Odds and Ends 34

Well, it looks like we are in a slow new news cycle right about now. I haven't heard about Bob coming to his senses and lowering the number of units to any sort of reasonable or even realistic number.
________________________________________________________

"The Monster" which is Seaport Homes, better make that "Seaport Apartments" is still receiving outer coatings around its exterior. It looks lighter in color, but I don't think anyone will claim it is good looking.

Whatever Bob gets to build at Ponte Vista, it won't mask the massive wall of the apartment building enough.
________________________________________________________

If you want to get a visual idea of what Bob thinks Ponte Vista should look similar to, but don't want to drive to Orange County, please check out the following Web site:

www.rental-living.com/Communities/Newport-Bluffs

The CAC toured this apartment complex and I must admit, I was impressed with its look, and amenities that I saw available to the tenants.

We did not see many renters using many of the amenities during our tour of the site, and our group made up the largest number of people on the common lawn area near the largest pool.

The building illustration Bob uses for Ponte Vista are very similar to the actual buildings we saw at Newport Bluffs apartments. The site was large and there were cars parked along the streets of the complex, as well as in parking spaces.

Newport Bluffs Apartments has about 1,100 units. This is 800 fewer units than Bob currently is demanding for Ponte Vista.

Newport Bluffs is off of MacArthur Blvd and that roadway has at least three lanes in each direction and there are other entry routes tenants can use to access their apartments.

Newport Bluffs are pretty good for being apartments, and we do not wish to see Ponte Vista having leases, renters, or apartments in northwest San Pedro.
________________________________________________

If there are individuals living in Rancho Palos Verdes who get to vote for members of the Board of Education of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, I think you ought to know one very important fact. If it were not for the students, living in the Eastview area of R.P.V. attending P.V.P.U.S.D. schools in the numbers they are attending in, L.A.U.S.D. would not have funnelled enough funds into your school district to open Palos Verdes High School, and keep it open.

It is well beyond high time that the Board of Education of P.V.P.U.S.D. get off of their butts and work with L.A.U.S.D. to permanently bring Eastview students, parents, and property tax dollars, used for education, into the P.V.P.U.S.D. coffers.

Eastview residents have enough trouble fighting weapons of mass development right across their City's border to fuss over providing the best education for their intermediate and high school students!

For the Eastview elementary school students, you and your parents are blessed with having one of the finest elementary schools in the L.A.U.S.D., with Crestwood Street Elementary School. But if that weren't good enough, there is also Park Western Place parents can try to get their kids into.
________________________________________________

Parents of intermediate school-aged students moving into Ponte Vista will have Dodson to send their kids to, if they opt to say within L.A.U.S.D.

For their public high school choices, they will either have Narbonne or whatever SRHS 14 finally is named, if and when it is ever built. At least it won't be built at Ponte Vista.
_______________________________________________

Here is the last Odds and Ends reminder about the Candidates Forum for the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Election to be held on Thursday October 18, 2007, beginning at 7:00 PM at Crestwood Street Elementary School.

All five candidates have stated they are willing to reveal their opinions concerning Ponte Vista and I have heard that one candidate may favors "compromise" number of units that may be of "mixed-use" types of units. We all should promise to let everyone have their say and hold our comments about some things until the end of the Forum.

"Eastview" residents and all other residents living on the east side of R.P.V. need to stand up and let all politicians learn that we can become and organized group of residents who will not tolerate being ignored or trampled on by political leaders, developers, or even a few folks who live in cities bordering Rancho Palos Verdes.
_______________________________________________

Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Election Information

Even though the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will have the front door of single family housing closer to anything built at Ponte Vista, then any single-family home in San Pedro, or anywhere else for that matter, there are still many individuals who consider those residents who live just feet away from the entrance to Ponte Vista to be thought of as having little say in what is built on the 61.53 acre site.

On November 6, 2007 the membership of the City Council may change due to the election being held that day.

Anyone and everyone, especially voters in Rancho Palos Verdes are invited to a Candidates Forum to be held on Thursday October 18, 2007, beginning at 7:00 PM, at the auditorium of Crestwood Street Elementary School, 1946 Crestwood Street, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA.

All five candidates for the three seats being contested to the City Council have agreed to meet and discuss their candidacies, three very important issues for the east side of the City, and also have a great deal of time spent addressing questions from the audience.

Information is key in deciding whom to vote for and here are Web sites for the candidates and the League of Women Voters:

http://www.palosverdes.com/douglasstern/

http://www.palosverdes.com/tomlong

http://www.wolowicz4rpv.com/

http://www.votewright4rpv.com/Welcome.html

http://www.electdonreeves.com/

http://www.lwvpvp.org/

http://www.smartvoter.org/2007/11/06/ca/la/race/01883000/

In the upcoming election, three candidates are incumbents and running to retain their City Council seats:

Mayor Tom Long

Mayor Pro Tem Doug Stern

Councilmember Steve Wolowicz

Two candidates are looking to unseat incumbents:

Mr. Don Reeves

Mr. Paul Wright

During the Forum, all five candidates will be offered the opportunity to discuss their positions on three specific issues that are being set aside due to their importance. These issues are certainly not the only issues candidates can offer positions on, and we hope there will be a wide range of issues presented at the Forum.

Three issues seem to be of great importance to many voters in the eastern part of Rancho Palos Verdes and especially the "Eastview" area:

The Storm Drain issue and the two measures on the ballot. Not every resident of the City is required to pay the fee/levy/tax, especially in our area of Rancho Palos Verdes

Ponte Vista.

While the members of the City Council do not have much real control over the permanent inclusion into all aspects dealing with students living in the "Eastview" area and the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, for many years parents in the area, and others, have been embroiled in attempting to become full members of the P.V.P.U.S.D. We hope all five candidates will be willing to share their positions on this "hot-button" topic.

The majority of the Forum will be spent having audience members ask questions. We are also welcoming candidates' supporters to help "spin" their candidate and we hope to see lots of interaction in the processes of campaigning and politicking.

"Eastview" and the east side of Rancho Palos Verdes is actually the sleeping giant, in terms of potential voters and what impact they might have on the entire City. It is very sad to note that in the previous City Council election, only 11% of the voters cast ballots, in this area.

This area needs to become more involved in the affairs of Rancho Palos Verdes if residents of the area hope to fight issues with more clout. As residents of the area have learned to organize to fight weapons of mass development across the street from the City, they also need to become more involved and participate more in the governing of themselves, through the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

I hope everyone can get the word out about the Forum on October 18. I think if we "pack the house" we will demonstrate to all the candidates, and more importantly ourselves, that we are standing up for our City and are willing to become more involved so that we can show strength through leadership to get the things done that we feel is important to all of us.

The Forum is one of a great number of Forums and meetings candidates have been involved with. It has the potential to bring the candidates closer to all of us and let them all know that we are not going to remain asleep, drowsy, or even particularly patient in matters that involve us.

Please bring your open minds, questions, comments, and enthusiasm to the Forum and we should have a great time.

Odds and Ends 33 Just Couldn't End

Three big stories concerning Ponte Vista and development in San Pedro were brought to light in the Saturday edition of The Daily Breeze and its More San Pedro.

Page A1 of the paper has an article about the change of location of the infamous SRHS 14, the 810-seat Los Angeles Unified School District's proposed senior high school that continues to have as its "preferred site" a plot of land inside the boundaries of Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The article states that leaders in the City of Lomita may welcome the campus being built in their City, with mixed-use abilities for the school and the surrounding community.

This is a victory for supporters of Bob Bisno's plans for Ponte Vista and many area residents, like myself, who have long been very opposed to having a high school, designed to ease the student population at Narbonne High School, in Harbor City, in San Pedro.

The Lomita site is now in primary focus to the planners of the new campus, with a site on Sepulveda Blvd., in Harbor Gateway, coming in second.

I thank and congratulate everyone involved with strongly encouraging, demanding, and giving positive new location suggestions, for what I feel is a victory for OUR community.

Now if we could only get the Navy to sell land for a new road to Gaffey Street, I think many, many members of OUR community, Ponte Vista supporters as well as opponents, could also find great ways to compromise.
_______________________________________________

Years ago I had begun to hear stories and rumors about the idea of building three high-rise condominium structures in downtown San Pedro.

The Vue is the first one actually under construction. In today's Breeze there was an article stating that the selling of units is at a high rate and that 247 of the 318 units have already found buyers. I think this is great news for OUR community.

"Urban Village" was planned as an 18-story condominium project directly across Palos Verdes Street from Vue. The project hasn't really gotten off the ground and the original developer of the project has sold his interest in the site. The new developers have not stated, at this time, how they may proceed with whatever they wish to develop, but there has been some indication that they may build an 18-story tower.

The third high-rise is now being actively considered. "G8" as it is being called by the development company undertaking the project, is looking to build an 18-story market-rate condominium tower at the corner of 5th. Street and Harbor Blvd., where the Grinder now stands.

"G8" is now informally planned to have 158 units.

The condominium tower would also have retail space on the ground floor.

There does appear to be interest by buyers seeking housing in the area, for high-rise living arrangements. This seems to be in stark contrast to what happened at Seaport Homes on Western Avenue, where only about 15% of the units were in pre-sale.

I feel if the downtown area, its residents and businesses, would welcome three condominium towers, then they should be welcomed.

I must repeat my caution while only one of the towers is under construction, that the area closer to the Harbor will need infrastructure such as a large supermarket closer to the high-rises, in order to best serve everyone in the downtown area. Having the Vons at 12th. Street and Gaffey Blvd, and the smaller food stores on Pacific, will cause traffic nightmares in the future and over crowding of the existing markets.

There is a condominium project on the corner of Pico Blvd. and Beverly Blvd. that has a full size Ralph's market on the ground floor, with indoor parking. I have seen that Ralph's crowded and residents in the local area seem to enjoy having a full service food store closer to their homes.

Perhaps "G8" or whatever is built on the old "Urban Village" site might want to include some units designed for senior citizens. Having shopping close by in downtown may be very attractive to seniors wishing to sell their homes with yards and move into homes that require much less care and without having the need to drive around, because so much more shopping is available downtown, than in northwest San Pedro.

At Ponte Vista, seniors who grew up using their cars may not find transportation as favorable to them as seniors might, closer to the different types of stores in downtown San Pedro.
_______________________________________________

I'm considering the news in today's Daily Breeze and More San Pedro to be good news for OUR community. It seems housing will be built where people want it to be built, and schooling will be built closer to where it should be built. I think this is good news for everyone in OUR community and having good news for everyone is much better than the fracturing we have seen concerning many issues in OUR community.

Let's hope for more days like today.

Odds and Ends 33

I know that it has been about a month since this blog turned one-year old, but I have been remiss in dealing with this particular item.

I must thank the over 16,000 visitors to this blog. The average daily readership is down, but there are still a few folks who continue to read regularly, even though we are in what many folks believe is a slow news cycle.

I have learned so much from so many readers and writers over this past year. I am humbled by the amount of respect some of you attribute to this blog. I will continue to keep my standards for providing true facts and decent opinions.

I cannot write about how much I have appreciated all the comments from reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful writers. Instructive, well meaning, intelligent comments numbering in the thousands have graced this blog and keep me realizing how many good people we have in OUR community and how so many of them are very concerned about the future for all of us.

For the tragic among us, I still have my uncensored blog so that the idiots among us can still feel all powerful in attacking me or the truth, or whatever is inside the vacuum that is located between their ears.

How long will this blog go on? That is something even I would like to figure out. I am still wondering how long Bob will continue to demand his weapons of mass development. We can't even determine whether Bob will stick it out on this project or whether he will go on to other projects he has in his little black bag.

For all of you who visit this blog, thank you so very much for this past year.
__________________________________________________

On October 18, 2007, beginning at 7:00 PM, at Crestwood Street Elementary School, there will be a candidates' Forum for the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council that are up for grabs.

Three incumbents are seeking reelection to the three available seats, and two other candidates are attempting to win two of the seats from two of the incumbents.

This Forum has been designed to allow for the greatest input and discussion between the candidates themselves and the residents from the eastern side of Rancho Palos Verdes.

There have been claims that have been verified by R.P.V. government representatives that if the voters in the "Eastview" area of R.P.V. actually voted as a block or in great enough numbers, our residents would be able to dictate what happens in the entire City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

Unfortunately for those east side voters who have voted in the past and wish to have more input into the workings of R.P.V., there have been only about 11% of us who vote regularly in our own City's election. No wonder why so many folks on the east side of The Hill feel we are not being represented.

Actually, we are being represented by three incumbent candidates and the two other candidates when it comes to Ponte Vista. All five do not like Bob's plans and what those plans would do to the residents that are represented in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.

There are many more issues, other than Ponte Vista that our voters should be concerned about and should question all the candidates about at the Forum. The Storm Drain "fee/levy/tax", whether it remains in place and how it could be governed is very important to residents on the east side of the hill. Some of our neighbors are involved in lawsuits over the matters involving the problems with decaying storm drains in our area and in other areas of R.P.V.

Becoming fully represented in and by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District is extremely important to many, many residents in our area. "Eastview" students MAY attend either L.A.U.S.D. or P.V.P.U.S.D. schools, but our parents who send their kids to P.V.P.U.S.D. schools, and everyone else in our particular area cannot vote in elections involving candidates or issues in the P.V.P.U.S.D. area.

Traffic in our area and traffic issues dealing with how our residents commute to schools on Palos Verdes Drive North, Palos Verdes Drive East, and/or by Long Point and Trump National have created many issues that need working on.

Rancho Palos Verdes needs to find places and ways to provide for "low income" housing units. Some in our City government have suggested that this type of housing should be built along Western Avenue, in Rancho Palos Verdes. This issue has many of us on the east side of the hill, including our neighbors in San Pedro, very concerned.

There are ongoing questions about the finances within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. Because we are a "bedroom community" compared to other cities on the hill that have more businesses, our income into city coffers is either at the bottom, or one step above the bottom compared to all other cities in the South Bay area. Even though many folks consider R.P.V. to be an affluent city, there are many people who realize that our city has many financial woes, other cities can better contend with. There are still others in our city who believe the governors and policy makers can do a much better job at dealing with the finances in our City.

I urge anyone and everyone who wants to learn more about the candidates and issues in this coming election, particularly those who reside in the eastern portion of Rancho Palos Verdes, to attend the two-hour Candidates Forum. Also please tell your neighbors and friends about the Forum.
_______________________________________________

I have not, as yet, seen or heard a response from a certain publisher who seems to believe that everyone who supports R1 at Ponte Vista is part of the "Mark Wells faction".

I do, however applaud the publisher's ability to inject humor into my life at this particular time. Sometimes health concerns of an individual or his or her family members crop up at about the same time and that is when humor such as I read, came in handy.

Not that anything of what Mr. Publisher wrote has any sort of truth to it. But if he does consider that I may have an entire "faction" to myself then perhaps I should begin to use my new found finding to create changes around the area.

If I do command a whole "faction" (of course I don't believe I do, but please allow me to play for a moment) I think I would like to see the following changes made in San Pedro and/or the surround area:
Move the Vincent Thomas Bridge 3-1/2" toward the south east.
Use inflatable bags to raise Sunken City and get rid of the fence.
Bring back the Edsel.
Make sure that all Chocolate Milk Shakes are made using only Strawberry Ice Cream.
Demand that every person write with their left hand.
Bring back at least the smell of baking bread near the old bakery site.
Take the white domes off of the radar systems on the top of The Hill.
I want to be six-feet tall, make it happen.
Make ALL lanes of Western Avenue at Avenida Aprenda one way....heading north.
Bring a Costco to San Pedro.
Watch the blimp fly backwards.
Get a certain publisher to admit that he really doesn't know what he is writing about and that he hasn't demonstrated the care and consideration he should have concerning the Ponte Vista project.

Thank you all, for reading this part. I know none of this has a remote chance of happening, but at least I can dream a bit.
_________________________________________________

J.D. Hobby shop is not renewing its lease at its site in Rancho Palos Verdes. They are going to have a larger shop in downtown San Pedro opening up in November on 6th. Street. These are some great folks who will help downtown San Pedro attract more business. It is sad to lose the sales tax revenue that is now going to R.P.V., but they will have a bigger store that will cater to the needs and wants of hobbyists, and that is a good thing.
_________________________________________________

Ignorance and Arrogance...From a Publisher!

Mr. James Preston Allen, the Publisher of The Random Lengths News has once again demonstrated what I feel is an astounding amount of ignorance concerning the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project and an arrogance when he suggests that he knows what should be done with the project.

In the October 5-18, 2007 edition of his publication is a letter to the editor and Mr. Allen's response. I am going to copy it below and then provide some true facts that demonstrate the Mr. Allen seems to not be interested in an issue that is so important to OUR community.

Here is the letter and Mr. Allen's reply:

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Your publisher recently wrote in his last editorial about the how other newspapers sell out when catering to the whims of big business by giving advertisers their front page. Furthermore, he goes on to clarify that Random Lengths has not sold out, and will let anyone advertise in their paper. But I beg to differ. Ever since Mr. Bob Bisno's Ponte Vista advertising has graced the back page of your paper I'm afraid to say your editorial content has declined. Now when I read Random Lengths I expect to see stories about Ponte Vista and other big developments of this area in the back pages regurgitating exactly what the MORE and the Daily Breeze has already said about them.

And Random Lengths hasn't really been on the forefront of breaking local news in the past several months. Furthermore you criticize other publications for creating "advertorial" articles. And what do you call your development guide? As an independent progressive paper aren't you supposed to be questioning local developments which will greatly gentrify this community rather than giving them a gloss little magazine. You say that, you will not be silenced by people who advertise for your paper, but I think it's pretty clear that Random Lengths has sold out, and has lost some of the integrity that it is reputable for.

Mike Curkovich
San Pedro

Dear Mr. Curkovich,
The salient point you miss in your critique is that we don't sell Bisno our front page nor do we sell him our editorial coverage or position. Ponte Vista advertises when they need to and I have given my opinion on the compromise that needs to happen there which differs greatly with what Bisno desires. It also differs from what the Mark Wells faction insists on, which is R-1 zoning. The decline of our coverage on Ponte Vista is in direct proportion to my estimation of its real significance to San Pedro as a whole, which is that it is a distraction! Settle the damn mess-build 1,000 or 1,500 mixed-use condos or whatever, throw in some R-1 housing too, if you like, but while all of the RPV'ers are wringing their hands over traffic on Western Avenue I would suggest that they take a good long look at Long Point and Trump developments and then tell the residents of this area what their traffic mitigation plans are for San Pedro.

As for our Harbor Living Magazine, development in the greater Harbor Area is a fact of life. It is not a choice of "if it will happen" but rather how much, where and when it will take place. Our goal in producing this supplement to the newspaper is to keep you, the readers, informed as to what is happening and where it is going. And the fact that we accept advertising from all of these developers and corporations has never stopped us from criticizing them when they are wrong or screw up. The best example of this would be the Port of LA who routinely complains about our articles but still purchases advertisements because they know the have to reach the widest and most influential audience in the Harbor Area. Should I censor their advertising? No because they also have a right to express their points of view, that's what happens in a free society. I am sorry that you don't see it that way.
Thank you for your letter.

James Preston Allen,
Publisher.


Mr. Allen, I am Mark Wells and I know quite a bit more about what you are calling a "distraction" and that is a shame. A publisher of a periodical so entrenched in the area should learn much more that you seem to care to learn about Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

Your "distraction" is the single largest building development in OUR community. Your "distraction" weighs much more heavily on the infrastructure, traffic, and economy of this area that all the other developments of residential units, combined.

Not once, it seems have you looked through this blog to count the number of compromise proposals I have either offered up myself, or published as compromises from others. There is probably no one in this community that has thought about, wrote about, and reported on as many compromises as I have.

Had you demonstrated more care in your thought processes and looked at the facts, you would find that I finally signed the R1 petition on May 29, 2007 about two years after the project came to my attention and AFTER more than 4,000 other individuals had already signed the R1 petition.

Mr. Allen, I have no faction. I am a leader of nobody else and a spokesperson for only one person, that being me. I lead no one other than myself and I do have opinions that differ from the more stringent supporters of R1 at Ponte Vista, but because you don't seem to care enough to learn the facts and the issues, you continue to demonstrate a willingness to remain ignorant to many of the issues and especially, the facts.

Mr. Allen, you now believe, it seems, that the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project may not be of "real significance to San Pedro as a whole". This point of your suggests to me that there may be entire portions of the local area you are not necessarily concerned with. Could this be because Ponte Vista is not downtown?

Your crack about RPVers also is another demonstration of your arrogance toward many people who read your periodical. Where were all the San Pedrans at when the issues of Long Point and Trump came before the R.P.V. Planning Commission and City Council? Just as folks living in R.P.V. will be severely impacted by what is happening in San Pedro, I think your periodical should have editorialized on the need for San Pedrans to demonstrate their concerns with their neighboring city. Where was RLN during the planning and approval processes for Long Point and Trump National? Opponents to those projects would have welcomed San Pedrans with open arms, in helping to oppose those developments.

Your arrogance that begins with "Settle the damn mess-build 1,000 or 1,500..." Obviously, by reading what you wrote in your reply to the letter, you now consider Ponte Vista, the largest development, the most costly project, the largest potential single residential source of income to the local area, as a mere "distraction" and really has little significance to our area, as a whole.

Your factual falsehood in calling supporters of R1 as being part of a "Mark Wells faction" also indicates that it seems you still do not care about learning and reporting about all sides of the issues surrounding Ponte Vista.

When you wonder why so many folks consider your publication a pro-bisno periodical, your continued reluctance to learn about all sides of the issues, let alone the basic issues AND your arrogance to claim that Ponte Vista may be of little significance to our area, as a whole, and your compromise proposal, suggests to me that your periodical is a "damn mess" and needs some work to become a more legitimate publication.

Mr. Allen, I do not hide and we have communicated before. I suggest that if you wish to have your periodical become more enlightened about the Ponte Vista issue, you have yourself and/or your reporting staff truly indulge in fact learning, fact checking, and real reporting. Inter view folks on all sides of the issues. Don't tow the Bisno line as so many of your readers believe you do. Mr. Curkovich's letter is an example that many people in OUR community have about your publication. If you can't, won't, or haven't learned this yet, I suggest you open your eyes much wider.

In short Mr. Allen, this blog has reported or endorsed more compromise proposals for Ponte Vista than anywhere and anyone else. Ponte Vista at San Pedro will have an extremely great impact on the whole area. There is not "Mark Wells faction". You again have demonstrated an astounding lack of knowledge for a issues that is as big as it really is in OUR community. You have also, again, demonstrated a startling amount of arrogance, in my opinion, in considering that the Ponte Vista development is a "damn mess", not a significant project, or might not affect the whole area.

Your reply to Mr. Curkovich's letter is another nail in the coffin of credibility, I think, to your periodical.

And yes, Mr. Allen, there is a reasoning by me as to why I don't write that you are a publisher of a "newspaper".

P.S. Weapons of mass development have a much greater impact to OUR community than Blackwater does, at this time.

Doug Epperhart's Column

Doug Epperhart had a funny and very informative column in the Saturday September 29 edition of More San Pedro in the Daily Breeze. Here is the link below:

http://www.dailybreeze.com/moresanpedro/articles/10106461.html

I liked his "B.S. Bingo" for meetings. I know I will feel constrained if folks use "Ponte Vista", "Bob Bisno", and "over development", but I feel confident that "Bob's blight", "monstrously over-sized project" and "future apartments" might get through meetings.

Another part of Doug's piece dealt with exactly why the great folks supporting Eastview Little League did what they did when offered diamonds by Bob Bisno. I have decided to copy this section of Doug's piece, and I hope he doesn't mind because it is so important.
_____________________________________________________

"In July 2006, Molina asked Eastview why the deal between Bisno Development and the league did not work out. The reply from league president David Stanovich follows:

"We have backed off on the Bisno site because of his insistence on us signing an official contract with him to exclusively back his project of 2,300 condos. In this contract, it states we will no longer look for alternative sites for our junior/senior fields.

"Another reason is his unwillingness to deed the land to the city or Eastview before his project receives all of its permits to build. To rely on a temporary site and the hope he builds his project is too much of a risk to put all of our fields in his hands.

"His timetable for permanent fields is 2008-2009 if he gets approval from the city. He will only build the fields if he gets a zoning change to R3. As you told us in the meeting, that is not likely to happen. So, Bisno as an option is not looking real good, even for the junior field.

"As we told you in the past, he is not happy that he received 17 cards in favor of his project, out of 570 from the parents of Eastview. In his own words, he is not getting his money's worth out of the league.

"If you need any further explanations, let me know. We have told him from the beginning we will support anything he gets approved from the city. Never once have we said we support 2,300 condos.""
______________________________________________________

Indecently 17 out of 570 cards equals about 2.9% approval rating for Bob's original plans.

I can imagine about 3% of the total population of OUR community really supporting Bob's current plans.

Mary Star's Road to Western

In today's Daily Breeze, there is an article about the blessing of the new Mary Star of the Sea High School campus on Sunday.

Included in that article are segments concerning what the future holds in store for the new site in northwest San Pedro.

There are many individuals, including 15Th. District Councilwoman Janice Hahn who want to have a road built between Western Avenue and the campus. I am not a supporter of this idea any longer.

When the campus was being discussed, proposed, planned, and in limited knowledge of the majority of residents in the larger area, folks got together and insisted that if the campus is built where it is now being built, a route between Western Avenue and the campus was mandatory.

If the school opens around Christmas time, either students and parents will use the Taper Avenue entrance, or they may be required to use a temporary route through the Ponte Vista development site, if the representatives from Mary Star and Bob Bisno can come to terms.

According to a very well placed source, the route between Western Avenue and the campus was and will be part of the conditional use permit for the new school.

What was not publicized was the fact that if a route between Western Avenue and the new campus if provided, students and parents would be required to use it, while the faculty, staff, deliveries, and visitors would still be allowed to use the Taper Avenue access, which would not be closed.

Western Avenue is already too crowded in most people's mind. Adding the youngest and least experienced drivers along a portion of Western that will already be filled with commuters and students and parents trying to get to and from Dodson Intermediate School will create even more headaches, I feel.

I don't know if your high-school age children are ever late for anything, especially in the morning. The thought of late students driving to get to class along Western Avenue does not set too right with me. Also adding into the mix are all the Dodson students that cross Western Avenue. Late, young high-school drivers and intermediate-school students crossing a four-lane road, do not mix well at all.

I attended Dodson during the time the Navy Housing was occupied, and I wish someone in a position to know would publish the number of pedestrian-car accidents that happened at Avenida Aprenda and Delasonde, as they intersect Western Avenue.

Some folks have suggested that students who have cars and parents dropping their kids off for the new campus, should have an alternate parking lot and be bussed into the new campus.

I wonder if there was any discussion during the development and planning processes about the "what if" question was ever asked and answered: "What if there can be no road between Western Avenue and Mary Star?" Actually, in talking with folks well informed about that time frame, I heard that the very strong promise of a road was necessary before the homeowners association closest to the campus would approve the new site.

I do not believe Western Avenue, the commuters, children, and adults who must use that road every day should be subject to the wishes of a homeowners group, in this manner.

I like the idea of Mary Star having a brand new campus and I do wish everyone well, but I don't think we all should pay, in traffic respects, for having even more individuals needlessly using Western Avenue.

The Taper Avenue access goes to Westmont. Westmont has intersections to both Gaffey and Western Avenue. Many students and others live in the central and southern San Pedro areas, and they probably would not like traveling on Western Avenue during the morning and afternoon "rush" hours.

The idea of a road between Western Avenue and the new campus came up well before Ponte Vista was created. As I understand it, the Navy, when they owned the site, was prepared to open S. John Montgomery as the route between Western and Mary Star.

Bob Bisno has always wished to provide a "community benefit", being the road, as another way to insure that he gets the highest density zoning he possibly can. Bob and L.A. City folks are at odds as to whether he would be required to provide any road if the property were to remain with its current R1 zoning. In this particular instance, I agree that Bob would not be required to provide land or a road, if the property remains R1.

Once again I must repeat for my friends and neighbors, I am very supportive of the new Mary Star campus and I have been from the first day I heard of it. I do not support any road between Western Avenue and the new campus, especially since there will already be access to the new school that will remain in use.

Odds and Ends 32- Bob's Blight

It has been only two days since I last created an Odds and Ends, but that does not mean I haven't been thinking about things.
_____________________________________________

Lots of us are concerned about Bob's blight and his creation of a ghost project at Ponte Vista.

I feel that the real power to confront L.A. leaders and bureaucrats about dealing with the blighted property, which is a nuisance to look at, drive by, and may be hazardous to surrounding residences in the City of Los Angeles, should come first from the residents and citizens of the City of Los Angeles.

It does little good for someone like me who does not live in the City of L.A. to complain on behalf of myself and/or my neighbors because we don't have the power of the ballot behind us in the fight and we may not have standing in a litigation that could be considered.

Residents of the City of L.A. along with Homeowners Associations, Neighborhood Councils, and other impacted groups would have more influence, I believe, to try to get Bob to clean up his mess.
___________________________________________________

I have taken some time lately to begin dealing with the L.A. Municipal Code. I have found some interesting ideas to put forward and some codes that may apply to get Bob to clean up the property.

Here are some ideas that came up while I was reading parts of the code:

I don't know if the abandoned dwellings at Ponte Vista have asbestos in them, but I know that asbestos was used in construction when those buildings were built.

There are codes dealing with fire protection and keeping abandoned buildings from becoming fire traps by sealing broken window, clearing dead brush, cleaning up rubbish and debris. These codes appear to have been created to keep any fire started on a property from spreading to nearby areas.

In my most recent drive past Ponte Vista I have noticed dead brush, broken windows that have not been properly covered to comply with coding, rubbish and debris piled on the private streets, and other things that might be considered violations of L.A. Municipal codes.
________________________________________________

This next bit is about nuisances created by abandoned buildings and vacant areas. It is three sections of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. These codes may seem long, but I feel they apply in this instance.

SEC. 58.01. NUISANCES – SUMMARY ABATEMENT.
(Amended by Ord. No. 175,596, Eff. 12/7/03.)

When the Health Officer, acting under any authority vested in him or her, orders the abatement of a nuisance or condition within the City of Los Angeles that endangers the public health, safety and welfare, and the person or persons responsible for the creation or maintenance of the nuisance fail to comply with the order, the Health Officer may request the Department of Public Works or any other department having the necessary workforce and equipment, to perform the work required to abate the nuisance.

All costs incurred pursuant to this section shall be a personal obligation against the person or persons responsible for the creation or maintenance of the nuisance and the owner of the property, recoverable by the City in an action before any court of competent jurisdiction. These costs shall include an amount equal to 40 percent of the cost to perform the actual work, but not less than the sum of $100.00, to cover the City’s costs for administering any contract and supervising the work required. In addition to this personal obligation and all other remedies provided by law, the City may collect any judgment, fee, cost, or charge, including any permit fees, fines, late charges, or interest, incurred in relation to the provisions of this section as provided in Los Angeles Administrative Code Sections 7.35.1 through 7.35.8.

SEC. 58.02. WEEDS, RUBBISH, ETC. – PUBLIC NUISANCE.
(Added by Ord. No. 160,171, Eff. 8/22/85).

A. The City Council finds that weeds (as defined in Article 2, Chapter 13, Part 2, Division 3 or Title 4, commencing at Section 39560 of the Government Code of the State of California), rubbish and other material dangerous or injurious to neighboring property or to the health or safety of residents of the vicinity constitute a public nuisance.

B. Every owner of any parcel of land or premises who, after receiving notice as provided by Subsection B. of Section 22.325.1 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code, fails to abate a public nuisance thereon consisting of weeds, rubbish or other material dangerous or injurious to neighboring property or to the health or welfare of residents of the vicinity by the date specified in the notice or the date upon which the City is authorized to abate the nuisance pursuant to Section 22.325.1 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code, whichever date is later, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

SEC. 58.03. NUISANCES – SUMMARY ABATEMENT OF MOSQUITO BREEDING SOURCES.
(Added by Ord. No. 176,240, Eff. 10/23/04.)

A. Any standing water on private property which has become a breeding source for mosquitoes is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and an immediate threat to the public health safety and welfare of the citizens of Los Angeles.

B. When the Health Officer or an officer of any Los Angeles County Vector Control District acting under any authority vested in him or her finds any standing water on private property which has become a breeding source for mosquitoes, said officer may issue a written order to abate the standing water or other condition within the City of Los Angeles that endangers the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Los Angeles. The owner or other person or persons responsible for the private property where the breeding source was found shall have 72 hours to abate or eliminate the condition which created the breeding source for mosquitoes. Upon the issuance of the notice to abate the nuisance created by the breeding source for mosquitoes, the owner or other person or persons responsible for the private property may at no cost to the owner or responsible person request that the vector control district abate the standing water as a source of breeding mosquitoes. The owner or responsible person may also choose to abate the nuisance within the 72 hours allowed. Any owner or responsible person who fails to comply with a 72 hour nuisance abatement order issued pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor pursuant to L.A.M.C. Section 11.00(m).

C. If any officer as described in this code who is lawfully on private property finds a nuisance as described above and is unable to contact the owner or other person or persons responsible for the private property in question within twenty-four hours, said officer may summarily abate the nuisance at no cost to the owner or responsible person. If a nuisance has been abated without the knowledge or permission of the owner or other responsible person, then the abating officer shall post a notice on the property in a prominent place that explains exactly where and what steps were taken to abate the nuisance.

D. If an owner or responsible person who has been cited to abate a nuisance within 72 hours fails to do so, any officer described herein may then summarily abate the nuisance. All costs incurred to abate the nuisance pursuant to this section shall be a personal obligation against the owner or person or persons responsible for the creation or maintenance of the nuisance, recoverable by the abating organization in an action before any court of competent jurisdiction. These costs shall include an amount equal to 40 percent of the cost to perform the actual work, but not less than the sum of $100.00, to cover the costs for doing the work, administering any contract to do the work and/or supervising the work required. In addition to this personal obligation and all other remedies provided by law, the abating organization may collect any judgment, fee, cost, or charge, including any permit fees, fines, late charges, or interest, incurred in relation to the provisions of this section as provided in Los Angeles Administrative Code Sections 7.35.1 through 7.35.8.
________________________________________________

http://www.lacity.org/atty/atycb1b2c.htm

Above is the address for learning about a program to deal with problem properties. This program appears to deal with primarily smaller sites and ones that are not guarded, but I am not so sure the guard(s) at the Ponte Vista site can be everywhere on the property, all at the same time.

All one needs to do is view the graffiti on any of the old units, even the ones surround by dead weeds to know that the site cannot be protected when folks wish to trespass. I don't think the surrounding neighbors in San Pedro or elsewhere should be required to continue to have to live with the conditions as they currently are, at Ponte Vista.

Below is a copy of the page dealing with the program.


Office of the City AttorneyRocky Delgadillo

CITYWIDE NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROGRAM (CNAP)

The Office of the City Attorney Citywide Nuisance Abatement Program is a coordinated, multi-agency task force charged with targeting abandoned structures, nuisance properties and blight plaguing neighborhoods throughout Los Angeles. The CNAP program is comprised of personnel from five participating agencies: the Office of the City Attorney Office, and the City of Los Angeles Police, Housing, Planning, and Building and Safety Departments.

CNAP spearheads a number of specialized, community-based programs designed to target and prevent criminal activity and improve the quality of life in Los Angeles's (sic) neighborhoods.
Problem Property Resolution Teams (PPRT's) identify and pursue abatements against nuisance properties, and also develop long-term strategies to criminal and nuisance activities in designated neighborhood block projects.

The Narcotic Eviction Team (NET) assists property owners in evicting tenants who engage in narcotics activity or gang-related crime.

The Narcotics Enforcement Surveillance Team (NEST) coordinates law enforcement and prosecution resources to effectively remove conspicuous drug markets from residential neighborhoods.

Kid Watch LA recruits and coordinates volunteers who assist the police in ensuring that children have safe paths to and from schools.

Operation Healthy Neighborhoods (OHN) targets quality of life crimes and code violations in designated areas.

CNAP encourages participation from residents and local area businesses in solving the crime issues and problem properties plaguing Los Angeles's (sic) neighborhoods.
To report abandoned buildings, or buildings plagued by ongoing nuisance activity, such as narcotics dealing, prostitution, or gang activity - Call the Citywide Nuisance Abatement Program hotline (310) 575-8934 or email neighborhood@atty.lacity.org

Problem Property Resolution Teams (PPRT's)

Problem Property Resolution Teams (PPRTs) are staffed by personnel from five core participating agencies:
The Office of the City Attorney Office
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
Department of Building and Safety (LADBS),
Housing Department (LAHD)
Planning Department

PPRTs receive referrals of problem properties and neighborhoods from Council Offices, the police department, other city agencies' personnel, area businesses, and residents. Once referrals are received, the CNAP prosecutors assigned to the PPRTs are responsible for:
Narcotics and Vice Building Abatements: abating narcotics, vice, and other nuisance activity at occupied residential and commercial locations;
Abandoned Building Abatements: abating vacant structures, open to unauthorized entry, which are sites of drug, gang, or other criminal activity or which are considered fire hazards.
Neighborhood Block Projects: in conjunction with the Narcotics Enforcement Surveillance Team (NEST), implementing neighborhood block projects in each of the LAPD's four geographic bureaus, with efforts focused on crime reduction and prevention, physical improvements and enhancements, and community outreach.
______________________________________________

I strongly hope that individual residents, groups of residents, and organizations representing homeowners in San Pedro/City of Los Angeles can start working harder on getting Bob to either clean up his blight, or have the City of L.A. do it and charge Bob Bisno.
______________________________________________

The construction of Marshall's continues, but I don't have an opening date yet.
______________________________________________

The Candidates' Forum for the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council election is scheduled for October 18, 2007 at Crestwood Street Elementary School. I will have lots more information next week on a separate post.
______________________________________________

Odds and Ends 31....Finally!

Howdy folks, I'm back.

First, thank you so much to all of you who wished me well. Endoscopic Core Decompression Osteotomy of the right hip is not only nothing to sneeze at, but I think sneezing right now would hurt quite a bit.

The surgeon will be able to tell if the bone graft took, in a couple of months and then all we have to do is see if the left hip needs the same operation. Getting old is not as much fun as I hoped it would be.
___________________________________________________

Bob Bisno now longer owns Lincoln Place in Santa Monica. When he did own it, before he sold off the rest of his interest to the largest rental company in the country, he worked on trying to transform the apartments into condos.

The methods Bob and the subsequent company used was found to be illegal, according to a recent judgement by a Federal District Court.

Bob started the process, according to some of his supporters by tearing out the existing plants and creating a blighted complex in order to redo it as a marketing tool for the future condos.

I don't know what will happen to those evicted from his then-rent controlled complex, before he sold his interest, but it will be interesting to watch.
___________________________________________________

I received a very funny "comic" book while I was in the hospital. It turned out to be the September 2007 Ponte Vista at San Pedro newsletter.

Bob, or his agents spend a great deal of space objecting to keeping the site as it is currently zoned, and he does include some of the amenities he is promising. I think it is high time that if he can't defend his plans without continued attacking the current zoning and it's supporters, then he continues to show all of us how failed and poor his plans currently are.

On the back page of the "comic" newsletter is a picture of a wonderful family consisting of a mom, a dad, and three young children. Everyone in the picture, except the baby is smiling.
The caption identifies the Woodwards and San Pedro residents and teachers in the Palos Verdes Unified School District.

Now one might think that these smiling school teachers will be wanting a new home at Ponte Vista. Well, by reading further along we will find that the Woodwards want their parents to move from Palm Springs to Ponte Vista to spend more time with their grandchildren.

And wouldn't you know it, Paul and Jennifer Woodward "strongly believe that Ponte Vista will provide opportunities for first-time buyers and working families to afford new, quality homes."

Nowhere in the caption do we find any mention whether the Woodwards would ever wish to, or could even afford to move their five-member family into Ponte Vista. But their Parents, now living in the remote, desolate desert area known at Palm Springs, might be able to buy a senior condo at Ponte Vista. What might grandpa think when he learns that the big green lawn across Western Avenue is not a golf course?
_____________________________________________________

Again in the newsletter, we find reference to "smart traffic solutions." This is a term that is used to confuse many people into thinking that Ponte Vista falls under any "Smart Growth" plan in the greater L.A. area. Please do not be confused. Ponte Vista at San Pedro can not qualify under the terms of "Smart Growth" The traffic and transportation issues no where near qualify Ponte Vista in just about every category. If you ever read or hear the words "Smart Growth" in conjunction with Ponte Vista, you are being deliberately miss led.

Ponte Vista folks will use terms like smart traffic, smart construction, smart planning, smart building, smart transportation, but none of those terms actually deal with the Smart Growth policies, practices, and qualifications.
____________________________________________________

Ponte Vista claims that they have received "more than 20,185 signatures to date!" Please understand that every single signature was gathered, processed, or otherwise dealt with by at least one person getting paid by the developer or his agent(s).

You may also find their method of calculation a bit strange when you read their list of advisory board members. Not only do the names of the leaders of the various groups appear at the top of each list, their names are repeated again in the regular list of members. There is also a new co-chair of the Advisory Board(s). It appears that Sandy Bradley has replaced Louis Dominguez as co-chair. I don't know if Ms. Bradley lives in San Pedro, but Ms. Viramontes lives in Rancho Palos Verdes.
____________________________________________________

A Pause During Incarceration

Endoscopic Core Decompression Osteotomy has caused a pause in new posts and posting recent comments.

Mr. Richards is unable to get access to check comments or create any new post, other than this one.

When Mr. Richards is released from his incarceration (note from the wife who is typing this for him, this means he's in the hospital), he will create new posts and review comments.

Thank you for your understanding and your visits to this blog. Bob still needs to continue attempting to defend his over-development, but so many folks simply know that 1950 units in Northwest San Pedro is still way, way way too many units.

I continue to be R1 NO COMPROMISE.

Odds and Ends 30

See, even if we think nothing is happening during these times when the Planning Department is working with the developer of Ponte Vista to create a specific plan, things are always happening.

Ponte Vista may appear out of the spotlight for the time being, but events, issues, and other over development projects can affect what may come out of the Planning Department.
_________________________________________________

The fact that Seaport Homes is now going to be a project of 136 leased units has an impact on Ponte Vista. I bet Bob is not very pleased to have such a large apartment complex on the southern border of his property and he will need to have his folks consider these new facts when the new environmental studies are done.

The developer of Seaport Homes is in a position where he is not bothered with lenders and many financial issues that Bob is. According to a reliable source, the bureaucrats in downtown L.A. were not surprised that Seaport's developer made the major switch.

Having an apartment complex sandwiched between two condominium projects, all three access by nothing more than what appears to be an alley, is not something that is going to be very pretty.
_______________________________________________

Talks are still going on between Bob and the good folks representing the new Mary Star campus to allow for access through the Ponte Vista site. This was talked about when Bob first purchased the property and many have always believed that Bob would open up access through his property for students and parents going to and from the new campus.
________________________________________________

Water. It is looking more and more like this necessity may become a real thorn in the side of Bob's attempts to build too many units. With our longstanding drought, there simply may not be enough water available for 1,950 new units in San Pedro.

Long Beach and Torrance are working hard to get folks to voluntarily conserve, and Long Beach may even consider mandatory rationing. I know these two cities are not part of L.A.'s DWP, but our desert community is facing reservoirs at historically low levels.
________________________________________________

Playa Vista was dealt a blow due to a 114-page District Court ruling that shut down construction of Phase II of the project.

According to the judges, the environmental report was insufficient in three areas. Traffic was not considered by the judges however.

If Playa Vista's EIR was successfully challenged by folks who looked very carefully at it and the environment in that area, perhaps we should continue to be vigilant in our research of the Ponte Vista EIR and OUR community's environment.
_______________________________________________

The Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 continues to meet and you can read my report of the meeting by visiting one of my other blogs at:
http://rneighborhoodsare1.blogspot.com/

This is the real blog for the group.
_______________________________________________

Please continue to visit the great blog: Life on the edge at www.laharbor.blogspot.com The good writers for that blog provide information on a wider range of topics in OUR community than my blogs do. Of course, they also deal with Ponte Vista occasionally.
_______________________________________________

Construction of the new Marshall's is going on and it looks to be a fairly large store. I still don't know the opening date yet, but when I learn it, I'll post it.

The now croutons shaped old bakery is being hauled away and in its place will be the Target store.

The Kinder-Morgan property where JCC homes intends to build 134 condominium units, as patio-style homes, has not been turned over to the developer. When the very last trace of anything that could be considered hazardous is removed from not only the property, but also some of the surrounding area, then a complete inspection can take place. If all is cleaned up, then JCC homes can begin construction of Highland Park, on North Gaffey Street.

At the corner of P.V. Drive North and Western Avenue, it appears that as Jo-Anns leaves, Mules will begin constructing its new bar/restaurant.

There has been nothing from Walgreen's lately about building a store at the corner of Western Avenue and Trudie Drive. This has been an on again, off again issue, so I just put it in the back of my mind and ask about it from time to time.
_______________________________________________

Major Developments with Seaport Luxury Homes

Seaport Homes (The Monster) now under construction directly next to the Ponte Vista site, on Western Avenue has been converted from a condominium project to a project consisting of LEASING 136-units!

You are all welcome to visit their Web site at: http://www.seaport-homes.com/.


The lowest priced RENTAL is stated for the 763 square feet unit to be $1,500.00 per month and the largest 3-bedroom unit will be RENTING for $2,750.00 per month.

According to an extremely reliable source, the developer of the project claimed that only 15% of the units had been pre-sold.

It seems that a developer can plan, get approval for, begin constructing, and selling condominiums, then change his mind and change the project to APARTMENTS.

I am glad that we now see what can happen to a condominium project that finds so few buyers next to Ponte Vista. This is an very powerful warning that we must keep focus on Ponte Vista, what Bob really intends on doing, and how we must question whether he should be allowed to build 1,950-units, with some or all potentially becoming RENTAL units.

If Seaport had to go with LEASES, what makes anyone truly believe that Ponte Vista might suffer the same fate, IF Bob gets his way and starts building 1,950 units?

This is one, rock solid reason why Bob must not be allowed to build anywhere near even 1,200 units and it makes the argument for R1 at Ponte Vista, that much stronger.

I am sure that by the time that any construction is approved of at Ponte Vista, the housing market will probably be better, but with the current conditions and not really knowing the future, we must stay away and concerned about the potential of having any condominiums at Ponte Vista becoming APARTMENTS.

Seaport Luxury Homes now gives us the opportunity to watch how folks move in and what kind of turn around we may see with APARTMENTS instead of condominiums. Having "only" 136 units, it can give us clues to watch out for.

Traffic will get worse on Western Avenue because Seaport is going to leases and I am not sure why they either didn't get, or do not need approval to change the type of housing they are building. Many of us will be looking into that in the coming days.

I don't know if or how the change of Seaport will affect decisions by decision-makers. I have no idea what Bob thinks of this change.

It is true that leases can differ from rental units, but even with a lease, units can be turned around more often than usually occurs with purchased units.

Whatever happens adds some more interesting tidbits into the mix, I think.

Tri-Art Festival, Please visit.

The Tri-Art Festival, Exhibition, and Car Show is going on in downtown San Pedro this weekend from 10:00 A.M.

I arrived at the site on Mesa between 7Th. Street and 6Th. Street and took the first photograph about 3-1/2 hours after the Festival began.

This Festival has Ponte Vista as a major sponsor and I was told to "be nice" by an unnamed individual who knows me and knows a great deal about Ponte Vista.

I do wish to "be nice" because I like art and like the idea that San Pedro is a town that is friendly to artists and appreciate art of all kinds.

I have visited the Web site for the Festival at www.triartsfestival.com and read that there would be crowds of artists and others visiting the site.

I have decided to let readers of this post fill in the blanks dealing with what they think of the Festival.


This is a photograph of the main artists' tents for the Festival. Looking at the picture we can tell that the crowds were ______________.

Also there are ________artists showing their art and all some of the tents are _________.



This is a photograph of _________ classic cars along 7Th. Street between Mesa and Centre. The number of cars __________ the street.

The single most number of model types at the show consisted of Ford Pintos, I kid you not. The shiny Pinto on the right of the picture is covered in small square mirrors and that is very _______.

This picture was shot almost 4 hours after the beginning of the Festival and you can tell that the number of folks looking at the Car Show was ______________.

I liked the mirrored Pinto so much I took a picture of myself in the reflection of the mirrors. That was the _________________ aspect of the Festival.

The promoters of the Festival indicated on their Web site that their would be shuttle buses from various locations, including the Ponte Vista site, do to the expected crowds. This last photo is of the parking lot on 7Th. Street, just below Pacific Avenue. You can tell by this photo taken 4 hours after the beginning of the Festival that the parking lot is _______________.

In truth, I enjoyed my visit to the Festival and I bought a piece of art there. I also visited the gallery at 339 W. 7Th. Street and looked again at the display of photographs by Mr. John Stinson.

One of the problems with this particular Tri-Art Festival is that it is slated to run on the second weekend of the month, but First Thursday this month was just two days prior to the Festival. That may have had something to do with the ___________ turnout.

It seems to be a funny thing that a Festival sponsored by Ponte Vista had the most representation in the Car Show by Pintos. Perhaps Bob might want to consider changing the name of his project to "Pinto Vista" considering the number of Pintos in one place, at the same time, in the Town of San Pedro.

Odds and Ends 29

Some "Odds and Ends" are longer than others. This is one of the others.

Bob is helping to fund the Tri-Arts Festival in downtown San Pedro this weekend. I know that there will be at least one R1 petition gathering location in the vicinity. If you haven't signed the R1 petition, you should be able to find out where it is, if you know a member of the Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1.
__________________________________________________

The Rudderless Steering Committee continues to meet and I will update some of the goings on, with the next "Odds and Ends".
__________________________________________________

I am still working on the multi-part posts dealing why many folks feel that having a 1,950-unit condominium project built in a town that already has terrible traffic on Western Avenue. If you would like to suggest reasons other than the ones I am thinking and writing about, I would appreciate learning those reasons and pondering on them.

Look for more parts coming up.
_________________________________________________

There are over 11,000 signatures now on the R1 petitions and there is still no reason to stop collecting signatures, whenever and wherever possible.

We are finding that most of the great folks who shop at local grocery stores have signed the petition so we are considering other places to collect signatures. Any suggestions?
________________________________________________

Research and learning are continuing on the part of volunteers helping R Neighborhoods Are 1 and education has been, is being, and will continue to be provided, concerning the issues surrounding Ponte Vista at San Pedro. Nothing on the opposition side has stopped and we are keeping our eyes and ears open.
________________________________________________

The City of Rancho Palos Verdes will be electing members to fill three seats on the City Council. We are trying to have a candidates' forum, hopefully at Crestwood Elementary School, sometime in the second half of October. More information to follow once we have a date confirmed.

Three incumbents are running for reelection and there are two other candidates seeking to capture two of the seats in the election.

I will post information about the candidates and/or how to find out more about them on this blog.
_______________________________________________

What is Wrong With Bob's Current Plans, Part 1

Last week I created a post concerning why some folks might be supportive of Bob's plans to built 1,950 condominium units in northwest San Pedro.

I am now going to attempt to deal with what is wrong with Bob's attempts at building such a large development on the 61.53 acres of land on Western Avenue. To make this attempt, I have decided to create separate posts, because one post would be too long and would muddy the very many issues and obstacles such a large project would create.

This first part deal with one very simple fact: San Pedro is a town and is too small to accommodate such a large development like what Bob is planning.

San Pedro is a town. It is not a city. It is part of a very large city, but unto itself, it is only a town.

Jack Baric created a great work called "Port Town". I am sure he had many good reasons for not calling his work, "Port City". It would be wrong to characterize San Pedro as anything other than a town, I strongly feel.

When a nurse who works in the surgery unit of our local hospital knows as much about the insides of her neighbors and friends as she sees on their outsides, it is one example of how San Pedro is really a town.

People know people in town. families are intertwined in San Pedro. Memories are shared by vast numbers of folks in town, too. In very many places in San Pedro, folks actually know and/or are related to their neighbors.

When there are only historical references to San Pedro being a city, that also suggests the San Pedro is a town.

The government which runs San Pedro is not in San Pedro, but only has a few representatives in a building owned by the City of Los Angeles, then that also suggest that San Pedro is a town.

There are thousands and thousands of folks who know in their hearts and minds that San Pedro is a town.

Towns around the area do not have very large developments that are far and away different than other developments in town. Bob's plans for Ponte Vista have no other similar projects like them in any town around the South Bay.

To put such a large development in any town is counter to the character and lifestyles of people living in towns.

The West Side of L.A. is part of the larger city. San Pedro has always been somewhere you have to go to and not through, which makes it very different than the West Side of L.A. Look at the over development of the West Side and imagine what would happen if Bob gets his way and puts a development which is similar to projects on the West Side of L.A. in the town of San Pedro.

There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with San Pedro being a town. It has always been a town even when it had its few years as an independent city.

Downtown L.A. is part of the bigger city, and even though San Pedro is part of the City of L.A., there is no way San Pedro's downtown compares to downtown L.A.

A development the size and type of building Bob wants belongs in a "city" and not a "town".

If Ponte Vista were built on the West Side, or in Long Beach, or in the San Fernando Valley where density is already high, then that would be much better than building it in places like San Pedro, Lomita (even though it is a City unto itself), Harbor City, or anywhere on The Hill.

Ponte Vista, as Bob is planning it, would fit into Palm Springs, Las Vegas, or other outlying areas, but to put a project in a town on a peninsula, is just plain wrong.

Bob's Ponte Vista would be a crushing influence on the town of San Pedro. It would be too big, too different, too costly, and out of character with the towns that surround it. Simply put, it would overwhelm San Pedro and the neighboring areas.

It is hard to find comparisons of having such a large development or project in a town, anywhere around the area, I feel. It just can't fit into San Pedro.

San Pedro is a great, wonderful, spectacular, and lovable town. It is not looking to be a city and the folks who have roots going back generations in this town do not wish for it to ever be anything other than a town.

Character, size, scale, and quality of life in the town of San Pedro must be taken strongly into account when developments of any size are suggested. We must not and can not become more like the West Side of Los Angeles and the town of San Pedro and OUR community needs to stand together and tell everyone that San Pedro is a great town and we intend to keep it that way!

What is Wrong With Bob's Current Plans, Part 2

Traffic! OUR community, our town cannot handle the added traffic, no matter what anyone else claims.

The Western Avenue Task Force found that Western Avenue, between Palos Verdes Drive North and 25th Street handles 37,500 vehicles per day. Well actually, that was the number of cars measured on Western in 2005.

The WATF also stated that, even without any new large developments built in the area, the number of vehicles traveling on Western Avenue would rise about one percent each and every year between 2005 and 2030.

The WATF was published before any information about Bob Bisno's plans for Ponte Vista were known.

One of the main suggestions that the WATF made was that Western Avenue be widened to three lanes in each direction between Palos Verdes Drive North and 25th. Street.

With all the recommendations the WATF made, including adding lanes, reworking intersections and driveways, they estimated that there could be up to a 12% reduction in the time it takes to travel from Palos Verdes Drive North and 25th. Street IF all the suggestions were implemented, but without having any information about Bob's plans for Ponte Vista.

Traffic has always been the number one problem facing any ideas about what should or should not be built at Ponte Vista. Not only is traffic a problem for the mind to deal with, it also is the most emotional aspect of trying to support or oppose whatever is built at Ponte Vista.

An extremely troubling problem with the traffic issue is that there is actually know real way of predicting what may happen with traffic under Bob's current plans.

The L.A. Dept. of Transportation and the engineers who are paid by Bob all have to follow outdated rules that do not accurately apply to Los Angeles and the uniqueness of the City of Los Angeles, as far as traffic goes.

It also did absolutely no good the Bob tried to use high-rise condominium and townhouse rules for a development where the tallest buildings were going to be only 6 stories tall. The old rules allowed him to fudge that way and he did exactly what he was allowed to do. Now that there will be no 6-story buildings, he cannot use the high-rise numbers, but he still can use the ITE trip generation tables that are the same for New York City, Philadelphia, Nashville, Dallas, and Pedly.

Los Angeles is unique and to use traffic rules that apply nationwide for such an area as the greater L.A. area, has created the problems we have been having and will have until the government wises up and created tables specifically for the L.A. area.

Since there appears to be a lack of will on the part of Bob and the bureaucrats in L.A. to find a way to get the Navy to give up land for an eastern exit onto Gaffey from Ponte Vista and the new Mary Star campus, Western Avenue will have to take all the traffic from Ponte Vista and some of the traffic from Mary Star, if a new access road is built.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation, in the matter of Ponte Vista has been a sorry mess. Not only have they withheld information, they seem to really be in the back pocket of Bob, it seems to many individuals. They have appeared incompetent, ill informed, mismanaged, and generally out of touch with the people who pay their salaries.

There is no way anyone should rely on the L.A. D.O.T. when it comes to Ponte Vista and that is one more reason why Bob's current plans are so wrong for OUR community.

Target, Seaport Luxury Homes, Marshall's, and probably Highland Park (134-units on Gaffey) are four projects that will also impact traffic in northwest San Pedro. Western Avenue and Gaffey Street are going to get very much more crowded long before anything is built at the Ponte Vista site.

OUR community has lost trust with the Department of Transportation and we still haven't found any real reason to trust Bob Bisno. No matter what coating anyone puts on the issue of traffic, the coating will be poison to San Pedro and the surrounding areas.

Bob Bisno has stated from the very beginning that as his major traffic mitigation, ATSAC will be installed. Well Bob, ATSAC is being installed whether you build one unit or 429-units. Claiming that you will put money into a trust fund is nice, but L.A.D.O.T. has already claimed that trust fund money can go where it wants the money to go, and that could be Venice.

I have always trusted Jerry Gaines and Sal Satomayor and the other members of the Western Avenue Task Force when it comes to traffic issues. These volunteers did their work without prejudice about any new developments or projects. They also did their work when there were real counts taken and objective observations meant that nobody had anything to gain or lose.
If Jerry and Sal and the other members of the WATF say you can't build 1,950-units on Western Avenue, I believe them. It simply can't be done.

I feel on this issue, I am going to stick with objective volunteers over an out of town developer, as far as traffic goes.

OUR community is made up of several towns, none of which can support a 1,950-unit condominium project. Traffic will get worse no matter what is built at Ponte Vista, but 1,950 units is very much too big for the town, and the traffic.

What is Wrong With Bob's Current Plans, Part 3

I have been thinking about what to call the topic of this part for several days now. Originally I thought that the topic should be the infrastructure of building 1,950-condos at Ponte Vista.

I feel "infrastructure" is not quite broad enough for this part, but it may give you an idea of what I am trying to get accross, once you read this part.

The infrastructure of building 1,950-units at Ponte Vista would cause a great deal of disruptions during the long building processes. Not only will Western Avenue have to be dug up, but Gaffey Street and Taper Avenue will also need to be torn up to install the much larger utility lines and services the site would require.

In the 2,300-unit configuration, according to the DEIR, 7 new sewer lines would have to be layed into trenches and connected to existing systems. Four lines were documented to go under Western Avenue, and three would attach to the eastern legs via Taper Avenue.

There is already a very high pressure natural gas line under the slow lane of northbound Western Avenuse, so that is probably where Ponte Vista will get Natural Gas.

The new telephone lines will be undergrounded, and probably the electric lines will go from the big poles on Gaffey and then underground into Ponte Vista.

As for the storm drains for Ponte Vista, perhaps they will connect to the existing system a little south of the site.

This infrastructure for the site development is only part of what will happen to the area if Bob gets to build so many units.

I feel the current residents of the entire area within several miles of Ponte Vista, especially in San Pedro and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, will have to deal with massive changes in how we currently deal with shopping, travel, and how we school our children.

From just about the very beginning of the discussions about Ponte Vista, I have challenged folks to do one thing: When you visit Ralph's, Albertson's, Trader Joe's, and now Henry's, just before you go into any of those stores, stop, turn around, and imagine 300 more vehicles trying to find spaces in the parking lots of those stores, at the same time you are shopping.

There may be some mitigation as far as entrances and exits from parking lots, but there is nowhere in any document any reference to the fact that up to 5,000 more cars will be added to the area and drivers living at Ponte Vista will want the parking spaces you are also trying to find. The problem is that there is not evidence that any parking lot will be enlarged to meet the needs of all the new residents AND the current residents.

Parking is an issue, but there are more.

Some of you know that there is a public park on the east side of Western Avenue, in Rancho Palos Verdes. It is called Eastview Park. It is a nice park for the area, but it is not the largest park in the area. Eastview is only one park that will find itself very much more crowded if Bob gets his way. The six-acre park Bob envisions at Ponte Vista would probably get quickly swamped if he gets his way.

The six-acre park that Bob envisions has never been illustrated with any basketball courts, tennis courts, or much of anything other than diamonds.

There is no off-street parking for Averill Park. Will the parking lots at Peck Park need to be enlarged? If so, who pays.

Where do you really shop? Do you shop in downtown San Pedor exclusevily? If so, you are probably in the minority of folks who shop.

Like so many other shoppers, we go to Del Amo, the Avenues of the Peninsula, and other shopping areas outside our local area. The variety is so much greater shopping in one area that has many different types of shops, that it is hard to find everything we want in downtown San Pedro, not that we haven't tried.

Are you going to shop at the new Target? I know there are folks who will boycott the Target and they have every right to do so, in my opinion. Even without those folks who will not shop at Target, it appears that Target will have all the shoppers it needs, and probably more.

Target is a large department store that can supply so much of what folks are looking for, all under one roof, that the traffic, parking, and local transportation trends will be forever changed.

Target will actually cause more traffic issues than Ponte Vista, BUT, the folks from Target worked very well with the Neighborhood Council and others to do the best mitigation possible, which is something Bob has not done.

There has been a great deal of talk about getting folks off of the peninsula if the needs arise. San Pedro is part of the peninsula, too.

Some folks claim that Western Avenue is the "only" escape route. I don't claim that is the truth, but Western is certainly a major route that thousands of people use every day.

I have written quite a bit about the roads leading away from San Pedro and eastern Rancho Palos Verdes, but I will repeat some of the information because if Bob gets to build 1,950-units, especially with the Senior Section being the northernmost homes in San Pedro, there will be quite a bit of trouble if we all need to leave.

Would it be wise to excape San Pedro over the Vincent Thomas Bridge? That would have to be the individual driver's decision. The port has been identified by the Federal Government and a potential spot for terrorism. I don't think I would use the bridge.

The Harbor freeway and Gaffey Street have a bit of a problem. They both border a refinery. Gaffey has the added problem of the giant Amerigas storage tanks that do actually have the potential to go, "BOOM". If they go "BOOM" many of us will not get the chance to try and leave.
So both the Harbor Freeway and Gaffey Street, even though they are clear routes now, might not be the best solution.

Palos Verdes Drive South is constantly moving and has a 0.8-mile stretch where the speed limit is 10 miles per hour, for good reason. If folks could get towards the coast, the road can't handle many cars or heavy vehicles.

Palos Verdes Drive East may be the only route that is far enough away from the port, the refinery, and the chaos that might come to San Pedro. It is one-lane each way north of Crest Road and it dumps out on a major route that would probably be just as crowded.

If things turn out that we have the chance to get out, I'm heading for P.V. Drive East.

Western Avenue would probably not be able to be used by folks in San Pedro. If Bob builds 800 senior units, the folks living in them would have the first chance to head north on Western, in San Pedro.

Even though Bob wants seniors who are "55 or better", many drivers who would get on Western Avenue would be senior citizens and just think how they would deal with an evacuation.

Folks on the eastern side of Rancho Palos Verdes, except probably for those of us with good access to P.V. Drive East, would have to take Western Avenue. Then I bet folks who live in the Highlands or Westmont will try to use Western.

By the time folks living south of Summerland try to get to Western, it will probably be stopped dead.

Where will all the kids go to school?

Crestwood is maxed out. If you drive by Taper Avenue School, look at all the temporary buildings that have had to be placed to teach all the kids.

Dodson Intermediate School also has "temporary" classrooms. Puting so many new students in these schools will lower the ability to teach the children of folks already living in the area.

When Bob's DEIR stated that a 2,300-unit Ponte Vista would only have "199" school-age children living at it, that was a number that was completely challenged by at least three independent studies. The student population for 1,725 non-age restricted condominiums was found to be at least 600 students, depending on the study.

Parking, Parks, Shopping, Evacuation, and Schools are just five of the areas that would be critically and excetionally impacted if Bob gets to build anywhere near 1,950-units. There are more issues I will write about and if you have any other issues, please comment.

Bob want's to give buyers of his units a great home and community. He is attempting to do by wanting to make fundamental changes in the way we, the people who currently live in OUR community, live. Why should he be able to change our lives so much? Why should we pay?

What is Wrong With Bob's Current Plans, the Last Part

I hope I have outlined several of the problems with having 1,950 condominium units built in northwest San Pedro, in the previous posts.

I know there are many more reasons that other people can give me to also oppose this over development.

Earlier this morning I had a good discussion with a representative from Mayor V.'s office. This gentleman who I have discussed many things with, during my time on the CAC is clearly interested in learning what all folks think about the need for more housing in the L.A. area, and how it can be provided under the best terms possible.

In our discussion, I think I was able to gel together some basic points that I feel makes a development of 1,950-units a very bad idea for the San Pedro area.

1,950 units is a remarkably over sized development for the community. San Pedro and the five-mile radius around Ponte Vista, within the City of L.A. cannot create the tax structures to fund not only the infrastructure it needs, but infrastructure always needed for the rest of San Pedro.

When I talked to the Mayor's rep, I said that other areas of the City of Los Angeles would effectively be subsidizing Ponte Vista and San Pedro's infrastructure and those areas would lose benefits their tax payers feel they deserve.

The town of San Pedro has a character, lifestyle, environment, and population that should not be tasked with accepting such a giant development within it. Might government services go to the loudest voices if Ponte Vista has so many units? How would that affect others in San Pedro?

The transportation infrastructure of the entire area will not allow for such a huge project.

There is absolutely no way the great L.A. area can continue to develop with a complete change in how the area deals with traffic, traffic mitigation, and traffic engineering. Using the data that has been used for so many years has gotten us into the fix we are in. We must not allow continued over development and the engineering of these massive projects, until we have a new set of rules and regulations concerning traffic.

The needs of those of us who have to deal with traffic on a daily basis far outweighs any need for more housing in the area.

Placing so much development so far away from downtown San Pedro means that necessary development such as a supermarket closer to the port than Von's currently is, and other downtown community needs will probably be opposed because of all the combined development, including Ponte Vista.

The Mayor's representative was curious about how we allow for the "need" for more housing in our area. I suggested that a development of the size Bob currently wants, is NOT the way to go.

Infrastructure
Traffic
Community character/lifestyle
Needs, concerns, and wants of the current residents of the area
It just doesn't fit into OUR community

These four basic issues really form a definite basis for opposing such a large development anywhere in San Pedro or on the peninsula.

Is there really a "need" for more housing in the L.A. area? I can't truly say, but I do know that if the issue of traffic isn't completely studied AND re-engineered, there should be no new developments approved of UNTIL that happens.

I did tell the Mayor's representative a number of units that I would not oppose. As there are zealots on both sides of the Ponte Vista issue, I do not count myself as one of them. If you have read previous posts, I do feel there can be a compromise number of units.

Supporting R1 doesn't have to mean anyone must demand only R1, no matter what Bob and the Planning Department finally come up with, but as long as Bob refuses to even consider any reasonable number of units, folks calling for R1 must stand their ground. Bob MUST move first, and a 350-unit drop in total number of units is not first, by a long shot.

If there truly is a need for housing, where should it be built? This is a very loaded question. There is an area in San Pedro that I have been told can have allowances for up to 45 units per acre. I doubt highly that residents near that area would appreciate that much development.

IF the same density of The Gardens were used at Ponte Vista, the Bob would be able to build about 650-units. It that enough, too many, or too few?

Years ago the large Channel Heights neighborhood's housing units were torn down in spurts to make way for Tarragonna and other developments. Should an area of existing housing units be leveled to make room for housing with greater density?

Bob Bisno's current plans call for a housing project that is out of character with the entire community, would cause extremely bad traffic problems, will not be able to have enough revenue generated withing the City of L.A. to fund its infrastructure and infrastructure in other areas of San Pedro, and would contain far to many units in the area.

Why There Might be so Many Ponte Vista Supporters

I have been mulling over why there are so many folks supporting Bob's plans for Ponte Vista.

It's new.
There is absolutely nothing in the area that remotely compares to what is already found in the area.
It's grand. It is larger and more upscale that every other low-rise development in the south bay.
It's unique. Illustrations and propaganda make it seem like it will be the best development in the area.
It offers something for seniors.
It is different than anything and everything else.
Many folks want change, and perhaps this type of radical change is something they may want.

I must admit that when I first heard about the development in 2005, I found myself to be somewhat excited about something new and different on the old Navy property. I listened to what the developer had to say and also to rumors about the project.

My wife Terri, was thinking about applying for a position at the site.

I think people like new ideas and things. It is probably natural to look quickly at concepts and issues and make a preliminary idea about what someone thinks about things.

There are true benefits to many seniors who wish to move into a Senior Housing section, but some of those benefits can be found elsewhere, too.

OUR community hasn't really seen any new development on any large scale recently, so it is natural to feel that a new large project might be welcome.

Unfortunately for many of us, reality sinks into the spotlight and even the best marketing and salesmanship can't overcome a project that is simply too large for the area, and may not be wanted or needed.

I have written quite a bit about my wish for some kind of Senior Housing, even though with R1, that type of housing can't happen.

Seniors who have paid off their existing homes and have lived in them since before 1978 would have a great tax advantage if there were housing for seniors, or any other type of housing built at Ponte Vista, that has selling prices lower than what they can sell their existing homes for.

If a senior sells their "Prop 13" or "Prop 60 or 90" home and purchase housing for a price lower than the selling price of their existing house, they can move their property tax benefits one time. Financially, there is no wonder why Bob is pushing so hard for a Senior Housing section.

I can certainly imagine that if Bob had not put into his development's plans, a section specifically for seniors, his plans would have been laughed right out of San Pedro. Bob is counting very heavily on the senior housing component and the seniors to support him.

Without Senior Housing, Bob has no development. We must remember that Bob purchased the property thinking he could get the zoning changes, and he is gambling on that.

There are probably supporters who believe that Bob will go back on his word to have his new 1,950-unit plan, open access to the public. It seems that many non-seniors wanted the unique private enclave mini-community and may still seek the exclusivity that a gated community brings.

We haven't been able to find out if there was a fall off of support or a gaining of support when Bob changed his plans, but I imagine there are still so many folks who wish for this new type of community, that the numbers may not have changed much.

When something is new, flashy, different, and marketed like Ponte Vista is being marketed, there are a considerable number of individuals who do not wish to know the real facts about the project. There are still too many gullible people out there and too many of them have stumbled into Bob's trap.

There are two axioms I think apply to Ponte Vista at San Pedro;

"If is sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

"Advertising is getting people to buy things they don't really want."

We have seen that advertising and marketing for Ponte Vista has brought thousands of folks towards supporting something that is years away from actually being built. Not only has Bisno Development effectively used advertising and marketing to sway many of the members of OUR community, they have done so knowing that there is still no human on the planet that knows what actually will be built on the 61.53-acre site. Now that takes some real skills to market imagination over facts.

When facts are marketed over imagination, we find ever growing numbers of members of OUR community who believe Ponte Vista at San Pedro and Bob's current plans are NOT in the best interest of OUR community.

I can't blame folks for wanting something new. I compare this somewhat to when we look for a new car. Much of the time we get what appeals to our vision, heart, and wants, instead of what may be the best vehicle to meet our needs and be affordable.

I feel if and when many supporters take a step back and think about how Bob's plans would really affect their lives, many supporters may see Ponte Vista as more of a problem than a solution.

It is fun to want, it can be trouble to have.