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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back To Work Regarding Ponte Vista

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He didn't.

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

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

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

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

It's Not Me!

I just got a chance to view an email sent out by "consernedcatholicCA" to "concernedcatholicCA" which means it is an anonymous Email sent out to folks, but I have no clue how many RPV residents and others received that Email. I didn't. It appears to have been sent out at 7:30 this morning while I was preparing to work on some large props for "Willy Wonka Jr." at Chadwick School on June 3 and 4, beginning at 7:30 PM.

Most regular readers of this blog and my other blogs know I don't play 'anonymous' in any of my writings or comments. I don't need to and I think it is cowardis to not be strong enough to create and send out comments without being identified.

Naturally if you don't know that I use one name writing these blogs and my given name that all my regular readers and others know, neither of my names are anything like 'anonymous'.

I do have some very real problems with what I have been hearing lately about conditions placed by representatives of Marymount College before they pay for the Measure P election they promised to pay for.

But any new comments on that won't be considered or created here until I get more information that is factual and able to be commented on.

Bad form, "concernedcatholicca", whoever you are.

The Clearwater Program is Back

This will be a post that will be published on several of my blogs because I feel it is important enough to share with everyone.

The Los Angeles County Sanitation District Number 5 is continuing necessary and recommended processes to create a third Joint Outfall System (JOS) from its Carson, CA treatment plant to the Pacific Ocean.

Two Joint Outfall Systems (JOS), one built in 1938 and the other one built in 1958 currently provide outfall capacity between the treatment plant and outflow facilities near the Palos Verdes Shelf, offshore from Royal Palms, in San Pedro, Ca.

The capacity of the two systems is nearing full capacity and they will not be able to handle future capacity.

I have written what I feel is a fair amount about the Clearwater Program in past posts, but new information, information I need to correct, and new opinions can now be shared.

www.ClearwaterProgram.org has been bookmarked on my computers for several years and it is the first and best source of information I urge everyone to go to.

Last Monday I met with Mr. Glenn Acosta, P.E. and Ms. Leslie Winner, both representing the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.

A new series of outreach meetings with individuals and groups is currently underway and I hope these two fine representatives meet with everyone who has any interest in the Clearwater Program and who are able to help with opinions and other observations concerning the new proposals for this very needed program.

Mr. Acosta's Email address is: gacosta@lacsd.org

With a whole new set of proposals and a new brochure available to offer greater insight into the Clearwater Program, concerned residents and others now can view new facts and opportunities that are different than what I wrote about previously.

What is not offered in the new proposals is four 'Alignment' prospects instead of over 16 first illustrated in previous information and the 50 originally offered by the Sanitation Districts.

Living doors away from the surface of Western Avenue and its subsurface containing the two original Outfall Systems, I may have a somewhat different perspective about the Program and I certainly have opinions, lots of them.

One of the first things I must offer is some corrections to some of my earlier posts.

According to the new information, the Outfall System Shafts would be approximately 30 feet in diameter and not the 'up to 200 feet' I originally wrote about. I know I heard that figure somewhere in earlier talks, but 30 feet is quite different that 'up to 200 feet', isn't it.

When I wrote that the depths of a shaft could be up to '500 feet' deep, I only got that incorrect by about 100 feet. According to the newest information, a shaft could be up to 400 feet in depth, the depths of any shaft could be much less than that.

I am also very relieved to note that there are only four remaining shaft site prospects with the new information.

As originally conjectured, there will be one shaft sunk at the Carson treatment plant's property. This will allow for one tunneling machine being places and would be one access point for the removal of dirt and debris while the tunneling is being done and the casements are being placed.

Originally, the public was informed about 16 sites between Carson and the Pacific Ocean where a second shaft might be considered.

Thankfully, very thankfully, that number has dropped to just four.

Of course and naturally, the old LAXT site is part of 'Alignment 1' proposal for a shaft that could include worker access and debris removal, all the way up to the placement of a second tunneling machine.

'Alignment 1', as currently proposed, would be the longest and costliest (on paper now) of the four alignments now under preview and review. Using this alignment would provide the Diffuser site somewhat close to the San Pedro Shelf, which is not as deep as the depth of the Palos Verdes Shelf provides.

'Alignment 2' is quite new and it probably includes a shaft at LAXT's old site on Terminal Island, it also adds another shaft at the former Southwest Marine site on Terminal Island. This alignment would be the second longest and it would provide the outfall from the plant going close to the Palos Verdes Shelf.

'Alignment 3' is considered by me right now as a 'non starter' because even though it provides an outfall end close to where 'Alignment 2' would have for its outfall, it requires a shaft be placed at the parking lot below the Korean Bell, on the Angel's Gate site. I will have more about that in a future post.

'Alignment 4' is the shortest and illustrated as being the 'least costly'. It would have the tunnel travel under San Pedro, as 'Alignment 2' also includes, but it's outfall would be near where the two existing outfalls are, near the Palos Verdes Shelf.

This alignment requires an Outfall Shaft being sunk at Royal Palms, down near the water.

I will have more about that in a future post.

I fully support the Sanitation Districts' Clearwater Program as long as the old LAXT site is utilized, no matter that is would be the most or second most expensive alignments to build.

What is most important right now, I feel, is community members for every community possible and reasonable, coming forward to offer facts, comments and opinions about this program that is truly needed for every one's future.

Please learn all you can about the Clearwater Program so you will have the best knowledge possible when dealing with a process that has already taken years and will probably take another 8-10 years to build out.

With all the opportunities, there are genuine concerns about the environment, both ecologically and when dealing with persons' environments.

The Clearwater Program: What I Like and What I Don't Like

So, the Clearwater Program is back and going forward. I think it is better than good for all of us, but there are some significant issues I have that I'd like to address.

In my almost one hour meeting with Mr. Acosta and Ms. Winner I told them that I was very supportive of the program as long as 'Alignment 1' and possibly 'Alignment 2' becomes the recommended alignments, but that they really shouldn't bother with Alignments 3 and 4.

Yes, it is written now that 'Alignment 4', with its shaft being sunk at Royal Palms is the shortest and 'least costly' in the $500 Million Dollar or possibly less range.

Yes, there is also 'Alignment 3' with its second 'least costly' aspect and its equal distance of 9 miles as compared to 'Alignment 2'. But it requires a shaft sunk at Angel's Gate. That would be at the newer parking lot, which is used by so many visitors and local residents attending gatherings at Point Fermin Park.

Yes, 'Alignment 1' is currently written up as the most expensive and longest alignment proposed at 14 miles long and $1.4 Billion Dollars.

And yes, of the four alignments now under consideration, 'Alignment 4' might have the 'least impact' on the environment, but everyone needs to take some issues under more careful consideration, such as:

Having the second shaft at LAXT means that should a second tunneling machine be placed, debris excavated would be able to be transported by rail and truck travel and there would be the least impact on residents, residences, traffic, and access.

I offered to Mr. Acosta and Ms. Winner that there is absolutely no way I would support the placement of shafts at Angels' Gate or Royal Palms and they really need to understand how there are more environments to consider other than what happens to the ground, sea, air, animal life and plant life.

The second shaft, no matter if it was sunk at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate would require up to or more than nine months of time for 'between 10 to 40' hauling trips, per day, to occur while debris is being trucked away.

What about the environment of San Pedrans who, when they flush, shower, bathe, or drain their sinks, never use the facilities that would be furnished because of all the digging done at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate?

There are lots of good San Pedrans who have some valid feelings that those of us who 'live on The Hill' send our 'trash' to San Pedro, rather than dealing with it ourselves.

Since we who benefit from Sanitation District 5 may want to call for the placement of a shaft at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate, I think we need to understand better how those who would have to deal with the all the requirements placed on the good folks in San Pedro as far as traffic inconvenience, added noise, and other types of impacts might want to rethink that is may not be the least costly to have shafts at Royal Palms or Angel's Gate.

I would imagine that the 25,000 household Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council may wish to be one of the first to head to court to stop any incursion into their neighborhoods by the Sanitation Districts.

I also think that the city of Los Angeles might wish to impose restrictions and/or obligations on our Districts should the Districts ultimately receive approval for 'Alignment 3 or 4'.

I remember when it was said that 'over 99%' of those asked or offering opinion about the placement of any second shaft clearly stated that the LAXT site was preferred over all others.

I do think we need a new Outfall System and I support the concept and many of the options. I do not however, feel any of this needs to be placed on the backs or in other ways interfere with anyone living in San Pedro or commuting around using the major access routes around that community.

It is still understood that there are those who support an outer harbor cruise ship terminal, even with the added transit troubles between any freeway access and outer harbor cruise ship terminal.

It should be considered that should that terminal be built and become operational about the same time either the Angel's Gate or Royal Palms shaft also find approval and construction begins, San Pedrans and others could see the following:

10-40 double dirt haulers per day, traveling along at least one major route though San Pedro and then when the biggest cruise ships call on San Pedro, all that trafficking of passengers and materials associated with huge cruise ship journeys also needing crosstown transport, together require great problems with all those wishing to travel around or through San Pedro while having nothing to do with ships or shafts.

Sometimes the 'least costly' is not really the 'least costly' when compared with all factors.

I do understand that the Environmental studies require the examination of more than two 'Alternatives' and that 'Alignments 3 and 4 must be studied. But that does not mean either of them should be taken very seriously, especially when so many people have already told representatives that any second or third shaft needs to be sunk on Terminal Island.

There are many good, true, real, and necessary reasons to support the construction of a new Joint Outfall System. But none of those reasons should overcome what could happen to San Pedro and San Pedrans and others in that area, who would be impacted by a process they never fully utilize and do not pay for.

Ponte Vista Update With Shared Post

I am writing identical posts on two of my blogs dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The Northwest San Pedro Neighborhood Council is a great source of information dealing with the project proposed for 61.53 acres in northwest San Pedro, directly across the street from homes and a very large business in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Here is a very good link to the Council's site where information can be gathered.

http://www.nwsanpedro.org/pontevistaindex.asp

It appears that when the new Environmental Impact Report is published, HOPEFULLY VERY SOON, everyone will have a better opportunity to view the details and begin greater discussions and debates about having a large condominium project with access only along Western Avenue, built.

Expected are three 'Alternatives' that will have studies considered.

The primary 'Alternative' looks to be for 1,345 condominium and/or apartment units, some 'masquerading' as single-family units, but are legally identified as condominium units.

This Alternative provides for fewer than the "2,300" units published as the proposed Alternative when Bob Bisno was the Developer.

There will probably be "Alternative 2" which might include a proposal to construct condominium and apartment units in the 800-850 units range.

As a reminder, The Gardens is a 1,100-unit development that was first offered as owner-occupied condominiums on 80 acres of land almost adjacent to the Ponte Vista site.

Using the number of units constructed and the acreage, the dwelling density of The Gardens is 13.75 dwelling units per gross acre of land.

If the figure of 13.75 dwelling units per gross acre is applied to the Ponte Vista at San Pedro site, up to 846 dwelling units, maximum, to equal the dwelling density of The Gardens.

It is true that many of the 'condominium' units at The Gardens are now rental or leased out units and that actually changes the traffic count numbers when owner-occupied units become rented or leased out.

The new developers at Ponte Vista at San Pedro have proposed one of the building being constructed to contain "392 Apartment Units" but after they breath, they will tell you they expect and/or 'hope' that those Apartment Units would become owner-occupied units.

Here is where I need to mention that I still have two acres of The Moon up for sale and if you really believe 392 Apartment Units will eventually become owner-occupied units, you are someone I really want to talk to about unloading an acre or two on The Moon I have been trying to sell for years.

Alternative 3 will most likely be the legally required "No Project" Alternative.

This Alternative is legally mandated to be studied and included with Environmental Impact Reports and it is the Alternative that uses the idea that no zoning changes are made to an existing site and what the current zoning on the site is, is what new construction must utilize.

In the case of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it was zoned by the city of Los Angeles to be "R1" which means single-family, detached dwellings on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet in size. The other zoning existing on some of the site is O1 or OS1 (Open Space), plus there is some land that is not suitable to have new housing constructed on it.

The "R1" designation on suitable construction land at the site allows for the construction of up to 429 single-family units.

Currently there are approximately 245 'duplex' units constructed for military housing purposes and when they were constructed for the military, no city zoning requirements or restrictions applied to military housing there.

The current zoning would not allow for refurbishment of existing residential units on the site.

The current developers have suggested and stated that they do not wish to apply for any 'density bonuses' on the 22 lots that comprise Ponte Vista at San Pedro. If density bonuses were applied for and approved, the number of proposed units could be increased by up to 35%.

What they have stated in one for or another is that they will be seeking new municipal codes from the Los Angeles City Council that will change the current zoning on the site and provide entitlements on lots that they would probably try to sell to others rather than actually contracting any firm to build new housing on their behalf.

What impresses me and what impressed other opponents of over development in our area is that the new development team seems to have greater understanding and they seem to be much more willing and able to sit down and discuss just about everything related to Ponte Vista at San Pedro and local neighborhoods in all the communities near the site.

R Neighborhoods Are 1, the communities-wide organization that worked hard and helped by a weakening economy to keep Bob Bisno from going further with his plans, has not gone anywhere.

Records illustrating the fact that more people signed petition sheets demanding that the Ponte Vista site remain R1 than Councilwoman Janice Hahn was looking for to help her decide her stance, remain on file.

More information will be provided when it becomes available.

Perception and Some More Comments

After pondering on the appointment of Ms. Elise Swanson as Deputy Chief of Staff to Councilwoman Janice Hahn, I have formed some early opinions about the matter.

Ms. Swanson began her current position with Ms. Hahn's staff at the beginning of this year.

As I am moderately affected by asperger's syndrome, I can place into my own vision many things as if they were right in front of me.

I 'saw' a newspaper headline, actually more than one that seems to be working for me at this time.

"Freshman Congressman appoints K Street lobbyist to a key staff position" This doesn't sit well with me at all and I feel it doesn't sit well with many others, either.

"Termed out Councilwoman appoints former Vice President of condominium project located in her District, to key staff position"

Perception.

Ms. Swanson, after leaving the staff of Councilwoman Hahn, spent about five years aggressively supporting, leading, and lobbying for a change of zoning on a site within the Councilwoman's District.

Now I have read what I feel is a promise that Ms. Swanson would not be working on Ponte Vista at San Pedro issues. However, as Vice President of Ponte Vista at San Pedro, it was Ms. Swanson's job to do her best to have the zoning changed at the site to allow for "2,300" condominiums, or fewer numbers of condominiums being approved for entitlements on the site in northwest San Pedro.

I sent out an informational Email, with a few short comments, to a large number of community members, about Ms. Swanson's recent appointment.

I have received a surprising number of replies, both individually back to me and as a "reply all" to the original Email I sent out.

"Conflict of interest" has so far been viewed by me in the majority of the replies I have received.

I am not too sure that there really is a conflict of interest at this point, but I can certainly consider there could be.

Perception.

I think from here on our, even though Ms. Hahn and all of her representatives might state that Ms. Swanson's appointment would mean nothing regarding Ms. Hahn's responsibilities regarding Ponte Vista, it can very well be perceived by many that just having a former Vice President of an operation that seeks to have entitlements granted for building within Ms. Hahn's District COULD smack at a potential conflict of interest, I feel.

The appointment also make it more difficult, I believe, for Ms. Hahn to get beyond having problems with her vote on the City Council on any and all matters related to Ponte Vista and the entitlement sought for that site.

I do not doubt the abilities Ms. Swanson brings to the position as Deputy Chief of Staff. I doubt that it was a wise and truly thought out appointment by Ms. Hahn.

Ms. Swanson was an active, concerned, and remarkable representative on the Western Avenue Task Force. She was a strong force when working for Bob Bisno.

During "The Bob Years" as I refer to the period of time when Bob Bisno first brought the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project to northwest San Pedro and up until he was sent away, Ms. Swanson, myself, and many others were participants in activities that brought about probably the most divisive period in our community's history.

I know none of us want to go back and do any of that in the future, while we are all still considering whether or what entitlements would be allowed on Ponte Vista's 61.53 acres.

Perception.

Now that Ms. Swanson is a key member of Ms. Hahn's staff, how might that really affect the Councilwoman's position now and into the future? is there enough perception of trust for the Councilwoman's position?

It is reasonable to equate part of Ms. Swanson's former position as a lobbyist for a particular development within Ms. Hahn's sphere of influence.

I have been under the impression that there is a growing call for former lobbyists not being hired to the staffs of elected representatives and that lobbyists who represented interests within the representative's voting area, should not be hired.

In the history of dealing with Ponte Vista at San Pedro issues I learned that when a development or project is backed by the Council person where the project or development is located, it usually gains approval by the majority of the City Council.

Similarly, when the Council person whose District contains a development or project that Council person does not support, the majority of the City Council will not support the project or development. This has been true in the vast majority of cases but it is not set in stone and some projects and developments have been approved without the support of the Council member in whose District it is located.

We have been told that Ms. Hahn is not supportive of having entitlements granted for the 1,135 units the current developer is asking for.

We don't yet know the number of units Ms. Hahn might agree to.

At this point I feel that as long as Ms. Swanson remains on Ms. Hahn's staff, Ms. Hahn must recuse herself from all official debate, voting, or most other things associated with the site Ms. Swanson has been a Vice President of, for about five years.

There will be a strong and probably growing call for the site to remain with its current zoning. That zoning already allows for the construction of up to 429-Single Family, detached housing on lots of not less than 5,000 square feet. (This is commonly known as R-1 or R 1)

There would be no conflict of interest concerns or perception issues relating to Councilwoman Hahn and her appointment of Ms. Swanson if Ms. Hahn states that she supports keeping the site with its current zoning and there being no vote coming before the Los Angeles City Council.

*NOTE. I have stated and written that I can live with not more than 831 total units being constructed at the site. That is many more units than R 1 allows.

I do not doubt that Ms. Swans is qualified to be a Deputy Chief of Staff to any L.A. City Council member other than Ms. Hahn.

If you are going to use a former paid lobbyist as a key member of your staff, you should not appoint a lobbyist to your staff that worked for years lobbying for something in your own District.

A New Year. A New Job

Ms. Elise Swanson left serving Councilwoman Janice Hahn back in 2005, to become a Senior Vice President for Ponte Vista Partners, LLC when she Joined Bob Bisno in the development of Ponte Vista at San Pedro. Ms. Swanson was in charge of the onsite operations and local community events while employed there.

Ms. Elise Swanson is now the Deputy Chief of Staff to Councilwoman Janice Hahn.

Ms. Swanson's position will take her away from dealing with almost all of the issues surrounding Ponte Vista at San Pedro, according to one source.

I don't know how I feel about this news.

Beginning in 2005, Ms. Swanson was a local participant in attempts to bring "2,300" condominium units to northwest San Pedro and she was among those who worked for a developer who divided us as a community, rarely in a good way, I feel.

Ms. Swanson was one of the women who was attacked in writing by an elderly person who was scolded severely by those of us who know him and she and other women should have never been commented on in that way.

With the number of units now proposed for the Ponte Vista development and an observed tiredness within our community to deal as we have dealt with the previous plans, I remain troubled that Councilwoman Hahn and others within our community might want to just 'give up' and allow the new plans to gain approval by the full City Council.

It certainly doesn't look good to me that the former head of the on-site marketing unit for Ponte Vista now holds a high position in Ms. Hahn's office, as far as how much Ms. Hahn is willing to deal with the Ponte Vista matters.

This is concerning because Ms. Hahn will be termed out of her position most likely after the entitlements are granted for the 61.53 acre site.

I have no information at this time, as to who has taken over the position at Ponte Vista or whether the position still exists.

New Ponte Vista Web Site

The marketing arm of the Ponte Vista at San Pedro Development published to the World Wide Web, its new Web site.

The URL is http://pv2011.eatsleepwork.com/ and I found it interesting, even during its first day.

Many times a Web site will be published before it has lots of primary information on it and this I find to be the case with Ponte Vista's new Web site.

On the right side of the homepage are a list of articles. I am going to put the titles of the link pages down and then copy/paste what I found under the links.

Please remember that the editors of the Web site published it to the Web before much of the information was edited.

"Visit or new Ponte Vista blogat YourPonteVista.com"

Maecenas eget diam in mi sagittis mattis quis aliquam elit. Pellentesque nec nibh urna; ac dignissim tortor? Vivamus sollicitudin adipiscing malesuada! Duis a consectetur nulla. Curabitur magna libero, elementum eget tempus et, mollis id erat. Integer sagittis neque vel purus malesuada non tristique ligula auctor. Mauris et nisi augue, ut sagittis est. Fusce pulvinar varius scelerisque massa nunc.

***This blog has been around for several years and it looks just about what it looked like when its most recent post was published.


"Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Supports Ponte Vista"

Aliquam nisl est; tempor eget suscipit iaculis, aliquet sed orci. Nulla pellentesque imperdiet consectetur. Duis augue libero, interdum at egestas ut, elementum in tellus. In aliquet sapien id turpis pellentesque luctus? Pellentesque sem nibh, vehicula vitae elementum id, posuere ut purus? Praesent lobortis lacinia dolor, id mattis lectus dictum vel! Nulla bibendum dapibus tellus, at blandit amet.

***I think before somebody publishes the title of a post, they should be able to post the body of the post, don't you?

"East View Little League Finds New Home at Ponte Vista"

Etiam semper consectetur adipiscing. Proin ut tincidunt leo. Aenean elementum, nisl et mattis tincidunt, dolor elit posuere massa, nec ultricies turpis ante sit amet neque. Vivamus mi massa, viverra sit amet adipiscing ac, semper eget nibh. Morbi hendrerit congue augue vel auctor. Morbi a purus vel risus elementum laoreet ut et justo. In mi lectus; varius a faucibus vel, pulvinar at velit posuere.

***Perhaps the editor of the new site is just using the link title without regard to whether it is true or not.

"City of Los Angeles Releases Final Environmental Impact Report"


(Empty Space)


*** This page of the link is empty of body. I suspect the editor forgot to copy/paste the wording used in other links.

What got me to the original page was an Email about the Traffic Study now being conducted for Ponte Vista at San Pedro.

The following can be found under the larger heading of "Transportation" at the top of the site.

Then click on "Traffic Study" at the bottom of the "Transportation" heading.

"Traffic Study"

Intersections to be evaluated as part of the traffic study are determined by LADOT (Los Angeles Department of Transportation) as well as from public comments received during the scoping period of the Draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report).

Proposed study intersections include the same intersections evaluated in the traffic study contained in the November 2006 Draft EIR for the prior Ponte Vista project, as well as additional intersections identified as areas of concern by the public during the previous Draft EIR process (for example, Western Avenue/Peninsula Verde Drive).

For a full list of study intersections, please click here [link to list of intersections, Board 6-3]. For a map of the study intersections, please click here [link to map from Board 6-2].

In traffic engineering practice, and as required by LADOT, potential impacts due to development projects are assessed by evaluating changes to operations at intersections.

Intersection traffic counts were conducted in September and October 2010. Weekday counts occurred on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday when local schools were in session. Based on LADOT requirements, weekday counts were conducted in the morning from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and in the afternoon from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday counts were conducted from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The peak hour is determined from the 3 hour counts at each intersection based on the 60 minute period with the highest amount of traffic.

As required by LADOT and based on traffic counts, intersections will be evaluated during the weekday commuter morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) peak hours. In addition, intersections along Western Avenue near the project site will be evaluated during the Saturday midday peak hour corresponding with the peak shopping period.

***Thank you very much for providing this information. It allows folks to learn what has been going on and answers questions some might still have about the Traffic Study.

I tried to sign up for the 'eNEWSLETTER' on this site, but it would not work.

Now folks, please don't go thinking I now endorse the latest project plans, by reading this post.

I do believe that information is critical when making decisions on such a large project as Ponte Vista at San Pedro is.

I don't feel we need to be at such odds as so many supporters and opponents of previous plans were.

I have real problems with '1,135' units and the fact that the developer stated to me that the majority of the traffic mitigation supported by Bob Bisno during "The Bob Years" will not be on the table going forward.

I have been told that there is nowhere in the developer's budget to offer the traffic mitigation we all were looking at, back in the earlier years of the project.

When I looked up the developments old Web site, "www.pontevista.com" I found an under construction mention on a site maintained by Network Solutions. It appears that "pv.com" is also under the umbrella of Network Solutions.

Maybe the site I am writing about will migrate to "www.pontevista.com" in the future. That would be a good thing for the folks at Ponte Vista at San Pedro and me.

When you 'google' "Ponte Vista", I come up first followed by their Your Ponte Vista blog.

I signed up for Google Alerts using "Ponte Vista" as key words. That is how I found out about the new site.

I haven't tried Bing or other search engines, but I bet I will be at or near the top and that should not be what the marketers for Ponte Vista at San Pedro would want you to see.

So we start of the new year with a new site and I hope a much better discussion that is open and honest on all sides.

I'll write more and I hope to end the hiatus of my "Odds and Ends" posts.

Happy New Year!