Sunday, June 03, 2007

Central's Resolution and Sue Castillo's Response

I am now going to post two documents. The first document is a resolution that was originally passed by the board of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council and "signed by its President.

Here it is:

On Monday, 21 May, 2007 at 6:30 pm, at a Special Meeting, properly noticed, the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council passed the following RESOLUTION:

The CSPNC adopts the following position with regard to the Ponte Vista development.

1. In order that this vacant parcel be developed to best serve the needs of the greatest number of people of this community, we support residential development that optimizes the number of units, the variety of household types served, and the affordability of housing.

2. We support development based on a Specific Plan instead of the existing R-1 zoning.

3. Adequate amounts of open space for active and passive recreational use must be included. Developer shall be required to provide open space matching or better than the ratio of "persons served per park acre" recommended by City of Los Angeles Parks department within this development.

4. Neighborhood serving retail space needs to be increased above the current proposal, in order to reduce off-site trips for typical daily retail needs.

5. In order to contribute to Downtown San Pedro and support its economic growth, at least two DASH bus stops should be included in this development. Also, the route of the Ponte Vista shuttle buses should integrate a Downtown San Pedro stop.

6. Union labor should be utilized.


Joe Gatlin

I copied the resolution that I have been asking for because a comment on this blog directed me where to find it.

The resolution was found on the other blog.

Now everyone, there was an Email sent from Ms. Sue Castillo to Ms. Elise Swanson at Ponte Vista and here a copy of it is:

"Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 12:44 PM

Subject: Elise, my statement to accompany the publication of Central's Ponte Vista resolution, as requested...

The board members of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, along with most of the community, have been attending meetings, reviewing plans, and listening to arguments for and against the redevelopment of this site for many months. The resolution we adopted was broadly supported by our Board. Review of our past resolutions would show that we typically support the progressive principles of affordable housing, mixed land uses, public transportation, smart growth and the use of union labor. Many of us were influenced by James Allen's editorial in a recent edition of the Random Lengths News where he laid out a reasonable compromise between the R-1 proponents and the original 2300 unit plan. We understood that traffic concerns are paramount to many people, but felt strongly that this should not be the ultimate basis for all land use decisions. We felt it important to make a public statement to this effect.

What our resolution does not do is uncritically endorse Bisno's current plan (as of May 1, 2007). There are many issues to be resolved, including open space reservations, housing type mix, and, yes, traffic mitigations. We intend to continue to participate in the development process as it unfolds.

Sue Castillo
Chairperson, Land Use Planning
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council"

Now to everyone, I hope all of you read "What the resolution does not do is uncritically endorse Bisno's current plan (as of May 1, 2007).

I do admit that when I heard Ms. Swanson read the resolution at the last CAC meeting, I, and I believe many others THOUGHT that Central endorsed Bob's plan. I was wrong in my belief at that meeting and if I caused any discomfort, I apologize to everyone at the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council.

I don't remember Ms. Swanson speaking in front of the CAC as she did, at any time in the past. I felt that what she read was so important to the proponents of Ponte Vista, Bob, and his staff, according to them, that it certainly sounded to me like an endorsement of the project.

At this time, the resolution is set to be voted on again by the members of the Board of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council. I believe their next meeting is June 12, the same evening as the third meeting of the supporters of R1 at Ponte Vista.

It may be just my imagination, but if folks wish to be heard, concerning this resolution, they might want to attend the Neighborhood Council's meeting so their views might be heard on this resolution.

If the resolution going to be considered an "endorsement" of the Ponte Vista project by the members of the Board at Central? I don't really know, it is up to them and how the next vote and debate goes.

It should be noted for the record, that Mr. Joe Gatlin, the President of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council was once also a member of at least one advisory board for the Ponte Vista project.

I have also been informed by Board Members of Northwest San Pedro and Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Councils that both of their boards past resolutions some time ago, (Coastal in 2005 I was told) not only opposing the current plans for the project, but also specifically calling for the current zoning of R1 to remain on the site.

A further statement of fact is that Mr. James Allen's publication, Random Lengths News usually carries full page advertisements for the Ponte Vista development, as do other newspapers.


Tom said...

Mr. Wells,

Since Central was able to produce a copy of their Resolution, would it be unreasonable to ask of Coastal and Nortwest to produce theirs?

Tom Field

M Richards said...

I do think it would be reasonable for me to publish the resolutions for both Northwest and Coastal as I have already published the resolution from Central.

I will write to Mr. Bruce Horton, the secretary of Coastal to once again request a copy of their resolution concerning Ponte Vista.

A member of their board claimed that their resolution was the first one approved of.

Now that I have a copy of Central's and have been verbally asking Bruce about getting a copy of Coastal's resolution, I need to redouble my efforts at getting copies of the other two resolutions for publication on this blog.

Mr. Field has made a very reasonable request.

For the record and once again, I have removed his blog's address from my bookmarks, I have not, to the best of my knowledge posted any comments on his blog since last Friday, and I have asked him to kindly not make any more comments on this blog.

I did make one visit to his blog on Sunday afternoon to find and copy and create a copy of Central's resolution. I did not take any time to read anything else, including comments, while I made the short visit to his blog.

However, being that I choose not to use moderation even though we all "enjoy" reading "michael.meacher" and "ted.carlson", two aliases of obvious supporter(s) of a larger development at Ponte Vista, I won't control who gets to have comments published on this blog.

mellonhead said...

Sue C. said: "Many of us were influenced by James Allen's editorial in a recent edition of the Random Lengths News where he laid out a reasonable compromise between the R-1 proponents and the original 2300 unit plan." I missed this and can't find anything on the web. What did Allen say?

M Richards said...

Howdy Mellonhead,

I haven't read the latest RLN to see if there is something about Ponte Vista in it. James did propose a project based on his great lack of knowledge about the actual facts concerning the project.

It will probably take me until Tuesday or Wednesday to find that proposal, as it afforded me the opportunity to write directly to Mr. Allen questioning why he knew so little about a development whose sponsorship he heavily relys on, with their full page advertisements.

If Mr. Allen has come up with a second proposal he likes and it is mentioned in the latest edition, I will read that and probably post it and the other proposal he had.

Tom said...

Mr. Wells,

A. There was no motion about Ponte Vista passed by Northwest.

Going back through their minutes to the beginning of 2005, there were resolutions passed for funding of the hiring of consultants, to devote an entire newsletter to Ponte Vista, for sending comments on the DEIR into the Planning Department.

At the January 9, 2006 meeting, John Greenwood stated "Our position as a Neighborhood Council is that we have real concerns about the density of the project."

1. This was a procedurally incorrect and unauthorized statement, since the full Neighborhood Council had not made a motion or passed a resolution that this was their position.

2. A statement by an officer, giving his own opinions during the course of an oral report cannot be construed a properly passed resolution by the entire Council.

3. Even in light of the foregoing, "...real concerns about the density of the project..." cannot be construed as a comprehensive statement regarding the entire development.

B. Should the Coastal Council produce a resolution, it is in complete violation of their own long-standing policy of not endorsing or opposing any development projects. Over the last few years, they have steadfastly stuck to their policy. Why would they suddenly violate it for Ponte Vista?

C. To the best of my knowledge, besides the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, only the Wilmington Neighborhood Council has passed a Resolution regarding Ponte Vista. The wording of the Resolution was to support the findings and recommendations of Janice Hahn's Ponte Vista Citizen's Advisory Committee.

Tom Field

M Richards said...

Mr. Field, I have written what I have found on the Web sites of the two N.C.s in question. If you have any further arguments or challenges, then you are most welcome to take them up with Board members of those N.C.s. I am reporting what was approved by the Boards of the two particular N.C.s.

If an officer or officers of N.C.s direct me where I can find Board approved measures concerning the Ponte Vista project, I accept their knowledge about the measures and I reported the voting for those measures.

Again Mr. Field, I have kindly and now repeatedly requested that you avoid making comments on this blog. It appears your not accepting my request may say much about your continuing rage at me or others in San Pedro, and that is not appreciated by me and others.

When you continue to comment, while an uninvited guest, it makes your entire blog suspect, your positions questionable, your true motives suspect, and have many folks wondering what this development and that developer have on you.

When I make a request which is reasonable, in my opinion, and you choose to ignore it, who is unreasonable?

I have tried to end the "war" that others claim we are having, but it appears this blog enrages you so much that you still feel compeled to battle to the bitter end.

But, being as this blog is so much freer in its willingness to follow the Bill of Rights than your blog is, I won't moderate you or anyone else at this time.

Perhaps there are now many supporters of Mr. Bisno who are using "Tom Field" as their own aliases. If that is the case, both the real "Tom" is not being served by any of them, either.

This should all be settled by about June 19, I feel. That is in no way any implecation of a threat in any way to anyone. If someone believes it is, they are wrong and this comment notes and saves this information.

Anonymous said...

Who cares what Allen says. He'll say or do whatever you want as long as you buy an ad from him.

R-1 is what the land MUST stay at.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Allen turned out to be a hypocrite. Even if he is truly pro ponte vista he should have been covering the issue much, much more. To many San Pedrans, it is the biggest local issue of our time.