2008 may actually get pretty interesting in the early months. We all should be looking for what the Ponte Vista Outreach Team is going forward with. Those folks have a much tougher job than I do, with their attempts to get more folks to support Bob's current plans.
______________________________________________________
A couple of months ago, my sister was called for a telephone survey which finally got around to being a push poll for Ponte Vista.
I haven't seen or heard any of the results of that telephone survey. Does anyone know the results of that survey? I have talked to a couple of the members of the press, but I have not read anything in The Daily Breeze, Random Lengths News, or the Palos Verdes Peninsula News about any recent survey.
I would imagine if there truly are lots and lots of members of OUR community that support Bob's current plans, the Outreach Team would be very happy to share all of their "good" news with the rest of us. Unless, of course, the telephone survey did not provide the results Bob and his Outreach Team were looking for.
As you may remember from an earlier post, my sister had to correct the person on the other end of the line about the fact that the project is not "Point Vista" as the caller originally claimed the project's name to be. My sister also corrected the caller when the caller pronounced the town's name as "San "Paydro".
____________________________________________________
Each year I try and follow the New Year's Resolutions I have made. To date, I have kept almost all of the resolutions I make, each and every year.
While I did not come up with many of these resolutions myself, I have found that changing the wording a bit helps to keep the resolutions fresh.
I also encourage anyone interested, to also adopt some of the resolutions I have used from other sources. If folks feel they need to have New Year's Resolutions, here are some you may want to use:
In 2008, I resolve to avoid driving a leather-covered bulldozer.
In 2008, I resolve to, once again, keep away from any spring wardrobe that uses chicken wire.
In 2008, I can have as many pairs of socks as I wish, all the while avoiding the purchase or wearing of any mink socks.
In 2008, I will try and be a nicer person.
In 2008, I resolve no keep out of my music collection, any Christmas albums featuring Frank Zappa and Marilyn Manson as a duet.
In 2008, I will continue to give up attempting to smoke cigarettes.
In 2008, I will do my best to keep at least 5 of my New Year's Resolutions.
____________________________________________________
I don't like using foul words on this blog, but I am going to allow one foul word to be typed because it may give you a year-end chuckle and it, kind of, demonstrates what 2007 has been like for me, personally.
My dad died on October 13, 2007. On October 11, he spoke the last words I ever heard him say.
Dad was given lots of morphine towards the end, and those of you who have taken morphine, Oxycontin, or codeine know that bodies have trouble, sometimes, with one particular function.
When I visited my dad on October 11, he needed a particular treatment. I had been talking with him a bit between the times he would be asleep and the times he commented about needing this particular treatment.
When the nurse and the nurse's aide came into his room to give him that particular treatment, I decided that my visit with my dad would only get worse, so I told him I would leave so he could get the particular treatment. Dad acknowledged my leaving as the nurse was about ready to question my dad.
As the nurse was pulling the drapes to give my dad this particular treatment, she asked him:
"Mr. Wells, where does it hurt?"
The last words I ever heard my dad say and the words that will go with me for the rest of my life, were these:
"My asshole!"
________________________________________________________
Happy New Year and have a safe and wonderful 2008!
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
For Our Consideration
A wonderful and thoughtful individual sent me this "report card" from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) You know SCAG, it the group that Bob has used in advertisements and other ways to suggest they support whatever he wants to build.
Any of you can find this "report card" by visiting: http://www.scag.ca.gov/publications/pdf/2007/SOTR07/SOTR07_ReportCard.pdf.
I am sorry it is a bit tough to read, but I think you can get the idea the "report card" is stating.
By looking at the "report card" there should be no wonder why so many folks are questioning allowing Bob Bisno to build 1,950 condominiums in northwest San Pedro.
Mobility gets a "D-" for the area. Bob wants 1,950-units with tough access to the freeway, only one arterial for the entire project, no mass transit light rail lines nearby, and in an area that is thought to be a target for terrorists.
Housing gets a "D". Bob wants to build market-rate condominiums and 100 town houses, each costing more than One Million Dollars.
If Bob built the 724 single-family houses he states he would build (see flyer information) some of those houses would be mandated for low-income families and below market-rate pricing. Of course in Bob's flyer, he fails to mention that a percentage of the 724 single-family houses would be for low-income buyers and could be truly "affordable" to first time home buyers.
Education gets a "D-". I think we would agree that anything built at Ponte Vista would NOT be close to a "D-" as far as education goes. Taper Avenue School, with its regular and magnet programs is far superior to most of the elementary schools in L.A.U.S.D. Dodson Middle School also has a magnet program where students actually learn and achieve.
That leaves us with Narbonne. Unfortunately, I could imagine parents of high school age students living at Ponte Vista would opt for Mary Star's new campus, Rolling Hills Prep, or even trying to get into P.V.P.U.S.D.
If Ponte Vista were built out with 1,950-condos, Narbonne would either have to go year round or a new campus would finally be needed.
Air Quality also received a "D" grade. I think now that TraPac is moving forward and Conoco-Philips' refinery is so close to the Ponte Vista site, a grade for that particular area might really be an "F".
Ponte Vista sits in an area that doesn't get the breezes that Lomita gets and it is not south of 9th. Street, in San Pedro. Some of Ponte Vista is on a hill and some of the site in on flat ground, lower than just about anything else around it.
No matter what anyone studies and asserts in any EIR about air quality, they have to have lived in this area for some time to really know the weather and air pollution that comes with being on the east side of The Hill, and near the lowest parts of San Pedro.
Safety got a "B" grade for the region. Will residents feel safe when the "Cat Cracker" blows up again? Will Bob and/or the HOA for Ponte Vista shell out funds for more security at the largest single project in San Pedro? I hope so.
Employment also got a "B" grade. Let's hope there are nearby jobs for folks living at Ponte Vista and not living at Ponte Vista. As it is, there are fewer jobs available in the area, as there are folks living in the area. Perhaps if we can have a revitalization of downtown San Pedro and more jobs in the port, we all can work closer to where we live.
Income received a "C" grade. With market-rate pricing and even with some discounts of prices of units, it is going to take some real income to be able to buy anything at Ponte Vista.
I think I have read where folks would need an income greater than the $55,678 median household income listed in the "report card" to be able to buy most of the units at Ponte Vista.
Folks should have their own opinions when reading the "report card" What I and others find one way can be read much differently by Bob's supporters and I understand that.
I feel that building 1,950 market rate pricing condominiums at this time, in that area, is just too many units for an area that can't handle that many units and that many residents. But that is just my opinion. You are all welcome to your own opinions.
Happy New Year!
Any of you can find this "report card" by visiting: http://www.scag.ca.gov/publications/pdf/2007/SOTR07/SOTR07_ReportCard.pdf.
I am sorry it is a bit tough to read, but I think you can get the idea the "report card" is stating.By looking at the "report card" there should be no wonder why so many folks are questioning allowing Bob Bisno to build 1,950 condominiums in northwest San Pedro.
Mobility gets a "D-" for the area. Bob wants 1,950-units with tough access to the freeway, only one arterial for the entire project, no mass transit light rail lines nearby, and in an area that is thought to be a target for terrorists.
Housing gets a "D". Bob wants to build market-rate condominiums and 100 town houses, each costing more than One Million Dollars.
If Bob built the 724 single-family houses he states he would build (see flyer information) some of those houses would be mandated for low-income families and below market-rate pricing. Of course in Bob's flyer, he fails to mention that a percentage of the 724 single-family houses would be for low-income buyers and could be truly "affordable" to first time home buyers.
Education gets a "D-". I think we would agree that anything built at Ponte Vista would NOT be close to a "D-" as far as education goes. Taper Avenue School, with its regular and magnet programs is far superior to most of the elementary schools in L.A.U.S.D. Dodson Middle School also has a magnet program where students actually learn and achieve.
That leaves us with Narbonne. Unfortunately, I could imagine parents of high school age students living at Ponte Vista would opt for Mary Star's new campus, Rolling Hills Prep, or even trying to get into P.V.P.U.S.D.
If Ponte Vista were built out with 1,950-condos, Narbonne would either have to go year round or a new campus would finally be needed.
Air Quality also received a "D" grade. I think now that TraPac is moving forward and Conoco-Philips' refinery is so close to the Ponte Vista site, a grade for that particular area might really be an "F".
Ponte Vista sits in an area that doesn't get the breezes that Lomita gets and it is not south of 9th. Street, in San Pedro. Some of Ponte Vista is on a hill and some of the site in on flat ground, lower than just about anything else around it.
No matter what anyone studies and asserts in any EIR about air quality, they have to have lived in this area for some time to really know the weather and air pollution that comes with being on the east side of The Hill, and near the lowest parts of San Pedro.
Safety got a "B" grade for the region. Will residents feel safe when the "Cat Cracker" blows up again? Will Bob and/or the HOA for Ponte Vista shell out funds for more security at the largest single project in San Pedro? I hope so.
Employment also got a "B" grade. Let's hope there are nearby jobs for folks living at Ponte Vista and not living at Ponte Vista. As it is, there are fewer jobs available in the area, as there are folks living in the area. Perhaps if we can have a revitalization of downtown San Pedro and more jobs in the port, we all can work closer to where we live.
Income received a "C" grade. With market-rate pricing and even with some discounts of prices of units, it is going to take some real income to be able to buy anything at Ponte Vista.
I think I have read where folks would need an income greater than the $55,678 median household income listed in the "report card" to be able to buy most of the units at Ponte Vista.
Folks should have their own opinions when reading the "report card" What I and others find one way can be read much differently by Bob's supporters and I understand that.
I feel that building 1,950 market rate pricing condominiums at this time, in that area, is just too many units for an area that can't handle that many units and that many residents. But that is just my opinion. You are all welcome to your own opinions.
Happy New Year!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Ponte Vista: New Year, New Ads
I think we all may want to start watching for new advertisements coming from the Outreach Team and Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
I have been told that there may be advertisements featuring local individuals and local businesses which support Bob's plans for building 1,950 condominiums on 61.53 acres of land in northwest San Pedro.
There is also a one-page sheet of information that is floating around from Ponte Vista which claims to show what will be gained from having 1,950 condominiums built, against leaving the site with "Development Under Existing Zoning".
The one-page flyer also states that: "63% of Harbor Area residents favor Ponte Vista over the multimillion dollar mansion development alternative*".
* "Based on telephone polling after describing the real facts about the options for Ponte Vista."
I believe this is the very same telephone polling that also stated: "Ponte Vista would be a mix of single-family houses, town houses, and condominiums...". I am still waiting for anyone at Ponte Vista to show me any plan for "single-family houses".
Actually, 63% of persons surveyed stated that they favored housing at greater density than single-family, but did not state that it was for any specific number of units.
Also in fact: When the telephone polling was taken, the number of units applied for at Ponte Vista was 2,300-condominium units and NOT 1,950-condominium units which is what Bob Bisno has currently applied for.
Another point that should be noted, if you read the one-page propaganda sheet is that "Western Avenue Connection to Mary Star High School" had a check by it, under Bob's proposal, but had an "X" by it if the zoning remains as it currently is.
I have been writing that if the site remains R1, Bob is not necessarily obliged to provide access between Western Avenue and the new high school. On the sheet, it states basically, just that.
If we find, in the new year, folks in businesses and/or businesses themselves in advertisements supporting Bob's plans to build 1,950-units, it will be up to each and every one of us whether we wish to continue to patronize those businesses.
It is going to be very interesting to see how many folks actually are willing to put their own faces and/or businesses forward as supporting Bob's plans for his weapon of mass development.
Happy New Year!
I have been told that there may be advertisements featuring local individuals and local businesses which support Bob's plans for building 1,950 condominiums on 61.53 acres of land in northwest San Pedro.
There is also a one-page sheet of information that is floating around from Ponte Vista which claims to show what will be gained from having 1,950 condominiums built, against leaving the site with "Development Under Existing Zoning".
The one-page flyer also states that: "63% of Harbor Area residents favor Ponte Vista over the multimillion dollar mansion development alternative*".
* "Based on telephone polling after describing the real facts about the options for Ponte Vista."
I believe this is the very same telephone polling that also stated: "Ponte Vista would be a mix of single-family houses, town houses, and condominiums...". I am still waiting for anyone at Ponte Vista to show me any plan for "single-family houses".
Actually, 63% of persons surveyed stated that they favored housing at greater density than single-family, but did not state that it was for any specific number of units.
Also in fact: When the telephone polling was taken, the number of units applied for at Ponte Vista was 2,300-condominium units and NOT 1,950-condominium units which is what Bob Bisno has currently applied for.
Another point that should be noted, if you read the one-page propaganda sheet is that "Western Avenue Connection to Mary Star High School" had a check by it, under Bob's proposal, but had an "X" by it if the zoning remains as it currently is.
I have been writing that if the site remains R1, Bob is not necessarily obliged to provide access between Western Avenue and the new high school. On the sheet, it states basically, just that.
If we find, in the new year, folks in businesses and/or businesses themselves in advertisements supporting Bob's plans to build 1,950-units, it will be up to each and every one of us whether we wish to continue to patronize those businesses.
It is going to be very interesting to see how many folks actually are willing to put their own faces and/or businesses forward as supporting Bob's plans for his weapon of mass development.
Happy New Year!
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Makes Another List!
Ponte Vista at San Pedro has made it onto "The five worst development projects in south bay history" list. This list was created by The Aesthetic and can be found by visiting:
http://theaesthetic.com/NewFiles/baddevprojects.html
A big thanks for bringing this information to us is given to Banditos Yanquis from the blog:
life on the edge at: www.laharbor.blogspot.com.
Happy New Year!
http://theaesthetic.com/NewFiles/baddevprojects.html
A big thanks for bringing this information to us is given to Banditos Yanquis from the blog:
life on the edge at: www.laharbor.blogspot.com.
Happy New Year!
Friday, December 21, 2007
Happy Every Day!
Howdy All!
Here are two examples of Holiday Card faces. One is actually from the Outreach Team for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
The other card face is one I created.
Can you tell which one is from the Outreach Team at Ponte Vista?
Are you thinking it is the top illustration of a single-family Gingerbread house?
Or, are you thinking the card with the beautiful condominiums is from the Ponte Vista Outreach Team?
If you guessed that the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Outreach Team sent out a Holiday Card showing a single-family residence, then you are correct!!!!!!!
The card I created shows one of the buildings at Newport Bluffs Apartment complex, which was used for creating many of the illustrations of what Bob wants Ponte Vista to look like.
I hope you got a bit of a chuckle.
I hope everyone reading this blog has a wonderful holiday season. Whether you celebrate anything or not, we all should take time out to have a laugh or three. We need to keep things as they really should be and not sweat the little stuff.
Christmas for our family consists of having more fun that should be allowed and delivering more mirth and merriment than necessary.
Yes, for one Christmas meal, my mother used egg nog when making mash potatoes. It's the little things like removing a year-old tangerine from a son's Christmas stocking, that he avoided eating.
If you can't laugh at having half of the power knocked out by the wind, what can you laugh about? Gas, water, and electricity all got fixed, even though all three failed in the last two weeks. Everything is back on now and not one foul word was ever considered.
Please be well and try and make somebody happy.
Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad, Happy Holidays, Have a great Haj, or Happy Festivus, or whatever you celebrate.
Today is the first day of winter and on December 25 it will be the celebration of the festival of Saint Steven.
Here are two examples of Holiday Card faces. One is actually from the Outreach Team for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
The other card face is one I created.
Can you tell which one is from the Outreach Team at Ponte Vista?
Are you thinking it is the top illustration of a single-family Gingerbread house?
Or, are you thinking the card with the beautiful condominiums is from the Ponte Vista Outreach Team?
If you guessed that the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Outreach Team sent out a Holiday Card showing a single-family residence, then you are correct!!!!!!!
The card I created shows one of the buildings at Newport Bluffs Apartment complex, which was used for creating many of the illustrations of what Bob wants Ponte Vista to look like.
I hope you got a bit of a chuckle.
I hope everyone reading this blog has a wonderful holiday season. Whether you celebrate anything or not, we all should take time out to have a laugh or three. We need to keep things as they really should be and not sweat the little stuff.
Christmas for our family consists of having more fun that should be allowed and delivering more mirth and merriment than necessary.
Yes, for one Christmas meal, my mother used egg nog when making mash potatoes. It's the little things like removing a year-old tangerine from a son's Christmas stocking, that he avoided eating.
If you can't laugh at having half of the power knocked out by the wind, what can you laugh about? Gas, water, and electricity all got fixed, even though all three failed in the last two weeks. Everything is back on now and not one foul word was ever considered.
Please be well and try and make somebody happy.
Merry Christmas, Feliz Navidad, Happy Holidays, Have a great Haj, or Happy Festivus, or whatever you celebrate.
Today is the first day of winter and on December 25 it will be the celebration of the festival of Saint Steven.
A Post From "Fed Up"
I received a very long comment to the Odds and Ends 43 post.
The author, "fed up" wrote such and informative piece that I have decided to elevate it to a post of its own. I have done things like this in the past and welcome contributions of posts and comments from anyone.
When I elevate comments to post status, I don't want folks to think I agree or disagree with the content of the post. When someone contributes something that looks worthy of a post of its own, I don't need to agree or disagree with it.
"Fed up's" comment should be easier to read in this following format.
___________________________________________________
fed up has left a new comment on your post "Odds and Ends 43":
Some issues of note:
12-13-07 L.A. Times Councilman Richard Alarcon demanded an investigation into his claim that a confidential memo by city atty. Rocky Delgado regarding a 5800 unit housing project north of Sylmar. The memo advised the city to process the land-use application for Las Lomas.
12-13-07 la times : Playa Vista ruling won't be reviewed.
The CA. Supreme Court denied a request by Playa Vista on the appellate court ruling that halted work on the development's final phase. The court found the project's EIR flawed. The city's approval of phase 2 was based on an EIR that was "deficient in its analysis of land-use impacts, mitigation of historical archaeological resources and waste water impacts.
The projects final phase consists of a 1.1 BILLION dollar second phase of 2600 housing units and 250,000 sq. feet of office and retail space on 111 acres.
This would be in addition to phase 1 which consists of 3246 units and 3.2 MILLION sq feet of office and retail space.
12-11-07 L.A. Times Business Section: 60 MILLION dollar apartment-commercial complex going up at the corner of Federal Ave. and Santa Monica Blvd.
Ever try to get through that intersection? Yet the planning commission approved it.
11-10-07 L.A. Times: Home Depot sues L.A. over store in Sunland-Tujunga.
The reason? A Councilwoman allegedly improperly worked with her constituents to block the chain from opening the store.
City atty. Rocky Delgado had no comment. It figures. (Home Depot) it wants to build their store without an EIR because they are going to use a existing building.
Forget the impact on the local area, it will stay the same. This building falls within the specific plan, for which it is not allowed.
11-9-07 L.A. Times: Artists sharply divided over project near L.A. River.
It would be three blocks long and 70 feet high. It has been described as aircraft-carrier sized, looking nothing short of a long wall. The planning commission has approved this project.
What a shock. Does anybody know of a project they have denied?
12-8-07 L.A. Times : Anaheim housing project isn't dead yet.
Suncal has asked for a rehearing. "It looks to me that the developer is trying to manipulate the process," said Annette McCluskey ,a spokeswoman for Save Our Anaheim.
9-28-07 L.A. Times: Large complex in noho (North Hollywood) gets ok.
This is a 1.3 BILLION dollar project, an apartment, retail and high rise office tower complex: 1.5 MILLION sq. feet of development on 15.6 acres.
This will be the largest transit oriented development in county history.
Neighbors to the project are concerned such an influx of people and high rises will affect the community.
12-8-07 L.A. Times: Plan fails to curb growth in valley.
A new city report found that developers could add 3 million sq. feet of commercial space to the Ventura Blvd. corridor under current zoning rules, despite concern s by residents that the area is overdeveloped.
The study did not count residential growth including large mixed-use developments because the rules only limit commercial growth.
Thousands of units have been added or approved for construction in the last few years, and some community activists say the city should count condos and apartments in assessing whether the area is overbuilt.
A recent Times search of city traffic records showed that while residential development on and near Ventura Blvd. was being planned and built, traffic worsened significantly at 10 major intersections.
Robert Duenas, senior city planner, said the plan as it's written now could easily allow more congestion and overbuilding than was intended.
Shocker. Does anybody else see a pattern here? EVERYBODY is getting screwed by the planning commision and developers.
ANYBODY who is really concerned about what is happening around here needs to start weighing in again.
Bob is not resting and neither should we. Are there any other commenters out there anymore? Seriously, if he gets his way, I see no reason why I should not be able to develop my lot on Trudie as a high-rise development. It already feels like PCH and my own EIR says nobody has anything to worry about.
As a "community benefit" everyone can come play on my lawn.
____________________________________________________
For the record, "fed up" uses the name of a street I live on, but I am not the author of "fed up's" comments.
As far as the Anaheim project goes, I have read where the Anaheim City Council has disapproved residential development in the "Anaheim Resort District".
There is a group named "S.O.A.R." which stands for Save Our Anaheim Resort District. It reported that the Anaheim City Council voted 3-2 to repealed the ordinance that allowed (residential) housing in the resort district of that city.
___________________________________________________
"Fed up" wonders why there are so few comments recently. I can understand that there could be quite a few folks who don't want to even think about Ponte Vista or weapons of mass development while the L.A. City Planning Department is reviewing the DEIR and coming up with their own recommendations about what should be built at Ponte Vista.
It is also a time of year when many people want to be interested in other, happier things. Fighting to keep the quality of life high in OUR community is a tough effort and I do think that there are many people who want to wait to see what the Planning Department comes up with before they get back on the band wagon.
There could be a large number of folks who are waiting to see if the Planning Department comes up with a number of units that is reasonable to them. It is quite believable to imagine that if the Planning Department comes up with a total unit count in the 1,200-1,300 region, many folks who signed the R1 petition will consider the range of units acceptable.
"Fed up" is correct that we still need to be aware and as alert as we can. There will always be a small number of people earnestly seeking news and views, concerning Ponte Vista. This is the case even now when the Planning Department is mum to giving out information.
Hopefully it is not too late, but there is a strong call in Rancho Palos Verdes to get our own City Council to assist us, living on the east side of our City. We need to help our friends and neighbors in surrounding communities to demand that a totally new EIR be done on the Ponte Vista project.
In noting that the Playa Vista EIR is flawed, "fed up" also demonstrates that even an EIR as complicated as Playa Vista's is, and flawed to boot, means that with all the problems with the Traffic and Transportation section of the Ponte Vista DEIR, the very incorrect student generation counts, and several other sections of the Ponte Vista EIR, there needs to be a new, more accurate, and up-to-date EIR done.
I still have my site meter on this blog. I get a report every week. Right now, the blog gets about 35 views per day. It is also important to note that many of those views last for a very short time and are probably folks who could not care less about Ponte Vista.
I hope fairly soon after the first of the year, we can learn more about what the Planning Department is considering. I can wait and I hope you can, too.
There is no need to rush through anything. The last time I drove by the Ponte Vista site, it was still there and hadn't slid off the face of the earth.
The author, "fed up" wrote such and informative piece that I have decided to elevate it to a post of its own. I have done things like this in the past and welcome contributions of posts and comments from anyone.
When I elevate comments to post status, I don't want folks to think I agree or disagree with the content of the post. When someone contributes something that looks worthy of a post of its own, I don't need to agree or disagree with it.
"Fed up's" comment should be easier to read in this following format.
___________________________________________________
fed up has left a new comment on your post "Odds and Ends 43":
Some issues of note:
12-13-07 L.A. Times Councilman Richard Alarcon demanded an investigation into his claim that a confidential memo by city atty. Rocky Delgado regarding a 5800 unit housing project north of Sylmar. The memo advised the city to process the land-use application for Las Lomas.
12-13-07 la times : Playa Vista ruling won't be reviewed.
The CA. Supreme Court denied a request by Playa Vista on the appellate court ruling that halted work on the development's final phase. The court found the project's EIR flawed. The city's approval of phase 2 was based on an EIR that was "deficient in its analysis of land-use impacts, mitigation of historical archaeological resources and waste water impacts.
The projects final phase consists of a 1.1 BILLION dollar second phase of 2600 housing units and 250,000 sq. feet of office and retail space on 111 acres.
This would be in addition to phase 1 which consists of 3246 units and 3.2 MILLION sq feet of office and retail space.
12-11-07 L.A. Times Business Section: 60 MILLION dollar apartment-commercial complex going up at the corner of Federal Ave. and Santa Monica Blvd.
Ever try to get through that intersection? Yet the planning commission approved it.
11-10-07 L.A. Times: Home Depot sues L.A. over store in Sunland-Tujunga.
The reason? A Councilwoman allegedly improperly worked with her constituents to block the chain from opening the store.
City atty. Rocky Delgado had no comment. It figures. (Home Depot) it wants to build their store without an EIR because they are going to use a existing building.
Forget the impact on the local area, it will stay the same. This building falls within the specific plan, for which it is not allowed.
11-9-07 L.A. Times: Artists sharply divided over project near L.A. River.
It would be three blocks long and 70 feet high. It has been described as aircraft-carrier sized, looking nothing short of a long wall. The planning commission has approved this project.
What a shock. Does anybody know of a project they have denied?
12-8-07 L.A. Times : Anaheim housing project isn't dead yet.
Suncal has asked for a rehearing. "It looks to me that the developer is trying to manipulate the process," said Annette McCluskey ,a spokeswoman for Save Our Anaheim.
9-28-07 L.A. Times: Large complex in noho (North Hollywood) gets ok.
This is a 1.3 BILLION dollar project, an apartment, retail and high rise office tower complex: 1.5 MILLION sq. feet of development on 15.6 acres.
This will be the largest transit oriented development in county history.
Neighbors to the project are concerned such an influx of people and high rises will affect the community.
12-8-07 L.A. Times: Plan fails to curb growth in valley.
A new city report found that developers could add 3 million sq. feet of commercial space to the Ventura Blvd. corridor under current zoning rules, despite concern s by residents that the area is overdeveloped.
The study did not count residential growth including large mixed-use developments because the rules only limit commercial growth.
Thousands of units have been added or approved for construction in the last few years, and some community activists say the city should count condos and apartments in assessing whether the area is overbuilt.
A recent Times search of city traffic records showed that while residential development on and near Ventura Blvd. was being planned and built, traffic worsened significantly at 10 major intersections.
Robert Duenas, senior city planner, said the plan as it's written now could easily allow more congestion and overbuilding than was intended.
Shocker. Does anybody else see a pattern here? EVERYBODY is getting screwed by the planning commision and developers.
ANYBODY who is really concerned about what is happening around here needs to start weighing in again.
Bob is not resting and neither should we. Are there any other commenters out there anymore? Seriously, if he gets his way, I see no reason why I should not be able to develop my lot on Trudie as a high-rise development. It already feels like PCH and my own EIR says nobody has anything to worry about.
As a "community benefit" everyone can come play on my lawn.
____________________________________________________
For the record, "fed up" uses the name of a street I live on, but I am not the author of "fed up's" comments.
As far as the Anaheim project goes, I have read where the Anaheim City Council has disapproved residential development in the "Anaheim Resort District".
There is a group named "S.O.A.R." which stands for Save Our Anaheim Resort District. It reported that the Anaheim City Council voted 3-2 to repealed the ordinance that allowed (residential) housing in the resort district of that city.
___________________________________________________
"Fed up" wonders why there are so few comments recently. I can understand that there could be quite a few folks who don't want to even think about Ponte Vista or weapons of mass development while the L.A. City Planning Department is reviewing the DEIR and coming up with their own recommendations about what should be built at Ponte Vista.
It is also a time of year when many people want to be interested in other, happier things. Fighting to keep the quality of life high in OUR community is a tough effort and I do think that there are many people who want to wait to see what the Planning Department comes up with before they get back on the band wagon.
There could be a large number of folks who are waiting to see if the Planning Department comes up with a number of units that is reasonable to them. It is quite believable to imagine that if the Planning Department comes up with a total unit count in the 1,200-1,300 region, many folks who signed the R1 petition will consider the range of units acceptable.
"Fed up" is correct that we still need to be aware and as alert as we can. There will always be a small number of people earnestly seeking news and views, concerning Ponte Vista. This is the case even now when the Planning Department is mum to giving out information.
Hopefully it is not too late, but there is a strong call in Rancho Palos Verdes to get our own City Council to assist us, living on the east side of our City. We need to help our friends and neighbors in surrounding communities to demand that a totally new EIR be done on the Ponte Vista project.
In noting that the Playa Vista EIR is flawed, "fed up" also demonstrates that even an EIR as complicated as Playa Vista's is, and flawed to boot, means that with all the problems with the Traffic and Transportation section of the Ponte Vista DEIR, the very incorrect student generation counts, and several other sections of the Ponte Vista EIR, there needs to be a new, more accurate, and up-to-date EIR done.
I still have my site meter on this blog. I get a report every week. Right now, the blog gets about 35 views per day. It is also important to note that many of those views last for a very short time and are probably folks who could not care less about Ponte Vista.
I hope fairly soon after the first of the year, we can learn more about what the Planning Department is considering. I can wait and I hope you can, too.
There is no need to rush through anything. The last time I drove by the Ponte Vista site, it was still there and hadn't slid off the face of the earth.
Odds and Ends 44
Well, if you wish to read the comment from "fed up" on the other post, please do.
I am going to elevate that very long comment to a post of its own and try and edit if for easier reading.
"Fed up" has some views and has watched, looked, and listened.
________________________________________________
As for Ponte Vista's site, you probably have noticed the billboards along S. John Montgomery Drive. These are illustrations of what Ponte Vista WILL look like, at least according to Bob and his bunch. In fact and in truth, there is still not a living person on this earth or orbiting Earth in a space station that can tell anyone what will be included at Ponte Vista. There has been absolutely nothing approved of, as far as zoning changes, types of residential units, or commercial spaces, at this point, except for what is in the imagination of the folks supporting Ponte Vista.
These billboards are also used to allow folks going to the new Mary Star High School campus, to see what MIGHT be built on the site. The billboards also serve as both advertising and propaganda for Bob. Bob clearly has the right to put these billboards on his property and use them to try and sway as many people as he can, so he can build what he wants. We don't need to be mad at Bob for his billboards. We know they are just illustrations of what may be at Ponte Vista, but I wouldn't put down any bets on whether anything at Ponte Vista will eventually look like any of the illustrations.
________________________________________________
It is true, and folks viewing the billboards should know that Bob, myself, and others strongly believe that if the site remains with its current zoning, Bob is under no obligation to continue providing any access through his property to the new high school campus. This is a fact of life that allows Bob to strongly suggest that he be allowed to create what he wants to create. It is like he is holding the public access through Ponte Vista over the heads of the students and parents going between Western Avenue and the new campus. Again, he has the right to do this and I am not troubled in the slightest by his propaganda.
If folks truly want R1 to remain at Ponte Vista, they need to understand that public access to Mary Star might very well be removed at any time.
________________________________________________
I am still seeing abandoned residential structures left open for entry. The units I am referring to are along Western Avenue and are not used by law enforcement in their training practices. These units should be closed up, per L.A. City Code.
________________________________________________
Has anyone living within the limits of the City of Los Angeles complained that there should be green or blue tarps placed along the border fencing of Ponte Vista?
I am going to elevate that very long comment to a post of its own and try and edit if for easier reading.
"Fed up" has some views and has watched, looked, and listened.
________________________________________________
As for Ponte Vista's site, you probably have noticed the billboards along S. John Montgomery Drive. These are illustrations of what Ponte Vista WILL look like, at least according to Bob and his bunch. In fact and in truth, there is still not a living person on this earth or orbiting Earth in a space station that can tell anyone what will be included at Ponte Vista. There has been absolutely nothing approved of, as far as zoning changes, types of residential units, or commercial spaces, at this point, except for what is in the imagination of the folks supporting Ponte Vista.
These billboards are also used to allow folks going to the new Mary Star High School campus, to see what MIGHT be built on the site. The billboards also serve as both advertising and propaganda for Bob. Bob clearly has the right to put these billboards on his property and use them to try and sway as many people as he can, so he can build what he wants. We don't need to be mad at Bob for his billboards. We know they are just illustrations of what may be at Ponte Vista, but I wouldn't put down any bets on whether anything at Ponte Vista will eventually look like any of the illustrations.
________________________________________________
It is true, and folks viewing the billboards should know that Bob, myself, and others strongly believe that if the site remains with its current zoning, Bob is under no obligation to continue providing any access through his property to the new high school campus. This is a fact of life that allows Bob to strongly suggest that he be allowed to create what he wants to create. It is like he is holding the public access through Ponte Vista over the heads of the students and parents going between Western Avenue and the new campus. Again, he has the right to do this and I am not troubled in the slightest by his propaganda.
If folks truly want R1 to remain at Ponte Vista, they need to understand that public access to Mary Star might very well be removed at any time.
________________________________________________
I am still seeing abandoned residential structures left open for entry. The units I am referring to are along Western Avenue and are not used by law enforcement in their training practices. These units should be closed up, per L.A. City Code.
________________________________________________
Has anyone living within the limits of the City of Los Angeles complained that there should be green or blue tarps placed along the border fencing of Ponte Vista?
Friday, December 14, 2007
Odds and Ends 43
Nothing to report on Ponte Vista.
________________________________________________
The SRHS 15 update meeting was attended by "30-40 people" or "probably about 20 people" depending on who I heard from.
The main issue concerning some of the folks, according to what I heard, was that there should be no student parking in the surrounding neighborhood, if and when the school is built.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
The SRHS 15 update meeting was attended by "30-40 people" or "probably about 20 people" depending on who I heard from.
The main issue concerning some of the folks, according to what I heard, was that there should be no student parking in the surrounding neighborhood, if and when the school is built.
________________________________________________
Saturday, December 08, 2007
The South Region High School #15 Continues
South Region High School #15 (SRHS 15) is proposed to be a 1,215-seat senior high school designed to ease the over crowding at San Pedro High School.
There continue to be funds to move this project forward because it is more likely that San Pedro High School would have to go year-round if over crowding is not eased.
This condition is different at Narbonne High School. That school is not as impacted by over crowding as San Pedro High School appears to be. That is why South Region High School #14 has had work suspended on it, but work continues on SRHS 15.
The update meeting for SRHS 15 is still scheduled for Monday December 10, 2007 in the auditorium of San Pedro High School. The meeting will begin at 6:00 PM.
Ms. Roberta Jones-Booker, the community relations representative for the project runs a tight ship and meetings scheduled by her start and end as scheduled.
Now that it looks like there may be a new high school in San Pedro, I still feel very strongly that it should be named the John and Muriel Olguin Senior High School. But that is something that would be decided in the distant future and the project has many hurdles to get over before it gets a name.
There continue to be funds to move this project forward because it is more likely that San Pedro High School would have to go year-round if over crowding is not eased.
This condition is different at Narbonne High School. That school is not as impacted by over crowding as San Pedro High School appears to be. That is why South Region High School #14 has had work suspended on it, but work continues on SRHS 15.
The update meeting for SRHS 15 is still scheduled for Monday December 10, 2007 in the auditorium of San Pedro High School. The meeting will begin at 6:00 PM.
Ms. Roberta Jones-Booker, the community relations representative for the project runs a tight ship and meetings scheduled by her start and end as scheduled.
Now that it looks like there may be a new high school in San Pedro, I still feel very strongly that it should be named the John and Muriel Olguin Senior High School. But that is something that would be decided in the distant future and the project has many hurdles to get over before it gets a name.
Friday, December 07, 2007
R.I.P. South Region High School 14
Below is a letter I received in the mail on December 7, 2007.
It looks like the proposed South Region High School 14 has gone "buh-bye", at least for quite some time.
I hope to receive a similar letter concerning South Region High School 15 in the near future. There is a meeting scheduled for December 10, 2007, beginning at 6:00 PM at San Pedro High School's auditorium concerning SRHS 15. If we are lucky, the meeting will either be cancelled, or it will be very short!
It looks like everybody wins, except for the few folks living in Lomita who want a L.A.U.S.D. high school in their city. Maybe the far future holds hope for those folks, but I doubt if any of us should hold our breath.
It looks like the proposed South Region High School 14 has gone "buh-bye", at least for quite some time.
I hope to receive a similar letter concerning South Region High School 15 in the near future. There is a meeting scheduled for December 10, 2007, beginning at 6:00 PM at San Pedro High School's auditorium concerning SRHS 15. If we are lucky, the meeting will either be cancelled, or it will be very short!
It looks like everybody wins, except for the few folks living in Lomita who want a L.A.U.S.D. high school in their city. Maybe the far future holds hope for those folks, but I doubt if any of us should hold our breath.
Odds and Ends 42
It appears that another good week has passed for all of us. Construction on the new Marshall's and the Chevron Station are continuing.
I saw some workers doing something on the Ponte Vista site. If it was cleanup they were doing, that is great!
__________________________________________________
Last call for folks to make their comments about the Marymount College Expansion Project, by attending the R.P.V. Traffic Safety Commission hearing on the subject. As mentioned on other posts, the hearing will be on Monday December 10, 2007 at Hesse Park, beginning at 7:00 PM
__________________________________________________
Please be well and have a wonderful week.
I saw some workers doing something on the Ponte Vista site. If it was cleanup they were doing, that is great!
__________________________________________________
Last call for folks to make their comments about the Marymount College Expansion Project, by attending the R.P.V. Traffic Safety Commission hearing on the subject. As mentioned on other posts, the hearing will be on Monday December 10, 2007 at Hesse Park, beginning at 7:00 PM
__________________________________________________
Please be well and have a wonderful week.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Odds and Ends 41
Some folks are becoming more involved with sharing information and working together on development issues all over Southern California.
The Anaheim City Council recently rejected plans to have residential units built in the "resort" area of that City.
Organized groups are sharing information and helping each other deal with developments and developers who, they feel, are trying to take away some quality of life issues that existing residents and others enjoy. As these become more aware of each other and rely on help from different groups, it may be more of a sign that citizens are trying to rest more control over their environment, than politicians would like them to have.
_____________________________________________________
As I have written before, there will be a hearing by the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission, dealing with the Traffic and Circulation section of the Marymount Expansion Draft Environmental Report. The hearing will be held, beginning at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend and provide comments concerning the expansion project.
_____________________________________________________
Construction work is continuing on the new Marshall's, on the upper level of The Terraces Shopping Center. When I last visited the site, I noticed that the old side entry at the former Do-It Center site has been walled up. It appears if folks park on the Caddington side of the parking area, they will need to walk around the theater portion, to get to the entrance of Marshall's.
I am not fond of walling up the former side entrance. It will make parking more difficult on the Western Avenue side of the center. I haven't heard if anything is going to be built in the area of the side parking lot, so I suppose I should ask someone at the R.P.V. Planning Department if that extra parking area may go away.
____________________________________________________
I highly doubt that any "low income" housing is being actively considered along Western Avenue, at this time, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
____________________________________________________
The Anaheim City Council recently rejected plans to have residential units built in the "resort" area of that City.
Organized groups are sharing information and helping each other deal with developments and developers who, they feel, are trying to take away some quality of life issues that existing residents and others enjoy. As these become more aware of each other and rely on help from different groups, it may be more of a sign that citizens are trying to rest more control over their environment, than politicians would like them to have.
_____________________________________________________
As I have written before, there will be a hearing by the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission, dealing with the Traffic and Circulation section of the Marymount Expansion Draft Environmental Report. The hearing will be held, beginning at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park, 29301 Hawthorne Blvd., Rancho Palos Verdes. Anyone and everyone is welcome to attend and provide comments concerning the expansion project.
_____________________________________________________
Construction work is continuing on the new Marshall's, on the upper level of The Terraces Shopping Center. When I last visited the site, I noticed that the old side entry at the former Do-It Center site has been walled up. It appears if folks park on the Caddington side of the parking area, they will need to walk around the theater portion, to get to the entrance of Marshall's.
I am not fond of walling up the former side entrance. It will make parking more difficult on the Western Avenue side of the center. I haven't heard if anything is going to be built in the area of the side parking lot, so I suppose I should ask someone at the R.P.V. Planning Department if that extra parking area may go away.
____________________________________________________
I highly doubt that any "low income" housing is being actively considered along Western Avenue, at this time, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
____________________________________________________
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Mixed Signals about SRHS 15
Early this morning I stopped by Albertson's to get some hot chocolate on my way to P.T. I met Dr. Vladovich who was also visiting the Starbucks in the store and I took the opportunity to ask him about SRHS 14 and SRHS 15. His answers are found in a post just after this post.
Dr. Vladovich said that there would probably be a new bond measure needing approval to build SRHS 14 and SRHS 15, because the funding that has been approved so far only allows for new school construction to ease over crowding of year round schools.
So there I was, fat, dumb, and happy that we wouldn't have to worry about these two schools in the near future.
Later on the very same day, well just around 11:00 PM, I opened my mail to find this announcement of a community meeting for SRHS 15.
Who is correct? I don't know. I would imagine if there is no money for a school, the Facilities Division and their Community Outreach Department would not be having a meeting concerning SRHS 15, but stranger things have happened.
One thing that does give me a chuckle is that it appears that someone in the Community Outreach Department thinks there are three L.A.U.S.D. schools in Rancho Palos Verdes, instead of just Crestwood and Dodson. Thank you very much, Community Outreach, but we don't think we would like a L.A.U.S.D. high school in 90275.
I certainly don't mind if folks think "San Pedro" has a 90275 zip code. In many of our hearts we are always going to be "San Pedrans" even though we live in Rancho Palos Verdes.
December 10 will find some of us dealing with the SRHS 15 issue and others of us at the Traffic Safety Commission hearing on the Marymount College Expansion project.
My two cents about SRHS 15 includes how and where would the access to the school be if it was actually built where it was invisioned on May 15, 2007?
Dr. Vladovich said that there would probably be a new bond measure needing approval to build SRHS 14 and SRHS 15, because the funding that has been approved so far only allows for new school construction to ease over crowding of year round schools.
So there I was, fat, dumb, and happy that we wouldn't have to worry about these two schools in the near future.
Later on the very same day, well just around 11:00 PM, I opened my mail to find this announcement of a community meeting for SRHS 15.
Who is correct? I don't know. I would imagine if there is no money for a school, the Facilities Division and their Community Outreach Department would not be having a meeting concerning SRHS 15, but stranger things have happened.
One thing that does give me a chuckle is that it appears that someone in the Community Outreach Department thinks there are three L.A.U.S.D. schools in Rancho Palos Verdes, instead of just Crestwood and Dodson. Thank you very much, Community Outreach, but we don't think we would like a L.A.U.S.D. high school in 90275.
I certainly don't mind if folks think "San Pedro" has a 90275 zip code. In many of our hearts we are always going to be "San Pedrans" even though we live in Rancho Palos Verdes.
December 10 will find some of us dealing with the SRHS 15 issue and others of us at the Traffic Safety Commission hearing on the Marymount College Expansion project.
My two cents about SRHS 15 includes how and where would the access to the school be if it was actually built where it was invisioned on May 15, 2007?
Information Concerning SRHS 14 and SRHS 15
I had a short chat with a member of the L.A.U.S.D. Board of Education and I learned some things that I had not known until our little conversation ended.
First, South Region High School #14, with its "preferred" site continuing to be on the Ponte Vista property and South Region High School #15, with its "preferred" site being on L.A.U.S.D. land on the old former upper reservation of Fort MacArthur MAY be built sometime in the distant future.
Currently there is funding to build schools to ease over crowding of "year round" schools". According to the board member, it will probably take another approval of a school bond measure to get the funds to build both SRHS 14 and SRHS 15.
Right now, there simply no money available to go forward with either school, according to the board member.
This was of some news to me because I felt we were all made to believe that the facilities division of L.A.U.S.D. already had the money for these two schools set aside from a prior school bond measure.
Also, according to the school board member, it will be quite some time before any new "preferred" site for SRHS 14 is looked into.
So now it seems to me that both SRHS 14 and SRHS 15 should be kept in the back of our minds, but there are many other issues in OUR community that need to be considered well before we need to revisit the two new proposed high schools.
__________________________________________________
The Daily Breeze editorialized today that they feel a new high school to serve the students in Lomita merits more discussion. Whether that is truly what should happen suggests to me that if folks living in Lomita want to bring a high school into their city, perhaps they should form a education committee or commission to explore all avenues. I don't feel it should be up to the City Council to deal with L.A.U.S.D. and where to place a new school.
Interested residents of Lomita should come together to deal with school issues and let the City Council govern the City of Lomita. It would be quite correct that if individual members of the City Council wish to participate in an education committee or commission, they should do so, just like any other resident of Lomita.
First, South Region High School #14, with its "preferred" site continuing to be on the Ponte Vista property and South Region High School #15, with its "preferred" site being on L.A.U.S.D. land on the old former upper reservation of Fort MacArthur MAY be built sometime in the distant future.
Currently there is funding to build schools to ease over crowding of "year round" schools". According to the board member, it will probably take another approval of a school bond measure to get the funds to build both SRHS 14 and SRHS 15.
Right now, there simply no money available to go forward with either school, according to the board member.
This was of some news to me because I felt we were all made to believe that the facilities division of L.A.U.S.D. already had the money for these two schools set aside from a prior school bond measure.
Also, according to the school board member, it will be quite some time before any new "preferred" site for SRHS 14 is looked into.
So now it seems to me that both SRHS 14 and SRHS 15 should be kept in the back of our minds, but there are many other issues in OUR community that need to be considered well before we need to revisit the two new proposed high schools.
__________________________________________________
The Daily Breeze editorialized today that they feel a new high school to serve the students in Lomita merits more discussion. Whether that is truly what should happen suggests to me that if folks living in Lomita want to bring a high school into their city, perhaps they should form a education committee or commission to explore all avenues. I don't feel it should be up to the City Council to deal with L.A.U.S.D. and where to place a new school.
Interested residents of Lomita should come together to deal with school issues and let the City Council govern the City of Lomita. It would be quite correct that if individual members of the City Council wish to participate in an education committee or commission, they should do so, just like any other resident of Lomita.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Working With The Marymount College DEIR
I hope folks got a chance to read the article concerning the Marymount College's Draft Environmental Impact Report, for an expansion project that has been considered for quite some time now.
I have decided to move comments, questions, answers, and readers' comments from this blog to one of my other blogs, with a really long URL: http://miravistaranchopalosverdes.blogspot.com/
As the process for reading and commenting on the DEIR progresses, it would be better to keep this issue on a blog that is more concerned with Rancho Palos Verdes, I feel.
On the other blog, I will try my best to answer questions as objectively as I can. The DEIR is very long and we have until January to submit comments, concerning the DEIR and the proposed expansion of facilities at the campus.
As I hope you read in the Daily Breeze article, there are already folks who are opposed to the expansion as it is laid out in the DEIR and many individuals seek to have one of the alternatives to the plan, approved.
I do feel that everyone living on the south and east side of The Hill, including those neighbors who live close to Western Avenue, in San Pedro, may want to read the DEIR and create their own opinions on the matters.
If individuals want to really get into the Marymount DEIR, it might be a good idea to consider reading the work of the Western Avenue Task Force. The documents, findings, and recommendations came out before Ponte Vista was able to be considered by the volunteers and creators of the documents, and it appears there has never been a real challenge to the findings and/or recommendations made by the Task Force. I found the work they did and the work I read to be very valuable as a great starting point to learn about traffic issues along Western Avenue.
On the Mira Vista blog, I would like folks to ask questions that folks can look for answers to, make comments about the DEIR and their opinions about the expansion project, and share with others what they feel should be shared.
Everyone has a right to create comments to be submitted to the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department and Planning Commission, about the project. I will submit my own comments after I finish studying the DEIR. I am not going to make my comments known before the end of the comment period and I am going to be as objective as I can be.
Let's see what supporters and opponents of the expansion project have to say and not get in their way of saying it. It would be wrong for anyone to think or feel that I am either a supporter or an opponent of the expansion project. As it is, I haven't had the time to do an adequate review of the DEIR and I don't think I will want to swing one way or the other, until the comment period has ended.
I know Mr. Tom Redfield, the gentleman who was in the article, in the Daily Breeze. I haven't talked to him about this particular issue and it would be incorrect to think I agree with him.
Folks should also know that I am a Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commissioner and our Commission will have a public hearing on the issue on December 10, 2007, beginning at 7:00 PM in the R.P.V. Council Chambers at Hesse Park, in Rancho Palos Verdes. Everyone is welcome to come and make their own comments about the expansion issue. We will listen, take notes, and consider what folks really think about the project.
So I am remaining as unbiased as I can on the expansion issue. But as a Traffic Commissioner, folks should know that I am very concerned about traffic issues in Rancho Palos Verdes and surrounding communities.
I have decided to move comments, questions, answers, and readers' comments from this blog to one of my other blogs, with a really long URL: http://miravistaranchopalosverdes.blogspot.com/
As the process for reading and commenting on the DEIR progresses, it would be better to keep this issue on a blog that is more concerned with Rancho Palos Verdes, I feel.
On the other blog, I will try my best to answer questions as objectively as I can. The DEIR is very long and we have until January to submit comments, concerning the DEIR and the proposed expansion of facilities at the campus.
As I hope you read in the Daily Breeze article, there are already folks who are opposed to the expansion as it is laid out in the DEIR and many individuals seek to have one of the alternatives to the plan, approved.
I do feel that everyone living on the south and east side of The Hill, including those neighbors who live close to Western Avenue, in San Pedro, may want to read the DEIR and create their own opinions on the matters.
If individuals want to really get into the Marymount DEIR, it might be a good idea to consider reading the work of the Western Avenue Task Force. The documents, findings, and recommendations came out before Ponte Vista was able to be considered by the volunteers and creators of the documents, and it appears there has never been a real challenge to the findings and/or recommendations made by the Task Force. I found the work they did and the work I read to be very valuable as a great starting point to learn about traffic issues along Western Avenue.
On the Mira Vista blog, I would like folks to ask questions that folks can look for answers to, make comments about the DEIR and their opinions about the expansion project, and share with others what they feel should be shared.
Everyone has a right to create comments to be submitted to the Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department and Planning Commission, about the project. I will submit my own comments after I finish studying the DEIR. I am not going to make my comments known before the end of the comment period and I am going to be as objective as I can be.
Let's see what supporters and opponents of the expansion project have to say and not get in their way of saying it. It would be wrong for anyone to think or feel that I am either a supporter or an opponent of the expansion project. As it is, I haven't had the time to do an adequate review of the DEIR and I don't think I will want to swing one way or the other, until the comment period has ended.
I know Mr. Tom Redfield, the gentleman who was in the article, in the Daily Breeze. I haven't talked to him about this particular issue and it would be incorrect to think I agree with him.
Folks should also know that I am a Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commissioner and our Commission will have a public hearing on the issue on December 10, 2007, beginning at 7:00 PM in the R.P.V. Council Chambers at Hesse Park, in Rancho Palos Verdes. Everyone is welcome to come and make their own comments about the expansion issue. We will listen, take notes, and consider what folks really think about the project.
So I am remaining as unbiased as I can on the expansion issue. But as a Traffic Commissioner, folks should know that I am very concerned about traffic issues in Rancho Palos Verdes and surrounding communities.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
L.A. City Not Complete With ATSAC
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the L.A. County portion of synchronization of signals along Western Avenue (The section along Western Avenue between 111Th. Street and Summerland Avenue) has been completed, according to Supervisor Don Knabe.
What some thoughtless individuals seem to suggest is that I misled individuals into thinking the the system is complete with the intersections controlled by L.A. City Department of Transportation. As I am quite sure intelligent readers would have learned, is that the L.A. City's portion of ATSAC is NOT complete.
The City of L.A. has approved providing ATSAC with the intersections it controls, no matter what ever happens at Ponte Vista.
Supporters of Bob's current plans, whatever they are, suggest that I have not informed folks of the truth. Fortunately for the many of us who have not been brainwashed by Bob and his minions, we know that ATSAC has been completed along the stretch of Western Avenue fronting the Ponte Vista site, and for at least one mile in each direction, along Western Avenue.
Reading items from Ponte Vista and supporters of Ponte Vista allow us to learn that they are much more interlocked together and are still fighting for things it still appears, OUR community does not want imposed on us.
_____________________________________________________
Now it seems the folks at Ponte Vista are having to use individuals who will not identify themselves to push their agenda along. That is sad. I thought Bob Bisno claimed to be above board with the community and always tried to use the truth, openness, and identifiable supporters to push his project through.
Now we are seeing individuals being used to further Bob's causes who won't supply us with their true identity. What have they got to hide?
There was an advertisement in today's More San Pedro Magazine which alluded to the new access road to Mary Star of the Sea High School.
In the add, it was claimed that once Bob receives the entitlements for Ponte Vista, he will build a road, at his expense, to Mary Star, from Western Avenue.
But, did you know that if Bob is allowed to build under the current zoning at Ponte Vista, he has repeatedly stated, in public, that he would be under no obligation to provide such a road to Mary Star.
So, if Bob is entitled to build only R1 housing, then he has stated that there will be no road to Mary Star.
What is the truth? If Bob is entitled to build as few as 1,100 units, which would change the zoning, would he still provide funding and land for the road? Must the L.A. City Council approve a minimum number of units for Bob to willingly build the road? What entitlements is Bob writing about? Must the entitlements be for 1,950-units for him to provide the road?
While the issues are still being dealt between Bob and the Planning Department, is Bob's recent advertisement a true and honest statement of fact? I guess we will have to see.
__________________________________________________
I live in Rancho Palos Verdes. The signal at my closest intersection on Western is controlled by Caltrans and is one of the intersections that has had ATSAC completed.
The entire ATSAC project is not complete, as I have stated several times before, and everybody who is in the know, knows that.
The City of L.A. needs to finish their part. They stated they would do it, no matter what Bob builds at Ponte Vista. So why do we really need the number one "community benefit" Bob has repeatedly claimed HE would provide. We are getting it anyway, no matter what Bob says, does, claims, or tries to do.
Now that ATSAC has been installed, south to Summerland Avenue, it is time for everyone to actually watch, drive, review, and form opinions on how traffic is actually doing. Has it gotten better? Has it gotten worse? Has it stayed the same? We ALL need to be judges on what WE feel is happening along the, already ATSAC portion of Western Avenue.
There is enough intersections between Summerland Avenue and points north for supporters of Bob's to TRY to claim that since ATSAC hasn't been completed along all of Western Avenue, to 25TH Street, we shouldn't judge Western right now. I contend that since Summerland, Crestwood, Park Western, Trudie/Capitol, Caddington, Toscanini, Delesonde/Westmont, and Avenida Aprenda give all of us enough intersections to judge how it is going.
The sad truth that we now must learn is that, if ATSAC is truly completed along the Caltrans-controlled intersections of Western Avenue, this is about as good as it will ever get.
So the future only holds for more vehicles, more trips, more stores, and more cars on Western, in the ATSAC-controlled areas.
Let Bob's supporters claim what they want to claim, we will have the knowledge, by driving on Western Avenue, what the real truth is.
______________________________________________________
Perhaps Bob, his supporters, and some scared individuals have bent the truth so much, it finally broke. Just an imaginative thought.
What some thoughtless individuals seem to suggest is that I misled individuals into thinking the the system is complete with the intersections controlled by L.A. City Department of Transportation. As I am quite sure intelligent readers would have learned, is that the L.A. City's portion of ATSAC is NOT complete.
The City of L.A. has approved providing ATSAC with the intersections it controls, no matter what ever happens at Ponte Vista.
Supporters of Bob's current plans, whatever they are, suggest that I have not informed folks of the truth. Fortunately for the many of us who have not been brainwashed by Bob and his minions, we know that ATSAC has been completed along the stretch of Western Avenue fronting the Ponte Vista site, and for at least one mile in each direction, along Western Avenue.
Reading items from Ponte Vista and supporters of Ponte Vista allow us to learn that they are much more interlocked together and are still fighting for things it still appears, OUR community does not want imposed on us.
_____________________________________________________
Now it seems the folks at Ponte Vista are having to use individuals who will not identify themselves to push their agenda along. That is sad. I thought Bob Bisno claimed to be above board with the community and always tried to use the truth, openness, and identifiable supporters to push his project through.
Now we are seeing individuals being used to further Bob's causes who won't supply us with their true identity. What have they got to hide?
There was an advertisement in today's More San Pedro Magazine which alluded to the new access road to Mary Star of the Sea High School.
In the add, it was claimed that once Bob receives the entitlements for Ponte Vista, he will build a road, at his expense, to Mary Star, from Western Avenue.
But, did you know that if Bob is allowed to build under the current zoning at Ponte Vista, he has repeatedly stated, in public, that he would be under no obligation to provide such a road to Mary Star.
So, if Bob is entitled to build only R1 housing, then he has stated that there will be no road to Mary Star.
What is the truth? If Bob is entitled to build as few as 1,100 units, which would change the zoning, would he still provide funding and land for the road? Must the L.A. City Council approve a minimum number of units for Bob to willingly build the road? What entitlements is Bob writing about? Must the entitlements be for 1,950-units for him to provide the road?
While the issues are still being dealt between Bob and the Planning Department, is Bob's recent advertisement a true and honest statement of fact? I guess we will have to see.
__________________________________________________
I live in Rancho Palos Verdes. The signal at my closest intersection on Western is controlled by Caltrans and is one of the intersections that has had ATSAC completed.
The entire ATSAC project is not complete, as I have stated several times before, and everybody who is in the know, knows that.
The City of L.A. needs to finish their part. They stated they would do it, no matter what Bob builds at Ponte Vista. So why do we really need the number one "community benefit" Bob has repeatedly claimed HE would provide. We are getting it anyway, no matter what Bob says, does, claims, or tries to do.
Now that ATSAC has been installed, south to Summerland Avenue, it is time for everyone to actually watch, drive, review, and form opinions on how traffic is actually doing. Has it gotten better? Has it gotten worse? Has it stayed the same? We ALL need to be judges on what WE feel is happening along the, already ATSAC portion of Western Avenue.
There is enough intersections between Summerland Avenue and points north for supporters of Bob's to TRY to claim that since ATSAC hasn't been completed along all of Western Avenue, to 25TH Street, we shouldn't judge Western right now. I contend that since Summerland, Crestwood, Park Western, Trudie/Capitol, Caddington, Toscanini, Delesonde/Westmont, and Avenida Aprenda give all of us enough intersections to judge how it is going.
The sad truth that we now must learn is that, if ATSAC is truly completed along the Caltrans-controlled intersections of Western Avenue, this is about as good as it will ever get.
So the future only holds for more vehicles, more trips, more stores, and more cars on Western, in the ATSAC-controlled areas.
Let Bob's supporters claim what they want to claim, we will have the knowledge, by driving on Western Avenue, what the real truth is.
______________________________________________________
Perhaps Bob, his supporters, and some scared individuals have bent the truth so much, it finally broke. Just an imaginative thought.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Odd and Ends 40
Here is a bit of recap of what is going on and some of the things that have been happening recently.
The current plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro are still under review, consideration, and updating by the Los Angeles City Planning Department and representatives of Bob Bisno's organization.
There are no reasons to comment on any rumors anyone has heard or passed along. We need to let the system works at its snail pace and not get too frustrated with them.
The new fencing on the Ponte Vista site to allow access from Western Avenue to the new campus of Mary Star of the Sea High School is progressing. Folks are hoping to open the new campus in December.
The folks working on the new Marshall's were awaiting clearance from L.A. County Fire Inspectors before continuing on creating the new store where the old Do-It Center once was.
There is parking available on the side and behind The Terraces Shopping Center, on the top level.
The two Chevron Stations closest to Ponte Vista, towards San Pedro, both have their pumps down. The Gaffey Chevron seems to be getting new pumps and the Chevron at Crestwood Street is getting a makeover with new pumps, new canopy, and a new store where the maintenance bays used to be.
I haven't been following the suit that Y&S Auto Body brought against the Kinder Morgan/JCC Homes project on Gaffey. I know that not only the area where Kinder Morgan was, but also areas outside their original boundaries need to be completely cleaned up before J.C.C. Homes finalizes the deal to build 134 Patio Homes.
Both the Torrance and Lomita City Councils now look to be very interested in questioning development in their two cities. More and more Torrance residents are feeling burned by development projects that have been approved and are really beginning to clog up their traffic.
Target hopefully is still on target to get the new store built on Gaffey.
New money has been offered into the redevelopment near downtown San Pedro and along the Pacific Avenue Redevelopment Corridor.
________________________________________________
Let's hope we can all enjoy the rest of 2007!
The current plans for Ponte Vista at San Pedro are still under review, consideration, and updating by the Los Angeles City Planning Department and representatives of Bob Bisno's organization.
There are no reasons to comment on any rumors anyone has heard or passed along. We need to let the system works at its snail pace and not get too frustrated with them.
The new fencing on the Ponte Vista site to allow access from Western Avenue to the new campus of Mary Star of the Sea High School is progressing. Folks are hoping to open the new campus in December.
The folks working on the new Marshall's were awaiting clearance from L.A. County Fire Inspectors before continuing on creating the new store where the old Do-It Center once was.
There is parking available on the side and behind The Terraces Shopping Center, on the top level.
The two Chevron Stations closest to Ponte Vista, towards San Pedro, both have their pumps down. The Gaffey Chevron seems to be getting new pumps and the Chevron at Crestwood Street is getting a makeover with new pumps, new canopy, and a new store where the maintenance bays used to be.
I haven't been following the suit that Y&S Auto Body brought against the Kinder Morgan/JCC Homes project on Gaffey. I know that not only the area where Kinder Morgan was, but also areas outside their original boundaries need to be completely cleaned up before J.C.C. Homes finalizes the deal to build 134 Patio Homes.
Both the Torrance and Lomita City Councils now look to be very interested in questioning development in their two cities. More and more Torrance residents are feeling burned by development projects that have been approved and are really beginning to clog up their traffic.
Target hopefully is still on target to get the new store built on Gaffey.
New money has been offered into the redevelopment near downtown San Pedro and along the Pacific Avenue Redevelopment Corridor.
________________________________________________
Let's hope we can all enjoy the rest of 2007!
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Something Good is Going on at Ponte Vista!
If you drive by the main entrance of the Ponte Vista site, you will notice new fencing being installed along S. John Montgomery Drive.
The folks at Ponte Vista, along with the folks at the new Mary Star of the Sea High School are putting in fencing so students and parents can use S. John Montgomery Drive from Western Avenue, to the new campus.
I know I am among a very, very small number of folks who believe access to Mary Star from Western Avenue is not what I would like to see, but so many others wish for this access, there really is no fighting it.
The fencing, designed to protect both the public and Bob Bisno's site, will help secure the route and provide safe passage to and from Western Avenue and the new campus, slated to open in December.
For OUR community, this installation of fencing is a good thing for everyone, I believe.
In this time of thanksgiving, I hope we all can understand when something good for all of us happens, and try not to put down the fence. The fence was needed and it is being installed. I am thankful for that.
The folks at Ponte Vista, along with the folks at the new Mary Star of the Sea High School are putting in fencing so students and parents can use S. John Montgomery Drive from Western Avenue, to the new campus.
I know I am among a very, very small number of folks who believe access to Mary Star from Western Avenue is not what I would like to see, but so many others wish for this access, there really is no fighting it.
The fencing, designed to protect both the public and Bob Bisno's site, will help secure the route and provide safe passage to and from Western Avenue and the new campus, slated to open in December.
For OUR community, this installation of fencing is a good thing for everyone, I believe.
In this time of thanksgiving, I hope we all can understand when something good for all of us happens, and try not to put down the fence. The fence was needed and it is being installed. I am thankful for that.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Nov. 19 Lomita City Council Meeting/SRHS 14
On November 19, 2007, the Lomita City Council held what the then Mayor stated as a "regular meeting". To me and everybody in the room, there was nothing "regular" about it.
The meeting included the installation of the new makeup of the City Council, the ceremony for the outgoing Mayor of Lomita, the election of a new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, then the one and only new item on the agenda, the consideration of whether the City Council would engage in any discussion concerning SRHS 14 and a proposed idea of placing it at Lomita Park.
"I'll be honest with you, it still hurts". These were part of the final remarks from outgoing and now former Mayor (gee doesn't that read pretty?) Mark A. Waronek. Mark was graceful in his departure and many folks came to give him proclamations, resolutions, and other printed material, as well as a ceremonial plaque, with a gavel on it.
The Council Chamber was packed to overflowing with residents of Lomita, Southeast Torrance, and one individual from Rancho Palos Verdes.
It seems just about everyone in the chamber and outside in the overflow area came to hear the consideration brought by Councilman Waite, concerning whether the City Council should create a workshop, or something else, to deal with possibly placing the 810-seat South Region High School 14, (SRHS 14) on PART of Lomita Park and maintenance yards for the City of Lomita and L.A. County.
Councilman Waite's proposal as he stated it, was to have the Council create a workshop or have meetings to consider whether placing SRHS 14 on Walnut Street, or someplace else, would be best for the residents of Lomita.
I understand what Councilman Waite and Councilwoman Dever were positive to consider, but I think that the City Council does not have a "dog in the fight" in considering where L.A.U.S.D. should or should not place a school. We have all seen what happened when L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa tried to place his hands into L.A.U.S.D. I also know what powers the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes doesn't have over the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.
I think first, that City Councils should react to what decisions the Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. tries to do, but I don't feel they should engage in attempting to bring a L.A.U.S.D. school into any city.
During the public comment portion of the evening, I lost count on how many individuals got up to speak. One thing was absolutely certain though, not one single person, whether they lived in Lomita, Torrance, R.P.V., or anywhere else, said one word in support of placing SRHS 14 at Lomita Park, or anywhere else in Lomita.
When it came time for a motion, newly re-elected Councilman Suminiaga stated a motion to drop any discussion, by the City Council, on where to place SRHS 14. The motion was seconded by newly installed Councilman Blackwood seconded the motion.
During the debate, Councilwoman Dever stated that she felt the Council members should consider doing something towards finding a place for SRHS 14.
Councilman Waite seemed to share Dever's view and also thought that the Lomita location was just one of many sites to consider.
Councilman Suminiaga was steadfast in his resolve to have the Council drop any further discussion. Councilman Blackwood stated that what he said in his recent successful campaign was enough (he didn't like the idea in the first place) and he didn't elaborate any further.
Newly elected Mayor Margaret Estrada didn't comment much at all and it was tough to gauge her feelings......until the vote.
When the motion was called to a vote by the Councilmembers, Councilmen Suminiaga and Blackwood, along with Mayor Estrada, voted "yes" to drop any further discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Dever and Councilman Waite, voted "No". Three agains two, the motion to drop further consideration by the Lomita City Council on having any meetings, workshops, or further discussion on SRHS 14, passed.
The meeting was adjourned with loud applause and much joyous shouting.
_________________________________________________
As many readers of this blog know, I have been aligned with a number of individuals who have gathered quite a bit of information on SRHS 14.
It was very clear to me, during the meeting, that not only did the vast majority of the room not understand practically anything that has been truly going on, officially, with SRHS 14, it looked to me that even the City Council Members themselves, have any real knowledge about SRHS 14.
I don't think it is any body's fault and I do feel that a whole bunch of folks really jumped the gun, especially two members of the Lomita City Council. It appeared to me that most of the folks speaking about SRHS 14, really know little about it, in the first place.
But what an impact it was to see so many individuals speak so much and get so riled up about just considering whether folks should talk about the subject. I was very, very impressed that, even though so many folks know so little about the issue, yet are so passionate about not having an L.A.U.S.D. senior high school, in their neighborhood or in their city.
For the folks who really don't know too much about SRHS 14, there is lots and lots of information about this issue, inside this blog.
But to make it easier, right now, here are some real facts.
South Region High School was originally slated to be a 2,025-seat Senior High School to ease the overcrowding of both Narbonne and San Pedro High Schools.
The site which was, AND STILL IS the "preferred" site for SRHS 14, is within the boundary of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development, in northwest San Pedro.
Earlier this year, the Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. dropped plans for one-2,025-seat school, in favor of building two new schools. SRHS 14 became a 810-seat school devoted to ease overcrowding at Narbonne High School. South Region High School 15 (SRHS 15) is now being planned as a 1,215-seat school with its "preferred" site being on the former upper reservation of the old Fort MacArthur, now called "Angels Gate".
The Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. is considering multiple sites in Lomita, Harbor City, and Harbor Gateway, to place SRHS 14. One possible site is Lomita Park, but folks have acknowledged that it has problems and they are continuing to search out other sites including the Mulligan Recreation area/Sepulveda, sites on 240TH. Street and other streets.
The only Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for SRHS 14 has been done on the Ponte Vista "preferred" site.
Whether anyone from the City of Lomita has contacted L.A.U.S.D. about Lomita Park is something folks will have to find out for themselves, because I don't know.
Neither Mr. Rod Hamiliton, Mr. Don Lancaster, or anybody from the Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. were in attendance, as far as I am aware of, at the Lomita City Council Meeting.
I think what I learned from the meeting is just the thought of putting SRHS 14 anywhere near Lomita Park, will certainly get folks out, boiling, and ready to blow the roof off of any meeting place.
If folks on the Lomita City Council wish to consider SRHS 14 again, perhaps they should do it as individual residents of the City of Lomita and not as elected officials.
I hope the Lomita City Councilmembers got the message, but perhaps some of them will want to bring up the issue in the future, in some other manner. Were palms greased? I don't know. Did some of the Councilmembers have a hidden agenda? Some folks in the audience thought so, but I don't know. Might we have to come together sometime in the future to go to bat to keep Lomita Park free from SRHS 14? Perhaps. But I would suggest to elected officials in the City of Lomita and elsewhere, watch what developments you support, it could cost you your elected position.
That reminds me, so long Mark!
The meeting included the installation of the new makeup of the City Council, the ceremony for the outgoing Mayor of Lomita, the election of a new Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, then the one and only new item on the agenda, the consideration of whether the City Council would engage in any discussion concerning SRHS 14 and a proposed idea of placing it at Lomita Park.
"I'll be honest with you, it still hurts". These were part of the final remarks from outgoing and now former Mayor (gee doesn't that read pretty?) Mark A. Waronek. Mark was graceful in his departure and many folks came to give him proclamations, resolutions, and other printed material, as well as a ceremonial plaque, with a gavel on it.
The Council Chamber was packed to overflowing with residents of Lomita, Southeast Torrance, and one individual from Rancho Palos Verdes.
It seems just about everyone in the chamber and outside in the overflow area came to hear the consideration brought by Councilman Waite, concerning whether the City Council should create a workshop, or something else, to deal with possibly placing the 810-seat South Region High School 14, (SRHS 14) on PART of Lomita Park and maintenance yards for the City of Lomita and L.A. County.
Councilman Waite's proposal as he stated it, was to have the Council create a workshop or have meetings to consider whether placing SRHS 14 on Walnut Street, or someplace else, would be best for the residents of Lomita.
I understand what Councilman Waite and Councilwoman Dever were positive to consider, but I think that the City Council does not have a "dog in the fight" in considering where L.A.U.S.D. should or should not place a school. We have all seen what happened when L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa tried to place his hands into L.A.U.S.D. I also know what powers the City Council for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes doesn't have over the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.
I think first, that City Councils should react to what decisions the Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. tries to do, but I don't feel they should engage in attempting to bring a L.A.U.S.D. school into any city.
During the public comment portion of the evening, I lost count on how many individuals got up to speak. One thing was absolutely certain though, not one single person, whether they lived in Lomita, Torrance, R.P.V., or anywhere else, said one word in support of placing SRHS 14 at Lomita Park, or anywhere else in Lomita.
When it came time for a motion, newly re-elected Councilman Suminiaga stated a motion to drop any discussion, by the City Council, on where to place SRHS 14. The motion was seconded by newly installed Councilman Blackwood seconded the motion.
During the debate, Councilwoman Dever stated that she felt the Council members should consider doing something towards finding a place for SRHS 14.
Councilman Waite seemed to share Dever's view and also thought that the Lomita location was just one of many sites to consider.
Councilman Suminiaga was steadfast in his resolve to have the Council drop any further discussion. Councilman Blackwood stated that what he said in his recent successful campaign was enough (he didn't like the idea in the first place) and he didn't elaborate any further.
Newly elected Mayor Margaret Estrada didn't comment much at all and it was tough to gauge her feelings......until the vote.
When the motion was called to a vote by the Councilmembers, Councilmen Suminiaga and Blackwood, along with Mayor Estrada, voted "yes" to drop any further discussion. Mayor Pro Tem Dever and Councilman Waite, voted "No". Three agains two, the motion to drop further consideration by the Lomita City Council on having any meetings, workshops, or further discussion on SRHS 14, passed.
The meeting was adjourned with loud applause and much joyous shouting.
_________________________________________________
As many readers of this blog know, I have been aligned with a number of individuals who have gathered quite a bit of information on SRHS 14.
It was very clear to me, during the meeting, that not only did the vast majority of the room not understand practically anything that has been truly going on, officially, with SRHS 14, it looked to me that even the City Council Members themselves, have any real knowledge about SRHS 14.
I don't think it is any body's fault and I do feel that a whole bunch of folks really jumped the gun, especially two members of the Lomita City Council. It appeared to me that most of the folks speaking about SRHS 14, really know little about it, in the first place.
But what an impact it was to see so many individuals speak so much and get so riled up about just considering whether folks should talk about the subject. I was very, very impressed that, even though so many folks know so little about the issue, yet are so passionate about not having an L.A.U.S.D. senior high school, in their neighborhood or in their city.
For the folks who really don't know too much about SRHS 14, there is lots and lots of information about this issue, inside this blog.
But to make it easier, right now, here are some real facts.
South Region High School was originally slated to be a 2,025-seat Senior High School to ease the overcrowding of both Narbonne and San Pedro High Schools.
The site which was, AND STILL IS the "preferred" site for SRHS 14, is within the boundary of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development, in northwest San Pedro.
Earlier this year, the Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. dropped plans for one-2,025-seat school, in favor of building two new schools. SRHS 14 became a 810-seat school devoted to ease overcrowding at Narbonne High School. South Region High School 15 (SRHS 15) is now being planned as a 1,215-seat school with its "preferred" site being on the former upper reservation of the old Fort MacArthur, now called "Angels Gate".
The Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. is considering multiple sites in Lomita, Harbor City, and Harbor Gateway, to place SRHS 14. One possible site is Lomita Park, but folks have acknowledged that it has problems and they are continuing to search out other sites including the Mulligan Recreation area/Sepulveda, sites on 240TH. Street and other streets.
The only Notice of Preparation and Initial Study for SRHS 14 has been done on the Ponte Vista "preferred" site.
Whether anyone from the City of Lomita has contacted L.A.U.S.D. about Lomita Park is something folks will have to find out for themselves, because I don't know.
Neither Mr. Rod Hamiliton, Mr. Don Lancaster, or anybody from the Facilities Division of L.A.U.S.D. were in attendance, as far as I am aware of, at the Lomita City Council Meeting.
I think what I learned from the meeting is just the thought of putting SRHS 14 anywhere near Lomita Park, will certainly get folks out, boiling, and ready to blow the roof off of any meeting place.
If folks on the Lomita City Council wish to consider SRHS 14 again, perhaps they should do it as individual residents of the City of Lomita and not as elected officials.
I hope the Lomita City Councilmembers got the message, but perhaps some of them will want to bring up the issue in the future, in some other manner. Were palms greased? I don't know. Did some of the Councilmembers have a hidden agenda? Some folks in the audience thought so, but I don't know. Might we have to come together sometime in the future to go to bat to keep Lomita Park free from SRHS 14? Perhaps. But I would suggest to elected officials in the City of Lomita and elsewhere, watch what developments you support, it could cost you your elected position.
That reminds me, so long Mark!
Saturday, November 17, 2007
County Signal Synchronization Complete!
Below is the body of a press release released on August 24, 2007 and followed up in Supervisor Don Knabe's recent Newsletter. ________________________________________________
Traffic Signal Synchronization Project Complete
In The South Bay The County of Los Angeles has completed the construction of a Traffic Signal Synchronization Project in the Fourth District cities of Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Rancho Palos Verdes and Long Beach, Supervisor Don Knabe announced recently.
The $933,524 project focused on coordinating the timing of signals along three major streets in the South Bay. Over 100 total intersections were synchronized on the following three roads: Artesia Boulevard from Sepulveda Boulevard to Vermont Avenue, Carson Street from Hawthorne Boulevard to Santa Fe Avenue, and Western Avenue from 111th Street to Summerland Avenue.
This project is part of the County’s ongoing program to enhance traffic flow and safety for drivers and pedestrians. Prior projects have shown travel times through these synchronized routes are reduced by as much as 24 percent during peak travel hours and as much as 29 percent during other periods of the day.
“It is important that we constantly look for ways to reduce congestion and improve the flow of traffic on our roads,” said Supervisor Knabe. “By synchronizing these traffic signals, both the residents of these cities and the nearby unincorporated County areas that travel these routes will benefit.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Press Release was released by Mr. David Somers, the Press Contact for Los Angeles County, Fourth District Supervisor Don Knabe. _____________________________________________________
Thank you, Glenn Cornell, the President of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners' Association, for delivering this information to me. I bet we all know that something has happened to the timing of the signals on Western, especially if you live west of Western and have to turn left, onto Western. Our signal timing seemed to get longer.
So now what can Bob offer, as a "community benefit"? Is he now going to help the City of L.A. fund their portion of the synchronizations of the traffic signals on Western Avenue from 1St. Street, to 25Th Street? Will he continue to push the community benefit that is more than a mile away from any dirt at Ponte Vista? Did L.A. County get its check from Bob for the synchronization between Palos Verdes Drive North and Summerland, like he promised? I bet not!
And another thing that ticks me off, Louis Dominquez and so many other supporters of Bob's blight claim they support "the project". What in Sam Hell is "the project"? Is it 2,300-units? Is it 1,950-units? Is it whatever Bob wants it to be? I don't think even Louis knows what the real project is.
Wait a minute! I think I finally know. It's not "the project", it's "the projects". That must be it! Perhaps we just can't hear the "s" when it is spoken and it must be left out of the writings, these folks create.
The only problem is that Bob has absolutely no intention of building any housing that lower income folks can afford, so I guess when you leave the "s" off the word, it means that it is going to be the "projects" for the rich folks.
Ah, that felt good. I had been wondering what "the project" meant when it is used by Bob's supporters. Now I know and it makes much more sense. It must also mean when you keep the "s" off the end of "project", you keep the (s)h*it folks out of your glamour condos. Now Bob, that is not very nice.
Sorry about the slip of the fingers and tongue.
Traffic Signal Synchronization Project Complete
In The South Bay The County of Los Angeles has completed the construction of a Traffic Signal Synchronization Project in the Fourth District cities of Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Rancho Palos Verdes and Long Beach, Supervisor Don Knabe announced recently.
The $933,524 project focused on coordinating the timing of signals along three major streets in the South Bay. Over 100 total intersections were synchronized on the following three roads: Artesia Boulevard from Sepulveda Boulevard to Vermont Avenue, Carson Street from Hawthorne Boulevard to Santa Fe Avenue, and Western Avenue from 111th Street to Summerland Avenue.
This project is part of the County’s ongoing program to enhance traffic flow and safety for drivers and pedestrians. Prior projects have shown travel times through these synchronized routes are reduced by as much as 24 percent during peak travel hours and as much as 29 percent during other periods of the day.
“It is important that we constantly look for ways to reduce congestion and improve the flow of traffic on our roads,” said Supervisor Knabe. “By synchronizing these traffic signals, both the residents of these cities and the nearby unincorporated County areas that travel these routes will benefit.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Press Release was released by Mr. David Somers, the Press Contact for Los Angeles County, Fourth District Supervisor Don Knabe. _____________________________________________________
Thank you, Glenn Cornell, the President of the Rolling Hills Riviera Homeowners' Association, for delivering this information to me. I bet we all know that something has happened to the timing of the signals on Western, especially if you live west of Western and have to turn left, onto Western. Our signal timing seemed to get longer.
So now what can Bob offer, as a "community benefit"? Is he now going to help the City of L.A. fund their portion of the synchronizations of the traffic signals on Western Avenue from 1St. Street, to 25Th Street? Will he continue to push the community benefit that is more than a mile away from any dirt at Ponte Vista? Did L.A. County get its check from Bob for the synchronization between Palos Verdes Drive North and Summerland, like he promised? I bet not!
And another thing that ticks me off, Louis Dominquez and so many other supporters of Bob's blight claim they support "the project". What in Sam Hell is "the project"? Is it 2,300-units? Is it 1,950-units? Is it whatever Bob wants it to be? I don't think even Louis knows what the real project is.
Wait a minute! I think I finally know. It's not "the project", it's "the projects". That must be it! Perhaps we just can't hear the "s" when it is spoken and it must be left out of the writings, these folks create.
The only problem is that Bob has absolutely no intention of building any housing that lower income folks can afford, so I guess when you leave the "s" off the word, it means that it is going to be the "projects" for the rich folks.
Ah, that felt good. I had been wondering what "the project" meant when it is used by Bob's supporters. Now I know and it makes much more sense. It must also mean when you keep the "s" off the end of "project", you keep the (s)h*it folks out of your glamour condos. Now Bob, that is not very nice.
Sorry about the slip of the fingers and tongue.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Odds and Ends 39
On Monday November 19, the Lomita City Council will be holding a meeting, beginning at 7:00 PM, at their chambers at 24300 Narbonne Avenue.
One of the issues that may be debated and voted on is concerning the proposed SRHS 14, 810-seat Senior High School, possibly being built in Lomita.
Proponents of placing the new high school, to ease the over crowding at Narbonne H.S. want to use 2 acres of Lomita Park, along with the Los Angeles County and City of Lomita maintenance yards on Walnut Avenue, to build the new school.
Opponents of the plan, which I am one of, consider this location to be a poor one. Walnut Avenue, in that area, is the border between Lomita and Torrance. If the new school is built, the entrances and exits would be on Walnut Avenue, directly across the street from homes in Torrance.
Opponents also are very concerned about putting a school in a dense residential area with few large roadways for ingress and egress to the school site.
The L.A.U.S.D. has not taken a formal consideration of the site, as yet, and still has acreage at Ponte Vista as their "preferred site" for the high school.
Opponents of the plan are encouraged to attend this meeting and voice their opposition. Hopefully a vote will be taken by the City Council to reconsider its support for the project.
______________________________________________
I was very happy to see at least three item in the latest Random Lengths News that I found newsworthy, if only for my own reasons.
Mr. Chris Yang wrote an article about Y&S Auto filing suit in the Kinder/Morgan-JCC Homes issue on Gaffey Street.
This article was very informative and I suggest interested readers pick up a copy of the Random Lengths News, so they can read it, too.
On the page facing Mr. Yang's article was an article about J.D. Hobbies store opening up a second location in the Brown Brothers Building. This item may not be important to many folks, but I have a special interest in the move. If one looks in the front window of the new store and looks at the HO scale model railroad layout, some of the buildings were donated by a fellow who is recovering from hip surgery and has some time at home to kill.
The original J.D. Hobbies is located in the Western Plaza shopping center.
I also found the item about the condo developments in downtown, interesting. I didn't know there was supposed to be free parking at the Centre Street Lofts. I guess few others did, too.
________________________________________________
One of the issues that may be debated and voted on is concerning the proposed SRHS 14, 810-seat Senior High School, possibly being built in Lomita.
Proponents of placing the new high school, to ease the over crowding at Narbonne H.S. want to use 2 acres of Lomita Park, along with the Los Angeles County and City of Lomita maintenance yards on Walnut Avenue, to build the new school.
Opponents of the plan, which I am one of, consider this location to be a poor one. Walnut Avenue, in that area, is the border between Lomita and Torrance. If the new school is built, the entrances and exits would be on Walnut Avenue, directly across the street from homes in Torrance.
Opponents also are very concerned about putting a school in a dense residential area with few large roadways for ingress and egress to the school site.
The L.A.U.S.D. has not taken a formal consideration of the site, as yet, and still has acreage at Ponte Vista as their "preferred site" for the high school.
Opponents of the plan are encouraged to attend this meeting and voice their opposition. Hopefully a vote will be taken by the City Council to reconsider its support for the project.
______________________________________________
I was very happy to see at least three item in the latest Random Lengths News that I found newsworthy, if only for my own reasons.
Mr. Chris Yang wrote an article about Y&S Auto filing suit in the Kinder/Morgan-JCC Homes issue on Gaffey Street.
This article was very informative and I suggest interested readers pick up a copy of the Random Lengths News, so they can read it, too.
On the page facing Mr. Yang's article was an article about J.D. Hobbies store opening up a second location in the Brown Brothers Building. This item may not be important to many folks, but I have a special interest in the move. If one looks in the front window of the new store and looks at the HO scale model railroad layout, some of the buildings were donated by a fellow who is recovering from hip surgery and has some time at home to kill.
The original J.D. Hobbies is located in the Western Plaza shopping center.
I also found the item about the condo developments in downtown, interesting. I didn't know there was supposed to be free parking at the Centre Street Lofts. I guess few others did, too.
________________________________________________
Second Letter to the Editor, From the Editorial
Here is a second letter to the editor, based on the editorial in the Friday November 9, 2007 editorial in the Daily Breeze. The editorial can be found in a previous post.
___________________________________________________________
Voter apathy is concern
In regard to the editorial where you state your conclusion that last week's election was somehow a referendum on Ponte Vista, I have a different slant ("Election results yield Ponte Vista concerns," Editorial page, Nov. 9).
Since the turnout on the Hill was around 22 percent and in Lomita about 18 percent, I think it says that 78 percent of the Hill and 82 percent of Lomita could care less about Ponte Vista one way or another. Conversely, you could as easily have said that the higher percentage reflects the amount of support for the project.
In truth, as should be obvious, to draw either conclusion would be stretching the importance of this very poor turnout to extremes.
Actually, I do see a conclusion, one that worries me a lot. I see our country becoming more and more controlled by small groups of people with their own special agendas. They rely on being loud and on demonizing anyone who does not agree with them. Compromise is evil and disagreement with their particular view is a punishable offense.
In a democracy, fringe elements are not a problem since the body politic should work together to find mutually acceptable solutions to problems. But when 80 percent of the people stay home, they are abdicating their responsibility for good government. The result is that a fraction of the electorate sets the agenda for all of us. We see the results even here, within the city of Los Angeles, where the vote of fewer than 150 people lets neighborhood councils claim to be the "voice of the people."
I do not know what the answer is, why voters stay home. I do find it ironic though, that on the day that is dedicated to veterans, I need to write this. When I served in the Army, when I saw my friends die in combat, and when I see our guys serving in Iraq, I hear people say that we are doing it to protect democracy and our right to vote.
Maybe some people need a reminder of what it has cost.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am one of the co-chairs of the Ponte Vista Senior Advisory Committee and that I firmly believe in the project.
- LOUIS DOMINGUEZ
San Pedro
____________________________________________________
I am also a veteran. I have to totally agree with Mr. Dominguez that veterans and all those currently on duty or in reserve do their jobs, at least in part, so we all keep the freedom and opportunity to vote for the candidates of our choice.
I have written about voter apathy in Eastview quite a bit, so I don't need to go that much more into that, except: With so many residents opposed to Bob's plans for Ponte Vista coming out to, at least, sign the R1 petition, I wish they would have taken the opportunity so few folks in the world have, and vote in free elections.
Mr. Dominquez has used the word "thugs" to describe me and folks like me, who have spoken out and demonstrated against Bob's plans. Well then I guess Mr. Dominquez might feel that anyone speaking out or demonstrating against his beliefs, are "thugs".
I guess the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America only applies to what Mr. Dominquez and his like-minded friends think.
And what about compromise? Mr. Dominquez has called for "compromise". What "compromise" have we heard from him, being such a supporter of Bob's plans. Is compromise 1,950-units or 1,750-units, or whatever Bob feels like coming up with? We haven't heard any real statements about any compromise proposals from any supporters of Bob's. I have been waiting to hear from any brave supporter who is willing to buck Bob's plans and suggest, at least to me and others, a compromise proposal.
There was a time that I was dealing with someone who supports a larger development than what I would like. We tried to come up with a compromise, but I think 1,750-units is still too large.
The ONLY reason that some folks like me are still so strongly supportive of keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning, is there is NO REASON to change our views as long as Bob is so headstrong to build the number of units he wants to build, without really working for some kind of compromise.
Mr. Dominquez is also lamenting the fact that only 150 of the eligible stakeholders vote in Neighborhood Council elections. This is also a problem that I hope he is willing to change in the Neighborhood Council area in which he lives. Perhaps he will consider running for a position on their board, next year.
In the interest of full disclosure I must state that I am Mark Wells, a former member of Janice Hahn's CAC and now a member of the R.P.V. Traffic Safety Commission. I did not sign the R1 petition until May 29, 2007, less than six months ago, because I did consider compromise as the best thing. I continue to wish for some senior housing in San Pedro. I am not a thug.
___________________________________________________________
Voter apathy is concern
In regard to the editorial where you state your conclusion that last week's election was somehow a referendum on Ponte Vista, I have a different slant ("Election results yield Ponte Vista concerns," Editorial page, Nov. 9).
Since the turnout on the Hill was around 22 percent and in Lomita about 18 percent, I think it says that 78 percent of the Hill and 82 percent of Lomita could care less about Ponte Vista one way or another. Conversely, you could as easily have said that the higher percentage reflects the amount of support for the project.
In truth, as should be obvious, to draw either conclusion would be stretching the importance of this very poor turnout to extremes.
Actually, I do see a conclusion, one that worries me a lot. I see our country becoming more and more controlled by small groups of people with their own special agendas. They rely on being loud and on demonizing anyone who does not agree with them. Compromise is evil and disagreement with their particular view is a punishable offense.
In a democracy, fringe elements are not a problem since the body politic should work together to find mutually acceptable solutions to problems. But when 80 percent of the people stay home, they are abdicating their responsibility for good government. The result is that a fraction of the electorate sets the agenda for all of us. We see the results even here, within the city of Los Angeles, where the vote of fewer than 150 people lets neighborhood councils claim to be the "voice of the people."
I do not know what the answer is, why voters stay home. I do find it ironic though, that on the day that is dedicated to veterans, I need to write this. When I served in the Army, when I saw my friends die in combat, and when I see our guys serving in Iraq, I hear people say that we are doing it to protect democracy and our right to vote.
Maybe some people need a reminder of what it has cost.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that I am one of the co-chairs of the Ponte Vista Senior Advisory Committee and that I firmly believe in the project.
- LOUIS DOMINGUEZ
San Pedro
____________________________________________________
I am also a veteran. I have to totally agree with Mr. Dominguez that veterans and all those currently on duty or in reserve do their jobs, at least in part, so we all keep the freedom and opportunity to vote for the candidates of our choice.
I have written about voter apathy in Eastview quite a bit, so I don't need to go that much more into that, except: With so many residents opposed to Bob's plans for Ponte Vista coming out to, at least, sign the R1 petition, I wish they would have taken the opportunity so few folks in the world have, and vote in free elections.
Mr. Dominquez has used the word "thugs" to describe me and folks like me, who have spoken out and demonstrated against Bob's plans. Well then I guess Mr. Dominquez might feel that anyone speaking out or demonstrating against his beliefs, are "thugs".
I guess the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America only applies to what Mr. Dominquez and his like-minded friends think.
And what about compromise? Mr. Dominquez has called for "compromise". What "compromise" have we heard from him, being such a supporter of Bob's plans. Is compromise 1,950-units or 1,750-units, or whatever Bob feels like coming up with? We haven't heard any real statements about any compromise proposals from any supporters of Bob's. I have been waiting to hear from any brave supporter who is willing to buck Bob's plans and suggest, at least to me and others, a compromise proposal.
There was a time that I was dealing with someone who supports a larger development than what I would like. We tried to come up with a compromise, but I think 1,750-units is still too large.
The ONLY reason that some folks like me are still so strongly supportive of keeping Ponte Vista with its current zoning, is there is NO REASON to change our views as long as Bob is so headstrong to build the number of units he wants to build, without really working for some kind of compromise.
Mr. Dominquez is also lamenting the fact that only 150 of the eligible stakeholders vote in Neighborhood Council elections. This is also a problem that I hope he is willing to change in the Neighborhood Council area in which he lives. Perhaps he will consider running for a position on their board, next year.
In the interest of full disclosure I must state that I am Mark Wells, a former member of Janice Hahn's CAC and now a member of the R.P.V. Traffic Safety Commission. I did not sign the R1 petition until May 29, 2007, less than six months ago, because I did consider compromise as the best thing. I continue to wish for some senior housing in San Pedro. I am not a thug.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Are housing projects crowding Torrance?
The title of this post is taken directly from the Home Page of Wednesday, November 14 edition of The Daily Breeze. The link to that Home Page is: http://www.dailybreeze.com/index.html
The headline as it appears in the paper is: Jammed in Torrance?
There is a photo showing two condominium buildings under construction. Above the photo is this:
"You've just created a nightmare -and they're still building." -Bill Sutherland, Torrance councilman who was elected last year on a platform of stopping what he perceived as rampant residential construction.
Below the photo, but above the headline is this caption:
The Village on Oak, whose 198 units are still under construction, is part of a trio of Torrance housing developments that packs 376 homes into a little more than 16 acres. "(Initially,) it seemed like a good project," Mayor Frank Scotto said. "The second time around it was obvious it was too large."
______________________________________________
Sometimes if feels to me like gifts to this blog fall from the sky. When this happens, I usually shake my head, smile slyly, and read through whatever is written.
I decided to use 16.3 acres as "little more than 16 acres" and divided that into the 376 homes being constructed. The density I came up with is about 23.06 units per acre. The article uses that approximate density.
The 1,950 units Bob wants to build on his 61.53 gross acres of Ponte Vista come out to be around 31.69186 units per acre. This density is less than his original 2,300-unit density of 37.38- units per acre, but Bob's current proposal would find about 8.63 more units per acre on his one site than the three sites listed in the Daily Breeze article.
The article does deal with traffic at the new developments in Torrance.
____________________________________________
I will not take for granted that sometimes gifts fall from the sky and make this blog easier to write.
There is still such a long way to go and all must not forget that we are fighting a giant weapon of mass development in OUR community.
The headline as it appears in the paper is: Jammed in Torrance?
There is a photo showing two condominium buildings under construction. Above the photo is this:
"You've just created a nightmare -and they're still building." -Bill Sutherland, Torrance councilman who was elected last year on a platform of stopping what he perceived as rampant residential construction.
Below the photo, but above the headline is this caption:
The Village on Oak, whose 198 units are still under construction, is part of a trio of Torrance housing developments that packs 376 homes into a little more than 16 acres. "(Initially,) it seemed like a good project," Mayor Frank Scotto said. "The second time around it was obvious it was too large."
______________________________________________
Sometimes if feels to me like gifts to this blog fall from the sky. When this happens, I usually shake my head, smile slyly, and read through whatever is written.
I decided to use 16.3 acres as "little more than 16 acres" and divided that into the 376 homes being constructed. The density I came up with is about 23.06 units per acre. The article uses that approximate density.
The 1,950 units Bob wants to build on his 61.53 gross acres of Ponte Vista come out to be around 31.69186 units per acre. This density is less than his original 2,300-unit density of 37.38- units per acre, but Bob's current proposal would find about 8.63 more units per acre on his one site than the three sites listed in the Daily Breeze article.
The article does deal with traffic at the new developments in Torrance.
____________________________________________
I will not take for granted that sometimes gifts fall from the sky and make this blog easier to write.
There is still such a long way to go and all must not forget that we are fighting a giant weapon of mass development in OUR community.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
More Information About the New Marshall's
Here is the Email reply I received from Mr. Gregory Pfost, the Deputy Planning Director for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, concerning my questions about when Marshall's might open.
________________________________________________
Mr. Wells-
Thank you for your email. The Planning Division and Building Division have approved of the Tenant Improvements to accommodate the new Marshalls . Prior to issuance of Building Permits to begin work, the contractor must first obtain Fire Department approval. It is my understanding that the contractor is currently working with the Fire Department to obtain that. Once a Building Permit is issued, the contractor may begin work on the renovations. I am not sure how long it will take to complete the renovations. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228
__________________________________________________
I Emailed Mr. Pfost yesterday afternoon, and his reply came back today.
Sometimes when one lives in a City with fewer than 45,000 residents, we get responses back faster and better than in other cities.
Of course, there is still no opening date on this reply, but it is information we can use, anyway.
________________________________________________
Mr. Wells-
Thank you for your email. The Planning Division and Building Division have approved of the Tenant Improvements to accommodate the new Marshalls . Prior to issuance of Building Permits to begin work, the contractor must first obtain Fire Department approval. It is my understanding that the contractor is currently working with the Fire Department to obtain that. Once a Building Permit is issued, the contractor may begin work on the renovations. I am not sure how long it will take to complete the renovations. If you have any additional questions, please contact me.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Gregory Pfost, AICP
Deputy Planning Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228
__________________________________________________
I Emailed Mr. Pfost yesterday afternoon, and his reply came back today.
Sometimes when one lives in a City with fewer than 45,000 residents, we get responses back faster and better than in other cities.
Of course, there is still no opening date on this reply, but it is information we can use, anyway.
Monday, November 12, 2007
More Information About the Chevron Station
I'm trying to catch up on my homework.
By looking at the R.P.V. Planning Commission Agendas for 2007 and 2006, I found this piece of information that was on the agenda for the June 27, 2006 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.
_______________________________________________
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, SIGN PERMIT & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CASE NO. ZON2005-00405): 29421 Western Avenue / Michaelis & Chevron
(ES)
Attachment A: P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2006
Attachment B: Exhibit A - Mitigation Monitoring Program PDF
Attachment C: P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2006
Attachment D:City of Rancho Palos Verdes -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
PDF
Request: A request to convert an existing 2,008 square foot automotive repair building with service bays, into a convenience store that includes a new entry to the building and a tiled pitched mansard roof. Further, the existing 1,820 square foot, 17’-10” high canopy over the gasoline pumps will be removed, and replaced with a 1,924 square foot canopy with a tiled pitched mansard roof measuring 23’-5” in height. The project also includes a new monument sign, and signage on the building and canopy fascia; and upgrades to the lighting, trash enclosure, and parking. Lastly, in conjunction with the convenience store, the project includes the off-site sale of beer and wine, and an automated teller machine (ATM) inside the building.
Action Deadline: November 8, 2006
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2006-__, certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2006-__, conditionally approving Case No. ZON2005-00405 for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Sign Permit and Site Plan Review.
__________________________________________________
This may solve the mystery of what is happening on the corner of Western Avenue and Crestwood Street. It doesn't look like we are going to lose a gasoline station, it looks like we are gaining a store!
I'd like to make a point here that I have been very poor on making; There is a lot of information available when one looks for it, or asks for it.
I have been very remiss in not repeatedly advocating Rancho Palos Verdes residents and others to visit: http://palosverdes.com/rpv/
The City's Web site has quite a bit of very good information that can be accessed on it. It may take a bit of time looking for information, I still haven't found anything about when Marshall's is going to open, but I did find that I was both correct and very incorrect about what is going on behind the green screens.
Whenever I write to any R.P.V. City Council Member, I usually get a fairly fast response. The information I learn might not be what I wanted to read, but the five members of the City Council have responded to me, many times.
Folks do have a somewhat correct impression that R.P.V. leaders and bureaucrats may seem to ignore those of us in the Eastview area. Some of that IS their fault. They represent us, too.
We, living here in the Eastview area need to consider that we still owe allegiance, history, love, family, friends, and just about everything else, in San Pedro. Our hearts may be in good old San Pedro, but to get things done in the City in which WE live in, WE need to have our heads more considering Rancho Palos Verdes.
We need to all come to that fact that we were annexed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. It was actually a fairly slanted election to bring us into R.P.V. We could have become a part of Lomita.
Our "home" may be in San Pedro, but our "house" is in Rancho Palos Verdes, and that does make a difference.
When we need services taken care of, and thoughts about emergency aid, it is Rancho Palos Verdes and the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Sherriff's Department we use.
Please consider bookmarking the Web site for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The more of us who use their services and contact folks in our City, the more we will probably get back from the City.
Our stance on Ponte Vista has sent a very strong signal to everyone, including the good folks in government and bureaucracy in Rancho Palos Verdes. Even though there may be a "lull" in information about Ponte Vista, that is no reason to forget about our City and how the good folks in it can help fight Bob's weapon of mass development.
By looking at the R.P.V. Planning Commission Agendas for 2007 and 2006, I found this piece of information that was on the agenda for the June 27, 2006 Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Commission.
_______________________________________________
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, SIGN PERMIT & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CASE NO. ZON2005-00405): 29421 Western Avenue / Michaelis & Chevron
(ES)
Attachment A: P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2006
Attachment B: Exhibit A - Mitigation Monitoring Program PDF
Attachment C: P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 2006
Attachment D:City of Rancho Palos Verdes -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Request: A request to convert an existing 2,008 square foot automotive repair building with service bays, into a convenience store that includes a new entry to the building and a tiled pitched mansard roof. Further, the existing 1,820 square foot, 17’-10” high canopy over the gasoline pumps will be removed, and replaced with a 1,924 square foot canopy with a tiled pitched mansard roof measuring 23’-5” in height. The project also includes a new monument sign, and signage on the building and canopy fascia; and upgrades to the lighting, trash enclosure, and parking. Lastly, in conjunction with the convenience store, the project includes the off-site sale of beer and wine, and an automated teller machine (ATM) inside the building.
Action Deadline: November 8, 2006
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2006-__, certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and adopt P.C. Resolution No. 2006-__, conditionally approving Case No. ZON2005-00405 for a Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Sign Permit and Site Plan Review.
__________________________________________________
This may solve the mystery of what is happening on the corner of Western Avenue and Crestwood Street. It doesn't look like we are going to lose a gasoline station, it looks like we are gaining a store!
I'd like to make a point here that I have been very poor on making; There is a lot of information available when one looks for it, or asks for it.
I have been very remiss in not repeatedly advocating Rancho Palos Verdes residents and others to visit: http://palosverdes.com/rpv/
The City's Web site has quite a bit of very good information that can be accessed on it. It may take a bit of time looking for information, I still haven't found anything about when Marshall's is going to open, but I did find that I was both correct and very incorrect about what is going on behind the green screens.
Whenever I write to any R.P.V. City Council Member, I usually get a fairly fast response. The information I learn might not be what I wanted to read, but the five members of the City Council have responded to me, many times.
Folks do have a somewhat correct impression that R.P.V. leaders and bureaucrats may seem to ignore those of us in the Eastview area. Some of that IS their fault. They represent us, too.
We, living here in the Eastview area need to consider that we still owe allegiance, history, love, family, friends, and just about everything else, in San Pedro. Our hearts may be in good old San Pedro, but to get things done in the City in which WE live in, WE need to have our heads more considering Rancho Palos Verdes.
We need to all come to that fact that we were annexed by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. It was actually a fairly slanted election to bring us into R.P.V. We could have become a part of Lomita.
Our "home" may be in San Pedro, but our "house" is in Rancho Palos Verdes, and that does make a difference.
When we need services taken care of, and thoughts about emergency aid, it is Rancho Palos Verdes and the Los Angeles County Fire Department and Sherriff's Department we use.
Please consider bookmarking the Web site for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. The more of us who use their services and contact folks in our City, the more we will probably get back from the City.
Our stance on Ponte Vista has sent a very strong signal to everyone, including the good folks in government and bureaucracy in Rancho Palos Verdes. Even though there may be a "lull" in information about Ponte Vista, that is no reason to forget about our City and how the good folks in it can help fight Bob's weapon of mass development.
Letter to the Editor, About the Editorial
This letter to the editor appeared in the Monday November 12 edition of The Daily Breeze, following the editorial I posted in an earlier post.
________________________________________________
RPV endorsement wrong
The Daily Breeze editorial ("Election results yield Ponte Vista concerns," Editorial page, Friday) is but another attempt for the Breeze to cover up its lack of journalistic integrity when it endorsed RPV incumbents Tom Long, Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz, as well as opposing Measure D. In looking at www.pontevista.blogspot.com, it seems remarks are being made by an "M. Richards" with few other comments. Hardly a voice of the community.
Who knows what basis the Breeze used for making its endorsement of Long, Stern and Wolowicz, as it was not facts as the Breeze did not contact Don Reeves prior to its initial endorsement (Megan Bagdonas' biased article was after the fact.)
RPV residents in Eastview are obviously concerned about Ponte Vista and the impact it will have on Western Avenue traffic. However, those knowledgeable seem to recognize that the idea of maintaining an R-1 development is not going to happen. Too much money has been invested as well as the fact that the city of Los Angeles will be making the decision, not RPV. That the three now re-elected RPV councilmen endorsed the Ponte Vista R-1 concept merely solidifies the reality that some will say whatever others might want to hear.
I guess that is politics.
- KEN DELONG
Rancho Palos Verdes
______________________________________________
Thank you Ken Delong for caring enough about the editorial to write your letter to the editor.
It should be noted, that Mr. Delong may not read this blog on a regular basis. That is perfectly alright with me, because I never thought this blog would have ever been identified in an editorial, in the first place.
Of course, had Mr. Delong been a regular reader of this blog, he would know exactly who I really am, and that I did not concede the reality that R1 must remain at Ponte Vista, until last May 29, 2007, less than six months ago.
Mr. Delong may know that I was a member of Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project from its beginning until I accepted a position as a Traffic Safety Commissioner for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is very important to me.
Perhaps Mr. Delong also did not know that this blog has not had "few other comments" as he wrote, but I think if one looks back to September 2006, one would see many, many, many comments form many, many, many individuals, although mostly anonymous.
Could it be that Mr. Delong has not read in this blog all the compromise proposals that I and others have floated in a discussion-type mode?
I have always stated that I am a nobody. I don't really know Mr. Delong and I have no idea of how much of a somebody he feels he is. But it is us "nobodies" who have come together to form groups of caring folks who oppose Bob Bisno's weapons of mass development, as John Stinson coined the saying. It is us nobodies, along with help from Bob Bisno and his supporters who challenged L.A.U.S.D. and make it look very great that no senior high school will be built within the Ponte Vista site.
It is us nobodies who have challenged the bureaucrats and elected officials within the City of Los Angeles to take another look at how traffic is engineered at developments and throughout the City. It is the nobodies who have worked hard to be able to view no building of any new condos on the Ponte Vista site this year, which is not something that Bob Bisno planned on happening.
Ken Delong, I am very proud to be a nobody. There are thousands of us in OUR community fighting and trying to keep the environment we all live in, the best possible.
And about what others may not want to hear, I still wish for some type of Senior Housing at Ponte Vista. I find that defending a developer who speculated on the price of land, getting burned because he gambled, is the wrong feeling for anyone. We should not honor the gambler, who risks our future because of want of profit, we should admonish everyone defending Bob Bisno to understand that Bob is gambling with this land, his finances, and our future.
My opinion is my own. I supported the re-election of the three incumbents in the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council election, but I also voted "YES" on Measure D, to repeal the Storm Drain User Fee. I am an odd duck in many ways and I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with me on anything.
I am glad, though, that at least one letter to the editor appeared. Perhaps there will be more in the very near future.
________________________________________________
RPV endorsement wrong
The Daily Breeze editorial ("Election results yield Ponte Vista concerns," Editorial page, Friday) is but another attempt for the Breeze to cover up its lack of journalistic integrity when it endorsed RPV incumbents Tom Long, Doug Stern and Steve Wolowicz, as well as opposing Measure D. In looking at www.pontevista.blogspot.com, it seems remarks are being made by an "M. Richards" with few other comments. Hardly a voice of the community.
Who knows what basis the Breeze used for making its endorsement of Long, Stern and Wolowicz, as it was not facts as the Breeze did not contact Don Reeves prior to its initial endorsement (Megan Bagdonas' biased article was after the fact.)
RPV residents in Eastview are obviously concerned about Ponte Vista and the impact it will have on Western Avenue traffic. However, those knowledgeable seem to recognize that the idea of maintaining an R-1 development is not going to happen. Too much money has been invested as well as the fact that the city of Los Angeles will be making the decision, not RPV. That the three now re-elected RPV councilmen endorsed the Ponte Vista R-1 concept merely solidifies the reality that some will say whatever others might want to hear.
I guess that is politics.
- KEN DELONG
Rancho Palos Verdes
______________________________________________
Thank you Ken Delong for caring enough about the editorial to write your letter to the editor.
It should be noted, that Mr. Delong may not read this blog on a regular basis. That is perfectly alright with me, because I never thought this blog would have ever been identified in an editorial, in the first place.
Of course, had Mr. Delong been a regular reader of this blog, he would know exactly who I really am, and that I did not concede the reality that R1 must remain at Ponte Vista, until last May 29, 2007, less than six months ago.
Mr. Delong may know that I was a member of Councilwoman Janice Hahn's Community Advisory Committee for the Ponte Vista at San Pedro project from its beginning until I accepted a position as a Traffic Safety Commissioner for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which is very important to me.
Perhaps Mr. Delong also did not know that this blog has not had "few other comments" as he wrote, but I think if one looks back to September 2006, one would see many, many, many comments form many, many, many individuals, although mostly anonymous.
Could it be that Mr. Delong has not read in this blog all the compromise proposals that I and others have floated in a discussion-type mode?
I have always stated that I am a nobody. I don't really know Mr. Delong and I have no idea of how much of a somebody he feels he is. But it is us "nobodies" who have come together to form groups of caring folks who oppose Bob Bisno's weapons of mass development, as John Stinson coined the saying. It is us nobodies, along with help from Bob Bisno and his supporters who challenged L.A.U.S.D. and make it look very great that no senior high school will be built within the Ponte Vista site.
It is us nobodies who have challenged the bureaucrats and elected officials within the City of Los Angeles to take another look at how traffic is engineered at developments and throughout the City. It is the nobodies who have worked hard to be able to view no building of any new condos on the Ponte Vista site this year, which is not something that Bob Bisno planned on happening.
Ken Delong, I am very proud to be a nobody. There are thousands of us in OUR community fighting and trying to keep the environment we all live in, the best possible.
And about what others may not want to hear, I still wish for some type of Senior Housing at Ponte Vista. I find that defending a developer who speculated on the price of land, getting burned because he gambled, is the wrong feeling for anyone. We should not honor the gambler, who risks our future because of want of profit, we should admonish everyone defending Bob Bisno to understand that Bob is gambling with this land, his finances, and our future.
My opinion is my own. I supported the re-election of the three incumbents in the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council election, but I also voted "YES" on Measure D, to repeal the Storm Drain User Fee. I am an odd duck in many ways and I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with me on anything.
I am glad, though, that at least one letter to the editor appeared. Perhaps there will be more in the very near future.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Editorial From the Daily Breeze
Here is an editorial I was surprised and pleased to find in the Friday November 9, 2007 edition of The Daily Breeze.
___________________________________________
Election results yield Ponte Vista concerns
Housing development seemed to weigh on RPV and Lomita voters.
Daily Breeze editorial
Housing development seemed to weigh on RPV and Lomita voters.
In examining the results of Tuesday's local elections, one conclusion seems fairly evident: The proposed 1,950-unit Ponte Vista housing project in San Pedro looms as a potent issue for voters.
One interesting post-election analysis comes from the Web site www.pontevista.blogspot.com. The blog notes that the three winners in the City Council election in Rancho Palos Verdes had unified positions calling for continued R-1 zoning on the site. That zoning designation would likely keep the number of homes built on the site to between 430 and 700.
The three council incumbents - Tom Long, Douglas Stern and Steve Wolowicz - emerged victorious over two challengers, one of whom favored a Ponte Vista compromise that would include both single-family residences and multi-family development.
That's not to say Ponte Vista was the deciding issue in the Rancho Palos Verdes vote, but the development sits on a key Peninsula access route just outside Rancho Palos Verdes. Whatever gets built in that area will certainly have a bearing on traffic in the region.
In addition, Ponte Vista seemed to be on the minds of Lomita voters in their City Council election. Voters ousted incumbent Mark Waronek, who once did consulting work on behalf of Ponte Vista. The negative campaign waged against Waronek seemed to raise enough doubts in people's minds to elect challenger Ken Blackwood.
Like their neighbors in Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita voters may also have worries about the project's potential effects on their city.
The election results follow the release in August of a report by a citizens advisory committee appointed by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn. That panel opposed a 1,950-unit development, and a majority of its members favored R-1 zoning.
Certainly, the election results are not the last word on the Ponte Vista development. And granted, the countywide voter turnout on Tuesday was only 12.3 percent and may not reflect the thinking of all registered voters. (One can estimate the turnout in Rancho Palos Verdes to have been at least 22 percent.) But we suspect the numbers may cause other elected leaders to be circumspect before embracing a future political compromise for development in that area.
Certainly, the election results are not the last word on the Ponte Vista development. And granted, the countywide voter turnout on Tuesday was only 12.3 percent and may not reflect the thinking of all registered voters. (One can estimate the turnout in Rancho Palos Verdes to have been at least 22 percent.) But we suspect the numbers may cause other elected leaders to be circumspect before embracing a future political compromise for development in that area.
_____________________________________________
I wrote a comment on the newspaper's Web site that I think the number of voters in the "Eastview" area was most probably much less than the 22 percent suggested.
In the last R.P.V. City Council election, only 11% of the eligible voters bothered to cast ballots.
I do feel that voters higher on the hill and those in R.P.V. who are concerned about development at Ponte Vista and along Silver Spur Road, in Rolling Hills Estates, may have helped the fight against weapons of mass development.
It can also be suggested that supporters of Bob's current proposals will "poo-poo" the outcome of the elections in R.P.V. and Lomita, but I don't feel they want to realize that supporting such a large development in northwest San Pedro affects too many folks in all of the surrounding communities and San Pedro, and perhaps it is time for them to rethink their support for a project that is simply too large for OUR community.
___________________________________________
Election results yield Ponte Vista concerns
Housing development seemed to weigh on RPV and Lomita voters.
Daily Breeze editorial
Housing development seemed to weigh on RPV and Lomita voters.
In examining the results of Tuesday's local elections, one conclusion seems fairly evident: The proposed 1,950-unit Ponte Vista housing project in San Pedro looms as a potent issue for voters.
One interesting post-election analysis comes from the Web site www.pontevista.blogspot.com. The blog notes that the three winners in the City Council election in Rancho Palos Verdes had unified positions calling for continued R-1 zoning on the site. That zoning designation would likely keep the number of homes built on the site to between 430 and 700.
The three council incumbents - Tom Long, Douglas Stern and Steve Wolowicz - emerged victorious over two challengers, one of whom favored a Ponte Vista compromise that would include both single-family residences and multi-family development.
That's not to say Ponte Vista was the deciding issue in the Rancho Palos Verdes vote, but the development sits on a key Peninsula access route just outside Rancho Palos Verdes. Whatever gets built in that area will certainly have a bearing on traffic in the region.
In addition, Ponte Vista seemed to be on the minds of Lomita voters in their City Council election. Voters ousted incumbent Mark Waronek, who once did consulting work on behalf of Ponte Vista. The negative campaign waged against Waronek seemed to raise enough doubts in people's minds to elect challenger Ken Blackwood.
Like their neighbors in Rancho Palos Verdes, Lomita voters may also have worries about the project's potential effects on their city.
The election results follow the release in August of a report by a citizens advisory committee appointed by Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn. That panel opposed a 1,950-unit development, and a majority of its members favored R-1 zoning.
Certainly, the election results are not the last word on the Ponte Vista development. And granted, the countywide voter turnout on Tuesday was only 12.3 percent and may not reflect the thinking of all registered voters. (One can estimate the turnout in Rancho Palos Verdes to have been at least 22 percent.) But we suspect the numbers may cause other elected leaders to be circumspect before embracing a future political compromise for development in that area.
Certainly, the election results are not the last word on the Ponte Vista development. And granted, the countywide voter turnout on Tuesday was only 12.3 percent and may not reflect the thinking of all registered voters. (One can estimate the turnout in Rancho Palos Verdes to have been at least 22 percent.) But we suspect the numbers may cause other elected leaders to be circumspect before embracing a future political compromise for development in that area.
_____________________________________________
I wrote a comment on the newspaper's Web site that I think the number of voters in the "Eastview" area was most probably much less than the 22 percent suggested.
In the last R.P.V. City Council election, only 11% of the eligible voters bothered to cast ballots.
I do feel that voters higher on the hill and those in R.P.V. who are concerned about development at Ponte Vista and along Silver Spur Road, in Rolling Hills Estates, may have helped the fight against weapons of mass development.
It can also be suggested that supporters of Bob's current proposals will "poo-poo" the outcome of the elections in R.P.V. and Lomita, but I don't feel they want to realize that supporting such a large development in northwest San Pedro affects too many folks in all of the surrounding communities and San Pedro, and perhaps it is time for them to rethink their support for a project that is simply too large for OUR community.
Odds and Ends 38
We will probably see at least several letters to the editor in The Daily Breeze concerning the editorial in Friday's edition.
It really doesn't matter what "they" say, it is the actions that have been going on, and will continue to go on, in opposition to any proposal to build 1,950 condominium units in northwest San Pedro, by anybody.
_________________________________________________
Has anyone driven by the Ponte Vista site and seen groups of individuals holding signs stating they want "affordable" housing or they want "Senior" housing? I am sure that there are enough members of the various advisory groups supporting Bob who could bring out followers. Why haven't we seen folks marching in support of Bob's weapon of mass development?
__________________________________________________
Bob is probably not that different from other developers who strongly believed that they could buy property zoned one way and get the decision-makers of the City of Los Angeles to change the zoning to what he wants. But times have changed, the building environment is different right now, who wants to take a risk on Ponte Vista at this time?
__________________________________________________
Several Saturdays ago, I sat in my wheelchair and I bet over 100 drivers honked at me. There I was, on the corner of Western Avenue and S. John Montgomery Drive and so many people honked and waved and held their thumbs up.
Thank you to all of those fine drivers and their passengers who honked, shouted, gave the thumbs up sign.
All I was doing was sitting, waving, smiling, and holding an R1 sign. It was a wonderful hour to spend doing what I could.
_________________________________________________
I would like everyone to continue to visit, bookmark, and talk about www.rneighborhoodsare1.org, the real R1 Web site that provides information, resources, and asks for contributions. I don't run that site, but I know who does and they are doing a great service to OUR community.
I also want everyone to visit "life on the edge" at www.laharbor.blogspot.com. There are several talented writers on that blog who discuss much more than just Ponte Vista. They do, of course, have the correct attitude about Bob's blight.
_________________________________________________
Still waiting........
It still appears that the Planning Department is still waiting for documents from Bob and his organization.
I haven't found out the opening date of the new Marshall's on the top level of The Terraces. There is a decent sized parking lot on the north side of the shopping site, so I don't think there will be that much of a parking problem. There is also space behind the businesses on the top level for parking.
The old Chevron Station at Crestwood and Western is gone. I think I wrote about the convenience store that will replace it, some time ago.
It looks like we all will be waiting for gas now that there is one less filling station on Western Avenue. The closest gasoline filling station south of the Ponte Vista site, on Western Avenue, is the Shell Station on Western Avenue at Park Western. The next filling station south on Western, is the Mobil Station on 25Th. and Western.
There is an ARCO at Weymouth and 7Th, a Chevron and ARCO on Gaffey at Channel, but the pickins are getting slimmer in the San Pedro area for buying gasoline.
The closest filling station north of Ponte Vista along Western is at Western and P.C.H.. There is a filling station on Palos Verdes Drive North that is the closest filling station to Ponte Vista, but getting to it and from it, can be a nightmare.
I don't mind waiting for Bob to produce the necessary documents. The longer he takes, the closer the opening of Marshall's and the increased number of cars on Western to gum up his traffic counts.
_________________________________________________
It really doesn't matter what "they" say, it is the actions that have been going on, and will continue to go on, in opposition to any proposal to build 1,950 condominium units in northwest San Pedro, by anybody.
_________________________________________________
Has anyone driven by the Ponte Vista site and seen groups of individuals holding signs stating they want "affordable" housing or they want "Senior" housing? I am sure that there are enough members of the various advisory groups supporting Bob who could bring out followers. Why haven't we seen folks marching in support of Bob's weapon of mass development?
__________________________________________________
Bob is probably not that different from other developers who strongly believed that they could buy property zoned one way and get the decision-makers of the City of Los Angeles to change the zoning to what he wants. But times have changed, the building environment is different right now, who wants to take a risk on Ponte Vista at this time?
__________________________________________________
Several Saturdays ago, I sat in my wheelchair and I bet over 100 drivers honked at me. There I was, on the corner of Western Avenue and S. John Montgomery Drive and so many people honked and waved and held their thumbs up.
Thank you to all of those fine drivers and their passengers who honked, shouted, gave the thumbs up sign.
All I was doing was sitting, waving, smiling, and holding an R1 sign. It was a wonderful hour to spend doing what I could.
_________________________________________________
I would like everyone to continue to visit, bookmark, and talk about www.rneighborhoodsare1.org, the real R1 Web site that provides information, resources, and asks for contributions. I don't run that site, but I know who does and they are doing a great service to OUR community.
I also want everyone to visit "life on the edge" at www.laharbor.blogspot.com. There are several talented writers on that blog who discuss much more than just Ponte Vista. They do, of course, have the correct attitude about Bob's blight.
_________________________________________________
Still waiting........
It still appears that the Planning Department is still waiting for documents from Bob and his organization.
I haven't found out the opening date of the new Marshall's on the top level of The Terraces. There is a decent sized parking lot on the north side of the shopping site, so I don't think there will be that much of a parking problem. There is also space behind the businesses on the top level for parking.
The old Chevron Station at Crestwood and Western is gone. I think I wrote about the convenience store that will replace it, some time ago.
It looks like we all will be waiting for gas now that there is one less filling station on Western Avenue. The closest gasoline filling station south of the Ponte Vista site, on Western Avenue, is the Shell Station on Western Avenue at Park Western. The next filling station south on Western, is the Mobil Station on 25Th. and Western.
There is an ARCO at Weymouth and 7Th, a Chevron and ARCO on Gaffey at Channel, but the pickins are getting slimmer in the San Pedro area for buying gasoline.
The closest filling station north of Ponte Vista along Western is at Western and P.C.H.. There is a filling station on Palos Verdes Drive North that is the closest filling station to Ponte Vista, but getting to it and from it, can be a nightmare.
I don't mind waiting for Bob to produce the necessary documents. The longer he takes, the closer the opening of Marshall's and the increased number of cars on Western to gum up his traffic counts.
_________________________________________________
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
OUR Community, Coming Together and Creating Positive Results
The results are in and OUR community has come together to demonstrate that folks in neighborhoods can work together and bring real results to OUR community.
In Rancho Palos Verdes, the three incumbents, Tom Long, Steve Wolowicz, and Doug Stern were re-elected. These three Council members, along with the two other City Council members, Mr. Larry Clark and Dr. Peter Gardiner, all have stated that they support keeping the current zoning at Ponte Vista.
In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council election, Mr. Don Reeves, the candidate who favored the minority report from the CAC, came in fifth place out of five candidates.
The great neighbors in Lomita have turned out Mark Waronek, the current Mayor, who also worked as a lobbyist for and supported Bob Bisno and his Ponte Vista at San Pedro project.
Whether a mandate has been made demanding that Bob lowers his number of units and tries to compromise, is not something I can state for a fact.
But what we can feel is that more neighbors and neighborhoods are opposed to 1,950 units at Ponte Vista and everyone looking at Ponte Vista should probably take a good look at the results of the elections and see what the electorate wants.
Was this a referendum on Ponte Vista? PERHAPS! The supporter and former lobbyist for Ponte Vista garnered only about half of the votes the top vote getter in the Lomita election received. Mark Waronek received 15% fewer votes than the second place vote getter.
In an earlier vote, the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council's Board of Directors was reorganized by a vote of the stakeholders and the new body is much less supportive of Bob's efforts. Their is now no specific endorsement of Bob's current Ponte Vista plans from that group and the language of the resolution they passed reflects that.
So it seems to me and many others, the results of the three Neighborhood Council elections in San Pedro, the City Council election for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the ouster of Mark Waronek by the great voters of Lomita, mean that we have come together, we are creating positive results, and we certainly will fight weapons of mass development such as what Bob is trying to shove at us.
Neighbors coming together and creating positive results: Five times it has been tried, five times it has been successful.
It appears we are vigilant in our vision to protect OUR community and have demonstrated our will with effort and works. We will continue our efforts, and our works, and our vigilance against those who attempt to harm us.
In Rancho Palos Verdes, the three incumbents, Tom Long, Steve Wolowicz, and Doug Stern were re-elected. These three Council members, along with the two other City Council members, Mr. Larry Clark and Dr. Peter Gardiner, all have stated that they support keeping the current zoning at Ponte Vista.
In the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council election, Mr. Don Reeves, the candidate who favored the minority report from the CAC, came in fifth place out of five candidates.
The great neighbors in Lomita have turned out Mark Waronek, the current Mayor, who also worked as a lobbyist for and supported Bob Bisno and his Ponte Vista at San Pedro project.
Whether a mandate has been made demanding that Bob lowers his number of units and tries to compromise, is not something I can state for a fact.
But what we can feel is that more neighbors and neighborhoods are opposed to 1,950 units at Ponte Vista and everyone looking at Ponte Vista should probably take a good look at the results of the elections and see what the electorate wants.
Was this a referendum on Ponte Vista? PERHAPS! The supporter and former lobbyist for Ponte Vista garnered only about half of the votes the top vote getter in the Lomita election received. Mark Waronek received 15% fewer votes than the second place vote getter.
In an earlier vote, the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council's Board of Directors was reorganized by a vote of the stakeholders and the new body is much less supportive of Bob's efforts. Their is now no specific endorsement of Bob's current Ponte Vista plans from that group and the language of the resolution they passed reflects that.
So it seems to me and many others, the results of the three Neighborhood Council elections in San Pedro, the City Council election for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, and the ouster of Mark Waronek by the great voters of Lomita, mean that we have come together, we are creating positive results, and we certainly will fight weapons of mass development such as what Bob is trying to shove at us.
Neighbors coming together and creating positive results: Five times it has been tried, five times it has been successful.
It appears we are vigilant in our vision to protect OUR community and have demonstrated our will with effort and works. We will continue our efforts, and our works, and our vigilance against those who attempt to harm us.
Buh-Bye Mark
Mark Waronek, the current Mayor/councilman of Lomita was ousted from office on November 6 by the very fine folks of Lomita, California.
Neighbors helping neighbors in OUR community demonstrated their lack of trust of a Bob Bisno/Ponte Vista supporter who also worked as a lobbyist for Bob, by not just throwing him out of office, but kicking him out by a large margin over the highest vote-getter.
Mr. Sominaga received approximately 42% of the votes cast,
Mr. Blackwood received approximately 36% of the votes cast,
and Mark got about 21% of the votes cast.
Mark was praised by many Lomitans for the Centennial celebration he worked so hard on.
Mark outspent both of his competitors with slick advertising and mailings.
Was this election a repudiation of Bob and his efforts to bring a weapon of mass development to OUR community and so close to the boundaries of Lomita? Perhaps the folks at R Neighborhoods Are 1 can claim, rightly so, that sending Mark packing, with such a dismal show of support, demonstrates to just about everyone watching that, if you support Ponte Vista, you need to watch out for your future, as far as politics go.
I hope folks see that our good friends in Lomita have used a giant marker and written quite a message on the wall: It may be time for supporters of Bob Bisno's current plans for Ponte Vista to rethink their support and begin thinking about real compromise and working WITH the community, instead of against it.
There are plenty of supporters who have called for compromises which are reasonable and could stand the light of discussion. But Bob and his gang continue to ignore even many of his own supporters, while attempting to get as much profit out of the land as he can.
Many of Bob's supporters are seniors who, like me, wish for some senior housing at Ponte Vista. The more Bob is steadfast with his current proposals, the less likely there will be enough senior housing, if any, at the site.
This election is another signal that it is time, once again, for supporters and opponents of Bob's plans to try and discuss compromises that will benefit OUR community over Bob's profits and outlandish attempts to bring too large of a development to OUR community.
Neighbors helping neighbors in OUR community demonstrated their lack of trust of a Bob Bisno/Ponte Vista supporter who also worked as a lobbyist for Bob, by not just throwing him out of office, but kicking him out by a large margin over the highest vote-getter.
Mr. Sominaga received approximately 42% of the votes cast,
Mr. Blackwood received approximately 36% of the votes cast,
and Mark got about 21% of the votes cast.
Mark was praised by many Lomitans for the Centennial celebration he worked so hard on.
Mark outspent both of his competitors with slick advertising and mailings.
Was this election a repudiation of Bob and his efforts to bring a weapon of mass development to OUR community and so close to the boundaries of Lomita? Perhaps the folks at R Neighborhoods Are 1 can claim, rightly so, that sending Mark packing, with such a dismal show of support, demonstrates to just about everyone watching that, if you support Ponte Vista, you need to watch out for your future, as far as politics go.
I hope folks see that our good friends in Lomita have used a giant marker and written quite a message on the wall: It may be time for supporters of Bob Bisno's current plans for Ponte Vista to rethink their support and begin thinking about real compromise and working WITH the community, instead of against it.
There are plenty of supporters who have called for compromises which are reasonable and could stand the light of discussion. But Bob and his gang continue to ignore even many of his own supporters, while attempting to get as much profit out of the land as he can.
Many of Bob's supporters are seniors who, like me, wish for some senior housing at Ponte Vista. The more Bob is steadfast with his current proposals, the less likely there will be enough senior housing, if any, at the site.
This election is another signal that it is time, once again, for supporters and opponents of Bob's plans to try and discuss compromises that will benefit OUR community over Bob's profits and outlandish attempts to bring too large of a development to OUR community.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Election Update...11:40 PM
The results appear to be in for the City Council race for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Steve Wolowicz....3,757 votes
Tom Long.............3,272 votes
Doug Stern...........2,826 Votes
Paul Wright..........2,745 votes
Don Reeves..........2,476 votes
These results were from the County of L.A. site and reflect 100% of 14 precincts, with an available electorate of 25,832 potential voters.
Voters were to vote for up to three candidates, so this means the turnout seemed to be mighty low again.
As far as Measure C goes, 55% of the votes indicate that there will be a citizen advisory board appointed to oversee the continuing Storm Drain repairs.
Measure D, which would have repealed the Storm Drain User Fee, went down to defeat by the same 55%/44% margin.
What is good about tonight's elections is that the three incumbents who have been re-elected stand firm in supporting R1 at Ponte Vista. I hope more residents learn this fact and appreciate our City Council Members, all five of them, who continue to call for keeping the current zoning at Ponte Vista.
I wish I could report more accurate news about the Lomita City Council Election, but the semi-final results that I can find are only from 8:36 PM, tonight.
HOWEVER, if what we see at 8:36 holds true, the Mr. Mark Waronek will be LEAVING the City Council!!!!!!!
As of 8:36 the results were:
Ken Blackwood..............1060 votes
Don Suminaga................1235 votes
Mark Waronek.................624 votes.
We need to keep our fingers crossed here and hope that we find that Lomitans really care for R Neighborhoods Are 1, and have demonstrated that to the rest of OUR community by throwing out not only a strong Bisno supporter, but one who worked for Bob in the past.
It is a good night to go to sleep happy for what may be found to be true in the morning.
Steve Wolowicz....3,757 votes
Tom Long.............3,272 votes
Doug Stern...........2,826 Votes
Paul Wright..........2,745 votes
Don Reeves..........2,476 votes
These results were from the County of L.A. site and reflect 100% of 14 precincts, with an available electorate of 25,832 potential voters.
Voters were to vote for up to three candidates, so this means the turnout seemed to be mighty low again.
As far as Measure C goes, 55% of the votes indicate that there will be a citizen advisory board appointed to oversee the continuing Storm Drain repairs.
Measure D, which would have repealed the Storm Drain User Fee, went down to defeat by the same 55%/44% margin.
What is good about tonight's elections is that the three incumbents who have been re-elected stand firm in supporting R1 at Ponte Vista. I hope more residents learn this fact and appreciate our City Council Members, all five of them, who continue to call for keeping the current zoning at Ponte Vista.
I wish I could report more accurate news about the Lomita City Council Election, but the semi-final results that I can find are only from 8:36 PM, tonight.
HOWEVER, if what we see at 8:36 holds true, the Mr. Mark Waronek will be LEAVING the City Council!!!!!!!
As of 8:36 the results were:
Ken Blackwood..............1060 votes
Don Suminaga................1235 votes
Mark Waronek.................624 votes.
We need to keep our fingers crossed here and hope that we find that Lomitans really care for R Neighborhoods Are 1, and have demonstrated that to the rest of OUR community by throwing out not only a strong Bisno supporter, but one who worked for Bob in the past.
It is a good night to go to sleep happy for what may be found to be true in the morning.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Odds and Ends 37
There have been a few individuals who have commented on this blog about the recent telephone Survey that was conducted or is still being conducted for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.
One comment on another post stated that the commenter's 83-year father was interviewed and he gave responses that the folks at Ponte Vista will not like to read. The dad has lived in San Pedro for 83 years and knows quite a bit about the history of San Pedro and the developments that have gone on over the years.
The father was living in San Pedro when the massive Channel Heights housing development was built, so this gentleman has seen development in our area.
Another person who gave comments seemed to suggest that they had to "worm" the words Ponte Vista out of the interviewer. This was in connection to being asked about whether they thought a 6-acre public park would be a benefit to the community. When the interviewee asked the interviewer whether they were talking about a 6-acre park at "Ponte Vista" those were the first time they were used in the survey.
____________________________________________
Elections in two cities bordering Ponte Vista are this coming Tuesday November 6, 2007.
In Lomita, Mr. Suminiga and Mr. Blackwood should be elected to the two available seats and Mark Waronek should be voted off of the Council so he can do more of what he seems to love to do: lobby for developers and special interest groups.
In Rancho Palos Verdes, I hope the three incumbents are returned to another term of office. I am looking for Paul Wright to run again when Peter Gardiner's seat comes up for election, then I feel he should take over that seat.
For Mr. Don Reeves, who believes the minority report of the CAC should be used to build a mix of housing at Ponte Vista, including multi-family buildings, we should thank him for his interest in running for office, thank him so much for putting the repeal of the Storm Drain User Fees on the ballot, and let him consider running again in the next election.
_____________________________________________________
When a publication does something correct, in my opinion, I think they deserve a note. There is one daily newspaper that continues to carry stories about a certain celebrity who seems to rarely wear underwear and has some trouble dealing with being a mother, and a sober one at that.
There is a bi-weekly publication that doesn't carry any items concerning Britney and I must commend them for that. There are things we really don't need to read about in this active and troubling world, and Ms. Spears is one of them.
_____________________________________________________
Someone noted in a comment about the whited blotches of paint that have appeared in a few areas within the fences of Ponte Vista. I don't know why the white paint was painted on the wooden fences, houses, and poles, but I do know that if the poles are owned by the Department of Water and Power, then painting them is at least an infraction. Damaging, defacing, vandalizing, or attaching anything not approved of by the owners of the poles is illegal.
It could very well be that someone or some people are deliberately attempting to deface the property.
However, if it can be proved that whoever used the white paint to cover graffiti did so to cover something that is also against building codes for allowing abandoned structures to be covered with graffiti in the first place.
______________________________________________________
I'm still slugging through the Marymount Expansion DEIR. I will be focusing specifically on what new traffic or what new traffic patterns may emerge by any work or changes at the Palos Verdes North resident housing on Palos Verdes Drive North.
Again, there will be a hearing by the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission on December 10, 2007 at Hesse Park on Hawthorne Blvd., where anyone may come and give comment about the DEIR.
I bet there will be lots of folks who live closer to the main campus that will probably object to the additional on-campus residential housing that is planned. None of us need to have young college students driving at all hours up and down P.V. Drive East, especially in the fog.
The new residential halls are being purposed to allow for the sale of the off-campus housing at 24Th. Street and Cabrillo Avenue, in San Pedro.
__________________________________________________
One comment on another post stated that the commenter's 83-year father was interviewed and he gave responses that the folks at Ponte Vista will not like to read. The dad has lived in San Pedro for 83 years and knows quite a bit about the history of San Pedro and the developments that have gone on over the years.
The father was living in San Pedro when the massive Channel Heights housing development was built, so this gentleman has seen development in our area.
Another person who gave comments seemed to suggest that they had to "worm" the words Ponte Vista out of the interviewer. This was in connection to being asked about whether they thought a 6-acre public park would be a benefit to the community. When the interviewee asked the interviewer whether they were talking about a 6-acre park at "Ponte Vista" those were the first time they were used in the survey.
____________________________________________
Elections in two cities bordering Ponte Vista are this coming Tuesday November 6, 2007.
In Lomita, Mr. Suminiga and Mr. Blackwood should be elected to the two available seats and Mark Waronek should be voted off of the Council so he can do more of what he seems to love to do: lobby for developers and special interest groups.
In Rancho Palos Verdes, I hope the three incumbents are returned to another term of office. I am looking for Paul Wright to run again when Peter Gardiner's seat comes up for election, then I feel he should take over that seat.
For Mr. Don Reeves, who believes the minority report of the CAC should be used to build a mix of housing at Ponte Vista, including multi-family buildings, we should thank him for his interest in running for office, thank him so much for putting the repeal of the Storm Drain User Fees on the ballot, and let him consider running again in the next election.
_____________________________________________________
When a publication does something correct, in my opinion, I think they deserve a note. There is one daily newspaper that continues to carry stories about a certain celebrity who seems to rarely wear underwear and has some trouble dealing with being a mother, and a sober one at that.
There is a bi-weekly publication that doesn't carry any items concerning Britney and I must commend them for that. There are things we really don't need to read about in this active and troubling world, and Ms. Spears is one of them.
_____________________________________________________
Someone noted in a comment about the whited blotches of paint that have appeared in a few areas within the fences of Ponte Vista. I don't know why the white paint was painted on the wooden fences, houses, and poles, but I do know that if the poles are owned by the Department of Water and Power, then painting them is at least an infraction. Damaging, defacing, vandalizing, or attaching anything not approved of by the owners of the poles is illegal.
It could very well be that someone or some people are deliberately attempting to deface the property.
However, if it can be proved that whoever used the white paint to cover graffiti did so to cover something that is also against building codes for allowing abandoned structures to be covered with graffiti in the first place.
______________________________________________________
I'm still slugging through the Marymount Expansion DEIR. I will be focusing specifically on what new traffic or what new traffic patterns may emerge by any work or changes at the Palos Verdes North resident housing on Palos Verdes Drive North.
Again, there will be a hearing by the Rancho Palos Verdes Traffic Safety Commission on December 10, 2007 at Hesse Park on Hawthorne Blvd., where anyone may come and give comment about the DEIR.
I bet there will be lots of folks who live closer to the main campus that will probably object to the additional on-campus residential housing that is planned. None of us need to have young college students driving at all hours up and down P.V. Drive East, especially in the fog.
The new residential halls are being purposed to allow for the sale of the off-campus housing at 24Th. Street and Cabrillo Avenue, in San Pedro.
__________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)