Information to Assist You in Considering Your Oral and/or Written Comments

Since I hope many interested opponents to what Bob Bisno is trying to do to OUR community are pondering what they may say in oral and/or written comments to the Hearing Officer at the upcoming Public Hearing, Here is some more information.

It may be not a very interesting read, but I think the two articles and one set of comments that was sent to the Planning Department for the Draft Environmental Impact Report, are very important these days.

The first article is the newest and it was printed in the California section of the Los Angeles Times, just today.

Since no matter what is built at Ponte Vista will allow all new residents the chance to find local jobs, it looks like many of them will have to commute, some quite a long way, perhaps.

Gas prices latest worry for real estate market


The financial burden of longer commutes makes homes in outlying areas that are already reeling even less attractive.

By Roger Vincent, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer June 17, 2008

Rising gas prices may be the latest ailment afflicting the housing market, as figures released Monday showed Southern California home prices plunging 27% in May from a year ago and falling even more precipitously in distant suburbs.

Outlying areas like the Antelope Valley and the Inland Empire have long appealed to people who were willing to accept a burdensome commute for the chance to own a better house. But buyers are increasingly factoring gasoline costs into their purchase decisions, said Dan Griffith, a Rancho Cucamonga-based real estate agent.

"It seems like the money they can save in housing is being absorbed by higher gas costs, so they are a little reticent to commit," Griffith said. "Gas is definitely beginning to be a concern.

"The median home sale price in six Southern California counties sank to $370,000 in May, down from $505,000 a year earlier, according to DataQuick Information Systems.DataQuick said that was the biggest annual decline it has recorded since it began tracking prices in 1988. The last time the median was lower was in March 2004, when it was $364,000.

Home sales and prices: May 2008

Price drops were especially steep in far-flung suburbs. The median price fell 38% in Lancaster and 42% in Palmdale, compared with 23% in Los Angeles County overall.

San Bernardino County saw prices drop by 31%, but it was worse in the remote town of Victorville, where values declined 43%.

Christopher Leinberger of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, says home values in these so-called exurbs may continue to languish long after urban markets begin to recover, thanks to higher gas costs.

"Under the old model we have lived with for the past 50 years, you could drive away from major employment concentrations until you could qualify for a house because cheap energy costs made it possible," Leinberger said. "Now as energy prices go up, the housing prices out there on the fringe take a major hit."

Lynette Williams, a real estate agent in Pasadena, said the clients she sees these days are more willing than in the past to accept modest homes if they are close to work.

"They're downsizing what they think their ideal house would be," Williams said. "Compared to two years ago, they are staying in closer proximity to their jobs. They're more focused on the neighborhood they want."

Foreclosures also continue to play a role in falling home values, as buyers default on loans and lenders unload properties at a discount.

Of all the Southern California homes that were resold in May, 37% had been in foreclosure at some point in the prior 12 months, DataQuick said.

Gas prices, however, could even be playing a role in foreclosures, according to real estate agent C.J. Johnson in Tehachapi.

"If someone has to decide between putting gas in the car to get to work and feed their family or [making] the house payment, believe me the house payment is not going to get paid," she said.

Johnson said most people were better off buying a home within an easy commute of work. Gas is not tax-deductible, she pointed out, but mortgage interest is.

Robert Haywood, 40, says he has seen firsthand the effect of rising gas prices. He commutes from his Lancaster home to his job as a warehouseman in Santa Clarita in a 2001 GMC Yukon, which he says gets about 16 miles to the gallon.

Haywood estimates he is spending $400 more a month on gas than he did a couple of years ago. He plans to sell his Yukon and get a smaller car with better fuel economy.

"I cannot buy myself anything," he said. "I can't buy that new barbecue grill or other little things that might keep the economy going."

The steady decline in home prices over most of the last year, meanwhile, appears to be luring bargain hunters into markets where values have fallen the most, DataQuick said.

In Riverside County, for example, home values tumbled 28.6% from May 2007 to May 2008, DataQuick said. But the volume of home sales in May of this year actually increased by 4.1% from a year earlier, to 3,444."One can argue that the stage is being set for a bottoming-out in home sales volume in many areas because prices are coming down sharply enough to attract buyers and home builders have stopped adding new supply," said DataQuick analyst Andrew LePage.

But economist Christopher Thornberg of Beacon Economics thinks home values must fall even lower to come in line with what people can afford to pay.

He and others contend that home values were artificially inflated by the easy availability of mortgage financing in recent years -- an era that has now ended.

"We are probably halfway there at this point in terms of price declines," he said. "I predict prices will be down 40% to 50% [from their peak] in Southern California when all is said and done."

Home buyers don't need to be told it's a buyer's market, according to Williams, the Pasadena realty agent.

"Buyers are being very aggressive in the offers they are writing," she said. "They are hearing about foreclosures, hearing prices are dropping and feeling that if they wait long enough the seller is going to come down in price."

DataQuick sales figures include new homes, previously owned homes and condos. The company tracks the median sale price, the point at which half the homes sold for more and half for less.

roger.vincent@latimes.com

Times staff writer Peter Y. Hong contributed to this report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, wasn't that interesting?

Now, about the problem with water.....:

June 7, 2008
Water-Starved California Slows Development

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

PERRIS, Calif. — As California faces one of its worst droughts in two decades,
building projects are being curtailed for the first time under state law by the
inability of developers to find long-term water supplies.

Water authorities and other government agencies scattered throughout the
state, including here in sprawling Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, have
begun denying, delaying or challenging authorization for dozens of housing
tracts and other developments under a state law that requires a 20-year water
supply as a condition for building.

California officials suggested that the actions were only the beginning, and
they worry about the impact on a state that has grown into an economic
powerhouse over the last several decades.

The state law was enacted in 2001, but until statewide water shortages, it had
not been invoked to hold up projects.

While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water
cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on
projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a
statewide scale.

“Businesses are telling us that they can’t get things done because of water,”
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a telephone interview.

On Wednesday, Mr. Schwarzenegger declared an official statewide drought,
the first such designation since 1991. As the governor was making his drought
announcement, the Eastern Municipal Water District in Riverside County —
one of the fastest-growing counties in the state in recent years — gave a
provisional nod to nine projects that it had held up for months because of
water concerns. The approval came with the caveat that the water district
could revisit its decision, and only after adjustments had been made to the
plans to reduce water demand.

“The statement that we’re making is that this isn’t business as usual,” said
Randy A. Record, a water district board member, at the meeting here in Perris.

Shawn Jenkins, a developer who had two projects caught up in the delays, said
he was accustomed to piles of paperwork and reams of red tape in getting
projects approved. But he was not prepared to have the water district hold up
the projects he was planning. He changed the projects’ landscaping, to make it
less water dependent, as the board pondered their fate.

“I think this is a warning for everyone,” Mr. Jenkins said.

Also in Riverside County, a superior court judge recently stopped a 1,500-
home development project, citing, among others things, a failure to provide
substantial evidence of adequate water supply.

In San Luis Obispo County, north of Los Angeles, the City of Pismo Beach was
recently denied the right to annex unincorporated land to build a large
multipurpose project because, “the city didn’t have enough water to
adequately serve the development,” said Paul Hood, the executive officer of
the commission that approves the annexations and incorporations of cities.

In agriculturally rich Kern County, north of Los Angeles, at least three
developers scrapped plans recently to apply for permits, realizing water was
going to be an issue. An official from the county’s planning department said
the developers were the first ever in the county to be stymied by water
concerns. Large-scale housing developments in Santa Barbara and San Luis
Obispo Counties have met a similar fate, officials in those counties said.

Throughout the state, other projects have been suspended or are being revised
to accommodate water shortages, and water authorities and cities have
increasingly begun to consider holding off on “will-serve” letters — promises
to developers to provide water — for new projects.

“The water in our state is not sufficient to add more demand,” said Lester
Snow, the director of the California Department of Water Resources. “And
that now means that some large development can’t go forward. If we don’t
make changes with water, we are going to have a major economic problem in
this state.”

The words “crisis” and “water” have gone together in this state since the 49ers
traded flecks of gold for food. But several factors have combined to make the
current water crisis more acute than those of recent years.

An eight-year drought in the Colorado River basin has greatly impinged on
water supply to Southern California. Of the roughly 1.25 million acre-feet of
water that the region normally imports from that river toward the 4.5 million
acre-feet it uses each year, 500,000 has been lost to drought, said Jeff
Kightlinger, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California.

Even more significant, a judge in federal district court last year issued a
curtailment in pumping from the California Delta — where the Sacramento
and San Joaquin Rivers meet and provide water to roughly 25 million
Californians — to protect a species of endangered smelt that were becoming
trapped in the pumps. Those reductions, from December to June, cut back the
state’s water reserves this winter by about one third, according to a
consortium of state water boards.

The smelt problem was a powerful indicator of the environmental fallout from
the delta’s water system, which was constructed over 50 years ago for a far
smaller population.

“We have bad hydrology, compromised infrastructure and our management
tools are broken,” said Timothy Quinn, the executive director of the
Association of California Water Agencies. “All that paints a fairly grim picture
for Californians trying to manage water in the 21st century.”

The 2001 state water law, which took effect in 2002, requires developers to
prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years’ worth of
water before local water authorities can sign off on them. With the recent
problems, more and more local governments are unable to simply approve
projects.

“Water is one of our most difficult issues when we are evaluating large-scale
projects,” said Lorelei Oviatt, the division chief for the Kern County Planning
Department. In cases where developers are unable to present a long-term
water plan, “then certainly I can’t recommend they approve” those
developments, Ms. Oviatt said.

As the denied building permits indicate, the lack of sufficient water sources
could become a serious threat to economic development in California, where
the population in 2020 is projected to reach roughly 45 million people,
economists say, from its current 38 million. In the end, as water becomes
increasingly scarce, its price will have to rise, bringing with it a host of
economic consequences, the economists said.

“Water has been seriously under-priced in California,” said Edward E.
Leamer, a professor at the Anderson School of Management at the University
of California, Los Angeles. “When you ration it or increase its price, it will have
an impact on economic growth.”

The water authority for Southern California recently issued a rate increase of
14.3 percent, when including surcharges, which was the highest rate increase
in the last 15 years. In Northern California, rates in Marin County increased
recently by nearly 10 percent, in part to pay an 11 percent increase in the cost
of water bought from neighboring Sonoma County.

Interest groups that oppose development have found that raising water issues
is among the many bats in their bags available to beat back projects they find
distasteful.

“Certainly from Newhall Ranch’s standpoint, water was a key point that our
opponents were focused on,” said Marlee Lauffer, a spokeswoman for Newhall
Ranch, a large-scale residential development in the works is Santa Clarita,
north of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles, among others, has opposed the
development.

To get around the problem, Newhall Ranch’s planners decided to forgo water
supplied through the state and turn instead to supplies from an extensive
water reclamation plant as well as water bought privately. Other developers,
like Mr. Jenkins, have changed their landscaping plans to reduce water needs
and planned for low-flow plumbing to placate water boards.

Mr. Schwarzenegger sees addressing the state’s water problem as one of his
key goals, and he is hoping against the odds to get a proposed $11.9 billion
bond for water management investments through the Legislature and before
voters in November.

The plans calls for water conservation and quality improvement programs, as
well as a resource management plan for the delta. Among its most
controversial components is $3.5 billion earmarked for new water storage,
something that environmentalists have vehemently opposed, in part because
they find dams and storage facilities environmentally unsound and not cost
effective.

The critics also point out that the state’s agriculture industry, which uses far
more water than urban areas, is being asked to contribute little to
conservation under the governor’s plans. As more building projects are
derailed by water requirements, the pressure on farmers to share more of their
water is expected to grow.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I end this post with a set of comments directed to the Planning Department as part of the comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report.

Bob, his staff and supporters of Bob's claim they have experts in just about every area of consideration, regarding Ponte Vista.

They aren't the only ones who can rely on experts. Opponents to Bob's 'weapon of mass development have plenty of experts and expert information that, at least equals, whatever and whoever Bob brings forth.

This set of comments may seem disgusting, but it is too important not to remind all people about:

Comments by Water and Sewage Engineer

RE: CASE No. ENV-2005-4516-EIR

Gentlemen:

INTRODUCTION

As part of the public process, I have made a partial review of the Ponte Vista Draft EIR. The review was limited to my core engineering specialty of water. My California engineering licensures are:

Chemical - # 3,931,

Civil - #23,925,

Electrical - # 10,653,

and Mechanical - # 18,736.

My 30 odd years ofprofessional engineering experience focuses on water-related design, water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, water distribution/wastewater collection systems, and forensic engineering.

SUMMARY

The most serious unmitigated environmental problem I found is that frequent sewage flooding of homes is very likely to occur in the Taper Avenue neighborhood if the project is built as proposed in the EIR. It is also my opinion that the City of Los Angeles will be held partially liable for such flooding if it approves the EIR and allows the project to be built in its current form.

In addition, when the Draft EIR dismisses the 15cfs increase of storm water runoff into Los Angles harbor as insignificant, the document does not take intoaccount that the toxicity of the runoff will be increased by the urbanization caused by the proposed project. Also the Draft EIR does not give any information in the reviewed sections as to the depth of the two major sewer lines; the 96" LA County Sewer and the 144" joint LADWP - LA County Sewer outfall, that passes under the project site. There is potential danger to these sewers from replacing the existing unused single family homes with multi-story condominiums. The sewers could be crushed by the increased static loads of the heavierhousing and/or from the dynamic loads of the heavy equipment that will be used in construction. This potential problem cannot be evaluated from the Draft EIR because the sewer depth information is missing.

Also, the Draft EIR says that connection fees will pay for the constructionof additional water and wastewater treatment capacity engendered by theproject, but presents no data that weighs these fees against the cost of such construction.

Finally, the environmental damage that may be caused by changing the R-1zoning of the 61.5 acre tract that constitutes the Ponte Vista Project is notdiscussed in the Draft EIR. The main problem with rezoning is that other developers may cite the precedent to argue that their projects should also be grantedlike increases in density regardless of existing zoning.

ANALYSIS

A. Sewage Flow:

In the Draft EIR's "Utilities" section the authors mix apples withoranges. Three different sewage flow calculation methodologies (City of Los Angeles,Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and LADWP) are applied to the samepeople living in the same place. Then sewage flow calculated by using the mostradical methodology (i.e. predicting the lowest flow) is used to prove that an8" sewer will not be overloaded by the proposed project and that thedeveloper should not be made to pay for its enlargement. The following paragraphsexplain how the Draft EIR's sewage flow analysis was made, gives an illustrativeexample of an alternative sewer flow calculation, and discusses theconsequences of building the project as conceived in the Draft EIR on the Taper Avenue sewer.

The Draft EIR's authors rely on data from the City of Los Angeles, LACounty, and LADWP to estimate sewage flow from each of the averaged mix of units, i.e. 2.5 bedrooms. Respectively these flows are represented to be 180, 195,and 225 gallons per day (gpd). Since the three agencies serve populationsthat live in the same general area it is difficult to understand the differencesin the figures. Adding to the confusion, the authors do not share the detailsof how they used the abovementioned data to arrive at the flow from anaveraged unit. Perhaps the best the reader can come away with is the feeling thatthe subject of predicting sewage flow is somewhat uncertain.

To further illustrate that uncertainty, I have used an independent respected source to make a parallel sewage flow prediction.

It is as follows:

Table 2.5 of Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal:
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., McGraw-Hill 1972, gives the 1968 water consumption for Los Angeles as 185 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The same reference,ibid page 33, gives the ratio of water consumption to sewage generation as arange of 60 to 80%. Assuming that only one person will occupy each projectbedroom and using the low end of the conversion range, each unit is projected to produce 278 gpd of sewage.

My prediction, and those developed by the Draft EIR authors share thesame basic concept, i.e. that sewage flows can be predicted using assumptionsabout average use. Many water engineers would suggest that a better method is toanalyze the details of a proposed project.

The way the sewage flow from the project to the existing 8" Taper Avenuesewer is calculated in the Draft EIR raises unanswered questions in my mind. The lowest estimate, i.e. 180 gpd, is used without any justification as to whyone equivalent section of the project should produce less sewage than anyother. This has the effect of making the calculated sewage flow 279,800 gpd.This figure is strangely convenient because it is ever so slightly less that thesewer's remaining marginal capacity. Then the authors state that because thisflow only takes up 99.93% of the sewer's remaining marginal capacity, all isgood, nothing bad will happen, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO MITIGATE???

In reality, if the project is built as laid out in the Draft EIR, thehomeowners in the Taper Avenue neighborhood will not have to wait for the firstSuper Bowl Sunday half time flush for sewage to flow into their homes; it willbe a regular event!

B. Discharge to Los Angeles Harbor

In the hydrology section, IV-E, the Draft EIR discussed storm waterdischarge to the harbor. The discharge is calculated to increase from 180 cubicfeet per second (cfs) to 195 cfs. The Draft EIR deems that this increase isinconsequential and thus requires no mitigation. There is no mention of theincrease in toxicity of the flow.

In reality, the current site is uninhabited. If the project is built,vehicles will regularly drip oil, lawn chemicals will be used and the potentialfor spillage of household chemicals will become greater than the current valueof zero. The Draft EIR authors merely recommend that the status quo bemaintained, by dumping untreated storm water into the harbor. It is true thatvarious treatment options are mentioned in section IV-E, but their use is positedas conditional; no promises are made that commit the developer to provide anyon-site storm water treatment. Furthermore, given the density of the proposeddevelopment, it is difficult to imagine how such treatment could beaccommodated within the available space.

Thanks for the opportunity to review the Draft EIR. I hope that my commentswill prove to be of assistance.

Respectfully yours,

John S. Lang
Chief Engineer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what can we say about these three items?

Perhaps we can say that commuters will have to hold their bladders longer before they get home to Ponte Vista. Then they do their business with very little water available for flushing, but when they flush, there is a real chance that their product will end up on the floor of someone else's home.

As the Church Lady might say: "Well, isn't that special?"

Odds and Ends 69

Sorry for the tardiness, I was very busy on Friday.

We sure know a lot more about things than we did only three or four weeks ago. Perhaps some people thought this would be a do-nothing Summer for Ponte Vista.
_______________________________________________________

Here is an article that places at least one more nail into the coffin of over development (hopefully) and is an article we knew was coming, but still wish it hadn't.

June 7, 2008

Water-Starved California Slows Development

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER

PERRIS, Calif. — As California faces one of its worst droughts in two decades, building projects are being curtailed for the first time under state law by the inability of developers to find long-term water supplies.

Water authorities and other government agencies scattered throughout the state, including here in sprawling Riverside County, east of Los Angeles, have begun denying, delaying or challenging authorization for dozens of housing tracts and other developments under a state law that requires a 20-year water supply as a condition for building.

California officials suggested that the actions were only the beginning, and they worry about the impact on a state that has grown into an economic powerhouse over the last several decades.
The state law was enacted in 2001, but until statewide water shortages, it had not been invoked to hold up projects.

While previous droughts and supply problems have led to severe water cutbacks and rationing, water officials said the outright refusal to sign off on projects over water scarcity had until now been virtually unheard of on a statewide scale.

“Businesses are telling us that they can’t get things done because of water,” Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a telephone interview.

On Wednesday, Mr. Schwarzenegger declared an official statewide drought, the first such designation since 1991. As the governor was making his drought announcement, the Eastern Municipal Water District in Riverside County — one of the fastest-growing counties in the state in recent years — gave a provisional nod to nine projects that it had held up for months because of water concerns. The approval came with the caveat that the water district could revisit its decision, and only after adjustments had been made to the plans to reduce water demand.

“The statement that we’re making is that this isn’t business as usual,” said Randy A. Record, a water district board member, at the meeting here in Perris.

Shawn Jenkins, a developer who had two projects caught up in the delays, said he was accustomed to piles of paperwork and reams of red tape in getting projects approved. But he was not prepared to have the water district hold up the projects he was planning. He changed the projects’ landscaping, to make it less water dependent, as the board pondered their fate.
“I think this is a warning for everyone,” Mr. Jenkins said.

Also in Riverside County, a superior court judge recently stopped a 1,500-home development project, citing, among others things, a failure to provide substantial evidence of adequate water supply.

In San Luis Obispo County, north of Los Angeles, the City of Pismo Beach was recently denied the right to annex unincorporated land to build a large multipurpose project because, “the city didn’t have enough water to adequately serve the development,” said Paul Hood, the executive officer of the commission that approves the annexations and incorporations of cities.

In agriculturally rich Kern County, north of Los Angeles, at least three developers scrapped plans recently to apply for permits, realizing water was going to be an issue. An official from the county’s planning department said the developers were the first ever in the county to be stymied by water concerns. Large-scale housing developments in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties have met a similar fate, officials in those counties said.

Throughout the state, other projects have been suspended or are being revised to accommodate water shortages, and water authorities and cities have increasingly begun to consider holding off on “will-serve” letters — promises to developers to provide water — for new projects.

“The water in our state is not sufficient to add more demand,” said Lester Snow, the director of the California Department of Water Resources. “And that now means that some large development can’t go forward. If we don’t make changes with water, we are going to have a major economic problem in this state.”

The words “crisis” and “water” have gone together in this state since the 49ers traded flecks of gold for food. But several factors have combined to make the current water crisis more acute than those of recent years.

An eight-year drought in the Colorado River basin has greatly impinged on water supply to Southern California. Of the roughly 1.25 million acre-feet of water that the region normally imports from that river toward the 4.5 million acre-feet it uses each year, 500,000 has been lost to drought, said Jeff Kightlinger, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.

Even more significant, a judge in federal district court last year issued a curtailment in pumping from the California Delta — where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet and provide water to roughly 25 million Californians — to protect a species of endangered smelt that were becoming trapped in the pumps. Those reductions, from December to June, cut back the state’s water reserves this winter by about one third, according to a consortium of state water boards.

The smelt problem was a powerful indicator of the environmental fallout from the delta’s water system, which was constructed over 50 years ago for a far smaller population.

“We have bad hydrology, compromised infrastructure and our management tools are broken,” said Timothy Quinn, the executive director of the Association of California Water Agencies. “All that paints a fairly grim picture for Californians trying to manage water in the 21st century.”

The 2001 state water law, which took effect in 2002, requires developers to prove that new projects have a plan for providing at least 20 years’ worth of water before local water authorities can sign off on them. With the recent problems, more and more local governments are unable to simply approve projects.

“Water is one of our most difficult issues when we are evaluating large-scale projects,” said Lorelei Oviatt, the division chief for the Kern County Planning Department. In cases where developers are unable to present a long-term water plan, “then certainly I can’t recommend they approve” those developments, Ms. Oviatt said.

As the denied building permits indicate, the lack of sufficient water sources could become a serious threat to economic development in California, where the population in 2020 is projected to reach roughly 45 million people, economists say, from its current 38 million. In the end, as water becomes increasingly scarce, its price will have to rise, bringing with it a host of economic consequences, the economists said.

“Water has been seriously under-priced in California,” said Edward E. Leamer, a professor at the Anderson School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles. “When you ration it or increase its price, it will have an impact on economic growth.”

The water authority for Southern California recently issued a rate increase of 14.3 percent, when including surcharges, which was the highest rate increase in the last 15 years. In Northern California, rates in Marin County increased recently by nearly 10 percent, in part to pay an 11 percent increase in the cost of water bought from neighboring Sonoma County.

Interest groups that oppose development have found that raising water issues is among the many bats in their bags available to beat back projects they find distasteful.

“Certainly from Newhall Ranch’s standpoint, water was a key point that our opponents were focused on,” said Marlee Lauffer, a spokeswoman for Newhall Ranch, a large-scale residential development in the works is Santa Clarita, north of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles, among others, has opposed the development.

To get around the problem, Newhall Ranch’s planners decided to forgo water supplied through the state and turn instead to supplies from an extensive water reclamation plant as well as water bought privately. Other developers, like Mr. Jenkins, have changed their landscaping plans to reduce water needs and planned for low-flow plumbing to placate water boards.

Mr. Schwarzenegger sees addressing the state’s water problem as one of his key goals, and he is hoping against the odds to get a proposed $11.9 billion bond for water management investments through the Legislature and before voters in November.

The plans calls for water conservation and quality improvement programs, as well as a resource management plan for the delta. Among its most controversial components is $3.5 billion earmarked for new water storage, something that environmentalists have vehemently opposed, in part because they find dams and storage facilities environmentally unsound and not cost effective.

The critics also point out that the state’s agriculture industry, which uses far more water than urban areas, is being asked to contribute little to conservation under the governor’s plans. As more building projects are derailed by water requirements, the pressure on farmers to share more of their water is expected to grow.
____________________________________________________

It looks pretty glum for Bob's chances on getting approval to build according to his current plans, I think.

Should we feel sad for Bob? I don't think I feel sad for Bob. He came into OUR community and proceeded to try and tell us what is best for OUR community and he found some fairly prominent community individuals to fall into support for his giant project.

Of course most of his supporters are business owners or have business interests in the area. We may not blame them for thinking about their pocketbooks before their interests in their neighbors and friends.

I have written before and it looks like I'll have to keep repeating that it is perfectly fine to 'jump ship' on a project that will certainly continue to divide OUR community if Bob gets to build anywhere near the number of units he currently wants.
__________________________________________________

Many people do tell me their thoughts and feelings about Ponte Vista without my even asking them for their opinion. I can't tell you the number of people who have told me they aren't going to eat at Taxco Restaurant any longer. It may be a good idea for supporters of Bob's to frequent that restaurant.

For me, the owner and all the staff have been more than marvelous. The food if very good, the prices are well within my budget, and when we need a delivery, you can't imagine how quickly it comes to our door, even being delivered by the owner of Taxco, sometimes.

As many of you know, it is the closest Mexican Restaurant to our home and just a two or three minute walk away from our house.

Terri and others have said that they feel the owner doesn't fully understand how many individuals and groups really feel about Ponte Vista when they look at his photo in a Ponte Vista advertisement.

I don't know if that is true, but some have suggested that patrons opposed to what Bob wants, contact the owner and let him know how they feel.

I do believe in boycotts. I have participated in several of them and can imagine Terri and I participating in more of them. I am just sad that an owner of a restaurant we like has allowed himself to be placed into a position where others are calling for a boycott of his restaurant.

For Terri and myself, we have eaten at Taxco many, many times. Right now we favor Puesta Del Sol on 17Th and Gaffey or Azteca Restaurant on Western, not too far from Taxco.

I don't consider that Terri and I are boycotting Taxco right now, but we are going to other Mexican restaurants for reasons like everybody else has for changing up where they choose to eat.
_______________________________________________

I would like everyone opposed to Bob's current plans and those who favor keeping R1 at Ponte Vista to write at least one set of comments for the Hearing Officer for the June 26 Hearing.

There may be a transcriber taking testimony at the Hearing, but you all may find your thoughts easier to come by if you sit a spell and think what a massive residential development in northwest San Pedro would do to your quality of life. Then you can have some time to write it or type it and then send it in prior to June 26, Email it to david.olivo@lacity.org, or hand it in when you also come and provide oral testimony.
_______________________________________________

The two new slogans that are floating around are:

"Bob's profit will come at your expense."

"Bob's profit will be your loss."
_______________________________________________

R.I.P. Tim

Bob Keeps His House

Here is an article recently found in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. It covers several issues dealing with Bob and towards the middle of the piece, there is an explaination about how Bob kept his house from being foreclosed upon.

A matter of trust

Officials, critics weigh in on downtown plan
By Tania Chatila, Staff Writer

Article Launched: 06/02/2008 12:17:13 AM PDT

BALDWIN PARK - It's an ambitious plan to remake the heart of the city.

The proposal calls for redeveloping 125 acres of downtown Baldwin Park into a bustling urban village that could include a new hotel, a charter school and thousands of luxury homes.

City leaders are looking to developer Robert Bisno and his firm, Bisno Development Co. LLC, to make make it a reality.

"When he came in, he really stood out," Baldwin Park Mayor Manuel Lozano said. "He seemed very serious about the project. He provided renderings, came to town, had a staff of about a dozen."

Foes of the project, however, contend that not only is the plan a bad one, but that Bisno is not the right man for the job.

"(The council) is going to sell our city to this developer, who's going to subdivide it and sell it to other developers," said Cruz Baca-Sembello, vice president of the Community Alliance for Redevelopment Accountability.

The Baldwin Park-based group was formed to oppose the project, which could result in the relocation of more than 200 homes and businesses through eminent domain.

City officials say the project will give Baldwin Park a much-needed face-lift - one that would generate more sales-tax revenue, and more importantly, improve the city's image.

And Bisno's more than 30 years experience and countless development projects that have spanned the state prove his credibility, officials said.

City leaders are also impressed with Bisno's proposal to subsidize the entire project without city funds, an important factor in the council's initial decision to negotitate with Bisno, Councilwoman Marlen Garcia said.

"That's the business we're in," said Bisno Development Vice President and Chief Operating Officer John DeClercq. "That's what a real estate developer does."

Critics point to several lawsuits that have been filed against Bisno and a recent near foreclosure of Bisno's Beverly Hills home.

"He's a very smooth crook," said John T. Emanuele, a San Leandro resident who along with about a dozen other plaintiffs sued Bisno in 2007 over a business deal gone sour.

Emanuele's suit stems from a Berkeley development project in the 1980s in which a group of investors accused Bisno of taking $453,000 in partnership money to purchase a private residence.

The case went to trial last year and a jury ruled in favor of the investors, said Richard Stratton, Emanuele's attorney.

Bisno tried to appeal the case, Stratton said, but it was denied.

"He admitted in the trial that he (took the money) to cheat the government, to commit tax fraud," Stratton said, "not to fraud the investors."

Emanuele said he and the other partners believe Bisno never intended to pay back the misappropriated funds.

Bisno stands to pay more than $3.5 million in judgements to the remaining investors as a result of the suit, Stratton said.

Bisno declined to comment, referring questions to DeClercq.

"These are not reflective at all," DeClercq said. "These represent a very small percentage of the business activities, involving very few dollars and few hours of (Bisno's) life. These are personal, private issues."

At a recent City Council meeting, members of the community alliance criticized Bisno and the recent near foreclosure of his Beverly Hills home.

A business dispute prompted a former partner of Bisno's to begin the foreclosure process on that home several months ago, said Joel Kozberg, Bisno's attorney in the case.

"There were cross-obligatory questions as to which party, at the end of the day, leaves which party owing more?" he said.

The issue was eventually settled several weeks ago and the foreclosure process halted, according to Kozberg.

But Bisno is still involved in litigation with the North Beverly Park Homeowners Association - a nonprofit organization that enforces the covenants, conditions and restrictions of the North Beverley Park gated community - over a different issue involving the same property.

The association originally sued Bisno and his wife, Jeanette Bisno, several years ago over some unapproved sculptures and the design of the gates on Bisno's property, said Denise Parga, attorney for the association.

The case went to trial in 2004, and the association prevailed, Parga said. Bisno unsuccessfully appealed that case and has since filed a new action challenging the trial judge's competency, Parga said.

Bisno stands to lose in excess of $300,000 in attorney's fees if he loses the case, Parga said.
"Of course these things are of concern to anyone," Lozano said. "We want to make sure when we are dealing with any development company that the developer is up to par."

City officials say they have looked into some of these issues already as well as Bisno's track record in other cities.

Bisno Development has developed projects in dozens of cities around the region, including Santa Monica, Los Angeles and Santa Ana.

The Santa Ana project, dubbed "City Place," is years in the making and about 95 percent complete, Santa Ana City Manager David Ream said.

That multimillion dollar project includes hundreds of residential units, 10,000 square feet of retail space and sits on about 20 acres, Ream said.

"(Bisno) was very positive to work with," he said, "very personable. He's a successful developer. Very hands-on." Ream said the project faced little to no opposition.

Community alliance members say the Santa Ana project is a prime example of Bisno's "game."

"They're trying to steal this city from under us," said Mark Cyr, treasurer of CARA.

Alliance member and local business man Greg Tuttle accused Bisno of taking advantage of city residents for his own gain.

"He comes into cities, buys the land for nothing, puts three units where there should be one unit and then over sells them," he said.

Tuttle has accused Baldwin Park City Council members of "being in bed" with Bisno.

The developer has donated $10,000 to Baldwin Park council members - $5,000 to City Councilman Ricardo Pacheco and $5,000 to Lozano in 2007, records show.

In Santa Ana, state campaign finance documents show Bisno contributed $1,000 to Santa Ana City Council hopeful Nelida Yanez and another $249 to Santa Ana City Councilman Sal Tinajero in 2006.

Records show he also donated $20,000 to Measure D, a campaign in Santa Ana that earlier this year successfully extended term limits for council members from two four-year terms to three four-year terms.

"As far as we are concerned in this city, we don't have anything invested," Baldwin Park Chief Executive Officer Vijay Singhal said. "It's all Bisno."

Singhal said as part of an exclusive negotiating agreement with Bisno, all actions relating to the project are being paid for from a special fund that is replenished by Bisno.

Despite all the issues, Lozano said much of the project's future will depend heavily on the outcome of two state ballot initiatives up for vote Tuesday.

If passed, The Homeowners Protection Act would restrict city agencies from taking residential property through eminent domain and turning it over to private developers, said Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for Eminent Domain Reform Now, a California advocacy group.

The California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act would do the same, except for commercial and residential properties, said Douglas Johnson, a fellow with the Rose Institute of State and Local Government.

City officials say they are waiting on those measures to decide how to proceed.

"We've made sure," Singhal said, "throughout this whole process that the city's interests are protected."

tania.chatila@sgvn.com

A "Rehearsal", A Free Meal, Desperation????

A reliable source told me that the Ponte Vista Outreach Team has what the source claims was a "rehearsal" for speakers to the upcoming June 26 Public Hearing with the Planning Department Hearing Officer.

The "rehearsal" apparently took place at the Port of Los Angeles High School during the time when ABC television was having it's meeting and also during part of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council's meeting, both in other rooms.

I think I can "rehearse" what many folks will be saying, on Bisno's side. There will be the Union representatives claiming that Bob will use only Union labor, even though nobody actually knows what may be built at Ponte Vista.

We can "rehearse" speeches by chambers of commerce members who will taut the benefits of all the new economic benefits Bob's current plans might bring. The problem with that is that there are now really 'big ticket' items that can be bought in the City of L.A., within a five-mile radius of the Ponte Vista site.

I am quite sure you all can "rehearse" many speakers' remarks about how "affordable" units at Ponte Vista will be. Of course one needs to be able to gross quite a lot of money per year, to be able to purchase the least expensive units Bob currently wishes to be built at Ponte Vista.

The "rehearsal" of the many benefits of traffic mitigation that Bob would pay for is probably the most humorous speeches I am looking forward to.

I hope one of the supporters remembers that the City of L.A. is already funding and placing the very traffic mitigation improvements at signalized intersections that Bob keeps claiming he will fund. On the other hand, Bob mentioned approximately 58 intersections he would "improve" when the L.A. Department of Transportation is going to include those same 58 intersections as part of their 127-intersection improvements.

So, if you are waiting to hear that Bob will place "5 Million" or "8 Million" dollars into a traffic improvement fund, please realize that if he does that, the L.A. Department of Transportation can take ALL of that money and spend it anywhere else in their area, with perhaps NONE of that money coming back to San Pedro.

On June 26th, beginning at 3:30, we have learned that the Ponte Vista Outreach Team and Bob Bisno are hosting a free meal at the Cabrillo Beach Bath House. This is another free meal attempting to attract more supporters of Ponte Vista to attend the Hearing.

You shouldn't be surprized that I have NOT been invited to the free meal, this time.

Might these two events be more signs of desperation by Bob Bisno and his Outreach Team?

If it seems that they have to offer a free meal just to get folks out to a meeting, perhaps the Outreach Team has not been able to reach out to enough people to support their project and come out freely on their own, without any other incentive.

It seems more and more likely these days, that no matter how much supporters' rehearse and no matter how many of them accept another free meal from Bob and his Outreach Team, there is an underlying appearance of desperation, I feel, because Bob is having to greatly increase his marketing budget for a project that adds opponents to it, every day.

Oh, and another thing. If Bob does receive entitlements to create 33 parcels, instead of the 22 already at Ponte Vista, there is absolutely, positively no guarantee that he won't sell off parcels to others and take his money and leave.

Please also remember that there has been NOTHING APPROVED for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro development as far as the City of Los Angeles is concerned.

" A Timeout On Development" Editorial

How refreshing it was this morning to read an editorial in the Daily Breeze that I would not have expected from the right-of-center publication.

Here is the editorial:

It's an unfortunate reality that it often takes trauma to change bad behavior.

The nation's housing market of cards had to tumble to stop the insanity of subprime mortgages. Gas prices had to top $4 a gallon to get motorists to choose cars and transportation solutions that use less fuel. And the current slowdown in construction might just give leaders in the Los Angeles area the opportunity - and motivation - to engage in some smart, long-term planning.

Due to the soft economy and strapped financial markets, several major - and controversial - developments in the Los Angeles area have recently been put on hold or have faced delays.

Troubles in the housing market have taken their toll on the Avalon at South Bay, a $850 million mall project that includes up to 1,500 homes. Because the project is no longer expected to be as profitable as it once was, the city of Carson plans to sink an additional $10 million into it to keep it on track.

Cost projections to clean up the former Carson landfill site have also risen.

Further north, the parent company of the developers for the Newhall Ranch project - which, with its planned 21,000 homes, is the largest residential project of its kind - has filed for bankruptcy protection. The filing came after the company was unable to restructure a loan agreement due to the flat real-estate market and skittishness of financial institutions.

Likewise, the $1billion Grand Avenue Project - the high-end luxury redevelopment of L.A.'s downtown Civic Center, which includes nearly $200million in taxpayer subsidies for its rich developers - has been postponed. On Monday, the project's developers asked for, and were granted, a 60-day delay because of difficulty securing a loan.

These projects are hardly dead. But if the economy continues to worsen, further delays would be likely.

If there's a silver lining to the ongoing economic downturn, it's that it's relieved the pressure from developers to grow, grow, grow Los Angeles at all costs.

The race to build up L.A. and its suburbs has put tremendous strains on the region's residents and local quality of life. Too often, decisions have been made on the basis of politics - which developers had the ear of government leaders - and not with any thought to the region's long-term health and well-being. The results are most evident in the serious problems we face with traffic, water and the infrastructure.

Fortunately, city and regional planning officials now have a rare chance to hash out a sensible and comprehensive growth plan that addresses future needs for Los Angeles and adjacent communities. But time is short, and they must act quickly.

Here's what they need to do:

First, government officials must create sensible guidelines on projects that use significant infusions of taxpayer funding.

Next, regional leaders need to come together and start putting together a long-term growth plan that takes into account future water limits, climate change, traffic patterns, job growth, and a fair distribution of tax and infrastructure burdens.

What affects one city or community in Southern California affects the entire region. It behooves the entire region to have a smart plan that guides future development before it can cause the problems - such as homes being too far away from jobs - that the region now faces.

As the largest city in the region, Los Angeles needs to take the lead on creating a plan for future growth. The mayor, City Council and Planning Department have a unique opportunity to engineer the future of L.A. for the benefit of all Angelenos - and not just a few deep-pocketed developers.
________________________________________________

I wish the editors had opined about Ponte Vista, but perhaps they are not willing to state what they feel should be built at the site, at this time.

The editorial looks to me to be another item in Bob's negative column.

There must be by now, plenty of A-Frame Crane operators that could afford a single-family detached house at Ponte Vista.

Likewise, there are doctors, lawyers, top leaders in the Fire and Police Departments who might want a beautiful new home in an all-R1 Ponte Vista.

Bob may be able to do nicely by building something like Summit Circle in 'Beverly Hills' inside Ponte Vista. They are much smaller houses than the ones in his neighborhood of Beverly Park and they have smaller, but very nice R1 lots, from what I have seen.

Having a really nice, upscale neighborhood in northwest San Pedro could help values of houses in other areas, too.

Well, Bob is going to try and do what he wants to do, but it is our task to save OUR community from over development at Ponte Vista.

Please remember, Bob's profit would come at your expense.

The Latest Mailing

First off, I contacted the Outreach Team at Ponte Vista and requested that my name be removed from any and all lists that suggest I support Bob's current plans in any way. I was informed that my name would be removed "in June" and I believe that has happened.

However, I have been recently informed by a number of folks that they received a mailing from Ponte Vista even though they claim they have never signed anything that would indicate any support for any of Bob's plans.

Perhaps the Outreach Team has had to resort to mass mailings to individuals who were not listed as being a supporter of Ponte Vista.

I can certainly understand this case, if that is what is actually happening. Having to resort to unsolicited advertisement may mean that they are grasping at straws.

I am glad that they didn't include a return card seeking more support for their project.I've had people bring me the latest card/mailing and ask me why they have received it. I can't confirm to them why they received it, but I can certainly opine as to why they got sent what they got sent.

One very honest friend told me that she received the mailer and it looked like it was addressed exactly as her voter registration appears. I doubt that Ponte Vista would be allowed to use voter addresses, but there must be lots of lists of addresses available for purchase.

It may also be true that folks in non-90275 zip codes received the mailer because no one I know of, who lives in 90275 got one. But there may be folks in that zip code that received it, but haven't informed me.

It seems to me that Bob is really turning up the faucet on his marketing budget. We are still months and months away from the time where the Planning Department reveals what they think Bob could build. It may be true that Bob is trying to gain more support prior to the June 26 hearing so more folks will come out in support of his plans for Ponte Vista.

It's Bob's money. It's Bob's Outreach Team. We all must remember that "Bob's profit will come at your expense".

So even though it seems like Bob is spending marketing money hand over fist, that doesn't mean for one second that he should be granted any more support for his plans. It does mean however, that opponents to Bob's current plans must work that much harder to tell all those who will listen, the truth of what Bob's plans might do to OUR community.

I hope everyone will write and speak to the Hearing Officer by June 26 and provide your own reasons why you should not have to put up with such a huge development in YOUR community.

Don't worry about the inadequate seating in the auditorium on June 26. There will probably be a giant screen to show the Hearing to folks gathered in the parking lot. Bring your lawn chairs and your good humor, please.

Let's all try and count the times supporters of Bob's use the word, "affordable" when talking about the market-rate housing that Bob really plans on providing. It should be quite a hoot!

June 26 Hearing Flier

Public Hearing
Thursday, June 26
5:00 p.m.
Cabrillo Beach Aquarium

STOP THE MASSIVE PONTE VISTA DEVELOPMENT

Don’t let the City approve thousands of condominiums and thousands of cars a day on Western Avenue. Tell the Planning Department you SUPPORT keeping single family R1 zoning.

The developer’s profit is your loss.

If you can’t attend,
send your written comments to:


Los Angeles Planning Department
CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA

200 N. Spring Street, Room 621Los Angeles, CA 90012

or Email comments to david.olivo@lacity.org

Tell them you SUPPORT R1 zoning at Ponte Vista and OPPOSE subdividing the property and amending the community plan.

www.RneighborhoodsAre1.org

________________________________________________

Please provide oral and/or written testimony created with your own mind and not like so many supporters of Bob's current plans, who seem to repeat the same items over and over again.

Supporters will tout that Ponte Vista will provide a great economical impact to San Pedro, but the truth is that most of the economic benefit/proceeds from sales of goods will actually be garnered by businesses within a five-mile radius of Ponte Vista, but NOT within the City of Los Angeles.

There are no large major appliance stores, new car dealerships, upscale home furnishing stores, multi-plex theaters, or major shopping malls within five miles of Ponte Vista that will contribute to sales tax revenues for Los Angeles, where they would be needed to fund the added infrastructure required to keep a giant Ponte Vista project going.

"Bob Bisno and Ponte Vista will fund major traffic improvements." This is one of the most disturbing things supporters still claim and claim and claim and claim.

The actual fact is that there are 127 signalized intersections within the area that will have their management upgraded at taxpayers' expense prior to seeing one penny of funds from Bob Bisno be sent in to do the very thing Bob and his supporters claim will be done for those intersections.

One thing everyone must remember that IF Bob doesn't get what he currently wants, in terms of number of units at Ponte Vista, there is absolutely no written guarantee that he will provide all the "community benefits" he is currently offering.

Both Bob Bisno and I concur that there would be no requirement for him to continue to provide access through Ponte Vista for students, parents, and others going to and from the new Mary Star High School campus, IF the current zoning of the property continues to be mandated by the City of Los Angeles.

Bob would also probably not provide most of the other "community benefits" he is currently offering if the site remains with its current R1-1XL and O1-1XL zoning.

Bob may still be offering carrots, but you and everyone else would have to accept taking on such a large 'stick', for generations, that for thousands and thousands of us, it really isn't worth it.

Tell the hearing officer why you think and feel that this out-of-town developer really doesn't know what you want for YOUR community, no matter what he claims.

It is time to stop this madness and demand that the Ponte Vista site not become something that you will regret, yet you will have to live with, for as long as you live in this community.

Odds and Ends 68

Thanks goes out to all the great folks who honked, waved, gave thumbs up, and showed their support during a short demonstration outside the Ponte Vista site, early this morning.

Mary Star High School was still in session during our little picketing party and we watched how folks had trouble trying to get their kids to school.

The left turn pocket on southbound Western Avenue at S. John Montgomery Drive is far too short for the number of parents and others who try to turn left across Western and on through the Ponte Vista site.

When the pocket fills up, many drivers proceed to the next pocket south on Western and make a U-turn to get back to the street where they will turn right on to.

Of course there are also lots of folks heading north on Western also trying to turn onto the Ponte Vista site to drop off their kid(s) at the new campus.

We already have a pretty good idea of how much worse traffic would be if any large number of condos are ever approved for Ponte Vista.
_________________________________________________

If you have been driving south on Western from P.V. Drive North and passing Fitness Drive, you may have seen some of the balconies at the huge Seaport Homes lease-to-own complex now welcoming residents to move in.

There is at least one bicycle on a balcony and other balconies sport small bar-b-ques, chairs and some plants.

I don't think these items are planted to make it look like folks have been moving in. So people are now leasing units at Seaport.
________________________________________________

It appears that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Ponte Vista may be published and sent out approximately 10 days prior to the June 26 Public Hearing.

The FEIR will have the comments and responses to the DEIR, but it will not indicate how many units at Ponte Vista, the Planning Department feels Bob can successfully get away with.

There are also going to be more hearings before the issues are brought before the Planning Commission for any judgement and/or recommendation on their part.

There is still a very long way to go before any vote is taken by the members of the Los Angeles City Council to create ordinances which would provide entitlements to Bob Bisno on what he could build.

Even if Bob were granted entitlements, there is still no guarantee that he won't sell those entitlements to others and leave the area with his pockets stuffed with money.
_____________________________________________

I still cannot confirm whether Bob lost his personal home in a foreclosure auction scheduled for June 4, 2008. I have written to some individuals who have better sources than I do, so I hope they reply sooner than later.
____________________________________________

The Official Notice of June 26 Meeting

Here is the official notice announcing the June 26 meeting.

Click on each page to enlarge.

About 2/3 down on Page 2 of the notice are instructions on how and where to submit written comments. I am going to copy the information just below and help provide a better way to create the outside of your envelopes and top of comments:

Written communications should cite the Case Number indicated at the top of this notice and may be mailed to the following location:

The Los Angeles City Planning Department
Community Planning Bureau West/Coastal Unit
200 N. Spring Street, Room 621
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Case: CPC 2006-8043-GPA-ZC-SP-DA, VTT-63399, ENV-2005-4516-EIR

You should be able to copy/paste the information above to the top of your comments and/or an envelope sent through your printer.

Please look far below the end of Page 3 for more information.






Written communications can be in addition to your presence and oral testimony if you can attend the Hearing. Supporters of Bob's current plans will surely attend the Hearing in great numbers and probably write up a storm of comments. Of course, I bet many of their comments will probably be copies of 'talking points' provided by the Outreach Team.

Public Hearing Scheduled

A wonderful member of the Planning Department provided this reply to my Email inquiring about an upcoming public hearing regarding the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project.

Here is a copy of the body of the reply:

"A public hearing before a Hearing Officer and the Advisory Agency has been scheduled for June 26th. It will be at the Cabrillo Marine Aquarium auditorium and will begin at 5:00 after the Aquarium closes. The purpose of the hearing is to take official public testimony and is not a decision making meeting. Notices before a Hearing Officer require a 24-day notice so people within a 500-feet radius of the project will be receiving notices shortly. There is no recommendation on the project from the Planning Department before the hearing. Planning Department recommendations are made after the public hearing where the Department considers all information gathered."

As I wrote in my comment to the comment left by "mellonhead" yesterday, I offered that the auditorium contains less than 300 permanent seats, so folks wishing to find a place to sit should probably arrive early.

We can all be sure that Bob will have lots and lots and lots of supporters attending the hearing, if there really are "lots" of supporters to his current plans left.

Odds and Ends 67

Nothing officially new to report from the Planning Department.

It appears that there will be a 45-day notification of the next hearing, which some feel will be in July. Since notice may be given 45 days prior to the hearing, it probably can't happen until the second half of July, if that soon at all.
_____________________________________________________

There is nothing new in Bob's ads to indicate that he wants anything other then 1,950-condominiums. Even if they are called "Town Houses" or "Town Homes" the big units he wants to build are still considered condominiums.
_____________________________________________________

Here is some news from our friends at "CARA" the group opposed to allowing Bob to use Baldwin Park's right of eminent domain to take about 125 acres of land with residences and businesses, to create a new civic center for Baldwin Park.

From the Los Angeles Times
COLUMN ONE

New generation of L.A.-area Latino leaders aren't as friendly toward 'amigo stores'

Cities like Baldwin Park are turning away from ethnic-oriented retail projects in favor of mainstream businesses. Starbucks is welcome.

By Hector Becerra Los Angeles Times Staff Writer May 28, 2008

It was as if the developers were talking about tacos, and the Latino politicians were talking about apple pie.

Baldwin Park Mayor Manuel Lozano and other city officials listened as the developers said they had studied the demographics of the city and could bring in a retailer known for offering credit to undocumented immigrants and a shopping center with a "Latino feel."

To Lozano, it was another case of developers typecasting his suburb, which is about 15 miles east of downtown Los Angeles. He didn't want to see more of what he calls "amigo stores."

The meeting ended like a bad date, with handshakes and excessive courtesy. But afterward, Lozano made it clear he was not happy.

"We want what Middle America has as well," said the second-generation Mexican American, recounting the meeting. "We like to go to nice places like Claim Jumpers, Chili's and Applebee's. . . . We don't want the fly-by-night business, the 'amigo store,' which they use to attract Latinos like myself."

Call it "immigrant" store fatigue. It's happening in cities that are overwhelmingly Latino, with Latino political leaders and with large immigrant communities.

For decades, these cities attracted working-class and immigrant-centric retailers: check-cashing businesses, Latino supermarkets, discount gift stores, bridal shops and Mexican western wear stores. Some are independent, and some are chains such as La Curacao, an appliance and electronics retailer that offers credit accounts to immigrants who lack the documentation for conventional credit cards.

Until relatively recently, cities like Baldwin Park, South Gate and Santa Ana had few options beyond "Latino" retailers. But this year, Baldwin Park -- a city of 70,000 in the San Gabriel Valley -- enacted a moratorium on new payday loan and check cashing stores. The city is now partners with Bisno Development Co. on an "urban village" of mixed-income housing, theaters and mainstream restaurants such as Claim Jumper, Applebee's and Chili's.

To make it happen, the city is considering a plan that could require the use of eminent domain power to clear a 125-acre area.

That would result in the loss of more than 80 homes and more than 100 small businesses.

The huge project has prompted charges that the City Council, composed of Mexican Americans, is ashamed of its culture.

"I'm proud of my roots," said Rosalva Alvarez, as she stood in her beauty store on Maine Avenue, which is in the redevelopment area. "I was born in Mexico and raised in this country. I agree we need some change. But what they want to bring here is totally unrealistic. Applebee is good, but a Kabuki? And also a Trader Joe's? Come on, I don't even go to Trader Joe's."

Some opponents say that one councilwoman had told critics to "go back to [Tijuana]."

"I don't know where they got that," said Councilwoman Marlen Garcia. "What I said was 'We're striving to insure Baldwin Park doesn't look like Tijuana.' "

As he wiped down the counter of his Via-Mar Family Restaurant, Mexican immigrant Audon Diaz, 36, wonders if one day he might be pushed out too. It took him eight years just to get established, often having to repair the busted street lamps in the parking lot himself.

"It's like they want Baldwin Park in the style of Capistrano or like Hacienda Heights," Diaz said. "The restaurant industry is pretty hard to make it in. Eight years, and I'm barely hanging on. It's like the city wants to make it hard for you."

But Mayor Lozano is undaunted.

As he rode through the streets of his city, past the rows of low-slung mini malls with signs in a mix of English and Spanish, Lozano complained that downtown Baldwin Park had too many discount gift stores, too many beauty salons, too many Mexican restaurants and way too many pawnshops.

Lozano and his allies believe that mainstream retailers now fit better with Baldwin Park, where many of the residents are second-, third- and even fourth-generation Latinos with little interest in stores aimed at immigrants.

Now that the city has choices, he said, it should send a clear message to "amigo store" promoters, like those who introduce themselves with business cards decorated with the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe.

"They're pitching their 'Latino' type agenda," Lozano said.

Anthony Bejarano, a Baldwin Park councilman and graduate of Georgetown University law school, is a fourth-generation Mexican American who says he speaks "very little Spanish."

He said that the proliferation of what the mayor calls "amigo stores" forces him to go to other cities to shop.

"I love to go to traditional Mexican restaurants. I shop at Vallarta [supermarket], but I can't get everything I need," he said. "At the end of the day, it's all Mexican restaurants here. When we want Italian, when we want sushi, where do we go? If I want a pair of Kenneth Coles, I have to go to Arcadia."

Cities like Baldwin Park and Santa Ana used to struggle to get national retailers. Some residents tried letter-writing campaigns to lure Starbucks and others.

The response by many retailers was often "This is not our customer," said Luis Valenzuela, executive vice president for NAI Capital, a commercial real estate brokerage firm. "The difference now is that corporate America has realized there's tremendous buying power in these communities."

Valenzuela, who worked on Lynwood's popular Plaza Mexico, cites the El Paseo shopping center in South Gate as a turning point.
The sprawling center opened about a decade ago near the 710 Freeway.

The Edwards theater there was the first to be opened in a city that was not only majority Latino but also largely Spanish-speaking, he said.

And after the Starbucks opened in South Gate, it became one of the chain's leading seller of Frappuccinos, Valenzuela said. "You had some mainstream stores who really took a risk, for the first time really going into a predominantly Spanish-speaking area," Valenzuela said.

"After that, you really saw Ross, Marshall, Applebee's, Chili's and a lot of those businesses in Latino areas," he said.

Although the South Gate shopping center, which does include a La Curacao and other ethnic businesses, is considered a success story by many, change has at times been rocky in Santa Ana.

There, the all-Latino City Council has sought to transform downtown.

They contend that there is an over-concentration of immigrant-focused Mexican western wear, discount gift, notary public and especially bridal stores along historic 4th Street.

As he stood amid Stetson hats and colorful leather boots made of ostrich and stingray at his Mexican western wear store, Ray Rangel, 78, said it seemed as if City Hall was trying to winnow away 4th Street's immigrant customer base with downtown plans that included higher-end housing.

"I'll tell you one thing about the City Council," he said. "Before, when the council was more mixed, we could get along with them. Now that they're all Hispanics, we have more trouble getting things. They want the upscale, something more Anglo."

Santa Ana Councilwoman Michele Martinez said a lack of cultural pride was not the issue; it's just that not all Latinos are immigrants.

"I have nothing against 50 quinceañera shops, but I don't shop there. Many of my friends don't shop there," said Martinez, a fourth-generation Mexican American. "Parents and grandparents may shop there, but young kids are not going to shop there, unless they're immigrants."

The debate has resulted in some testy exchanges.

Sam Romero, 73, owner of St. Teresa's Catholic Gift Shop on 4th Street, said he once cracked to a local paper that one local politician "broke every glass and mirror in the house so he wouldn't have to see a Mexican."

On a recent day, Carol Castillo, 31, an immigrant from Mexico, stood in her family-owned Marlen's Bridal Shop.

She said she was aware that the bridal shops, which also sell dresses for quinceañera coming-of-age celebrations, were used as an example by City Hall.

Three other bridal shops are directly across the street, and there's one next door.

"It's a fact, they want us out of here," Castillo said. "There's a lot of chatter going on. The people pushing this, most of them are Latinos, unfortunately."

Martinez said the city was not looking to push anyone out. She said a compromise could be reached to keep 4th Street a "Latino district" while developing around it.

Like Santa Ana, Baldwin Park is divided between immigrants and the U.S.-born.

Councilwoman Marlen Garcia, said she was tired of pining for the Islands, Chevy's and Jamba Juices of neighboring West Covina.

She still remembers the doomed pitch by the developers who wanted to bring in immigrant-focused stores.

"As soon as they said 'La Curacao,' I said, 'That's it,' " Garcia said. "We're not against our culture, nothing like that. But we want something that speaks to every culture."

hector.becerra@latimes.com
____________________________________________________

Save $100,000.00 on a new loft at Centre Street Lofts, in San Pedro*

* Offer begins May 27, 2008. Must purchase by June 8, 2008 to receive savings.
Not valid with any other offer. Pricing subject to change without notice.See salesperson for details.

So it appears that not all of the lofts at Centre Street Lofts have been sold. What is good about their ad at: http://www.centrestreetlofts.com/ is that, as of right now, they are not offering lease-to-own or rent-to-own units, YET!

Let's hope that both Vue and Centre Street Lofts do not have to go the route so many other developments in San Pedro have had to resort to.

What is Bob Up To?

An individual from the Ponte Vista Outreach Team replied to an Email stating that my name will be removed from lists that have my Email address on them and dealing with support or general information about Ponte Vista.

Since I am still getting Emails from Ponte Vista, I thought it would be good to place the item I got on this blog.

Folks may wish to contact Ponte Vista and have their names removed from any Emails list, and supporter lists, which may also be Email lists, but you may want to do it soon because I was informed that their lists will be updated in early June, according to the Outreach Team member.


(Click over image to enlarge for easier reading)

Bob seems to be throwing money around like he really thinks he will get whatever he wants at Ponte Vista.

NOTHING HAS BEEN DECIDED OR VOTED ON, so far as City Government is concerned, for whatever might be built at Ponte Vista.

In fact, we may be months to even a year or so away from knowing what ordinances are finally passed for Ponte Vista (just my opinion) and there is still no living human being on this planet or orbiting this planet who knows what may finally be built at Ponte Vista.

With print ads, television ads, sponsorship of events, I am still wondering what Bob is doing at this particular time.

I can still imagine that he is trying to gain support and prospective buyers before the comments to the Draft Environmental Impact Report is issued, if they are going to be separate from the Final Environmental Impact Report that may be a long, long time coming.

Everyone needs to be reminded that once 'entitlements' are granted for whatever Bob could build at Ponte Vista, he will most probably have the right to sell those 'entitlements' and chop up the property as he wishes to.

There continues to be absolutely no guarantee that Bob Bisno and his company will built anything new at Ponte Vista, no matter what he writes, says, or advertises.

Opponents to Bob's current plans for Ponte Vista know that the ONLY type of housing anyone can build at Ponte Vista, without a zoning change is single-family housing, like most of the housing in San Pedro and R.P.V..

Might Bob be spending all the money right now and then declaring bankruptcy on this particular project?

Do you think Bob will attract more support and prospective buyers he MIGHT be truly seeking now?

Do you think Bob and his Outreach Team is trying to speed things up so he can do whatever he is considering as soon as possible?

Should current supporters and prospective buyers of Bob's current plans be wary of these newer attempts to gather more support and more prospective buyers?

What were the results of any latest telephone survey that may have been conducted? Bob had a press conference/meeting on the release of an earlier survey. Could these new ads and things be a result of a more negative survey than the earlier one?

How might the issues of Ponte Vista be hurting or helping Bob's City Place project and his efforts to use eminent domain in Baldwin Park to redevelop the civic center area, there?

I do need to thank Bob and his companies and Outreach Team for helping to make a very dull time into something more interesting for all of us to ponder on.

As Bob is attempting to gain more support for Ponte Vista, I hope readers of this blog and the blog at: www.rneighborhoodsare1.blogspot.com, understand that the opposition to Bob's current plans has not eroded much over time, it is believed.

The L.A. City Planning Department, Councilwoman Janice Hahn and her assistants, the Rudderless Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1, four out of five Neighborhood Councils, and thousands of folks have not forgotten about Ponte Vista, and I hope you keep visiting the two blogs that deal with opposition to Bob's current plans, now and well into the future.

Wondering Why So Many Ads and Sponsorships

IF, as Bob's folks seem to claim, there are so many supporters of Bob's current plans for Ponte Vista and IF, there are so many "prospective buyers" willing to buy a condo at Ponte Vista, why is Bob and his Outreach Team spending so much money attempting to attract more business?

Not only are we again seeing full-page print ads for Ponte Vista, the commercial is now appearing and 'Ponte Vista' is sponsoring many activities around OUR community.

Now aren't we in a real housing slump right now?

I wonder if Bob is attempting to add to his bases of support so that when the Planning Departments comes out with a much lower number of units they feel Bob could build, he will have a larger base to use when and if he tries to sue for a larger project than what might eventually be approved of.

Bob's folks may be as clueless as to when the Planning Department will come out with their thoughts and he may be trying to increase the numbers in an effort to pressure the Planning Department to come out with higher numbers of units than they might actually wish to do.

Bob seems to be spending lots of marketing money at this time when other developments are either having great financial difficulties, or they have gone from 'for purchase' units to 'least-to-own' or 'rent-to-own' types of projects.

Does anybody detect any desperation on the part of Bob and his Outreach Team, concerning the true support for his plans for 1,950 condos?

I am certainly not savvy enough to be able to answer the question, but I know of other developers and others in the real estate industry who may know the answer.

Perhaps it is time for R Neighborhoods Are 1 to remind folks why so many of us are against having so dang many units built, having only Western Avenue for use.

It might be time to remind everyone that over crowding of schools, shopping areas, parking lots, infrastructure needs, and just about everything else that is bad about having a 'weapon of mass development' the size of what Bob currently wants, would be disastrous to OUR community.

I think it is time I write to the rest of the members of the Rudderless Steering Committee and try and get another demonstration set up to remind all of us why we are doing what we are doing.

We haven't had a great honking, waving, and sign-showing demonstration in quite a long time, and perhaps we can get even more folks to join us.

Odds and Ends 66(6)

It is with some sadness that I have to report that everyone who attempts to comfortably watch the Lakers' games during the playoffs will be mistreated to seeing the Ponte Vista ad, sometime during the broadcast.

I tried without much success, I have found, to get removed from the Ponte Vista Emails that come to folks. I wrote to the V.P. in charge of their Outreach Team and was informed that I would have my address removed, but alas, I got an Email with their announcement that those viewers of the remaining games, will have to either view the ad, or go take a poop or something else more worthwhile, in my opinion.

There has still not been a date certain set, as far as I can tell, for the hearing that will be held concerning the certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
_____________________________________________________

I have started a new blog to deal with issues other than Ponte Vista and the McCowan's Market site redevelopment. It is listed with other links and you are welcome to visit it, if you care.

Ponte Vista's T.V. Commercial

A good friend of ours called us earlier this evening to tell us she has view the Ponte Vista commercial on the Food Network channel.

I went back to the revamped Web site and also was able to see the commercial streaming on the site.

Watching Bob spend his money, knowing that any construction of anything at Ponte Vista is still a long way away, seems to be more entertaining to many of us, than just watching the commercial.

Odds and Ends 65

I apologize. Mea culpa. I am so sorry. Lo siento. My bad.

I allowed hope to overtake reason in dealing with the upcoming public hearing that may occur in July. The hope I had over reason caused me to think that something big was finally going to happen, after about 1-1/2 years of virtually nothing going on with the Ponte Vista issue.

The hearing, which has not yet had a date officially set for it, is probably nothing more than certification by the L.A. City Planning Department, of the Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR.

You may remember that comments to the DEIR were due by January, 2007. It looks like it has taken the Planning Department quite some time to deal with the comments. It also seems it has taken a good deal of time for individuals and groups representing the Ponte Vista issue, to respond to the comments sent it for the DEIR.

These processes may be ending soon and to those of us who wish to keep close to the Ponte Vista debate, the hearing is probably of interest to us.

For those who do not follow the processes as close as others do, I think they can just wait until the blog update and news from the media.

I am truly sorry that I had used more optimism, instead of realism, with this latest announcement.

Something is coming and the processes seem to continue at what may seem is a snail's pace.

There is no news on what the Planning Departments believes Bob could successfully build at his site in northwest San Pedro. This type of news would trump the release of the certification of the DEIR, but I have absolutely no idea when this much more important bit of news will be coming out of the Planning Department.

Again, if I have gotten any one's hopes up for something big to happen within the next few months, I am sorry.

For those of us who are looking forward to reading the comments to the DEIR and responses to them, I just hope we will be able to do that, after the July hearing, or whenever the hearing is held.
___________________________________________________

For Ponte Vista supporters and others wanting information about Ponte Vista, the folks with the Outreach Team have revamped the project's Web site. You are invited to view the continuing statements that suggest folks other than taxpayers are paying for signal synchronization.

You can also view a floor plan for an "850" square foot studio and an "800" square foot 1-bedroom, 1-bath unit. I am still looking for the floor plans in the 600-650 foot range that many of us were given the impression that those were the smallest-sized units Bob would be offering.

I haven't been able to find the price range for possible units at Ponte Vista. I wonder if I have to sign up as a prospective buyer to get that information? At this point I do not consider myself a prospective buyer of anything at Ponte Vista.

I wasn't able to find "1950" as the number of units Bob wants to build at Ponte Vista, but I did find information the Web site directed me to, and please look below.
________________________________________________

When I went to the "Go Green" area of the newly transformed Web site, I found a link to the DEIR.

So far, what I have pasted below, is the only source of information I can find, via the newly transformed Web site, for the total number of units Bob wants to build at Ponte Vista.

Case No. ENV-2005-4516-EIR
State Clearinghouse Number: 2005091086
Council District: 15
Wilmington-Harbor City
Project Address: : 26900 S. Western Avenue
Project Description: The Project proposes a Specific Plan (proposed density is approximately 37 units per acre), General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision, construction, and operation of a 2,300-unit townhome and condominium development including approximately 10,000 square feet of ancillary retail use to serve the convenience needs of residents. Twenty-five percent of the proposed units (575 units) would be reserved for seniors only (age 55 and above). The proposed units would have floor areas ranging from approximately 700 to 3,000 square feet. Approximately 40 percent of the Project’s post-development acreage would consist of landscaped common area to include the following: a 2.5-acre central park (with community clubhouse and pool), a two-acre waterscape concourse, a 0.5-acre senior community park, and a publicly accessible six-acre park potentially featuring two little league baseball fields. The Project would also provide an access road from Western Avenue to Mary Star of the Sea High School. The Project site is approximately 61.5 acres. The Project would involve the demolition and removal of all existing improvements on the site, which include 245 residential units, a 2,161-square foot community center, and a 3,454-square foot retail convenience facility which were constructed in approximately 1962 by the U.S. Navy for the purpose of housing and accommodating personnel stationed at the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The site (formerly known as “San Pedro Housing”) was closed in the late 1990s.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I would appreciate someone from the Outreach Team clarifying for me the location within the newly revamped Web site, where I can find "1950" as the total number of units Bob wants to build.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did find the number, "9771" in the "Need for Housing" section, of the Web site. Bob has applied for 1,950-units at Ponte Vista, and several of us have copies of that application.

So Bob wishes to build almost 20%, (19.9570%) of the residences the Web site claims is needed in the harbor area, all on one site, his site. Do we want 1/5 of the suspected need for more housing, all using Western Avenue and no other major street?
__________________________________________________

And now, from the great "Your Mama" at: http://www.realestalker.blogspot.com/ comes part of a post that deals with Beverly Hills own Bob Bisno.

It seems he is again finding ways to remain in the house he still may owe millions of dollars on a loan he took out, for whatever reasons.

http://realestalker.blogspot.com/2008/05/mish-mash-monday.html

Bisno Bizness Update

"In other luxury property foreclosure bizness, we've learned that controversial Bev Hills based real estate developer Robert Bisno has once again managed to obtain a "temporary restraining order" to push back the date of his scheduled foreclosure auction to June 4, 2008.


The children will recall that the really rich Mister Bisno somehow landed himself in some financial hot water and his gigantic Beverly Park mansion was scheduled to be sold (see third item) at auction over what the Priority Posting website shows is a defaulted debt of $5,382,794.02.


Your Mama is flabbergasted that a man with Bisno's big bank accounts seemingly can't juggle his numbers and work his abacus in such a way that he would scare up five and some million clams to save his 11,984 square foot house. But who knows?"

Thank you "Your Mama", you have come through again!
__________________________________________________

Peace and Unity Rally and a Wonderful Blog

( Click on any part of flier to enlarge)

The flier announces a wonderful way to come together and help heal wounds and work for something good in OUR community that doesn't involve dealing with Ponte Vista.

The flier was sent to me by Diana Chapman, a blogger who has a wonderful blog at:
http://theunderdogforkids.blogspot.com/

My wife and I have been planning to attend the rally for some time and we hope we see the stands at Pirate Stadium filled with good members of OUR community who want to come together more than staying apart.

The Peace and Unity Rally is one good way we can demonstrate what is best about San Pedro, the people who join together for good purposes and support the younger members of OUR community.

Odds and Ends 64

Another week goes by with no real news to report.

I did see some workers using week whackers down by the ball field on the Ponte Vista site. It seems like it looks a tiny bit cleaner behind the fences and gates.

And no, I didn't see any of the Clean San Pedro vehicles doing the cleanup.
____________________________________________________


Fast Tracking SB1818 is Dead Wrong

Land Use Revolution
By Ken Marsh

Please consider weighing in on the issue of Fast Tracking SB 1818, the state law that trades developer’s bonuses for affordable housing.

It is imperative that we challenge the global-warming-ignorant, pro-development culture that pervades our city government. At stake are both affordable housing and a sustainable urban environment in Los Angeles.

Our best hope is a moratorium on development to allow proper deliberations on a citywide policy to define both long and short-term housing and general planning.

The Backstory
(Excerpted from LA Weekly, April 23, 2008)

Angelenos Sue City Hall over Prodensity “Affordable Housing”
Pretense by D. Heimpel

".... 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. 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....

Doug Carstens, representing the coalition of community groups suing City Hall, points to California cities like Albany, Santa Cruz and Palos Verde’s, which have implemented Senate Bill 1818 — but didn’t try to end-run environmental laws as did Los Angeles...

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... The City Council is being led around by the nose by [bureaucrats in the] planning department and the city attorney."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

For urban development in a time of global warming there can be no business as usual. Commercial and residential projects, affordable and otherwise, must conform to a new set of business-as-unusual prerequisites to establish the necessary balance between growth and protecting the environment for the long-term survival of life.

When it comes to the effects of climate change, we are all NIMBY -- "Not in my back yard" is the only sane response to any and all development that adds population density, traffic congestion, environmental pollution and aesthetic degradation to the areas surrounding it.

Private interest can no longer dominate decision-making by governmental bodies entrusted with the stewardship of the infrastructure and development of our cities. In the face of growing threats to the health of the planet, public interest must be subsuming.

Those who would benefit financially by the erection of a project must provide the infrastructure that will mitigate the project's negative impacts or it must not be allowed to proceed. Fast Tracking SB 1818 is dead wrong and the leaders who support it are like Jim Jones administering the poisoned punch to gullible followers.

A moratorium on housing projects, including demolitions of existing "affordable housing," needs to be in place so that a city housing policy that defines both long and short-term planning can be developed, including preservation, protecting and expanding rent stabilization and new programs for the homeless. Home renting and owning need to be treated with equality.

The city must be mobilized for survival: fight Fast Tracking SB 1818, support a moratorium on development and encourage engagement of the neighborhood councils in a citywide effort to establish a plan for a sustainable urban environment -- Make LA Livable. (Ken Marsh is a long-time community activist and a member of the Mar Vista Community Council board.)

_CityWatch
Vol 6 Issue 38
_____________________________________________________

Some talk has been growing in OUR community about the Clearwater Program, the Sanitation District's new tunnel project that will impact many somebodies somewhere.

You can look up information about the program at: http://www.clearwaterprogram.org/clearwater/

I sure hope we can all get together in our own homeowner groups, residents associations and create a coalition that makes sure that when the 500-foot deep shaft is drilled, the tunneling machine is carefully dropped in and then the thousands and thousands and thousands of truck trips to remove the dirt, it doesn't get drilled in any neighborhood, anywhere.

Terminal Island is my first choice, but that is only one of over a dozen sites the Department is going to study to find their best place to sink the shaft.

We have plenty of time to bond together and make funny motto's and statements like' "We don't want OUR neighborhoods to get shafted".

One of the other sites appears to be Ken Malloy Park, close to P.C.H. and the Harbor Freeway.

There are three sites residents living along the coast of San Pedro sure don't want to see get 'shafted'. Royal Palms, White Point Nature Preserve, and even part of Angel's Gate is on the list for having the required five acres of land necessary to dig the shaft and have all the machines, offices, and materials on the surface while having a giant deep shaft on the site to lower stuff in and take lots and lots and lots of dirt out.

Since the two older tunnels/pipes run basically, underneath Western Avenue and out into the Pacific at Royal Palms, there is some concern that the Sanitation District will look more favorably on the three sites along the coast and Eastview Park, which is on land they already own.

We'll wait to see what commotion is stirred up at the annual election meeting of the Palisades Residents Association, the folks with the three sites, and how Councilwoman Janice Hahn will approach the subject during the meeting.

The future looks to be quite interesting for OUR community, so take a ringside seat, join a group supporting or opposing whatever you wish, tighten up your seat belts, because it will become even more of a bumpy ride.

I would hope Bob Bisno and his supporters would like to join groups opposing the placement of the shaft at Eastview Park, near the corner of Western and Westmont. Here is one more example where folks like me would be glad to join again with Bob and his supporters to accomplish things for OUR community like we did when LAUSD attempted to come up with plans to build a 2,025-seat high school at Ponte Vista.