Dear Bill:

Well, you have made your decision, and we will expect the best from it.

You have appointed Tom Ponton as a member of a citywide commission to study the neighborhood-council movement in Los Angeles and make recommendations for its improvement. He has been head of the Mar Vista Community Council since before it was certified.

You stated that his "leadership style has helped build consensus on important issues that have improved the quality of life within our neighborhoods."

And yet you must realize that Ponton has NOT been helpful in his dealings with us folks on the east side of the 405 Freeway. In fact, he has rejected consensus-building over here.

We in the eastern part of your district — in a place which many of us call Westside Village — have always spurned the city's decision to lump us in with Mar Vista.

There was no outreach to most of us before we were taken into that community, and for the past two years we have battled to get out — and to join with the rest of Palms in a neighborhood council of our own.

We call ourselves S-U-P-E-R, Strong and United to Preserve Everyone's Rights.

Up to now, Ponton has simply scoffed at us petitioners — now totaling some 275 signers — I suppose hoping that we will go away. But of course that is not going to happen. We live here.

I can only surmise that Ponton has assured you that he — as your appointee — will raise his sights beyond a narrow focus on Mar Vista homeowners to encompass the needs of the whole city:

That means EVERYBODY in the city — whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, straights, renters, business owners, taxpayers and those folks at the bottom who have to take the bus to the unemployment office to apply for a little help from the government while they look for work.

Because we know that those are the people who look to YOU for their protection.

If Ponton fails your trust — as he has failed OUR expectations so far — you will certainly hear about it from your constituents.

Sincerely,

GEORGE GARRIGUES
Editor and owner
The Palms-Village Sun

Nothing else on Motor Ave. or Palms Blvd. is of the scale of this proposed development.

There are no six-story buildings and none with the proposed lot coverage of this project.

I strongly object to this proposed project for many reasons.

The project does not provide for adequate parking . . . 60 spaces for 40 residential units. Because of their size, these units are clearly designed for two or more adults per unit. . . . both of whom would most probably have a vehicle. The two bedrooms could have three adults.

In addition, there should be guest spaces for at least six extra cars.

This surrounding area is heavily congested residential. It now has inadequate street parking. The streets of Motor and Palms are problem areas. . . .

The developer is proposing tandem spaces. . . .

People do not like to use them and will look for street or alternative ways to park . . .

This project should have no less than 244 spaces. The developer is short 144 spaces.

The developer provides only one ingress and one egress to the project coming off an alleyway at the rear of the building. Can you imagine vehicles lining up on Palms Blvd. waiting to get into the alley [for] . . . non-existent parking spaces?

The developer has set for the proposed rental for . . . 40 units. I have spent a large part of my adult life in the real estate and development business. At one time we owned and operated over 500 residential units. As a result I am somewhat familiar with construction and operation costs. The building . . . will be very expensive. Add that cost to the land cost, and I'm sure the numbers won't work with the rents the developer has proposed.

These units cannot be moderately priced . . .

The developer talks about making a pedestrian-friendly area. I don't know how . . . large ground-floor dinner houses serving liquor contribute to an invitation to pedestrians. These restaurants . . . will be too expensive for the surrounding residents.

The developer talks about the open courtyard in the center of the building. I don't know how a 3,000-sq.-ft. open space . . . surrounded by 60-ft. walls on all sides can be an inviting place. . . light and air will be at a minimum.

The developer talks about landscaping. . . . the landscaping appears to consist of five boulevard of trees and three or four pots in the courtyard.

I agree with the developer that the project is the antithesis of a mini-mall. I feel that a two- or three-story commercial of 29,000 sq. ft. with adequate parking would be more in character with the neighborhood. . . .

The developer talks about the public courtyard, but doesn't say what [that] . . . means. Will it be a playground for the school kids? Will they be able to throw a ball at the 60-ft. walls?

What facilities are for the public?

I don't see public toilets, public drinking fountains or public play space. I see a concrete floor with 60-ft. walls and some flower pots. . . .

I have never heard of asking to change the zoning to fit the design. My experience has always been the other way around: Design the building to fit the zoning . . .

Motor Ave. is not strip commercial. It is a mixed area with local shops providing moderatly priced goods and services to local residents.

The developer does not explain how a six-story building . . . will make a lively village atmosphere and be compatible with the existing area. . . .

Good planning requires that this project be denied and that the developer go back and provide a more compatible design within the existing zoning.