In this issue of San Pedro - Wilmington Redevelopment Newsletter - I’ll cover:

* Closing Stores, Low-Rider Demographics and the Sub-Prime Mortgage Mess will Bring a Unique Recession to San Pedro and Wilmington.

* Who’s On This Email List and Why I Write This Newsletter (see left panel).

* San Pedro’s Red Car Clingons and The San Francisco Envy Virus -

* Is Wilmington an “Aesthetic Lost Cause?” - Mitigation Madness 3 & Voting Conflicts of Interest within a Neighborhood Council, the CRA and PCAC -

* Why San Pedro People Need To Care More About Wilmington -

* San Pedro’s Upcoming MoJo - “Death Ray” Dedication (the Come-See-an-Ugly-Art-Dichotomy-and-Really-Big-CRA-Mistake Party)

* My New Plan for Downtown San Pedro - 6th Street Creek and Useless Consultants

At a special CRA Pacific Corridor Community Advisory Committee Meeting on January 16th, one of the items on the Agenda was the presentation: “Port of Los Angeles Update - Harbor Boulevard Study: Seamless Waterfront Interface and Strategic Linkages” given by Kathryn McDermott, Deputy Executive Director for the Port of Los Angeles.

On the slide show and handouts, this “update” showed the same old attempt to make some kind of “seamless” connection between Old Downtown San Pedro and the waterfront (which is mostly a huge parking lot for the Cruise Ship Terminal). They even had the same old (left-over from other past presentations) arrows pointing the car traffic flow AND the Red Car Trolly up 5th Street to Gaffey and then looping over to and down 7th Street, then back to Harbor Blvd.

When some PCAC (the Port Community Advisory Committee - is different from the Pacific Corridor Community Advisory Committee - but both are called PCAC ) board members asked about “when” the proposed Red Car Line (which in reality goes nowhere and no one really rides) will actually be built and made part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Ms. McDermott and the Port staff goes predictably silent - because (I surmise) that even if they wanted to - in reality - they CAN’T do the Red Car fantasy line around old downtown SP. They (POLA), in my opinion, are merely stalling the truth and placating some of the old Red Car Clingons that have been previously blinded from reality by the San Francisco Envy Virus (SFEV). Moreover, it seems there is a direct myopic correlation between the San Francisco Envy Virus and the West Adams Historic District Envy Virus (WAHDEV) that affects many of the PCAC members into believing that by making a few ugly blocks of the Vinegar Hill District and turning it into a massive 22 block “Historic” OVERLAY district, some people (investors and developers) who live in the sane, real world might even begin to care (FYI, I’ve lived around here for 65+ years and still can’t figure out where the hell Vinegar Hill actually is..and I’ve tried!).

Now back to the Red Car (to nowhere) nonsense. What flips my switch and troubles me deeply, is they (PCAC, CRA and POLA) keep trying to make walking across Harbor Blvd. and over some very ugly and industrial railroad lines (and which still have toxic chemical tanker cars parked and operating there) “seamless”. This tired notion of creating a “seamless interface” (where no one actually walks) and insisting the Port continue spending huge amounts of money on a money-losing “Red Car Line” (again, that no one in San Pedro rides now or will use in the future) is - in my opinion - a total waste of our tax dollars, creative energy and future mitigation efforts.

Now, if (the big IF) the Red Car actually went somewhere out-of-town - say, to Long Beach or Torrance or even just to Wilmington, I’d feel totally different about it. In other words, for POLA to again draw a Red Car Line on a plan around a few blocks of old downtown SP and keep calling it a “potential” Red Car Line is an attempt to placate the fantasy-based Red Car Clingons (and PCAC Members) and to string them along for another 50 years or so. I have a better plan and I’ll talk about it later in this newsletter. I just hope it isn’t too late..and I’ll talk about that too a bit later.

After the final PCAC vote on the Wilmington Aesthetic Mitigation Funding proposals, I asked Olivia Cueva-Fernandez why she voted against my Mariners Garden at Banning Village mitigation proposal, when at first she said:

“You see the full picture correctly and your plan would make the greatest difference in our community. With some minor modifications, I believe it would make a terrific positive impact”.

Then I asked: “OK Olivia, if this is what you honestly think, then why did you vote for lesser mitigation proposals?

She went on to say: “In the beginning, I did vote for your project but I saw the writing on the wall and it was a lost cause. Right or wrong, I decided that something was better than nothing.”

And I said:

”So in other words, Olivia, you were persuaded [by others] that it was a "lost cause" and rather than vote for something truly great - that could really benefit many more people there - you settled for something with much less benefit to them. This is very sad - for you and Wilmington people. It became a “lost cause” because of voting trickery...and only four people voting for the initial scoring - YOU being one of them. You wouldn't fight for anything better for your town...and YOU voted to keep it ugly - the way it is”. (Olivia Cueva-Fernandez is both a WNC and PCAC voting member).

Now if we dig a bit deeper into this actual Mitigation Funding voting process (download this PDF) we see that in the SECOND round of voting where MORE than the first four PCAC subcommittee members were present, the vote was about which proposals actually fit the “AESTHETIC INTENT” of the ORIGINAL China Shipping Settlement. Note that there are only FIVE proposals that qualify and Mariners Garden (#10) is one of them...and that the “Ocean Water Resources Center” (#5) was not because it did NOT qualify “aesthetically” in this second vote.

Now strangely, in the subsequent paperwork that was circulated by the Chairman of the Wilmington Waterfront Development (WWD) SubCommittee (Ken Melendez), to the full PCAC and WNC members, there was NO MENTION whatsoever of the outcome of this second (aesthetic fit) vote and the Mariners Garden proposal was not shown at all. Moreover, the former #10 (Mariners Garden) had also been given another number - #11 - which was a number that was previously VACATED and proposal #5 magically appears in place of #10. Again, this new WWD SubCommittee paperwork was given to both the WNC and the full PCAC...prior to the final vote. It is also important to note that the #5 proposal now magically appeared and was submitted by Donna Ethington who also sits on both the PCAC and the WNC. ...and votes as well.

Confused? Join the club. Remember last month - I talked about Mariners Garden being the “Stalking Horse”? Well, this is how it started. They purposely buried the Mariners Garden (#10) proposal as well as the #1 contender - the Wilmington Green Belt Project put forth by Skip Baldwin (who also sits on the PCAC and WNC). It was kinda like this second “aesthetic vote” never even took place.

It’s important to try to keep in mind that MILLIONS of China Shipping mitigation funding dollars were directed by only 4 original votes and when the second vote was taken, that outcome was literally buried...and the “lost cause” Olivia Cueva-Fernandez, mentioned took place. Hmmmm?

Another very interesting voice turned up in the 14 Wilmington Aesthetic Mitigation Funding Proposals. A gentleman named Dr. Mahan, submitted a $7.2 mil proposal for a “Floating Classroom” in Wilmington (#15) and was really livid about the outcome because his proposal didn’t qualify for the “aesthetic” funding. He said this about the voting process:

“I remember when Ken Melendez stated that your project (Mariners Garden) would cost the business community all along Avalon Blvd. a great financial loss, especially because when he had an auto parts business on Avalon, and some parade or community event closed the street for a while, it usually cost him a loss of over $2,000.00 per day. Would you please tell me the connection here??? WOW!! what a angry sick man this guy is. His attitude is most interesting to state the least, and I am sure that he does not speak for Wilmington”.

Dr. Mahan went on to say:

“I would love to have someone tell me how you can justify the Community of Wilmington giving a $2,000.000.00 gift to USC for the expansion of the rowing center that has NEVER TO DATE EVER!! once included the children of Wilmington in the present rowing center and program that the USC campus operates. The center has operated in the port for over 20 years, HELLO OUT THERE!! That is truly spending the monies available to Wilmington for what ...... to promote USC?? That school has money coming out of the walls to state the least, and just because that there presently is a rowing center in the Wilmington port area, then that justifies the community of Wilmington giving USC a cash gift to expand what they have, ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? What does the community of Wilmington get out of this?? Oh yes, and please explain to me how the people of the State of California benefit from this expenditure of funds available??  I am sure that USC will put out a great sign stating all peoples of California welcome!! Wow!! what a sick bunch of absolute jerks”.

So, one has to ask, is Wilmington, San Pedro’s sister city, in reality - an aesthetic “lost cause”? Does it HAVE to be as ugly, blighted and filthy as it is? I ponder that question and think, well, in reality, there is only dirt underneath all the asphalt in Wilmington and it seems that the “leadership” were so afraid of losing the available scraps off the POLA feast-table, they have forgotten what “aesthetics” mean - and what it can actually mean for their town. Sadly, I think they are actually afraid of having something TOO nice in Wilmington. It seems to frighten them for some reason and they may honestly think they (the leadership) do not deserve anything better. Scary isn’t it?

Having a civic leader who owns a car parts store in a blighted area (and who lives in Harbor City) actually decide what is ‘aesthetically” best for Wilmington and buries or shuffles the voting results around, to favor other unqualified proposals makes one wonder if Wilmington people actually know who to believe and what is good for themselves.

However, there is a faint glimmer of light - from Jack Babbit - the Chairman of the WNC, who “could” possibly help Wilmington. I’m not sure if he will do as he says he will do however, because he too might be a sway-able political animal in Wilmington. Jack Babbit originally said this about Mariners Garden at Banning Village:

If one has a very sick member of the family, common sense tells us to do everything we possibly can to help that sick individual get well. Beside that fact that the sickness might be contagious and affect the rest of the family, putting others needs before our own, sometimes is the best thing to do for the whole family. Such is the case for San Pedro people re-thinking their own needs and refocusing on helping what has happened to the most environmentally stressed town on the west coast - Wilmington. There no place that has been more damaged by POLA expansion than Wilmington and it is my opinion that San Pedro will never be all it can be unless the damage that has been done in the last 100 years to Wilmington is totally undone - BEFORE any mitigation in San Pedro.

Here’s why:
The crime and ignorance that plentifully exists among railroad tracks and the tens of thousands of cargo containers stored there, flows back and forth between San Pedro on an hourly basis...and unless Wilmington crime and blight is checked, no matter what San Pedro does to it’s better own waterfront, it will still be affected by the crime and demographics flowing from Wilmington. We, who live and work in San Pedro need to care more about our entire harbor area family...and especially Wilmington.

They call this $250,000 piece of junk “MoJo” - for a reason I still can’t figure out. I call it San Pedro’s Death Ray because it reminds me of a goofy prop left over from a bad “C” type horror movie. MoJo - in my opinion - shows the vacillation and dichotomy of design San Pedro leaders take. On one hand, they vote for “historical” overlay zones and a few weeks later, they seem to forget what they just did and voted on before. They say they want “historical design guidelines” for all new buildings but have voted for and approved goofy things like this monster and new buildings that look like modern prisons (Center Street Lofts come to mind). There is also nothing “historical” about the new building being planned for the new Port Police building on 5th and Mesa- but yet, it falls within one of the ludicrous new “historic” zone overlays.

Well, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, if you want to some see this huge CRA art mistake in person, the CRA is going to be having a “Let’s-rally-round-the-pole” party for the San Pedro Death Ray on February 7th - at 4 PM. My advice is don’t bring your kids if you want to keep them from having art type (and budget) nightmares. Attend if you want to have a good design-dichotomy snicker. Contact Betty Pace at bpace@cra.lacity.org if you want more info on the Death Ray pole party.

Did you know that before San Pedro was San Pedro, there used to be a natural creek that flowed down from Palos Verdes to where Avrill Park is now? It was called San Pedro Creek back then and it went all the way to the waterfront before they paved it over.

Did you also know that many towns around the globe are “day-lighting” old water features in order to reinvigorate and mitigate prior damage to their towns? Well, I finally got around to putting together a new plan for just such a plan for old downtown San Pedro. I call it 6th Street Creek rather than San Pedro Creek, for future commercial ‘branding’ purposes and because it pinpoints WHERE it is located in San Pedro.

This new plan is much different than Pacifica Creek I previously proposed and much smaller in scale and thus cheaper and easier to do. In my opinion (and other agree as well) this new 6th Street Creek plan and would solve the problems of making old downtown San Pedro worth going to again - and perhaps become a new place to “hangout” for all of us who live and work in the South Bay.

Take a moment to analyze the way the traffic would flow one-way and also the diagonal parking plan (click for picture) and then factor in simplicity and immediacy of it. No mega-million $ major water cuts needed and a place where several hundred new trees and shrubs could be planted. Wider sidewalks for outside seating and people watching. Also note the new proposed paseo-patio in front of the “historic” Warner Grand Theater and imagine crowds waiting outside in a patio with a garden atmosphere and beautiful fountains.

I would have done this plan sooner but I’ve been busy working on the Mariners Garden Plan for Wilmington. Now that I know more about how the politics work there and see that their are leaders are conflicted and resistant to making any real change, I’ve re-focused again on San Pedro redevelopment. One of the major problems is - as usual - the City Planning Department, the CRA and the Port of Los Angeles all have people doing all kinds of different things - which were formally suggested by outside ‘consultants” - such as architects from San Francisco and parking consultants that can’t seem to figure this town out (and come up with anything really special).

Anyway, from the initial three-week feedback about 6th Street Creek, I think this new plan for old downtown just might be the plan that everyone in town can agree on...because it is better, faster and cheaper to do than anything that has been proposed thus far. I’d personally love to see it happen and that is why I did it. If YOU do or don’t like it, please tell me why and then also bug Council Woman Janice Hahn (she said she “loves” this plan too).

Here is what Margie Rust (StarSilkScreen.com) said about closing 6th Street from Pacific to Center:

“I happen to think this is a beautiful concept. However, what do the merchants think? Business is slow enough as it is but with no parking available I would think that there would be an adverse reaction.
 
I am a recent transplant to San Pedro coming from Hermosa Beach. Pier Ave was open and driveable (with parking) until the Plaza was created no longer allowing cars. It is [now] beautiful and a pleasure to walk around and enjoy. The shops are prosperous and the restaurants are always full. The concept was heatedly argued though and many proprietors moved away looking for affordable rent. They were soon replaced however. But the questioned always was...Will people shop here and dine here? The parking structure was an absolute necessity (complained about by many) Anyway, Hermosa is a "Boom Town" Nothing stops visitors from going there. Will this happen in San Pedro? I hope so. In the 7 years I have lived here very little gets done and this seems like a huge project. I will keep watching. The naysayers in San Pedro seem to get their way though. Good Luck!” Margie Rust

RP

There are only about 1500 select people on my email list and are those most interested in what happens politically and economically in and around the towns near the Port of Los Angeles. This includes City of LA Planners, attorneys, Port Directors, CRA staff, engineers, architects, real estate developers, brokers, appraisers, property and business owners, newspaper writers, investors, communications experts, venture capitalists, representatives of Mayor Villariagosa’s and Janice Hahn’s offices and Neighborhood Council members from both San Pedro and Wilmington. A very few of my relatives and close friends are included - just to show them that this ol’ fart has a mind of his own...and might somehow make a difference.

I write because I care. And I care, because I see a serious lack of vision and necessary boldness in LA City Planning. I see typical, redundant and useless half-measures that won’t solve our future problems, as well as excessive paper shuffling and continuous, ineffectual local leadership. I also see back-stabbing, copious financial conflicts of interests and many good people struggling to right the environmental wrongs of the past. I write because many of our civic leaders are way-off track - as to what I think this unique part of California should and could be.

I’m coming from the point of view that MORE is LESS. MORE Port expansion, means LESS quality in our lives. MORE delay in implementing serious infrastructure changes, means LESS chance this area will actually improve. MORE car, truck and Port traffic means, LESS walking, fewer healthy people and LESS natural beauty. MORE people and MORE dense housing without serious infrastructure upgrades, means LESS safety and LESS enjoyment in daily our lives. MORE “incorrect growth” means LESS sustainability in local employment. MORE of the same thinking now also means MORE problems in the future - not LESS.

In short, I want to see serious, real planning done here in the Harbor area I’m doing what I can to influence future planning events, as an American senior and civil activist.

Click on image to enlarge