Odds And Ends 198

So, how is everyone doing on reading the Ponte Vista Draft Environmental Impact Report, (DEIR)?

Are you making notes about what you wish to comment on? I sure hope you are and using the notes to create a fantastic set of comments, to the report.

I'm still trying to figure out what is going on with the new lane striping along Western Avenue between Avenida Aprenda and 19th Street.

by looking at the temporary lane (plastic reflective) markings and the short dashes of yellow and white lines which may be the route for the yellow and white stripes, it sure looks like the center lanes in both directions will be narrower than they were before resurfacing AND narrower than what is required for a State Highway Lane.

If it passes that those little dashes become actual lane markings, the outer lanes will be very, very wide.

If you look at the short white dashes as they get close to the intersection of Western Avenue and Avenida Aprenda, they seem to veer to the right to make better alignment with the permanent lane markings along Western Avenue, north of Avenida Aprenda. It looks pretty much the same on southbound Western Avenue, close to 19th Street.

With the center lanes so narrow and the outer lanes so wide, just imagine all those drivers who will create their own 'third lane' near the curb and I think we will see lots of problems when the curb 'lane' has vehicles moving in it faster than those who are moving closer to the lane lines, along Western.

This might be something that you should check and recheck your vehicle insurance coverage on.

State Highway lanes must be wider than lanes on County or City roadways. This is one of the reasons Western Avenue has not had a full third lane added already.

The Western Avenue Task Force, in its report from 2005 has a suggestion that Western Avenue need to become three-lanes wide by 2030. This would take much study and some changes in laws and regulations for State Highways, with Western Avenue being one in particular.

A meeting concerning the Final Report for The Clearwater Program was scheduled for today. I received my CD of that report the same day I also got my hands on the new DEIR for Ponte Vista.

The Clearwater Program's proposed Alternative 4 is to construct a new Joint Outfall System, a tunnel between the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant, (JWPCP) in Carson and an distribution piping system out into San Pedro Bay at Royal Palms.

The proposed route for the new tunnel will enter San Pedro along Gaffey Street, turn west at Capitol, turn south along Western at Capitol/Trudie, go under Averill Park and head out to sea, following must of the Western Avenue route of the two existing tunnels that have been under Western for decades.

At Royal Palms, a deep 'Exit Shaft' will be sunk at the bottom of the cliff and there will be many, many, many double-dirt hauler trips between the dig's site and out of San Pedro.

If you think there are problems right now at 25th and Western or on other streets intersecting Western Avenue, 'you ain't seen nothing yet'!

I expect that the proposed Alternative will be ultimately approved. it is the least cost of the construction Alternatives and is proposed to be half of what it would cost to put the Exit Shaft and Access Shafts on Terminal Island, close to rail access, freeway access and having no residences nearby, except for the prison and the Coast Guard base...oh well.

I have not heard yet of any new meetings by the many concerned with the number of units proposed for Ponte Vista. I'm still a proponent of the Alternative that allows for NO building on the site, complete removal of all existing structures and the POSSIBLE construction of up to 429 single-family detached homes. However, I still have to state that I could probably live with no more than 850 housing units on the site.

I made the original badges that showed a red circle with a red line on a diagonal with the number '2300' behind it. I still have enough button blanks to start working on NO 1135 badges.

Have a great beginning of December!

Wait, Wait, There's More

I hope everyone is studying and mulling over your thoughts regarding the issues revolving around The Ponte Vista Project and your contemplations on what comments you are going to submit on that project's new Draft Environmental Impact Report.

But during your concentration, you may want to add some thoughts to another project that is being worked on, not all that far from the Ponte Vista Site.

Marymount College has an off-campus housing facility on Palos Verdes Drive North, between Western Avenue and 5-Points and here is a notice of a public hearing dealing with what Marymount officials and supporters want to do with the site they have been associated with, for some years now.

Click On Image To Enlarge It.

I have only posted the first page of the notice because I feel it is enough information for those interested and if folks want more information, they are able to find it out for themselves.

When you read what this project entails, please keep in mind what the developers of The Ponte Vista Project want and the four Alternatives dealt with in Ponte Vista's DEIR.

Besides Ponte Vista and Marymount's off-campus housing site, the new small lot houses along Gaffey Street are still being built. The largely uninhabited housing at 5-Points is still nearby and there are going to be a small number of large homes built along Palos Verdes Drive North, near its intersection with Palos Verdes Drive East.

Housing development is moving forward in what can be described as a small area that has not seen much residential development in quite some time.

Add to the housing, the new(er) schools and the new educational, parking and site concerns at Marymount's 'Palos Verdes North' site, we are all looking at more development in the area than has been done in decades.

I hope interested individuals and groups will look at 'the big picture' in terms of residential and other types of development and work to find ways to mitigate traffic concerns we all have and work to finding the best results for EVERYONE.

I will create a post soon that will lean towards pushing for Alternative B for The Ponte Vista Project and if this notice helps you and others to consider more carefully how much development at Ponte Vista is best for everyone, I think that is a good thing.

This Is Where I Begin Again

 The new Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for "The Ponte Vista Project" has been published and the (currently) 60-day review and public comment period has begun.

Everyone interested in any part of the project and/or its impacts on communities is encouraged to learn what they wish to learn about the project and submit comments for review.

Case Number: ENV-2005-4516-EIR

The comment period for review is from November 8, 2012 and (currently) ending on January 7, 2013

Please direct your written comments to:

Erin Strelich, Planning Assistant
Los Angeles Department of City Planning
200 N. Spring Street, Room 750
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Telephone Number: (213) 978-1343

Email: erin.strelich@lacity.org

Copies of the documents can be found at local libraries and there will be public hearings noticed and held, during the review period.

The DEIR is also available online at:

http://cityplanning.lacity.org On the left side of the homepage, scroll down to "Environmental" and under that icon, look for and click on "Draft EIR". Look for "Ponte Vista Project" click on that and you will go to access portals for the DEIR documents.

The applicant for the project is SFI Bridgeview, LLC. 'Bridgeview' is the English translation of Ponte Vista (Italian).

The NEW project consists of FOUR 'Alternatives'. I will provide an illustration for each and some facts and comments under each illustration.

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the 'No Project' alternative that is required for all projects.

Simply put, this alternative states that nothing will happen to the property, no development will occur and the site will remain as it looks today and it will continue to deteriorate into the future. 

Alternative B

Alternative B, as described in the DEIR is also a 'No Project' alternative, with a couple of twists.

If Alternative B is approved, the current applicant or another party would strip the site of all buildings and other structures and leave the property with its current 'R1-1XL' and open space zoning.

This Alternative allows for the applicant or another party to build up to 429 single-family, detached housing dwelling on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet in area.

When you hear "R 1", this is what the lots would be illustrated like. You will hear lots of comments about this alternative, both positive and negative. It would be a very, very long shot to have this alternative adopted, but it could happen.

Alternative C

Click on image to enlarge it. 

This is the alternative proposed by the Staff of L.A. City Planning.

It allow for '830' dwelling units and appears to be gaining favor by some in the general public.

It offers less dwelling density than found in The Gardens and because there is no direct vehicle traffic to Gaffey Street for folks who will live and work at Ponte Vista, this might just be what is approved of, down the road.

Alternative D 

Click on image to enlarge it

This is the alternative that the project's developers want to see approved.

It is the 1,135-unit project. It does have some type and size differences than we have seen in previous illustrations and documents from the new development team.

Since the dwelling unit density is greater than found at The Gardens, along with Western Avenue being the only access in and out of Ponte Vista, as well as some other reasons that I will comment on down the road, I do not support this alternative and suggest and hope you also find 1,135-units to be too many for Ponte Vista.

Major problems still loom for the developers and the community and finding and implementing solutions to those problems must come first, before any approvals are provided.

However, I feel there are two alternatives that should be more carefully studied and compared to each other so we can find the best outcome for our communities and for the new neighbors we will welcome at Ponte Vista.

I think we need to drop Alternatives A and D from much of the discussion and focus on comparing and approving either Alternative B or Alternative C.

We need to understand what folks said all the way back in 2005; Something needs to be built on the site. Whether is it vacant land, 429 upscale single-family houses or up to 830-units of multiple types, I feel it is about time we all band together and get something completed on the 61.53 acre site.

For those continuing to demand R1, I can certainly live with that. I do not believe our communities have mandates to provide housing to too many people in an area where traffic is such a concern and where the location is near refineries and storage tanks. 

In future posts, I will work on dealing with public access through the site rather than having a gated community at Ponte Vista. I think there is compromise on all sides that should allow for access to Mary Star High School and for visitors to the area.

Traffic. There, I wrote it again in this new era for Ponte Vista.

For more reasons than found in the DEIR, there has been not enough consideration with Ponte Vista and other developments in the nearby area, all having great impact on traffic and congestion.

There has not been and still nothing reasonable exists that deals with both the impact on traffic by Ponte Vista's development and the greatly expanded residential wishes by Marymount College via their Palos Verdes North off-campus housing and future teaching site.

While enrollment at Rolling Hills Prep seems to not be increasing as much as previously considered, we could find many more students on that site, as well.

I noted in a comment to my last post that yesterday also brought to my mailbox the Final EIS/EIR and Master Facilities Plan for The Clearwater Program of The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.

It is true that this project will progress well into the future and be underground for almost all the way from Carson to the Pacific Ocean, there will be some overland impacts and if something terrible happens during tunnel construction, I hope there is mitigation for that.

So it begins...again. It's back on...finally.

Your comments and inputs are welcome and you may constructs posts to the comments section and also write a post yourself, on this blog.

It's time to stop reading everything else and head into the DEIR. Happy reading, if that is possible.

Thank you.

FINALLY...IT'S HERE!!!!

In today's mail, I received two copies of the new Draft Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I got them the same day as the release date of the documents to the public.

It's now 4:00 AM on Friday morning and I just got home for an overnight shoot for a T.V. pilot, so I will get into the new EIR and start posting some items, later on during the day.

The wait was very long and now it is over!

It's Almost Here! Really, I'm Not Fibbing This Time

An article in The South Bay Daily Breeze stated that the new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Ponte Vista as San Pedro could be published in "October".

Since there is only one day left in October, the chance remains that it could be already published or come out tomorrow.

What I can confirm is that it is going through its final editing for dotting the 'Ts' and crossing the 'i's and if it is already out, the time for its public publishing is very near.

The new Proposed Project calls for 830 dwelling units as I have been told by a reliable source and the the number of the different type of units is also changed from what the developers originally were considering.

There will be fewer of the 'low end' apartment units. There will be more single-family residential units on small lots.

It appears that the total number of dwelling units is below the maximum number of units I was considering.

While the total number of units is fewer and the overall makeup of the types of units may be better, I can still find some very significant issues that need to be addressed before the project goes through the voting process by the members of the Los Angeles City Council.

Traffic was and always will be the most significant element regarding Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

There are public access issues that need more work, I feel.

There is the disconnect between what is proposed at Ponte Vista and what is being considered for the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing area for Marymount College.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration being considered for Marymount College's north San Pedro facility has some real problems dealing with traffic issues, too. The issues related to traffic, access and transportation as it relates to two large project in close proximity to each other, along with a few other factors, will continue to be something we all need to be vigilant about, I believe.

What I can also reveal is something that has not been a secret for years. Most of us are sick and tired of dealing with having to pass by the site in its current condition and seeing what is there.

While I can easily continue to help fight alongside those who continue to demand that the site remains with it's current zoning, there now may be a far greater number of folks who just want something built and I feel the majority of those neighbors and friends won't put up much of a fight over what looks to be coming forth in the new EIR.

I hope diligent caution with experienced review and educated reasoning is used to provide the best outcome for everyone, including the new neighbors that will live in Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I still have lots of buttons, though.

Thank you.

Odds and Ends 197

It's been about a week since I wrote more about Ponte Vista at San Pedro and this past week has been almost completely silent on the issues surrounding the northwest San Pedro development.

I did read comments related to the newspaper article and from "Topix" that seem to indicate that there are folks making comments that believe they know what it true, yet there are some errors that I will try to help everyone out with, in upcoming posts.

You might seem some information and opinion coming onto this blog and I am sure in other places, coming from Congresswoman Janice Hahn. I know the Congresswoman remains very interested in all the issues surrounding Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

I am not a constituent of hers because I live within sight of San Pedro, near Western Avenue in Rancho Palos Verdes.

I hope to also post opinions and comments for Councilman Joe Buscaino, who took over the seat formerly held by Ms. Janice Hahn.

'My' Congressman is Mr. Henry Waxman and I am pretty sure he will win reelection this coming November. I think he will become more interested in the issues as he becomes more familiar with the areas on The Hill he picked up via redistricting.

It will be VERY interesting to find out what the members of the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council think of the 'new plans' for Ponte Vista.

***NOTE***
The current Mayor of Rancho Palos Verdes is Mr. Anthony Misetich. He and I had a strong disagreement about Ponte Vista at San Pedro during The Bob Years.

We met several times and I believe he supported Bob's plans that included housing for seniors as part of his membership on a Board for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

That was then, this is now. I have great confidence that our Mayor and the rest of the RPV City Council will study all the issues surrounding Ponte Vista and they will defend the interests of residents of RPV.

The caveat here is that at least one of the members of the council is a real estate developer and there is a four-person majority of 'conservative' thinking members currently serving.  ***End of note.

I heard on the radio that Chipotle Grill was found to be rounding up with their prices and change. I don't know if our local eatery is doing that, so please make sure you watch you receipt, as you should everywhere, and enjoy some good food when you dine there.

One of the most wonderful persons I have ever known in my life still enlightens Trader Joe's Mrs. Dottie Hill was a close friend of my mom's even before I was born. She can teach everyone about feeling joy and everyone is so blessed whenever they talk to her and enjoy being around her.

Since I was a "First Presser" (baptised, grew up, first marriage at The First Presbyterian Church) our family know the Hills and I even remember Marshall Hill had a BMW Isetta, the little car with only one door as its front. I got a ride from the Hill home to my home in that little car, but that was just one of many treats I enjoyed knowing Dottie, Marshall, Bill, Mark and then Mathew came along a little later.

They're back! Yup, schools all over are open. PLEASE drive safely. I saw the excellent Deputy Chris Knox pull someone over, right on my block. With Chris, if he pulls you over for a violation, there is about a 100% chance you earned it.

As you enjoy Labor Day this Monday, please consider that you would not be able to have that holiday if unionized workers didn't see its creation. Please be safe that day, too.

Thanks for reading this post!

1,135: Still Too Many!

Click on Illustration to Enlarge it.

1,135 total number of dwelling units is too many to be constructed at Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The current zoning for the site allows for up to 429 single-family detached dwelling units, on individual lots of not less than 5,000 square feet of land. This is the basic information for the zoning designation of  "R 1" or "R1" in the city of Los Angeles.

To have any greater number of housing units, the zoning of the lots on the site would see a requirement by the Los Angeles City Council approving new municipal ordinances that would change the existing zoning to some other types.

"R Neighborhoods Are 1" was an organization of concerned residents established to try to keep from having the existing zoning changed from what the Los Angeles City Council approved in the past, to something else that would allow for greater dwelling density.

***NOTE***

When you view the site now, you see duplex units there. When the U.S. Navy owned the property and build units there, they were and are not required to follow municipal zoning ordinances and the city zoned the property to what it is now AFTER the Navy built the duplexes.

Those of you considering that the duplexes should just be renovated and/or duplexes of that type and number are what you would like to see on the site, it can't be done.

The duplex units and other remaining apartment block units found further east, near the site are all not part of R 1 zoning. ***

I sat and still may sit on the Board of "R Neighborhoods Are 1" even though I no longer demand that the site remain with its legal zoning designations. I still feel strongly that if enough community members demand no change with the site's current zoning, I have no problem with that, whatsoever.

The Gardens, a nearby development, consists of 1,100 units on 80 acres of land, according to facts and figures published in many places.

The Gardens is comprised of condominium dwelling units with many having a small outdoor patio and easy access to garage spaces established for each unit.

The Gardens has been around for decades.

Using a calculator, divide the number of dwelling units at The Gardens, "1,100" by the acreage listed as making up the development, "80" and you should find that there are "13.75" dwelling units at The Gardens, per acre of land listed for The Gardens.

Ponte Vista at San Pedro, according to records created during the sale and auction processes consists of a land area of "61.53" acres.

If you multiply the total acreage of land at Ponte Vista at San Pedro, "61.53" by the number of dwelling units per acre found at The Gardens "13.75" the product is about "846".

I have strongly felt, for the last several years, that a reasonable number of dwelling units approved to be built at Ponte Vista should be equal to less than the same number of units per acre found at The Gardens.

The Gardens has Westmont Drive, a four lane road, going through is and all of the units there have access almost directly to Western Avenue AND Gaffey Street.

Every single resident or visitor to whatever is built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro MUST be transported, at least partially, along a portion of Western Avenue. There would be no direct access to Westmont Drive or Gaffey Street.

I posted the "Product Type" illustration above to give you an idea of the types and numbers of units currently planned for the site. Here too, we find far too many of several different types of units planned for the development.

With "392" units (Product Type 7)that have been designated as "Rental" units, along with the "161" units illustrated for Product Type 6, that totals 553 units out of the current 1,135 units now being suggested. When 48.7% of a development consists primarily of rental units (my thought is that a majority of the 161 units would also become rentals), what might that say about the other Product Types and whether a significant number of them would also become rental or leased units?

In the illustration there is listed "143" units of 2 and 3 story detached, single-family units. We can easily see a smaller development (135 units) of homes like this being constructed along Gaffey Street, south of the Ponte Vista site.

I wonder how many, if any, of these housing units being built there will be occupied by renters or those who lease. 

Product Types 2-5 consists of 439 'townhomes', 'duplexes', and 'flats'. It appears that the majority number of units of these types are 'flats'. How many people do you feel would be interested in being owner/residents in a development with so many rental and leased units? 

I feel there is a comparable development to what might occur at Ponte Vista, with the currently planned product types and it is called Miraleste Canyon Estates.

Miraleste Canyon Estates is a housing development originally called Laurel Tree Apartments and it is between Miraleste Drive and Western Avenue.

Some years ago, the housing site changed from rental apartments to a condominium, owner/occupied site. It is fairly old now. I don't know the ratio of owner-occupied units to leased or rented units there, but it might make a good study to determine what might occur for most of the 'flats' projected currently at Ponte Vista.

To me, the more rental units and leased out units there are in a development, the more transient the residential population becomes. I think there are more traffic issues to deal with than developments where the majority of the residents own AND occupy their spaces.

Some might offer a guess that, of the 439 units of Product Types 2-5 have 50% renters or leasees, then there could be as many as 219 units added to the 553 units of types 6 and 7.

I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that at least 772 of the overall 1,135 units now planned would become rental or leased units and I know that the Traffic and Transportation section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report that will 'officially' be coming out this Fall does not take that into any consideration.

During The Bob Years, the developer came up with a percentage of condo units to be built and designated for seniors to live at. Of course Bob would not segregate seniors from living in other areas of the complex, but he did offer senior housing. My feeling on that was that it may have been a good idea, but I learned quickly that he probably offered that as a marketing incentive to get more support for an overly huge over development from seniors living in the area.

With the new plans, no 'senior housing' is illustrated or planned. As I have seen in the last few days, there are seniors out there who are writing negatively about not having senior housing at Ponte Vista and that seems to confirm my earlier opinion that Bob offered his senior housing as a marketing ploy.

I am quite sure that should the current developers change some of the types of housing to offer seniors housing meant specifically for them, there would be even fewer folks objecting to having 1,135 total units built, on the site.

It could be argued that should approvals be given to built 1,135 units, over 772 of them, 68% of the total number of units, would probably become rental or leased units within the first three years after the project is completed.

So now, is there wiggle room in the total number of units the developers would be willing to discuss? I hope so.

I will remain strong in my work to find fewer units being built at Ponte Vista at San Pedro and if the commuinity wants R1, I'm perfectly fine with that.

I do have my high end limits. I know there must be fewer than 1,135 units approved, at the sight. If R1 (429) gets rejected by the majority and L.A. City Councilman Buscaino, some other number should be put forth. I have offered my high end limit being up to 831, but perhaps because of some calculations in error, maybe no more than 846 units could be successfully constructed there.

I feel I am settled with 'fewer than 850 units' and must consider that all of them might become rental or leased out units. I can live with that or R 1 (429).

I hope most others learn more and conclude that the number of total units closer to my wishes becomes the best for our community.

What we see and will see with traffic along Western Avenue, as well as with other housing being planned or under construction in our area, is that Western Avenue and the residents and visitors who use it cannot help but to realize that it has become more of a parking lot than a reasonable access route.

Let's give the developers 74.8898678% (75%) of what they are asking for at Ponte Vista and then let's continue to move forward. 

Remembering The Past So We Don't Mess Up The Future

Ponte Vista at San Pedro is a housing development that has been around since 2005 and the former developer of the project created quite a stir in our community.

This post has been written to remember the past and work towards the best future possible for the greater community, including residents living at Ponte Vista.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"-George Santayana. Even though the 'new' details concerning Ponte Vista at San Pedro are different, I feel if we don't remember how the project got to this point, we may find that approvals for construction are given to housing our community does not want or need.

For references now and into the future, here are two illustrations you might find valuable and interesting.

Click over illustration to enlarge it.

Click over illustration to enlarge it.

These two illustrations might offer the best overall information readers may want to help them decide how they feel about the 'new' plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

Now, back to some history.

The original developer of Ponte Vista at San Pedro was Mr. Robert H. (Bob) Bisno and I reference the past history while Bob Bisno was at the helm of his organization that sought to bring a 2,300-unit condominium project to the site and call it "The Bob Years".

Bob Bisno, possibly in a final move to seek approval for a project, lowered his overall number of units to 1,950, but it is still important to remember the "2,300" units he tried to get approval for, as we go forward.

I think I need to remind readers that there was a noticeable division in our community during the period between 2006 and late 2009 when there were discussions, arguments, both good and bad times and a number of thing separated our community more than find it coming together.

A 'grass roots organization' called R Neighborhoods Are R1 was formed to fight against over development of the Ponte Vista area and taking into account what became our 'friend', the crumbling housing market, together we and the economy dealt a death blow to Bob's plans for the site.

Of course we must never forget what many of us believe Bob did to our community back then and use that as a means to make sure no other housing developer comes in and tries to over build in our community, like was found during The Bob Years.

So, now some historic trivia that hopefully, you mind find useful.

The site where Ponte Vista at San Pedro now is located is former U.S. Navy property that was used by the Navy for a fire fighting school and for housing for decades.

The Navy moved the residents out of the site in 1998. The fire fighting school, boxing club and other buildings were long gone when the 'current' housing was built in 1962.

There were 242 duplex units and a number of block-type two-story apartments built on the site and when I was in the U.S.A.F. I shopped at the small convenience store that was also located on the site.

When the U.S. Navy deeded the property it actually 'gave away' many lots, not necessarily where Ponte Vista now stands, but in areas that we now find Mary Star of the Sea High School, Rolling Hills Prep School, the Palos Verdes North off-campus housing site for Marymount College and land set aside for Volunteers for America and their housing needs.

In 2005, Bob Bisno 'won' an auction where he paid up to 252% of the opening bid for land that would become part of Ponte Vista at San Pedro. He also was required to purchase property deeded to Volunteers of America to create the 61.53 acres of land we now call Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

Bob planned to build 2,300 condominium units and he included some units to be designated for senior housing as well as providing a small retail area and a '6 Acre' public park. He also offered access from Western Avenue to the campus of Mary Star of the Sea High School and there were discussions that he would also provide a secondary access road for those residing on Fitness Drive.

You are most welcome to read all sorts of facts and figures within the first posts of this blog and I will also include 'reminders' as we move forward.

When the U.S. Military owns land, they can build just about anything in the way of housing they wish to build. Municipal zoning laws do not apply to the type and number of housing the U.S. Navy built on its site and there was no requirement to have any city zoning applied to the site while the Navy owned and operated it.

However, even during the time the U.S. Navy own the overall sites that included the area now known as Ponte Vista, the city of Los Angeles did apply specific zoning ordinances to the area.

For what is now Ponte Vista at San Pedro, the Los Angeles City Council adopted two zoning types for that area:

R 1 is a zoning type designated for residential housing. It allows for one, single-family detached housing unit built on a lot of not less than 5,000 square feet in size. This is important to all previous discussions and many future discussions, many of us strongly feel.

OS 1 is a zoning type for open space in an area zoned around R 1 zoning. This type of zoning also includes areas where parks can be built as well as areas where no buildings are able to be built.

With the zoning designation approved for what is now the site of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, there can legally and easily be up to 429 single-family detached housing units built on the land WITHOUT any zoning changes/new city ordinances by the Los Angeles City Council.

Any developer wishing to have great than R 1 zoning for dwelling units MUST receive zoning changes , voted on and approved by the Los Angeles City Council.

Bob knew that going in, when he overpaid for the land, but he didn't seem to think that was a problem for him.

I don't think he nor anyone else could have imagined what was to happen in our community and the housing market, during The Bob Years.

***Note***

I have had some real interesting discussions directly with Bob in the past. I know why '2,300' was the number of units Bob set his sights on. I included that information on at least one previous post.

I have also talked with member of the development team that is going forward with the 'new' details. They DO NOT seem to be like Bob Bisno was. I feel there is 'wiggle room' with these developers and I hope they wiggle more than I have to.

For those of you new to discussing matters related to Ponte Vista at San Pedro and to those more familiar than they originally wished they didn't need to be, this blog as history, details, opinions, facts and comments that might be useful as we go forward.

For those of us now needing to get back up on the saddle of a very grumpy horse just to have to slog our way through, I hope you don't forget what we went through, how we felt and how we helped to make sure Bob didn't get the monster begun, that he wanted.

It turned out that by 2009, there was simply no way Bob would be able to build anything on the site and I think he knew that.

Thanks for reading.

Odds and Ends 196

The last "Odds and Ends" was published in November, 2010. The vacation from that is now over.

"Odds and Ends" deals with more general issues. It was designed to touch on various matters but not deal with much of the specifics of any particular item or issue.

So, what have I been doing since November, 2010? Basically a whole bunch of old and some new things.

Many readers know that I was 'retired' by AT&T in 2008 because they no longer allowed me to do my job because of my right hip being replaced. I was quite thankful that AT&T sent me my retirement funds in March, 2009 when the stock market was at 6,500. Again, thanks AT&T, you have no idea how you helped me out.

2010 found me writing much less about Ponte Vista and more about the city I live in, Rancho Palos Verdes. That continues on, but writing about issues in R.P.V. did taper off, too. We'll see how it goes from here on out, especially with discussions about extending the timeline for The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project.

Phil and I built too many theatre productions in 2010 but we 'setteled down in 2011 and now are very happy to consider that we should only build up to two productions per year, going forward.

2012 found up constructing the set for "Camp Logan" for the Robey Theater Company, in downtown Los Angeles and we just finished building the set and some props for "Oklahoma" with Scalawag Productions, at The Warner Grand Theatre in San Pedro.

In 2011 and with fewer productions to build AND after about 45+ years dealing with behind the scenes of theatre, movies, television and associated things, I though about getting in front of cameras, just to see what that is like and to make some 'fun money' being a background artist and working on student film and TV productions.

I'm now in my second year of background artist work and I also continue to work with college and university students on productions they do. With T.V. and Film, you are not supposed to notice me in the background. Think of me as garnish rather than what's in the middle of your plate.

Unless you frequent film festivals, you probably wouldn't notice me, either.

No, I don't want to be anything other than a background player for films and T.V. or helping out on student productions.

One irony with all this is that I frequently question the motives and actions happening at Marymount College, Palos Verdes, but to date, I have done 16 film and T.V. productions associated with Loyola Marymount University.

Last February, we sent to rest in peace our beloved Cookie. She was our for seventeen years and naturally, we will miss her.

In March we met "Tessa" who is a rat terrier mix puppy, born in November, 2011.

What is the difference between a rat terrier and a terrorist? Scientists are still trying to figure that one out.

She has been a handful and she is trying to train us as we are trying to train her. At 9 months, she still has her puppy moments (too many) and we are learning more about terriers, especially rat terriers, all the time.

Chipotle Grill is now open, at Park Plaza. Goody!

PVPUSD schools go back into session this coming week. Oh Boy, so does Marymount College. Traffic/Western. Western/Traffic...try to avoid Western as much as possible.

I think 850, which is about 75% of 1,135 is a reasonable number if it can't be R 1 (429).

It's Back!!!

Here we go again.

Look for the new Draft Environmental Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro coming out.

1,135 units, 392 of them listed as 'rental' units.

Yes, they do plan on single family residences...about 49 of them on small lots.

There is quite a lot of history beginning with the earliest posts on this blog. Much of which is now trivial but hopefully funny to some.

Please don't be confused between Ponte Vista at San Pedro and the new Harbor Highlands condominium project now under construction just west of Gaffey Street.

You are, as always, free to post comments to this blog or Email me directly at:

mrichards2@hotmail.com

Life for me is now a bit more than quite different than when we last were visited by goings on regarding Ponte Vista at San Pedro. That's something to explore on another of my blogs.

So, welcome back. UGH! Yes, it's back.

Be well and thanks for reading this blog!

It's Not Here Yet...But Something Else Is!

Maybe. Hopefully. Perhaps. Sometime in the near future, we will see the new Environmental Impact Report for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

So, while we all wait, how about practicing on another E.I.R., this time for The Clearwater Program?

The Clearwater Program is a project begun to create more capacity to move our 'stuff' from the Carson California waste treatment plant out to the Pacific Ocean.

A new 'Joint Outfall System; (JOS) is being planned to help support and bypass portions of the two old outfall systems under Western Avenue.

The new E.I.R. has for the 'recommended plan' a new tunnel deep under our areas from Carson to Royal Palms Beach where a secondary Outfall System Tunnel shaft would be sunk and retrieval of the tunneling equipment and debris would be accessed.

The E.I.R. has attachments and maps that clearly show the outfall tunnel going under San Pedro beginning at Gaffey Street, then heading west under Capitol Drive, then south again along Western Avenue, then under Dodson Avenue, back under Western, down to a tiny portion of Paseo Del Mar where it will be accessed at the bottom of the cliff on Sanitation Department land.

Now there will be far too many folks up in arms about the tunnel going under Gaffey, Capitol, Western and other streets, but Western Avenue has be the surface area for two existing outfall tunnels, one built in about 1938 and the other completed in 1957.

There really should be little to worry about with respect to tunneling under our areas UNLESS the engineers don't do their job and something 'odd' happens. Those of us living along the route probably won't notice anything unless we drive along 25th Street and Gaffey Street, during our daily drives.

The Sanitation Districts are recommending the least costly route that would certainly create the biggest headaches for those of us living on the surface.

Had the recommend site have been to place the outfall system access shaft on Terminal Island, not only would there be little residential and business traffic issues, it would be directly next to a rail line and very close to multiple freeway accesses.

You can find out more information about The Clearwater Program by visiting:

www.ClearwaterProgram.org You can find access to the Environmental Impact Report which should be constructed similar to how the Ponte Vista at San Pedro E.I.R. should look.

The comment period for The Clearwater Program's E.I.R. begins on February 10 and is currently scheduled to end on April 10, 2012.

I urge everyone to demand an extension of the comment period because of events that have changed the landscape and the transit options for everyone wishing to visit the area of Royal Palms.

Since the beginning of the studies for the E.I.R. and since the time the documents were initially prepared, a major transit option literally slipped away.

Fairly close to the location of the planned outfall shaft, a portion of the cliff and land supporting a segment of Paseo Del Mar failed and it took out a stretch of that roadbed.

I feel very strongly that before any shaft preparation begins and long before any dirt haulers visit the shaft site, Paseo Del Mar must be repaired to allow for traffic at least equal to what travel over it before the landslide occurred.

While the residents of South Shores and most of eastern Rancho Palos Verdes utilize services of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, the Palisades neighborhoods and the vast majority of San Pedro residences and businesses send their 'stuff' to Terminal Island and the city's waste treatment plant.

What that means is that the residents and businesses that will suffer the greatest impacts of the thousands of truck trips though San Pedro and all the other construction traffic, will see no benefit from the Program.

Perhaps 'we', those of us who will benefit from what I feel is a worthy and needed Program, need to discuss what is really the 'least costly' and not necessarily just look at the dollar amounts. After what our good friends in the southern end of San Pedro have had to go through more recently, I think we all need to consider them.

Most residents of the Palisades who would like to send their kids to the new high school annex in their neighborhood, won't be able to. They have lost a major route to and from their homes and businesses and now some 'foreign' agency wants to disrupt their lives and traffic with a system that doesn't benefit them is something that need much more pondering.

We need the new Outfall System. The clock are running down on the stability of the existing tunnels under Western and we have already have more than enough experiences of storm drains failing so much closer to the surface.

Let's build the Clearwater Program but let's do it being the best environmentally conscious and friendly to our neighbors as we can.

Now watch, Maybe tomorrow I'll find out that the E.I.R. for Ponte Vista is just about out. I've done those multi-E.I.R. reviews and one's eyes get tired with all that reading.

Back To Work Regarding Ponte Vista

Bob and the economy gave us all a respite from dealing with all the issues surrounding Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

That long vacation is coming to and end and it is time to sweep out the cobwebs in our collected files and ramp up our learning curves because it appears that the new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the "New Ponte Vista" is being published shortly.

According to a very reliable source and coming second hand, my source said they called someone in the L.A. City Planning Department last week and was told the new EIR would be out, "in ten days".

O.K., so maybe the 'ten days' is from the same fellow who stated just about everything was created in '6 days' and on the Seventh Day, rest was found.

But I am optimistic that the new EIR, which a group of different folks claimed would be coming out in the Fall of 2011, were pretty close to that time, I hope.

http://www.nwsanpedro.org/pontevistaindex.asp is a great site to learn about the new EIR and plans for the 61.53 acre project site.

That page was updated on April 1 and it will be updated more frequently when new information is learned and provided.

The Web page also offers links to more information about the new Traffic and Transportation Study section of the new EIR.

This is going to be a busy Fall season that will probably lead into an eventful Winter. My city, Rancho Palos Verdes is having its first ever three-seat turnover on our City Council.

Three of the current five-member City Council is 'retiring' due to term limits and that will provide one of the most dramatic sets of changes in our Council's and city's history.

What is good news about this is that most of the candidates running are truly learning about the Ponte Vista development history from knowledgeable people like the LaCombes of Rolling Hills Riviera and others and this December, our new Mayor, Anthony Misetich, once a Ponte Vista Advisory Board member will offer a different opinion on the project than he had during "The Bob Years".

*NOTE* I use "The Bob Years" frequently on this blog to denote the time frame between 2005 and 2008 when Ponte Vista's former developer, Mr. Robert H. (Bob) Bisno held court over the project.

To many of us, Bob rode into town and matter-of-factly told us we didn't know about development in our communities and that he knew what was best for San Pedro and other nearby communities.

He didn't.

In a few days, I will post a 'fact sheet' containing information about the history, geography and new developers and ownership of the site along Western Avenue.

I know there is still strong resolve among the members of the Steering Committee of R Neighborhoods Are 1 to make sure that all of our residents find the best outcome for what is built and not built on the site.

It is the position of R Neighborhoods Are 1 that the current zoning of the property and lots should not be changed and that residential development at the site be kept to one single-family residential unit on a lot of not less than 5,000 square feet be adhered to on the buildable portions of the property.

Stay tuned, this is going to get a lot more interesting.

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.