Elvis Lives!
And, he's apparently in favor of keeping Ponte Vista zoned R-1!
-- In related news --
Everyone, look who's coming to town! It's the geniuses at the Los Angeles Department of Transportation! LADOT is scheduled to offer some thoughts about Ponte Vista at the Community Advisory Committee's next meeting. Indeed, its representatives may find themselves on the defensive after a recent decision to sign off on Bisno Development's Draft Environmental Impact Report. The meeting will take place this Thursday night at the Crown Plaza Hotel on 5th Street at 6 p.m. Here's a recap of what happened previously.
Labels: ponte vista, r1
13 Comments:
Thanks Banditos Yanquis, for this post and especially for including the recap.
It now seems to appear that the opposition group Tom Field doesn't think really exists, in fact does exist?
And wouldn't you know it, this group that some folks don't beleive really exists are having lawn signs and banners already being "removed" from many yards.
So an organization that folks don't thinks exists in the first place is having lawn signs disappear. Maybe all those lawn signs were just a figmant of our imagination, in the first place and a person or persons just want us all to go back to the way it was when Bob blew into town?
Not gonna happen!
We're here
It's clear,
We ain't gonna take
No more Bisno "cheer".
Opponents roar
Over supporters sighs,
We ain't gonna listen to
Anymore Bisno lies.
And every time
They make a gaff,
We all meet them with
A great big laugh.
I know Bob doesn't like
Our regular R1 chanting,
So it seems there are more of us
Who make elitist ranting.
Bob your current plan
At times seems funny.
But it is now time for you
to hope away like a bunny.
When Linda "Bob Bisno is going to save San Pedro" D'Ambrosi
Said those words,not at a Hyatt,
We all laughed so hard
It was almost a comedy riot.
And to all would love laughing
To an ultimate height,
Come to the meeting on Thursday
And laugh to the DOT man named Mike.
I was driving up Western the other day, and there sure is a lot of R-1 signage up. I heard something about Elvis being for R-1, but I didn't quite get the context until I saw the photo.
Nice organizational skills on somebody's part, that's for sure.
Now imagine what you guys might have accomplished if you'd put all that energy into agitating for something that was actually desirable, instead of a different kind of sprawl.
Maintain R-1! Just say BisNO!
To IMBG
You seem to think this is about "sprawl". It's not.
DENSITY is the issue.
Bisno's "traffic fixes" won't work over the long haul.
The area is not urban but Bisno wants to change all that.
Not about sprawl? How do you figure? Zoned housing on that parcel of land is a textbook example of sprawl, as is the zoned housing currently occupied by most of the people in the area who are the most vocally opposed to Bisno's plan.
Ponte Vista may end up being (relatively) dense sprawl, or, if the R-1 people have their way, it may end up being the more familiar kind of detached single-family sprawl. But either way it will be sprawl, and it will generate the many long daily car trips associated with sprawl. It's just a matter of degree.
I don't know where you get the idea that there is anything remotely "urban" about Bisno's plan. Bisno is making no serious effort to bring industry or major commercial activity to the site; only housing. And the housing is not on an urban scale of density. It's about as dense as some of the larger condominiums in Palos Verdes Estates, a place that nobody would describe as urban.
imbg, we are stuck with sprawl. I don't have the funds to buy the property to build the park I illustrated on my blog, and I don't think that Green Hills has the money or intent to buy the site to add more cemetary sprawl to northwest San Pedro and eastern R.P.V.
Sprawl is bad. All sprawl is probably bad. There is no good sprawl. We less fortunate folks can't stop sprawl, so we have to fight it the best way we can, at this time.
Having 429 sprawls is fewer than having 2,300 sprawls, isn't it?
I asked folks to draw what they wanted to see at Ponte Vista and you didn't submit your illustration. Does this mean you won't fight sprawl with even an illustration of what you would like to see at the site? Submitting your illustration is free and all it takes is your time. If you hate sprawl as much as you write about sprawl, how about using some of your valuable time illustrating something that you could live with at the site?
It seems to me that you don't like sprawl, but if it has to be, you don't seem to care what degree of sprawl is less unacceptable to you.
If I can't have my park at Ponte Vista, or more cemetary there, wouldn't less sprawl be less bad than more sprawl? Wouldn't fewer cars be better than more cars?
I think that R1 folks are calling for sprawl, but they are calling for the least amount of sprawl that feasible at this time. If I were to win a really, really big lottery jackpot, I would love to build a miniature train track in a park at Ponte Vista. But I don't even have a ticket for the lottery.
Yes, folks like me are fighting big developments in Palos Verdes Estates and San Pedro that will affect how we live in R.P.V. But fight we must for the least worst outcome. We've already lost the best outcome and more demanding by me for no housing at Ponte Vista will most certainly fall on deaf ears by all decision makers. At least I wrote posts demanding no housing. At least I created and illustration showing a park with amenities in it. What more do you feel I should do and what more are you willing to do?
About "urban", Bob is tauting how his development is close to POLA and would be great for dockworkers living in Riverside or Orange County to be able to move into Ponte Vista. Bob was told that his current plans shouldn't have that much retail in it. I don't know what Bob would have suggested if he didn't have the space limitations on retail, commercial, or industrial on his site.
I thought our area was considered suburban until I asked the folks at City Planning if this area wasn't considered to be suburban or suburbia. They told me when I was a member of the CAC that this area is considered to be an urban area. They even considered all the the San Pedro Hill and peninsula area to be part of the urban area.
MW
imbg, we are stuck with sprawl.
Well, if we accept from the outset that sprawl is inevitable and can only be contained, then yes, we're stuck with sprawl. We're stuck with sprawl as long as we choose to be stuck with it.
Having 429 sprawls is fewer than having 2,300 sprawls, isn't it?
In the sense that being shot two times is better than being shot eight times. But that's no way to negotiate.
If you hate sprawl as much as you write about sprawl, how about using some of your valuable time illustrating something that you could live with at the site?
Erm, I never was much good at the visual arts. Is it OK if I do it with words?
It's funny that you should mention the cemetery, because it's occurred to me recently that one really good use for that land (apart from recreational space or a nature preserve) would be a green burial ground. I was surprised to learn that there isn't one in LA; I think the closest one is in Northern California somewhere. With the changing public attitudes regarding the environment and regarding death and the disposition of remains (away from traditional embalming/burial and towards cremation, scattering etc.), it's only a matter of time before somebody brings green burial to SoCal. Why not here, right across the street from a traditional cemetery? The customer base (if it's not too vulgar to call it that) would be regional rather than local because the facility would be the only game in town, as it were, between the Bay Area and the Mexican border.
There would be no visual blight of any kind associated with a green burial facility. It would just look like undeveloped rural land, because essentially that's what it would be. And because there would be no lawns to mow or water, and no chemical fertilizers used, and no paved roads or large buildings on-site, the term "sprawl"--even your invented term "cemetery sprawl"--couldn't really apply to it. (You might not even need a parking lot: big, elaborate services and automobile processions are not normally a part of eco-burial.)
Would it be a viable business model? Honestly, I don't know. What I do know is that it's a viable business model in other parts of the country (and a very viable one in the UK), and that there are a large and growing number of people in Southern California who would choose green burial for themselves or their deceased family members if it were made available to them locally.
That's just one idea I thought I'd throw out there. I mean, since you asked.
We've already lost the best outcome and more demanding by me for no housing at Ponte Vista will most certainly fall on deaf ears by all decision makers.
Maybe they didn't think you were serious. After all, there weren't a bunch of people packing the meetings wearing "No New Housing" buttons, were there?
At least I wrote posts demanding no housing. At least I created and illustration showing a park with amenities in it. What more do you feel I should do
I'm honestly not sure there's anything you can do at this point. As you say, the battle may be lost.
Anyway, I'm not saying you should do more. I'm suggesting that what you did probably should have been done differently.
Politicians aren't interested in your drawing skills. They're looking to see what your group is passionate about, how big it is, and what it will fight for. Maybe you guys misdirected your passion...where were all the "No New Housing" yard signs?
and what more are you willing to do?
You flatter me by suggesting that I've done anything. I haven't. As I've pointed out before, this isn't my neighborhood and it isn't my pet issue. I assumed that because you're putting this all out on the Internet, it meant you're open to criticism.
About "urban", Bob is tauting how his development is close to POLA and would be great for dockworkers living in Riverside or Orange County to be able to move into Ponte Vista.
That doesn't change the suburban character of the housing. The original streetcar suburbs of the late nineteenth century were built to house people who worked in the city. That's precisely how suburbs work.
My point here isn't to blast PV for being suburban, by the way. I'm just correcting the anonymous poster who thought that Ponte Vista would make the area "urban." It would do no such thing.
I thought our area was considered suburban until I asked the folks at City Planning if this area wasn't considered to be suburban or suburbia. They told me when I was a member of the CAC that this area is considered to be an urban area.
The folks at City Planning can consider the moon to be made of green soy protein isolate if they so wish. Out here in the world of consensus reality, the area around Western Avenue south of PV Drive North is anything but urban.
imbg, I think you are on to something with your Green Cemetary idea. I hadn't thought about that use of the land, but it probably would be a good idea, too.
imbg, your continuing use of blogs to comment on issues is much more than a whole lot of folks do, so doen't think you aren't doing something. You bring up matters that further debate and let others in on creating their own opinions.
If we all agreed on everything, why argue about anything? Folks who make comments may anger us or delight us, but hopefully they stimulate all of us to think about things a different way, then we might have.
I still can't see anything "suburban" in a development of 20-pedestal type, multi-storey, condominium structures, built with a dwelling density of 37 units per acre.
The Vue, and Urban Village, with three buildings, 16, 18, and probably 5 stories between them will have less than 600 units, total, I believe. Even "The MONSTER" at Seaport Luxury Homes is only 136 units. Between the three developments, there would be around 736 total units, and that is fewer than one-third the numbers of units Bob wants to build.
You mentioned "negotiate" in your comment. It is beginning to look lie the groundswell that is R Neighborhoods Are 1 is going to take any negotiations off the table.
I suggested in several posts that Bob would have chances to call for fewer units, or face a community that would not be willing to compromise. I wrote and spoke, and urged Bob to state a number of fewer units that he would be willing to negotiate with.
With the pressure now applied to the CAC to actually begin making recommendations, I feel the time that Bob had to "blink" has ended.
Even though I think Victor Griego is going about the formation of recommendations backwards, and not allowing the CAC to consider density first, the time has come for folks supproting the continuance of the current zoning to tell both Bob and the CAC, that it is time, right now, for the CAC to make a recommendation about density before going forward.
Of course, the CAC still doesn't have enough information from DOT, but I suspect we all will never learn what is really going to happen to traffic, so we might as well call for the vote on density.
Bob should be advised by the CAC at its next meeting that they need to know what his position is, on the density issue, and they should their recommendation for the density the CAC wants to see.
We have played the game too long, and Bob hasn't blinked. R Neighborhoods Are 1 are not in a position any longer to negotiate. It seems like OUR community is speaking out, loud and clear, and very quickly, too.
OUR community says, "R1, NO COMPROMISE!"
MW
I still can't see anything "suburban" in a development of 20-pedestal type, multi-storey, condominium structures, built with a dwelling density of 37 units per acre.
It's suburban because it lies on the outskirts of a city, and is built on the assumption that residents will drive to work someplace else, drive to shop someplace else, and drive to be entertained someplace else. That's what suburbia is.
Putting a dense (by suburban standards) development in the middle of a suburban area does not make the area "urban," it just makes it a suburban area with more traffic.
You mentioned "negotiate" in your comment. It is beginning to look lie the groundswell that is R Neighborhoods Are 1 is going to take any negotiations off the table.
Too late. If what they really wanted was no development, then effectively they have been negotiating right from the start--and their first move was a giveback.
OUR community says, "R1, NO COMPROMISE!"
Then your community is contradicting itself. R1 is a compromise.
I don't know if "they" wanted no development at all. What I am hearing is that "they" want only what is already zoned for.
It is true that if "they" wanted nothing actually built as far as residential units are concerned, at Ponte Vista, "they" didn't demand that in enough numbers, and "they" didn't do is in a timely fashion.
It is a loss for all of us because "they" didn't do what some of us wanted. Now we are stuck with having something, in terms of residential development, at Ponte Vista.
Even if not homes were ever built at the site, that would even been a compromise to R1. The site is zoned for R1 and many people want that, just that, and only that. They do not want the park I invisioned. They do not want some number of units greater than 429 single-family houses. They want what is currently allowed for, and nothing different.
I don't think your opinion that R1 is a compromise, is what "they" are thinking. "They" know what type of residential development "they" would approve of at Ponte Vista, and "they" know what the site is currently zoned for. None of the folks who demand R1 being kept at Ponte Vista thinks that it is a compromise. A compromise to what? R1 is what it is. R1 is where it is. R1 is what is demanded if residential units are going to be built at Ponte Vista.
Incedently, the first "alternative" described in the DEIR is "no project" That defines the alternative as keeping the current zoning as it is and allowing for up to 429 single-family, detached houses, of not more than two stories, or 30 feet in height, at Ponte Vista.
MW
I don't know if "they" wanted no development at all. What I am hearing is that "they" want only what is already zoned for.
Good point; I should have made it conditional. "If they didn't want any development at all, then etc. etc."
The site is zoned for R1 and many people want that, just that, and only that. They do not want the park I invisioned. They do not want some number of units greater than 429 single-family houses. They want what is currently allowed for, and nothing different.
I have a hard time believing that such people exist. Not just because I don't want them to exist, but because that strikes me as a really weird thing to want.
If you happen to think that sprawl-type development is fine and dandy, why would you only want 429 units of it? And on the other hand, if you have any problem at all with new development on that site--whether it's for environmental/urbanist reasons or just because you don't want the competition for parking spaces at Marie Callendar's--wouldn't your ideal be no development at all?
It just doesn't pass the "WTF?" test for me. But then, I'm not nearly as deeply involved in this scene as you are.
I don't think your opinion that R1 is a compromise, is what "they" are thinking.
I don't think so, either. In fact, I know it's not what they're thinking. Because if it's true that a majority of the people living in the area around that site go to bed every night praying to Jesus that exactly 429 units of detached, single-family housing be built there, then they're right and I'm wrong about whether it's a compromise. It isn't, in that case.
And if, on the other hand, most people around there would truly prefer no new development (and thus no new traffic on Western), then judging by their rhetoric so far they still don't think R1 is a compromise--but in that case, they are way, way wrong and have made a humongous negotiating error from the get-go.
As you know, I suspect the latter case to be closer to the truth.
Incedently, the first "alternative" described in the DEIR is "no project"
I'm pretty sure that "no project" is always an alternative in a standard Environmental Impact Report. It was one of the alternatives in the Port's EIR for Bridge to Breakwater, and you can bet your ass that nobody at the Port was seriously considering not doing a project at all.
P.S. Now that we've put everybody soundly to sleep...do you ride a bike?
Why yes, I ride a "Clyde" 7-speed beach cruiser. Terri has a "Bonnie" and they both just fit into our Element when we take them to the Strand.
I don't ever need to fight for a parking space at Marie's It would be quite ridiculous for me to drive to someplace I can very easily see from my front yard.
I probably didn't explain the 429 unit bit, correctly. I do think that folks living near Ponte Vista would rather go to sleep and dream of either nothing being built on the site, like I invisoned, or a number of homes no greater than 429.
Alternative 1 of the DEIR states "no project" which refers to keeping the current zoning at the site. In this case "no project" doesn't mean nothing being built at Ponte Vista, but rather the up to 429 unit project, keeping the current zoning would allow for.
I don't think the R1 folks need to negotiate anything, if that is their choice for what should or shouldn't be built at Ponte Vista. It is for oddballs like me to call for Bob to negotiate and be the first party to move off of his stance of his current plans. There is no reason for the R1 folks to move unless and until Bob moves, and in a way that is less unacceptable in their eyes.
If Bob doesn't move, neither should those calling for only R1.
Bob has made no overt movements in altering his current plans and those plans are on the extreme end of one side of the issue. It is probably true to consider that the R1 folks are on the opposite side of the issue and also on the extreme end. I wish there were enought people, force, energy, and determination to demand that no dwellings of any kind should be built on the site, but it is clear to me that Janice Hahn and the folks at City Planning are well beyond any attempt to make such a dream happen.
Perhaps the poor horse has been beaten to a pulp with this particular stream of comments. Imbg, you are free to discuss matters in greater detail by Emailing me at mrichards2@hotmail.com. I don't reveal Email addresses of folks who don't want them repeated.
MW
Post a Comment
<< Home