My Interview with Mr. Oswald

In this second round of interviews I finally had my turn with Mr. Jim Oswald, the facilitator hired by the Ponte Vista Development Team in this second round.

I had met and spoken to Mr. Oswald at the April Open House and I found him interesting and willing to listen.

During my interview with Mr. Oswald, he was pleasant and seemed to really want to know my thoughts.

So of course I gave my thoughts to him.

Folks who normally read this blog know pretty much what I spoke to Mr. Oswald about, but I did add some new twists when he asked what questions I specifically had for the next round of open houses.

I am a firm believer that there has always been a real underlying problem concerning access through the Ponte Vista site for the new Mary Star of the Sea High School campus.

I provided to Mr. Oswald what I knew of the history as to how the 'deal' went down between supporters of the high school's development and the neighborhood surrounding Taper Avenue.

My questions I would like real answers to is whether a governmental agency can require an easement to a private, religious school over and through private property owned by others.

I also wanted to know if the folks at Mary Star would allow Ponte Vista residents access through their property to get young children to and from Taper Avenue Elementary School without needing to go along Western Avenue.

It seems to me that if Ponte Vista allows Mary Star students and parents access over their land, then, for safety reasons, accessing Taper Avenue School through the Mary Star property is logical and fundamentally necessary.

Of course all of this could and should end up in the court system.

Traffic can be somewhat mitigated along Western Avenue by not allowing students and parents access through Ponte Vista to get to and from Mary Star.

Why should drivers using Western but not needing access to Mary Star suffer because of a private school and the 'deal' made with residents local to the Taper Avenue end of the private drive?

I don't think it was legal to allow access to the Mary Star campus through the site when the Federal Government owned the land now known as Ponte Vista. 

Let's say you owned property and a governmental agency came to you and demanded that you allow access over your land for not only another private property, but also one that is a church-based school.

Also, who ultimately pays for the road to Mary Star through Ponte Vista? Would it be fair to pass on the costs of the road to buyers of units at Ponte Vista when they probably won't sent children to the campus?

Should buyers be assessed charges for a private, church-established campus?

This issue is not about a specific religion. Consider if you will, that the campus is run by the Muslim faith and test yourself to see whether that changes your mind. If it does, then what does that say about the whole issue?

During my talk with Mr. Oswald, I opined that I thought that if there is some senior housing, then some of that type of housing should be town houses.

I would also trim back the number of senior units receiving lower prices and more more of that category into the "multi-family." 

Since only about 20% or up to 168 of the total units would be 'workforce' housing priced or lower prices for some seniors, I also opined that the marketing strategy should have an asterisk placed next to the wording for lower priced units and then an explanation of how few of these units would probably be available.

I also opined to Mr. Oswald that the folks who want R1 and/or equivalent population density to R1 need to still be considered.

That opinion was borne out later in the day when I talked to a group of local residents who are still very much concerned with keeping the population density to that of what R1 or the current zoning allows for.

The Ponte Vista developer is using numbers for senior units to mitigate the population of the project. 

I spent some time talking about the real need for objective considerations and studies to state once and for all whether senior housing units are really needed and/or wanted in the community.

Since the strongest support for Ponte Vista comes from a strong and vital group of seniors that have populated advisory boards, it is a marketing goal to provide senior housing to attract and keep the strongest group of supporters possible.

Had there never been a consideration of having senior housing on the site in the first place, I am sure that there would not have been anywhere near whatever support was given for the project for the get-go.

I stop here to remind everyone that the Los Angeles City Planning Department contends that Ponte Vista at San Pedro should NOT have any specific senior housing unit section.

I also suggested to Mr. Oswald that a pedestrian bridge be built over Western Avenue for the students going to and from Dodson and other folks who want to cross Western Avenue.

Too many of us older residents remember too many kids getting hit by cars and even buses while they were trying to cross Western Avenue when the Navy Housing was occupied.

One of Mr. Oswald's questions he repeatedly asked me was what was I hearing 'out there'.

I pretty much answered "nothing" or "not much" to those questions. There are reasons I gave those answers and there have been times recently that I have been to busy to deal with the issues surrounding Ponte Vista.

But the musical is done and I am getting back on track. It will be interesting to see what happens at the July Open House(s). I think the number of units Mr. Fentin wants will still be 1,395, but he may package them slightly differently to better market the project through the Planning Department and Planning Commission as it weaves its way to the City Council.

At the trailer where the interview was conducted, the old boards with the current marketing wording and illustrations were all over the large room. Either they are keeping them up for folks who are not being interviewed or they are still going to go with what they currently want.

I did commend the Outreach Team and Mr. Fentin to Mr. Oswald for their seemingly new approach to OUR community.

Time will tell and I hope we all get to learn who was re-interviewed or interviewed for the first time.

Odds and Ends 120

Here is and article from The Daily Breeze.

Ponte Vista developers conducting new round of community talks

By Donna Littlejohn Staff Writer

Posted: 06/03/2009 05:57:43 PM PDT

A new round of one-on-one community interviews were launched Wednesday as developers of San Pedro's proposed Ponte Vista housing project attempt to rework their plan to win city approval.

"We're now embarking on what the (Los Angeles) Planning Commission asked us to do, which is to work with the community and come back with a revised plan," said Jim Oswald, the facilitator who will conduct some 25 meetings with residents and community leaders over the next several days.

Planning commissioners denied the developer's former plan to build 1,950 homes on a 62.5-acre site on Western Avenue at a meeting in April.

Commissioners asked the developer to bring back two viable plans in three months. One plan is to show a development with 775 to 886 homes. The other is to show 1,395 housing units, which the developer more recently proposed as the alternative to 1,950 homes.

The parties are expected back before the Los Angeles Planning Commission on Aug. 13.

Oswald said the developer also will sponsor two public open houses in July to get more feedback from the community at large.

Earlier this year, Oswald conducted an initial round of interviews, followed by open houses leading up to the April Planning Commission meeting.

Doug Epperhart, a neighborhood council activist, was among those interviewed Wednesday by Oswald.

He said traffic and density are still the major issues.

"You can throw out statistics, but anyone who has sat through four red lights on Western Avenue is not going to believe you," Epperhart said.

"The real question is where between 1,395 and 500 or 800 (homes) do we land?"

Traffic issues and proposed traffic improvements along with the density and design of the project will all be on the table at the sessions, Oswald said.

"Obviously there are some of the very same concerns from the first go-around and a real interest in mitigating traffic," Oswald said. "That's the big one."

Ponte Vista has been the source of often contentious debate in the community since developer Bob Bisno purchased the surplus Navy land for $125 million and rolled out plans in July 2005 calling for 2,300 homes.

Supporters say the project would bring needed housing stock - including units set aside for those 55 and older - to San Pedro.

Critics say traffic on Western Avenue will become even worse than it is now.

The downturn in the economy has no doubt also affected plans by the developers, although they are still moving forward.

"I think the idea is that the developer wants to keep the project moving to the extent that it can," Oswald said.

donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com
_________________________________________________

The article states that two proposals should be provided to the Planning Commission. One proposal is for between 775 and 886-units. This falls right into line with my feeling that Ponte Vista should be built with the equivalent dwelling density of The Gardens. This would allow for 831 units on Ponte Vista's 61.53 gross acres.

_________________________________________________

I still haven't seen or found any objective studies or forums to suggest that many residents of OUR community need or want senior housing built in the area.

I can agree and allow for some senior housing at Ponte Vista and it is something I have suggested for some time.

But my suggestions, along with suggestions of others, are primarily based on subjective considerations and there really has been no test to determine whether senior housing is necessary at Ponte Vista for OUR community's sake.

Right now the proposition that senior housing be at Ponte Vista may be just a marketing ploy by the developers. If not, then I welcome some real studies informing all of us about the real necessity for senior housing.
________________________________________________

I don't know how many of the folks interviewed by Mr. Oswald were interviewed by him during his first set of interviews.

It would be nice to see a new board listing who is interviewed this time when we attend the two open houses this July.
_______________________________________________

Coming To Western Avenue, Resurfacing You Can Believe In

Yes folks, construction signs have popped up along both directions of Western Avenue.

It's a resurfacing job according to a wonderful source.

The job has nothing really to do directly with Ponte Vista at San Pedro and it is not the beginning of any demolition or construction work on that project's site.

You will probably see resurfacing equipment being stored during the day at the Ponte Vista site.

The Outreach Team and Mr. Fentin have made space available on the property for daily storage.

The resurfacing project will begin at Avenida Aprenda and go all the way to Carson Street. All work will be conducted at night and only one lane should be worked on at a time.

The work is scheduled to begin late this month or in July. I don't know how long the project will take to get completed.

I want to thank Dana from the Ponte Vista Outreach Team for helping me get the word out.

(I still think 1,395-units are too many, but that is on another post.)

Ponte Vista to Conduct 2nd Round of Stakeholder Interviews and Public Informational MeetingsTTtttt

The following article is from www.yourpontevista.com the blog published by the Outreach Team for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
____________________________________________

Ponte Vista to Conduct 2nd Round of Stakeholder Interviews and Public Informational Meetings

May 29th, 2009 by Ponte Vista

(San Pedro, CA) Ponte Vista Partners, LLC will once again work with community facilitator Jim Oswald to conduct a second round of stakeholder interviews, small group meetings and public informational sessions. This additional outreach is part of a continuing effort to work with the Harbor Area communities to finalize a development plan for the Ponte Vista residential community. The plan will be presented to the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission on Thursday, August 13, 2009. 

During its public hearing for Ponte Vista on April 9, 2009, the City of Los Angeles Planning Commission directed the developer of Ponte Vista and the City of LA Planning Staff to work together on a compromise plan that “incorporates elements of the applicant’s revised concept and staff’s recommendations.” The commission set the date of August 13th to hear back from Ponte Vista and planning staff on the plan.

Oswald will interview key community leaders and stakeholders in June and conduct a series of group and public informational sessions in June and July. The public informational sessions will feature presentations and discussions on key topics of interest to Harbor Area community members. Information gathered from the sessions will help the Ponte Vista development team evolve the land use concept and prepare the compromise plan to be reviewed at the August Planning Commission meeting. Informational session topics may include traffic issues and proposed traffic improvements; housing types, density and design; and sustainable community design/open space.

Individual interviews and small group meetings will include neighborhood council presidents, board members and land use chairs, chamber of commerce leaders, homeowner association leadership, business leaders and residents living and doing business close to the proposed Ponte Vista community, and members of Councilwoman Hahn’s 2008 Ponte Vista Citizens Advisory Committee. Second round interviews will include individuals who have both opposed and supported the project and have been engaged with the Ponte Vista process over the past three years.

Key components of the current Ponte Vista Land Use Concept (based in large part on the first round of community outreach) include:

• A Senior Village for active seniors with its own pool, clubhouse and on-demand shuttle service in a secure environment
• Condominiums for first-time home buyers, young professionals and working families
• Workforce housing for teachers, firefighters, police officers and nurses
• More row and courtyard townhomes (two-thirds of the site is dedicated to townhomes)
• Neighborhood-serving retail for Ponte Vista residents and the surrounding community
• Access to Mary Star of the Sea High School from Western Avenue
• An environmentally sensitive community featuring water conservation measures including water reclamation systems and drought tolerant landscaping;  a focus on healthy environment and reducing waste; and energy efficient systems and appliances
• A two-acre village green and dedicated community open space that includes walking trails and bike paths
• A commitment to good paying union construction jobs through a Project Labor Agreement
• Traffic improvement funding for synchronized traffic signals and acceleration/deceleration turn lanes in front of shopping centers on Western Avenue to improve the flow of traffic, which will be in place before new residents move into Ponte Vista

The Ponte Vista development team is looking forward to continuing outreach efforts with Jim Oswald to engage with the community to create a vibrant neighborhood that delivers a responsible, sustainable and reasonable development that is responsive to the needs of the Harbor Area. 

About Ponte Vista

Ponte Vista is a new residential community being proposed for a 62-acre site located on Western Avenue in San Pedro. Ponte Vista features a mixed-income, multi-generational community with senior housing, and row and courtyard homes for move-up buyers, and housing for working families in a green, sustainable community. DLJ Real Estate Capital Partners is developing Ponte Vista. Ted Fentin, principal, of DLJ is leading the development team.

About Jim Oswald

Jim Oswald is a professional facilitator with Gensler, a global architecture, design, planning and consulting firm. Oswald brings 25 years of experience in designing, managing and facilitating strategic planning and community outreach programs for a wide range of public, private, non-profit and institutional clients.  He has successfully worked on dozens of land use and transportation projects across the United States.
________________________________________________________

Ms. Elise Swanson from the Outreach Team called me to set up my appointment with Mr. Oswald which I gladly accepted.

During the first round of interviews with Mr. Oswald a large range of comments were provided to him by a variety of individuals on all sides of the discussions.

I fully expect this round will be quite a bit like the first round.

Those interviewed should speak their mind about what they want to see at the development and provide reasons to Mr. Oswald for their comments.

Whether this might change the number and types of units currently being considered is not known by me.

I will let Mr. Oswald know that I happen to appreciate that the largest number of units currently being considered are 'upscale' town houses. I feel they will provide a more stable community even though I will continue to contend that 1395-total units is still too many for the project.

Perhaps Mr. Oswald will discuss with me why the Ponte Vista development team is not considering having an equivalent unit density with The Gardens. 

It should be interesting.

You may also wish to ask whether your input to Mr. Oswald can be considered. You may want to give Ms. Elise Swanson a call if you are so interested.

Odds and Ends 119

I have seen more "Road Work Ahead" signs in a larger area but still near to the Ponte Vista site.

There is an orange sign with black lettering along eastbound Palos Verdes Drive North as it nears Western Avenue. 

I still don't know what is going on, but I will try to learn more next week.

_____________________________________________

In John Mavar's monthly column in the San Pedro Today magazine he states that R1 is dead.

I think Mr. Mavar needs to be reminded that there are a significant number of members of OUR community who do not believe this is true. They are still working for that type of zoning to remain at the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site whether we like it or not.

There are many factions and many voices still to be heard even in this climate of more understanding and communication. 

As I can continue to repeat, there is still no human on this or any other planet, nor in orbit inside the International Space Station that knows what will be approved of for Ponte Vista.

Not even John Mavar.

_____________________________________________

I will be dealing with the Marymount project and some new information about the Terranea project on my east R.P.V. blog.

Marymount has rescinded its request for on-campus housing but there has been no decision made at this time whether the College will seek to enlarge its "Palos Verdes North" off-campus housing facility that currently houses about 300 students at the site along Palos Verdes Drive North, close to Ponte Vista.

Folks representing the College do not wish to let OUR community know about the injury accident that involved two students on Western Avenue recently. Perhaps they lived  at the Palos Verdes North facility, but I haven't been able to confirm that yet.

______________________________________________

The recent and related news about the very sad fatality of a student at Marymount must be taken as a moot point where any concern about on-campus housing is concerned.

Marymount rescinded its request for on-campus housing prior to the one-vehicle incident that also injured a student of the campus.

The tragedy should not play a part in any discussion about on-campus housing as it has been eliminated from the current project's plans.

_____________________________________________

There are many upcoming Summer activities in OUR community that may involve folks representing Ponte Vista.

I hope that Ted and his development team become involved with as many of these great events as they wish to.

I believe that now we have a reasonable team assembled to work with OUR community and interacting with them should be much more pleasurable than having to deal with folks during "The Bob Years".

_____________________________________________

Odds and Ends 118

Maybe I haven't been paying much attention lately. When I saw the "Traffic Fines Doubled In Construction Zone" facing NORTHBOUND Western Avenue traffic right at the most southern point of Ponte Vista, I didn't remember seeing it before.

Now I have no idea what is up with any construction along northbound Western Avenue adjacent to the Ponte Vista site. I didn't see any street paint that would indicate any utility company paint on the roadway pre-marking anything for future digging.

If anyone knows what is up, please reply to this blog via a comment.

I'll try this coming week to find answers.

It probably has nothing to do with the Ponte Vista development per se.

____________________________________________

I know that during "The Bob Years" many of us had called for tarps to be placed along the fencing to block what we called the blight of the area.

I still feel we should continue to call for more blockage of views onto the property even though there is a new developer involved. The place does look a bit better, but blight then is still blight now.

____________________________________________

Odds and Ends 117

I'm still working long hours and doing my best with rehearsals for "Upton Sinclair's Singing Jailbirds, the Musical" and I haven't been attending meetings I normally would have attended this month.

_____________________________________________

It is becoming clearer to me that a new working relationship has taken hold between members of OUR community and the Ponte Vista team.

While it is certainly true that there are still many different ideas surrounding the size and scope of the project, there seems to me more avenues of communication that have opened.

There are still many people and groups that have strong opinions about the number of units and the zoning of the property.

Quite a few members of OUR community still insist that the site remain as it is currently zoned for single-family, detached housing only. These members need to be included with everyone else in the comments and working relations towards finding the best solutions for OUR community.

I am still holding firm to my current belief that the Ponte Vista Project should have equivalent dwelling density to that of The Gardens. I continue to feel that the Ponte Vista Project's team can find ways to include the different types of housing within the number equivalent to The Gardens.

There are a great number of members of OUR community who wish to see the currently preferred number of 1,395-units built on the site.

It is probably true that there are many more opinions in OUR community about the size and amenities at Ponte Vista that haven't been heard from. 

There are truly a great number of folks who also don't care about the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project.

I continue to be encouraged by what I have been learning in the last few months. I don't know what will actually be brought before the Planning Commission when it meets again on this matter.

I strongly suspect the developers will continue to seek the 1,395-unit count whether any of us like it or not. But I do think there is now a team in place that can work much better with OUR community than during "The Bisno Years".

____________________________________________

The last newsletter that came in the mail from a realtor was quite dismal.

That realtor painted a bleak picture as far as home values and foreclosures in the area she deals with.

But by the time anything is under construction at Ponte Vista, the market had better be in a much better condition or we are all going to be in some real straights.

____________________________________________

The other big development news in the San Pedro area revolves around the new high school campus approved for the Palisades area of San Pedro.

The actual demolition and/or movement of historical buildings on the Upper Reservation of Fort MacArthur has either just begun or will begin very shortly.

There is plenty of asbestos up in them thar buildings and an AQMD inspector was scheduled to visit the site this week.

____________________________________________

Odds and Ends 116 Late Update!

This update came via U.S. Mail on Friday.

I received copies of documentation sent by the Los Angeles City Planning Commission.

The documents represented the outcome of the appeal that the developer filed after the members of the Planning Commission voted to deny the application, vesting tract map and other things related to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project.

It was not only natural but completely expected that the Applicant would appeal the Planning Commissioners votes.

It was also expected that the appeals would be denied.

The denial of the appeals were sustained.

All of this doesn't really mean even a mound of beans because the new development team already began new ideas for the project.

All of the above really means is that "The Bisno Years" are over! It means we all can get working together with new leadership and new visions to provide the best project for OUR community.

_____________________________________________

With the news of the ouster of Bob's attorney Alan Abshez from the project, we might wonder who else from the "Bisno years" team may need to find new endeavors.

I have been very busy with "Upton Sinclair's Singing Jailbirds, the Musical" and I haven't had my thoughts dealing much lately with Ponte Vista.

I did notice that some of the yards are continuing to be weeded and we are thankful for that.

Please visit www.sanpedroissuestoponder.blogspot.com to learn about the production beginning in two weeks at the historic Warner Grand Theater in San Pedro.

____________________________________________

Other development news in the area concerns the developer of the Terranea project along the coast and his project of attempting to hold back Rancho Palos Verdes bed tax revenues once the place opens for business.

Mr. Lowe wants to hold back 8 Million Dollars of tax revenue that city would collect. This is a hot button issue in R.P.V and the May 26 meeting of the City Council should be filled beyond overflowing.

A downtown L.A. hotel developer has managed to get an agreement from the city of L.A. to hold back bed taxes for twenty years.

____________________________________________

The LaSalle project in downtown San Pedro in now open and looking for new residents. It is still a dismal market so folks are watching all the developments in the area to see if they can attract buyers or folks willing to sign leases.

____________________________________________

As far as the addition of the new environmental attorney onto the Ponte Vista team, while it looks to be a wonderful thing, I am not going to retreat from my idea that the project's dwelling density should be equal to The Gardens. I'm still looking for reasons why that is such a bad idea.

___________________________________________

A Wonderful and Possitive Addition for OUR Community!

Mr. Ted Fentin has done some good things recently that are very encouraging.

I do have to repeat though that I still find 1,395 units too many for the project.

The development team is moving forward in a very positive way now that should benefit everyone in OUR community. Except for those who continue to demand R1 as the only way to go.

Alan Abshez, the long time Bisno attorney who was part of the transition and continued for some time, is gone! The more everyone moves away from "The Bisno Years" the better.

Now on board is Ms. Patti Tubert. She is a retired L.A. City Attorney who specializes in environmental matters.

Mr. Pat Nave, a strong member of R Neighborhoods Are 1 spent some time talking with Ms. Tubert, who he as known for some time.

Pat reported that he is very pleased with Ms. Tubert coming on board and that she is someone that understands and can work well with OUR community.

Pat believes we can rely on Ms. Tubert's "integrity and judgement".

The timeline for going forward is still in flux as Ms. Tubert comes onboard.

Ponte Vista has also hired another environmental person.

I think we all have a much better opportunity to work along with the Ponte Vista team rather than continuing to fight or challenge them.

There will be time to deal with specific numbers in the future. But it looks like we are all going to have more input into the new environmental studies for the project.

After too many years of fighting, working together to provide the best outcome for OUR community including Ponte Vista is looking brighter and brighter, I feel.

But as I continue to write, 1,395-units is still far too many.

Thank you very much Ted, Tim, and the Outreach Team. 

Odds and Ends 115

I've got nothing this week.

I haven't seen anything new on www.yourpontevista.com recently.

Uh...!

DURANT, OK- It's one of Texoma's biggest attractions and today more than 200 people gathered to talk about future plans for Lake Texoma. City and state leaders from both sides of the red river say they'll work together to find the best way to develop it and our economy. Rita Kotey has the story.

"A success in Denison, Texas is also a success in Madill, Oklahoma as we share this asset of Lake Texoma.”

Jared Johnson a Denison city council member joined other city leaders from all over Texoma to talk about what they feel is Texoma's most important resource, the lake.

"Its good to have all the stake holders together talking about development because I think when the lake does develop it needs to be developed right and communication is key to make that happen, " said Scott Fisher.

Scott Fisher with the Pointe Vista Development says he was glad to get the opportunity to share with Texans his ideas about how Pointe Vista can benefit them.

"Oklahoma at this time does not have this kind of resort development it’s important for our state but it’s also important for south Oklahoma and north Texas. I think the timing will be right when Texoma develops I think we will be positioned right in the market and it definitely has the right demographic location between Oklahoma City,” Fisher said.

Developer George Schuler also made a presentation today about how the 2,500 acre Schuler Development will benefit Texoma, bringing visitors to the lake as well as jobs to the area, and money to the economy.

"We think we are bringing a unique product to the area we are working a joint venture with the city on developing that part of the city of Denison," Schuler said.

"Anytime we can get together collaborate with one another try to get on the same page, we are not always going to agree on everything but at the end of the day if our visions the same then we are moving forward," Johnson said. 

------------------------------------------

http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/Pointe+Vista+TIF+Presentation_03-12-09.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thu June 19, 2008
Lake Texoma land deal OK'd for upscale resort

By Julie Bisbee
Staff Writer
MADILL  Private developers have control of 90 acres of state park land near Lake Texoma and want to purchase about 900 acres of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The state Tourism Commission on Wednesday approved the sale of property to Pointe Vista Development. The move finalizes a land sale pending for nearly two years.

Pointe Vista plans to demolish the state park lodge and golf course as part of a $750 million plan to build an upscale resort and lakeside living complex.

The lodge has been closed since December 2006.

What are their plans?
The local economy and concessionaires that once relied on visitors struggled to stay afloat the past year.

Commission members waited to approve the sale of land to the developers, who plan to build a conference center, hotel and private residences, until Pointe Vista had reached an agreement with the three concessionaries who operated businesses on state park land.

The final agreement with the owners and operators of Catfish Bay Marina was reached earlier this week, said Scott Fischer of Pointe Vista Development.

The land around Catfish Bay, a popular marina and camping spot, will continue to be public and belong to the state, Fischer said.

Two other parcels of land where the Lake Texoma Fun Park and riding stables were located will now belong to Pointe Vista.

Visitors should see few immediate changes, said Hardy Watkins, Tourism Department executive director.

"There should be no impact through this travel season," Watkins said. "The state park services will not end."

Pointe Vista Development, which includes Aubrey McClendon, chairman and chief executive officer for Chesapeake Energy Corp., and Mark Fischer, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Chaparral Energy, will simply take over the lease at Catfish Bay.

"We're working to make the transition as comfortable as possible," Fischer said. "We plan to carry on the operations in the same fashion."

------------------------------------------

March 17, 2009

Friends of Lake Texoma Letter to the Editor 3.17.09

Dear Editor,

The Marshall County TIF review committee met in Kingston last week and heard Pointe Vista officials claim their development could bring in over $531 million in taxes over the next 25 years. But, under the terms of tax increment financing, this money doesn't benefit the whole county it stays within the development area to pay for their infrastructure costs. And, if they go bankrupt, it won't bring in a dime.

The Friends of Lake Texoma State Park (FLTSP) oppose corporate welfare for Pointe Vista's park conversion, because they haven't received approvals by the National Park Service (NPS), or the Corps of Engineers Environmental Branch for taking away our public recreation land. (As this paper pointed out in February, NPS’ Bob Anderson said, "We do not have an approved conversion. No conversion request has been submitted to us.")

We believe Pointe Vista's efforts to gain public funding prove they don't have the money to build, or, they aren't willing to risk their own money, in the event it fails. If they aren't willing to risk it, why should Marshall County?

When asked by one reporter at TIF meeting if Pointe Vista's presentation materials would be made available to her, at first they refused. When she persisted, they agreed to provide them. However, there is a serious problem with what they provided. It's not all there. They omitted something.

They left out an important map which incorrectly represented Pointe Vista project boundaries. That map included Area A The Chickasaw Pointe Golf Course, etc. (north of US 70), and Area B - Lake Texoma State Park (south of US 70). However, they also deceptively included Area C, the 1,000 acres of federal land which they do not own, and may never own.

We have been accused of standing in the way of progress, and delaying this project. The truth is, the state Tourism Department and Pointe Vista officials have mislead the public by failing to discuss the estimated 18 to 24 months required for the Corp of Engineers to complete their Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on Area C. It will also include a critical economic impact component which the TIF committee should review before doing anything else.

The Land Office Commissioners have the oversight authority and legal obligation to protect our state lands. They were in error when they sold the Park without assuring the state's compliance with the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. They can void the land sale contracts with Pointe Vista, and take back the entire park, based on the developer's inexperience and deceptiveness.

Boyd Steele, President
Friends of Lake Texoma State Park

------------------------------------------

http://www.pointe-vista.com/info.cfm

________________________

Just thought you might like a little light reading.

Odds and Ends 114

It's been fairly quiet this week on the Western Front.

It seems Mr. Ted Fentin, the Developer has been in N.Y.C. for meetings.

Mr. David Olivo the planner with the Los Angeles City Planning Department is waiting on items to come to him from the Development Team so the next phases of the EIR can begin.

_____________________________________________

www.yourpontevista.com has a new post you may want to read. It is the Development's Blog.

_____________________________________________

Many of us are reeling over the news that Union War Surplus may close. Most of us could not care less that the Starbuck's at Centre Streets Lofts will also become history.

For all the folks who really believe change is good may want to rethink things a bit.

Change occurs. 

____________________________________________

Maybe we need to consider 'Workforce Housing' at Ponte Vista more. Is that type of housing only going to be marketed for the 143 units that will be priced to be the lowest at the project?

Or is it housing in the 'Multi-family condos" being considered? Should the Developer market any Senior Housing as 'Workforce Housing'?

I do fee everyone who has an opinion about Ponte Vista should call or write to the Outreach Team with their views.

____________________________________________

www.sanpedroissuestoponder.blogspot.com has my recent post about the 2010 Census. I have been hired as a replacement Quality Control Enumerator. I received the training but I may or may not actually do any more work as an Enumerator.

There are opportunities for work with the U.S. Census continuing until about September, 2010.

_____________________________________________

Will the work closing one southbound lane along Western near Avenida Aprenda ever be finished?

Maybe we are being trained to accept whatever the Sanitation District has in mind with their new Outfall System ideas.

Just kidding perhaps.

____________________________________________

Odds and Ends 113

This week I haven't learned anything new directly relating to Ponte Vista at San Pedro but some new items indirectly relating to the project continue to move forward.

The Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission has rejected the proposal to have on-campus residence halls built at Marymount College.

The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project includes plans to build on-campus housing for 250-students and five staff members. That portion of the Project was voted against at last Tuesday's R.P.V. Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Jeffrey Lewis and members of the main opposition group to the College's expansion project favor redeveloping the off-campus housing site along Palos Verdes Drive North.

Marymount owns and maintains Palos Verdes North, a site along Palos Verdes Drive North between Western Avenue and Five-Points. Currently there are about 300 students and staff members living in the 86 housing units at the site.

The Commissioner and the opposition group favor the Project Alternative called the "Living Campus/Academic Campus Alternative."

That Alternative would have all student housing at the Palos Verdes North facility along with almost all of the College's athletic facilities and programs.

The Planning Commission did adopt a plan for an athletic field on the College's Palos Verdes Drive East campus site, but that adoption isn't sitting well with Project supporters.

In the College's "Preferred Project" there would have been 624.4 additional vehicle trips along Western Avenue between Trudie Drive and Palos Verdes Drive North. This fact has not been taken into account by Ponte Vista planners and Ponte Vista has been basically ignored by Marymount planners.

It is expected that the R.P.V. Planning Commission will forward all of their recommendations to the R.P.V. City Council by late June, 2009.

I think that no matter what you may feel about Ponte Vista at San Pedro, you have the right and ability to make your feelings know to the R.P.V. Planning Commission and City Council no matter where you live.
___________________________________________

The following is from an article published in Citywatch L.A. and authored by Mr. Doug Epperhart:

Planners Put Ponte Vista on a Diet
By Doug Epperhart

“Does this development make me look fat?”

That’s the big question Harbor area residents have been asking about the proposed Ponte Vista project. On April 9, the planning commission’s answer was, “Well, yes, it does. But, with the help of city planners, you can slim down in no time.”

“No time” being the 120 days commissioners gave developer DLJ Capital Partners, planning staff, and the community to forge a compromise.

Here’s the story in a nutshell: Developer Bob Bisno buys 60-acre site zoned R1 (single-family homes) in San Pedro; developer proposes 2,300 condos—too big, too much traffic; neighborhood councils oppose project; Councilwoman Janice Hahn forms advisory committee; community activists form RNeighborhoodsAre1 anti-Ponte Vista coalition; developer downsizes to 1,950 units—still too big, still too much traffic; Hahn advisors endorse R1 zoning; planning department recommends much smaller project (775-886 units); Bisno ousted by lender Credit Suisse First Boston; new project lead DLJ Capital Partners proposes 1,395 units, promises no density bonus; and then we all go before the city planning commission last week.

The developer presented its current plan for 1,395 townhomes and condos and asked for time to work out a compromise. Planning staff offered its recommendation for a smaller project which allows nearly 1,200 units if a density bonus is used.

Project proponents were mostly union personnel and members promoting the need for construction jobs and area chamber of commerce executives touting the benefits for business owners.

Project opponents included the adjacent cities of Rancho Palos Verdes and Lomita, homeowner groups, and the Northwest San Pedro, Harbor City, and Coastal San Pedro neighborhood councils. They cited inadequate environmental work, the project’s noncompliance with the community plan, and, of course, traffic.

Councilwoman Janice Hahn called for a new traffic study, fewer units, and voiced concern about the density bonus allowed under state law (SB 1818).

Ponte Vista’s developer has said no density bonus will be used and they are willing to sign a legal agreement to that effect. However, the assistant city attorney advising planning said “there’s too much uncertainty” whether such a contract would be legally enforceable. In other words, it’s a “trust me” situation in which the community could be left holding the bag.

The other elephant in the room is the traffic Ponte Vista will generate and whether it can be mitigated. The unique geography of the area means the site is essentially an “island on the land” where there’s only one way in and out. Even at R1 density, the project will result in thousands of additional car trips on Western Avenue, an already crowded thoroughfare. Commissioners made clear they want a new traffic study that takes into account the special circumstances in the area.

Commission chair William Roschen also told the developer, “Do not use senior housing for traffic mitigation.” Ponte Vista’s claim that residents 55 and over would generate far fewer car trips has been a bone of contention.

Commissioner Michael Woo objected to the portion of the project that would be closed to the public. “Gated communities are an antisocial act,” he said, pointing out he couldn’t ever recall voting to support a gated project.

Referring to what the new vision for Ponte Vista might be, one planning official said, “The ball’s in their court.” In other words, the department is in a holding pattern until the developer submits a new proposal.

So far, planning staff has done a good job of understanding the community’s stake in this project and responded by doing “real planning” according to city policy. If they can keep Ponte Vista on a diet, we’ll all be benefit.

(Doug Epperhart is a publisher, member of the Coastal San Pedro NC board and is a contributor to CityWatch. He can be reached at Epperhart@cox.net

CityWatchVol 7 Issue 31Pub: Apr 17, 2009
___________________________________________

Here is another article dealing with that pesky SB 1818 Density Bonus issue:

Judge Invalidates Controversial Densification Bill; Citizens Win another Court Battle with City
Report provided by EAHCLA

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has ruled that the City of Los Angeles acted illegally when it approved a controversial “densification” ordinance without first conducting environmental review of the potential impacts of the ordinance. The coalition of community groups that brought the challenge hailed the ruling as an opportunity for the City to redraft the ordinance to advance the twin goals of affordable housing and environmental protection.

A state law (S.B. 1818) mandates that cities allow density bonuses to developers proposing to build a percentage of affordable units at a proposed development. The Los Angeles ordinance that was the subject of the lawsuit, filed by the Environment and Housing coalition Los Angeles (EAHCLA) in April of 2008, went far beyond the state mandate, in some cases allowing up to 300% of the bonus required by state law. EAHCLA’s lawsuit claimed that, because the City went beyond the requirements of state law, the City first had to study the environmental impact of the ordinance. The Court agreed, holding that those sections of the ordinance that go beyond State law are invalid. The Order issued on Monday by Superior Court Judge Thomas I. McKnew, Jr. prohibits the City from processing applications for density bonuses or incentives that exceed State mandates, and also invalidates approvals that already have been granted based on the ordinance.

“We are very pleased with the Court’s decision” said EACHLA spokesman Rob Glushon. “The judge clearly recognized that while the City had to do something to implement the state law, the City went about implementing the law in the wrong way, by approving a deeply flawed ordinance and illegally refusing to first consider the environmental effects of its approval. We now hope to work with the City in redrafting the ordinance so that both the environment and affordable housing are protected.”

The Santa Monica firm of Chatten-Brown & Carstens litigated the case. Doug Carstens, a partner at the firm, was pleased with the ruling. “The Court clearly understood that the City, by going well beyond the requirements of state law, incurred an obligation to first study what the environmental impacts of the ordinance would be. Not only were existing communities being adversely impacted by inappropriately dense development, but affordable housing has been lost as developers tear down apartments to build condominiums. This decision affords the City a great opportunity to correct the mistakes made the first time around, to implement a policy of no net loss of affordable housing, and to advance state policy on affordable housing in an environmentally sensitive manner.”

EAHCLA is a coalition comprised of a wide range of residential and homeowner associations, civic organizations, and concerned individuals.

The case is Superior Court Case Number BS114338.

From http://www.citywatch.com/ Thursday April 16, 2009.
____________________________________________

R Neighborhoods Are 1 is not part of the lawsuit mentioned in the article above. It continues to be a party in the La Brea Coalition lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles regarding the city's General Plan.

R Neighborhoods Are 1 has retained a lawyer from the same law firm identified in the Citywatch article above.
____________________________________________

If you have been fortunate not to have been bothered by lane closures along Western Avenue between Dodson Avenue and 9th Street, congratulations.

Folks dealing with the lane closure now on the east side of that portion of what was and still may be the longest 'Avenue' on the planet have been watching an underground conduit and guardrail placement happening.

It appears that the west side of that portion of Western Avenue will get the same treatment.

I can't say yet whether sidewalks will be constructed after the guardrails are placed.

(When the longest portion of Western Avenue was completed it formed a continuous stretch of 'Avenue' from Paseo Del Mar on the south to Los Feliz on the north, just at the border of Griffith Park. There is also a section of "Western Avenue" on the north side of Griffith Park extending into the eastern portion of the San Fernando Valley.)
_____________________________________________

The Census is coming, the Census is coming!

You may have been contacted by 'Production Enumerators' or 'Quality Control Listers' who are attempting to find all living quarters in the United States.

They (we) won't be asking you how many folks live in living quarters or who they are right now. We (they) will just want to know where all places where folks do or could live are located.

For the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site, it can be included in the current gathering of the Address List because while the dwelling units are vacant and boarded up, those units could potentially be used for living quarters by the time the actual 2010 Census is conducted.

If you find an 'Enumerator' or 'Lister' knocking on your door or standing near your living quarters, please be kind. They (we) are just trying to make sure we get the most accurate information and locations we can to provide the best Census information possible.

Remember, the U.S. Census is included in the U.S. Constitution. It began in 1790 and it must be completed and placed on the desk of the President of the United States by the end of December 31, 2010.
____________________________________________

If you happen to hear loud noises coming from the Long Beach area this weekend, the races are in that area and you are hearing race car engines.

'Back in the day' many of us heard the roar of dragster engines coming from the old Lions Drag Strip or the drag strip that was on Terminal Island for a slight spell.
____________________________________________

Senior Housing Article and A Bit About Lowest Pricing

This small article comes from the AARP Bulletin for April 2009.

Age-Restricted Housing Becomes Ageless

The market for age-restricted housing has gone bust as the economic downturn prompts many boomers, unable to sell their homes, to age in place instead.

In New Jersey, "it is much more difficult to find construction financing, and many banks are saying they will not lend at all" for such projects, says Jeffrey Otteau, president of the Otteau Valuation Group.

Meanwhile, sales of new homes have lagged so badly that many developers have asked to lift the age restrictions-typically requiring residents to be 55-plus that had imposed. Local officials have often granted the requests, rather than have near-vacant complexes.

It's and "issue that's going on across the country," says Jennifer Raitt, chairwoman of the housing and community development division of the American Planning Association. "For the last 10 years, there has been a huge influx of age-restricted housing built, or perhaps overbuilt.

Much of it is in the South, Midwest, and Southwest, where the National Association of Home Builders says not much is being built now. In at least two states outside those regions that joined the boom late, New Jersey and Massachusetts, some towns have lifted age restrictions.

Kenneth J. Cooper
----------------------------------------------------------------
There MAY really be a strong desire among a number of San Pedrans for Senior Housing. There hasn't been any scientific study to determine if there is a true need or how many folks in OUR community would be very interested in moving into Senior Housing of the type considered by the Ponte Vista Development team.

Would Senior Housing be financially viable for developers to seek approval for in the coming year or two?

The economy will turn around and I don't thing anyone can currently say how many of the potential 380 Senior Housing units at Ponte Vista would find quick buyers.
______________________________________________

In trying to determine the possible prices for the least expensive units at Ponte Vista, I begin with what the Attorney stated.

At the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Allen Abshez, representing the Applicant stated that 20% of the Senior Housing Units and Multi-family Units set aside as least priced would be for buyers who earned 180% of the Area Median Income.

According to County statistics, the Area Median Income for the Wilmington Community Plan Area is about $41,000 per year. This figure is used because Ponte Vista is located in the Wilmington/Harbor City Community Plan Area and not in San Pedro's.

The San Pedro Community Plan Area has an Area Median Income that is somewhat higher.

So, using 180% of the A.M.I. of $41,000, the minimum yearly requirement to purchase one of the 153-least priced units at Ponte Vista would be about $73,800.

That yearly income is $6,150 per month.

If one allows for 33% of monthly income to go to house payments and property taxes, those would total about $2,029.5 per month.

In 2009 and beyond, how much 'home' will $2030 per month, not counting HOA fees buy?

Right now some folks are telling me that it would actually take two incomes combined totaling about $90,000 per year to get into one of the proposed 153 units, if they are actually built.

I hope in the new spirit of revelations by the Development Team, we all get to learn about pricing, number of bedrooms, and probable population during the recirculation of the EIR.

Odds and Ends 112

To begin with, here is the statement from the Ponte Vista Outreach Team from their www.yourpontevista.com site:

Planning Commission Affirms Desire to Move Ponte Vista Forward

Apr 9th, 2009

This morning, following presentations from the Planning Department staff and Ponte Vista team, along with passionate public testimony, the Los Angeles Citywide Planning Commission directed the department staff to work with Ponte Vista to further analyze the department’s report and Ponte Vista’s revised Land Use Concept.

Ponte Vista is pleased by the Planning Commission’s decision, which not only recognizes the need for senior and workforce housing that is environmentally-sensitive, but also acknowledges the diligent efforts Ponte Vista has made to respond to the Planning Department’s staff report and the community feedback gathered in February and March, 2009.

Ponte Vista looks forward to working with the Planning Department and the community in the coming months to develop a plan that the Planning Commission can review at its meeting in mid-August.

Thank you to all of the many supporters who traveled downtown to show your enthusiasm for Ponte Vista, and to those of you who testified from San Pedro.

As the process continues, we are committed to being responsive to community concerns regarding traffic and density, while at the same time continuing to provide senior housing and homes for young professionals, first-time home buyers and working families.
_____________________________________________

I think it deserves repeating that there were some points made by the majority of Planning Commission members that can benefit OUR community whether one supports the current plans or not.

There is an interest in having some Senior Housing at Ponte Vista.
There was nothing basically mentioned about having the current zoning remaining at the site.
The creation of jobs was spoken about by just about every member of the Planning Commission.
Traffic continues to be the elephant in the living room.
The concept of having different housing types seemed favorable to the members.
There really was no discussion on the number of units for each type of housing.
The EIR needs to be recirculated with the new Proposed Project, the Planning Department's take, and the "No Project" Alternative which must be retained for legal purposes.
_____________________________________________

R Neighborhoods Are 1 representatives have already begun attempts to work with all groups in helping to create the best results for OUR community.

Very preliminary outreach attempts have been offered to work with everyone in a positive manner to get all the required studies done as completely as possible.

Offers have been sent out to assist in finding ways to get everything done as soon as feasible, too.

It would be a good idea to attempt to have the recirculation of the EIR completed within the time frame between now and the date for the project report so the plans can more forward with reasonable speed.

Even though so many of us may be weary of all the things that still must be done, we now have the real chance to get everything finished correctly.

I hope Mr. Fentin and the Outreach Team are as responsive as they have claimed they would be to all offers for assistance.
______________________________________________

Maybe by the time the project receives the best entitlements, the economy will be sound enough for folks to really shop for a home at Ponte Vista they can afford and want.
______________________________________________

All is not rosy though. There are still many hurdles to get over.

The traffic issues will not go away.

The realities of a density bonus must be thoroughly studied and dealt with.

Getting beyond the Planning Department's opposition for Senior Housing will continue.

The real numbers for the number of bedrooms, probable number of vehicles, realistic study results, prices and costs, and other things need to be known before entitlements are granted.

Can all of this get done in a timely manner? I hope so.

The auction ended for the original sale of the property on March 7, 2005. I think over four years of dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro is a long time.

But if OUR community is going to have to deal with whatever is built on the site for generations to come, perhaps five or six years of initial involvement will allow OUR community to have the best results possible.
_____________________________________________

Planning Commission Meeting Results

The Los Angeles City Planning Commission unanimously approved the recommendations by the Planning Department.

It also appears that many Planning Commission members support senior housing at Ponte Vista at San Pedro, when all is said and done.

The votes by the Planning Commission members reflected only their disapproval of the application, vesting tentative tract map, and other plans that were applied for.

The Planning Department is still in a great position to assist the developers of Ponte Vista and members of OUR community to provide the best results for the project.

A new EIR will be circulated if the current development team remains interested in the site.

The new EIR will probably focus on only three options:

The Proposed Project will probably be for 1,395 housing units as described by the development team.

The Planning Department's guidelines for a site having between 775-886 units, both with or without a density bonus.

The legal Alternative of "No Project" which means that the property remain with its current zoning.

The motion that provided for the acceptance of the Planning Department's recommendations included a 120-day period before the Planning Department, the developer, and others provide the Planning Commission members with a "progress report".

It could come to pass that all the studies and circulation of the new EIR will be finished before August 13 and that might help speed up the processes.

Expect to see lots of changes of attitudes and activities in the coming weeks and months.

It is basically a 'Start Over' but not really. We all have in place folks who are determined to work together to help develop Ponte Vista at San Pedro from a new Application and EIR, to the Entitlements.

The Planning Commissioners gave the Planning Department their 'marching orders' to work with the development team and the community to come up with a project that best fits what the majority of folks want to see.

Even though the Planning Department guidelines carry their issues regarding senior housing on the site, the members of the Planning Commission can overrule them and allow that type of housing.

There are still a fairly good number of folks, including me, who would not object to having some senior housing at Ponte Vista.

Commissioner Michael Woo was the only member who stated he did not like the idea of a gated portion of a project. He is only one vote though.

According to the Deputy Director of the Planning Department, he stated that his Department will stick fairly solidly behind their guidelines.

The work OUR community needs to do is to WORK TOGETHER to find the best project that we all can live with.

I am feeling warm fuzzies that we can work together for OUR community.

The average number of units between what the Developer wants (1,395) and what is at the upper end of the Planning Department's guidelines for a non-density bonus project (886) is 1,140 units.

Now about the density bonus issue.

According to a Deputy City Attorney, even though the developer now claims he will not seek a density bonus while he owns the property and he would carry that over to whoever buys the property, should he decide to sell it before building, the opinion is that the density bonus law will not allow that.

SB1818 is one issue that will need to be looked into further. It appears that the developer may not be able to give up a right to not have a density bonus.

If a density bonus is applied to the 1,395-unit proposal, that would allow for 1,883-units at Ponte Vista is 1,395 would be initially granted.

The Developer is proposing to set aside 20% of the senior housing and 20% of the Multi-family housing for "restricted to prices affordable to workforce housing" families.

In our area, the Area Median Income is approximately $41,000 per year.

The developer's workforce families housing would be priced to be so that someone making 180% of the Area Median Income would qualify to buy the least expensive unit.

180% of $41,000 per year is $73,800 per year.

If you currently make almost $74,000 per year, you may qualify for the least expensive unit at Ponte Vista.

76 Senior Housing units of the 380 proposed would fall into that income range.

77 Multi-Family units of the 385 proposed would fall into that income range.

A more subjective post follows this post.

A More Subjective Look at the Planning Commission Meeting

It is now time for me to allow R1 to fade into a wonderful memory.

Had it not been for so many fantastic folks demanding only the best for OUR community, we would be hearing construction equipment starting to build a 2,300+-unit monster in northwest San Pedro.

For R Neighborhoods Are 1, we were, are, and will be together to help create the best Ponte Vista possible.

Many of our members will change their focus and there will still be a number of folks who will continue to demand R1, but I think we can savor a real victory and help restore OUR community.

It is time for me to pull my R1 sticker off the back of my vehicle. It served me well and it demonstrated that there are folks who kept watch for OUR community.

Senior Units at Ponte Vista are not dead yet. Even though the City Planning Department does not want any segregated senior area, there is still a desire by many for that type of housing.

I will continue to defend those who wish for a separate Senior Housing area as I wish to see some built, too.

HOWEVER, there was some very outrageous things that occurred at the meeting that cannot go unwritten.

First, for those of you who want jobs now, where were you in 2005 when jobs could have been created for construction work at Ponte Vista?

Bob Bisno and Ted Fentin have ALWAYS been able to begin construction, hire folks, provide income to the community, and bring revenue into San Pedro had they wanted to.

It is Bob and Ted who have kept construction jobs from the site. It is Bob and Ted who have continued to keep revenue from San Pedro.

It is Bob and Ted who did not begin construction as soon as they could.

How much income has been lost in OUR community because Bob and Ted opted to not begin construction when they could have?

How much has the economy of OUR community suffered because of the jobs Bob and Ted refused to create when they could have?

People who don't understand that Bisno Development Co. LLC, BDC Ponte Vista Partners, LLC, and Ponte Vista Partners, LLC could have already have had units completed at Ponte Vista at San Pedro demonstrate their ignorance whenever they open their mouths.

Jobs should and could have been created, but they aren't yet.

Every single day a construction worker is not working at the Ponte Vista site is a direct result of decisions made by the current development team, now headed by Ted Fentin and formerly led by Bob Bisno.

Not a single person from R Neighborhoods Are 1 has kept one single person from having a job at Ponte Vista. In fact, an R Neighborhoods Are 1 member has allowed someone to take a job they were initially offered!

San Pedro's current Honorary Mayor doesn't seem to understand that he is the Honorary Mayor for ALL the residents of San Pedro and not just union members and proponents of Ponte Vista.

Joe used the words "affordable housing" when talking about Ponte Vista and that is another example of the ignorance of so many folks about the real truths of the project.

Stephanie Mardesich, another long time supporter of whatever may or may not be planned at Ponte Vista chimed in with the fact that San Pedro businesses would be helped by the "huge population" that would live at Ponte Vista.

I guess Ms, Mardesich lives nowhere near Western Avenue.

It is understandable that leaders of Chambers of Commerce endorse projects that may provide revenue to businesses which are members of the Chambers.

But within a five-mile radius of Ponte Vista and still within San Pedro/Los Angeles, there is little revenue generation that will come, no matter how many folks live in Ponte Vista. Factual statistics on file continue to point this out.

One of the fellows wearing a "Start Over" button provided some insight for some of the folks who came in support of Ponte Vista while wearing orange shirts.

The shirts had writing of union laborers. The fellow we spoke to noticed that very few of the individuals wearing the orange shirts had callused hands. Hands of union construction workers do not look like hands of folks who do not work construction jobs.

The "Start Over" fellow opined that many of the orange shirt-wearing individuals were probably not really employed construction workers.

There was also a report that the Outreach Team offered an 'outing' to residents of the Senior high rise building in San Pedro to attend the Planning Commission meeting.

Some of the supporters of the developer's position actually wore real buttons!

Most of the yellow circles viewed in the chambers were simply paper stickers though.

The Outreach Team supplied at least two buses for their folks while a group of us thanked Councilwoman Hahn for providing a bus for anyone and everyone.

The meeting was teleconferenced to the San Pedro City Hall. Only supporters of the developer's current plans spoke.

Jack Weiss, the candidate for City Attorney running against Carmen Trutanich walked through the Chambers trying to hustle votes.

I guess he still doesn't get that when you enter a room filled with members of OUR community, you had better be our own Nuch.

Councilwoman Hahn did the political thing and asked that there be a continuance on any decision by the Planning Commission. Thankfully that did not happen.

From sources I have been told that Janice is very tired of all of this and wants things settled as soon as possible.

As soon as possible may be at least 6-9 months, if the development team doesn't fold up their flying carpet and sail away.

There has been and always will be the distinct possibility that the developer will be granted entitlements that he will then simple sell off and not build anything.

We were very pleased by the reaction of Planning Department members who considered that a new traffic study must be accomplished. All of the members responding about traffic agreed that new studies must be done!

I think proponents of the current plans also came away from the meeting at least pleased about a few things.

There was no outright rejection of the concept of having a development at Ponte Vista that is not R1.

In fact, it appeared very obvious that there is no real support for R1 remaining by Planning Department Commissioners.

They also though Senior Housing and a walkable site were good things.

They all seemed pleased with the LEEDS Certification concept even though it will probably be mandatory by the time the first bulldozer moves earth.

Both sides can claim some victory.

But for R Neighborhoods Are 1 and supporters of a smaller development that the one applied for, it was quite a remarkable victory!

A whole big group of all volunteers, working on less that shoestrings, halted the largest residential development in the city of Los Angeles after Playa Vista.

Now we need to work on something we all can live with. We need to remember the past so nobody attempts to repeat it.

We need to understand that Ted Fentin's 1,395-units may actually be 1,883 units no matter what his current opinion is.

We've said "NO". We meant "NO". We won "NO" to a monstrous over development. It WILL NOT BE BUILT!

An L.A. Times reporter and photographer attended the meeting. There may also have been a sighting of the "Z-Man", David Zanhiser in the Chambers.

It will be interesting to see and read the reactions from so many others.