It's Not Me!

I just got a chance to view an email sent out by "consernedcatholicCA" to "concernedcatholicCA" which means it is an anonymous Email sent out to folks, but I have no clue how many RPV residents and others received that Email. I didn't. It appears to have been sent out at 7:30 this morning while I was preparing to work on some large props for "Willy Wonka Jr." at Chadwick School on June 3 and 4, beginning at 7:30 PM.

Most regular readers of this blog and my other blogs know I don't play 'anonymous' in any of my writings or comments. I don't need to and I think it is cowardis to not be strong enough to create and send out comments without being identified.

Naturally if you don't know that I use one name writing these blogs and my given name that all my regular readers and others know, neither of my names are anything like 'anonymous'.

I do have some very real problems with what I have been hearing lately about conditions placed by representatives of Marymount College before they pay for the Measure P election they promised to pay for.

But any new comments on that won't be considered or created here until I get more information that is factual and able to be commented on.

Bad form, "concernedcatholicca", whoever you are.

The Clearwater Program is Back

This will be a post that will be published on several of my blogs because I feel it is important enough to share with everyone.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation District Number 5 is continuing necessary and recommended processes to create a third Joint Outfall System (JOS) from its Carson, CA treatment plant to the Pacific Ocean.

Two Joint Outfall Systems (JOS), one built in 1938 and the other one built in 1958 currently provide outfall capacity between the treatment plant and outflow facilities near the Palos Verdes Shelf, offshore from Royal Palms, in San Pedro, Ca.

The capacity of the two systems is nearing full capacity and they will not be able to handle future capacity.

I have written what I feel is a fair amount about the Clearwater Program in past posts, but new information, information I need to correct, and new opinions can now be shared.

www.ClearwaterProgram.org has been bookmarked on my computers for several years and it is the first and best source of information I urge everyone to go to.

Last Monday I met with Mr. Glenn Acosta, P.E. and Ms. Leslie Winner, both representing the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.

A new series of outreach meetings with individuals and groups is currently underway and I hope these two fine representatives meet with everyone who has any interest in the Clearwater Program and who are able to help with opinions and other observations concerning the new proposals for this very needed program.

Mr. Acosta's Email address is: gacosta@lacsd.org

With a whole new set of proposals and a new brochure available to offer greater insight into the Clearwater Program, concerned residents and others now can view new facts and opportunities that are different than what I wrote about previously.

What is not offered in the new proposals is four 'Alignment' prospects instead of over 16 first illustrated in previous information and the 50 originally offered by the Sanitation Districts.

Living doors away from the surface of Western Avenue and its subsurface containing the two original Outfall Systems, I may have a somewhat different perspective about the Program and I certainly have opinions, lots of them.

One of the first things I must offer is some corrections to some of my earlier posts.

According to the new information, the Outfall System Shafts would be approximately 30 feet in diameter and not the 'up to 200 feet' I originally wrote about. I know I heard that figure somewhere in earlier talks, but 30 feet is quite different that 'up to 200 feet', isn't it.

When I wrote that the depths of a shaft could be up to '500 feet' deep, I only got that incorrect by about 100 feet. According to the newest information, a shaft could be up to 400 feet in depth, the depths of any shaft could be much less than that.

I am also very relieved to note that there are only four remaining shaft site prospects with the new information.

As originally conjectured, there will be one shaft sunk at the Carson treatment plant's property. This will allow for one tunneling machine being places and would be one access point for the removal of dirt and debris while the tunneling is being done and the casements are being placed.

Originally, the public was informed about 16 sites between Carson and the Pacific Ocean where a second shaft might be considered.

Thankfully, very thankfully, that number has dropped to just four.

Of course and naturally, the old LAXT site is part of 'Alignment 1' proposal for a shaft that could include worker access and debris removal, all the way up to the placement of a second tunneling machine.

'Alignment 1', as currently proposed, would be the longest and costliest (on paper now) of the four alignments now under preview and review. Using this alignment would provide the Diffuser site somewhat close to the San Pedro Shelf, which is not as deep as the depth of the Palos Verdes Shelf provides.

'Alignment 2' is quite new and it probably includes a shaft at LAXT's old site on Terminal Island, it also adds another shaft at the former Southwest Marine site on Terminal Island. This alignment would be the second longest and it would provide the outfall from the plant going close to the Palos Verdes Shelf.

'Alignment 3' is considered by me right now as a 'non starter' because even though it provides an outfall end close to where 'Alignment 2' would have for its outfall, it requires a shaft be placed at the parking lot below the Korean Bell, on the Angel's Gate site. I will have more about that in a future post.

'Alignment 4' is the shortest and illustrated as being the 'least costly'. It would have the tunnel travel under San Pedro, as 'Alignment 2' also includes, but it's outfall would be near where the two existing outfalls are, near the Palos Verdes Shelf.

This alignment requires an Outfall Shaft being sunk at Royal Palms, down near the water.

I will have more about that in a future post.

I fully support the Sanitation Districts' Clearwater Program as long as the old LAXT site is utilized, no matter that is would be the most or second most expensive alignments to build.

What is most important right now, I feel, is community members for every community possible and reasonable, coming forward to offer facts, comments and opinions about this program that is truly needed for every one's future.

Please learn all you can about the Clearwater Program so you will have the best knowledge possible when dealing with a process that has already taken years and will probably take another 8-10 years to build out.

With all the opportunities, there are genuine concerns about the environment, both ecologically and when dealing with persons' environments.

The Clearwater Program: What I Like and What I Don't Like

So, the Clearwater Program is back and going forward. I think it is better than good for all of us, but there are some significant issues I have that I'd like to address.

In my almost one hour meeting with Mr. Acosta and Ms. Winner I told them that I was very supportive of the program as long as 'Alignment 1' and possibly 'Alignment 2' becomes the recommended alignments, but that they really shouldn't bother with Alignments 3 and 4.

Yes, it is written now that 'Alignment 4', with its shaft being sunk at Royal Palms is the shortest and 'least costly' in the $500 Million Dollar or possibly less range.

Yes, there is also 'Alignment 3' with its second 'least costly' aspect and its equal distance of 9 miles as compared to 'Alignment 2'. But it requires a shaft sunk at Angel's Gate. That would be at the newer parking lot, which is used by so many visitors and local residents attending gatherings at Point Fermin Park.

Yes, 'Alignment 1' is currently written up as the most expensive and longest alignment proposed at 14 miles long and $1.4 Billion Dollars.

And yes, of the four alignments now under consideration, 'Alignment 4' might have the 'least impact' on the environment, but everyone needs to take some issues under more careful consideration, such as:

Having the second shaft at LAXT means that should a second tunneling machine be placed, debris excavated would be able to be transported by rail and truck travel and there would be the least impact on residents, residences, traffic, and access.

I offered to Mr. Acosta and Ms. Winner that there is absolutely no way I would support the placement of shafts at Angels' Gate or Royal Palms and they really need to understand how there are more environments to consider other than what happens to the ground, sea, air, animal life and plant life.

The second shaft, no matter if it was sunk at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate would require up to or more than nine months of time for 'between 10 to 40' hauling trips, per day, to occur while debris is being trucked away.

What about the environment of San Pedrans who, when they flush, shower, bathe, or drain their sinks, never use the facilities that would be furnished because of all the digging done at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate?

There are lots of good San Pedrans who have some valid feelings that those of us who 'live on The Hill' send our 'trash' to San Pedro, rather than dealing with it ourselves.

Since we who benefit from Sanitation District 5 may want to call for the placement of a shaft at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate, I think we need to understand better how those who would have to deal with the all the requirements placed on the good folks in San Pedro as far as traffic inconvenience, added noise, and other types of impacts might want to rethink that is may not be the least costly to have shafts at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate.

I would imagine that the 25,000 household Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council may wish to be one of the first to head to court to stop any incursion into their neighborhoods by the Sanitation Districts.

I also think that the city of Los Angeles might wish to impose restrictions and/or obligations on our Districts should the Districts ultimately receive approval for 'Alignment 3 or 4'.

I remember when it was said that 'over 99%' of those asked or offering opinion about the placement of any second shaft clearly stated that the LAXT site was preferred over all others.

I do think we need a new Outfall System and I support the concept and many of the options. I do not however, feel any of this needs to be placed on the backs or in other ways interfere with anyone living in San Pedro or commuting around using the major access routes around that community.

It is still understood that there are those who support an outer harbor cruise ship terminal, even with the added transit troubles between any freeway access and outer harbor cruise ship terminal.

It should be considered that should that terminal be built and become operational about the same time either the Angel's Gate or Royal Palms shaft also find approval and construction begins, San Pedrans and others could see the following:

10-40 double dirt haulers per day, traveling along at least one major route though San Pedro and then when the biggest cruise ships call on San Pedro, all that trafficking of passengers and materials associated with huge cruise ship journeys also needing crosstown transport, together require great problems with all those wishing to travel around or through San Pedro while having nothing to do with ships or shafts.

Sometimes the 'least costly' is not really the 'least costly' when compared with all factors.

I do understand that the Environmental studies require the examination of more than two 'Alternatives' and that 'Alignments 3 and 4 must be studied. But that does not mean either of them should be taken very seriously, especially when so many people have already told representatives that any second or third shaft needs to be sunk on Terminal Island.

There are many good, true, real, and necessary reasons to support the construction of a new Joint Outfall System. But none of those reasons should overcome what could happen to San Pedro and San Pedrans and others in that area, who would be impacted by a process they never fully utilize and do not pay for.

Ponte Vista Update With Shared Post

I am writing identical posts on two of my blogs dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council is a great source of information dealing with the project proposed for 61.53 acres in northwest San Pedro, directly across the street from homes and a very large business in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Here is a very good link to the Council's site where information can be gathered.

http://www.nwsanpedro.org/pontevistaindex.asp

It appears that when the new Environmental Impact Report is published, HOPEFULLY VERY SOON, everyone will have a better opportunity to view the details and begin greater discussions and debates about having a large condominium project with access only along Western Avenue, built.

Expected are three 'Alternatives' that will have studies considered.

The primary 'Alternative' looks to be for 1,345 condominium and/or apartment units, some 'masquerading' as single-family units, but are legally identified as condominium units.

This Alternative provides for fewer than the "2,300" units published as the proposed Alternative when Bob Bisno was the Developer.

There will probably be "Alternative 2" which might include a proposal to construct condominium and apartment units in the 800-850 units range.

As a reminder, The Gardens is a 1,100-unit development that was first offered as owner-occupied condominiums on 80 acres of land almost adjacent to the Ponte Vista site.

Using the number of units constructed and the acreage, the dwelling density of The Gardens is 13.75 dwelling units per gross acre of land.

If the figure of 13.75 dwelling units per gross acre is applied to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site, up to 846 dwelling units, maximum, to equal the dwelling density of The Gardens.

It is true that many of the 'condominium' units at The Gardens are now rental or leased out units and that actually changes the traffic count numbers when owner-occupied units become rented or leased out.

The new developers at Ponte Vista at San Pedro have proposed one of the building being constructed to contain "392 Apartment Units" but after they breath, they will tell you they expect and/or 'hope' that those Apartment Units would become owner-occupied units.

Here is where I need to mention that I still have two acres of The Moon up for sale and if you really believe 392 Apartment Units will eventually become owner-occupied units, you are someone I really want to talk to about unloading an acre or two on The Moon I have been trying to sell for years.

Alternative 3 will most likely be the legally required "No Project" Alternative.

This Alternative is legally mandated to be studied and included with Environmental Impact Reports and it is the Alternative that uses the idea that no zoning changes are made to an existing site and what the current zoning on the site is, is what new construction must utilize.

In the case of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it was zoned by the city of Los Angeles to be "R1" which means single-family, detached dwellings on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet in size. The other zoning existing on some of the site is O1 or OS1 (Open Space), plus there is some land that is not suitable to have new housing constructed on it.

The "R1" designation on suitable construction land at the site allows for the construction of up to 429 single-family units.

Currently there are approximately 245 'duplex' units constructed for military housing purposes and when they were constructed for the military, no city zoning requirements or restrictions applied to military housing there.

The current zoning would not allow for refurbishment of existing residential units on the site.

The current developers have suggested and stated that they do not wish to apply for any 'density bonuses' on the 22 lots that comprise Ponte Vista at San Pedro. If density bonuses were applied for and approved, the number of proposed units could be increased by up to 35%.

What they have stated in one for or another is that they will be seeking new municipal codes from the Los Angeles City Council that will change the current zoning on the site and provide entitlements on lots that they would probably try to sell to others rather than actually contracting any firm to build new housing on their behalf.

What impresses me and what impressed other opponents of over development in our area is that the new development team seems to have greater understanding and they seem to be much more willing and able to sit down and discuss just about everything related to Ponte Vista at San Pedro and local neighborhoods in all the communities near the site.

R Neighborhoods Are 1, the communities-wide organization that worked hard and helped by a weakening economy to keep Bob Bisno from going further with his plans, has not gone anywhere.

Records illustrating the fact that more people signed petition sheets demanding that the Ponte Vista site remain R1 than Councilwoman Janice Hahn was looking for to help her decide her stance, remain on file.

More information will be provided when it becomes available.

Perception and Some More Comments

After pondering on the appointment of Ms. Elise Swanson as Deputy Chief of Staff to Councilwoman Janice Hahn, I have formed some early opinions about the matter.

Ms. Swanson began her current position with Ms. Hahn's staff at the beginning of this year.

As I am moderately affected by asperger's syndrome, I can place into my own vision many things as if they were right in front of me.

I 'saw' a newspaper headline, actually more than one that seems to be working for me at this time.

"Freshman Congressman appoints K Street lobbyist to a key staff position" This doesn't sit well with me at all and I feel it doesn't sit well with many others, either.

"Termed out Councilwoman appoints former Vice President of condominium project located in her District, to key staff position"

Perception.

Ms. Swanson, after leaving the staff of Councilwoman Hahn, spent about five years aggressively supporting, leading, and lobbying for a change of zoning on a site within the Councilwoman's District.

Now I have read what I feel is a promise that Ms. Swanson would not be working on Ponte Vista at San Pedro issues. However, as Vice President of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it was Ms. Swanson's job to do her best to have the zoning changed at the site to allow for "2,300" condominiums, or fewer numbers of condominiums being approved for entitlements on the site in northwest San Pedro.

I sent out an informational Email, with a few short comments, to a large number of community members, about Ms. Swanson's recent appointment.

I have received a surprising number of replies, both individually back to me and as a "reply all" to the original Email I sent out.

"Conflict of interest" has so far been viewed by me in the majority of the replies I have received.

I am not too sure that there really is a conflict of interest at this point, but I can certainly consider there could be.

Perception.

I think from here on our, even though Ms. Hahn and all of her representatives might state that Ms. Swanson's appointment would mean nothing regarding Ms. Hahn's responsibilities regarding Ponte Vista, it can very well be perceived by many that just having a former Vice President of an operation that seeks to have entitlements granted for building within Ms. Hahn's District COULD smack at a potential conflict of interest, I feel.

The appointment also make it more difficult, I believe, for Ms. Hahn to get beyond having problems with her vote on the City Council on any and all matters related to Ponte Vista and the entitlement sought for that site.

I do not doubt the abilities Ms. Swanson brings to the position as Deputy Chief of Staff. I doubt that it was a wise and truly thought out appointment by Ms. Hahn.

Ms. Swanson was an active, concerned, and remarkable representative on the Western Avenue Task Force. She was a strong force when working for Bob Bisno.

During "The Bob Years" as I refer to the period of time when Bob Bisno first brought the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project to northwest San Pedro and up until he was sent away, Ms. Swanson, myself, and many others were participants in activities that brought about probably the most divisive period in our community's history.

I know none of us want to go back and do any of that in the future, while we are all still considering whether or what entitlements would be allowed on Ponte Vista's 61.53 acres.

Perception.

Now that Ms. Swanson is a key member of Ms. Hahn's staff, how might that really affect the Councilwoman's position now and into the future? is there enough perception of trust for the Councilwoman's position?

It is reasonable to equate part of Ms. Swanson's former position as a lobbyist for a particular development within Ms. Hahn's sphere of influence.

I have been under the impression that there is a growing call for former lobbyists not being hired to the staffs of elected representatives and that lobbyists who represented interests within the representative's voting area, should not be hired.

In the history of dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro issues I learned that when a development or project is backed by the Council person where the project or development is located, it usually gains approval by the majority of the City Council.

Similarly, when the Council person whose District contains a development or project that Council person does not support, the majority of the City Council will not support the project or development. This has been true in the vast majority of cases but it is not set in stone and some projects and developments have been approved without the support of the Council member in whose District it is located.

We have been told that Ms. Hahn is not supportive of having entitlements granted for the 1,135 units the current developer is asking for.

We don't yet know the number of units Ms. Hahn might agree to.

At this point I feel that as long as Ms. Swanson remains on Ms. Hahn's staff, Ms. Hahn must recuse herself from all official debate, voting, or most other things associated with the site Ms. Swanson has been a Vice President of, for about five years.

There will be a strong and probably growing call for the site to remain with its current zoning. That zoning already allows for the construction of up to 429-Single Family, detached housing on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet. (This is commonly known as R-1 or R 1)

There would be no conflict of interest concerns or perception issues relating to Councilwoman Hahn and her appointment of Ms. Swanson if Ms. Hahn states that she supports keeping the site with its current zoning and there being no vote coming before the Los Angeles City Council.

*NOTE. I have stated and written that I can live with not more than 831 total units being constructed at the site. That is many more units than R 1 allows.

I do not doubt that Ms. Swans is qualified to be a Deputy Chief of Staff to any L.A. City Council member other than Ms. Hahn.

If you are going to use a former paid lobbyist as a key member of your staff, you should not appoint a lobbyist to your staff that worked for years lobbying for something in your own District.

A New Year. A New Job

Ms. Elise Swanson left serving Councilwoman Janice Hahn back in 2005, to become a Senior Vice President for Ponte Vista Partners, LLC when she Joined Bob Bisno in the development of Ponte Vista at San Pedro. Ms. Swanson was in charge of the onsite operations and local community events while employed there.

Ms. Elise Swanson is now the Deputy Chief of Staff to Councilwoman Janice Hahn.

Ms. Swanson's position will take her away from dealing with almost all of the issues surrounding Ponte Vista at San Pedro, according to one source.

I don't know how I feel about this news.

Beginning in 2005, Ms. Swanson was a local participant in attempts to bring "2,300" condominium units to northwest San Pedro and she was among those who worked for a developer who divided us as a community, rarely in a good way, I feel.

Ms. Swanson was one of the women who was attacked in writing by an elderly person who was scolded severely by those of us who know him and she and other women should have never been commented on in that way.

With the number of units now proposed for the Ponte Vista development and an observed tiredness within our community to deal as we have dealt with the previous plans, I remain troubled that Councilwoman Hahn and others within our community might want to just 'give up' and allow the new plans to gain approval by the full City Council.

It certainly doesn't look good to me that the former head of the on-site marketing unit for Ponte Vista now holds a high position in Ms. Hahn's office, as far as how much Ms. Hahn is willing to deal with the Ponte Vista matters.

This is concerning because Ms. Hahn will be termed out of her position most likely after the entitlements are granted for the 61.53 acre site.

I have no information at this time, as to who has taken over the position at Ponte Vista or whether the position still exists.

New Ponte Vista Web Site

The marketing arm of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development published to the World Wide Web, its new Web site.

The URL is http://pv2011.eatsleepwork.com/ and I found it interesting, even during its first day.

Many times a Web site will be published before it has lots of primary information on it and this I find to be the case with Ponte Vista's new Web site.

On the right side of the homepage are a list of articles. I am going to put the titles of the link pages down and then copy/paste what I found under the links.

Please remember that the editors of the Web site published it to the Web before much of the information was edited.

"Visit or new Ponte Vista blogat YourPonteVista.com"

Maecenas eget diam in mi sagittis mattis quis aliquam elit. Pellentesque nec nibh urna; ac dignissim tortor? Vivamus sollicitudin adipiscing malesuada! Duis a consectetur nulla. Curabitur magna libero, elementum eget tempus et, mollis id erat. Integer sagittis neque vel purus malesuada non tristique ligula auctor. Mauris et nisi augue, ut sagittis est. Fusce pulvinar varius scelerisque massa nunc.

***This blog has been around for several years and it looks just about what it looked like when its most recent post was published.


"Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Supports Ponte Vista"

Aliquam nisl est; tempor eget suscipit iaculis, aliquet sed orci. Nulla pellentesque imperdiet consectetur. Duis augue libero, interdum at egestas ut, elementum in tellus. In aliquet sapien id turpis pellentesque luctus? Pellentesque sem nibh, vehicula vitae elementum id, posuere ut purus? Praesent lobortis lacinia dolor, id mattis lectus dictum vel! Nulla bibendum dapibus tellus, at blandit amet.

***I think before somebody publishes the title of a post, they should be able to post the body of the post, don't you?

"East View Little League Finds New Home at Ponte Vista"

Etiam semper consectetur adipiscing. Proin ut tincidunt leo. Aenean elementum, nisl et mattis tincidunt, dolor elit posuere massa, nec ultricies turpis ante sit amet neque. Vivamus mi massa, viverra sit amet adipiscing ac, semper eget nibh. Morbi hendrerit congue augue vel auctor. Morbi a purus vel risus elementum laoreet ut et justo. In mi lectus; varius a faucibus vel, pulvinar at velit posuere.

***Perhaps the editor of the new site is just using the link title without regard to whether it is true or not.

"City of Los Angeles Releases Final Environmental Impact Report"


(Empty Space)


*** This page of the link is empty of body. I suspect the editor forgot to copy/paste the wording used in other links.

What got me to the original page was an Email about the Traffic Study now being conducted for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The following can be found under the larger heading of "Transportation" at the top of the site.

Then click on "Traffic Study" at the bottom of the "Transportation" heading.

"Traffic Study"

Intersections to be evaluated as part of the traffic study are determined by LADOT (Los Angeles Department of Transportation) as well as from public comments received during the scoping period of the Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report).

Proposed study intersections include the same intersections evaluated in the traffic study contained in the November 2006 Draft EIR for the prior Ponte Vista project, as well as additional intersections identified as areas of concern by the public during the previous Draft EIR process (for example, Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive).

For a full list of study intersections, please click here [link to list of intersections, Board 6-3]. For a map of the study intersections, please click here [link to map from Board 6-2].

In traffic engineering practice, and as required by LADOT, potential impacts due to development projects are assessed by evaluating changes to operations at intersections.

Intersection traffic counts were conducted in September and October 2010. Weekday counts occurred on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday when local schools were in session. Based on LADOT requirements, weekday counts were conducted in the morning from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and in the afternoon from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday counts were conducted from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The peak hour is determined from the 3 hour counts at each intersection based on the 60 minute period with the highest amount of traffic.

As required by LADOT and based on traffic counts, intersections will be evaluated during the weekday commuter morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours. In addition, intersections along Western Avenue near the project site will be evaluated during the Saturday midday peak hour corresponding with the peak shopping period.

***Thank you very much for providing this information. It allows folks to learn what has been going on and answers questions some might still have about the Traffic Study.

I tried to sign up for the 'eNEWSLETTER' on this site, but it would not work.

Now folks, please don't go thinking I now endorse the latest project plans, by reading this post.

I do believe that information is critical when making decisions on such a large project as Ponte Vista at San Pedro is.

I don't feel we need to be at such odds as so many supporters and opponents of previous plans were.

I have real problems with '1,135' units and the fact that the developer stated to me that the majority of the traffic mitigation supported by Bob Bisno during "The Bob Years" will not be on the table going forward.

I have been told that there is nowhere in the developer's budget to offer the traffic mitigation we all were looking at, back in the earlier years of the project.

When I looked up the developments old Web site, "www.pontevista.com" I found an under construction mention on a site maintained by Network Solutions. It appears that "pv.com" is also under the umbrella of Network Solutions.

Maybe the site I am writing about will migrate to "www.pontevista.com" in the future. That would be a good thing for the folks at Ponte Vista at San Pedro and me.

When you 'google' "Ponte Vista", I come up first followed by their Your Ponte Vista blog.

I signed up for Google Alerts using "Ponte Vista" as key words. That is how I found out about the new site.

I haven't tried Bing or other search engines, but I bet I will be at or near the top and that should not be what the marketers for Ponte Vista at San Pedro would want you to see.

So we start of the new year with a new site and I hope a much better discussion that is open and honest on all sides.

I'll write more and I hope to end the hiatus of my "Odds and Ends" posts.

Happy New Year!

A Long Dry Spell Must End For Me

This post is written for several of my blogs because I have taken an extended absence from writing on any of my blogs for quite some time.

So much has happened in our extended communities since I stopped writing on the blogs and I want to get back to pondering, questioning, commenting, arguing, and dealing with many issues common to the communities I live in and events and conditions in and around the communities most of my readers live in.

Nothing is more common in all of the communities we all deal with than John and Muriel Olguin. Right now, nothing is more important for all of us in those communities.

Most of us know that a great gentleman, very long into life and even longer in adventures would pass from us, far too soon.

We all knew the day would come that we would make us sad and drive our memories into overdrive.

We all knew none of us can and could measure up to the personhood we all now honor with the passing of John Olguin.

Muriel was and always will be the 'winner' of my writings about our community members who were closer to being "more like John Olguin" than the rest of us. She is in our hearts as she and the rest of us remember John.

Starting 2011 with the new adventure of working on ways to honor John's memory and try to be more like him in the acts of kindness and teachings he showed us, is a task we need to do. It is the first task of what is going to be one heck of a year for all of us.

As we move forward, please include in your visions and dreams the smiles your remember beaming from John's face as he taught you something you didn't know or how he was so happy when you understood how he regaled in your learning.

Let's work towards a public memorial that includes contributions of whatever you can provide to those in need and a clear demonstration that we all 'got' the fascination, wonder, and joy John offered, all supported by Muriel, a true inspiration, artist, and gift to all of us as she was to John.

One way to honor John and all those who volunteered for us is to volunteer to work on issues and projects that interest you in ways that promote those things that benefit 'community'

Not only are your acts, deeds, thoughts, comments, and wishes important, your means of demonstrating those things are also important on many issues you might want to concern yourself with.

Here is just a partial list of things that I am pondering about and I hope your list is at least as long as mine:

John's public memorial, the U.S.S. Iowa, Charter City status and vote in Rancho Palos Verdes, Ponte Vista, SRHS #15, downtown San Pedro, protecting our environment, Western Avenue, community goals, park lands, politics, arts in communities, good citizenship, the local economy, working for those less fortunate, San Ramon Canyon, Marymount's Expansion Project, educating everyone, recession recovery, working for peace, celebrating, family, neighbors and friends, contentious issues, common goals, fun, faith, play, and experiencing a full and productive life. Grandchildren, perhaps someday.

I hope to get back to writing on a much more regular basis on several of these blogs.

I know Ponte Vista is important and should see posts and comments from others throughout the year.

I live on the eastern side of Rancho Palos Verdes. San Pedro in heart, Rancho Palos Verdes in thought. I feel strongly that residents of Rancho Palos Verdes need to be better informed and more able to deal with and comment on their government and city.

There are "Issues to Ponder" regarding San Pedro. It may have a continuing set of problems in its downtown area but it has a growing vibrant aspect in its arts and entertainment and there will be new things popping up in the future throughout the community.

I know that "R Neighborhoods Are 1" and there is more to be considered in our community, for our community, and with our community.

As I am still a caveman, my 'dairy' needs to be updated with stories and learning this caveman has encountered over the last couple of years.

Whether I can manage to work harder to be more like John is something that I don't yet know, but I really need to try.

I hope readers will learn or argue or agree or disagree or ponder or rant or rave or just read. But with all blogs, it is truly more for the writer to write than the reader to read. If that was not the case, there would be no blogs and just look how many there are now compared to when I first wrote, in September, 2006.

Thank you and please return from time to time.

Mark Wells
aka M Richards
mrichards2@hotmail.com

Odds and Ends 195

We are all down to the final ten days to submit comments to the Initial Study.

I have not done a very good job so far and reading my copy and creating lots of comments.

This is the final weekend for "Seven Brides For Seven Brothers" at the Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro.

On December 3 at Little Fish Theatre, also in San Pedro, a hilarious comedy that has elements of The Marx Brothers meet "Home Alone" bumbling robbers entering the world where there may be some "Importance of Being Earnest".

The two shows have eaten up quite a bit of my time in the recent weeks and several months and I hope you all take the opportunity to attend a performance of both shows.
_____________________________________________________
Terri and I are very sad to see a vacant storefront where Z-Pizza used to be.

It sat between the Egg Roll King and Coldstone Creamery and we enjoyed the thin crust pizza and other food offerings.

I guess their pricing structure could not compete with the often discounted prices offered at Little Caesar's, Pizza Hut, and other similar businesses.

I am pleased that there are few empty businesses along Western and I hope the economies of both San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes improve in the coming months.
__________________________________________________
I have no new news to report concerning what might happen with motor vehicle traffic along Western Avenue associated with Marymount College and their off-campus housing facility along Palos Verdes Drive North, between Five Points and Western Avenue.

There is some speculation among some R.P.V. residents that a slate of candidates supporting on-campus housing at Marymount College will run in the 2011 election for three of the five seats on the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council that will have current members termed out.

I have been reassured that the Marymount College Traffic and Parking Section of the college's Expansion Project will be included in the new Traffic and Circulation Study Section of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Environmental Impact Report.

With or without on-campus student housing at the college's Palos Verdes Drive East campus, daily trip generation will continue to increase between the 'Palos Verdes North' off-campus student housing site and the college campus.
__________________________________________________________
If you drive south along Western Avenue, near First Street and there is water in the roadway, you usually have the chance to see an optical illusion.

Between First Street and the intersection of Weymouth Avenue, there is sometimes a gathering of water just next to the southbound fast lane and center median.

If you stop at the First Street intersection and look at the puddle, it appears to be on the incline portion of Western Avenue.

Since stopping or driving along through the First Street intersection means you are going downhill, your eyes tend to fool you into thinking that the water is not at the bottom of the decline/incline, but it really is.

There have been other optical illusions in the area, especially on that has been gone for some time on Miraleste Drive/9Th Street.
____________________________________________________________

Odds and Ends 194

The Wednesday evening Scoping Open House for Ponte Vista at San Pedro was fairly typical of other Scoping meetings/Open Houses, including the first one for Ponte Vista.

The one remarkable thing I am taking away from the event is seeing Mr. David Shinder returning as the project's Traffic Engineer.

Even though there are a few representatives of the new development company who may not belive what I told them, I really did ask Mr. Robert H. Bison why his originale number of "2300" was the number of units he orginally applied to build.

Bob and I were seated next to each other on the return trip from an 1100-unit Apartment complex that was the model for the Bob's original designs.

As we rode south on the 110 Freeway to view another complex as a comparison, I asked Bob Bisno directly my question of why was the number of "2,300" selected.

His response directly to me was that he asked his Traffic Engineer, Mr. David Shinder, what was the most number of units that could be built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro by doing every one of the traffic mitigation elements proposed.

Bob Bisno said that according to Mr. Shinder, 2,300-units could be built as long as all traffic mitigation was applied.

Now I heard the word "lie" used by an unnamed representative of the current development team as to the truth of Bob's statements to me.

But I was sitting next to Bob when he offered what he offered, and I didn't feel I needed any more questions about the number of units he was considering at that time.

I do have photos of the group that toured the Newport Beach complex and Bob is in some of the photos.

One of the most heated parts of the debates concerning Ponte Vista was, is, and will be traffic.

There was little, if any, respect for the numbers generated in the first Traffic and Transportation Study part of the first Environmental Impact Report.

Why the new development team continues to use Mr. Shinder and his firm as their Traffic Consultants does not work with my considering the explaination I got on Wednesday night as to why Mr. Shinder is still around.

After Bob Bisno's departure and Mr. Alan Abshez's departure, I would have thought Mr. David Shinder would have been and maybe should have been, the third departure.
_______________________________________________________
Most of the folks who attended the Open House I would refer to as, "the usual suspects".

Naturally I am a proud member of that group and it seemed revealing just a bit that the majority of those I saw in the auditorium were opponents of all of the previous plans coming during "The Bob Years" and Mr. Ted Fenton's tenure as developer.

There were some familiar faces of those who supported whatever the plans were for Ponte Vista as far back as 2005.
_____________________________________________________
Please remember that you have until November 29, 2010 to get your comments on the Initial Study and Scoping Session to the Los Angeles City Planning Department.

No matter what your opinions and comments are, they are important and will be published in legal documents regarding the project.
____________________________________________________
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council has a new site address. It is www.cspnc.org and that goup was opposed to the plans coming from Bob Bisno.

I do not believe that Council has taken a position on the newest parameters of the project.
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Shinder did confirm to me that the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project's Traffic and Parking Section of its Environmental Impact Report will be included in the new Traffic and Transportation Study for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development.

This is a good thing for all of us because it means that newer dialy trip counts along Western by those driving to and from Marymount's campus will be studies and this was something that could not be done for either the Marymount E.I.R. or the original Ponte Vista at San Pedro E.I.R.
__________________________________________________
I was very pleased to find a much more supportive attitude towards community members by everyone representing Ponte Vista at San Pedro at Wednesday's gathering.

I do think that the new Director of Communications for the Project might have his hands full trying to deal with R Neighborhoods Are 1, which has its Steering Committee back into having meetings. I also think challenges and issues by those stakeholders of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council might test the new fellow a bit.

It is still quite apparent that all five local Neighborhood Councils have the history and information to work with the folks at Ponte Vista towards having a nicer and better relationship between them and the new development team.

I it still to be determined whether the Communications Director would be invited to and/or accept an invitation to attend any meeting of the Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1.
____________________________________________________________

I'm Still Looking

Now where did I leave my "Major Ranting Elitist" button I last wore during "The Bob Years"?

This post is my way of informing readers that the Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 is back to the business of working to find ways to support the best Ponte Vista at San Pedro development for the entire community and not just developers of the 61.53 acre site.

Tonight many members of the Board will be at the Peck Park Community Center for the Scoping Meeting, and you should be there, too.

We all need the best and most complete information possible to determine whether the new plans for the site could benefit or impede our community's movement forward in peace and harmony.

While we appreciate the much lower number of units planned that what was attempted to be forced on us during "The Bob Years" the number is still too high and the types of housing are problematic and some are far too tough to swallow.

I wonder if Ms. Linda D'Ambrosi will attend and speak at the meeting. She was recently featured in a Daily Breeze article and she was the one who stated, matter of factly that; "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro"! It would be interesting to see if she speaks about the new plans or is too busy representing more Trump housing in the city where she actually lives, Rancho Palos Verdes.

I leave this post with the reminder that 831-total units at Ponte Vista would be equal to the dwelling density of The Gardens, so very close to Ponte Vista's Western Avenue address.

Odds and Ends 193

We have been informed that the Email address to send in your comments to the Notice of Preparation was incorrect.

The correct Email address is: Hadar.Plafkin@lacity.org.
____________________________________________
This is what has been consuming all my waking hours and some of my dream time this past week:

Click on image to enlarge.

Our production of "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers will star Ms. Kristin Towers-Rowles, the granddaughter of the late Ms. Kathryn Grayson.

The cast is fantastic, if I write so, myself and the role of "The Preacher" is played by a fellow who was last seen onstage as "The Dominee", another cleric part.

This production can be enjoyed by the entire family and I hope to see you before a performance as I greet you in my costume, probably holding a Bible.

Incidentally, there is a free performance at Noon on Thursday November 11 for folks like me who are 55 year's of age or better.
___________________________________________
The Scoping Meeting is still planned for Wednesday November 10, 2011 inside the Peck Park Community Center's auditorium/gym/big and stuffy room.

It is an important meeting for all of you who are interested in learning more about the newest plans unveiled in more detail last week.

If you haven't been through any of the "rounds" during "The Bob Years" and want to know more about the California Environmental Quality Act, (CEQA) and how the processes should work beginning with this meeting and potentially ending with a vote by the members of the Los Angeles City Council granting or not granting approval of plans via a new municipal code that includes zoning changes, this meeting is even more important for you to attend.

This meeting is also the physical event in conjunction with the creation of comments by you and others to the Notice of Preparation which is probably online now and you will get more specific addresses to view or download the document, this coming Wednesday.

Historically, the Notice of Preparation and other CEQA documents can be viewed at the public library.

If I don't post a link to a site where you can read and even download a copy of the Notice of Preparation, please remind me sometime early Thursday morning.
___________________________________________
I hope Councilwoman Janice Hahn attends the meeting and provides for all of us her initial views on the new plans with its 392 'apartment flats' and other types of condominiums and apartment flats.

I also hope to find supporters and opponents learning more about the plans so we can find better common ground to discuss all of the issues using much better forms of education and communication that we all suffered through during "The Bob Years."
__________________________________________
I have nothing official or unofficial to report with regards to R Neighborhoods Are 1, at this time.

Whether I begin again posting on my www.rneighborhoodsare1.blogspot.com in the near future remains to be seen and determined by me.

Please stay tuned.
_________________________________________
I've written all that I wish to write about my personal views on the newest plans, until I get much more education on more of the elements of the plans to construct 1,135 total units at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

If anyone reading this blog is new to the issues or wish to learn more about the plans, you are welcome to Email me at: mrichards2@hotmail.com or at the address listed at the top of this blog.

You should be able to also gather educational resources by visiting the one Web site for Ponte Vista I know is up and running.

You can get information at www.yourpontevista.com
____________________________________________
We "fall back" this Saturday evening/early Sunday morning.
____________________________________________

Odds and Ends 192

Click on image to enlarge.

I think it is important to demonstrate resolve to get the tanks moved.

There are places they can have their contents moved to and if the steel is not moved, it should be recycled for use in many different things.

I also think it is important for the good folks representing Ponte Vista at San Pedro to also become involved with getting the tanks moved.

They could show a real civic support and it would be a good marketing move that would show they are all concerned with the health and safety of all those who may eventually move into what might be built at Ponte Vista.

___________________________________________

The numbers of units in each product type that now would make up 1,135 total units remains very troubling to me and others, I am finding out.

I do think we all need to sit in the dugout to learn as much as we can prior to the November 29 deadline for comments on the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study.

I can feel there will be some stiff opposition to some of the units being considered for development and I can see that having such a large percentage of units that could or would be rentals or leases makes what I was hoping to find a somewhat trouble-free discussion and debate period, now looking more like a period of hot debate and difficult discussions.

__________________________________________
I think what we have with this latest plan is a carrot and stick approach of a carrot and stick plan.

Offering up to 143 SFR, detached units and then stating that 392 of the 1,135-total unit count would be 'apartment flats' suggests that the development team is using the detached houses as the carrot for the 392 'sticks' of apartment flats. And that's not even counting the other condominium building of four-stories.

But the overall carrot and stick plan could be that should too much opposition to the current development plans emerge, the developers may pull all their sticks out and head for offering up to 20% of the units for "low income" owners or renters and then applying for the almost certain approval of a density bonus that could add up to a total of about 1,532-total units, with at least 33% of those units being rentals or leases.

It could be that the housing market determines what, if anything will get approved, according to the current plans.

The developers have to gain a huge sum of money unless they allow the land to go back into the hands of the primary and secondary lenders.
___________________________________________
Sunday is Halloween and Western Avenue will get even spookier than it normally is during the evening.

Please remain careful and take it from me, you don't want to be walking along the Avenue carrying uncooked eggs in your shirt pockets.
__________________________________________
The vote on Measure P is Tuesday, finally.

The facts are now available for everyone to view and one of the facts contained in the measure is that a new library, maintenance building, athletic facility, residential halls, and a gallery "MAY" be built on the campus of Marymount College, but any or all of them may NOT get built, according to the actual language of Measure P.

If you have suffered with all the "Yes on P" mailers that contain factually misleading information, rest assured, we are only about to end the beginning of the saga and fiasco and a population of somewhat affluent residents (I am definitely not affluent) can do wonders should they not get what they want during Tuesday's election outcome reporting.
________________________________________

Notice of Preparation of Environmental Impact Report

Click on images above to enlarge them.

This is the official public notice of the seconf Public Scoping Meeting for Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the first public meeting dealing with the new Environmental Impact Report now undergoing studies.

The Public Scoping Meeting is scheduled for November 10, 2010 at the Peck Park Auditorium and it is important that everyone who has concerns either in support of the new plans or now having some opposition and those who just have questions and want to learn more, to come to the meeting and listen, learn, comment, and become active.

Also a very important date to remember is November 29, 2010 which is the ending date for submission of written comments to the Notice of Preparation and Initial Study.

Your imput is important and youre comments have weight and will be reviewes.

As for the actual plans of what MAY be built at Ponte Vista, more information will certainly be available at the meeting and throughout the course of the time between now and when the Los Angeles City Council finally votes on what will be approved or not approved at the 61.53 acre site.

More Than 1/3 "Apartment flats" and Only 143 Single Family Detached Residences

Click on images to enlarge them.

I must admit that I was caught off guard by the illustrations and Product Type Diagrams because I was at first delighted to see that 143 of the units MAY be single family, detached residents on basically no lot at all.

But when I got to the bottom and read that over one third of the Project is slated to be "apartment flats" in a four-story building, it demonstrated that all is not as well as it should be, in our community.

Like everyone, I need to learn a lot more about the proposal and product types. It is a really tough thing for me to have to swallow the idea of "apartment flats" even though I know many other townhouses and condos will also become rentals and leased residences.

It is not really now a stretch to consider than SHOULD Ponte Vista at San Pedro be built out as it is diagrammed right now, more than half of the residential units could be leased our or provided to renters.

This is a very real and big problem because the the more transient nature renters have and there could be an almost non-stop view on weekends of moving vans, pickup truck, and other vehicles specializing in moving renters in and out.

I do wish that some of the units were designated for seniors but I do understand the problems with trying to supply them in this day and age and housing problems.

I will continue to contend that Ponte Vista at San Pedro should have no more than 831 dwelling units to make that area equivalent in dwelling density to The Gardens.

Perhaps I am just frustrated with these new plans and I am remembering "The Bob Years" while I looked at the "392- apartment flats" and thought that here we go again with a great deal of opposition to these new plans.

I think it is a poor thing to see that over 1/3 of the planned units are scheduled to be "apartment flats" and I am hopeful that this time, the new development team of Ponte Vista will listen and learn.

I do have a feeling though, that should the "apartment flats" be taken out of the mix, the new Ponte Vista at San Pedro development team will then seek a density bonus, which is not a good option either, for our community I feel.

Please plan on attending the Public Scoping Meeting on November 10. I am sure we will all learn new details about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and we should be willing to listen before any real overt opposition shouts out.

But please do not be misinformed, there will be more than a little opposition to these new plans now that everyone now has the opportunity so see the product types and the numbers of each type.

Odds and Ends 191

With my focus on other issues like Measure P, The Marymount Plan, "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers", "And To All A Good Night" and just trying to work through the almost never ending wet weather, I've got nothing this week for Odds and Ends.

Odds and Ends 190

The following is on the Agenda under the Consent Calendar portion of this Tuesday's Rancho Palos Verdes City Council meeting:

3. Grant Application to Develop a Western Avenue Corridor Strategy
(Schonborn)
Recommendation: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-__, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, THEREBY APPROVING THE FILING OF A GRANT APPLICATION THROUGH THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) “COMPASS BLUEPRINT DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS” PROGRAM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE CORRIDOR AND STREETSCAPE STRATEGY FOR THE WESTERN AVENUE CORRIDOR.

Western Avenue is State Highway 213 and beautifying it is simply a good thing to attempt and then do, in my opinion.

Naturally I and others support the city of Rancho Palos Verdes filing a Grant Application and if I am not at a rehearsal, I will head towards Tuesday's meeting and encourage all other supporters of the Grant Application, no matter where they live to attend and speak on the item.
____________________________________________
For Rancho Palos Verdes residents who received yesterday's mailer from Marymount and all those who viewed the full page advertisement in The South Bay Daily News, isn't it remarkable that Marymount chose not to use any information about the 'assessed home values of residences adjacent to a College campus that has on-campus student housing?

Either they just 'missed' supplying Mr. Auerbach's opinion on dorms near houses, he didn't offer a quote on that subject or more probably, Marymount's campaign continues to use misdirection, and misleading misinformation in its (so far) $1,566,000 expenditure to get Measure P, The Marymount Plan passed by voters.
______________________________________________
Fondness of this current weather pattern north of Ninth Street near Western Avenue is not something I am enjoying at the moment.

I need to build a huge 'Pontipee House' for November's "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" at the Warner Grand Theatre and the fog, drizzle, and recent rain is not helping.

Of course we need the moisture and cooler temperatures. I just want to implore Mother Nature to let the wetness fall during the nighttime, if she pleases.
_____________________________________________
I don't have anything specifically to report concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro on this post.

I do feel that is now acceptable to compare Ponte Vista's current Management, current dealings with the public, and potential to offer a great Development based on community involvement with what is happening with Marymount College and what seems to be approaches similar to what we all suffered through during "The Bob Bisno Years".

I haven't found a single supporter or opponent of Ponte Vista's plans during "The Bob Bisno Years" that had even a 'good' time, some years after Bob was shown both sides of the door by way of a really large boot, I bet.
____________________________________________

Odds and Ends 189

Here is an article from the Thursday October 7, 2010 Palos Verdes Peninsula News:

Ponte Vista owner presents new plans
By Ashley Ratcliff, Peninsula News
Thursday, October 7, 2010 11:20 AM PDT

The proposed Ponte Vista housing project, located on Western Avenue in San Pedro, is situated on a 61.5-acre site that formerly was used for Navy residences. Developers iStar Financial Inc. recently released a scaled-back project with 1,135 units.
SAN PEDRO — A project that seeks to develop homes on a parcel land, vacant since 1997, has undergone yet another transformation — units were reduced to less than half of the figure originally proposed.

In its first iteration, the proposed Ponte Vista project — located on the site of 245 former U.S. Navy houses in San Pedro — included 2,300 for-sale residential units for an estimated 4,300 people. Its most recent proposal, recently presented to Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, includes 1,135 homes on a 61.5-acre site that borders the city of Rancho Palos Verdes.

“For years, I have joined with the community to push for a smaller project at the Ponte Vista site, and I was encouraged by my recent meeting with [developers] iStar [Financial Inc.],” Hahn said in a statement. “They have been listening and it looks like the concerns of the community, and the recommendations of the planning department, have finally been heard — as this number is much closer to what makes sense in this part of San Pedro.”

“It’s a step in the right direction,” added Mark Wells, an eastern RPV resident. “I prefer no more than 831 units there, because that’s the dwelling density equivalent to The Gardens, which is the large condominium development next to it.”

The L.A. Planning Department had previously recommended a density of 775 to 885 units on the property, located at 26900 S. Western Ave., directly across the street from Green Hills Memorial Park in RPV, just south of Palos Verdes Drive North.

Developers in L.A. are granted a “density bonus” if affordable housing is offered. With the bonus, the Planning Department’s number would increase to 1,195 units, according to Hahn.

However, Hahn said she is working to ensure that a density bonus will be prohibited at the site, limiting the total number of units to a maximum of 1,135.

Steve Magee, iStar Financial’s vice president, said the development will include a mix of housing types, such as townhomes and condominiums, which will be “accessible to a variety of households and income levels.”

While the plan, previously under the direction of Bisno Development Co., specified that 575 units would be reserved for senior housing for those ages 55 and older, the new proposal has eliminated that component altogether.

“The idea that older San Pedrans would move from their larger homes into condos at Ponte Vista [has] basically vanished,” Wells wrote in a blog post. “I don’t like that at all.”

RPV residents whose homes are adjacent to the proposed development are concerned about Ponte Vista because Western Avenue would be the only major thoroughfare for the project.

RPV Mayor Steve Wolowicz attended a June 2008 public hearing to speak on behalf of his constituents, which he called “the neighbor most affected by all of this.” He urged the developer to maintain RPV homeowners’ quality of life.

“This is not a NIMBY response on our part. It is not in our backyard — as a matter of fact, it is in our front yard,” then-Councilman Wolowicz said.

Wells said residents should be concerned about the Ponte Vista project for four reasons: traffic, the density bonus, the stability of iStar Financial — which, according to Bloomberg News report, may be on the verge of filing bankruptcy — and a general question of whether the new development will benefit or hurt the San Pedro community economically.

According to Wells, the climate has changed dramatically from prior interactions with Bob Bisno of former developer Bisno Development.

“I do appreciate very much how iStar Financial is trying to work with the community,” Wells said.

A new environmental impact report and traffic study currently are under way; however, the conceptual drawings have not been released and there hasn’t been any word of a public meeting concerning the latest project updates.

“We know the community shares our desire to improve this blighted piece of property with a development that addresses San Pedro’s needs for high-quality and mixed-income housing, while employing local workers to build the project,” Magee said in a statement. “As we finalize the site plans and begin the process of getting Ponte Vista built, we look forward to ongoing conversations with our neighbors, Councilwoman Hahn, and the community.”

aratcliff@pvnews.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For those who may not know, I served along with three other Rancho Palos Verdes residents on Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee regarding the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development several years ago.

Ms. Leah Marinkovich, Ms. Lucie Thorsen, Mr. Richard Brunner, and I were approved to serve on Ms. Hahn's Committee by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.

I am one of Ms. Ratcliff's 'go to' persons for comments and quotes about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and I appreciate her always correct, insightful, and most importantly, fair reporting concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
____________________________________________
I believe that the ongoing new studies that will lead to a new Environmental Impact Report do not need a new Notice of Preparation or Initial Study because they have already been written and commented on, about four years ago.

There will be ample time for interested parties to read and offer comment on the new Environmental Impact Report mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

I will continue to post more information about the sequences that will be followed between now and the date the final vote by the Los Angeles City Council regarding any zone changing municipal codes that may or may not be approved for Ponte Vista.
____________________________________________
It looks to me as if Dr. Michael Brophy and others representing Marymount College may have taken a marketing course from one Robert H. Bisno.

Throw money at a really bad idea and you end up with a really bad idea having money thrown at it.

Marymount has spent ninety two times the number of dollars the opposition of Measure P, The Marymount Plan has spent, according to required financial statements.

At this point, with the publications of a full page ad and a half page advertisement stating "The Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce endorses Measure P" I have reached my point of utter disgust with the misleading, deceptive, and false statements coming from the Yes on Measure P campaign.

The heading is deceptive, misleading, and utterly false because of several reasons.

It is clearly an attempt to single out Rancho Palos Verdes residents who are not aware that there is no such entity as The Rancho Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

The campaign wants potential voters to remain uneducated that the majority of businesses represented by membership in The Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce do not have addresses in Rancho Palos Verdes.

They probably don't like you to know that the Director of Communications of Marymount College sits on the Board of Directors of The Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce or that the Chamber endorsed The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project about two years ago.

I support The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project as does The Palos Verdes Peninsula Chamber of Commerce.

During "The Bob Years" we all saw the damage caused by Bob Bisno's marketing practices that created the most divided population of the San Pedro community.

What we see today is a virtual repeat of "The Bob Years" with "The Michael Years" and how one entity attempting to have its way over the residents and government of a community can tear the community apart with little regard for any resident or the future of the community.

The simple truth about Measure P, The Marymount Plan is that it seeks to rest control and authority from the people of Rancho Palos Verdes and provide an overwhelming revenue stream to a College that has been on academic warning in the past and which has seen harassment, death, and underage drinking all too common on too many campuses.

It's all about changing municipal codes just like what Bob worked so hard and poorly trying to do.

Thank goodness we have new leadership representing Ponte Vista at San Pedro and can only wait until Dr. Brophy is handed his papers and he flees the area, just like what happened to Bob Bisno.
___________________________________________
Also for Rancho Palos Verdes readers of this blog, the election to determine whether Rancho Palos Verdes becomes a Charter City has been set.
___________________________________________
Denny's on Western Avenue is conducting a petition drive which I am also helping out with via an unscientific poll on my www.eastrpv.blogspot.com site.

The owners, managers, and lots of other people want the restaurant to remain open 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.

According to at least one manager I talked with, longshore workers want more options with 24-hour restaurants.

Carrow's has either begun or soon will begin remaining open 24 hours per day, 7 day's a week as I have been told.

Do we want two nearby restaurants remaining open 24/7?

I don't object to either or both being open around the clock and I live extremely close to Denny's.

It would take a vote by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council to allow Denny's to remain open 24/7 and that may be a very, very complicated thing.

There are only 4-7-11 stores out of over 263 in the greater L.A. Basin that are not allowed to remain open 24/7. Rancho Palos Verdes has two of the four stores.

If Denny's wins its wish to remain open 24/7, I think the Southland Corporation and the 7-11 L.A. area management would be right on the heels of Denny's, should approval for Denny's to remain open all the time is successful.
_________________________________________

Odds and Ends 188

I will devote another post to my major concerns with the new plan.
____________________________________________
Someone wrote a comment to something written in a newspaper questioning what some people were doing with computers while sitting by some intersections on Western Avenue.

Those folks were probably counting the number of cars passing through the intersection and how many and which direction drivers turned into or out of the intersection.

It is quite normal as a part of any full traffic study which we have learned will be conducted for the new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be produced as the major study of the new Plan or Application to build 1,135-units at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I talked with Ms. Elise Swanson, the Vice-President in charge of the Ponte Vista site and the Team Leader of the Project and she confirmed to me that the traffic study for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro is now going on.

Not only will we be seeing folks counting vehicles at intersections, we will also see traffic counting tubes across many of the roadways in the area. You might even see some counters on streets you would not think need traffic counts for.

Personally I am pleased that the study is taking in traffic information at this time. All the schools are in session, just about every business along Western Avenue is open. There are a couple of temporary businesses now open for Halloween and I don't know if or how that might be a factor in the counts.

What I will be looking for in the Ponte Vista Traffic Study is an indication or counts related to the Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project approved by the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council at the end of this past March.

Neither of the two traffic studies for Ponte Vista and Marymount could have been incorporated with each other, but since the Marymount Traffic Study is published and approved, I think it needs to be incorporated somewhere in the pages of the Ponte Vista Traffic Study. I fully expect it will.
___________________________________________
I am somewhat amazed that the roadway on Capitol Drive right over the long-lasting water seepage has not caved in.

Water has been dribbling out and onto the surface of Capitol Drive for quite some time and I would have expected the ground under the asphalt to get so wet that is would not support the weight of the asphalt thus creating at least a pothole.

It's a wonder for me.
__________________________________________
Now here is a reminder to please check out: http://www.pedrocalendar.com/ which Ms. Kristina Smith offers our community a great deal of information. Naturally I have it bookmarked so I can just click it and head there.

Look for the link on this blog.
__________________________________________
Congratulations!

You survived the hottest day. The fact that the hottest day was not during the Summer doesn't really matter because there are usually days long hot spells in September and October every year.

On the hottest day Terri and I were enjoying being in the surf of the Pacific Ocean at about 1:45 PM. On our way home from the beach I watched the thermometer in her Saturn as it reported different temperatures as we went north of 9th Street and the relative coolness (81 degrees) along Western between 19Th and 9Th headed back towards a more normal 106 degrees on the street we live on.

Eastview and northwest San Pedro share the same weather which is usually hotter, smoggier, and dryer than the rest of San Pedro and Rancho Palos Verdes.
___________________________________________
The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Plan or The Marymount Plan, that is the question.
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?" (Thank you William Shakespeare)

The answer for me, Terri, and I hope the majority of voters in Rancho Palos Verdes is to vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan.

I usually support on-campus housing at just about every College or University that wants them. I support the Salvation Army's Officers' College which has on campus student housing in Rancho Palos Verdes for students and even the family members of some students.

With Marymount College, I consider that on-campus housing of students would be unsafe and could not be mitigated to a level I would consider safe enough.

The case that there should not be an Initiative on the matter does not hold water for me. While I don't like local initiatives I continue to support the allowances for State-wide Initiatives.

I don't like the motto of Save RPV or Save Our City III. I do believe that The Marymount Plan provides special privileges to one particular business over other businesses and all residents on Rancho Palos Verdes. I just think "RPV is not for sale" could have been changed to something else.

Please vote "No" on Measure P, The Marymount Plan. Safety. Everyone. Everywhere. Every hour.
____________________________________________

My Four Concerns About The New Plan

The day before The Daily Breeze published the article about the new plan for Ponte Vista at San Pedro, Councilwoman Janice Hahn called me and we talked about some of the new plans for the development.

Some of what I said to Councilwoman Hahn was also used by Ms. Donna Littlejohn in her article.
Since the calls and some more investigation about iStar Financial on my part, I started really considering what my thoughts, concerns, and considerations are.

So this post begins my contribution of those thoughts, concerns, and considerations.

First and before we begin, I need to clear up some misinformation repeatedly posted in print and mentioned.

Ponte Vista at San Pedro is a 61.53-acre site and NOT "62.5" acres Yes. it is a really petty thing to mention, but unless the site grew one acre since it was surveyed, then it is still 61.53 acres. Let's move on.

My four major areas of concern are:
Traffic
Density Bonus
iStar Financial
New Residential Support To San Pedro Versus The Costs By The Community.

Traffic will require its own post.

Density Bonus

A Density Bonus of up to a 35% increase in the number of units planned has been encouraged for developments where some 'low income' or 'affordable' housing is offered.

As of today, there has been no indication that the developers of Ponte Vista at San Pedro will offer 'low income' or 'affordable' housing that would qualify the Project for any density bonus.

An example of the number of units that could be built using 1,135-units as a base number would allow for up to 1,532-units actually being approved for construction.

Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa and many others have strongly encouraged developers in Los Angeles building more projects using density bonuses to offer more housing to people.

Since iStar Financial and just about everyone else affiliated with Ponte Vista at San Pedro have made statements that iStar would not seek a density bonus for Ponte Vista, that part I am fine with.

I was encouraged during my talk with Councilwoman Hahn when she told me she and her staff would work with others in the city to try and find a way to block any density bonus from ever being applied to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site.

Ms. Hahn worked with a group of wonderful residents of the Vista Del Oro neighborhoods to place onto commercially zoned lots a "Q" qualification classification that would permanently ban multi-unit residential construction on those lots.

It was the first attempt by Councilwoman to apply that type of building restriction on lots and it passed the full City Council unanimously.

A "Q" qualification classification is a very rare zoning classification in Los Angeles and the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, I am finding it harder to find where a density bonus restriction could be permanently applied to any development the size Ponte Vista at San Pedro is now.

Concerns that once entitlements are granted for the (about) 22 existing lot at Ponte Vista, they could be sold to other developers who might want density bonuses on the lots they purchase.

Note* There are approximately 245 duplex units currently standing at Ponte Vista. The most recent surveys of Ponte Vista, done for the original project list (about) 22 different lots at Ponte Vista. Technically, one or more lots or even all of the lots could be sold by iStar Financial once that Company receives entitlements to build.

This is not all that uncommon that developers receive entitlements then sell them without actually building anything the original developer states they would build.

My contention that Ponte Vista should have not more than 831-units is based on the dwelling equalivancy with The Gardens and the fact that there is no outlet for Ponte Vista traffic onto or off of Gaffey Street.

So for me, any density bonus by any developer is a major concern that I feel needs to be dealt with by a municipal code that would permanently restrict a density bonus on all of the 61.53 acres now known as Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I think should no such restriction be applied to the property, then I am leaning very heavily toward having the zoning at Ponte Vista at San Pedro remaining what it currently is.

iStar Financial

Although I am favorable towards iStar Financial, the financial backers of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, recent education by me has placed this company as a major concern of mine.

The majority of more educated former opponents of Bob Bisno's original plans continue to believe that once iStar Financial receives entitlements to build at Ponte Vista, they will sell those entitlements and the land and be gone with whatever loss or gain they can get.

In complete defense of iStar Financial I need to educate those that do not already know that the original bid for 41.95 acres of land at auction was purchased by Bob Bisno's business interests for two hundred fifty two percent of the opening bid for that portion of Ponte Vista at auction.

Bob's winning bid was $88,000,000.00 which equals $2,097,753.40 (approx) per acre.

Bob was required to purchase the remaining 19.58 acres from the Volunteers of America for $34,000,000.00 which equals $1,736,465.78 (approx) per acre.

In a nutshell: 61.53 total acres for $122,000,000.00 equals $1,982,772.63 (approx)
Per acre.

Today, the land is worth nowhere near 1.99 Million Dollars per acre.

There have been articles in Bloomberg News and other sources that offer information that I find conflicting and I need more information about.

A Bloomberg News article offered the question whether iStar Financial is close to bankruptcy. I found another article on the Web that illustrated that iStar Financial just bought the common areas of a large condominium development back east.

In doing further searches related to iStar, different pictures seem to surface.

I used the post from Your Ponte Vista on this blog that has information from an iStar Manager.

I gave a tip to Ms. Donna Littlejohn that ended up being a useful and great article Ms. Littlejohn had published in The Daily News.

Will iStar Financial continue its participation with Ponte Vista until entitlements are granted?

I don't know and because it may take a year or so for the Los Angeles City Council's voting on entitlements and a new municipal code changing the current zoning of the Ponte Vista site, I don't know if anyone else knows, either.

What I can write is that I am so pleased that "The Bob Years" are over and that as long as iStar Financial is in the picture, that is a good to very good thing, in my opinion.

Should iStar Financial have to rid itself of the huge dept that Bob Bisno built prior to the vote by the City Council, I have no idea what would then happen. I don't know who might know, either.

Should iStar Financial receive entitlements for Ponte Vista, looking at the prices Bob paid, the current land values, and wondering how iStar could make any money, the prospect of iStar Financial selling pieces of Ponte Vista or perhaps the whole site to another development entity, provides a great deal of concern in me.

Bob ordered the anchor lowered and then unfortunately it looks like iStar got its neck wrapped around the anchor's chain.

iStar Financial representatives have repeatedly stated that they will not seek a density bonus. I hope they are still around when any building begins.

New Residential Support To San Pedro Versus The Costs By The Community.

Original studies conducted my me and others found that a huge development at Ponte Vista at San Pedro would cost more to the San Pedro community than what the community could afford.

Because there are no major shopping areas like malls, multi-screen theatres, large car dealerships, huge furniture and appliance stores in San Pedro and particularly in its downtown district, a large development at Ponte Vista would tax the San Pedro community in several ways.

It is wonderful that Target is here and it provides benefits we all need and want. it wasn't around during "The Bob Years".

Home Depot, American Furniture, Nader's, and other small furniture and appliance stores are in San Pedro.

But would residents of Ponte Vista go to many of the smaller stores in San Pedro?

Home Depot and Target supply some good and newer revenue to the city of L.A. even though very little of that revenue comes back to San Pedro.

Water continues to be in short supply and any new water requirements could affect water requirements for San Pedrans and everyone else in L.A.

Other infrastructure issues need to also be considered because our community has been consistently neglected by too many at L.A. City Hall.

L.A. takes our community's money, including our port's money and then does not really provide enough support back to San Pedro and other nearby communities. This has gone on for what seems forever.

Before the 2008 financial meltdown and the beginning of all the layoffs, only 6 out of ten San Pedro residents could go to local jobs in and around the community.

Having less than one job per working resident means that many residents have to commute.

Ponte Vista at San Pedro with its Western Avenue ONLY in and out route and the fact that there is currently only one bus line that goes along Western, along with the distance to and from the freeway and park and ride facilities prove that Ponte Vista can't really be considered commuter-friendly.

Since there are not longer plans to have a specified Senior section at Ponte Vista, the idea that older San Pedrans would move from their larger homes and into condos at Ponte Vista as basically vanished. I don't like that at all.

It has already been estimated that the vast majority of residents moving into Ponte Vista would not come from the 'local' area which consists partially of San Pedro.

What is of a major concern of mine right now is that a large development at Ponte Vista would take more from the residents of the San Pedro community than it would give back to the economy, infrastructure, and society in San Pedro.

Most new residents of Ponte Vista would not shop in downtown San Pedro because of tough access to Gaffey and Pacific. They would choose to either stick to businesses along Western Avenue or head out north and west to venture into Torrance, Rolling Hills Estates and even farther out except when they can visit Target and Home Depot, here.

I haven't seen any numbers yet about the proposed number of bedrooms in each unit of the proposed 1,135-unit Project. That could also indicate spending trends, too.

Ponte Vista will almost certainly become a neighborhood with rental units and leased units. More transitory residents may help Target and Home Depot, but the heightened number of comings and goings by renters is also a concern that adds to the major concerns I have on this particular topic.

But this is a topic I feel strongly that the community can come together with the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development Team to work on solutions.

I have found no reason to be as contentious as I was during The Bob Years. I think 1,135-units is far less unreasonable than the previous three sets of numbers.

I have now found respect where is wasn't found during "The Bob Years" and that is a very big plus.

I have used four "R" words in considering three Developments I have dealt with:

Reasonable, responsible, realistic, and respectful. During "The Bob Years" not one of the four were thought of my me and many others when thinking about Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

That has thankfully and wonderfully changed for the better, in my opinion.

Is the current plan reasonable? I'm still a 832-units guy but I can now imagine many of the former opponents find the new plan reasonable and I now consider it (at 1,135) not unreasonable, but not all that much reasonable.

Is it responsible? Easily that is a yes in part because is now demonstrated a much more responsible view towards the community and the infrastructure.

Is it realistic? Now that is the one question I still don't know the real answer to. That is why we see traffic counters out and about. That is why we also find that other new studies are being undertaken at this time. "1,135-units" might very well be realistic, I just need to wait this one out.

Is it respectful. It certainly is compared to the previous plans, I believe.

I think iStar Financial is respectful and needs to continue to be respectful if they want to receive entitlements they seek.

The good people at Ponte Vista at San Pedro could show a thing or ten to those who support Measure P, The Marymount Plan in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Doing things differently and better could offer to those in "The Marymount Community" chances to improve their lot(s), so to write.

It is remarkable for me now to use the folks at Ponte Vista as an example of betterment towards the community and I hope Dr. Brophy and Mr. Burt Arnold read this post.