Great! down to nut-and bolts!
Mark,
What is escaping everyone is that the document is DRAFT. This means it contains elements which are tentative, and some outright errors. I have never taken the position the DEIR is the Bible. It is merely a starting point. The final EIR will have to go into much more detail.
I thought I addressed the part the Planning Department and the Planning Committe of the City Council will play in the process. Could you be a little more specific in your question?
Two meetings ago, when the CAC added June 19 to their calender, it was said one of the reasons was Bisno was going to be leaving on vacation.
If the traffic can be mitigated, why should we not give young people a chance to buy in San Pedro?
Even though Bisno told you what he thought what the bedrooms would be, until it's in writing, it's all speculation. There are many steps before there is a final Specific paln ready to submit to the City Council for a vote.
Kara McLeod,
I agree with you 100%. There is no real way to determine what the units will be sold for. My experience is that new construction tends to sell at somewhat of a discount to existing home sales. I could be very wrong. Luckily the Planning Department, and the City Council Planning Committee have a great deal of flexibility and influence over what gets put into the final Specific Plan and EIR.
Bisno has said he would welcome a 500-seat academy on the property, so your statement that he is against any school is a little off-base. Having a 500-seat academy would go a long way in resolving this issue.
Water use, electrical grid impact and emergency service have all been signed off by the relevant agencies. Sewers on the property itself will have to be re-done. DWP (or is it Sanitation?) has more than adequate capacity, once the pipelines from the project get to the City main sewer line.
Bisno has indicated he would be willing to take a look at compromising regarding the gating of the non-age restricted housing. But, he feels seniors want the safety of a gated enclave. I don't really thing calling it a "senior ghetto" is fair, but you have the right to your opinion. Basically, everything is market driven. If enough people do not want gating on the senior portion, they simply will not purchase. Bisno will be forced to change the plan.
I still feel new-construction is more attractive and a better value for your dollar. I believe buyers feel this also. We can only wait to see what comes out in the Final EIR and see if what is proposed is feasible.
Thank you for your input.
Tom Field
1 comment:
Howdy Tom,
If we can all agree that the Draft is just that, then that leaves open many questions to the "facts" both of us have used, I feel.
It means the 9,212 number in the Draft may not be the final, even with LADOT's current approval, but with Mr. Kim's opinion.
You are most correct that the draft is a draft when projected population is concerned. While both of us know the footnotes in the Initial Study and the number placed in the draft, we could even find a different population count in the final report.
Even though I know about the footnote, losing 3,030 projected residents is a really big number and when we know Bob's estimation of the number of bedrooms projected to be at Ponte Vista, the projected population of only 4,313 seems to me to indicate there will be a whole lot of pillows, every single night, that won't have any heads placed on them.
And yes, I do admit that the number of bedrooms is speculation, I think, coming from the developer himself, makes that speculation more worthy of comment than let's say anyone else on the planet.
I was under the impression that members of the L.A. Planning Commishion got to take a crack at making a finding as to whether they feel a project should be approved or not. Perhaps I was wrong about how projects flow from one agency to another. I have the impression that once the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is released and a period of comment of that document is completed, the Planning Department forwards its recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission holds hearings and whether they give their approval of the project or not, it moves to the City Council. The C.C. can kick the project back to the Planning Commission or the Planning Department before any final ordinance is drawn up and voted on.
Tom, please straighten me out if I am confused with this process. If a former member of the CAC is confused, just think about the folks who have strong opinions one way or another, but don't have the information, correct or not, about the process.
I hope everyone takes issue with any attempts by any committee, commission, council, group, forum, of anything else that attempts to rush the processes and this project along. I know many people might think that the community has been discussing this for what seems like an eternity, but no matter what is built on the site, everyone will have to live with the whatever is built for years, generations, and perhaps into the next century. Rushing, at this point, to help all of us get through this process, won't do any of us any good and just think what future residents of this area will think if a project is rushed to completion to satisfy our own personal feelings.
It seems to me that if the CAC chooses to stay together because it needs to be the one community based inquiry and debate process open to everyone, then nobody should pressure them in their inquisition and deliberations. If, on the other hand, members of the CAC take Ms. Hahn's latest opinion seriously, I don't see a reason they cannot vote to accept Ms. Hahn's statement as fact, use it to recommend using Ms. Hahn's statement as the basis for their recommendation, vote on it, and be completely done on May 22.
If a person I am tasked making recommendations for makes her own opinion known, and I happen to agree with that opinion, why should I continue to make recommendations that the person might not consider or even adopt, in the future?
Ms. Hahn has told us what her current opinion is. I know there are folks on the CAC that lean towards her current opinion. It is conceivable that at least some of those folks might do what I wrote I would have done, had I remained on the CAC. At the next meeting of the CAC, I would have stated that I wish there could be some type of Senior Housing section, but given the fact that the person I was tasked with making recommendations for has stated, many months after the CAC process began, and all of us had the opportunity to investigate the project as much as we had, I would have found it unnecessary for me to continue on the CAC. I feel if Janice meant what she stated, I'd need to put my wishes back into may pocket and called for the vote on whether the CAC recommendation was to agree with Ms. Hahn's statement, or try to continue with a process that, as of now and in my opinion, is moot.
This does not mean that I am considering this position as rushing to anywhere. I simply think if the person who the CAC is attempting to make recommendations to has stated what she has stated almost one year after the idea of the formation of the CAC was discussed, I wonder why the CAC process should continue.
Perhaps it would be beneficial to folks who favor a larger sized development than I do, would want the CAC process to continue in order to attempt to get the CAC to make recommendations more favorable to their feelings. But even then, I don't think there should be any rush to get things wrapped up by and certain date.
If recommendations are still to be made to a person who seems to have already made up their mind, I would think those recommendations would need to be thoroughly studied and made in a strong attempt to get that person to alter their position.
I've written too much in this comment. I seem to do that on my blog.
Tom, if you want to copy-paste your posts and my post of the possible number of bedrooms at Ponte Vista, according to Bob, please feel free to do so.
MW
Post a Comment