Friday, February 06, 2009

Odds and Ends 103

Well, I'm just about at the end of my second year of Odds and Ends and I'm still here, continuing this blog that was begun in September, 2006.

If you simply just drive by the Ponte Vista as San Pedro site, you can probably feel that absolutely nothing has been done since the property left the hands of the Federal Government and the Volunteers of America, years ago.

If you have that thought, you are both correct and incorrect.

We are still many months, or even perhaps years, away from any destruction of the current buildings on the site begin and the later construction of anything that may get approved.

But for many of us, we need to remind ourselves that there was a time that some people truly believed that 2,300 brand new condominium units would be under construction in phases, and that the first phases would be under construction as I am writing this post for Friday.

Ms. Swanson and her Outreach Team is continuing efforts to create a "whatever" type of group, advisory board, committee, or "whatever" to deal with what special members of OUR community will consider is something the rest of us can live with at Ponte Vista.

There will be an "Open House" in March, according to Ms. Swanson. Us regular folks will be invited to share our thoughts, comments, rants, raves, and numbers of units we think we can live with.

I have learned a number of more names of folks who have been asked to be interviewed.

I know what type of interview will be conducted, who is conducting the interviews, and what the process will be just after the interviews are finished.

I don't think anyone knows what will happen after the interviewer sends his comments to Credit Suisse and Mr. Ted Fentin.

If you want to see a Web site that looks impressive, go to:

I guess it will be up to Mr. Fentin to tell us what goes forward from the end of the interview process.

We can state that there is at least one person being interviewed that would not consider anything other than keeping the current zoning as it is on the site.

We also know that there will be folks interviewed that run the gamut between R1 and 2,300 units. There are also some who want the most number of units possible, with or without a density bonus.

I am interested in the processes and the outcome of the interviews.

I am still keeping much of my information private because I want the processes to proceed and succeed. It has been too long since compromise has been really considered and we shouldn't simply oppose the current processes and ideas coming forth.

I have a post at: that deals with a recent meeting from representatives of Mayor Villaraigosa and his housing initiative.

If you look at that post, be sure to carefully look at the illustration that was presented to everyone at the meeting held in San Pedro, for San Pedrans and others, again in San Pedro.

The illustration is just about exactly how it was first presented on a big screen, in San Pedro.

That's San Pedro, California 90731.

It is one more example of what too many downtown L.A. bureaucrats think about San Pedro, one of the leading revenue generation areas of the entire city.

Also, the folks presenting the meeting didn't seem to realize they were speaking in San Pedro, a community that is debating and discussing the largest residential development project in the city of Los Angeles after Playa Vista.

It continues to look like the largest organized group opposing new residence halls on the campus of Marymount College wants to have a complete remodel and more off-campus student housing built at the College's Palos Verdes North site along Palos Verdes Drive North between Western Avenue and Five Points.

Currently there are no private junior colleges that are also considered "commuter colleges" in the State of California.

There are public colleges, four-year private and public educational institutions that have on-campus housing.

If Marymount is allowed to build on-campus student housing, 40% of the 1,561 daily vehicle trips associated with the college would pass along Western Avenue from approximately Crestwood Street to Palos Verdes Drive North.

There are no sufficient studies to determine the amount of new vehicle trips that would be generated if the housing units were greater in number than they currently are at the Palos Verdes North facility.

In fact, the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive North and Western Avenue was not studied with any detail or sufficient traffic counts no matter where student housing is located.

I understand that students being able to live on-campus during their college years may be a great thing. But for those of us having to deal with traffic in eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, northwest San Pedro, and Western Avenue, it is not such a good thing.

Currently 70 of the 658 students currently enrolled at Marymount actually live in Rancho Palos Verdes while at least 400 students live in the two housing sites Marymount owns in San Pedro.

No comments: