Weight Watchers and Me

By PEPPER EDMISTON Palisadian-Post Contributor I’ve been in Weight Watchers all my life. My first word was “chocwat” and my first sentence was “more chocwat.” FOOD always has been my best friend, good times and bad. Give birth: celebrate with a basket of Mrs. Beasley’s muffins no one else can touch because I JUST HAD A BABY. Failed marriage: mourn with a two-pound box of See’s candy, mine alone, because I JUST GOT A DIVORCE. But I’m forever breaking up with FOOD, and had to, yet again. Why? Nothing deep. You didn’t expect that, did you? I gave up FOOD this time because I didn’t want to go to my high school reunion in a tent. The very moment I reached that epiphany I was strolling past Mort’s when this sign came into view: “Weight Watchers Meeting-Mondays at Noon.” Karma, emanating from a deli! It was January 2003, and I was raring to go. It was probably the twentieth January in the last 40 years that I signed on to Weight Watchers, but I was like a virgin, yet again. And I wasn’t alone. The beginning of the year for Weight Watchers compares with the week before Christmas for the retail business: standing room only. The Oak Room was packed with the standard range of members, from teeny, tiny, neat women needing to shed those three holiday pounds to large ladies grateful for the proliferation of Big Gal Boutiques. By the way, I love Lane Bryant, where a girl wears a single-digit 1, 2 or 3, not a 16, 18 or 20. Lane Bryant is all heart. So, there we were, 75 hopeful women and two miserable men, stuffed into Mort’s back room. We were every color and age. We were every religion and political persuasion. We were single, married, nursing and menopausal. We were housekeepers, gymnasts and agents. But the common thread uniting us dwarfed our differences: we were all too fat. Did we think we were in the slightly fading banquet room of a local eatery? No way! We were in a house of worship, listening to a high priestess reveal the secrets of the Holy Grail. Whether our guru had passed the 6th grade or not was irrelevant. Nothing mattered but this: she had lost 60 pounds! Miracle of miracles. If Elvis himself walked into the back room, heads would not have turned. After all, he couldn’t keep his weight off, either. But our leader would show us the way. “Use mustard instead of salad dressing.” “Oooooooh.” “Put your fork down between bites.” “Ahhhhhhh.” “A tomato is counted as a fruit.” “Reeeeeeally.” I attended Weight Watchers religiously for six months. During that time I heard a few interesting revelations, along the order of “My friends are jealous of me because I’m getting thinner.” Nothing in the league of Barbara Walters’ confessionals because the interior life was unimportant. There was only one thing that counted in the Oak Room at Mort’s on Monday. It was stepping on the little spring scale, watching the numbers on the screen jump around like images in a slot machine and see them land on a lower number than last week’s roll. Preparing for weighing-in took lots of concentration. One must remember to pluck one’s eyebrows, shave everywhere and not wear makeup. One can’t use deodorant, lotions or cream hair rinse. One must floss well. Finally, one must wear the lightest clothing possible, and, before stepping on the scale, remove all jewelry, socks, shoes and teeth. I once asked if I could weigh-in wearing undies while someone held up a towel, but was refused. Following the program might also contribute to weight loss. Well, it worked. I went down 25 pounds and did not humiliate myself at my reunion. Figure-wise, I looked like I was in the top 75 percent of my class, just like my scholastic ranking. That was in June. Then came summer, my birthday, a vacation, Thanksgiving. You know how it goes. I fell off the old food cart. But, hey, it’s January again. A new year, a new start, a new goal. So, if you need to get in touch, wander on over to Mort’s Oak Room any Monday at noon, and there I’ll be, dressed in a nylon jumpsuit.

The sounds of danger creep through Susan Richey’s window, but she’s reassured that her letter-writing efforts of last August have led to upcoming improvements to the busy intersection at Marquez and Sunset. “I hear traffic accidents and squealing tires,” says Richey, who lives in the 16601 Marquez Ave. condominium building, across from the center island. “I see people running across the street.” Her concern escalated when she was home from work on a Tuesday and Friday of the same week, and heard major accidents happen in front of her condo on both days. She walked to the entrance of her building and saw the injured passengers. A month later, the Palisadian-Post printed a letter that Richey had submitted to transportation engineer Mohammad Blorfroshan in the Western District Office of the L.A. Department of Transportation. In the letter, she wrote: “I think the traffic on Sunset has become too heavy, too fast and too dangerous, and therefore the right-hand exit lane on Sunset headed northwest onto Marquez needs to be blocked off and closed.” “I argued an extreme position,” she admits, “but I was worried about somebody getting hit-people going to the shopping strip and kids coming from Marquez [Elementary].” She was also concerned about owners and tenants from her building, who often exit their gated parking lot and turn left onto Marquez in order to go east on Sunset. “When school is in session, I just go right and around the block to get to Sunset,” she says. “Another interesting thing I’ve seen happen is when people who don’t know the area slide off onto Marquez [from Sunset], stop their cars and, realizing they’re off course, make a left to get back onto Sunset.” Richey, who works as a librarian at the Santa Monica Library, says she initially called the Department of Transportation to find out how she could file a complaint. “The DOT has to respond to public complaints,” she says. “In the letter, I cited what I’d observed and what I was concerned about, and they had someone check it out.” In December, Richey says she received a response from Blorfroshan that “basically denied my request to close the egress lane from Sunset onto Marquez because it’s heavily used by shoppers at the strip mall, parents delivering their kids to Marquez Elementary and people who live in Marquez Knolls.” The letter explained that the traffic engineering study conducted at the Marquez intersection included field investigation of physical conditions and existing traffic controls, field observations of vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and a review of the LAPD’s most updated report of traffic accidents at this location. “I didn’t talk to the engineer, but I’m wondering what the statistics are for accidents,”Richey says. She was not surprised that the DOT turned down her closure request but is happy with the department’s proposed improvements, which include: 1.) Upgrade the yield-controlled crosswalk to a “ladder-type” crosswalk on Marquez (ladder lines in the merge lane). 2.) Install “PED XING” pavement message in the merge lane. 3.) Install a florescent “Pedestrian Crossing” warning symbol in advance of the crosswalk facing the westbound traffic on Sunset merging onto Marquez. 4.) Install solid white-edge lines and red curbs around the center island. 5.) Install an additional “Yield” sign at the center island. Blorfroshan also stated that a copy of the letter would be forwarded to the LAPD, West Traffic Division “for whatever action they deem appropriate to enforce the existing traffic controls at this intersection.” A spokesperson for Blorfroshan explained that there is no set date by which the improvements must be made, since they turn the work orders over to the coordination section. “The improvements are wonderful,” Richey says. “They are well-reasoned and logical first steps to making the intersection safer. I got more, in some ways, than I could’ve asked for.” Richey says she is not pursuring the issue any farther at the moment, but is waiting for others to express interest. With increased support, she says, “I’d try to circulate a petition and get some local groups behind the effort.”

Ocean views. Dust. Noise. Truckloads. Traffic. Erosion. Earthquakes. Bedrock. Flagmen. Posting bonds. These were the issues that arose when some 40 residents confronted the developer of a proposed 82-unit condo project on Tramonto Dr. at the Palisades Community Council meeting last Thursday night. And when Ken Kahan, owner of the Palisades Landmark project, didn’t have enough answers for them, many walked away angry and confused. While this is the third time he has made presentations before the council, he has yet to meet with individuals and homeowners associations to discuss their concerns, although he has previously made promises to do so, according to several of residents. Barbara Barclay, 67, who has owned her condo at 17337 Tramonto Dr. for 32 years, lives across the street from the proposed project. “That’s 50 feet from the digging, the hammering and the noise,” she said at the council meeting. “I have a serious health problem. Six other neighbors, all older than me, suffer from emphysema and heart disease. I’m very concerned about our quality of life and health. What happens if there’s an earthquake? And what if there are serious rains? We sit 50 feet away from losing our homes and possibly our lives.” Barclay also said that she, along with 14 other families in her condo building, will lose their views when and if the project is built. Kahan purchased the property, located at 17331-17333 Tramonto, in 1999. It occupies 3.98 acres of hillside terrain in Castellammare, overlooking Santa Monica Bay, above the Sunset/PCH intersection. It is zoned RD2-1 (multiple family) and current plans allow for a maximum of 87 units, although only 82 condos are proposed. The design, which resembles an Italian hillside town, consists of six buildings built into the bedrock. Three buildings will contain three levels and include 25 three-bedroom town homes with parking below each unit. The other three buildings, four stories high, will feature 57 three-bedroom flats with parking provided in a subterranean garage. None of the proposed buildings will exceed 45 feet in height. The project also meets the city’s density requirements. If the project is approved, the existing structures on the lot will be demolished, including two apartment buildings (a total of 20 units, displacing an estimated 33 occupants), a swimming pool, and a carport. Given the age of the existing structures, there are concerns about the possibility of finding asbestos on-site. While the construction activity, which is expected to last up to 18 months, will generate dust and fumes from heavy equipment, it is not expected to exceed permitted daily levels of emissions. The biggest challenge for the builders is to stabilize and repair the existing Revello landslide (of 1965) on which the project will sit. This requires digging down to bedrock and replacing it with compacted fill to support the proposed buildings. The plan also includes embedding soldier piles in the bedrock. Because the excavation phase may involve up to 128 truckloads per day, noise from hauling activities “may be a problem,” according to Kahan’s final environmental impact report (EIR), which was completed in December. The report also indicates that the project, as currently proposed, will obstruct views of the ocean as seen from the four-story condominium building located immediately north of the project site (Barclay’s condo building) and from some single-family homes located along Revello. The loss of scenic views is considered to be an “unavoidable impact” of the project. Mitigation includes the hosing down of demolition and construction areas at least twice a day, flagmen to direct traffic and controlled asbestos removal, as well as several other city requirements for a project of this size (some 200,000 sq.ft.). Castellammare residents have been battling the project since it was proposed by Kahan in the fall of 2000. Their concern centers on the advisability of building on a known landslide, where a 12-unit apartment building collapsed in 1965. Kahan, accompanied by Eric Zubiak, the new architect he has hired on the project, as well as Ben Resnik, a community facilitator and attorney who specializes in land use, told the crowd that it is precisely because of the slide problem, which has taken geologists and engineers almost two years to resolve, that the project has been delayed. Another delay was the insistence by the community that an EIR be prepared. “Now we’re ready for the [public] hearing,” said Kahan, in his opening remarks. He then presented the latest rendering, noting that because there had previously been “a lot of misgivings about the elevation of the buildings, ” he has redesigned the project to make it “more palatable” to the residents on Tramonto. Kahan then introduced Zubiak, who gave a slide presentation on the work of his firm, which is based in Newport Beach. One of four managing partners of JBZ Architecture + Planning, Zubiak explained that “We have a lot a hillside and subterranean experience, both planning and building.” In one project, he created what he called “a view corridor” to improve the ocean views in a multiple -housing project in Laguna Hills. On that project, “We listened to the neighbors,” said Zubiak, who also showed slides of Crown Cove, which is nestled on a hillside in Corona del Mar. Built in the early ’90’s there has been “no sliding of the land at all,” according to Zubiak. Lastly, he showed a terraced resort development in Dana Point which has just received Coastal Commission approval. Regarding the Tramonto project, he assured the audience that “we’re going to do everything we can to preserve the views.” “We’re just at the beginning of a formal process,” facilitator Resnik reminded everyone, referring to the public hearing which will be held sometime in March. “We’re not requesting any variances or zone changes. We’ve dealt with noise and construction impacts in the EIR.” Further trying to assuage residents concerns, he added that mitigation is a condition of the project. Then the questions began. “Where will you store the soil,” asked Carl Mellinger, an arborist who represents the Civic League on the council. “It will go completely off site,” said Kahan, referring to the 100,000-cubic feet that will be removed to reach bedrock. “Will you be bringing the same soil back?” “Yes,” Kahan responded. Mellinger then expressed his concern about the impact of the large trucks (“We can use smaller ones,” said Resnik), the haul route that will be used (“PCH and the 10 freeway,” Kahan said) and the resulting emissions. “If you have 128 trucks a day going up and down Tramonto, that’s one truck every 3.7 minutes [based on an 8-hour day]” noted Mellinger. “The people who live up there have to listen to those diesel trucks with their popping air brakes and deal with the immense amount of dust. People will have to hose off their plants and trees, yards will be dirty. I really think it will be a big issue for you guys.” “We agree with you,” said Kahan, noting that he calculated the actual number of homes impacted would be only “about five,” excluding the adjacent condo development. “No, no, no,” responded the crowd, insisting there are a lot more. “Tell us what we can try to do to control it [the noise and the dust],” asked Kahan, to which an audience member replied: “I suggest you provide some simple chain of communication to the project superintendent so people can call with their complaints.” “Who’s going to pay for the cleanup of our homes and yards?” one resident wanted to know. Resnik said that while there is no provision for that (“City doesn’t require it; the law doesn’t require it.”), he suggested the residents get together with Kahan to work something out. The developer agreed to do so. “You have promised to meet with us before, and have not, so far,” noted another resident. Kahan reiterated that he now would. To Mellinger’s inquiry about the landscaping, he was told there is no landscape plan at this time, although one will be submitted as “it is a condition of the project,” replied Kahan. “How are you going to mitigate for traffic?,” asked council member Norma Spak. “All these huge trucks coming and going on Tramonto.” Kahan said that there will be flagmen posted on Tram onto, the only way out of the area, to direct traffic. “I’m not concerned about flagmen,” Spak replied. “I’m concerned about the destruction of the road during construction. Tramonto is going to become a dirt road.” “If it does, then we would have to pay for it,” said Kahan. “But we don’t think it will do damage to the street.” “With all the cement trucks going to other projects, it’s already a washboard. What happens if that road becomes impassable? There are only two roads into Castellammare, Tramonto and Porto Marino.” “A lot of road improvement work will be needed on Tramonto once the project is complete,” admitted Resnik. As for Kahan’s plans to go to bedrock (which will require digging down 6 to 9 feet), residents expressed concern that it will trigger another landslide. “This is a slide area,” noted council vice-chairman Art Mortell, who is concerned about the geological studies that have been done on the site. “The people living above [the project], will they be safe if a big series of storms comes through, or will your efforts create instability? Can you say with 100 percent certainty that it won’t slide?” “As it is now, it will slide,” Resnik responded. “Yes, the homes above are in danger of sliding. It has taken two years of studies by the city to deal with the complexity of this problem. This is why we are installing the soldier piles, and there will be on-going inspection of the site. This is the number one safety concern for the project.” “What will be done to ensure stability?” council member Barbara Kohn wanted to know. “With what we are planning to do we are effectively repairing the slide,” said Kahan, from which he said all residents will benefit. “Recompaction will strengthen the hill.” “I own the building directly below, on Castellammare,” said Rosemarie Haynes. “We have 14 units. Our fear is how this will affect drainage on our site.” “There’s a drainage plan for the recompaction,” said Kahan. There was a suggestion that Kahan issue a bond, should that not be the case or if mitigation is not met. “We’ve all been through a lot of construction in the Palisades,” noted council treasurer Patty Post. “And we know the city doesn’t enforce conditions. I think we need some kind of escrow account, fines for various violations. Each and every day there will be something because so many workers are involved.” Resident Art Lefay said that while he was impressed with architect Zubiak’s presentation he felt that “50 units” would be a much better fit, which garnered applause. The most positive support for Kahan’s project came from local realtor and council advisor Paul Glasgall, who thought it would “enhance the neighborhood. Since the slide 35 years ago the city hasn’t done anything to alleviate the problem. This is an opportunity to work with a developer who wants to stabilize this hillside and build something nice and provide an opportunity for the council and the neighbors to work together.” No date has yet been set for a public hearing on the project.

A brush fire with 10- to 20-foot flames scorched five hillside acres between the Palisades Bowl mobile home park and the Asilomar bluffs last Thursday, but a quick, area-wide response by firefighters contained the blaze in a little more than an hour. There were no injuries or structural damage, according to an LAFD spokesperson. “The helicopters knocked it down for us,” said Captain James Varney of Station 23 on Sunset, which was the first company to respond to the fire around 1:40 p.m. The helicopters arrived within 10 minutes of the call, Varney said. Three city helicopters and one county helicopter fought the blaze, flying to the Santa Ynez reservoir in the Highlands to fill their tanks, then taking turns spraying the water over the flaming hillside. The fire was caused by an overheated transformer in a power line which sent sparks into the brush. This occurred when DWP was working on power lines above the brush along the west end of the Asilomar bluffs above the Palisades Bowl, just west of Temescal Canyon Road and Tahitian Terrace. Seventeen fire companies from the L.A. Fire Department responded, as did two companies from Santa Monica, and four county work crews. The combination of heavy tinder-dry brush, deep terrain, and high winds endangered the homes above and below. “I could see flames threatening the top of the hill and the trailer park,” said Varney. Several companies were stationed at the top of the Asilomar bluffs near Porto del Mar to protect the homes just above the hillside. The fire came within 100 feet of Palisades Bowl, according to freelance photographer Jamie Budge, who has lived in the park for over five years. Budge said he first saw the smoke while riding on the beach bike path between 1 and 2 p.m. By the time he arrived home, he said he was surprised to see the fire fast approaching the mobile home park. “I got real worried when I saw that an ember had set a palm tree on fire. People were hosing down their roofs. If it wasn’t for the fire department, given the way the wind was blowing, it could have been a real disaster.” Firefighters stood on roofs hosing down a number of palm trees at the Bowl which had caught on fire. There was no structural damage at the Palisades Bowl, but there was damage to some outdoor carpeting and patio furniture. L.A. County camp crews cut a fire line all the way along the perimeter of the burned area, and were able to complete their work before dark. “We cut a little trench in case something rolled down, like a burning stump,” Varney explained. Some firefighters remained on watch into the night, in case there was something still smoldering that might have suddenly sparked. “I think we got lucky this was just brush,” Varney said. “It started with that little bit of sparking. People need to be very aware of anything out there smoking-hot exhaust, catalytic converters. And we need to keep our fingers crossed for rain.”

Repaving was completed on Sunset this weekend in the business district between Via de la Paz and Drummond, the first time this had been done for 18 years. On Saturday, the top level of asphalt was removed and broken up, to be replaced by fresh asphalt. The L.A. Bureau of Street Services plans to continue the Sunset resurfacing from Drummond to Brooktree in February.

Give the Palisades Dog Park a Chance

When the search for a dedicated dog park in Pacific Palisades began focusing on the infamous Occidental site along PCH, just west of Potrero Canyon, we had mixed reactions. On the down side, we recognized that the two-acre site would pose numerous problems: overlapping jurisdiction between Caltrans and the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks, the constant din of traffic, and the difficulty of driving down there from the Palisades. But we also knew that this rather forlorn location not only could be transformed into a landscaped dog park with ample room for parking, it was so far removed from any residential neighborhood, how could anybody possibly object? Well, naturally, we were wrong to underestimate how strongly Palisades homeowners will react to any perceived threat to their tranquility, as evidenced by the first letter in this week’s Letters to the Editor column. The author is a resident along Via de la Olas, the street that runs for five blocks along the bluffs directly above the proposed site, and her complaints have been reflected in a flurry of e-mails that surfaced from other residents in that area this past week. The battle began when Linda Renaud’s January 8 story (“Palisadians Dogged in Park Quest”) quoted Norm Kulla, acting chairman of the dog-park search committee, as suggesting that “Ideally, people would be able to access the site on foot from Temescal Canyon, the top of Potrero Canyon and the bluffs at Via de las Olas. There would also be car access from PCH.” This innocent observation drew a predictable response from neighbors, who envisioned swarms of dog owners parking along the Via bluffs and walking down the switchback trail to the dog park. By week’s end they were clamoring not only for preferential parking along Friends, Lombard, Swarthmore, Via de la Paz, Beirut and Mt. Holyoke, but urging one another to do whatever possible to stop the dog park from ever happening. This is a distressing turn of events that should never happen, and it won’t happen if the neighbors who are up in arms will realize that their objections are fueled by misconceptions and a lack of information. ??First of all, if the dog park location can indeed receive approval by whoever actually owns the land (the state or the city), a parking lot will be built adjacent to the park. ??Second, a fence will be built to ensure that dogs don’t chase rabbits or one another out onto PCH. ??Third, accessing the park along the roadway from Temescal Canyon shouldn’t bother anyone except the homeless who now try to live hidden away in the thick brush, and the one-mile hike from the Recreation Center down through Potrero Canyon to PCH will be too daunting for most people, especially those who simply want to let their dog run free every day or two. So that leaves the existing Via de las Olas trail that begins at Lombard and winds down to the highway. Here again, only the hearty dog owner will want to venture that time-consuming option, especially when he or she can simply drive down to the dog park (even though it means bucking PCH traffic). In reality, the Occidental site is the final option for dog-park advocates in this community. After studying and rejecting more than a half-dozen other possible locations, the search committee should be free to negotiate with various city departments and state agencies to work out a plan for this last patch of land-and they shouldn’t have to worry about fighting off the distant neighbors.