I'm getting more information as to the hold up in finding out what the Planning Department feels Bob should build at Ponte Vista.
The comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) were submitted by January 4, 2007 if I remember correctly.
Those comments had to be studied by the Planning Department folks, first.
The aides within the Ponte Vista project then had to respond to the comments submitted to the Planning Department's CEQA office.
It appears that the Bisno side of the issue has not completed submitting all their responses to the comments created for the DEIR.
To me this means that there were more than quite a few comments generated and that the responses to those comments may be tougher to do than first imagined.
I sent in three sets of comments at various times during the comment period. The set of comments from both the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes were long and very detailed.
So let's continue to wait patiently and see what comes out, whenever it comes out.
________________________________________________
For your reading "pleasure" here is an article from the San Francisco Chronicle:
Need to deal with water needs crucial
05-01) 18:48 PDT -- Two parched years - punctuated by the driest spring in at least 150 years - could force districts across California to ration water this summer as policymakers and scientists grow increasingly concerned that the state is on the verge of a long-term drought.
State water officials reported Thursday that the Sierra Nevada snowpack, the source of a huge portion of California's water supply, was only 67 percent of normal, due in part to historically low rainfall in March and April.
With many reservoirs at well-below-average levels from the previous winter and a federal ruling limiting water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the new data added a dimension to a crisis already complicated by crumbling infrastructure, surging population and environmental concerns.
"We're in a dry spell if not a drought," said California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman.
"We're in the second year, and if we're looking at a third year, we're talking about a serious problem."
Chrisman stopped short of saying the state would issue mandatory water rationing, which appears possible only if the governor declares a state of emergency. Rather, the burden will fall on local water agencies. Many, such as San Francisco and Marin County, have asked residents and businesses over the past year to cut water usage voluntarily by 10 to 20 percent.
Others have taken more drastic steps.
In Southern California, the water district serving about 330,000 people in Orange County enacted water rationing last year, due in part to a ruling by U.S. Judge Oliver Wanger reducing water pumped from the delta by about a third to protect an endangered fish.
The East Bay Municipal Utility District announced in April that it was considering water rationing, price increases and other measures in response to critically low reservoirs. The district, which serves 1.3 million customers in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, will vote on the measures this month.
"If you catch a third (dry) year, then you're looking at a supply that's so low you can't manage it well anymore," said Charles Hardy, spokesman for the district. "That's when its starts to hurt businesses and people across the board."
No industry faces bigger changes than agriculture, which uses about 80 percent of California's available water; the remainder goes to urban areas. Some experts say they believe the balance could shift toward urban areas.
Already, some farmers are switching to crops requiring less water and letting fields go fallow. One water agency official recently talked to a Southern California avocado grower who cut his trees back to stumps and won't begin growing again until water supplies recover.
"We have a lot of water, but we also use a lot of water," said Jeffrey Mount, director for watershed sciences at UC Davis. "From an economic perspective, it makes sense moving water from agriculture to urban uses."
In fact, some farmers are already selling their water to urban districts. But there is no easy system for transporting that water, and the infrastructure required would be extremely costly.
Californians have suffered through droughts before.
A deep, two-year drought in the late 1970s drew discussions about dragging glaciers down from Alaska or filling huge plastic bladders at river sources and dragging them by tugboat to users, Hardy said. Consumers endured rationing during a longer drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
After those dry periods, water conservation initiatives kicked into high gear. Low-flow toilets and showerheads became the norm, and homeowners started filling their yards with drought-resistant plants. Today, that might not be enough in a state with a population expected to reach nearly 50 million by 2030.
In addition to possible restrictions on watering lawns and washing cars, water prices could spike - at least for those who use too much.
The district serving 330,000 customers in Orange County has developed a type of water profile based on household size, yard size and average temperature in the area. Using that data, water managers have come up with base water allocations; above that level, water bills jump.
"If you really want to use more water there, you're going to pay for it - and (the district) uses the extra funds to finance conservation investments," said Ellen Hanak, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco. "There's a lot of room for innovating in that area - some places are doing it, but there's hardly any penalty for the extra water."
It is unclear whether this dry period is a full-blown drought. Much like economic recessions, droughts can be diagnosed only in retrospect.
However, it is certain that if the dry conditions that began with the low 2006-2007 snowpack levels continue, they could have a cascading effect. The dryness of 2006-2007 contributed to this year's poor water supply totals, said Elissa Lynn, chief meteorologist with the California Department of Water Resources.
"We're losing a lot of what we did have as snow melted into the ground," Lynn said. "It's either in subsurface, waiting to come down, or it's going into soil moisture because we had a dry fall."
There is also a small chance that dry windy conditions blew snow straight from the mountains into vapor, she said.
Not all Bay Area agencies face the same challenges, because they get water from various sources: San Francisco and the Peninsula from Hetch Hetchy, East Bay Municipal Water District from the Mokelumne River watershed and the Santa Clara Valley Water District from a combination of reservoirs and the delta. Some local water managers say their supplies look good. Marin County, for instance, said its reservoirs are at more than 100 percent of capacity.
Nevertheless, stricter water controls could be a continuing part of California's future. So might large-scale projects that aim to use water in new and better ways.
"We're facing some pretty grim circumstances that call for some bold action - recycling water, desalinating water," said Tim Quinn executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. "Above and beyond that, we have to invest in the sustainability of this system that our grandfathers constructed in the middle of the last century. It was developed with the convenience of human beings in mind, not aquatic beings."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it seems Bob want San Pedrans to sell their existing homes and move into Ponte Vista.
I don't think Bob is concerned with what happens to those homes that are sold in San Pedro so folks can buy in Ponte Vista. Might he think all the homes will be torn down or that drought resistant humans will be the only ones that move into those homes?
Sales of cactuses might rise in the San Pedro area.
_____________________________________________________
Some people who object to having a new high school built at the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur ask me about the Ponte Vista site and why a new campus to relieve over crowding at San Pedro High School can't be built on Bob's land.
I remind folks that a high school campus was proposed to be built at Ponte Vista to relieve over crowding at both Narbonne High School and San Pedro High School.
That 2,025-seat 'fiasco' was quickly and correctly turned upon by Bisno supporters and folks like me.
In May, 2007 LAUSD decided to build two new campuses; one at Ponte Vista to relieve over crowding at Narbonne and one at the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur to serve students that would have gone to San Pedro High School.
Several months later it became apparent to LAUSD officials that they did not have the bond money to build a new campus at Ponte Vista, or anywhere else, to ease suspected over crowding at Narbonne H.S.
For the record, while in a "mothball" status, the 810-seat campus to ease over crowding at Narbonne is still at the "preferred" site inside Ponte Vista, but there is very, very little chance it would ever be built there.
As a matter of trivia too, high school students who lived in the old Navy housing in the Ponte Vista and Mary Star area, attended Narbonne High School as their home school, and not San Pedro High School.
During that time, even high school students living in the norther parts of the "Eastview" area had their choise of attending S.P.H.S. or Narbonne H.S.
____________________________________________________
Friday, May 02, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Another Survey??? We Need Your Help
According to a reliable source, the folks at Bisno's Outreach are conducting another survey.
I would be greatly appreciated that if you receive a phone call and participate in the survey that you use ridiculous responses and send me an Email with the questions you are asked, so we know which "new" direction Bob and his bunch may be taking.
My Email address is mrichards2@hotmail.com
During a Los Angeles City Council meeting yesterday, I talked to an extremely reliable source concerning the Planning Departments struggles with comments generated for the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the responses to those comments by folks in the Bisno organization.
According to the source, the job of looking at all the comments and the responses to those comments made by members of the Bisno team, are not complete yet. This is the reason that the Planning Department has not been able to publish what it feels Bob can successfully build at the Ponte Vista site.
I think waiting patiently and not worrying about the comments and the responses to the comments will help all of us to better deal with whatever the Planning Department speculates on what could and/or should be built at Ponte Vista.
I still have no information as to whether Bob's personal house was sold at a foreclosure auction that was scheduled for April 29. If a reliable individual in the Outreach Team wishes to provide me with information, I would publish it. There are actually members of the Outreach Team that can be believed, some of the time.
I would be greatly appreciated that if you receive a phone call and participate in the survey that you use ridiculous responses and send me an Email with the questions you are asked, so we know which "new" direction Bob and his bunch may be taking.
My Email address is mrichards2@hotmail.com
During a Los Angeles City Council meeting yesterday, I talked to an extremely reliable source concerning the Planning Departments struggles with comments generated for the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the responses to those comments by folks in the Bisno organization.
According to the source, the job of looking at all the comments and the responses to those comments made by members of the Bisno team, are not complete yet. This is the reason that the Planning Department has not been able to publish what it feels Bob can successfully build at the Ponte Vista site.
I think waiting patiently and not worrying about the comments and the responses to the comments will help all of us to better deal with whatever the Planning Department speculates on what could and/or should be built at Ponte Vista.
I still have no information as to whether Bob's personal house was sold at a foreclosure auction that was scheduled for April 29. If a reliable individual in the Outreach Team wishes to provide me with information, I would publish it. There are actually members of the Outreach Team that can be believed, some of the time.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
A Victory Over a Weapon of Mass Development!
The following is an announcement and press release that signals a great victory over a developer and his small, but very harmful weapon of mass development.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon--
Please find below this message and attached to this e-mail a press release with an update on the zoning designation of the site where McCowan's Market was located.
Best,
-Andrew
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Andrew Ausanka-Crues
April 29, 2008 (213) 473-7015
(213) 500-9334 – mobile
COUNCILWOMAN JANICE HAHN RECEIVES UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
TO MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD
AT SITE OF McCOWAN’S MARKET
LOS ANGELES, CA—The Los Angeles City Council today unanimously approved a request by Councilwoman Janice Hahn to preserve the single family neighborhood located near the former McCowan’s Market in San Pedro. McCowan’s Market was purchased recently by a developer. The developer closed down the long-time market and proposed building multiple units at the site, which is located in a single family neighborhood.
“McCowans Market was a piece of the community fabric of San Pedro and it’s a shame that it is gone,” said Councilwoman Hahn. “I agree with local residents that condos or apartments just does not fit with the character of the community.”
To address the concerns of the neighbors, Councilwoman Hahn called for the preservation of the neighborhood, asking the City of Los Angeles’ Planning Department to implement a “Q” Condition on the property. The condition would keep the owner from building anything except single family homes on each of the parcel where the market and its parking lot once stood. The Planning Department supported the “Q” Condition and on March 18 more than 200 people testified at the Harbor Area Planning Commission (HAPC) to support the recommendation. The HAPC voted 4-0 in favor. Today, the City Council approved the recommendation.
“I received more than 175 letters and 100 phone calls and e-mails supporting the “Q” condition,” said Councilwoman Hahn. “I did not receive one constituent request for greater density in this neighborhood."
_____________________________________________________
It is quite true that stopping 18-23 condominiums from being built in an area of almost all single-family detached homes is nowhere as big as Bob's huge weapon of mass development.
What it might signal though, is a new found strength and determination by members of OUR community that we can use elected officials over greedy developers and members of OUR community can stand up for what they know is the best for OUR community.
Was this vote a possible warning to Bob? I don't really think so. What it does also show is that members of OUR community can work together to accomplish at least one task that may have been considered impossible by too many individuals, just a short time ago.
Bob has enough problems with Santa Ana, Baldwin Park, and especially here in the San Pedro area. Maybe he needs to rethink his goals for the developments he seeks to over develop. Maybe he needs to scale back all of his adventures in mass over development and find ways to work with current residents and lawmakers and not against the will of the people.
R Neighborhoods Are 1 considers the victory gained at the McCowan's redevelopment site as a good stepping stone to work even harder to make sure that the Ponte Vista development, whatever the people can make it, will be successful for all the residents in OUR community, especially the current ones.
Oh. I still have no information about the possible foreclosure sale that may or may not have happened today on Bob's house in Beverly Park.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon--
Please find below this message and attached to this e-mail a press release with an update on the zoning designation of the site where McCowan's Market was located.
Best,
-Andrew
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Andrew Ausanka-Crues
April 29, 2008 (213) 473-7015
(213) 500-9334 – mobile
COUNCILWOMAN JANICE HAHN RECEIVES UNANIMOUS SUPPORT
TO MAINTAIN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD
AT SITE OF McCOWAN’S MARKET
LOS ANGELES, CA—The Los Angeles City Council today unanimously approved a request by Councilwoman Janice Hahn to preserve the single family neighborhood located near the former McCowan’s Market in San Pedro. McCowan’s Market was purchased recently by a developer. The developer closed down the long-time market and proposed building multiple units at the site, which is located in a single family neighborhood.
“McCowans Market was a piece of the community fabric of San Pedro and it’s a shame that it is gone,” said Councilwoman Hahn. “I agree with local residents that condos or apartments just does not fit with the character of the community.”
To address the concerns of the neighbors, Councilwoman Hahn called for the preservation of the neighborhood, asking the City of Los Angeles’ Planning Department to implement a “Q” Condition on the property. The condition would keep the owner from building anything except single family homes on each of the parcel where the market and its parking lot once stood. The Planning Department supported the “Q” Condition and on March 18 more than 200 people testified at the Harbor Area Planning Commission (HAPC) to support the recommendation. The HAPC voted 4-0 in favor. Today, the City Council approved the recommendation.
“I received more than 175 letters and 100 phone calls and e-mails supporting the “Q” condition,” said Councilwoman Hahn. “I did not receive one constituent request for greater density in this neighborhood."
_____________________________________________________
It is quite true that stopping 18-23 condominiums from being built in an area of almost all single-family detached homes is nowhere as big as Bob's huge weapon of mass development.
What it might signal though, is a new found strength and determination by members of OUR community that we can use elected officials over greedy developers and members of OUR community can stand up for what they know is the best for OUR community.
Was this vote a possible warning to Bob? I don't really think so. What it does also show is that members of OUR community can work together to accomplish at least one task that may have been considered impossible by too many individuals, just a short time ago.
Bob has enough problems with Santa Ana, Baldwin Park, and especially here in the San Pedro area. Maybe he needs to rethink his goals for the developments he seeks to over develop. Maybe he needs to scale back all of his adventures in mass over development and find ways to work with current residents and lawmakers and not against the will of the people.
R Neighborhoods Are 1 considers the victory gained at the McCowan's redevelopment site as a good stepping stone to work even harder to make sure that the Ponte Vista development, whatever the people can make it, will be successful for all the residents in OUR community, especially the current ones.
Oh. I still have no information about the possible foreclosure sale that may or may not have happened today on Bob's house in Beverly Park.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Rent To Own, and Other Funnies
I've been out of the picture concerning driving along Sepulveda at Arlington for the past several weeks, but I saw something interesting, just today.
The senior condos development, in front of the non-age restricted condo development where a prominent Ponte Vista Outreach Team member lives, has gone "Rent to Own."
It seems now that even seniors can rent one of the "condos", so that means they are more like apartments.
With so many other developments becoming lease-to-own or rent to own, how can Bob claim that all of the units he wants to build at Ponte Vista won't be lease to own or rent to own.
Bob has even found a supporter in Ms. Rachel Viramontes and her mother, who grace the back page of the current Random Lengths News.
It seems Ms. Viramontes states as fact that "Ponte Vista is good for seniors." Well, Ms. Viramontes must be contacted because she knows all about the future. Perhaps she knows who the next President of the United States will be.
Since Ms. Viramontes knows what Ponte Vista will be like, maybe she also knows the outcome of the lawsuit she filed, concerning the storm drain issue.
O.K., I'm being mean. We all know that no human alive today, or any human who has lived on this planet during any time in the prior 1-1/2 billion years, knows what is going to be at Ponte Vista.
But if we all believe that "Ponte Vista is good for seniors" or as another person stated, "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" then I still have my acre of Moon that I haven't unloaded yet, and have I got a deal for you!
It's also good to read the fiction, now back with a full page spread in the Random Lengths News.
Again we get to read how Bob is going to fund the synchronization of traffic signals that will actually be completed before anything is built at Ponte Vista AND it is all being funded by us and not by Bob.
I am fairly pleased that the humor which is usually demonstrated by members of the Outreach Team at Ponte Vista, has not gone away.
April 29 is just two short days from today. If I remember correctly, that is the date Bob's personal house was set to be auctioned off at a sheriff's sale, because of a default on a loan.
I'm not holding my breath to see if the house actually is sold because I am fairly confident that Bob can get around just about any legal issue and come up smelling like the former ping-pong, oops, I mean table tennis champion he was.
Come on folks, where in the world can you find someone who wants to use a City government's right of eminent domain to condemn businesses and residences and then send out the notices only in English to a group of owners who are predominately Spanish speaking and reading?
It's a hoot, too, that this same fellow wants to build a very tall condominium tower in Santa Ana for upper-middle class residents who probably would not shop locally in that area because of the types of businesses there cater to a population that they serve quite well, already.
Now add to this, a person who tells all of us that he knows better what is good for us than we do, all the while not willing to live in the area he is attempting to change.
Come on folks, somebody out there has got a great novel in them just demanding to be written. The hard part is that probably nobody would believe any of it could possibly happen.
So, thank you Bob and the Ponte Vista Outreach Team. You have made my recovery more funny than you know. Please keep up your humor.
The senior condos development, in front of the non-age restricted condo development where a prominent Ponte Vista Outreach Team member lives, has gone "Rent to Own."
It seems now that even seniors can rent one of the "condos", so that means they are more like apartments.
With so many other developments becoming lease-to-own or rent to own, how can Bob claim that all of the units he wants to build at Ponte Vista won't be lease to own or rent to own.
Bob has even found a supporter in Ms. Rachel Viramontes and her mother, who grace the back page of the current Random Lengths News.
It seems Ms. Viramontes states as fact that "Ponte Vista is good for seniors." Well, Ms. Viramontes must be contacted because she knows all about the future. Perhaps she knows who the next President of the United States will be.
Since Ms. Viramontes knows what Ponte Vista will be like, maybe she also knows the outcome of the lawsuit she filed, concerning the storm drain issue.
O.K., I'm being mean. We all know that no human alive today, or any human who has lived on this planet during any time in the prior 1-1/2 billion years, knows what is going to be at Ponte Vista.
But if we all believe that "Ponte Vista is good for seniors" or as another person stated, "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" then I still have my acre of Moon that I haven't unloaded yet, and have I got a deal for you!
It's also good to read the fiction, now back with a full page spread in the Random Lengths News.
Again we get to read how Bob is going to fund the synchronization of traffic signals that will actually be completed before anything is built at Ponte Vista AND it is all being funded by us and not by Bob.
I am fairly pleased that the humor which is usually demonstrated by members of the Outreach Team at Ponte Vista, has not gone away.
April 29 is just two short days from today. If I remember correctly, that is the date Bob's personal house was set to be auctioned off at a sheriff's sale, because of a default on a loan.
I'm not holding my breath to see if the house actually is sold because I am fairly confident that Bob can get around just about any legal issue and come up smelling like the former ping-pong, oops, I mean table tennis champion he was.
Come on folks, where in the world can you find someone who wants to use a City government's right of eminent domain to condemn businesses and residences and then send out the notices only in English to a group of owners who are predominately Spanish speaking and reading?
It's a hoot, too, that this same fellow wants to build a very tall condominium tower in Santa Ana for upper-middle class residents who probably would not shop locally in that area because of the types of businesses there cater to a population that they serve quite well, already.
Now add to this, a person who tells all of us that he knows better what is good for us than we do, all the while not willing to live in the area he is attempting to change.
Come on folks, somebody out there has got a great novel in them just demanding to be written. The hard part is that probably nobody would believe any of it could possibly happen.
So, thank you Bob and the Ponte Vista Outreach Team. You have made my recovery more funny than you know. Please keep up your humor.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Odds and Ends 62
"A watched pot never boils."
Perhaps a certain developer is boiling because he most probably won't get what he wants and things may be moving much slower than he wishes.
Oh well.
________________________________________________
Here is an article concerning Proposition R and term limits, suggested by a great member of the Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1.
Please don't forget about R Neighborhoods Are 1. IF and when the Planning Department lets all of us know what they think Bob could build, we are ready, willing, and able to instantly comment on the Planning Department's beliefs and we're quite able to move forward.
Here is the article:
Prop R Legal Challenge-Community working together
Community Victory
Legal Briefs filed March 27, 2008
2nd Court of Appeal
It has been more than a one and a half years since our effort began and many are unaware or have forgotten that the battle continues on.
The Lobbyist doing business at LA City Hall (approx 200) formed a group titled Los Angeles Lobbyist and Public Affairs Assn. The group hired Sutton & Partners to lobby government officials on the industry’s behalf. The “Sutton” of the firm, is Attorney James Sutton.
In March of 2006 Attorney James Sutton formed “Citizens for Reform”; ID # 1284556 with James Sutton listed as the Treasurer. James Sutton wrote Measure R!
In July of 2006 Sutton changed “Citizens for Reform” to Committee to Reform LA-Yes on Prop R. They kept the same ID number. This was to be a Sponsored Committee and to add creditability he had the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce sign on as Sponsors. The Treasurer was changed to Kaufman & Associates.
On July 14, 2006 City Council President Eric Garcetti sent a letter to the Los Angeles City Clerk Frank Martinez stating the LWV and the LAACC had sent him a request for a “proposed Ballot Initiative”.
On July 14th the City Clerk assigned a City Council File number to the request and gave it an official title. The city file number was 06-1800-S1 and the title was “Ethics Reform/Term Limit Extensions/Ballot Initiative”
This is what was sent to the LA City Council and what was adopted on July 18, 2006. The council voted on this file number item and had it placed on the November 2006 ballot.
In combining the Ethics Reform and extending the city council term limits from two four year terms to three four year terms, they violated the California Constitution.
The single issue rule was established to prevent elected officials and special interests groups from forcing the voters to vote for one issue in order to vote for another.
The argument presented by the City Attorney was that the Ballot title did not contain the word “imitative” and therefore did not have to comply with the single issue rule. The Superior Court Judge who had initially ruled Prop R was unconstitutional changed his ruling in light of the City Attorneys argument.
Our argument in the Court of Appeals is clear. The City does not have the right to violate the State Constitution by manipulation.
The success of this Legal Challenge is a direct result of the community of Los Angeles coming together and standing up against City Hall and the forces which until now operate with impunity.
Those who will celebrate in the final outcome will be Neighborhood Councils, Trade Unions, Media and Press ( LA Daily News, LA Times & LA Weekly, North Valley Reporter), Community Groups such as Valley Vote and Citizen Advocate Organizations such as US Term Limits and Judicial Watch. Thank you to some of our strongest supporters in the Animal Rights Community. You made all the difference in the world!
The Los Angeles Daily News must receive a Special Thank you for your reporting and humbling editorials. Thank You Ron Kaye.
The Community Blogers such as Mayor Sam and LA Observed were instrumental in getting the message out to the public. Michael Higby and Zuma Dogg, many thanks!
The two individuals who will be named as leaders in the effort will be David Hernandez and Ted Hayes, but many more individuals should receive well deserved credit.
Donna Connolly for one is to be recognized for her research which was vital in uncovering the truth about the origins of Prop R. Her writings which outlined many of her findings can be found at our web site.
Sandra Needs for her never ending support and encouragement.
The Web site www.termenedout.com created and maintained by Mr. Eric Ramos provided a central location where information could be found.
Our legal teams, Attorney Candice E. Jackson who agreed to take this on as a labor of love and allowed us to move forward on a promise.
Thank you Attorney Eric Grant and Attorney Anthony T. Caso who have taken up the fight and have provided us with the tools needed to achieve Victory.
Most of all, this is will be a victory for every man and women in Los Angeles who made it possible for us to get here.
From David Hernandez and Ted Hayes, we will see you in the Winners Circle.
___________________________________________________
For your reading 'pleasure', here is an article from LAWeekly about the pro-density law.
Angelenos Sue City Hall Over Prodensity "Affordable Housing" Pretense
By D. HEIMPEL
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 4:59 pm
THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have inadvertently united a patchwork of neighborhood groups stretching from the Valley to Venice, whose members have joined to stop city leaders from tossing out hard-won neighborhood zoning rules that keep a lid on overdevelopment.
The Council and mayor, saying they were complying with a state requirement to encourage more affordable housing, recently put on the books an ordinance that allows much bigger apartment complexes in areas whose residents believed they had won the battle against overconstruction.
“They broke the law, like usual,” says Robert Silverstein, a Pasadena attorney who opposes the so-called “density bonus” that waters down existing zoning.
In February, Villaraigosa signed the controversial ordinance to comply with Senate Bill 1818, a California law that gives developers permission to build far bigger apartment complexes and condos than are actually allowed on the land — if the developers include a smattering of “affordable” units.
But critics, including mayoral appointee and Los Angeles City Planning Commission President Jane Usher, openly questioned the legality of the Los Angeles ordinance — and now two lawsuits have been filed to stop it.
James O’Sullivan, president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association and an activist in the coalition, believes the ordinance will push L.A. over the edge into nonlivability: “The best business to own will be a U-Haul franchise.”
When the legislature passed Senate Bill 1818 in 2005, they hoped it would entice developers to include affordable housing in their projects. In exchange, developers would be allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces, exceed height limits — and pack in more units to reap higher profits.
But Los Angeles critics see the city’s interpretation as a “Trojan Horse” which all but prevents community debate over much bigger projects than are allowed by the zoning, letting developers erect inappropriately dense and tall luxury apartments and condos.
If the developer devotes just 11 percent of the building to “very-low-income units,” the building can blow past zoning rules — it can even be constructed right out to the sidewalk’s edge.
Buildings can be 35 percent bigger than is now allowed but with far less parking. Under the new ordinance, such projects are deemed “ministerial” — a technical designation that allows them to ignore California Environmental Quality laws.
In other words, there will be no environmental-impact review of proposed new construction under the new law.
In an e-mail obtained by Curbed LA — a blog about Los Angeles real estate — Planning Commission president Usher appeared to advocate that Angelenos sue City Hall. She questioned whether the ordinance “was fatally flawed” and whether it violates California environmental laws.
Usher did not return calls from the Weekly about her decision to publicly denounce an ordinance signed by the mayor, who appointed her to her commission post.
Doug Carstens, representing the coalition of community groups suing City Hall, points to California cities like Albany, Santa Cruz and Palos Verdes, which have implemented Senate Bill 1818 — but didn’t try to end-run environmental laws as did Los Angeles.
In L.A., under the new ordinance, “you could have projects built ‘by right’ and without recourse,” Carstens warns. In other words, there would not be any room for public opposition at the core of the traditional civic process.
In early April, attorney Noel Weiss made similar claims on behalf of homeowner Sandy Hubbard of Valley Village. Weiss calls the ordinance “one of the grossest examples of political malpractice and ineptitude I have witnessed. ... The City Council is being led around by the nose by [bureaucrats in the] planning department and the city attorney.
Councilman Tom LaBonge voted against the ordinance, saying developers could abuse it to demolish rather than build affordable housing. Says LaBonge, “It will ultimately take down Section 8 housing and could erase stabilized housing for some.”
Council president Eric Garcetti, an ardent advocate of much denser housing throughout Los Angeles, voted for it. Garcetti insists now, “We wanted to accomplish three things: provide more affordable housing; not take money out of the city’s pocketbooks; and protect neighborhoods from the wrong type of development.”
But critics say Garcetti and the City Council have achieved the opposite. Garcetti admits the ordinance is flawed. “I was trying to fix something that was broken,” he says. Now, he may support a “moratorium” on demolitions.
Whether he does or not, the downtown pols have managed to bring together disparate neighborhood groups that might never have collaborated on anything, but that are joining forces now — to stop City Hall.
___________________________________________________
Perhaps a certain developer is boiling because he most probably won't get what he wants and things may be moving much slower than he wishes.
Oh well.
________________________________________________
Here is an article concerning Proposition R and term limits, suggested by a great member of the Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1.
Please don't forget about R Neighborhoods Are 1. IF and when the Planning Department lets all of us know what they think Bob could build, we are ready, willing, and able to instantly comment on the Planning Department's beliefs and we're quite able to move forward.
Here is the article:
Prop R Legal Challenge-Community working together
Community Victory
Legal Briefs filed March 27, 2008
2nd Court of Appeal
It has been more than a one and a half years since our effort began and many are unaware or have forgotten that the battle continues on.
The Lobbyist doing business at LA City Hall (approx 200) formed a group titled Los Angeles Lobbyist and Public Affairs Assn. The group hired Sutton & Partners to lobby government officials on the industry’s behalf. The “Sutton” of the firm, is Attorney James Sutton.
In March of 2006 Attorney James Sutton formed “Citizens for Reform”; ID # 1284556 with James Sutton listed as the Treasurer. James Sutton wrote Measure R!
In July of 2006 Sutton changed “Citizens for Reform” to Committee to Reform LA-Yes on Prop R. They kept the same ID number. This was to be a Sponsored Committee and to add creditability he had the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce sign on as Sponsors. The Treasurer was changed to Kaufman & Associates.
On July 14, 2006 City Council President Eric Garcetti sent a letter to the Los Angeles City Clerk Frank Martinez stating the LWV and the LAACC had sent him a request for a “proposed Ballot Initiative”.
On July 14th the City Clerk assigned a City Council File number to the request and gave it an official title. The city file number was 06-1800-S1 and the title was “Ethics Reform/Term Limit Extensions/Ballot Initiative”
This is what was sent to the LA City Council and what was adopted on July 18, 2006. The council voted on this file number item and had it placed on the November 2006 ballot.
In combining the Ethics Reform and extending the city council term limits from two four year terms to three four year terms, they violated the California Constitution.
The single issue rule was established to prevent elected officials and special interests groups from forcing the voters to vote for one issue in order to vote for another.
The argument presented by the City Attorney was that the Ballot title did not contain the word “imitative” and therefore did not have to comply with the single issue rule. The Superior Court Judge who had initially ruled Prop R was unconstitutional changed his ruling in light of the City Attorneys argument.
Our argument in the Court of Appeals is clear. The City does not have the right to violate the State Constitution by manipulation.
The success of this Legal Challenge is a direct result of the community of Los Angeles coming together and standing up against City Hall and the forces which until now operate with impunity.
Those who will celebrate in the final outcome will be Neighborhood Councils, Trade Unions, Media and Press ( LA Daily News, LA Times & LA Weekly, North Valley Reporter), Community Groups such as Valley Vote and Citizen Advocate Organizations such as US Term Limits and Judicial Watch. Thank you to some of our strongest supporters in the Animal Rights Community. You made all the difference in the world!
The Los Angeles Daily News must receive a Special Thank you for your reporting and humbling editorials. Thank You Ron Kaye.
The Community Blogers such as Mayor Sam and LA Observed were instrumental in getting the message out to the public. Michael Higby and Zuma Dogg, many thanks!
The two individuals who will be named as leaders in the effort will be David Hernandez and Ted Hayes, but many more individuals should receive well deserved credit.
Donna Connolly for one is to be recognized for her research which was vital in uncovering the truth about the origins of Prop R. Her writings which outlined many of her findings can be found at our web site.
Sandra Needs for her never ending support and encouragement.
The Web site www.termenedout.com created and maintained by Mr. Eric Ramos provided a central location where information could be found.
Our legal teams, Attorney Candice E. Jackson who agreed to take this on as a labor of love and allowed us to move forward on a promise.
Thank you Attorney Eric Grant and Attorney Anthony T. Caso who have taken up the fight and have provided us with the tools needed to achieve Victory.
Most of all, this is will be a victory for every man and women in Los Angeles who made it possible for us to get here.
From David Hernandez and Ted Hayes, we will see you in the Winners Circle.
___________________________________________________
For your reading 'pleasure', here is an article from LAWeekly about the pro-density law.
Angelenos Sue City Hall Over Prodensity "Affordable Housing" Pretense
By D. HEIMPEL
Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - 4:59 pm
THE LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have inadvertently united a patchwork of neighborhood groups stretching from the Valley to Venice, whose members have joined to stop city leaders from tossing out hard-won neighborhood zoning rules that keep a lid on overdevelopment.
The Council and mayor, saying they were complying with a state requirement to encourage more affordable housing, recently put on the books an ordinance that allows much bigger apartment complexes in areas whose residents believed they had won the battle against overconstruction.
“They broke the law, like usual,” says Robert Silverstein, a Pasadena attorney who opposes the so-called “density bonus” that waters down existing zoning.
In February, Villaraigosa signed the controversial ordinance to comply with Senate Bill 1818, a California law that gives developers permission to build far bigger apartment complexes and condos than are actually allowed on the land — if the developers include a smattering of “affordable” units.
But critics, including mayoral appointee and Los Angeles City Planning Commission President Jane Usher, openly questioned the legality of the Los Angeles ordinance — and now two lawsuits have been filed to stop it.
James O’Sullivan, president of the Miracle Mile Residential Association and an activist in the coalition, believes the ordinance will push L.A. over the edge into nonlivability: “The best business to own will be a U-Haul franchise.”
When the legislature passed Senate Bill 1818 in 2005, they hoped it would entice developers to include affordable housing in their projects. In exchange, developers would be allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces, exceed height limits — and pack in more units to reap higher profits.
But Los Angeles critics see the city’s interpretation as a “Trojan Horse” which all but prevents community debate over much bigger projects than are allowed by the zoning, letting developers erect inappropriately dense and tall luxury apartments and condos.
If the developer devotes just 11 percent of the building to “very-low-income units,” the building can blow past zoning rules — it can even be constructed right out to the sidewalk’s edge.
Buildings can be 35 percent bigger than is now allowed but with far less parking. Under the new ordinance, such projects are deemed “ministerial” — a technical designation that allows them to ignore California Environmental Quality laws.
In other words, there will be no environmental-impact review of proposed new construction under the new law.
In an e-mail obtained by Curbed LA — a blog about Los Angeles real estate — Planning Commission president Usher appeared to advocate that Angelenos sue City Hall. She questioned whether the ordinance “was fatally flawed” and whether it violates California environmental laws.
Usher did not return calls from the Weekly about her decision to publicly denounce an ordinance signed by the mayor, who appointed her to her commission post.
Doug Carstens, representing the coalition of community groups suing City Hall, points to California cities like Albany, Santa Cruz and Palos Verdes, which have implemented Senate Bill 1818 — but didn’t try to end-run environmental laws as did Los Angeles.
In L.A., under the new ordinance, “you could have projects built ‘by right’ and without recourse,” Carstens warns. In other words, there would not be any room for public opposition at the core of the traditional civic process.
In early April, attorney Noel Weiss made similar claims on behalf of homeowner Sandy Hubbard of Valley Village. Weiss calls the ordinance “one of the grossest examples of political malpractice and ineptitude I have witnessed. ... The City Council is being led around by the nose by [bureaucrats in the] planning department and the city attorney.
Councilman Tom LaBonge voted against the ordinance, saying developers could abuse it to demolish rather than build affordable housing. Says LaBonge, “It will ultimately take down Section 8 housing and could erase stabilized housing for some.”
Council president Eric Garcetti, an ardent advocate of much denser housing throughout Los Angeles, voted for it. Garcetti insists now, “We wanted to accomplish three things: provide more affordable housing; not take money out of the city’s pocketbooks; and protect neighborhoods from the wrong type of development.”
But critics say Garcetti and the City Council have achieved the opposite. Garcetti admits the ordinance is flawed. “I was trying to fix something that was broken,” he says. Now, he may support a “moratorium” on demolitions.
Whether he does or not, the downtown pols have managed to bring together disparate neighborhood groups that might never have collaborated on anything, but that are joining forces now — to stop City Hall.
___________________________________________________
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Something From Orange Juice Blog
Bob Bisno has a development called City Place in the City of Santa Ana.
It appears Mr. Art Pedroza is about as fond of Bob as I am.
Here is Mr. Pedroza's latest on City Place from the great blog at:
http://www.theorangejuice.com/
Welcome to City Place - I hope you survive the experience!
( Mr. Pedroza began with a photo of five heavly armed SWAT officers)
"I don't think this is what developer Robert Bisno had in mind when he plunked the overpriced City Place condos and townhomes over on Main St., across from Santa Ana's Mainplace Mall.
Just a few minutes ago, as I drove west on Memory Lane towards Main St., I passed an empty SAPD police cruiser with its flashers on. It was parked somewhat askew, on the right shoulder. I slowed down and lo and behold the lone officer was standing in front of his car with his gun drawn and pointed at a guy in a white t-shirt who was lying down on the grass in front of some apartments, by the look of it, located perhaps a block or two east of the City Place. He had his hands on his head, with his fingers interlaced. He looked like he was familiar with the process.
I could not believe it! What a sight to behold. I wonder what the yuppies on the way to their City Place townhomes thought about this as they drove by? Sure enough, three more police cruisers and a motorbike cop sped by me, as they drove east on Memory Lane to the incident, as I continued to Main St.
What the heck was Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido thinking when he asked Bisno to plop the City Place in Santa Ana? Keep in mind that the proposed Bisno 33 story luxury condo tower is supposed to go up right by where I saw the cop and his suspect today. And this neighborhood is supposed to be the GOOD part of Santa Ana!
Welcome to City Place. I hope you folks survive the experience!"
It appears Mr. Art Pedroza is about as fond of Bob as I am.
Here is Mr. Pedroza's latest on City Place from the great blog at:
http://www.theorangejuice.com/
Welcome to City Place - I hope you survive the experience!
( Mr. Pedroza began with a photo of five heavly armed SWAT officers)
"I don't think this is what developer Robert Bisno had in mind when he plunked the overpriced City Place condos and townhomes over on Main St., across from Santa Ana's Mainplace Mall.
Just a few minutes ago, as I drove west on Memory Lane towards Main St., I passed an empty SAPD police cruiser with its flashers on. It was parked somewhat askew, on the right shoulder. I slowed down and lo and behold the lone officer was standing in front of his car with his gun drawn and pointed at a guy in a white t-shirt who was lying down on the grass in front of some apartments, by the look of it, located perhaps a block or two east of the City Place. He had his hands on his head, with his fingers interlaced. He looked like he was familiar with the process.
I could not believe it! What a sight to behold. I wonder what the yuppies on the way to their City Place townhomes thought about this as they drove by? Sure enough, three more police cruisers and a motorbike cop sped by me, as they drove east on Memory Lane to the incident, as I continued to Main St.
What the heck was Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido thinking when he asked Bisno to plop the City Place in Santa Ana? Keep in mind that the proposed Bisno 33 story luxury condo tower is supposed to go up right by where I saw the cop and his suspect today. And this neighborhood is supposed to be the GOOD part of Santa Ana!
Welcome to City Place. I hope you folks survive the experience!"
Friday, April 18, 2008
Odds and Ends 61
We wait.
Some wait with antici.................................................................................pation.
Yet still we wait to hear from the L.A. City Department of Planning and their take on what Bob could build at Ponte Vista.
We sit.
We wait.
We speculate.
____________________________________________________
The following was lifted from today's Daily Breeze and their article on Earth Day.
"Supporters of the Ponte Vista project in San Pedro will sponsor a series of community cleanup and tree-planting efforts in recognition of Earth Day.
The development will work with Clean San Pedro on Monday and Tuesday to clean up curbsides on Western Avenue from the Ponte Vista site to Palos Verdes Drive North on the north and First Street on the south.
More than a dozen trees will be provided by Ponte Vista for planting Wednesday at the Port of Los Angeles Charter High School.
The developer will present a green reusable grocery bag to the first 300 people who stop by the Ponte Vista site at Western and Green Hills Drive.
And on Friday, Ponte Vista will join in the "Green Carpet Reception" for the Los Angeles Harbor International Film Festival's "A Short Opening Night" at the Warner Grand Theatre."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps some folks were actually wishing Bob would clean up his blighted project site and remove the weeds, dirt, broken glass, and other trash continuing to pile up inside a fenced area that should have has tarps placed along the fences to lessen the offense that site causes residents and others driving along Western.
Do you think with all the 'goodness' Bob's Outreach Team is trying to do, anybody new might be added as supporters?
Thanks Bob for all you claim to be doing for Earth Day. But we would appreciate it more if you cleaned up the area of Earth that is called Ponte Vista at San Pedro, too.
____________________________________________________
Here is a perspective from Citywatch L.A.
By Ken Draper
Another Citizen Coalition takes City to Court
Want to sue the City? Take a number. Get in line. The number of citizen and citizen group litigants is ballooning.
Now comes the Environment AND Housing Coalition Los Angeles … a group of residential and homeowner associations, civic organizations and individual citizens … to challenge the City on the recently enacted LA version of the so-called Density Bonus Ordinance. They filed their paperwork this week. The EAHCLA says that they are “concerned no only about how the densification (ordinance) will affect the quality of life in Los Angeles, but also that the ordinance actually may result in a net loss of affordable housing.
Their suit charges that the City passed the new ordinance … which they say will significantly intensify development throughout the City, without the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
EAHCLA also claims that the City’s ordinance went “far beyond” what State bill (SB1818) required, “allowing developers to increase the number of residential units, increase the size and scale of their projects and reduce otherwise required parking” … if the project includes some affordable housing.
Those conditions could actually allow a reduction in affordable housing, EAHCLA spokesman, Jim O’Sullivan, says. “For example,” O’Sullivan explains, “a project could involve the removal of 100 affordable rental units and (after the bonus) the construction of 150 new, high-end condominiums. Under the Densification Ordinance,” he continues, “the developer could get the density bonus by designating just eight of the 150 units as ‘affordable.” That would mean a loss of 92 critically needed affordable units.
The Coalition is represented by Chatten-Brown & Carstens. Partner Douglas Carstens says that his firm supports the creation of affordable housing, “but the need for such housing does not excuse the failure to conduct an environmental review.” Which, as noted earlier, the group believes is required by CEQA.
As we reported a few columns ago, a number of the City’s stakeholders have come to the conclusion that a law suit is a more effective why of getting heard at City Hall than the city-controlled advisory system provided by LA’s neighborhood council program.
Jay Handal, who chairs both the West LA Neighborhood Council and the Greater West LA Chamber of Commerce, went to court on behalf of a coalition of business and community organizations to stop the Mayor’s Pico/Olympic Traffic Plan. His claim also argued that the right to know … through an environmental study … that the new traffic fix wasn’t going to, in fact, generate more rotten air for the city. In particular, the neighborhoods along the traffic plan route. He believes it will and that the City has not completed its homework on the plan. The City has been forced to delay implementation of the Pico/Olympic plan until the legal action runs its course in the courts.
Meanwhile, there is another SB1818 law suit cooking in Studio City and, it appears, the Pico Union NC folks are looking for a way to join the litigation line.
Offering another perspective, Raphael Sonenshein …a Professor of Political Science at Cal State Fullerton and the Executive Director for the NC Review Commission … offered this caution on the surge to sue. To paraphrase, Sonenshein said that it is important to distinguish between suing because you’re being ignored or some vote didn’t go your way and suing because you believe some law has been violated.
In most cases, he said, using the democratic system is still the best choice of action.
My friend Keith Bright makes another point: Sometimes, he said, you sue government “because it refuses to listen. Sometimes, simply because they are wrong.
A City Hall veteran I know … and also a friend, whose name will not be included here … says that “if they would just smarten up and involve the public in the development of these things, they could avoid some of this litigation.”
“City Hall,” he says, “still defines leadership as being able to come up with solutions on your own.
“Some councils are weary of being patronized and just listened to …public comment style. They also want to be heard.
It seems safe to predict that as long as the public continues to believe that the politicians are playing them, or ignoring them, they will look for ways to raise the decibel level.
It also appears that as long as their representatives refuse to take action on their behalf, on issues like the Density Bonus Ordinance, the public will continue to generate its own leadership and take its own action.
Most of LA’s City Council believe that LA’s Density Bonus bill is wrong and that the State’s SB1818 is not now going to accomplish what it was designed to do. Yet, no one steps forward asking for repeal or modification.
Maybe LA’s stakeholders are maturing. Maybe they’re just stepping in to fill a leadership void.
Looks like there are a number or reasons to expect the surge-to-sue to continue to pick up momentum.
CityWatchVol 6 Issue 32
Pub: Apr 18, 2008
Some wait with antici.................................................................................pation.
Yet still we wait to hear from the L.A. City Department of Planning and their take on what Bob could build at Ponte Vista.
We sit.
We wait.
We speculate.
____________________________________________________
The following was lifted from today's Daily Breeze and their article on Earth Day.
"Supporters of the Ponte Vista project in San Pedro will sponsor a series of community cleanup and tree-planting efforts in recognition of Earth Day.
The development will work with Clean San Pedro on Monday and Tuesday to clean up curbsides on Western Avenue from the Ponte Vista site to Palos Verdes Drive North on the north and First Street on the south.
More than a dozen trees will be provided by Ponte Vista for planting Wednesday at the Port of Los Angeles Charter High School.
The developer will present a green reusable grocery bag to the first 300 people who stop by the Ponte Vista site at Western and Green Hills Drive.
And on Friday, Ponte Vista will join in the "Green Carpet Reception" for the Los Angeles Harbor International Film Festival's "A Short Opening Night" at the Warner Grand Theatre."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps some folks were actually wishing Bob would clean up his blighted project site and remove the weeds, dirt, broken glass, and other trash continuing to pile up inside a fenced area that should have has tarps placed along the fences to lessen the offense that site causes residents and others driving along Western.
Do you think with all the 'goodness' Bob's Outreach Team is trying to do, anybody new might be added as supporters?
Thanks Bob for all you claim to be doing for Earth Day. But we would appreciate it more if you cleaned up the area of Earth that is called Ponte Vista at San Pedro, too.
____________________________________________________
Here is a perspective from Citywatch L.A.
By Ken Draper
Another Citizen Coalition takes City to Court
Want to sue the City? Take a number. Get in line. The number of citizen and citizen group litigants is ballooning.
Now comes the Environment AND Housing Coalition Los Angeles … a group of residential and homeowner associations, civic organizations and individual citizens … to challenge the City on the recently enacted LA version of the so-called Density Bonus Ordinance. They filed their paperwork this week. The EAHCLA says that they are “concerned no only about how the densification (ordinance) will affect the quality of life in Los Angeles, but also that the ordinance actually may result in a net loss of affordable housing.
Their suit charges that the City passed the new ordinance … which they say will significantly intensify development throughout the City, without the environmental review required by the California Environmental Quality Act.
EAHCLA also claims that the City’s ordinance went “far beyond” what State bill (SB1818) required, “allowing developers to increase the number of residential units, increase the size and scale of their projects and reduce otherwise required parking” … if the project includes some affordable housing.
Those conditions could actually allow a reduction in affordable housing, EAHCLA spokesman, Jim O’Sullivan, says. “For example,” O’Sullivan explains, “a project could involve the removal of 100 affordable rental units and (after the bonus) the construction of 150 new, high-end condominiums. Under the Densification Ordinance,” he continues, “the developer could get the density bonus by designating just eight of the 150 units as ‘affordable.” That would mean a loss of 92 critically needed affordable units.
The Coalition is represented by Chatten-Brown & Carstens. Partner Douglas Carstens says that his firm supports the creation of affordable housing, “but the need for such housing does not excuse the failure to conduct an environmental review.” Which, as noted earlier, the group believes is required by CEQA.
As we reported a few columns ago, a number of the City’s stakeholders have come to the conclusion that a law suit is a more effective why of getting heard at City Hall than the city-controlled advisory system provided by LA’s neighborhood council program.
Jay Handal, who chairs both the West LA Neighborhood Council and the Greater West LA Chamber of Commerce, went to court on behalf of a coalition of business and community organizations to stop the Mayor’s Pico/Olympic Traffic Plan. His claim also argued that the right to know … through an environmental study … that the new traffic fix wasn’t going to, in fact, generate more rotten air for the city. In particular, the neighborhoods along the traffic plan route. He believes it will and that the City has not completed its homework on the plan. The City has been forced to delay implementation of the Pico/Olympic plan until the legal action runs its course in the courts.
Meanwhile, there is another SB1818 law suit cooking in Studio City and, it appears, the Pico Union NC folks are looking for a way to join the litigation line.
Offering another perspective, Raphael Sonenshein …a Professor of Political Science at Cal State Fullerton and the Executive Director for the NC Review Commission … offered this caution on the surge to sue. To paraphrase, Sonenshein said that it is important to distinguish between suing because you’re being ignored or some vote didn’t go your way and suing because you believe some law has been violated.
In most cases, he said, using the democratic system is still the best choice of action.
My friend Keith Bright makes another point: Sometimes, he said, you sue government “because it refuses to listen. Sometimes, simply because they are wrong.
A City Hall veteran I know … and also a friend, whose name will not be included here … says that “if they would just smarten up and involve the public in the development of these things, they could avoid some of this litigation.”
“City Hall,” he says, “still defines leadership as being able to come up with solutions on your own.
“Some councils are weary of being patronized and just listened to …public comment style. They also want to be heard.
It seems safe to predict that as long as the public continues to believe that the politicians are playing them, or ignoring them, they will look for ways to raise the decibel level.
It also appears that as long as their representatives refuse to take action on their behalf, on issues like the Density Bonus Ordinance, the public will continue to generate its own leadership and take its own action.
Most of LA’s City Council believe that LA’s Density Bonus bill is wrong and that the State’s SB1818 is not now going to accomplish what it was designed to do. Yet, no one steps forward asking for repeal or modification.
Maybe LA’s stakeholders are maturing. Maybe they’re just stepping in to fill a leadership void.
Looks like there are a number or reasons to expect the surge-to-sue to continue to pick up momentum.
CityWatchVol 6 Issue 32
Pub: Apr 18, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Just Some Things on an Agenda
Someone was kind enough to send me the agenda for the upcoming meeting of the Board of Harbor Commissioners.
In looking over the agenda, several issues seems to raise my eyebrows, concerning security and possible terrorist threats that are still very close to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
I hope Bob makes all of his potential buyers learn about the possible hazards of living in one of the areas where a high concentration of threats and possible problems could occur.
Of course, I am really think Bob and his Outreach Team will not reach out to notify potential buyers who don't already know of the many environmental and potential terrorist issues, so close to the site.
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS
THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008, AT 8:30 A.M.
BANNING’S LANDING COMMUNITY CENTER
100 E. WATER STREET WILMINGTON, CA 90744
Homeland Security
6. Re: PURCHASE ORDER CHANGE TO CONTRACT NO. 39380 WITH DULY RESEARCH, INCORPORATED FOR A MOBIL LINEAR ACCELERATOR X-RAY SCANNING
Port Police
7. Re: AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 39410 FOR PURCHASE OF A DYNAMICALLY FOCUSED MULTI-BEAM SIDE SCAN SONAR SYSTEM TO L-3 COMMUNICATION TO KLEIN ASSOCIATES, INC.
9. Re: AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 39403 FOR AN UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEM TO TRITON IMAGING, INC.
In looking over the agenda, several issues seems to raise my eyebrows, concerning security and possible terrorist threats that are still very close to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
I hope Bob makes all of his potential buyers learn about the possible hazards of living in one of the areas where a high concentration of threats and possible problems could occur.
Of course, I am really think Bob and his Outreach Team will not reach out to notify potential buyers who don't already know of the many environmental and potential terrorist issues, so close to the site.
AGENDA OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LOS ANGELES BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS
THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 2008, AT 8:30 A.M.
BANNING’S LANDING COMMUNITY CENTER
100 E. WATER STREET WILMINGTON, CA 90744
Homeland Security
6. Re: PURCHASE ORDER CHANGE TO CONTRACT NO. 39380 WITH DULY RESEARCH, INCORPORATED FOR A MOBIL LINEAR ACCELERATOR X-RAY SCANNING
Port Police
7. Re: AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 39410 FOR PURCHASE OF A DYNAMICALLY FOCUSED MULTI-BEAM SIDE SCAN SONAR SYSTEM TO L-3 COMMUNICATION TO KLEIN ASSOCIATES, INC.
9. Re: AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 39403 FOR AN UNDERWATER EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEM TO TRITON IMAGING, INC.
Odds and Ends 60
Sorry for being tardy with this post, but I was busy yesterday, after being "Paroled" from Torrance Medical Center and Transitional Care Unit, and "Parole Officer" Terri, kept me on a very short leash as far as the Internet goes.
___________________________________________________
I received a 'gift' from the Planning Department, that 'gift' being no real news to report from them about what they feel could and should be built at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
_________________________________________________
In the future, but probably before build out of whatever is going to be built at Ponte Vista, the L.A. County Sanitation District's Clearwater Water program ( http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/clearwater/ )will be well under consideration and study.
This program would be to construct a third tunnel and piping system for clean water to pass from the sewage treatment plant to the Pacific Ocean.
One of the largest debate items for the project is where the access shaft for the drilling equipment and other needs will be sunk and maintained for the duration (8 years) for the construction of the tunnel.
It may come to pass that all the entitlements needed to build whatever is going to be built at Ponte Vista will be granted and dealt with long before any traffic study for the Clearwater Program is conducted.
One concern that should probably become home in the very backs of our minds is that the Sanitation District owns the property where Eastview Park now sits on Westmont, near Western Avenue and behind All Pets.
If proponents and opponents to Bob's current plans for Ponte Vista wish to not have the shaft where Eastview Park is now located, then this is a point we all can join together on as we did with the large high school project that was planned for part of the Ponte Vista site.
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
I received a 'gift' from the Planning Department, that 'gift' being no real news to report from them about what they feel could and should be built at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.
_________________________________________________
In the future, but probably before build out of whatever is going to be built at Ponte Vista, the L.A. County Sanitation District's Clearwater Water program ( http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/clearwater/ )will be well under consideration and study.
This program would be to construct a third tunnel and piping system for clean water to pass from the sewage treatment plant to the Pacific Ocean.
One of the largest debate items for the project is where the access shaft for the drilling equipment and other needs will be sunk and maintained for the duration (8 years) for the construction of the tunnel.
It may come to pass that all the entitlements needed to build whatever is going to be built at Ponte Vista will be granted and dealt with long before any traffic study for the Clearwater Program is conducted.
One concern that should probably become home in the very backs of our minds is that the Sanitation District owns the property where Eastview Park now sits on Westmont, near Western Avenue and behind All Pets.
If proponents and opponents to Bob's current plans for Ponte Vista wish to not have the shaft where Eastview Park is now located, then this is a point we all can join together on as we did with the large high school project that was planned for part of the Ponte Vista site.
___________________________________________________
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Odds and Ends 59
Well, I had a particularly wonderful "holiday" yesterday on what is usually my day of most fun.
But it is time to get back to reality and the issues at hand.
The surgery I am having is a total hip replacement which is going to be done on Thursday. The first surgery on my right hip to remove dead bone and graft new bone tissue failed, so now I get the more frequently done operation.
________________________________________________
There is still not much to report on the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project, but that may be a good thing. I am hoping that the Planning Department is going over the application and studies with a very fine tooth comb to insure that whatever they feel should be built on the site will actually be to the benefit of everyone in OUR community.
________________________________________________
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District is considering building a third tunnel from the treatment plant just off the Harbor Freeway and out into the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/clearwater/ is Web site you can learn more about the Clear Water Program.
If the determination is made to build the third tunnel, construction won't begin before 2012, but it will last eight years, perhaps.
If a new tunnel is built, there will need to be an open air shaft dug to place the tunnelling machine underground and provide access to the tunnel.
Eastview Park is a City of Rancho Palos Verdes park that is on land leased to the City by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Whether the large shaft will actually be dug on that location is one more issue to be carefully studied for any future building that may or may not occur.
_______________________________________________
But it is time to get back to reality and the issues at hand.
The surgery I am having is a total hip replacement which is going to be done on Thursday. The first surgery on my right hip to remove dead bone and graft new bone tissue failed, so now I get the more frequently done operation.
________________________________________________
There is still not much to report on the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project, but that may be a good thing. I am hoping that the Planning Department is going over the application and studies with a very fine tooth comb to insure that whatever they feel should be built on the site will actually be to the benefit of everyone in OUR community.
________________________________________________
The Los Angeles County Sanitation District is considering building a third tunnel from the treatment plant just off the Harbor Freeway and out into the Pacific Ocean.
http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/clearwater/ is Web site you can learn more about the Clear Water Program.
If the determination is made to build the third tunnel, construction won't begin before 2012, but it will last eight years, perhaps.
If a new tunnel is built, there will need to be an open air shaft dug to place the tunnelling machine underground and provide access to the tunnel.
Eastview Park is a City of Rancho Palos Verdes park that is on land leased to the City by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. Whether the large shaft will actually be dug on that location is one more issue to be carefully studied for any future building that may or may not occur.
_______________________________________________
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Odds and Ends 58.5
I am having surgery on my lip later this week, so I need to post an Odds and Ends now.
David Shinder, Bob's traffic engineer has issued a plan to have all the traffic within the project on one-way streets.
Mr. Shinder apparently believes that it would be best to have all traffic flowing in the same direction to allow for easier access to the gates along Western Avenue and Gaffey.
_______________________________________________________
It appears that Bob has decided to plant Jacaranda trees along the streets inside Ponte Vista. it seems he loves the flowers on the trees and that the oily residue those leaves leave, will encourage residents to park in their assigned stalls, when the project is built.
____________________________________________________
It now seems that the commercial portion of the project will be built in the first phase of development and not in the last phase, as the Draft Environmental Impact Report states.
Having the new small store/eatery/laundry built with the first units will allow residents to learn to use them more than venturing out to nearby businesses, outside the project's perimeter.
__________________________________________________
Bob will build at least one-single-family house at Ponte Vista where he will live with his family after his house in Beverly Park North is auctioned off on April 29.
In fact, Bob's attorneys' have requested that permits to build the new house be granted ASAP.
Until such time a new house is built for Bob and his family, a new trailer or "manufactured house" will be placed near the existing offices on the site, where Bob and his family will live.
_______________________________________________
Some folks at the Planning Department are so frustrated with how things are going, information is beginning to leak out, like a sieve.
Already I have learned that the Planning Department will strongly suggest that the buildings at the project will:
Be various tones of the color yellow.
Have murals painted on each one of them depicting different areas of California.
Contain multi-colored window so that reflections coming off the units will provide a "rainbow of color" to passing motorists on Western and Gaffey.
Use waterfalls coming off the tallest buildings and flowing into streams sizable enough for fishing, to continue the positive patterns of nature within the development.
Use loudspeakers throughout the outdoor and indoor areas featuring subtle mood music which encourages residents to stay in their homes and not venture too far from the complex.
Offer the services of Green Hills Mortuary via a tunnel from the Memorial Park to the center of the Senior section of the project.
There are other "amenities" that I can't confirm at this point, so I won't list them here.
____________________________________________________
Just one more thing, though:
APRIL FOOL'S
David Shinder, Bob's traffic engineer has issued a plan to have all the traffic within the project on one-way streets.
Mr. Shinder apparently believes that it would be best to have all traffic flowing in the same direction to allow for easier access to the gates along Western Avenue and Gaffey.
_______________________________________________________
It appears that Bob has decided to plant Jacaranda trees along the streets inside Ponte Vista. it seems he loves the flowers on the trees and that the oily residue those leaves leave, will encourage residents to park in their assigned stalls, when the project is built.
____________________________________________________
It now seems that the commercial portion of the project will be built in the first phase of development and not in the last phase, as the Draft Environmental Impact Report states.
Having the new small store/eatery/laundry built with the first units will allow residents to learn to use them more than venturing out to nearby businesses, outside the project's perimeter.
__________________________________________________
Bob will build at least one-single-family house at Ponte Vista where he will live with his family after his house in Beverly Park North is auctioned off on April 29.
In fact, Bob's attorneys' have requested that permits to build the new house be granted ASAP.
Until such time a new house is built for Bob and his family, a new trailer or "manufactured house" will be placed near the existing offices on the site, where Bob and his family will live.
_______________________________________________
Some folks at the Planning Department are so frustrated with how things are going, information is beginning to leak out, like a sieve.
Already I have learned that the Planning Department will strongly suggest that the buildings at the project will:
Be various tones of the color yellow.
Have murals painted on each one of them depicting different areas of California.
Contain multi-colored window so that reflections coming off the units will provide a "rainbow of color" to passing motorists on Western and Gaffey.
Use waterfalls coming off the tallest buildings and flowing into streams sizable enough for fishing, to continue the positive patterns of nature within the development.
Use loudspeakers throughout the outdoor and indoor areas featuring subtle mood music which encourages residents to stay in their homes and not venture too far from the complex.
Offer the services of Green Hills Mortuary via a tunnel from the Memorial Park to the center of the Senior section of the project.
There are other "amenities" that I can't confirm at this point, so I won't list them here.
____________________________________________________
Just one more thing, though:
APRIL FOOL'S
Friday, March 28, 2008
Odds and Ends 58
First, here are two images of businesses closing near the Ponte Vista site.
Both businesses were open and operating when the photos were taken Wednesday afternoon.
It appears that Marie Calendar's owner will be moving to the location loyal customers of Papadakis Taverna once enjoyed.
According to a family, the owner of Planet Kids wants to "retire". The site may become another business owned by the same family.
______________________________________________
Members of Neighborhoods Organized and Involved to Support Education (NOISE) are looking into alternatives to building a 1,215-seat high school campus at Angel's Gate.
There are members who suggest that alternatives include utilizing the Cooper Continuation High School/Science Center sites on Taper/Sandwood-Barrywood.
Now I know there is already a new high school close by. But since the neighbors in that area insisted that student and parent traffic use only Western Avenue and not the Taper Avenue access to the new Mary Star of the Sea High School, perhaps a better utilization of the Cooper/Science Center sites might support the education of more students than are using them now.
______________________________________________
I do like the "pledge" Bob's organization made for Clean San Pedro. I don't feel it was necessary to contact The Daily Breeze to trumpet the "pledge". It probably would have been even better if a donation of $25,000.00 was acknowledged by Clean San Pedro after the check cleared.
It could have shown that Bob wasn't just paying the money to get a favorable article on Page 3 of the newspaper, and seeking more support for his weapon of mass development.
Folks other than I have commented on the trash and blight that Bob continues to display on the Ponte Vista property.
_____________________________________________
The next L.A. City Mayoral election may get very interesting. If Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky decides to run for the job currently being held by Mayor V. it could pit a current Mayor who favors weapons of mass development as long as the developers support his elections and reelections, against a L.A. County Supervisor who has gone on record opposing such weapons and fighting for all of us, against over developers.
Maybe former Mayor Mark of Lomita will be joined by another Mayor who might lose his job too, for supporting developers over residents of their own city.
____________________________________________
And still we wait.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Another Attempt to Find More Support
O.K., we need to thank the Outreach Team at Ponte Vista at San Pedro for this latest attempt to keep us laughing, while waiting for the Planning Department to cough up what they believe Bob could build, or sell his possible entitlements, for the site.
I hope you all noticed that the Outreach team want you to support Bob's plans for Ponte Vista by sending a message to Councilwoman Janice Hahn THROUGH the Ponte Vista organization.
This means, if you send in your postcard, that more folks will continue to get paid processing your information and forwarding your "support" for Bob's vision of Ponte Vista to a person who simply doesn't want such a large development built in her district.
I took the liberty of removing the wonderful person's name and address from the card. I seem to get stuff sent to me by a variety of folks. Thank you Ms. "X" and you are a great person!
I also removed the Ponte Vista Web site address and phone number to the Outreach trailers.
I probably could have put in their places, the address to this blog, but since you are reading this, why bother?
If you look extremely carefully in the lower right hand corner of the first illustration, you may just be able to pick out what appears to be a union logo for a printing firm. Kudos go to the Outreach Team for actually using union labor to produce a card stating that union labor would be used at Ponte Vista.
Of course you all know that the use of union labor depends entirely on whether Bob gets to build and over development and not a number of units that will, most likely, be far fewer than Bob wants.
According to reliable sources, each and every time Bob is asked whether he would still use union labor if the number of units approved for the site is less than what he demands, he either changes the course of the discussion, evades any positive answers, or simply doesn't answer the question at all.
I know some union workers will be used at the site. My union, the Communications Workers of America have had represented workers on the property for years and will continue to have workers on the site for years to come.
If other Utility Companies have workers represented by unions also working on the site, then there will actually be several unions represented.
But make no mistake, if Bob doesn't get what he wants, there is no indication that he would use union represented labor in the construction, maintenance, or livability at anything built at Ponte Vista.
I wonder what might happen if ILWU workers, all great union members, buy units at Ponte Vista if it is NOT built out using union represented labor.
Perhaps the good group representing ILWU workers and other union represented workers will "encourage" Bob to use union represented workers, no matter how may units he gets to build.
San Pedro is a strong union community. There are more than quite a few members of unions living in OUR community. Let's all stand tall and proud of our union memberships, and state that union members will not buy anything built at Ponte Vista, that hasn't been built with union labor!
I hope you all noticed that the Outreach team want you to support Bob's plans for Ponte Vista by sending a message to Councilwoman Janice Hahn THROUGH the Ponte Vista organization.This means, if you send in your postcard, that more folks will continue to get paid processing your information and forwarding your "support" for Bob's vision of Ponte Vista to a person who simply doesn't want such a large development built in her district.
I took the liberty of removing the wonderful person's name and address from the card. I seem to get stuff sent to me by a variety of folks. Thank you Ms. "X" and you are a great person!
I also removed the Ponte Vista Web site address and phone number to the Outreach trailers.
I probably could have put in their places, the address to this blog, but since you are reading this, why bother?
If you look extremely carefully in the lower right hand corner of the first illustration, you may just be able to pick out what appears to be a union logo for a printing firm. Kudos go to the Outreach Team for actually using union labor to produce a card stating that union labor would be used at Ponte Vista.
Of course you all know that the use of union labor depends entirely on whether Bob gets to build and over development and not a number of units that will, most likely, be far fewer than Bob wants.
According to reliable sources, each and every time Bob is asked whether he would still use union labor if the number of units approved for the site is less than what he demands, he either changes the course of the discussion, evades any positive answers, or simply doesn't answer the question at all.
I know some union workers will be used at the site. My union, the Communications Workers of America have had represented workers on the property for years and will continue to have workers on the site for years to come.
If other Utility Companies have workers represented by unions also working on the site, then there will actually be several unions represented.
But make no mistake, if Bob doesn't get what he wants, there is no indication that he would use union represented labor in the construction, maintenance, or livability at anything built at Ponte Vista.
I wonder what might happen if ILWU workers, all great union members, buy units at Ponte Vista if it is NOT built out using union represented labor.
Perhaps the good group representing ILWU workers and other union represented workers will "encourage" Bob to use union represented workers, no matter how may units he gets to build.
San Pedro is a strong union community. There are more than quite a few members of unions living in OUR community. Let's all stand tall and proud of our union memberships, and state that union members will not buy anything built at Ponte Vista, that hasn't been built with union labor!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Clean San Pedro
I don't normally have newspaper articles appear on my blogs the day of their publication, but this article should be important to all of us and I think getting the word out to as many people as possible, is the correct thing to do.
The following is an article written by Ms. Donna Littlejohn for The Daily Breeze.
______________________________________________
No Cash for This Trash
By Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/25/2008 10:55:36 PM PDT
It didn't take long for Steve Kleinjan's answering machine to fill up after sending out a notice early this week saying Clean San Pedro would have to suspend operations.
"My e-mail is just about filled, my phone has rung off the hook," Kleinjan said.
Dedicated to combating litter and graffiti, the popular grass-roots effort he established six years ago is simply running too low on funds, Kleinjan said.
"Everyone means well and is very receptive, but it's just a matter of getting the check in the mail," Kleinjan said. "We're an independent group and normally we try to raise our own funds through fundraisers."
Kleinjan said he hopes the suspension of activity will be temporary, noting the outpouring from community members this week since he made the announcement.
Among Clean San Pedro's staunch supporters is Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who singled the group out for citywide recognition in 2006.
"I can't imagine San Pedro without Clean San Pedro," she said. "We've really come to depend on them. They've put the pride back in San Pedro."
Hahn is urging neighborhood councils to pitch in. She said she also is going to try to find resources within her office to help.
More financial support is needed between major fundraisers, Kleinjan said, to cover ongoing
expenses such as insurance and maintenance on vehicles, and buying tools and supplies.
The group also pays two part-time employees, retirees, who work 12 hours a week. They have been laid off, but Kleinjan hopes that's only temporary.
"They obviously have a serious cash flow problem," said Camilla Townsend, CEO of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce. "They need a serious commitment that's going to be ongoing so they can really do what Clean San Pedro is all about.
The last major fundraiser for Clean San Pedro was Hot Pedro Nites, a two-day nostalgic car festival held last August. The event brought in about $20,000, but that fell far short of the group's goal of raising $80,000 to $100,000.
With the next Hot Pedro Nites not happening until July, the group has been struggling to maintain its cash flow from last summer's event.
"We're running out of those funds, so instead of doing another fundraiser in the spring, I was looking to go to neighborhood councils and things like that for funding," Kleinjan said.
Founded in 2002, Clean San Pedro Inc. uses volunteers to cruise the Pacific Avenue and Gaffey Street retail corridors throughout the week, picking up trash, painting out graffiti and making sure discarded furniture and other eyesores are hauled away.
Hometown pride fuels the endeavor.
"Most of the people who volunteer grew up here and have lived here their whole lives," said Kleinjan, a 1970 San Pedro High School graduate. "We have many successful business people who are now retired and donate a lot of time to this effort. It's kind of strange to see a former businessman sitting there, sweeping curbs."
The group's annual budget is about $60,000, he said, but to do the job right, it should be closer to $150,000.
"I just couldn't continue going on as usual," he said. "These are difficult times."
Townsend said her organization is exploring ways to help, including the possibility of taking over Hot Pedro Nites as a way to save Clean San Pedro administrative funds it spends to help plan and stage the event.
Help also might come from the proposed property owners' Business Improvement District, she said.
"This is a real grass-roots operation," Townsend said. "It's the best deal in town. The sad thing is, so often communities take programs like this for granted. They're very happy to have them, but they don't stop to think about where the funding comes from. I look at this as a wake-up call."
HOW TO HELP
What: Clean San Pedro Inc., a six-year-old nonprofit group, is in need of more donations.
Donations: Checks can be made out and mailed to Clean San Pedro Inc., 3616 S. Walker St., San Pedro, CA 90731.
Information: www.cleansanpedro.org; 310-832-4931.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
_________________________________________________
O.K., let's read your excuses for not helping out this organization.
You could write that you spent the $440.00 you and your wife won at the Thunder Valley Casino on Saturday, but spent it all at another casino. We did and we didn't, so my check is ready for me to slip into the mailbox as I leave for yet another pre-surgery test.
You could write that you are on disability and can't afford the bucks. I am and you probably aren't. Next excuse.
You could write that you spend you contribution dollars on making buttons for causes you believe are important on OUR community. I do, but Clean San Pedro is a worthy cause that just might inspire me to create some new buttons that group can offer for donations.
You could write that you are a Bisno supporter and are saving to buy one of his "affordable" condos. I'm not, but I also don't think that $300,000.00 for 600 square feet in some of the worst climate in OUR community is worth it.
You could write that you have given so much to OUR community that you feel you should be compared to John Olguin. You certainly can't and neither can I, ever. But I have a real belief that John will be walking the few blocks from his house to the Walker Avenue address to drop off a donation.
You could write some excuse that we can all shed a tear at, but please don't. I don't have a reasonable, realistic, responsible, or respectful excuse for not contributing to Clean San Pedro until now, and you surely don't either, I firmly bet.
So let's just get to the mission at hand. Get out those checkbooks, make motions in your organizations to donate, have a rummage sale with proceeds going to this worthy group, and don't do anything that will cause Clean San Pedro to have to pick up after you!
Hey Bob, your blight is a nuisance we have to live with. How about thinking about the community you supposedly believe you know what is best for, and give a chunk of change to Clean San Pedro. They can't clean up your mess, unless you hire them, but they can help keep San Pedro cleaner than you patch of.......whatever.
Hey OUR community, let's make the next Hot Pedro Nites the best ever!
The following is an article written by Ms. Donna Littlejohn for The Daily Breeze.
______________________________________________
No Cash for This Trash
By Donna Littlejohn, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/25/2008 10:55:36 PM PDT
It didn't take long for Steve Kleinjan's answering machine to fill up after sending out a notice early this week saying Clean San Pedro would have to suspend operations.
"My e-mail is just about filled, my phone has rung off the hook," Kleinjan said.
Dedicated to combating litter and graffiti, the popular grass-roots effort he established six years ago is simply running too low on funds, Kleinjan said.
"Everyone means well and is very receptive, but it's just a matter of getting the check in the mail," Kleinjan said. "We're an independent group and normally we try to raise our own funds through fundraisers."
Kleinjan said he hopes the suspension of activity will be temporary, noting the outpouring from community members this week since he made the announcement.
Among Clean San Pedro's staunch supporters is Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, who singled the group out for citywide recognition in 2006.
"I can't imagine San Pedro without Clean San Pedro," she said. "We've really come to depend on them. They've put the pride back in San Pedro."
Hahn is urging neighborhood councils to pitch in. She said she also is going to try to find resources within her office to help.
More financial support is needed between major fundraisers, Kleinjan said, to cover ongoing
expenses such as insurance and maintenance on vehicles, and buying tools and supplies.
The group also pays two part-time employees, retirees, who work 12 hours a week. They have been laid off, but Kleinjan hopes that's only temporary.
"They obviously have a serious cash flow problem," said Camilla Townsend, CEO of the San Pedro Chamber of Commerce. "They need a serious commitment that's going to be ongoing so they can really do what Clean San Pedro is all about.
The last major fundraiser for Clean San Pedro was Hot Pedro Nites, a two-day nostalgic car festival held last August. The event brought in about $20,000, but that fell far short of the group's goal of raising $80,000 to $100,000.
With the next Hot Pedro Nites not happening until July, the group has been struggling to maintain its cash flow from last summer's event.
"We're running out of those funds, so instead of doing another fundraiser in the spring, I was looking to go to neighborhood councils and things like that for funding," Kleinjan said.
Founded in 2002, Clean San Pedro Inc. uses volunteers to cruise the Pacific Avenue and Gaffey Street retail corridors throughout the week, picking up trash, painting out graffiti and making sure discarded furniture and other eyesores are hauled away.
Hometown pride fuels the endeavor.
"Most of the people who volunteer grew up here and have lived here their whole lives," said Kleinjan, a 1970 San Pedro High School graduate. "We have many successful business people who are now retired and donate a lot of time to this effort. It's kind of strange to see a former businessman sitting there, sweeping curbs."
The group's annual budget is about $60,000, he said, but to do the job right, it should be closer to $150,000.
"I just couldn't continue going on as usual," he said. "These are difficult times."
Townsend said her organization is exploring ways to help, including the possibility of taking over Hot Pedro Nites as a way to save Clean San Pedro administrative funds it spends to help plan and stage the event.
Help also might come from the proposed property owners' Business Improvement District, she said.
"This is a real grass-roots operation," Townsend said. "It's the best deal in town. The sad thing is, so often communities take programs like this for granted. They're very happy to have them, but they don't stop to think about where the funding comes from. I look at this as a wake-up call."
HOW TO HELP
What: Clean San Pedro Inc., a six-year-old nonprofit group, is in need of more donations.
Donations: Checks can be made out and mailed to Clean San Pedro Inc., 3616 S. Walker St., San Pedro, CA 90731.
Information: www.cleansanpedro.org; 310-832-4931.
donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
_________________________________________________
O.K., let's read your excuses for not helping out this organization.
You could write that you spent the $440.00 you and your wife won at the Thunder Valley Casino on Saturday, but spent it all at another casino. We did and we didn't, so my check is ready for me to slip into the mailbox as I leave for yet another pre-surgery test.
You could write that you are on disability and can't afford the bucks. I am and you probably aren't. Next excuse.
You could write that you spend you contribution dollars on making buttons for causes you believe are important on OUR community. I do, but Clean San Pedro is a worthy cause that just might inspire me to create some new buttons that group can offer for donations.
You could write that you are a Bisno supporter and are saving to buy one of his "affordable" condos. I'm not, but I also don't think that $300,000.00 for 600 square feet in some of the worst climate in OUR community is worth it.
You could write that you have given so much to OUR community that you feel you should be compared to John Olguin. You certainly can't and neither can I, ever. But I have a real belief that John will be walking the few blocks from his house to the Walker Avenue address to drop off a donation.
You could write some excuse that we can all shed a tear at, but please don't. I don't have a reasonable, realistic, responsible, or respectful excuse for not contributing to Clean San Pedro until now, and you surely don't either, I firmly bet.
So let's just get to the mission at hand. Get out those checkbooks, make motions in your organizations to donate, have a rummage sale with proceeds going to this worthy group, and don't do anything that will cause Clean San Pedro to have to pick up after you!
Hey Bob, your blight is a nuisance we have to live with. How about thinking about the community you supposedly believe you know what is best for, and give a chunk of change to Clean San Pedro. They can't clean up your mess, unless you hire them, but they can help keep San Pedro cleaner than you patch of.......whatever.
Hey OUR community, let's make the next Hot Pedro Nites the best ever!
Bob Bisno Pledges $25K
This is good.
Bob Bisno is reported in an article in the Thursday Daily Breeze, to be pledging to provide $25,000 to Clean San Pedro.
I hope other developers in San Pedro also help get this valuable group back on track to help clean up areas near their developments.
I for one, didn't pledge a dime. I simply wrote out my check, addressed my envelope, put a stamp on it, and dropped it into the mail.
There was no need to have an article in a newspaper written about my donation.
Let's hope to read or learn that organizations and groups all around OUR community come through with needed funds to get Clean San Pedro back up and running without worries of this type of thing happening again.
Bob Bisno is reported in an article in the Thursday Daily Breeze, to be pledging to provide $25,000 to Clean San Pedro.
I hope other developers in San Pedro also help get this valuable group back on track to help clean up areas near their developments.
I for one, didn't pledge a dime. I simply wrote out my check, addressed my envelope, put a stamp on it, and dropped it into the mail.
There was no need to have an article in a newspaper written about my donation.
Let's hope to read or learn that organizations and groups all around OUR community come through with needed funds to get Clean San Pedro back up and running without worries of this type of thing happening again.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Odds and Ends 57
My oh my, weapons of mass development sure took a beating this week. Here in our neck of the woods, the Planning Commission sided with Councilwoman Janice Hahn, the group Vista del Oro Neighbors Against Condos, and many others to block attempts to allow a condominium or apartment complex from being built on the site of the former McCowan's Market.
Now, that fight is not officially over because the motion passed by the Planning Commission still has to go through the City Council's Land Use and Planning Committee before it gets final approval from the full City Council. But placing the Q "Qualification" Condition on the three lots, currently zoned C1-1XL is more of a formality now.
Sure Mike R. and his buddies can sue the City. Let them spend their money on something that won't be built.
Las Lomas WAS being considered by the Planning Department through environmental studies the department had been recently working on. That is until the L.A. City Council by a 10-5 vote, told the Planning Department to stop further studies on the over 5,500 dwelling weapon of mass development or over development at the northern end of the San Fernando Valley.
It would be like what I wish would happen right now with the Ponte Vista at San Pedro development.
I wish the L.A. City Council would tell the Planning Department to stop their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Since the Planning Department may be liable in the future for not requiring, at this time, a circulation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report, Bob and his buddies could very easily claim that any lawsuits brought up because of unforeseen impacts from a document that is too old and where the potential impacts have changed, may make the City of Los Angeles liable instead of Bisno Development.
Right now, the City Council has a golden opportunity to save itself and taxpayers by halting the review by the Planning Department until either a new Draft Environmental Impact Report is circulated, or the decision is made that this over development it simply too large for OUR community.
Like Las Lomas, I would rather have the taxpayers pay for defending the City now, than having everyone pay, for generations, the price demanded for building such an overly large development in OUR community.
_________________________________________________
Over developments are coming at OUR community from more angles that you may think.
The proposal to build a "1,215"-seat high school right next to the fun part of Alma Street, is dumber than a doorknob, and we all know it, in our guts.
LAUSD is claiming that their "405"-seat per academy school would have only 27 students per classroom. But when asked, even our area's elected Board of Education member states and confirms that any new high campus in San Pedro WOULD NOT DECREASE class sizes.
Now my generous nature currently considers that there MAY be only an average of 34 students attending each class at San Pedro High School.
If, as planned, classes would simply move lock, stock, and teacher from the main campus to any new campus, then the student count at any new school would be 1,530 students.
I guess some folks at LAUSD did not have arithmetic instructors.
1,215-seats at 27 students each equals a need for 45 classrooms, exactly as the Initial Study states.
But having the "average" number of students (34) times the number of classrooms planned (45)and that looks like: 34X45= 1,530.
Now Rod Hamilton of the Facilities Services Division of LAUSD will tell you that only 810-seats will be initially built.
O.K. Rod, then take 810-seats divided by 27 students per class, and there you have your precious 30 classrooms.
Now Rod, we both know that the average number of students taking regular classes at S.P.H.S. is higher than 27 students per class. Does Rod think we are that stupid?
O.K., Rod, I'll again be generous and estimate that there are only an average of 34 students per classroom at the main campus.
So, if my high school math was correctly taught to me, 34 students times 30 classrooms equals 1,020 students and not the "810" number you have mentioned.
And the number "810" for the seat count, and "30" for the number of classrooms at the proposed campus, are found NOWHERE in the Initial Study.
Even if I am wrong by 10% in the average number of students per class, then there could be an average class size of up to 37.4 students, or as low as 30.6 students.
If we use those averages in a 45-classroom environment, then there could possible be as few as 1,377 students to as many as1,683 students.
And here "they" all keep telling us that this particular development may have only 1,215 students.
LAUSD, Give US a break. OUR community is much smarter than you give us credit for.
_____________________________________________
Now cruise ships and passenger liners seem to be getting bigger, year to year. The more people you can stuff into a finite space, the higher the density and, most likely, the profits.
Now we get to view the beautiful H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth II, H.M.S. Queen Mary, and now the
Brand new H.M.S. Queen Victoria.
It seems Disney is building a very, very large cruise ship. Other companies are coming up with larger and larger ships. We simply don't have the inner harbor area or height to allow these monsters to navigate to our current cruise ship terminals, without having to back down the main channel.
The West turning basin may be large enough to allow ships, many under their own control, to turn around. But we have that "Don't it Make Your Green Bridge Blue" span that is too short to allow these floating resorts navigate under it, twice, and turn around.
The plan is to keep the little (2,000-passenger) cruise ships coming to the Berth 93 terminals. The when the larger (4,000+passenger) cruise ships and ocean liners want to dock, they may use the future terminals at Kaiser Point, in the outer harbor.
So, take the ships with the most passengers, their luggage, their hidden booze, their want to get to their ship as soon as possible, and stick the terminals out at the very end of the port, the furthest point away from a freeway, and large ship can dock at.
Smart, isn't it?
Well, on this over development, I'm still a fence sitter. IF the Port of L.A. really, really wants the new terminal built, OUR community is going to need some goodies from the Port of L.A.
I want an overhead monorail from the parking structure they may build at Berth 93 to the new terminal. I want it to be free for everybody and I want it to make stops in downtown San Pedro, along the visitor's wharfs like the San Pedro Landing, and I want it to "fly" over the fishing boat slip near the end of 22Nd Street.
An overhead monorail would allow everyone to shop downtown San Pedro, visit Ports-of-Call and the Fish Market, view the beauty of San Pedro and OUR harbor, and keep folks OFF THE ROADS!!!!!!!!!
Now I'm not stating that we could keep the taxis and shuttle buses from going all the way through downtown San Pedro, but whatever mitigation of traffic that could be done, must be done.
I want land from the Port somewhere in downtown San Pedro to have another major supermarket built so that all the new residents of the condos and apartments in downtown will be welcomed by so many other folks that have lived in OUR community and all of them can be within walking distance of a much needed market.
I want an Olympic-size swimming pool for OUR community. If the Port gets the area of the scout center back and makes it open and available to the whole community, year round, then that might be a great idea.
Now I know the Port of L.A. is about as thoughtful as LAUSD, in how they work with the community, but I really feel if the Port of L.A. is serious about a super-humongous terminal at the end of OUR community and the end of Los Angeles, then I think OUR community needs to feel they are not stuck with something they have to deal with, without any compensation.
____________________________________________________
Several of us tried to ask Betsy Weisman, of the Planning Department, when more information would be coming out about what the planning department feels could be built at Ponte Vista.
She must be a really good bureaucrat, because she would not admit to anything and she smiled as the shrugged us off.
___________________________________________________
It looks like April 29 is still the date Bob's house gets auctioned off. Someone commented that the issue was over "investment", but since that person didn't elaborate, I see no reason to suggest anything other than what I can find via public records.
The public records state that Bob took out about a $7 Million Dollar loan on the property and he defaulted on a $4 Million Dollar payment. With interest and penalties, the public records state that the amount that is owed is approximately $4.6 Million Dollars. Public records stated that the impending sale is a "sheriff's sale".
The property's property taxes are up to date.
____________________________________________________
Now, that fight is not officially over because the motion passed by the Planning Commission still has to go through the City Council's Land Use and Planning Committee before it gets final approval from the full City Council. But placing the Q "Qualification" Condition on the three lots, currently zoned C1-1XL is more of a formality now.
Sure Mike R. and his buddies can sue the City. Let them spend their money on something that won't be built.
Las Lomas WAS being considered by the Planning Department through environmental studies the department had been recently working on. That is until the L.A. City Council by a 10-5 vote, told the Planning Department to stop further studies on the over 5,500 dwelling weapon of mass development or over development at the northern end of the San Fernando Valley.
It would be like what I wish would happen right now with the Ponte Vista at San Pedro development.
I wish the L.A. City Council would tell the Planning Department to stop their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Since the Planning Department may be liable in the future for not requiring, at this time, a circulation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report, Bob and his buddies could very easily claim that any lawsuits brought up because of unforeseen impacts from a document that is too old and where the potential impacts have changed, may make the City of Los Angeles liable instead of Bisno Development.
Right now, the City Council has a golden opportunity to save itself and taxpayers by halting the review by the Planning Department until either a new Draft Environmental Impact Report is circulated, or the decision is made that this over development it simply too large for OUR community.
Like Las Lomas, I would rather have the taxpayers pay for defending the City now, than having everyone pay, for generations, the price demanded for building such an overly large development in OUR community.
_________________________________________________
Over developments are coming at OUR community from more angles that you may think.
The proposal to build a "1,215"-seat high school right next to the fun part of Alma Street, is dumber than a doorknob, and we all know it, in our guts.
LAUSD is claiming that their "405"-seat per academy school would have only 27 students per classroom. But when asked, even our area's elected Board of Education member states and confirms that any new high campus in San Pedro WOULD NOT DECREASE class sizes.
Now my generous nature currently considers that there MAY be only an average of 34 students attending each class at San Pedro High School.
If, as planned, classes would simply move lock, stock, and teacher from the main campus to any new campus, then the student count at any new school would be 1,530 students.
I guess some folks at LAUSD did not have arithmetic instructors.
1,215-seats at 27 students each equals a need for 45 classrooms, exactly as the Initial Study states.
But having the "average" number of students (34) times the number of classrooms planned (45)and that looks like: 34X45= 1,530.
Now Rod Hamilton of the Facilities Services Division of LAUSD will tell you that only 810-seats will be initially built.
O.K. Rod, then take 810-seats divided by 27 students per class, and there you have your precious 30 classrooms.
Now Rod, we both know that the average number of students taking regular classes at S.P.H.S. is higher than 27 students per class. Does Rod think we are that stupid?
O.K., Rod, I'll again be generous and estimate that there are only an average of 34 students per classroom at the main campus.
So, if my high school math was correctly taught to me, 34 students times 30 classrooms equals 1,020 students and not the "810" number you have mentioned.
And the number "810" for the seat count, and "30" for the number of classrooms at the proposed campus, are found NOWHERE in the Initial Study.
Even if I am wrong by 10% in the average number of students per class, then there could be an average class size of up to 37.4 students, or as low as 30.6 students.
If we use those averages in a 45-classroom environment, then there could possible be as few as 1,377 students to as many as1,683 students.
And here "they" all keep telling us that this particular development may have only 1,215 students.
LAUSD, Give US a break. OUR community is much smarter than you give us credit for.
_____________________________________________
Now cruise ships and passenger liners seem to be getting bigger, year to year. The more people you can stuff into a finite space, the higher the density and, most likely, the profits.
Now we get to view the beautiful H.M.S. Queen Elizabeth II, H.M.S. Queen Mary, and now the
Brand new H.M.S. Queen Victoria.
It seems Disney is building a very, very large cruise ship. Other companies are coming up with larger and larger ships. We simply don't have the inner harbor area or height to allow these monsters to navigate to our current cruise ship terminals, without having to back down the main channel.
The West turning basin may be large enough to allow ships, many under their own control, to turn around. But we have that "Don't it Make Your Green Bridge Blue" span that is too short to allow these floating resorts navigate under it, twice, and turn around.
The plan is to keep the little (2,000-passenger) cruise ships coming to the Berth 93 terminals. The when the larger (4,000+passenger) cruise ships and ocean liners want to dock, they may use the future terminals at Kaiser Point, in the outer harbor.
So, take the ships with the most passengers, their luggage, their hidden booze, their want to get to their ship as soon as possible, and stick the terminals out at the very end of the port, the furthest point away from a freeway, and large ship can dock at.
Smart, isn't it?
Well, on this over development, I'm still a fence sitter. IF the Port of L.A. really, really wants the new terminal built, OUR community is going to need some goodies from the Port of L.A.
I want an overhead monorail from the parking structure they may build at Berth 93 to the new terminal. I want it to be free for everybody and I want it to make stops in downtown San Pedro, along the visitor's wharfs like the San Pedro Landing, and I want it to "fly" over the fishing boat slip near the end of 22Nd Street.
An overhead monorail would allow everyone to shop downtown San Pedro, visit Ports-of-Call and the Fish Market, view the beauty of San Pedro and OUR harbor, and keep folks OFF THE ROADS!!!!!!!!!
Now I'm not stating that we could keep the taxis and shuttle buses from going all the way through downtown San Pedro, but whatever mitigation of traffic that could be done, must be done.
I want land from the Port somewhere in downtown San Pedro to have another major supermarket built so that all the new residents of the condos and apartments in downtown will be welcomed by so many other folks that have lived in OUR community and all of them can be within walking distance of a much needed market.
I want an Olympic-size swimming pool for OUR community. If the Port gets the area of the scout center back and makes it open and available to the whole community, year round, then that might be a great idea.
Now I know the Port of L.A. is about as thoughtful as LAUSD, in how they work with the community, but I really feel if the Port of L.A. is serious about a super-humongous terminal at the end of OUR community and the end of Los Angeles, then I think OUR community needs to feel they are not stuck with something they have to deal with, without any compensation.
____________________________________________________
Several of us tried to ask Betsy Weisman, of the Planning Department, when more information would be coming out about what the planning department feels could be built at Ponte Vista.
She must be a really good bureaucrat, because she would not admit to anything and she smiled as the shrugged us off.
___________________________________________________
It looks like April 29 is still the date Bob's house gets auctioned off. Someone commented that the issue was over "investment", but since that person didn't elaborate, I see no reason to suggest anything other than what I can find via public records.
The public records state that Bob took out about a $7 Million Dollar loan on the property and he defaulted on a $4 Million Dollar payment. With interest and penalties, the public records state that the amount that is owed is approximately $4.6 Million Dollars. Public records stated that the impending sale is a "sheriff's sale".
The property's property taxes are up to date.
____________________________________________________
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Another Weapon of Mass Development Bites the Dust!
The following piece of news is from The Daily News.
LA says 'NO' to Las Lomas development
By Kerry Cavanaugh Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 03/19/2008 01:21:21 PM PDT
The Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to stop processing Las Lomas' application to build a 5,553-home mini-city, essentially killing the development project.
The council voted 10-5 in favor of Councilman Greig Smith's proposal to block the project.Council members Richard Alarcon, Jose Huizar, Bernard Parks, Ed Reyes and Herb Wesson cast the no votes.
After the hearing, Smith said he was ecstatic over the decision."This was critically important at this moment in time for the city of L.A. that we say, No. We can not afford overdevelopment and this is overdevelopment."
A longtime Las Lomas opponent, Smith had crafted the strategy and pushed his colleagues to stop the project, despite warnings from the City Attorney's office that doing so could prompt a lawsuit that the city would lose.
Ultimately, council members overruled the City Attorney's advice.Councilman Richard Alarcon had echoed the City Attorney's concerns and he said he was disappointed the council would open the city to such a legal risk.
Las Lomas Land Co. President Dan S. Palmer, Jr. would not comment on a possible lawsuit, but said he was disappointed."We're going to look at all the options," Palmer said. "Las Lomas is a fine project providing many benefits to the community and we remain committed to it."
__________________________________________________
The proposed weapon was going to be in the north end of the San Fernando Valley near the interchange of the I5 and 14 Freeways.It was and is still a huge monster that needs to be fought, even in the probable upcoming lawsuits.
LA says 'NO' to Las Lomas development
By Kerry Cavanaugh Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 03/19/2008 01:21:21 PM PDT
The Los Angeles City Council voted Wednesday to stop processing Las Lomas' application to build a 5,553-home mini-city, essentially killing the development project.
The council voted 10-5 in favor of Councilman Greig Smith's proposal to block the project.Council members Richard Alarcon, Jose Huizar, Bernard Parks, Ed Reyes and Herb Wesson cast the no votes.
After the hearing, Smith said he was ecstatic over the decision."This was critically important at this moment in time for the city of L.A. that we say, No. We can not afford overdevelopment and this is overdevelopment."
A longtime Las Lomas opponent, Smith had crafted the strategy and pushed his colleagues to stop the project, despite warnings from the City Attorney's office that doing so could prompt a lawsuit that the city would lose.
Ultimately, council members overruled the City Attorney's advice.Councilman Richard Alarcon had echoed the City Attorney's concerns and he said he was disappointed the council would open the city to such a legal risk.
Las Lomas Land Co. President Dan S. Palmer, Jr. would not comment on a possible lawsuit, but said he was disappointed."We're going to look at all the options," Palmer said. "Las Lomas is a fine project providing many benefits to the community and we remain committed to it."
__________________________________________________
The proposed weapon was going to be in the north end of the San Fernando Valley near the interchange of the I5 and 14 Freeways.It was and is still a huge monster that needs to be fought, even in the probable upcoming lawsuits.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
VDONAC Equals Victory!
Vista del Oro Neighbors Against Condos (VDONAC) won a major victory against an overdeveloper when the Harbor Area Planning Commission voted 3-0 to support a motion brought forward by Councilwoman Janice Hahn, which places a restriction on what can be built on three lots that formerly was the site of the McCowan's Market.
The three members of the Planning Commission were greeted by a standing room only gathering of concerned San Pedro residents who are determined to keep the three lots, currently zoned C1-1XL from having condominium or apartments units built on them.
Approximately 20 residents provided comments to the Planning Commission members and the rest of the audience as to why the three lots should only have single-family, detached houses built on them, one per lot.
The motion brought forth by Councilwoman Hahn was to place a Q Qualification Condition on three lots currently zoned as commercial lots.
The developer of the site, Mike Rosenthal tore down a much beloved and historical market he bought in 2007 and attempted to build between 15-19 units on the three, combined lots.
With the Q Qualification Condition now voted to be placed on the three lots, the developer is restricted to building residential units the conform to R1 standards which is one-single-family, detached dwelling per each lot of not less than 5,000 square feet.
In testimony given before the Planning Commission, Ms Betsy Weisman of the L.A. City Planning Department was asked by one commissioner if the Q Qualification Condition was common in other cities or unique to Los Angeles.
Ms. Weisman stated that this particular restriction is very unique to Los Angeles and most other cities, to her knowledge, have that exact type of restriction.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn attended the meeting and gave her remarks in great support for the motion brought forth to place the Q Qualification Condition on the three lots.
Mr. Rosenthal, who is already in the process of building 3-single-family, detached houses on the three lots already zoned for that type of residential building, will not have the opportunity to build three more of the types of houses that are found the neighborhood.
The Q Qualification Condition places a restriction so that only residential houses that conform to the majority of the houses in the surrounding, may be built.
The zone change will take the three lots currently zoned C1-1Xl and change them to QC1-1Xl.
___________________________________________________
Perhaps this change in allowing overdevelopment to spread into a largely R1 neighborhood, may have impacts on the Ponte Vista issue as well.
Ms. Elise Swanson, the Vice President in charge of the Ponte Vista Outreach Team was joined by two of her associates, at the Planning Commission meeting.
What might this denial of potential overdevelopment in one neighborhood, have on what the Planning Department and even the Planning Commission may now look at?
In the Vista del Oro neighborhood of San Pedro, attempting to build up to twenty units in a neighborhood of single-family homes, is a weapon of mass development, no matter that it was on a much smaller scale than what OUR community is facing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
__________________________________________________
Personally, I would like to first thank Barbara Dragich and her husband, Nick. They were the "Generals" in the central command of this fight. They both took on an issue they has very little knowledge of how to fight, and they rose to the occasion beyond imagination.
They are true San Pedrans and a great credit to all of us.
Ms. Michele Burk handled many details as a superior facilitator that she is. While continuing her services to OUR community as a Board Member of the San Pedro Pirate Lady Boosters, she took on many tasks with very little notice and help VDONAC immeasurably.
Next I need to put a great shout out to Councilwoman Janice Hahn and her fantastic staff, When presented by a flood of phone calls, Emails, and snail mails from her constituents, concerning the matter, she and her staff made quick work of researching the Q Qualification Condition and how it could be placed on the lots on the corner of 20Th Street and Walker Avenue.
Ms. Hahn brought forth a motion to go before the Planning Commission, and we are all grateful for he swift and decisive actions.
Next, it's the neighbors and the neighborhood which deserves a big hand. I doubt if there has ever been an issue that brought so many San Pedrans so quickly together with a common purpose to safe the quality of life in, at least, part of San Pedro.
I also want to give credit to the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council which sprang into action immediately upon hearing of the plight the stakeholders were being confronted with.
A special shout out need to go to Ms. Linda Marincovich, the chair of the Planning Committee for the Neighborhood Council. Linda dove into assisting anyone and everyone, taking her time to learn what VDONAC needed and making sure they were supported 100%.
It's San Pedro and San Pedrans at their finest! They encountered a developer who considered his profits before his citizenship, I feel, and the folks living in the area gave him a big check to the backboards.
Everyone in OUR community can feel pride in the accomplishments of the members of VDONAC and their supporters. They showed what is best in OUR community, and again and again, it's the people in OUR community that are simply the best!
__________________________________________________
Unfortunately the work of many concerned San Pedrans is far from being over. Weapons of mass development still loom on our horizon. Whether it is the proposed overdevelopment of Ponte Vista, the plight Palisades residents are facing with the fact that a school that is too large is proposed for their neighborhood, or whether we all have to do battle with the Port of L.A. and their mission of building a new cruise ship terminal at Kaiser Point, overdevelopments and weapons of mass developments need to be challenged no matter where they are.
The Vista del Oro Neighborhood can finally have a more peaceful night.
We all won this time.
The three members of the Planning Commission were greeted by a standing room only gathering of concerned San Pedro residents who are determined to keep the three lots, currently zoned C1-1XL from having condominium or apartments units built on them.
Approximately 20 residents provided comments to the Planning Commission members and the rest of the audience as to why the three lots should only have single-family, detached houses built on them, one per lot.
The motion brought forth by Councilwoman Hahn was to place a Q Qualification Condition on three lots currently zoned as commercial lots.
The developer of the site, Mike Rosenthal tore down a much beloved and historical market he bought in 2007 and attempted to build between 15-19 units on the three, combined lots.
With the Q Qualification Condition now voted to be placed on the three lots, the developer is restricted to building residential units the conform to R1 standards which is one-single-family, detached dwelling per each lot of not less than 5,000 square feet.
In testimony given before the Planning Commission, Ms Betsy Weisman of the L.A. City Planning Department was asked by one commissioner if the Q Qualification Condition was common in other cities or unique to Los Angeles.
Ms. Weisman stated that this particular restriction is very unique to Los Angeles and most other cities, to her knowledge, have that exact type of restriction.
Councilwoman Janice Hahn attended the meeting and gave her remarks in great support for the motion brought forth to place the Q Qualification Condition on the three lots.
Mr. Rosenthal, who is already in the process of building 3-single-family, detached houses on the three lots already zoned for that type of residential building, will not have the opportunity to build three more of the types of houses that are found the neighborhood.
The Q Qualification Condition places a restriction so that only residential houses that conform to the majority of the houses in the surrounding, may be built.
The zone change will take the three lots currently zoned C1-1Xl and change them to QC1-1Xl.
___________________________________________________
Perhaps this change in allowing overdevelopment to spread into a largely R1 neighborhood, may have impacts on the Ponte Vista issue as well.
Ms. Elise Swanson, the Vice President in charge of the Ponte Vista Outreach Team was joined by two of her associates, at the Planning Commission meeting.
What might this denial of potential overdevelopment in one neighborhood, have on what the Planning Department and even the Planning Commission may now look at?
In the Vista del Oro neighborhood of San Pedro, attempting to build up to twenty units in a neighborhood of single-family homes, is a weapon of mass development, no matter that it was on a much smaller scale than what OUR community is facing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
__________________________________________________
Personally, I would like to first thank Barbara Dragich and her husband, Nick. They were the "Generals" in the central command of this fight. They both took on an issue they has very little knowledge of how to fight, and they rose to the occasion beyond imagination.
They are true San Pedrans and a great credit to all of us.
Ms. Michele Burk handled many details as a superior facilitator that she is. While continuing her services to OUR community as a Board Member of the San Pedro Pirate Lady Boosters, she took on many tasks with very little notice and help VDONAC immeasurably.
Next I need to put a great shout out to Councilwoman Janice Hahn and her fantastic staff, When presented by a flood of phone calls, Emails, and snail mails from her constituents, concerning the matter, she and her staff made quick work of researching the Q Qualification Condition and how it could be placed on the lots on the corner of 20Th Street and Walker Avenue.
Ms. Hahn brought forth a motion to go before the Planning Commission, and we are all grateful for he swift and decisive actions.
Next, it's the neighbors and the neighborhood which deserves a big hand. I doubt if there has ever been an issue that brought so many San Pedrans so quickly together with a common purpose to safe the quality of life in, at least, part of San Pedro.
I also want to give credit to the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council which sprang into action immediately upon hearing of the plight the stakeholders were being confronted with.
A special shout out need to go to Ms. Linda Marincovich, the chair of the Planning Committee for the Neighborhood Council. Linda dove into assisting anyone and everyone, taking her time to learn what VDONAC needed and making sure they were supported 100%.
It's San Pedro and San Pedrans at their finest! They encountered a developer who considered his profits before his citizenship, I feel, and the folks living in the area gave him a big check to the backboards.
Everyone in OUR community can feel pride in the accomplishments of the members of VDONAC and their supporters. They showed what is best in OUR community, and again and again, it's the people in OUR community that are simply the best!
__________________________________________________
Unfortunately the work of many concerned San Pedrans is far from being over. Weapons of mass development still loom on our horizon. Whether it is the proposed overdevelopment of Ponte Vista, the plight Palisades residents are facing with the fact that a school that is too large is proposed for their neighborhood, or whether we all have to do battle with the Port of L.A. and their mission of building a new cruise ship terminal at Kaiser Point, overdevelopments and weapons of mass developments need to be challenged no matter where they are.
The Vista del Oro Neighborhood can finally have a more peaceful night.
We all won this time.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Residents Oppose Development
The following article was written for the SGV Tribune which serves the San Gabriel Valley.
Residents oppose development
By Tania Chatila, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/15/2008 12:04:16 AM PDT
BALDWIN PARK - Property owners rallied against a proposed multimillion-dollar development this week at a forum backing eminent domain reform.
More than 200 residents and business owners attended the meeting Thursday at the Baldwin Park Marriott. It was hosted by the Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability, a Baldwin Park-based nonprofit formed in opposition to the city's redevelopment plans for the downtown.
Baldwin Park is in talks with Bisno Development Co. for a 125-acre renovation of its main commercial corridor that could include a new hotel, a charter school and thousands of luxury residential units.
More than 200 businesses and homes face relocation through eminent domain, depending on the outcome of the project and two legislative initiatives - both slated for June - aimed at limiting eminent domain powers.
One of those initiatives, Proposition 98, was heavily pushed by several groups at the forum, including the National Federation of Independent Business/California, the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Institute for Justice.
Proposition 98 would restrict city agencies from taking property through eminent domain and turning it over to private developers.
Marko Mlikotin, president of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, said the forum was meant to provide information to residents about Baldwin Park's situation and gather
support for the proposition.
"The government's power to forcibly seize private property from property owners is unquestionable," Mlikotin said.
He called the Baldwin Park case "one of the most egregious" he'd seen in years.
"The only thing that can save them," Mlikotin said, "is legal reform."
Among the several speakers Thursday was Jeff Rowes, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which litigates property rights cases.
Rowes encouraged property owners to protest, make public records requests and create their own records of city actions.
"What Baldwin Park wants to do is replace people of modest means with rich people because rich people have more money," he said. "I think the only realistic chance to save these neighborhoods is through a lawsuit."
A question-and-answer period garnered several heated comments from angry residents and business owners who accused city officials of being evasive about project plans.
"I intend to retire when I'm ready," said Rosalva Breceda, owner of the Maine Avenue Penhmar Beauty Salon, "not when the city says they need that space."
Other residents - some of whom were not from Baldwin Park - told stories of losing their homes through
Joey Davis, who lost his Los Angeles home through eminent domain, demands Baldwin Park property owners get involved in saving their homes and businesses from seizure for a proposed downtown development during a town hall forum at the Badwin Park Merriott on Thursday, March 13, 2008. (Staff photo by Tania Chatila) eminent domain.
"What you see here is the heart of Baldwin Park," said James Treasure, president of CARA.
"This is just the beginning of our movement."
City officials have refuted claims they've been deceitful and have said their plans will benefit Baldwin Park.
While in support of the project, Councilman Ricardo Pacheco said he believes better communication could make the proposed development less contentious.
"The city itself needs to do its public outreach to get input from the community," Pacheco said. "I think we need to emphasize more inclusion."
tania.chatila@sgvn.com
______________________________________________________
Bob seems to have a panchant for going into an area and messing around with the local environment and people who live in communities.
I am following Bob's antics in Baldwin Park and Santa Ana and I will continue to look for information about Bisno and his weapons of mass development, no matter where they are.
In Baldwin Park, Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability or C.A.R.A. has been formed to fight against the taking of property by use of Baldwin Park's right of eminent domain.
It appears now that wherever Bob goes, organizations designed to counter Bob's attempts spring up, grow, and have clout.
Perhaps the Cities of Baldwin Park, Santa Ana, and San Pedro should adopt a common three-letter word; GAB. That stands for Go Away Bob.
Residents oppose development
By Tania Chatila, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 03/15/2008 12:04:16 AM PDT
BALDWIN PARK - Property owners rallied against a proposed multimillion-dollar development this week at a forum backing eminent domain reform.
More than 200 residents and business owners attended the meeting Thursday at the Baldwin Park Marriott. It was hosted by the Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability, a Baldwin Park-based nonprofit formed in opposition to the city's redevelopment plans for the downtown.
Baldwin Park is in talks with Bisno Development Co. for a 125-acre renovation of its main commercial corridor that could include a new hotel, a charter school and thousands of luxury residential units.
More than 200 businesses and homes face relocation through eminent domain, depending on the outcome of the project and two legislative initiatives - both slated for June - aimed at limiting eminent domain powers.
One of those initiatives, Proposition 98, was heavily pushed by several groups at the forum, including the National Federation of Independent Business/California, the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Institute for Justice.
Proposition 98 would restrict city agencies from taking property through eminent domain and turning it over to private developers.
Marko Mlikotin, president of the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights, said the forum was meant to provide information to residents about Baldwin Park's situation and gather
support for the proposition.
"The government's power to forcibly seize private property from property owners is unquestionable," Mlikotin said.
He called the Baldwin Park case "one of the most egregious" he'd seen in years.
"The only thing that can save them," Mlikotin said, "is legal reform."
Among the several speakers Thursday was Jeff Rowes, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, which litigates property rights cases.
Rowes encouraged property owners to protest, make public records requests and create their own records of city actions.
"What Baldwin Park wants to do is replace people of modest means with rich people because rich people have more money," he said. "I think the only realistic chance to save these neighborhoods is through a lawsuit."
A question-and-answer period garnered several heated comments from angry residents and business owners who accused city officials of being evasive about project plans.
"I intend to retire when I'm ready," said Rosalva Breceda, owner of the Maine Avenue Penhmar Beauty Salon, "not when the city says they need that space."
Other residents - some of whom were not from Baldwin Park - told stories of losing their homes through
Joey Davis, who lost his Los Angeles home through eminent domain, demands Baldwin Park property owners get involved in saving their homes and businesses from seizure for a proposed downtown development during a town hall forum at the Badwin Park Merriott on Thursday, March 13, 2008. (Staff photo by Tania Chatila) eminent domain.
"What you see here is the heart of Baldwin Park," said James Treasure, president of CARA.
"This is just the beginning of our movement."
City officials have refuted claims they've been deceitful and have said their plans will benefit Baldwin Park.
While in support of the project, Councilman Ricardo Pacheco said he believes better communication could make the proposed development less contentious.
"The city itself needs to do its public outreach to get input from the community," Pacheco said. "I think we need to emphasize more inclusion."
tania.chatila@sgvn.com
______________________________________________________
Bob seems to have a panchant for going into an area and messing around with the local environment and people who live in communities.
I am following Bob's antics in Baldwin Park and Santa Ana and I will continue to look for information about Bisno and his weapons of mass development, no matter where they are.
In Baldwin Park, Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability or C.A.R.A. has been formed to fight against the taking of property by use of Baldwin Park's right of eminent domain.
It appears now that wherever Bob goes, organizations designed to counter Bob's attempts spring up, grow, and have clout.
Perhaps the Cities of Baldwin Park, Santa Ana, and San Pedro should adopt a common three-letter word; GAB. That stands for Go Away Bob.
Friday, March 14, 2008
City of Baldwin Park residents and business owners are fighting back
City of Baldwin Park residents and business owners are fighting back is the title of a new post on the Orange Juice! blog. You can click on the title of this post to go straight to the post or you can click on:
http://www.theorangejuice.com/2008/03/city-of-baldwin-park-residents-and.html to go there.
It is wonderful to hear there is a growing number of groups and individuals who are throwing up their hands to illustrate that it is time to organize and slow down and even stop over development in the greater L.A. area.
Take a look at Google Earth and the closer you zoom towards the Los Angeles Basin, which is part of the Great Basin of the Mojave Desert, it becomes fairly plain to see that we all live in an area almost completely surrounded by mountain ranges.
We actually compare more like Mexico City in that it too, is surrounded by mountains and sits in a basin or bowl like setting, like we do.
Just how much can a basin or bowl be filled before it runs over and loses its ability to hold things?
That is what is becoming more apparent around our area, it looks like.
At some point, and that point may already have been made, we must stop and state, for better or worse, that enough is now too much.
I am sorry that there my be no more room for folks who want to move into the area. But we have to realize that many jobs that individuals are seeking just aren't here anymore.
It is probably beyond the time we should have put slowing breaks on, to the mass over developement that seems to be going on all around us.
We no longer have room to build schools to teach our kids. Our transportation infrastructure is failing to keep up with the continually growing demand.
We don't have the financial resources to build for more people to come to the area, it certainly appears.
One might even imagine that greedy developers have seen the writing on the wall and are trying their best to squeeze the last drops of outrageous profit out of the area, before they move on.
And it is all at the expense of the wonderful people who already live here.
Blog sites and Web sites continue to grow in numbers and views, decrying the over development and weapons of mass development that are attempted to be forced on the current population in areas already quite full of people, traffic, and infrastructure issues.
Let's think about slowing down, for real this time, attempts to overdevelop OUR area at OUR expense. Shouldn't we have a say in how much we are willing to give up?
http://www.theorangejuice.com/2008/03/city-of-baldwin-park-residents-and.html to go there.
It is wonderful to hear there is a growing number of groups and individuals who are throwing up their hands to illustrate that it is time to organize and slow down and even stop over development in the greater L.A. area.
Take a look at Google Earth and the closer you zoom towards the Los Angeles Basin, which is part of the Great Basin of the Mojave Desert, it becomes fairly plain to see that we all live in an area almost completely surrounded by mountain ranges.
We actually compare more like Mexico City in that it too, is surrounded by mountains and sits in a basin or bowl like setting, like we do.
Just how much can a basin or bowl be filled before it runs over and loses its ability to hold things?
That is what is becoming more apparent around our area, it looks like.
At some point, and that point may already have been made, we must stop and state, for better or worse, that enough is now too much.
I am sorry that there my be no more room for folks who want to move into the area. But we have to realize that many jobs that individuals are seeking just aren't here anymore.
It is probably beyond the time we should have put slowing breaks on, to the mass over developement that seems to be going on all around us.
We no longer have room to build schools to teach our kids. Our transportation infrastructure is failing to keep up with the continually growing demand.
We don't have the financial resources to build for more people to come to the area, it certainly appears.
One might even imagine that greedy developers have seen the writing on the wall and are trying their best to squeeze the last drops of outrageous profit out of the area, before they move on.
And it is all at the expense of the wonderful people who already live here.
Blog sites and Web sites continue to grow in numbers and views, decrying the over development and weapons of mass development that are attempted to be forced on the current population in areas already quite full of people, traffic, and infrastructure issues.
Let's think about slowing down, for real this time, attempts to overdevelop OUR area at OUR expense. Shouldn't we have a say in how much we are willing to give up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)