When children misbehave

Unfortunately, I must enable full moderation again. The little R-1 trolls will not leave this blog in peace.

There are other places dedicated to R-1 and for those who want to read them, and whip themselves into a frenzy over it.

They have the wrong place when they come here to spew their bile. They refuse my repeated requests to keep comments on-topic and continuously try to take us off on to meaningless tangents.

Now it ends mon amis. No more running in, anonymously spraying your graffiti on this blog, then running out.

Serious comments will be posted. Those merely intending to raise trouble will never see the light of day. At least not here.

Good night all.

Give That Lady A Cupie Doll!!

Finally someone who can focus on the important issues. (hint: like Kara said, "...not just Ponte Vista but all of them...")

First of all, thank you for opening my eyes to the entire LEEDs thing. It is much more complicated than I thought at first glance. Of course you are dead-on right in that these incentives are merely incentives. The good thing about this is that they are being encouraged to do something real, versus the smoke-and-mirrors of 1970s developments with just played with "historical" benefits and other such intangibles. It was such an obvious ploy that Congress could not ignore it and in 1986 enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which killed most of the "make-believe" developments.

In contrast, a LEED certification provides a tangible benefit for our local community. Is there anyone who would argue that a reduced need to buy electricity from DWP is NOT a good thing? Or who would argue that re-cycling old building materials doesn't reduce our dependence on landfills by using the material in new and better ways?

It's going to be tough to get around the core of what developers are about. It would be akin to going to a used-car salesman and expecting him to sell you a car which really meets your needs; at a fair price; and dropping the "Have I got a car for you..." line. Probably not going to happen in my lifetime. But many times, just knowing a person's motivation can help you maximize what you can get out of the deal.

What I find intriguing about this situation, is not so much the projects we have heard about, but rather the ones we haven't. As Kara stated, this is going on all over town. But the demographics of the potential owner of a unit in the VUE is different from someone who might buy at the Bank Lofts, or someone looking at Seaport Village. Yet the LEED certification could be used for all of them. Why hasn't it? One step further, is this certification available for non-profits? Specifically I'm interested in the huge expansion Kaiser is going through in their Harbor City facility. They are a non-profit so they don't pay taxes. But couldn't rebates and bonuses be used to reduce their operating cost? And then pass that downstream to reduce patient premiums?

In any event, yes, the developer would make a profit. But we would wind up with something more ecologically-friendly. After all, I take my car down to the carwash and pay them to make it look better. Wouldn't (shouldn't) I be willing to pay someone to give me a building which was more ecologically friendly?

Thoughts?

My take on the new proposal

Please excuse the length of time this post has taken. I've tried my best to step back, look at the situation objectively and get past the strong reactions the presentation engendered. Still, I could not jump right in and evaluate the entire new proposal. What I'm going to do is start in slowly with some points brought up during the meeting and work up to how the new proposal from Bisno effects the ideas I presented back in March.

I ask your patience and forbearance because there were several things said during the meeting, and afterwards, which are difficult and commenting on them is just about impossible to do without some of it sounding a bit aggressive. While I make comments about certain people, I want everyone to understand they are not personal attacks. I must, however, comment on their stated positions since they are part-and-parcel of the CAC process.

This will also be a longer post than I normally like to do. My apologies in advance.

• I need to start with Pat Nave. Mr. Nave is an intelligent man and in certain areas, he has my respect. However, Mr. Nave is an R-1 zealot and it is my belief that, in addition, he has an extreme personal dislike for Bisno. I am not defending Bisno. He is a developer and, by nature, aggressive and abrasive. Sometimes he is not a very likable fellow. However, Pat has allowed these things to cloud his intellect and judgment.

While every other critic of traffic numbers I've heard says that Bisno and LA DOT are using the wrong ITE numbers, Pat says the ITE tables are completely invalid and should be ignored. Jerry Gaines is wrong. Mr. Kim from the LA DOT is wrong. Gordon Teuber is wrong, etc., etc.. Everyone is wrong. This is arrogance taken to its limit.

The ITE tables are accurate and reliable because of the size of their database. Anyone who understands anything about statistics knows that the larger the database, the more reliable the numbers. Mr. Nave's position is completely at odds with every professional in the field, while he IS NOT a trained or certified traffic engineer.

I know Mr. Nave is a retired Port of Los Angeles attorney. This is another reason I fault his reasoning. During Pat Nave's tenure, the Port of Los Angeles has given us a legacy of horrible traffic, fatal air quality, and unrestrained expansion. This is hardly something on which to base your qualifications, or tout as something to be proud of. In my humble opinion, Pat Nave needs to go sit in the corner with his dunce cap on.

• The next people I have to comment on I will do together. Leah Marinkovich and Lucie Thorsen sat there at the CAC meeting passing the microphone back-and-forth between them, completely disregarding any courtesy for their boss Councilwoman Hahn, other CAC members, or members of the public. All they were interested in was making their own pre-determined opinions made known. Both of them had their minds made up before the first CAC meeting in contravention of Councilwoman Hahn's wish that the CAC evaluate the project and offer their recommendations. Filibustering is no way to conduct a committee which is supposed to come up with a plan.

They should join Pat sitting in the corner.

• Chuck Hart needs to correct his racist attitude, or resign from the CAC. There is no question that his comment about "We need more million dollar homes." was aimed directly at San Pedro's Hispanic and African-American communities. Like it or not, these two communities are an integral part of San Pedro's demographics. There is no room for this type of attitude on the CAC. Mr. Hart should not sit in the corner. He should be booted out into the hallway until he adjusts his attitude.

But furthermore, it is an unfortunate fact which I have not seen anyone have the guts to talk about until this point. But I, for one, have had enough. I have heard denigrating remarks about both of these communities from several members of the R-1 gang. It is unacceptable and intolerable. I was shocked into disbelief that in this day-and-age these type of attitudes and comments could still exist in a community as diverse as San Pedro. If need be, I will meet with the Councilwoman personally to verify what has been said and who said it.

The R-1 gang has recruited Ray Patricio to their cause. I don't care how old he is, or how well-liked he is in the community. Making a comment about a "Mexican seven-course lunch" is offensive and has no place being said in the CAC meetings. Someone needs to rein him in.

• Victor Griego needs to do his job. He is supposed to be a facilitator. He should facilitate. It's no wonder Bisno fired him. It's a bigger wonder he was reinstated.

• John Greenwood puts me in a quandary. While I originally had him pegged as a completely R-1 proponent, I have been pleasantly surprised by the thought and planning he has put into offering an alternate project plan. The thing I would like Mr. Greenwood to do is to forget about LAUSD. They ARE NOT part of the Ponte Vista project and not part of what the CAC was charged to do by the Councilwoman. Councilwoman Hahn opposes a school the size of which LAUSD has proposed. She has said she would support a 500-seat academy. Bisno has said he would accommodate a school of that size. Given these facts, they should now be left out of the equation. Besides, they have disappeared. No one has heard anything from them and it is my belief they have moved on.

Early on, Bisno made it clear that if LAUSD exercised eminent domain, the DEIR would be out-the-window and he would have to start from scratch again anyway. Including them does nothing except cloud the main issues which need to be dealt with.


¤ Okay, I guess I've upset a great many people by this point. But now I will also level some criticism against a Ponte Vista supporter.

• Joe Donato is a hot-tempered guy. While I personally agree with his position, I disagree with his not yielding the floor when his time to speak was up.

I don't know. I'm on the fence with Mr. Donato. Even the Bible references "righteous anger". Joe was upset with the constant heckling during the entire meeting by members of the R-1 gang. He also voiced the opinion that the future of San Pedro should be decided by San Pedrans. Still I guess I would have to say that old trite phrase, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I would have to point out to Mr. Donato that Councilwoman Hahn chose the CAC members from her district, not just San Pedro. This was a political decision. My opinion is that she did not need to include neighboring communities because this is the job of the Planning Department. Nevertheless, this is what she did. It is my belief she will make a decision on what type of project to support based on what is best for San Pedro and the surrounding communities. I believe her to be an intelligent, rational person, with integrity who, in the final analysis, will do what is right.

• R-1 proponents versus Ponte Vista supporters - that difference was obvious to everyone. Why R-1 supporters feel they have the right to be loud, rude, and shrill, I cannot understand. It does not make any points, or convince anyone. For the most part Ponte Vista supporters (except for Joe - sorry Joe, but it is true) were polite, stated their opinion and yielded the microphone when their time was up. The two most pertinent comments they made were that: 1) the range of housing for seniors and non-age restricted alike was one of the most important features of the project, and; 2) it was evident several members of the CAC had already decided their position which does not provide an environment for objective discussion.

¤ Now that I've pretty much upset everyone on both sides, if you are still reading, let me discuss some aspects of the project itself which I think are important.

• The first point I want to mention is the parks and open space. One of the major objections to Ponte Vista was that it would be gated. This has been eliminated. I would think people would be happy about it.

While it was not explicitly explained during the presentation, I'd like to offer a probability in answer to the question of who would be responsible for maintaining the 12+ acres of space now open to the public.

Most likely, the 6 (plus or minus) acres of park/athletic fields would most likely be titled over to Parks and Recreation. This makes sense. It is 6 contiguous acres and easily maintained by Parks & Rec. However, the other common areas within the project, and the water features would most likely remain the property of the project. Parks & Recreation is not always right on top of things and maintenance for these areas would most likely be demanded by homeowners.

• A point was brought up by a member of the CAC regarding this and who would pay for the maintenance. Given who made the point and their complete opposition to the project, I find it hard to believe they would suddenly be advocates for any prospective owners. But in the way of examples, there are many multiple-housing projects in San Pedro which are not gated and have common areas open to whomever wishes to take a stroll through. Therefore, this would not be unusual.

In case the argument is made that the owners should not have to pay fees for areas open to the public, this must be disclosed on sale and if a prospective buyer finds it that objectionable, they are free to not purchase at Ponte Vista.

• "Green" development. This is an outstanding decision. I have voiced the opinion for many months that living in a major metropolitan area, we cannot afford, environmentally, to continue building single-family homes on 5,000 square foot or larger lots. This change to the project adds icing-to-the-cake. Recycling water, using photovoltaic cells for generating electricity for common-area lighting, and shuttle-bus service makes ultimate sense.

The presentation was professional and complete. I do wish Mr. Bisno had explained what "LEED" certification was so I would not have had to look it up. I don't think I was the only one. (At least I hope not. If people start telling me they knew, I'm going to feel pretty stupid.)

The photovoltaic cells have been down-played by some other commenters about the project. I disagree. Soledad Garcia from the Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council has been fighting the good fight with DWP to keep rates down. ANY electricity which can be generated internally is a boon.

Of course the cost is built into the price of the units. But if you calculate the cost into a 30-year mortgage, it is not even a couple pennies. Plus, after the project is complete and turned over to the HOA, it will be a source of lowering common area costs (which increase HOA dues) and could actually be a source of income further lowering the dues.


¤ Finally, my take on the size and composition of the project.

• I still feel 1,700 units is a good size. So does Jerry Gaines. With an increase of senior units to 850, that would lower non-age restricted units to 850. I would stick with my recommendation for 200 patio-homes leaving 650 townhomes. These numbers would reduce density, leave more open space, and, in my opinion, enhance the attractiveness of the project.

• Another disappointment for me was the presentation of 1,950 units. I understand Bisno is a developer and is always looking to maximize his profit, but it just seemed like the bare minimum he could come down and not really in keeping with "good-faith" negotiating.

• I would suggest that Bisno lose the 100 luxury attached single-family homes. I don't feel it is in keeping with the rest of the project, or the character of San Pedro.

• As has been mentioned in several places, the number of trips has still not been quantified. LA DOT said 1,837 units could be fully-mitigated. This was based upon 525 senior units and 1,312 non-age restricted units. If the project can come in even lower than that, given the increased number of senior units, that would increase the margin-of-error for traffic on Western. Anything which can be done to reduce that number SHOULD be done.

• To help reduce density, I also suggest the number of 4-bedroom units be reduced. Since that number has not yet been defined, it is a bit nebulous. However, I think 4-bedroom units fall into the same category as the luxury attached single-family homes and do not fit the character of the project.


¤ Conclusion

One of the public speakers at the CAC meeting was Doug Epperhart. The comment he made was the main reason I have taken 4 days to write this post. I have been debating with myself over it since Monday night.

That comment was words to the effect of "This project, Ponte Vista, is not San Pedro. It could be a development anywhere. There is nothing special which makes it San Pedro." Please excuse me if I do not remember it verbatim, but I think I got the main meaning of the comment.

• My question in response is "What is San Pedro? Is it the Gardens? Is it any of the many condo and apartment complexes? Is it some of the 60+ year-old ratholes that some people call houses? Is it the exclusive neighborhoods of Point Fermin and along Paseo Del Mar? What exactly is San Pedro? There is such a wide range of housing, how can you define what it is?"

Some people say we are just now recovering from the over-building of the '80s. How? By fencing off lots and growing weeds? How exactly are we "recovering"?

• My point-of-view about Ponte Vista is that we have a unique opportunity to re-define our community. We can continue to be a hodgepodge of nice homes, apartments and ratholes; OR we can set out on a new course to provide quality living at market rates. There is no holding back the tide. We cannot erect dikes around San Pedro to keep out the developers like they have dikes in New Orleans to keep out the water. (We saw how well the dikes worked there, eh?) One way or another San Pedro is going to be built up. We can either control it, or it will happen with little projects springing up like mushrooms all over town. All of them under-the-radar and suddenly we find ourselves with the same traffic problems, but no one developer we can compel to mitigate it.

I agree with Doug on the point of luxury homes not fitting with the character of the town, but that does not mean the entire project should be scrapped.

The future is upon us. Closing our eyes and pretending it isn't here will not stop it. Instead, let's take an active part in defining what we will become.

Shock & Awe??

I received an email from Mark Wells saying "Janice Hahn is thinking this new plan is D.O.A." and then going on to discuss other details of the evening.

I have to agree DOA is correct. If you remember, in my proposal I wrote that in order to motivate the developer I would stretch to 1,700 to give him some extra $$$. Seems he is not satisfied with that. 1,950 put me into shock. It is just too much. I don't care how luxurious it is.

It will take me a little bit, but you can count on a post soon.

Tom

It's not just Western Avenue

We need to remember there is a very small network of streets carrying our traffic. Everyone has been looking at Western Avenue because of Ponte Vista.

But Gaffey needs help right now! Take a look at this post from Banditos Yanquis and send the emails he asks:

Blog: life on the edge
Post: Help Fix Gaffey Street!
Link: http://laharbor.blogspot.com/2007/06/help-fix-gaffey-street.html

Thanks.

Ever hear of "Manners"?

Just a quick note before I move onto the main point of this post.

Just because I said I was a small businessman, does not mean it was RETAIL. Big difference, eh? But obviously too far of a leap for a troll's brain.

And yes, I do drive Western on a regular daily basis. It has its ebbs and flows.

But enough of rational talk, let's move on.

Tonight is going to be a very entertaining evening. On many levels.

First we get to hear the new proposal from Bisno Development.

While this is going on we get to watch just how rude people can be while they eat. And I don't mean Ponte Vista supporters, because they will have already eaten over at the Green Onion. No, I'm talking about those people who that other blogger told to go eat the food behind the CAC table. They are so full of spite and bile, that they will go up and ravage all the food just to "show" Bisno Development how much "power" they have.

Of course none of them (especially the other blogger who was himself a CAC member and should know better) remember that the food there was provided for the CAC members since most of them are coming directly from their jobs or businesses and giving up their time for the very people who are going to steal their food.

And of course no one bothers to pause to think that NO ONE has ever been stopped from going up and helping themselves to food. All that was ever asked was that people wait for the CAC members to eat first.

So please, give us all a good show, listen to that other blogger, and go up and make fools of yourselves. Make your mothers proud. While you are feeding your faces in spite, you will miss the chance to hear how we can make San Pedro a better place for ourselves and others.

Red Herrings

Oh, I see our troll is back. With my very first post. Well, I will leave the comment up. It is so ridiculous in and of itself it defines the entire R-1 movement.

Well, I have to say I do still live in San Pedro.

Secondly, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is that San Pedro continues to suffer from the lack of jobs and a vibrancy brought about by new business while supporting existing ones.

The only major new business is going to be Target. Not everyone working there will be able to afford a home, yet I'm certain some of their employees will and would rather live locally.

Housing creates jobs. Immediate jobs. Just ask the unions. Why do you think they are negotiating so hard with Bisno Development. Sure it isn't 20 years of jobs, but it's a five year buildout minimum. Who knows what happens during that time. But don't not plant the seeds because of pre-conceived idea that nothing will come of it. The only thing for certain is that it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy if you don't even give it a chance.

I'm certain the businesses along Western would love more volume. That means more jobs. The same goes for the merchants downtown. We've got a nice little start, we just need more people to be frequenting the new and existing shops to give them more stability.

Third, do you notice how our troll accuses me of lacking ethics and accuses me of being paid off with absolutely no evidence, while saying nothing about how their own person broke the law by releasing confidential information. But this is his/her tactic. Sigh... some people just cannot spew enough bile. I guess they did not read what I wrote about "intelligent" discussion.

Tom Field

Still Here

Hello boys and girls, Moms & Dads, children of alllll... ages - Yes, I am still here. I just laid low for a couple of days because there was too much of a frenzy building up and it seemed the best course to take to let things calm down, myself included.

I have to admit my own part in not following some of my own rules and letting myself get waaaay off-topic. I will try harder to prevent this from happening again. As additional information, the Post with the email list was removed by request of a friend of mine who convinced me it was more incendiary than helpful. I was not contacted by Blogspot. They never threatened to pull the post or the blog. So for those out there who speculated as much, sorry to disappoint, but it was purely voluntary.

It did have it's purpose though because you will see it flushed out those commenters who were only trolls. Baiting me with outrageous statements to get me off the message. When I stick to the message, the situation is very clear. As long as Bisno Development can mitigate the traffic for whatever they build, our community will benefit. The building is going to happen anyway as pointed out by a commenter on another blog (km). Only if the Ponte Vista property is broken up and sold to assorted builders, you can't predict what type of smorgasbord of architecture, size, density, etc. etc.. And of course each of the smaller developments cannot be held responsible for the mitigation of the entire Western Avenue problem, as would Bisno. The most they could be asked to do would be contribute to ATSAC. We all know that by itself trying to use ATSAC as a complete mitigation solution is a joke.

Monday Mr. Bisno will announce his new plan which has taken into consideration things they have heard from the community, their own focus group, and Councilwoman Hahn's CAC. I beleive no matter what he unveils, the R-1 gang will not like it. They have made their position very clear. They want NOTHING. They want San Pedro to remain the isolated, economically disadvantaged enclave it is. There is no compromise with this group as they have ably demonstrated.

Therefore I call on Councilwoman Hahn to take a deep breath, step back from the fray for a second, and take a look at how this project would have a huge positive influence on your district. I know the last few months there have been things which have happened which caused you a bit of upset. It's time to put that behind us and look for the greater good of the community.

I hope to see some comments on what people would hope to see Bisno present, and also after he reveals his new plan, some intelligent discussion.

I am going to leave moderation off, so unfortunately we will have to work around superfluous statements whose only purpose is to confuse the discussion and pull us off-topic again. This time I will try much harder to ignore them. I ask your patience also.

Additionally, there had been some discussion about attempting to track where posts were coming from, with the idea to find me. For what purpose, I do not know (perhaps like back in high school, to beat me up?). Because of that, I've taken steps to ensure that they will be untraceable.

Along those lines, the R-1 gang actually has someone inside the Daily Breeze illegally breaking every confidentiality law by looking up my letter to the editor to obtain my telephone number and then giving the number to the R-1 group. Given the extreme turnover of personnel at the Breeze and the vehement anti-Bisno stance of a few of their writers, I had anticipated they would not be able to resist the temptation to break confidentiality. I've lived in San Pedro too long to not know this, and did not use my home number. Instead I used a friend's extra line and he forwarded that line to my mobile phone for a week. He got put in the middle of this by some of the R-1 group. I offer my sincere apologies to him. I did it as a precaution and he did me a favor, but the R-1 gang sunk down to my lowest expectations and put him in the middle.

In any event, I still do not comprehend why it is so important (in the minds of the R-1 gang) to know who I am and where I live. I am not the issue here. The Ponte Vista project is. That is what we are discussing here. So let's stay on-topic.

I'm looking forward to some intelligent and spirited discussions over the new plan.

Tom Field

The MLS doesn't lie

No matter how many search engines you use and double, triple and quadruple count individual listings, there is one inescapable fact. The MLS doesn't lie. MLS stand for Multiple Listing Service. It used to be the huge book which was standard in every real estate office. Now it is all online.

Depending how the listing agent wrote the description different services will include some extra, or some fewer homes than another. It is exactly like using "keywords" or "labels" for internet search engines. Some websites will incorporate "Pamela Anderson" as one of their search parameters and the Google web-bots will pick it up. So someone goes looking for their favorite pin-up poster and they wind up at a site selling herbal remedies. Sound familiar? I know it's happened to just about everyone out there (although probably not looking up Pamela Anderson).

The same thing happens with real estate listings. But the truth is there are at most 400 existing housing units in San Pedro which are listed for sale. No amount of smoke-and-mirrors will change that. As much as some people wish it, it isn't there.

Sorry Dorothy, you can't click the heels of your ruby slippers together and make housing magically appear.

What next, the kitchen sink?

Mark Wells needs a reality check.

He is bordering on paranoid schizophrenia. Posting up that emails should not be opened from an entire list of people who have done nothing other than disagree with his opinions.

When Mr. Wells was the subject of Gordon Teuber's and Victor Griego's requests to stop blogging while he was on the CAC, he screamed about the First Amendment. Yet when someone disagrees with him he goes off the deep-end. He claims to not censor his blog, but isn't instilling fear in people with false allegations and telling them to not open emails just another form of censorship?

Mark Wells is all over the map. All you have to do is read his blog and see the lack of any coherent structure or direction. He just loves to see his own words in print. And he loves the notoriety my calling him out brings.

But the truth is, the R-1 gang is attempting to hijack any type of rational discussion about the future of our community. (That's OUR, as in San Pedrans; not wannabees from RPV). They go from one hot-button issue to the next, switching topics quickly so they can't get trapped into having to produce actual supportive evidence for their position.

They tried to attack Ponte Vista on traffic. Then when their own traffic engineer, Chuck Thompson of Priority Engineering, confirmed Bisno's methodology they had to change topics. So they tried their hand at student generation. Oops, the Planning Department cut them off there, saying it was up to LAUSD to determine the validity of the student generation numbers. Not one word from LAUSD.

Hmmm... So what can they think of next? Oh, I know, all these brand new units will turn into rentals. It will turn the neighborhood into a "slum like Scottsdale Estates up in Carson". How elitist is that?

But see it doesn't matter to Mark or the rest of the R-1 gang. They just want to get everyone upset. There are a very small number of them who are playing Chicken Little, and unfortunately some people are being fooled. Once the details are known with empirical data to back them up, the R-1 gang's issues just fade away like the bad dream they are. The sky is not really falling, and the imaginative, exaggerated "problems" being hysterically shouted out won't materialize either.

Councilwoman Hahn, please don't be fooled by these Chicken Littles.

Words Spoken Truly

Anonymous said...

... That's why I'm heavily in support of R1 only, because it assures me of the minimum in population growth. Outragous population growth is at the root of the problem here. Let's face it Tom, San Pedro will never be its own self contained society where people do not have to travel in order to live life. Hey wait a second....isn't that what they already say about Pedro folks! You have a dream Tom. That dream sounds nice but I just don't think it has any place in San Pedro. Fight to preserve what we have...it's a nice place as is, that's why people are clamoring to live here.
June 1, 2007 3:25 PM

This comment has been sitting on my mind for the last few days because I didn't know quite what to make of it. In part of it the Anonymous commentor says I have a nice dream and I was rather flattered.

But then a few key phrases leapt out at me and I realized why the comment unsettled me. "...minimum in population growth..." and the last sentence "...Fight to preserve what we have...it's a nice place as is, that's why people are clamoring to live here..."

It hit me that Bob Bisno was exactly correct when he used the word "elitist". These phrases from the comment fit the exact definition of being an elitist. The R-1 gang wants a minimum of people to move in, and they want to fight to "preserve (i.e. keep others out) what they have". Of course they do not care about anyone else who is "clamoring to live here" because they are already set and don't care about the people who want to live closer to their jobs; whether they are at the Port (union laborers, by-the-way), or in other businesses around town, or teachers, or health-care workers (Kaiser is just around the corner and growing), etc., etc..

They just plain and simple don't want anyone else to come here. They say it over and over. Too bad, so sad, you should move to Wilmington if you can't afford the extremely limited housing in San Pedro.

Neither do they care that the real estate market in San Pedro is polarized in such a way that to buy anything that a working family could comfortably afford, they'd have to live in a rathole. The other of the market is either way beyond what anyone could afford, $1 million plus; or perhaps they could squeak by in qualifying for a mortgage on the typical 850 sq.ft. 2-bedroom, 1-bath, built in 1910 selling for $650,000++.

They do not care that Ponte Vista will have a broad range of housing options so that a more diverse population can call San Pedro home. But the R-1 gang isn't interested. They don't want anyone else here, but especially not a diverse population.

I guess this is what caused all the uproar last year when Bisno used the word "elitist". It simply hit too close to the mark.

Level Playing Field

The R-1 gang demanded that all Bisno's advisory board members declare themselves. However, they refuse to do what they demand from others.

I don't think this is fair. They should be held to the same standards as anyone else.

In addition, they claim to have thousands of signatures on petitions which no one can see. I think this is deceitful at best. If they had that many supporters, why could they get only 32 people out to a rally? Why is their mailing list only 74 people? Yes! It's true! This "grassroots" movement has only 74 people on their mailing list. Just plain pitiful.

Unfortunately, when Jody James of the Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council chose to send out her email blasting all those in the Central Council as "stooges" she sent it to Mark Wells who promptly forwarded it to just about the entire world.

Since this has become public domain, I thought the rest of the community would like to see how the R-1 gang conducts their business. Plus, since they demand to know who all the Bisno players are, the R-1 players should be public also."The Central SP NC is filled with Bisno stooges and doesn't represent the community. I am not going to take any crap from people who had no trouble seeing this huge, greedy project as a disaster until Mr. Bisno's $ found it's way into their pockets. Our NWSPNC needs to have a slate of good people running. Any nomination ideas? Jody"

----- Original Message ----
From: Mark R Wells <
>To: r1.sanpedro < r1.sanpedro@yahoo.com >; Art and Irene Almeida < iasanpedro@aol.com >; joe amalfitano < joeamalfitano@cox.net >; karen anderson < karenaanderson@yahoo.com >; ax027@sbcglobal.net; carolyn banuelos < greenqueen6@yahoo.com >; barry < bjhilde@aol.com >; veralee bassler < vbpots@cox.net >; Mark Begovich < ELBEGO@SBCglobal.net >; Lynn behm < lynnpko@yahoo.com >; bob & Linda < robertrnch@aol.com >; joelle bodnar < tallgrneyedgirl@aol.com >; bonnie < bonbon31@earthlink.net >; myrna brutti < mbrutti@aol.com >; bob bryant < robertjaybryant@aol.com >; lonna calhoun < lonna@alonna.com >; Suzanne Campi < suzcampi@pacbell.net >; erin carter < evaughny@hotmail.com >; nancy castiglione < vncastiglione@sbcglobal.net >; jan christiana < janc@pacbell.net >; kelly crawford < chopper420420@hotmail.com >; dan & Esther < dandebags@cox.net >; doug dpperhart < epperhart@cox.net >; michael fantore < michael_fantore@yahoo.com >; michael feyder < mjfeyder@questintllc.com >; joyce fischer < joycefischer@sbcglobal.net >; fitzgeralds < fitz@pvpusd.k12.ca.us >; glenn < gcornell@earthlink.net >; craig goldfarb < cagtex55@yahoo.com >; laura gray < igotabooboo2@yahoo.com >; david greene < dgdavidgreene@yahoo.com >; janet gunter < arriane5@aol.com >; chuck hart <>; Bruce Horton < sbhorton@cox.net >; tom houston < tomehous@msn.com >; jody james < jody.james@sbcglobal.net >; Helen Jaskoski < hjaskoski@exchange.fullerton.edu >; Jeff & Winnie < wmverner@yahoo.com >; jfgoggins@hotmail.com; Roanne Katnic < rokatnic@sbcglobal.net >; nick kordich < nikous@cox.net >; kim kromas < kkromas@cox.net >; steve la pine < fieldexam@aol.com >; Donna Littlejohn < donna.littlejohn@dailybreeze.com >; barbara love < BRL14@cyberhotline.com >; Lucie < LucieThorsen@cox.net\fs24sa99 >; andy mardesich < amardesich@earthlink.net >; linda meyers < JRIMIA2911@aol.com >; Joyett Mosich < marmy1025@yahoo.com >; mutlu < mutlu@mersereau.net >; Lydia Ornelas < dede56@aol.com >; overbid2002@yahoo.com; Julia Parker < juliaparker30@ca.rr.com >; pedropals@aol.com; Jeanne Pimentel < jcp5@earthlink.net >; steve pingel < stevpingel@aol.com >; raglands@earthlink.net; ray regalado < rregalado@hrc.co.la.ca >; gabriel rivas < infinity90732@netzero.net >; david rivera < dlrivera@prodigy.net >; rob < RobThorsen@cox.net >; sandyloftin@aol.com; don shults < DASHULTS@earthlink.net >; annette skeeter < annettenskeeter@aol.com >; jim smith < jmsmith25@sbcglobal.net >; sohngen@msn.com; john stinson < john.stinson@cox.net >; randy taylor < cigarrandy@yahoo.com >; debi thomson < debithomson@cox.net >; joe trani < jjtrani@sbcglobal.net >; debbie vuoso < mvuoso@cox.net >; JIM WELSTEAD < JimWelstead@aol.com >; Melissa Wiley < mawiley@cox.net >; john wilson < thewilsco@aol.com >; john winkler < wjohnhwjr@aol.com >

trying to find the nonexistent

A. There was no motion about Ponte Vista passed by Northwest.

Going back through their minutes to the beginning of 2005, there were resolutions passed for funding of the hiring of consultants, to devote an entire newsletter to Ponte Vista, for sending comments on the DEIR into the Planning Department.

At the January 9, 2006 meeting, John Greenwood stated "Our position as a Neighborhood Council is that we have real concerns about the density of the project."

1. This was a procedurally incorrect and unauthorized statement, since the full Neighborhood Council had not made a motion or passed a resolution that this was their position.

2. A statement by an officer, giving his own opinions during the course of an oral report cannot be construed a properly passed resolution by the entire Council.

3. Even in light of the foregoing, "...real concerns about the density of the project..." cannot be construed as a comprehensive statement regarding the entire development.


B. Should the Coastal Council produce a resolution, it is in complete violation of their own long-standing policy of not endorsing or opposing any development projects. Over the last few years, they have steadfastly stuck to their policy. Why would they suddenly violate it for Ponte Vista?

C. To the best of my knowledge, besides the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, only the Wilmington Neighborhood Council has passed a Resolution regarding Ponte Vista. The wording of the Resolution was to support the findings and recommendations of Janice Hahn's Ponte Vista Citizen's Advisory Committee.

Tom Field

Double Standards/ Misrepresentations

R Neighborhoods Are 1 claims to have gathered petitions with signatures number in the excess of 8,000. Of course they won't release them to the public, and all addresses and telephone numbers have been didacted.

It makes me wonder whether most of these people even exist. Perhaps Mark Wells is counting the petitions the same way he counts real estate listings? Just keep counting each page over and over, ignoring any duplication.

The reason I bring this up, is that I received some information about the first R-1 meeting. Has anyone noticed, besides me, that no one involved with the R-1 movement has bothered to mention how many people attended their "rally"?

There were 47 people total in attendance. They could not get even 50 people to show up. And that included people like Mark & Terri Wells, Doug Epperhart, Rob & Lucie Thorsen, Andy Mardesich, John Stinson, Bruce Horton? Basically all the members of the steering committee; about 15 people. Doing the simple math, that would mean they were able to get 32 people from the community out to a rally from a pool of "thousands" who had allegedly signed petitions.

So either they are not reporting the number of signatures on their petitions correctly, or the people just do not really care about this issue. Something doesn't smell right.

I think it is both. They demand Bisno Development provide full-disclosure, yet the R-1 gang will not. They will not let anyone see their petitions and they will not disclose who their steering committee is. This is understandable. It is easier to work in the dark.

To Janice Hahn I say, do not be fooled by these loud-mouthed trouble-makers. They should be treated with the stature they have - minuscule. Besides, most of them were part of the secession movement and didn't vote for you in the past anyway. You are not going to lose anything if you lose their "support".

The reality is, the R-1 gang is an extremely small group who shouts very loudly. They make a lot of noise and threats, but the bottom line is they do not speak for the community.

Tom Field

The Answer is in the DEIR

The resolution says:

"3. Adequate amounts of open space for active and passive recreational use must be included. Developer shall be required to provide open space matching or better than the ratio of 'persons served per park acre' recommended by City of Los Angeles Parks department within this development."

The City of Los Angeles Parks department recommends 4.2 acres per 1000 people. The Ponte Vista park of 5.46 acres would 1300 people or about 429 SFRs...."

The answer lies in the schematic of the property and in the DEIR.

If you examine the legend, you will see open area, view corridors, gardesn, water features. These all count toward the "open area" requirement. In the Ponte Vista DEIR, Section IV.F Land Use, page 28, it states, "...Approximately 40% of the projects developed acreage would consist of landscaped common areas and parks. The Project would be abundantly landscaped and would feature such pedestrian amenities as walking paths, benches, fountains, water features, distinctive light poles, and street signage, all of which would be incorporated in the master landscape and streetscape plan.

The residential component of the Project would incorporate open space and recreational areas including an approximately 2.5 acre central park (with community clubhouse and pool), an approximately two-acre waterscape concourse, and an approximately 0.5 acre park/recreation area within the senior community segment of the Project. Additional social and recreactional amenities (e.g. community rooms, swimming pools, and work-out rooms) would be distributied throughout the site. The Project would be consistent with this objective.

Let's do some quick math. 40% of 62 acres equal 24.8 acres. I think that more than fulfills the 3rd point of the Central Resolution with a consideration of 1,700 units. "Parks" can include indoor areas, such as workout-room, pools, et.. And outdoor areas don't all have to be some type of athletic field. Sitting quietly and looking at a nice watercourse is attractive to many people also.

So please, look at the entire pictue before you draw your conclusions.

Tom Field

Obviously Supportive

I just received an email forwarded to me which contained the actual language of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council supporting the Ponte Vista project and the statement issued by Sue Castillo, the Chairperson of the Land Use Planning Committee, which was issued to Elise Swanson with Bisno Development to clarify the Central Council's stance on the Resolution and the development project.

This sure reads like an endorsement to me. Although they do not give Bisno carte blanche, as detailed in Sue Castillo's statement, it is still support of the project. For those of you who would parse each word, "uncritically" does not nullify the word "endorse". It is merely a modifier.

Enjoy the reading.

Tom

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

On Monday, 21 May, 2007 at 6:30 pm, at a Special Meeting, properly noticed, the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council passed the following RESOLUTION:

The CSPNC adopts the following position with regard to the Ponte Vista development.

1. In order that this vacant parcel be developed to best serve the needs of the greatest number of people of this community, we support residential development that optimizes the number of units, the variety of household types served, and the affordability of housing.

2. We support development based on a Specific Plan instead of the existing R-1 zoning.

3. Adequate amounts of open space for active and passive recreational use must be included. Developer shall be required to provide open space matching or better than the ratio of "persons served per park acre" recommended by City of Los Angeles Parks department within this development.

4. Neighborhood serving retail space needs to be increased above the current proposal, in order to reduce off-site trips for typical daily retail needs.

5. In order to contribute to Downtown San Pedro and support its economic growth, at least two DASH bus stops should be included in this development. Also, the route of the Ponte Vista shuttle buses should integrate a Downtown San Pedro stop.

6. Union labor should be utilized.

[signed]
Joe Gatlin
President

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

Statement of Sue Castillo, Chairperson of the Land Use Planning Committee:

The board members of the Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council, along with most of the community, have been attending meetings, reviewing plans, and listening to arguments for and against the redevelopment of this site for many months. The resolution we adopted was broadly supported by our Board. Review of our past resolutions would show that we typically support the progressive principles of affordable housing, mixed land uses, public transportation, smart growth and the use of union labor. Many of us were influenced by James Allen's editorial in a recent edition of the Random Lengths News where he laid out a reasonable compromise between the R-1 proponents and the original 2300 unit plan. We understood that traffic concerns are paramount to many people, but felt strongly that this should not be the ultimate basis for all land use decisions. We felt it important to make a public statement to this effect.

What our resolution does not do is uncritically endorse Bisno's current plan (as of May 1, 2007). There are many issues to be resolved, including open space reservations, housing type mix, and, yes, traffic mitigations. We intend to continue to participate in the development process as it unfolds.

Sue Castillo
Chairperson, Land Use Planning
Central San Pedro Neighborhood Council

Where Will People Live?

A major hang-up of opponents to Ponte Vista seems to be the number of units and "density". I have to apologize in advance for this section. Some of my personal opinions are likely to slip through.

The R-1 gang is pretty obvious in their desires, 429 single-family detached homes. Other groups have come up with different numbers, I've dreamt up a plan which may, or may not be feasible because of civil engineering, traffic, an entire array of truly professional reasons which might not make it feasible. Mark Wells came up with some good ideas. But again all these suggestions and ideas have to go through the City Planning Department to be certain they comply with all the relevant rules, regulations, building codes, etc., etc.. After that the plan gets to run the second gauntlet of the Planning Commission. In short, this is not something which can be done quickly and quietly and swept under the rug.

I also have to explain what I meant when I said "housing equals jobs". Maybe I'm too simple-minded. But to me, there are at least 3 different ways a new project can help create local jobs. The first is the most obvious, local labor to build the place., Second, local labor to provide goods and services, and to provide things like health care to those who need it. The third is a little more difficult to conceptualize. The best way is for me to explain is kind of simplistic. But if a worker can live in San Pedro and get to his job at the docks, or to the electronic and aerospace firms we have growing in downtown, this means they can take a job here in San Pedro, increase our tax base, and not have to spend hours commuting out to Corona for something which they can qualify to buy. It is only common sense that a 90 minute commute to Corona will spew more pollutants into our air rather than 7 minutes driving down Western from Green Hill to Trudie.

I have done a ton of research about the types of housing available in San Pedro. It has been the subject of a couple other posts and I do not need to reiterate it here. The only thing I will reference is that the choices boil down to condos, or less-than-beautiful single family houses for rather large prices. Of course there are the nice single family homes, but the cost is way out of the range ($800,000+) for most first-time buyers, or those trading up for the first time. For those who keep stating (without any facts to back them up) "there is plenty of housing in San Pedro" I have to say - Please show me. And - is it of sufficient quantity to meet the demand for the number of people who would like to move to San Pedro? To put a more definable parameter on my question, please show me a pool of 1,700 housing units (the number I used in my proposal). But in reality the question is rhetorical since you cannot. There are not that many housing units available for sale. Period.

Despite these other obstacles, the biggest thing people have to get used to and accept is that you cannot just put up 429 single family homes and say our job is finished. Again, I will not reiterate my previous posts on this topic. I think I've made my thoughts fairly clearly known.

However, I do need to reiterate one fact. The Urban Land Institute recommended 3,000 new housing units for San Pedro. This was some years back. Given our growth rate, a number of total units going in which total higher than there number would not be unreasonable to accept.

SO THE MEAT OF THIS POST, Is that we need 3,000 (or more) new housing units in our community to be built. Where exactly are the other 1,700 families supposed to go? Hemet, and commute? Needles and commute? Corona and commute? Who cares, just not here?

Just because we do not build the homes does not make the demand for the housing go away. All that we will have done is create the "commute monster" making these people waste time, family time, fossil fuels, etc., etc., etc..

THERE IS A DEMAND FOR NEW HOUSING IN SAN PEDRO. IGNORING IT WILL NOT MAKE IT GO AWAY. IT WILL JUST MAKE PEOPLE'S LIVES MORE DIFFICULT.

Ponte Vista is not the Vue. It is a different type of product. Nor is it the Palos Verdes Street Project, nor JCC Homes, nor Seaport Village. It has features and amenities which can make the community of San Pedro better. If you do not like the numbers, suggest something palatable. Don't just say "no, no, no". That is not negotiation.

We have been lucky and able to hold onto closer ties to our history for longer than many communities. Let's make certain that through constructive talks with Bisno Development, we can try to preserve as much as we can.

Tom Field

traffic redux

While the residents of San Pedro have every right to be concerned about traffic, which in my deluded opinion, is probably the most important topic of the entire discussion. I have to ask - One commentor on another blog complained that it took him 7 minutes. Seven whole minutes, to make it what is, according to my calculations, about 1¼ mile, during rush hour. (Many people spend over an hour commuting, but this person felt compelled to complain about 7 minutes!)

Now I must admit, that when I get behind the wheel of my car, I expect to be able to get where I am going in a reasonable amount of time. I've driven that route on innumerable occasions. With the traffic lights timed the way they are, it might be possible to make that drive in a minute or two shorter if there was no traffic. So in reality, this person who was complaining let himself get bent over a couple minutes. Wow, certainly sounds like someone needs to re-examine priorities. Either that or they have allowed themselves to become incredibly self-centered.

We have heard from experts from LADOT, from Bisno's people, from Chuck Hanson at Priority Engineering (hired by the NOrthwest Neighborhood Council), from Jerry Gaines and the Western Avenue Task Force that no matter what happens at Ponte Vista (even if nothing get built), the traffic is going to get worse. A lot worse. According to most of these same sources, Ponte Vista being required to mitigate the problem, could make the traffic less worse than if nothing were done at all. Can we afford to not give it a try while we still have one guy on the hook we can compel to make mitigations?

I have a problem with using something someone said in a casual conversation as gospel. It could have been a wish, a goal, a guess, a desire. But it does not make it an irrevocable truism. Taking the things said, running with them and using them for a bunch of projections is just plain irresponsible. We need to wait until it is set down in print before we start getting into a tizzy.

We've got plenty of time before this thing becomes a done deal. Let's all take a deep breath and get let them develop a solid proposal with real numbers attached before we start storming the barricades.

Tom Field

On-line Etiquette

I have had many comments and emails disagreeing with my suggestions for Ponte Vista. Some of them quite emphatic. I hope readers understand why I have had to turn "moderating" back on. I want to discuss issues relating to the project and how it affects San Pedro. There is no place on this blog for people going "wah, wah, wah,", or other similar insult (because I delete an inappropriate comment, that qualifies me as a "cry-baby"), or name calling or attempting to bait me into a fight. As one commentor said on Mark Wells' blog last week, "Ooh, a blog war. How productive."

They were exactly correct. It serves no purpose and is not productive. But when I have moderation off, the trolls come-a-posting. And then they go back to Mr. Wells' blog and brag about how they love to enjoy baiting me.

In Mr. Wells' defense, he has asked many times on his blog that his readers and R-1 supporters be polite when they comment here. However, he cannot control them and I do not hold him responsible. He does his best to get the message out, I cannot ask any more.

The last thing I have to say (in this post at least) about this, is one of the reasons I am trying to keep things civil is because after the dust settles, we are still going to be neighbors and have to live together. Things said in anger or frustration now could come back later and that would be a real pity.

So once again I have to ask that if you want to be sarcastic, or write personal attacks against anyone (me, my family, other commentors) please take it somewhere else. My email is shown on the blog. Send me personal nasty-grams if you like. Just keep it of the blog. However I suspect these people get a kick out of seeing themselves and their insults being published, so they will continue. It is just too bad.

Nevertheless, I will still manage.

Tom Field