner, please Email me with your addresses and let me know who I can send them to.
I do not give out Email addresses to anyone from anyone unless I receive their permissions.
Please come to the R1 supporters meeting on Monday night so I can formally meet you all. It's at 7:00 PM at the Peck Park Community Center. We are going to do our level best to make the whole meeting last an hour. We wanted to do that at the last meeting, but we had a long-winded speaker-me.
MW
Post a Comment